Latest / Community Marketing with Fexingo: Discord, Slack Groups, and Brand Communities / How a Brand Community Chose Its Own Charity Partner
Transcript
- Lucas: So earlier this week I was reading about a software company that handed its community the keys to its quarterly charitable donation. And I don't mean they asked members to suggest charities. I mean the community actually voted, and the company wrote a check to the winner. The engagement numbers were wild. Luna: That's a bold move. Most brands treat cause marketing like a PR button they press. Letting the community decide feels like giving up control. Lucas: Exactly. And control is what they were after. But you know, before we go deeper here, I just want to mention something. We keep this show free and completely ad-free, and that's a choice we've made from day one. If these conversations have sparked something you've actually used in your own community work, and you want to support that, you can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, it just helps us keep doing this. Luna: Yeah, it's a nice way to keep this a listener-supported thing. And honestly, the fact that there are no ads kind of fits this topic, right? Trust. Lucas: It does. So back to that software company. They had about three thousand members in their community, and they announced that each quarter, they'd donate five thousand dollars to a charity chosen by the community. They put together a shortlist of three nonprofits, all vetted by their own CSR team, and then opened a two-week discussion and voting window. Luna: So the shortlist was theirs, but the decision was the community's. That's a smart hybrid. Lucas: Right. They kept guardrails on the options, but the choice itself was genuinely theirs. And the result? Active participation in the community jumped 45 percent during that voting window. People who had been lurkers for months suddenly showed up to argue for their favorite cause. Luna: Forty-five percent is huge. What do you think drove that? The cause, or the fact that they had a say? Lucas: I think it's the combination. The cause gave them a why, but the voting gave them a stake. One member told the company, 'This is the first time I felt like my opinion actually changed something.' That's a powerful sentence. Luna: It is. It's like, you're not just a user, you're a shareholder in the brand's kindness. Lucas: Exactly. And the company didn't just run a vote and disappear. They structured it in three phases. First, they announced the shortlist with a one-paragraph explainer for each charity. Then they opened a dedicated forum thread for debate, and the moderators actively encouraged people to make their case. And only after that did the actual poll go live. Luna: So the debate phase wasn't just noise. It was the engine of engagement. Lucas: That's exactly right. The poll itself was just a button click. But the conversation before it, that's where people invested emotionally. They wrote long posts about why a local food bank mattered more than an international children's charity. They shared personal stories. One member talked about losing their mom to cancer and why they wanted the cancer research nonprofit to win. Luna: That's heavy. And it makes the decision feel consequential, not just a random online poll. Lucas: Right. And here's a detail that stuck with me. After the vote, the losing charities didn't just vanish. The company published a follow-up post explaining the final breakdown, and they promised to revisit the runners-up in future quarters. That transparency, I think, is what turned a one-off event into a recurring trust builder. Luna: So they managed the downside of losing. Because in any vote, half the people are disappointed. Lucas: And that's the riskiest part. If you let your community choose and then ignore the losing side, you can actually damage trust. This company avoided that by treating the vote as part of a longer conversation. They even created a monthly 'community impact thread' where members could discuss how the donation was being used and suggest future causes. Luna: So the decision became a portal to more engagement, not just a one-time spike. Lucas: Yes. And the numbers bear that out. Even after the voting window closed, overall community activity stayed about 20 percent above baseline for the following month. People stuck around to see what would happen next. They felt like they were part of something ongoing. Luna: That's the kind of result that makes a community manager look good in a board meeting. Lucas: It is. But it's also a reminder that this isn't a gimmick. It only works if the company genuinely listens. There's a cautionary tale here too. I remember another brand, a consumer goods company, that tried a similar thing but then overrode the community's choice because of an internal partnership conflict. The backlash was brutal. People felt betrayed. Luna: Oh, that's a classic. You can't ask for opinions and then ignore them. That's worse than not asking at all. Lucas: Exactly. So the lesson is, if you're going to do this, you have to be willing to cede real authority. A community can smell a rubber stamp from a mile away. In this software company's case, they actually let the community pick from three charities they hadn't deeply partnered with before, so there was no conflict of interest. Luna: That's a good setup. It signals that the company isn't just checking a box. Lucas: Right. And they also made the vote transparent. They used a public poll, so you could see the tally in real time. That built excitement and also accountability. People could see their contributions mattering. Luna: Did they share the results outside the community? Like on social media? Lucas: They did, actually. And that's where the acquisition angle comes in. The winning charity's supporters started sharing the news, even if they weren't community members. The company measured a notable bump in social mentions and even a few new trial sign-ups that they attributed to that wave of organic sharing. Luna: So it became a marketing asset without feeling like marketing. That's the dream. Lucas: It is. But it wasn't their primary goal. Their CMO said in a post that the real prize was trust. 'We wanted members to know that their voice has weight here,' she wrote. 'The fact that it also brought in new eyes is a bonus.' Luna: That's a great quote. And it sets a tone for the whole community. When the company shows it can be trusted with a small decision like this, it builds a foundation for more significant ones. Lucas: Exactly. And that's what I want listeners to take away. You don't need a huge budget. Five thousand dollars a quarter isn't nothing, but for a company their size, it's manageable. The real investment is the time to run the process well and the humility to follow through. Luna: So for a smaller community, could you scale this down? Like, maybe a smaller donation, but still a vote? Lucas: Absolutely. Even a five hundred dollar donation, if it's genuinely community-chosen, can spark that same feeling of ownership. The amount matters less than the act of handing over the decision. I've seen local co-ops do this with tiny budgets and still get a big engagement lift. Luna: That's heartening. It makes this feel accessible, not just for big tech companies. Lucas: And here's the last piece: don't make it a one-off. This software company committed to doing it quarterly, which turned it into a ritual. The community now anticipates it. They know that every three months, they'll get a chance to shape something real. That anticipation is a kind of engagement that's hard to buy. Luna: A ritual. That's the word. It's not a campaign, it's a tradition. Lucas: Exactly. And traditions are what turn a group of users into a community. So if you're thinking about giving your community a voice, this is a solid, low-risk place to start. Just make sure you're ready to hand over the pen.