March 2010 Quick Survey Analysis: DSC says

by Anna Adams, Researcher, Directory of Social Change

The survey revealed strong and varied attitudes when it comes to the emerging use of social networking tools. From such a diverse sector you would expect conflicting opinions and differences in the level of knowledge and experience organisations have of using these tools. This ranged from those who had not used the networks at all, to others who felt that they were already reaping the benefits.

People had a variety of objections to social networking. These included general objections (Facebook and Twitter were described as ‘gossip shops’ and ‘time wasting’ for example), a lack of confidence in using them, a lack of resources to maintain them or learn how to use them, or a decision that they were simply not relevant to their work or organisation.  

A feeling that this is uncharted territory, and consequently unsafe or unreliable, was also expressed throughout. Aside from any technical security issues, it is crucial to remember that any information on Facebook, Twitter or other similar sites is effectively public information and should be treated as such. 

You should not post anything that you don’t want the whole world to know about.  That caveat conflicts to some extent with the emerging culture around these tools, which is quite open and informal, and perhaps characterised by a certain naivete.

Judging from our survey responses, those who had explored networking sites were on the whole positive about the effect that this was having, largely in terms of reach, publicity or volunteer recruitment. Though it is difficult to measure, many felt they were reaching people that they were not previously through their more traditional means of communication – one of the main advantages of using these tools compared to other methods.

Such a potential opportunity should at least be considered and not dismissed as a mere gimmick. A measured approach seems crucial here.

While one person stressed that their organisation predominantly communicated with the elderly (and assumed that Facebook and Twitter would therefore be ineffective), other charities felt that they were now reaching a new – perhaps younger – audience. It is true that many communities and beneficiaries are not online, but on the other hand no group or community is totally homogenous – why ignore ‘silver surfers’?

Further, the reality is that the vast majority of the next generation of supporters, donors, volunteers, workers and beneficiaries are growing up using these networks – they are as much a part of their everyday lives as email is for many people already.

It is something to be lauded that the voluntary sector is geared towards people and places importance on face-to-face contact and developing personal relationships.  Those values and approaches must clearly remain at the heart of things.  Online tools can help us organise and communicate, but they should facilitate not replace those real world relationships.

As one respondent pointed out to us: there's quite a lot of ground between 'very useful' and 'pretty useless’.  It is important to have an idea about what you hope to achieve before spending valuable time and resources embarking on new communication methods. These are not decisions to be taken rashly.

Whilst other methods such as websites, newsletters and face to face communication should not be neglected, social networking could be thought of as an additional resource rather than as an added hassle.  Any new communication technique should at least be considered, but none of them are mandatory. Ignore at your peril, but assess and dismiss by all means.

Read what our readers say in March 2010 Quick Survey Analysis.