Everywhere I look I see articles and "how to's" on social media.  What charity doesn't at least "tweet", have a page on Facebook and a YouTube account? It seems to me that every nonprofit has bought into the idea that if your not involved in social media, you're missing out and you'll be less competitive.  Great marketing of course! What else would you expect from media?

But, in reality, how much is really being raised from these resources? My understanding is: not much.  Great visibility but very little money.

Well, I understand that, once mastered, these sites are great fun and present new ways to interact with donors and prospects. Hey, I'm a fundraiser - I know relationships, cultivation, stewardship, and connecting constituents are important to success. Yet how close can you get to donors when everything is for everybody?  Where's the personal touch?  Yes, you can get out more information, but how does someone feel more special to a nonprofit when the contact comes through a video or page that's usually visible to the whole world?  

Of course, traditional fundraising methods are also being used - thank goodness. Still, I wish planned giving was as much fun as social media.  Maybe then it would attract as much attention from nonprofits as do Twitter or Facebook.  I have to admit, planned giving is not as well known. But it should be because it definitely brings in a lot more money that any social media site, hands down.  In fact, according to Giving USA 2009, it brought in $22.6 billion dollars, almost 8% of all money raised in 2008.  

If nonprofits paid just half as much attention to getting planned gifts as they do to what they can say with only 140 characters, I'll bet their endowments, programs, and staff would be in much better shape, even in these tough economic times. And, they'd be closer to their donors than they ever imagined.

So, I know it's not as much fun but aside from that, can someone please explain to me why social media trounces planned giving?