Nonprofit Websites and Organizational Goals
Kang and Norton’s study was insightful but maybe too generalizing. They created a scale of what should and should not be included on a website to ensure easy navigation, relevant information and relational communication. However, they were assuming that all nonprofits’ websites are used for the same purpose.
In their discussion they commended the websites for their simple web design that ensured easy navigation, but then immediately criticized them for not having a higher quality design. These “quality designs” are usually marked by their animation and graphics, which would normally take longer than the recommended 1-2 seconds to upload. I feel the easy navigation is most important for a nonprofit’s website. When my nonprofit was restructuring our website and we were down for a few days the biggest complaint we had was that our members could not access our links to government websites. The government website, mostly DHHS, is so difficult to navigate our members depend on our quick links to find what they are looking for.
They also discussed that the websites did not integrate relational communication methods into their website, but what is the incentive? As we said in class, feedback forms are a great and inexpensive way to survey a nonprofits’ publics, but interactive features are most times expensive additions to websites. How often are these features used? And after what time should these responses be analyzed?
Another element of functionality is the request to come back to the website. But that also depends on the publics being targeted. Most nonprofits websites are for information purposes. This means they should be easy to find in a search engine. However, our website is a means to sign-up for classes to earn required CEUs and industry updates from the regulating department and state legislature. If a website does not feature its events and news updates, there is no incentive to return.
In their discussion they commended the websites for their simple web design that ensured easy navigation, but then immediately criticized them for not having a higher quality design. These “quality designs” are usually marked by their animation and graphics, which would normally take longer than the recommended 1-2 seconds to upload. I feel the easy navigation is most important for a nonprofit’s website. When my nonprofit was restructuring our website and we were down for a few days the biggest complaint we had was that our members could not access our links to government websites. The government website, mostly DHHS, is so difficult to navigate our members depend on our quick links to find what they are looking for.
They also discussed that the websites did not integrate relational communication methods into their website, but what is the incentive? As we said in class, feedback forms are a great and inexpensive way to survey a nonprofits’ publics, but interactive features are most times expensive additions to websites. How often are these features used? And after what time should these responses be analyzed?
Another element of functionality is the request to come back to the website. But that also depends on the publics being targeted. Most nonprofits websites are for information purposes. This means they should be easy to find in a search engine. However, our website is a means to sign-up for classes to earn required CEUs and industry updates from the regulating department and state legislature. If a website does not feature its events and news updates, there is no incentive to return.
posted by Donald @ 11:21 AM
5 Comments:
At 4:41 PM, February 11, 2008,
Jon Weiner said…
I find myself agreeing for the most part with the assertion that the Websites and Organizational goals article was a little general in their creation of the evaluation scale. I think they offered some good analysis but I did not particularly agree with parts of their discussion ... mainly that "The minimal use of relational communication functions among sampled NPOs demonstrates they are not effectively using the Web to connect with audiences via technological advances that the Web can provide"
First of all this is sort of a convaluded statement that is a little tough to follow, and second, the decision to include the forums, chatrooms, polls and feedback forms really is - as the original post said - a function of thier audience.
There is no need to maintain all of these new technological perks on a site if they are unnecessary or they don't make sense for the nonprofit's situation. It is surprising that only 45 percent of the sites had feedback forms, but that doesn't mean that no two-way communication takes place. There are lots of other ways, like sending targeted surveys, conducting focus groups, etc. to achieve similar goals without including them on the web.
As much as we hate to admit it also, not everyone in the world has internet access and can view and interact on a group's website either. I would assume that some of these nonprofits target low-income groups with their communication messages and their programs, aiming them at folks who may not have internet access. In this case, having a cool, interactive site with all the bells and whistles probably doesn't really make much of a difference.
I guess in my long winded reply here, I am saying that it is hard to make general statements about the functionality of websites from 100 organizations with varying goals and constituencies.
Maybe the study is right and nonprofits are sort of lagging in their web expansion efforts, but if I was a donor, I would like to see my contributions going to fund a program rather than paying someone to monitor an online chat room or expand a website to contain downloadable graphics.
At 5:44 PM, February 11, 2008,
Lei said…
I agree that the analysis in this article is very general and did not consider specific situations of each nonprofit organization. In the Social Change class that I took, I used genre theory and activity theory to analyze the website of the Beijing Organizing Committee for the 2008 Olympic Games and found them pretty useful. Both theories emphasize the social context of websites to address multiple audiences. The process of creating and maintaining a website consists of an independent activity system, in which designers serve as agents that create texts in a particular social context-the cyber space. And the "genre" in web design refers to actions that are used to meet audiences' expectations.
For example, for the website of BOCOG, their audience is pretty much people from all over the world. Under such circumstances, the website becomes the only means for the audience to receive information. Therefore, interactive features as mentioned in the article is extremely important. That's why there are a lot of downloadable graphics such as screensavers and calendars available on the website, and BOCOG held a lot of activities only on the Internet. This type of website with a large group of audience fulfills all criteria indicated in Kang and Norton's study as a good nonprofit website.
But on the other hand, take the website of the Office of International Services here at NC State for another example. Their audience is very local, including international students and local volunteers. And the information on their website, including application, immigration, various cultural programs, etc., is pretty stable. However, the way they maintain interactive with the audience is primarily through emails, through which updates of events are sent periodically. I think their method of keeping touch with the audience is also excellent in terms of time efficiency, because students may not think about checking their website once in a while for updates, and OIS also saves the trouble of changing information frequently on the website.
So, both ways serve the organizations well, and it's all about social context and audience analysis. As long as the website, or using the Internet can meet the organization's objectives, it should be good.
At 9:34 PM, February 11, 2008,
Jessica said…
I agree that websites should be organizational tools used to relay information about an organization to the general public. Perhaps the best way to get info to the public is online. But the people who have internet access, as previous posts have mentioned, are going to be those who can afford it, or have free access at a local library. In reality, websites for nonprofit organizations are not necessarily aiming to get information across to potential clients, they are trying to get information to potential donors and volunteers. Unfortunately, the best way to get peoples’ attention who are not necessarily in search of the services provided by the is by using graphics and interactive (maybe expensive) applications and designs.
A website has to be not only informative, but attention grabbing, and likely to catch and hold the web-surfers attention. If I were a potential donor or volunteer, I’m not sure I would be willing to help an organization if their website was poorly designed. In compared to the more established organizations’ impressive websites, seeing a ‘site might force a viewer to think the organization is also not legitimate. Boring or bad websites seem to make people think the product or service is bad or not very well established/organized. If a nonprofit has some extra money, it would be a good investment to build a functional, informational, AND attractive website. Donors and volunteers aren’t necessarily searching for your particular organization. If the stumble across an ugly website, they won’t think twice about participating. This audience is what truly propels an organization, and a website has to be built for them.
At 10:25 PM, February 11, 2008,
Anonymous said…
Technology seems to be the wave of the future and as we mentioned in class, that most Non-Profits don't have any choice but to get involved with this wave and create a website for people to view on line. As was also mentioned unless the Non-Profits are large or famous, like the Red Cross, I don't think the non-profit will have alot of extra capital to use for web-design, thus making the websites not as snazzy. Also I don't think the majority of American's are surfing the web to look and see how they can get involved with a non-profit. So it seems that non-profits have an even harder time finding and maintaining an audience on line, therefore its important that the website is eye catching and stimulating.
In the "Who Receives the Most Help Article?" the author mentioned that non-profits are having to turn into "quasi -businesses" in order to keep up with the competition. I wonder if this shift to make non-profits more business like is one of the reasons for the drive to be online. If non-profits can make their service look business like with a website and more transparent to the average person surfing on line it might them be more successful. But the article also proposes consequences for non-profits becoming more business like since it gets rid of the human aspect and relationship side of the organization. Yes I think the times create change and that you have to adjust in order to survive but it seems that there should be compromise between having to change so much that you lose your original shape and values. If non-profits change to become more business like then, then what does that entail for those in need and actually needing the organization?
At 10:59 PM, February 11, 2008,
cfriedman22 said…
I found the website reading interesting when it offered that 59% of the websites linking to local branches as "successful." That still means the 41% do not have links to local chapters to offer information to people wishing to find local branches. Maybe they are trusting in the fact that someone who really wants to get involved will just call around and try to find local information. Frankly, I wouldn't take that chance with potential donors, clients or volunteers because people are fickle and lazy by nature and may give up easily, or searching may cause a delay in their funding or volunteering. I would think that would take precedence over chat rooms or downloadable graphics. The earlier comments are all right that there is an appropriate level that a NPO should take their website to based on their goals and audience. I also think that the sampling is definately not represetative of all NPO's but if they took the top 100 and found this many shortcommings, it isn't looking too good for the websites of smaller NPOs who probably have less resources to draw from. But what options do strapped NPOs have really?
Post a Comment
<< Home