I think to get an accurate representation of this you can't just look at the total amount, it has to be the amount donated vs the user base population.
It is also worth asking, which actual network is the most altruistic - http://u.lasoo.com.au gives away all the Google ad revenue to the contributing users - and we have a Kiva team http://www.kiva.org/team/ulasoo
Enough self promotion here, I just think that online communities, while providing a lot of value for users, don't always fairly manage user stake in a community.
oliver
· 7 months ago
well
Beth Kanter
· 7 months ago
This is a clever twist for a fundraising campaign on social networks. But, let's look at the definition of Altruism. It means loving others as oneself or behavior that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. In other words, self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.
So do you really think that social network sites can be altruistic (http://www.atruists.org)-- it's the people on those sites. And, is donations the right metric?
And, I suspect the amount of money raised on each site has to do more with how much they have built a following and relationships on those different sites.
Robert French
· 7 months ago
Pretty broad brush you're painting with here. "Which Social Network is the Most Generous?"
How about an analysis of all giving on each social network and then illustrate it as a per capita / total network measurement.
Further, it would be truly interesting to do an analysis of smaller nonprofits and their success in raising funds via social networks. I see lots of talk about how it is being done, but I see little evidence of significant success. Anecdotal examples, sure. Many examples across all nonprofit sizes/focuses? No.
All of my fundraising has been for a small organization as a board member - documented here http://gsp4good.wikispaces.com.
There is a soon to be published study based on the results of the America's GIving Challenge -- most of the participants were small organizations. Should give us some more clues.
I think we're still early in all this --
Justyn
· 7 months ago
I think this needs some explanation. Is that $/user? Millions/Thousands? If it's $/user, is it an average of only those who donate?
If it's an average of people that donate, it might be saying that FB users are more generous, though I think the number of fundraising efforts taking place on FB dwarfs the efforts of the Twitter community.
If this is a total contribution, then obviously we need to account for user base, in which case Twitter would be more generous.
Not really sure what this Graph is saying...
jperras
· 7 months ago
Your comparison is completely useless without taking into account the size of the underlying user-base of each network.
gbattle
· 7 months ago
Precisely, for population adjusted generosity, the calculation needs to be contributions per user. FB would almost unquestionably be in last place when you divide by 200mm users.
Sandrene Mathews
· 7 months ago
Does the graph take into consideration users who have accounts on more than one network? I would suspect that is a high percentage of users. If I make a donation through a link on one site, I'm not going to make another donation just because I have multiple accounts.
thewildjoker
· 7 months ago
Great cause...I am unable to donate as of now. I always like when organizations try to help out worthy causes.
Two Thumbs up Mashable and Altruism Challenge
TheWildJoker :D
sabsavvy
· 7 months ago
Adding to existing comments, all very perceptive and relevant, is this like the check-out at the supermarket where your only relationship happens to be that you are engaged in some other transaction or interaction at that venue and yet you are being asked to donate?
Jonathan Crabtree
· 7 months ago
I created a social network at http://buzz.org.au Once it got to 10,000 members we decided to convert it into a not-for-profit company owned by members.
So perhaps GMHBA Health Insurance (where I work) is the 1st to actually create an ad-free not-for-profit social network and then gift it to members...
Beside all the (positive) criticism in these comments, I want to underline the general positive thing about social networks. While many people still think its just a virtual way to push your very real ego, it is much more: the option to find people with same attitudes to get something going. And if its "just" some donations.
Nate Berkopec
· 7 months ago
For those who thought (like me) that these stats would be more relevant with the user population taken into account:
Facebook - 200 million active users, about 1 million users per dollar. Twitter - 18.1 million active users, about 190,000 users per dollar Digg - 26 million active *visitors* (no user stats available), about 760,000 users per dollar. LinkedIn - 40 million active users, about 750,000 users per dollar MySpace - 125 million active users, about about 2 million users per dollar.
So, it appears that MySpace is the least altruistic while Twitter is the most. Of course, this doesn't take into account multiple networks per user, but I think it's a better estimate than just bare numbers :)
Alonzo Sandoval
· 7 months ago
We are a new website assisting charities raise money. Please visit us at CYIexist.com and see how easy it is for your charity to raise money for a worthy cause. “CYIexist a Community With a Purpose” Alonzo Sandoval President and Co-Founder CYIexist.com
vcao
· 6 months ago
Adding to existing comments, all very perceptive and relevant, is this like the check-out at the supermarket where your only relationship happens to be that you are engaged in some other transaction or interaction at that venue and yet you are being asked to donate?
All Comments
It is also worth asking, which actual network is the most altruistic - http://u.lasoo.com.au gives away all the Google ad revenue to the contributing users - and we have a Kiva team http://www.kiva.org/team/ulasoo
Enough self promotion here, I just think that online communities, while providing a lot of value for users, don't always fairly manage user stake in a community.
So do you really think that social network sites can be altruistic (http://www.atruists.org)-- it's the people on those sites. And, is donations the right metric?
And, I suspect the amount of money raised on each site has to do more with how much they have built a following and relationships on those different sites.
How about an analysis of all giving on each social network and then illustrate it as a per capita / total network measurement.
Further, it would be truly interesting to do an analysis of smaller nonprofits and their success in raising funds via social networks. I see lots of talk about how it is being done, but I see little evidence of significant success. Anecdotal examples, sure. Many examples across all nonprofit sizes/focuses? No.
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/05/port...
All of my fundraising has been for a small organization as a board member - documented here
http://gsp4good.wikispaces.com.
There is a soon to be published study based on the results of the America's GIving Challenge -- most of the participants were small organizations. Should give us some more clues.
I think we're still early in all this --
If it's an average of people that donate, it might be saying that FB users are more generous, though I think the number of fundraising efforts taking place on FB dwarfs the efforts of the Twitter community.
If this is a total contribution, then obviously we need to account for user base, in which case Twitter would be more generous.
Not really sure what this Graph is saying...
I always like when organizations try to help out worthy causes.
Two Thumbs up Mashable and Altruism Challenge
TheWildJoker :D
So perhaps GMHBA Health Insurance (where I work) is the 1st to actually create an ad-free not-for-profit social network and then gift it to members...
Check it out!
http://buzz.org.au
Facebook - 200 million active users, about 1 million users per dollar.
Twitter - 18.1 million active users, about 190,000 users per dollar
Digg - 26 million active *visitors* (no user stats available), about 760,000 users per dollar.
LinkedIn - 40 million active users, about 750,000 users per dollar
MySpace - 125 million active users, about about 2 million users per dollar.
So, it appears that MySpace is the least altruistic while Twitter is the most. Of course, this doesn't take into account multiple networks per user, but I think it's a better estimate than just bare numbers :)
“CYIexist a Community With a Purpose”
Alonzo Sandoval
President and Co-Founder
CYIexist.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.audiocdburner.net