How do we get over this hurdle of confusion? How can we break Web 2.0 down in to manageable – and useful – chunks?

The need to personalise (“it’s about the donor”), to commoditise (“explain something real the donor can do”), allow and listen to feedback (“give donors control”) and keep your supporters fully informed on both your progress and future plans (“close the loop”).

The thing to note is how these apply just as strongly to email solicitations for support or funds. If online giving is to expand it is important that we do not - however tempting - go down the mass mail route, as ultimately it will devalue this potentially invaluable mode of communication. We should have the sagacity to learn from our mistakes….not repeat them in a different medium.

Two things stood out in the best entries: firstly those organisations that took the time to personalise their messages for different audiences – recognising that individuals give and support in different ways and for different reasons. Secondly the success enjoyed by those charities which took the initiative to engage their supporters. Asking for a response and interacting with your supporters makes them feel much more valued, and enables you to learn more about what motivates them.

Build trust: Charities are vulnerable to the backlash of bad press. Be that criticism of employees salaries, promises not fulfilled, lack of transparency…..or dodgy phone-in competitions (to win bikinis or martinis?)! Unfairly a bad editorial doesn’t just have an effect on the individual charity involved, but the whole sector becomes doubted. The only way to resolve this is to all work together towards the aim of total transparency - if something costs money say so and then go on to explain why you think it is a valuable investment.

Educate and Engage: Charities must strive to both educate donors, and potential donors, about what it is they do, how and why. Encouraging donors to give out of guilt is no way to build a long-term, healthy relationship. Secondly it is essential to listen to donors. They can give you invaluable feedback about how you are perceived and by listening to them, and making them feel as though they can make a positive contribution through other ways than passive donations, you will empower them to become your future ambassadors.

Technology: Again and again I seem to come back to this one. You should never use Web 2.0 technologies for the sake of it, but think about how you can make emails, social networks, podcasts etc work for you. How can they help you get your message across and reach new audiences. They have the potential to take your message national (if not global) through just the click of a button. To ignore the possibilities is lazy and naïve.

Cooperation: There are over 168,000 charities in the England and Wales alone competing for the attention and generosity of donors. I can’t help feeling it is often inefficient for – say – 3 local skin cancer charities to not only be carrying the overlapping overheads of offices, admin staff etc but – more importantly – to be organising individual fundraising events. If they can’t face merging they should at least cooperate in initiatives to raise funds and awareness- pooling their skills and making the most of economies of scale.

Efficiency: This combines much of the above….and more. Cooperating with those that share your aims and values; getting new technologies to work for you; and, back to my old bug bear, making the most of the breaks that are given to you – specifically, reclaiming Gift Aid. This is, as it says, a GIFT from the Government that is shameless to waste.

As for Katya’s the challenge, in the words of Meatloaf……2 out of three aint bad!