Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok are all working on ways to help ‘creators’ (influencers with large audiences) to monetise their accounts. One of the options being explored is subscriber-only content.

Twitter is testing out its ‘Super Follow’ function. Super Follow will be available to users over the age of 18 who have 10,000 followers and at least 25 tweets in the last 30 days. Accounts with the super-follow function will be able to charge subscribers $2.99, $4.99, or $9.99 for access to exclusive content.

On TikTok, a small group of creators are testing a paid subscription feature. TikTok is currently describing it as a ‘concept’ rather than a developed feature ready for rollout.

Instagram’s Adam Mosseri recently made a similar announcement and is currently testing the feature with a small number of creators. Instagram’s parent company, Meta, explained, "With Instagram Subscriptions, creators can develop deeper connections with their most engaged followers and grow their recurring monthly income by giving subscribers access to exclusive content and benefits, all within the same platform where they interact with them already."

Could these new functions be an opportunity for charities with engaged social media followings to generate a regular income?

RELATED ARTICLES

Social media for charities 101: LinkedIn

Social media for charities 101: Pinterest

Social media for charities 101: Reddit

Social media for charities 101: TikTok

Social media for charities 101: Twitter

The ethics of subscriber-only content

MISSION AND VALUES

One of the questions Henry Rowling, Co-Founder at Flying Cars Innovation, recommends that charities ask themselves on this issue is: how does paid-for content fit with our mission and values?

At a tactical level, the opportunity to generate regular income may seem worth exploring, but Rowling explains, “there’s going to be some tricky internal conversations…with your research team and your policy teams around whether [social media subscriptions], go against your mission to educate people.”

Dan Papworth-Smyth, Head of Digital Engagement at Breast Cancer Now, (speaking to Charity Digital in a personal capacity) agreed. “The content that helps your organisation achieve its objective should be free. Whether that’s providing vital health information, letting people know about the service you provide, how people can access support, or whatever it is your organisation does.”

DONATIONS VS PAYMENTS

Papworth-Smyth suggests, “Paywalls shouldn’t hamper your strategy, if they’re used then it should be as an opportunity to expand your digital fundraising offering…Rather than a subscription, re-framing it as another way of having a regular gift with a charity, but with social media-centric content benefits included.”

It will be interesting to see how the expectations of social media subscribers are different to the expectations of regular givers. For other subscription products such as Samaritans Feel Good Book Club, charities have been quick to point out that subscribers are quite different.

AUDIENCE

If charities decide to explore subscriber-only content, the next step might be to consider which of their audiences paid-for content could be created for. Making a symbolic divide between ‘supporters’ and ‘beneficiaries’ could be problematic.

It’s rare for a member of a charity’s community to sit squarely in one camp, especially when you throw in campaigners and volunteers, too. 

Perhaps there is an audience who engages with the charity’s work for professional development purposes. Health, education, or other professionals may already make contributions to access educational resources and see a subscription product as a more convenient way to get what they need.

Papworth-Smyth suggests that some paid-for content for supporters could be possible, too: “If charities did want to go down that route, then they could use it for exclusive celebrity content from famous supporters, or long-form content from service users.”

WHO ARE YOUR ‘CREATORS’?

Rowling thinks that charities should also consider the type, frequency, and style of content that would be created for subscribers. They are likely to have higher expectations about its quantity and quality. Charities would need to work out whether they have access to content producers with the capacity to take on this additional work.

The question of whether charities should have subscriber-only content on social media is fundamentally an ethical one. Answering it depends on having a deep understanding of the needs and desires of your audiences, particularly the people you exist to serve.

In some ways, it could be likened to the difference in a communications strategy for major donors and individual givers. Rowling says, “ethically that hasn’t often come up from my experience in terms of people saying it’s not really fair to give them a different set of information.”

As soon as you add a paywall to your communications, however, you automatically create a barrier for some people. Getting the right balance between inclusive and exclusive communications will take a lot of careful thought, planning and referring back to the reason your charity exists.