Missing a Strategic Marketing Trick? the Use of Online Social Networks

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 18: 36–51 (2013) Published online 17 October 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1450

Missing a strategic marketing trick? The use of online social networks by UK charities Sarah Quinton1†* and Paul Fennemore2{ 1Oxford Brookes University, Business School, UK 2Viapoint Social Media, UK

• This paper explores the use of online social networks in the charity sector. Twelve major UK charities from a range of sectors and three digital marketing agencies were selected to provide rich interview data on the current adoption of online social networks by UK charities. The empirical findings illustrate the diverse drivers in adopting online social networks including regaining control of a brand, external pressures and gaining new audiences. Levels of usage differed significantly and the resistors consistently cited were the lack of skills and resources. The strategic marketing implications for the development of online social networks are also outlined for the UK charity market. The value provided by this paper stems from exploring the organisational perspective rather than the consumer experience of contributing to social networks, within a context which is often overlooked, the charity sector. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction and profit sits uncomfortably with some of the aforementioned stakeholders. There are approximately 180 000 charities registered Many charities have established a presence via in the UK generating a total annual income of websites, and are trying to exploit the potential of £53 billion (Charity Commission, 2010). Charities online social network sites (Richards, 2007) as a are involved in simultaneous diverse activities that method for managing brands, generating awareness include but are not limited to fund raising, com- of causes and for fundraising. Ninety per cent of municating the cause, campaigning and recruiting international non-profit organisations indicate that volunteers to satisfy their diverse stakeholder groups they have a presence on Facebook, 60% on Twitter (beneficiaries, volunteers, donors, corporate spon- and approximately 45% on YouTube and LinkedIn sors, trusts) thus making strategic marketing and (nTen.org, 2010). The Virtual Promise annual survey communications complex. In addition, Pope et al. of Internet activity of UK charities states that only (2009) believe that non-profit organisations have 20% of charities with a turnover of less than £1 m distanced themselves from marketing because of had an online social network presence in 2008 and the perception that marketing tries to create profit this only rose to 24% of charities with a turnover of more than £1 m (Virtual Promise, 2008). Yet, the *Correspondence to: Sarah Quinton, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, overall population of social network users in the UK Oxford Brookes University, Business School, Wheatley, Oxon, continues to rise with 75% of ‘netizens’ using social OX33 1HX. networks with a 24% year on year increase. The E-mail:[email protected] †Senior Lecturer in Marketing average time per user spent on sites in the month of {Managing Partner April 2010, was estimated at 6 h (WARC.com, 2010).

Online social networks have undoubtedly entered The aims of this paper are twofold. First, to into mainstream culture and have become integrated explore how and why UK charities are adopting into the daily routines of millions of people world- online social networks, including both the drivers wide (Spaulding, 2009). Non-profit online social net- and resisters to adoption, and second to identify work members are drawn together by common the implications for strategic marketing that this causes, such healthcare, poverty, housing, faith, adoption or lack of adoption of online social education and the environment. As a result, they networks has brought for charities. The exploratory homogenise into their respective self-organised net- nature of this research is to focus on developing works that enable participants to become acquainted knowledge about current online activity in the and to collaborate. Hart (2002) suggests that an sector and as such, is fairly broad. The literature underpinning principle of fundraising is that people review that follows will focus on the main themes are more inclined to give to people they know and of the use of the Internet by charities, an overview not to organisations. Online social networks often of word-of-mouth and electronic word-of-mouth consist of networks of friends and people who have (e-WOM) in addition to online social networks. developed strong bonds to each other through participation in a social network (Quinton and Harridge-March, 2010). Therefore, they could provide charities with a fertile environment to help TheuseoftheInternetbycharities build cause driven communities and further incite The new market spaces that organisations now the behaviour of friend to friend or peer to peer inhabit have been formed by more intense competi- fundraising (Andrese, 2010). tion, consumers with changed demands and the rise There is published research, although limited, on of new digital technologies. These have created marketing within the non-profit and charity sector, opportunities but organisations can be blind to them and much of it is confined to specialist journals. (Cravens et al., 2009). The rapid adoption of Internet Past research has included donor perceptions of technologies by consumers has had a strong impact charities and the impact on donations (Sargeant on organisations and how they plan and deliver et al., 2004), volunteer motivation (Pope et al., marketing strategies. Chaffey in 2004 suggested that 2009), continued donation to a single charity (Bennet, a digital marketing plan should be embedded into 2006), and direct marketing approaches to improve strategic marketing plans to demonstrate recognition donations (Arnold and Tapp, 2003). The use of the of the role increasingly played by digital media in Internet by charities for marketing purposes, particu- strategic marketing. larly e-mail was highlighted by Hart in 2002, Miller’s How consumers interact with social media has work on the future of fundraising in a networked become important not only for marketers but society (2009) and Goatman and Lewis’sworkof specifically for charity marketers to understand to 2007, which goes someway to fill the literature gap design appropriate marketing plans. The profiles of by investigating the use of the Internet by UK those who become involved, the digital media they charities. Pope and colleagues’ study in 2009, which utilise to directly or indirectly connect with the although US based, provides valuable insight into the charity and the links between individuals need to fact that although all the charities sampled had be identified. Marketers may actively encourage co- websites, only 40% had created a strategic marketing creation through social media so that contributors plan. More generally, there remains a lack of academic may develop loyalty with the cause (Needham, publications that focus on the integration of strategic 2008) and support marketing campaigns by generat- marketing and the new, digital media such as online ing beneficial informal communication within the social networks, mobile marketing and blogging online consumer communities (de Bruyn and Lilien, (Simmons, 2008). A recent paper by Truong and 2008; Valck et al., 2009) in addition to raising funds. Simmons (2010) investigating the perception of intru- Tripp (2009) suggests that fundraising is being siveness in digital advertising and Harris and Rae’s democratised through the use of social media by useful paper of 2010 on how online activity can gaining the participation of mass audiences while transform marketing strategy are notable exceptions. relating to them on a personal level.

Although many not-for-profit organisations have connections and that better connections lead to a integrated the Internet into their marketing activi- transformation of healthier communities that in turn ties, this has tended to be one-way communication create improved economic opportunities. Kanter with little or no opportunity for interaction. This and Fine (2010) suggest that non-profit social media differs from e-commerce activity in commercial strategists who adopt the principles of weaving organisations, which tends to adopt a customer- together networks and communities, are more centric orientation (Doherty and Ellis-Chadwick, inclined to have successful fundraising campaigns. 2009). This may be because of lack of expertise Such devolving power can lead to effective e-WOM or experience on the part of the marketers involved, communication across social networks and the or may be because of a lack of access to relevant resulting goodwill of a social network ecosystem of technologies (Ardichvili, 2008; Pope et al., 2009) volunteers, fundraisers and donors. In sum, there andhasledtocharitiesbeingbehindbusinessesin appears to be beneficial synergies between the way exploiting the potential of website adoption (Goatman in which social network communities function and and Lewis, 2007). The authors suggest that online the way philanthropic communities give to each other social networks offer a perceived neutral space where because both operate on peer to peer principles. the charity and the donor can collaborate, with the potential for the benefactor and other stakeholders to also be involved. Furthermore, the authors suggest that charities Word of mouth and e-wom are not yet optimising the potential for creating Consumers are increasingly turning away from insti- social capital for their brands through the strategic tutions and corporate messages for their informa- use of online social networks. Social capital can be tion sources (Nielsen, 2007) and are increasingly developed and extended through the use of online relying on word of mouth recommendations and social networks and those engaged contributors advice. As Keller states ‘positive word of mouth who, through their online participation and viral is a powerful force driving recommendation and marketing, socially produce value for the organisa- purchase intent’ (Keller, 2007 p452). Word of mouth tion (Benkler, 2006). The expansion of the connec- or the informal passing on, and sharing, of useful tivity between individuals that is created through and credible information between individuals is networks can strengthen existing ties and form not new. Consumers appear to be more trusting of new ones (Best and Kreuger, 2006) and develop both the message content (Godes and Mayzlin, social capital (Chiu et al., 2006). 2004) and the medium (Brown and Reingen, 1987; Through online social networks partial control of Gladwell, 2002) within consumer to consumer dia- the cause and reputation management can be taken logue than from established advertising campaigns. on by the contributors. The contributor derives Marketers have realised this shift in influence and benefit in the form of self satisfaction of having are increasingly attempting to encourage ‘pass along’ made an indirect donation through their participa- promotions in the form of designed campaigns, tion and also possibly by having broadcast their which they wish to ‘go viral’ and be passed along willingness to help society to their online social and recommended between individuals. The endorse- network associates. Marketers can successfully ment factor of word-of-mouth communication is likely knit or build a network or community of fans to have a positive impact on behaviour (Dobele et al., and followers through contributing, supporting 2007). Published word-of-mouth research has in- and informing users and interactively engaging with cluded frequency analysis as an indicator of power members (Kirby and Marsden, 2006; Gillin, 2007; of the message (Liu, 2006), message characteristics Marsden, 2007). By improving connectivity through (Mason and Davis, 2007) and individual message the growth of communities and the increasing of influence (Sweeney et al., 2012). links both inside and external to the cause, network The search for independent opinion and authen- weaving occurs whereby this greater connectivity ticity by consumers from consumers has been accel- increases economic opportunities. Krebs and Holley erated by the advent of web.2.0. The parameters of (2006) argued that communities are built on word of mouth have now become infinite through

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2013 DOI: 10.1002/nvsm Use of social networks by UK charities 39 the adoption of web 2.0. E-WOM has facilitated and create an avatar in a virtual world and more borderless connectivity between consumers who (Li and Bernhoff, 2008). Quinton and Harridge-March wish to share information, consumer experiences, (2010 p.59) offer the following social network opinions or advice, for example, whether the definition from a marketer’s perspective: subject be parenting support (www.mumsnet.org), television purchasing (www.which.com) or university Online social networks are the label attached to choices (www.thestudentroom.co.uk). Subsequently, any consumer or organisation-initiated com- a subsection of WOM research, e-WOM is now expand- munication with other like-minded consumers ing and covers aspects such as website reputation who share an interest and use the World Wide (Park and Lee, 2009), purchase intention (Prendergast Web as a platform for creating a community. et al., 2010), generational differences in e-WOM behaviour (Strutton et al., 2011) and motivational Advances in social network analysis software impacts on e-WOM recommendations (Gupta and means that organisations are able to search, digitally Harris, 2010). The vehicles of e-WOM include web- trace or ‘listen’ (Li and Bernhoff, 2008 p.69) to any sites, instant messaging, blogs and micro-blogs such online social network posts that are associated with as Twitter, social networking sites, online reviews their brand or marketing initiatives. These new tools and e-mails. can now monitor negative and positive posts, the Within the context of non-profit organisations, frequency of posts, and automatically produce trend Miller (2009) suggests that because consumers are analysis and network visualisation across a variety now actively involved in e-WOM sharing across of content formats, such as videos, blogs, forums, product types then non-profit organisations should discussion boards (Marsden, 2007; Yung Ming et al., reconsider some of their established approaches 2010). Furthermore, they can identify multiple posts to fundraising in light of the adoption of social from individuals who may be demonstrating the networks as a sharing mechanism. Interruptive characteristics of influential opinion leaders (Kirby marketing, such as direct mail, could be augmented and Marsden, 2006) and who are an important with more personalised supporter experiences, demographic in the brand advocacy ladder (Harridge- which those supporters would pass on and discuss March and Quinton, 2009). The capability to search, with their peers across the variety of e-WOM vehicles trace, monitor and analyse participant activities including social networks. and map the structure of social network communities is an important technological development for marketers who are striving to effectively know and relate to their market audiences and this could be Online social networks used effectively in the non-profit arena. Online social networks are platforms intended to According to Safko and Brake (2009), people be- facilitate peer to peer communications, relationship come motivated to contribute information of value building (MacManus, 2006) and the creation of like- to their groups because they have an expectation minded virtual communities. Wertime and Fenwick that they will receive useful information in return, (2008) regard social networks as services that are and gain recognition for doing so by their peers. built around the needs and interests of like-minded Moreover, social network communities can be low individuals and are created by those individuals. risk environments that encourage people to form Weber (2009) and Kirby and Marsden (2006) regard more loose relationships, to be more open with them as virtual spaces where people with common their opinions (Quinton and Harridge-March, 2010) interests can gather to share thoughts, comments and in doing so communities collectively generate and opinions. Contributors can generate their more value for their members. Therefore, it is own content via blogs, create their profiles and possible to deduce that the collective value gener- career history, set up forums, search for and make ated by the communities increases as the number friends, play interactive games, generate followers of members grow. Singer and Ashman (2009) assert or fans, share files and music, upload photos and that the main motivators of bloggers are derived videos, micro-blog, vote, access consumer reviews from an inherent desire to share their expertise.

They want to become more involved with interests Belcher, 2005) and the Charity Commission’s that they are passionate about, to speak their mind website were consulted, to identify charities, their and measure the success of their blogs through a sizes and to provide contact information. In the first sense of personal satisfaction. This assertion rein- phase, 50 charities were contacted, ranging in size forces Ardichvili’s study in 2008, which outlined from 1 employee to organisations within the largest the multi-layered motivations and de-motivations top 10 nationally and 10 charities were also commu- for community participation. nicated with at a national charity marketing plan- Li and Bernhoff (2008) surveyed a range of online ning workshop to pilot the concept (Bryman and social networks and classified users into six levels of Bell, 2003). A purposive sample from the top UK participation. Starting at the lowest levels of partici- 500 charities (listed by income size) by FitzHerbert pation, these levels are inactives, spectators, joiners, and Belcher (2005) were contacted and 12 agreed collectors, critics and creators. At the bottom of the to be interviewed. The range of charities in the scale, inactives do not participate and merely ‘lurk’ sample included organisations focusing on medical while spectators read but do not contribute. Higher research into diseases, elderly care and support, up the scale, contributors are characterised by, reg- support for developing countries, youth and children, ularly making postings, writing articles and voicing sea rescue, disability support and also those not opinions. Notably, users who contribute the most, focused on humans such as animal rescue, heritage at the critics and creator levels, represent only organisations and the arts, thus a broad range of approximately 13% to 20% of all subscribers. Those causes were encompassed that reflects the scope of who are mainly passive, at the spectator to joiner the British charity market (Rogers, 2012). The criteria levels, read but do not contribute at all and repre- for interview participants were: employees of top sent approximately two thirds of all users (Kirby 500 UK charities that employed online social net- and Marsden, 2006). Therefore, an online social works, participants to have both an operational network around a common interest can grow and and strategic perspective and to have had responsi- become larger than the sum of its members. These bility for online social networks within a marketing communities gathering around a cause have the context. The practice being explored was the use potential to create positive associations and provide of online social networks by those individual significant value to a charity. charities (Table 1). From the range of literature consulted on both To gain an understanding of how charities engaged strategic marketing and online social networks there with online social networks, the suppliers of the emerged clear themes that warranted investigation. digital marketing (in this instance digital marketing The importance of organisations having specific agencies) were also contacted. Three digital agencies objectives relating to their marketing strategy were selected and managers were interviewed based (Varadarajan, 2010) and a defined purpose to engage on the following criteria; expertise in digital market- in social media (Pope et al., 2009; Tripp, 2009), the ing, knowledge of the UK charity sector, experience management of social media in organisations in developing digital marketing strategies for charities (de Bruyn and Lilien, 2008), the requirement to and at a senior management level. The agency inter- reconsider the issues of control over the content views provided an overview of the practices within of material (Kanter and Fine, 2010), and the connec- the industry as a whole to give a complementary, tion between online social networks and economic more holistic, set of viewpoints of how the non-profit growth (Krebs and Holley, 2006) all of which UK industry was adopting social networks. charities may or may not yet fully understand Semi-structured interviews with both the chari- and embrace. ties and the digital agencies were conducted over a period of four consecutive months from May to August 2010. The interviews were structured around six main themes: the challenges faced by the Research approach industry, the online social networks currently being As a starting point, FitzHerbert and Belcher’s publi- employed, the rationale for adopting online social cation The Major Charities Guide (FitzHerbert and networks, whether the strategies adopted were

Table 1. UK charity and digital marketing agency sample

Participant Size of organisation/ number of Years using social code employees networks Title of interviewees, denoting role

A £5m 3 VP Marketing 50 employees B £4.4m 3 Website and Social Media Manager 80 employees C £20.2m 3 e-Marketing Executive 300 full employees 700 part time employees D £5.2m 2 1.Head of Marketing and PR2. e-Marketing 50 employees Manager E £3m 2 Marketing Manager 25 employees F £4m 3 PR and Digital Manager 30 employees G £90m 3 Web Manager and On-line Community Manager 1865 employees H £43m 3 Marketing Director 800 employees I £10m 3 Digital Marketing Director 72 full time employees J £16.6m 2 PR and Marketing Director 218 employees K £20m 3 Head of New Media 287 full time employees 700 part time employees L £30m 3 Digital Manager 550 full time employees Agency 1 25 employees N/A Founder and Director Agency 2 9 employees N/A Senior Consultant – Digital Agency 3 26 employees N/A Director/Consultant

effective or not, the tactics used and the results and data collection (Pattern, 1980; Rubin and Rubin, finally suggestions as to the future direction of use 1995). The data were analysed using the constant of online social networks within the charity sector. comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; The 22 interview questions were derived from Flick, 2009). This method involved comparing each the literature review (Bryman and Bell, 2003). For interviewee’s comments against all of the interview both the charities and the digital agencies semi- transcripts to determine what codes were emerging structured, face to face interviews with open ques- and to then code all the narratives by their respec- tions (Rubin and Rubin, 1995) were used to expand tive themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). For exam- responses and raise other topics that could be of ple, ‘Most charities don’t know how to work with relevance (Kvake, 1996) that the literature search social networks. There are one or two examples or the authors had not considered. of using networks to get a viral effect, but they Written interview notes were transferred into a lacked skills to make it work’ (Agency 3) was table. The table recorded the responses to each coded initially as skills, resources, budgets and strat- question and assigned a code or codes to each. egy. From that first phase coding, this comment was The 22 interview questions provided the initial 22 then coded under ‘operational resistors to adoption’ codes that emerged from the first phase analysis. and ‘strategic resistors to adoption’ (Table 2). This involved documenting emerging categories, Having coded and analysed the data, links were patterns and thematic codes rather than categories found (Sekaran, 2003) that enabled the codes to be being imposed on the data by the authors prior to logically distilled into six main recurring themes

Table 2. Exemplar of coding process of interview data

Strategies (driver or resistor) based upon Question Codes coded responses

Question 8 - What skills and resources does Skills, resources and Driver - Allocation of staff and budget to your company have in social networks? budgets on-line social network community building and management Question 15 - How are you using social networks Community building Driver - Being prepared to adopt an to engage, involve and interact with customers/ organisational culture of transparency and stakeholder? openness in online social networks Question 17 – What are the main challenges with Responses applied Resister - Perception that online social using social networks? to most resistors network marketing is free. Question 19 – How do you measure (and monitor) Monitoring and Driver - Use of sophisticated monitoring the results of using social networks? measuring systems to measure brand reputation, impact of campaigns and return on investments. Question 24 - Do you have an online social network Policy on code of Resister - No recognition of consequences governance policy that guides employees as to what conduct or of not having guidelines in place and resulting and not what do via social networks? What are the governance in a range of governance issues, for main policies? example, inappropriate posts.

which were: challenges facing the charity market, Usage of online social networks by charities online social networks used by charities, the reasons All the 12 charities interviewed were using online for adoption of social networks by charities, the social networks to varying degrees. The online strategic drivers and resistors to adoption, the oper- social network media platforms used most frequently ational drivers and resistors to adoption and the were Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. Only three of future direction of online social networks for UK char- the charities interviewed were using other platforms, ities. For the purposes of this paper the discussion is including Vimeo for videos, MySpace and Bebo. Six of focused on the findings related to the usage of online the companies were also using charity social network social networks and the strategic drivers and resistors aggregation sites including JustGiving and Virgin of the adoption of online social networks. Money Giving for fundraising. It was mentioned by one charity respondent ‘that people trusted those brands’. One organisation was planning to use Findings LinkedIn to get corporate donations or sponsorship, The initial impression gained by the researcher was and only one was using AudioBoo for podcasts. There that most of the sample was unclear as to what were no examples of mobile social networks being purpose social media and social networks could used. The reasons given for mainly using Facebook, serve. Common themes were raised by the majority Twitter and YouTube were consistent; of informants about the challenges of the openness and transparency that social media creates and the •‘Facebook is the largest social network and lack of understanding and informed leadership, therefore has the greatest reach. We have which resulted in minimal assigned resources. 44,000 Facebook fans, grown from 7,000 in the Several were fearful over the perception of loss of last two years. Facebook has taken the market control over online discourse about their charity lead because it offers an increasing amount of and wished to ‘stop and or block’ any negative services’ (Charity A). comments. Those organisations who were willing •‘Twitter has really taken off. It helps to get to encourage a more open and transparent culture instant information and updates out to fundrai- to communication were beginning to achieve tan- sers and donors. We link Twitter to our Facebook gible benefits from doing so, such as increasing weekly blog to help keep the information living, the number of fundraisers and volunteers. A more current and more engaging. The two work well detailed discussion now follows. together’ (Charity C).

Every charity interviewed carried out some form evangelists (Safko and Brake, 2009). Another of monitoring using the free basic tools available interviewee from charity C provided insight on on Facebook and Twitter sites. Most automated how opinion leaders played a role in helping to de- monitoring undertaken produced basic statistics fuse negative comments posted on forums, thus such as the number of fans. Monitoring the nature assisting in reputation management (Kirby and of the posts, for example positive or negative, was Marsden, 2006). done on an ad hoc and manual basis and considered The analysis in Table 3 is based on Lewin’s force to be very time consuming. One charity used a basic field approach (Lewin, 1951), which creates a monitoring tool, but did not have the resources to framework to compare competing forces that may analyse the data created by it. Only one charity have an impact on effecting progress in a business said that they were able to track the sources of context. Table 3 summarises the key factors that donations. Most said that they wanted to improve influence the effective adoption of social networks their monitoring capabilities for example: from the sample investigated. This table provides insight so that drivers may be encouraged and the ‘We need to do a better job, the Facebook resistors mitigated when developing subsequent statistical system does not give you any demo- social networks strategy. graphic intelligence. But we can track sources of many donations. The key to seeing what is being said on Twitter is watching conversations’ Reasons for adoption of online social networks (Charity A). The majority of organisations interviewed started to There is one example of a charity using sophisti- use social networks between two and three years cated monitoring technologies strategically. As a ago (2008 onwards). Their initial steps were tenta- result, they had ‘a clear map of their community, tive as a consequence of having no previous experi- we know who our cause champions are and pro- ence of how to use online social networks for actively targeting them’ (Charity I). This example marketing purposes. Most became involved because may indicate that those companies who use these they felt compelled to do so, because their organisa- tools are able to implement more effective social tions were already being commented on by volun- network marketing strategies and practices. This is teers, donors and fundraisers in online social because marketing strategies need to be built on networks. Thus charities, in some part felt obliged knowledge of, for example, donor behaviour, net- to counteract this well-meaning activity with ‘brand works of influence and the relative success of differ- generated’ online social activity. ent messaging strategies (Kanter and Fine, 2010). All the charities used social network discussion •‘We started a Facebook presence because a well forums and chat rooms as a method of creating meaning volunteer had already set up a blog trust, establishing a rapport and providing support site representing our charity. But they were to people in their communities, such as carers of misrepresenting our brand and what we stood the elderly and or disabled. There was little explicit for by making postings that were not accurate mention of building communities or the connection and even using an out of date logo. We couldn’t between communities and economic growth (Krebs shut it down. So we didn’t have much choice in and Holley, 2006). The charities recognised the deciding to set up a Facebook presence. Using importance of social network opinion leaders and Facebook was a land grab’ (Charity K). cause champions (Ritchins and Root-Shaffer, 1988; Gladwell, 2002), but most had not implemented Nine out of the 12 charities interviewed, said that any strategies to proactively engage with them. they had started to use social networks in a trial and One charity had intentionally started ‘to segment error manner. As a result, some now had clearer our community and tailor messages to relate to views on how to use social networks learned from opinion leaders’ (Charity I). This suggests that their experience. This approach was corroborated they were aware of the potential value of these by the digital marketing agencies.

Table 3. The drivers and resistors to strategic adoption of online social networks by UK charities

Drivers Resistors

Being prepared to adopt an organisational culture of Fear of losing control of brand reputation transparency and openness in social network communities A willingness to not over moderate and transfer control to Taking the standpoint that the charity owns the community the community rather than its members Strong and informed leadership Minimal awareness of the potential of social networks by managers Adopting a culture of minimal staff moderation and Strict censoring and moderation of all posts made by employees internal control. Allowing staff to be part of the social or not allowing staff to make any contributions network community Allocation of staff and budget to social network Perception that social network marketing is free community building and management Good knowledge and skills in social media marketing Not recognising that specialist skills are needed Lack of expertise in digital marketing across the organisation Social network strategic plan integrated into the main View that a strategic plan is not needed. Jumping in too soon marketing strategy without a strategy and assigned staff resulting in negative outcomes Setting clear and measureable key metrics for evaluation Not being aware that social network campaigns can generate effective and measurable outcomes and therefore not setting metrics Use of sophisticated monitoring systems to measure brand Unaware that these systems exist or their value for audience reputation, impact of campaigns and return on investments behaviour analysis and engagement. No campaign measurement Social networking integrated with Search Engine Relying on anecdotal feedback and basic statistics, for example, Marketing practices number of fans Guidelines and policy suited to creating inclusive No recognition of consequences of not having guidelines in place communities and resulting in a range of governance issues, for example, inappropriate posts Effective community mapping and subsequent building Lack of knowledge or resources about techniques to build strategies such as network weaving communities Engaging with the values and behaviours of targeted Not designing engaging and honest content aimed at attracting digitally empowered consumers the attention of digitally empowered target groups

•‘Charities very rarely have a fundraising or ‘Social networks can help to find new ambassadors’ awareness strategy, least of all a social network (Charity J). ‘Social networks can broaden networks strategy. Many don’t do any real marketing, and offer opportunities to permeate, we need to there is a perception that charities don’t require tap into networks that might be closed’ (Charity A). a structured marketing plan’ (Agency 3). Although sharing information within online com- •‘Previously we had no strategy. We definitely munities is not new, in the context of charities now recognise that we need a strategy and will online social networks can facilitate the linking be putting one together, we need to get the best together of fundraiser, donor, cause and recipient out of social networks, they suite our image of that previously would have been feasible. Thus, being forward thinking. The immediacy of the the community of interest (Muniz and O’Guinn, media works for us, it keeps our cause at the 2001) has been extended but charities’ response to “front of mind”’(Charity C). this potential has, as yet, been slow and disappointing. Overall the findings indicated that there was a The potential to engage with new audiences was lack of strategic intent to harness the potential of also proposed as a reason to adopt social networks online social networks and evidence that charities and by doing so, be able to build profiles and are not mirroring the adoption of digital media that identify potential groups of donors/volunteers/ has occurred in the external environment in which employees etc. ‘Young people are not influenced they operate (Slater et al., 2010). There exists a lack by history, young people are our future’ (Charity I). of consumer orientation because charities have not

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2013 DOI: 10.1002/nvsm Use of social networks by UK charities 45 embraced digital communications to the same ex- can’t take over. It’s a very time consuming site tent as either their target audiences or for-profit management issue. But we can’t shut down the based businesses (Goatman and Lewis, 2007; Doherty service’ (Charity B). and Ellis-Chadwick, 2009). Although Tripp (2009) •‘Few charities are using social networks because proposes that fundraising is being democratised they are scared of losing control’ (Agency 1). through the use of social media there was limited •‘Management of our brand reputation is a evidence of this. worry. We don’t have the ability to control what is said’ (Charity D).

Strategic drivers and resistors of online social Conversely, there was also evidence of charities networks who were much less concerned about the issue of losing control. Control The study found that charities believed that there •‘We are a generation Y company and so is our was the potential to lose control over brand reputa- audience. So we are all relaxed about social tion to community members who may misrepresent networks. We want to be open and honest the charity’s brand, unless the charities started to and encourage feedback, negative or positive’ participate and ‘take control’. Ten of the 12 charities (Charity F). said that their organisation had concerns about •‘We have to be open and honest; it’s a matter of losing control over what might be said about their trusting the community to self govern. It’snow organisation, the impact on their brand and the about letting people tell you what they want’ challenges of their mission and their principles (Charity K). being misrepresented. Some stated that it is important to embrace the openness and transparency of social networks communities and one said they Online social network management had already created a company culture with these Half of the companies researched stated there was a values. Charities reacted to this concern in a variety lack of clarity as to where the role of social network of ways. Some had taken draconian measures, such management should reside in the organisations. as closing down their Facebook site for a period or Responsibility was spread across various depart- moderating all postings, while others, which are ments, such as the fundraising team, the PR depart- currently the minority, have taken a more open ment and the corporate development unit. Thus, and transparent approach by allowing their commu- marketing communications through social networks nity members to take control, own the community was un-coordinated. The infancy of social networks discourse and self regulate the community. The suc- means that there is limited social media knowledge cessful early adopters of online social networks, are at management levels and managers had underesti- characterised by organisations that are willing to mated the resources required to build, moderate surrender control of their marketing programmes, and manage communities, subsequently minimal logos, branding, messages and messengers (Weber, resources had been assigned to managing social 2009; Kanter and Fine, 2010; Shirky, 2010). Those network interaction (Harris and Rae, 2010). The charities who dramatically grew their community research found that although charities are moving sizes, and demonstrated tangible examples of social towards putting in place strategic digital marketing network campaign successes, stated they were plans, the lack of social media marketing skills, little striving to implement a policy of what Oetting and social media management experience, and the Jacob (2007 p.7) refer to as ‘empowered involvement’. allocation of resources to operating social network activities were raised as resistors by the majority of •‘Users argue in our on-line community space, charities interviewed echoing the findings of Pope people can get angry and argue and this can et al. in 2009. However, two organisations were be disastrous. We have had to ban some people using external consultants as a way to overcome their from our forum, but we have to act fairly, we lack of knowledge. Organisations who assigned more

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2013 DOI: 10.1002/nvsm 46 Sarah Quinton and Paul Fennemore dedicated resources to managing their social network involving themselves with online social networks channels, with staff who had social media expertise, are outlined below. were able to point to more tangible successes than those who had not. For example, one charity grew their Facebook fan base from 11 000 to 47 000 in Purpose and objectives two years. This charity had a dedicated human resource assigned to the channel who had digital Because marketing strategy is strongly correlated media qualifications. with achieving objectives, it is important to identify the core objectives and whether these are congru- •‘Most charities don’t know how to work with ent with social networks and whether they may be social networks. There are one or two examples achieved through engaging with online social of using networks to get a viral effect, but they networks. For example, although some charities lacked skills to make it work’ (Agency 3). had decided to use social networks as fundraising •‘Managers are under the impression that social channel, others were not clear as to the objectives network marketing is free and therefore don’t of developing an online social network presence. allocate a budget to it’ (Agency 2). The use of an aggregation service to manage the •‘Initially, we had no support in the company. raising of funds online reduces the investment They had an old media culture and senior required by the charity, by delegating the task to managers still don’t see the value of digital specialist providers such as JustGiving is one ap- marketing’ (Charity J). proach for fundraising. However, it is suggested that organisations may wish to engage community contri- Future direction butors with the charities’ activities for a period of time before progressing to fundraising. There exists All of the charities saw increasing potential for a tension between the community members who online social networks for their organisations. Most may need to feel that the digital space is their space interviewees stated that they intended to increase and that they control the environment versus any their investments and activities, but gave little detail. cause-initiated push campaign to raise funds. Charity The managers’ minimal understanding of social marketers are right to view online social networks networks was seen to be a key resistor to the adop- with caution when it comes to using it as a fundraising tion and integration issue. As a result, future plans channel. By encouraging participant competitions/ tended to be short term and tactical rather than at events and hosting contributor-generated games and a strategic level. Those organisations whose senior workshops, rather than making overt requests for managers had learned about the value of social donations, charities may overcome any potential networks, had decided to devise integrated digital hostility to requests for donations. marketing strategies. They were enthusiastic and Furthermore, the engagement of the key influen- intent on deploying social networks as a central cers in the online social networks should be regarded component of their long term marketing and com- as a core element of any social network marketing munications strategy and respected the ability of strategy because it is through these few that the the community to co-develop value for their chari- power of many may be harnessed for the benefit of ties, thus building social capital (Benkler, 2006). the charitable organisation (Yung Ming et al., 2010). Therefore, organisations are not blind to opportuni- Growing a fanbase of influencers can be offering ties as suggested by Cravens et al. (2009) but do not interaction across a new platform for those already know how to proceed. engaged with a charity, and e-WOM can also encourage new fans who may be comfortable with the technology of social networks but not yet committed Strategic implications to a charity. Growing a fanbase via peer-to-peer A number of key issues have been identified in the communication is one type of co-creation (Ramaswamy, preceding discussion and Table 3. The strategic 2008).There is a need to recognise the movement to- implications of these issues for UK charities wards engaging consumers with the charity brand and

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2013 DOI: 10.1002/nvsm Use of social networks by UK charities 47 its messages, the narrative and the surrounding the wider communications plan and that includes discussion in the social networks. Simmons (2008) an appropriate budget allocation for the time suggests that marketers need to migrate from a push required to contribute and monitor online social approach to pulling the consumers through their network interactions together with an explicit set use of communities and the existent online brand of metrics to evaluate specific objectives against. communities. An implication that arises from engaging key audiences across multiple platforms such as online social networks, is that those who are engaged are likely to exhibit stronger loyalty and better Opportunities presented by online social retention rates (2005). networks Online social networks also offer opportunities for charities to learn about the perception of their brand Management in the market place. These social networks act as a Because openness and transparency is respected by barometer by which charities can assess their brand online communities, it follows that the organisation reach, strength, resonance with key audiences and itself should reflect those attributes. It may be neces- the buzz level created for any promotional activity sary to undertake some form of cultural change undertaken. Moreover, the lack of mentions in the driven from both the top down and bottom up by digital arena for an organisation may also indicate that individuals who believe in the potential of online remedial marketing activity is required to raise aware- social networks as a central element of strategic ness levels. Opportunities in the form of differentia- marketing within the continually changing environ- tion and more advanced strategic segmentation are ment. To achieve this, a designated manager may made possible through better understanding of be needed who exhibits ‘dynamic capabilities’ online social networks. Segmenting interested stake- (Slater et al., 2010) to avoid role ambiguity and holders by tool or platform used and the medium or duplication of effort; it is important to specify who media used to communicate, in addition to the level is responsible for which activities across social and type of community interaction could produce a networks. This will involve a detailed job description clearer understanding for the charity of their suppor- ’ outlining the responsibilities required with respect ters preferences and behaviour. Online social net- to moderating content, updating content, deciding works can also assist in building communities and codes of conduct, etc. People with relevant digital creating bonds between stakeholders and nonprofit marketing qualifications and experience should be organisations (Gomes and Knowles, 2001). This type placed in this role as opposed to purely an experi- of learning from online social networks is, as yet, enced charity employee. In addition, because online underutilised by the sector. social networks are a relatively recent phenomenon, Although online social networks were originally members of staff and volunteers may need education embraced by the young, techno savvy millennial and training on the potential benefits of online social generation, recent research indicates that they are networks and their links to the strategic aims of now being embraced by those in their 50s and older the organisation. (Cellan-Jones, 2011). Traditionally, this segment has been more responsive to fund-raising campaigns and it would be logical to assume that integrating social networking into marketing strategies aimed Integration of marketing activity at this older demographic would be beneficial. UK charities whether large or small should consider the complementarity of social media alongside and integrated with other marketing activity. The potential value of embedding online social Conclusion networks as a central marketing strategy is not yet It is clear that online social networks have become fully recognised. A strategic digital marketing plan an important part of today’s society and, as such, would be needed, one that is fully integrated with must not be ignored by charity marketers. A shift

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2013 DOI: 10.1002/nvsm 48 Sarah Quinton and Paul Fennemore has occurred in consumer adoption of communica- Biographical notes tion technologies and as consumers increasingly in- Sarah Quinton is a Senior lecturer in Marketing at corporate the Internet into their lives organisations Oxford Brookes University. Sarah’sresearchinterests need to consider to what extent to mirror the lie in the digitalisation of marketing and the strategic spaces consumers now inhabit (Rheingold, 1993; challenges it brings with particular emphasis on Cova and Pace, 2006). Those responsible for market- SMEs. She has published widely, including; The ing in the not-for-profit arena can capitalise on the Journal of Marketing Management, Marketing Re- usefulness of social media for both marketing com- view, Marketing Intelligence and Planning and the munications and brand-building activities, both of International Journal of Wine Business Research. which contribute towards fund-raising opportunities. The power of a committed cause community Paul Fennemore is an experienced practitioner is invaluable in generating good will and positive who specialises in social media marketing and com- feelings towards a charity, resulting in positive e- munications. He has a particular interest in the non- WOM and financial benefit. Although this research profit sector though his consultancy work covers highlights the current limited involvement by chari- both blue chip and SME organisations. Paul can be ties with social networks, marketing strategists contacted at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul- would be wise to include the use of online social fennemore. networks in the brand building and fundraising programmes. Social media and online social networks are still in their infancy within the scope of marketing. Further research needs to be undertaken, including empirical work, to better understand the behavourial shift in consumers’ rapid adoption of References social media, how the use of social media impacts Andrese K. 2010. What makes a good friends to upon communication between charities and friends campaign online? Available at: http://www. interested individuals and how this in turn may nonprofitmarketingblog.com [Accessed on July 15, affect the future marketing strategies of charitable 2010]. causes. Ardichvili A. 2008. Learning and knowledge sharing in The recent steps taken by UK charities in using virtual communities of practice: Motivators, barriers online social networks have been outlined by this and enablers. Advances in helping Human Resources paper and it has given insight into the reasons for 10(4): 541-554. adopting this emerging digital form of interaction Arnold MJ, Tapp SR. 2003. Direct marketing in non-profit with a cause community. Furthermore, this paper services: investigating the case of the arts industry. identified the need for UK charities to create Journal of Services Marketing 17: 141-160. Benkler Y. 2006. . Princeton specific objectives for social media prior to its The wealth of networks University Press: Princeton, NJ. implementation. On the basis of the research under- Bennet R. 2006. Predicting the lifetime durations of taken it is apparent that UK charities need to give donors to charities. Journal of Nonprofit and Public more consideration to integrating online social Sector Marketing 15: 45-67. networks into their strategic marketing activities. Best SJ, Kreuger BS. 2006. Online interactions and This paper has added to the conceptual understand- social capital: distinguishing between new and existing of the issues surrounding the adoption of social ing ties. Social Science Computer Review 24(4): media for UK charities. In addition, evidence has 395-410. been provided, and thus value created, that there Brown JJ, Reingen PH. 1987. Social ties and word of is also a gap in charity management understanding mouth referral behaviour. Journal of Consumer Re- surrounding strategic engagement with social media search 14: 350-362. and that it is this gap that acts as a resistor to online de Bruyn A, Lilien G. 2008. A multi stage model of word social network adoption. of mouth influence through viral marketing.

International Journal of Research in Marketing 25: Gomes R, Knowles P. 2001. Strategic internet and 151-163. e-commerce application for local non profit organisa- Bryman A, Bell E. 2003. Business Research Methods, 2nd tions. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing edn. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 9(1/2): 214-245. Cellan-Jones R. 2011. Over 50s Flock to Social Networks, BBC Gupta P, Harris J. 2010. How e-wom recommendations News Technology. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ influence product consideration and quality of choice: news/technology-13925893 [Accessed on July 5, 2011]. a motivation to process information perspective. Charity Commission. 2010. Register of UK Charities. Journal of Business Research 23: 1041-1049. Available at: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ Harridge-March S, Quinton S. 2009. Virtual; Snakes show charity/register of charities/register homepage. and Ladders: social networks and the relationship aspx?&=& [Accessed on May 12, 2010]. marketing loyalty ladder. The Marketing Review 9(2): Chiu C, Hsiu M, Wang ETG. 2006. Understanding knowl- 171-181. edge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of Harris L, Rae A. 2010. The online connection: transform- social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision ing marketing strategy for small business. Journal of Support Systems 42: 1872-1888. Business Strategy 31(2): 4-12. Cova B, Pace S. 2006. Brand community of convenience Hart R. 2002. Ephilanthropy: Using the internet to products: new forms of customer empowerment – build support. International Journal of Nonprofit the case of my nutella the community. European and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7: 353-360. Journal of Marketing 40(9/10): 1087-1105. Kanter B, Fine A. 2010. The networked non-profit: Cravens D, Piercy N, Baldauf A. 2009. Management connecting with social media to drive change. Frameworks Guiding Strategic Thinking in Rapidly Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Changing Markets. Journal of Marketing Manage- Keller E. 2007. Unleashing the power of word of mouth: ment 25(1-2): 31-49. creating brand advocacy to drive growth, Journal of Dobele A, Lindgreen A, Beverland M, Vanhamme J, Van Wijk Advertising Research 47(4): 448-452. R. 2007. Why pass on viral messages? Business Horizons Kirby J, Marsden P.2006. Connected marketing: the viral 50(40): 291-304. buzz and word of mouth revolution. Elsevier: Oxford. Doherty NF,Ellis-Chadwick F.2009. Exploring the drivers, Krebs V,Holley J. 2006. Building smart communities through scope and perceived success of e-commerce strategies network weaving. Available at: http://www.orgnet.com/ in the UK retail sector. European Journal of Market- buildingnetworks.pdf [Accessed on July 26, 2010]. ing 32(9/10): 1246-1262. Kvake S. 1996. An introduction to qualitative research FitzHerbert L, Belcher K. 2005. The Major Charities: an Inde- interviewing. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. pendent Guide. The Directory of Social Change: London. Lewin K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. Harper Flick U. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative research, and Row: NY. 2nd edn. Sage: London. Li C, Bernhoff J. 2008. Groundswell: winning in a world Gillin P. 2007. The new influencers; A marketer’s guide transformed by social technologies. Harvard Business to the new social media. Quill Driver Books: Fenso. Press: Boston. Gladwell M. 2002. The tipping point: how little things Liu Y. 2006. Word-or-mouth for movies: its dynamics and can make a big difference. Back Bay Books: New impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing York. 70 (3): 74-89. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded MacManus M. 2006. Charity Badge: using the power of Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine social networking for good. Available at: http://www. Publishing Company: Chicago. readwriteweb.com/archives/charity_badge.php Goatman AK, Lewis BR. 2007. Charity E-volution? An eval- [Accessed on December 23, 2009]. uation of the attitudes of UK charities towards website Marsden P. 2007. Seed to spread, how seeding trial adoption and use. International Journal of Nonprofit ignites epidemics of demand. Elsevier: Oxford. and Voluntary Service Marketing 12: 33-46. Mason PR, Davis BH. 2007. More than the words: using Godes D, Mayzlin D. 2004. Using online conversations stance shift analysis to identify crucial opinions and to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing attitudes in online focus groups. Journal of Advertis- Science 23(4): 545-560. ing Research 70(4): 496-506.

Miles M, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: Rogers S. 2012. Britain’s top 1000 charities. Available at: an expanded sourcebook. Sage: London. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/ Miller B. 2009. Community Fundraising 2.0- the future of 24/top-1000-charities-donations-britain [Accessed on fundraising in a networked society, International June 2, 2012]. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Rubin H, Rubin I. 1995. Qualitative interviewing: the art 14: 365-370. of hearing data. Sage: London. Muniz A, O’Guinn T. 2001. Brand Community. Journal of Safko L, Brake D. 2009. The social media bible. John Consumer Research 27(4): 412-432. Wiley & Sons: New Jersey. Needham A. 2008. Word of mouth, youth and their Sargeant A, West DC, Ford JB. 2004. Does perception brands. Young Consumers 9(2): 60-62. matter? An empirical analysis of donor behaviour. The Nielsen. 2007. Trust in advertising, a global Nielsen Services Industry Journal 24(6): 19-36. consumer report, October. Available at: www.nielsen. Sargeant A, Woodliffe L. 2005. The antecedents to donor com./solutions/trustinadvertisingOct07.pdf [Accessed commitments to voluntary oraganizations, Nonprofit on March 1, 2009]. Management & Leadership, 16(1): 61-78. nTen.org. 2010. Social Networks Benchmark report. Shirky C. 2010. Cognitive Surplus: creativity and Available at: http://www.nten.org/search/node/social generosity in a connected age. Penguin Books: %20networking [Accessed on 6 February 2011]. London. Oetting M, Jacob F. 2007. Empowered involvement and Simmons G. 2008. Marketing to postmodern consumers: word of mouth: an agenda for academic enquiry. introducing the internet chameleon. European Journal ESCP-EAP University Press: Berlin. of Marketing 42: 299-310. Park C, Lee TM. 2009. Information direction, website Singer J, Ashman I. 2009. Comment is free but facts are sa- reputation and e-wom effect: a moderating role of cred: User generated content and ethical constructs at product type, Journal of Business Research 62(1): 61-67. the Guardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 24(1): 3-21. Pattern MQ. 1980. Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Slater S F, Hult GTM, Olson EM. 2010. Factors influenc- Sage: Beverley Hills, CA. ing the relative importance of marketing strategy Pope J, Isely ES, Asamoa-Tutu C. 2009. Developing a creativity and marketing strategy implementation marketing strategy for nonprofit organisations: an ex- effectiveness. Industrial Marketing Management ploratory Study. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sec- 39: 551-559. tor Marketing 21: 184-201. Spaulding TJ. 2009. How can virtual communities create Prendergast G, Ko D, Siu Yin VY. 2010. Online word of value for business, Electronic Commerce Research mouth and consumer purchase intentions. Interna- and Application 9(1): 38-49. tional Journal of Advertising 29(5): 687-708. Strutton D, Taylor DG, Thompson K. 2011. Investigating Quinton S, Harridge-March S. 2010. Relationships in generational differences in e-wom behaviours, for ad- online communities: the potential for marketers. Jour- vertising purposes does x = y? International Journal nal of Interactive Marketing 4: 59-73. of Advertising 30(4): 559-586. Ramaswamy V.2008. Co-creating value through customers; Sweeney JC, Soutar GN, Mazzarol T. 2012. Word of experiences: the Nike Case. Strategy and Leadership mouth: measuring the power of individual messages. 36(5): 9-14. European Journal of Marketing 46(1): 237-257. Rheingold H. 1993. The virtual community: home- Tripp G. 2009. Can social media for social change steading in the electronic frontier. Harper Collins: reinvent charity work? The New York Observer. Avail- New York. able at: http://www.observer.com/2009/media/can- Richards J. 2007. Networking for charity. Timesonline, social-media-social-change-reinvent-charity-work-maybe November 28, 2007. http://technology.timesonline. [Accessed on January 24, 2010]. co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/arti- Truong Y, Simmons G. 2010. Perceived Intrusiveness in cle2959293.ece [15 December 2009]. Digital Advertising: strategic marketing implications. Ritchins M, Root-Shaffer T. 1988. The role of involvement Journal of Strategic Marketing 18(3): 239-256. and opinion leadership in consumer word of mouth: Valck K, van Bruggen G, Wierenga B. 2009. Virtual Com- an implicit model made explicit. Advances in Con- munities: a marketing perspective. Journal of Decision sumer Research 15(1): 32-36. Support Systems 47: 185-203.

Varadarajan R. 2010. Strategic Marketing and Wertime K, Fenwick I. 2008. Digimarketing: the essen- Marketing Strategy: domain, definition, funda- tial guide to new media and digital marketing. John mental issues and foundational premise. Wiley & Sons: Singapore. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science World Advertising Research Center. 2010. Internet Usage 8(2): 119-140. report. Available at: www.warc.com/internet/statistics/ Virtual Promise. 2008. Annual Internet survey of UK 2010 [Accessed on May 17, 2011]. Charities, nfpSynergy. Available at: www.nfpsynergy. Yung Ming L, Chair-Hao L, Cheung-Yang L. 2010. Identify- com [Accessed on May 8, 2011]. ing influential reviewers for word of mouth marketing. Weber L. 2009. Marketing to the social web. John Wiley Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9: & Sons: New Jersey. 294-304.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2013 DOI: 10.1002/nvsm Copyright of International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.