Red Cross Chat: Not so chatty
July 17, 2009
The non-profit organization known as the American Red Cross, has been dedicated to its purpose of helping victims of disasters and other types of suffering for over a hundred years. It is also the organization most recognized for its efforts of encouraging blood donations. This organization alone is responsible for the single largest blood supplier in the nation. The organizations homepage explains its history and establishment in more detail.
This organization has built a credible reputation. This organization has the established mission of human support. The blog of this organization, Red Cross Chat, should be full of conversation, collaboration, and insight. Unfortunately, the site serves more as an informal one-way form of communication. It is successful at providing the details of the organizations upcoming plans and relief efforts. As this news release shows, the American Red Cross reacts quickly and efficiently to help others. However, it is the interactivity among its readers that is the lacking aspect.
Q: What interactivity options are implemented?
A: The options available to users are to comment on the posts, subscribe by email, follow the organization on twitter, watch the American Red Cross YouTube Channel, watch the Flickr group, or donate.
So it seems as if the users have every option/channel by which to build their relationship with the red cross. However, the posts written by the organization could be written in a way that is more inviting and encouraging for user participation. Looking at the posts, it’s noticeable that almost every one does not have a single comment. This is not interactivity and it does not fulfill the purpose of creating a blog. The blog for Delta Air Lines was very successful at doing this by simply implementing questions or suggestions from their readers. Most of the time, people like to feel as if their opinion is valued. And since this is an organization maintained by donations, funds, and support, the people are essentially the core that runs it.
Q: Which interactive applications are not used? Or which should be?
A: Essentially, the blog should be a place that ideas, proposals, and suggestions are constantly being exchanged (the name of the blog IS Red Cross Chat). The possibility of rating posts is appealing because it gives viewers a feeling that their viewpoint is valued and they have some say in how the organization runs. Applying a view count on each post also seems appropriate. (It would reinforce the legitimacy of viewing the site because others are too. Hence; monkey see, monkey do).
However, the effort to increase user participation will not necessarily be achieved by implementing more applications. It is more important that they take the same approach of Delta Air Lines. Ask for it! Tell users you want their input for future organization decisions. By doing this, valuing the consumer, the opportunity for more interactivity will be there.
Hi Kirsten –
This is Wendy, the social media lady at the Red Cross. You’re right – we don’t have a lot of interactivity on the blog. We also don’t have a big readership here. We’re going to move it to the home page of our main web site soon, and will announce that it exists to our field, so I imagine that will help some. I agree we could be much more engaging here but it’s taken a lot of cultural shifting just to be able to have a blog. Next stop – invite people in.
On the other hand, we’re seeing tons of interactivity on our facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/redcross
Anyway – I’d love to keep in touch with you and share ideas about how we can improve.
Kirsten, I really enjoyed this article, Red Cross Chat: Not so chatty. I thoroughly agreed with most of your critical assessments of the blog; especially after taking a look at the blog on my own. It seems absurd that an international organization with a multi-million dollar operating budget wouldn’t make itself more transparent and exposed to feedback from everyday people. As you mentioned, the Red Cross is based entirely on donated funds. If they were going to take the time to create a blog, it would seem appropriate for them to design it to either facilitate getting donations, or allowing people who have previously donated to comment about the use of their funds. All in all, I liked your comparison to the Delta blog article. It seemed very relevant and the comparison was pointed yet fair.
Kirsten, your arguments are very accurate. I agree that organizations need to focus on creating conversation in their blogs, instead of writing a blog and leaving it at that. I found this true in some of the environmental organizations blogs that I reviewed too, too much fact and not enough incorporation of the reader. Making things relate to readers and giving them the chance to start a conversation about the topic is vital for a successful blog and organization. It is pretty great that someone replied to your post though, it shows they are actively searching for communication opportunities. But it also could show that they are interested in what people are saying about the RedCross, but not necessarily about what the public is saying about themselves.