“The NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) has created Help Desk case HD————-, for your issue concerning VIRTUAL VOLUNTEERING. Your case has been escalated to an NSSC Subject Matter Expert (SME) for research and resolution. The resolution time for your case is expected to be 3 to 5 business days. If we are not able to resolve your issue within this time, we will contact you.
We are dedicated to providing you with a quality and timely resolution.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact us at 1-877-NSSC123 (1-877-677-2123), or email nssc-contactcenter@nasa.gov. For quicker service, reference your case number HD————- when calling or in the subject line of your email.
The NSSC Customer Service Website is designed with you in mind.
Check it out at https://www.nssc.nasa.gov/customerservice”
That was an email from NASA in response to my questions about their crater labeling program.
I’m going to do a little comparing and contrasting. As shown, NASA has a high level of customer service and seriousness. Although they haven’t answered my questions about their crater-labeling program, they show that they will get back to me. Also, notice the authority connoted in this email. There is obviously a hierarchy of responsibility, too. Someone’s in charge, and I’m sure they have a great team working on each aspect of their duties.
Now let’s look at the ‘Painting’ group on Beliefnet.com.
‘Pitza’ is the group administrator, and he does a good job of writing on all the discussion board threads. But that’s basically what the group is. Even though the description says,
“PAINTING (also known as ‘Painting for Charity’) is the collective name of people from around the world who draw, paint pictures or are involved in crafts, photography or creative writing as a way of raising money for people in need”,
there is no push toward collaboration. I even brought up virtual volunteering on a thread, and nobody was familiar with the term. Only when you dig into Painting for Charity’s website can you find information about joining the movement.
From looking at these two totally different volunteering sites, I think the success of virtual volunteering comes from establishment. NASA is, well, NASA. It has the means and the power to invest in their virtual volunteering program. This program can be successful for two reasons: 1) NASA’s been around for a while, and people trust them, 2) Every little girl and boy dreams of being part of NASA; there’s something rewarding about being able to have input on their information. ‘Painting’, on the other hand, doesn’t have the same means. Beliefnet is not famous, and neither is Painting for Charity. The site doesn’t host the tools needed for good communication; there aren’t many options to work with. On top of this, the playing field is pretty level. Sure, ‘Pitza’ is the official leader, but for everyone else, the site is a place to wander to now and again. That’s the other thing- there is no reward system. For NASA, at least there’s an ego boost for you, but on ‘Painting’, there isn’t that extra motivation to do anything amazing.
4 Comments
Your observation in contrasting these two websites is interesting, but my question is, are the fan bases of these websites different? Who tends to flock toward online charity on the Nasa website, and who visits a more obscure and unknown website like painting? It seems like NASA would have the monopoly on the online charity market. For that matter, with all our discussions about anonymity on the web, why would people who frequent online websites need recognition. Online charity seems like a really quick way to help out (for the ones that are actually legitimate), not something that its participants really need to be noticed for.
Nice observation.
I wonder, can anyone really complete successful community service without a solid “community”? Like “Painting”, for example, how can they achieve anything without any structured cohesiveness? Has the internet been able to enable community for the “Painting” (seems not the case)?
NASA, on the other hand, seems to have everything under control. I wonder why NASA has decided to start an online charity. OK, I understand the perks of online charities, but still — is there any way to ensure that what you’re doing for an online charity is actually making a difference?
I love where your research has taken you. It is very interesting to see these two sites contrast with each other. I think the fact that there is no reward system is interesting. However, if you think about it, there’s no real reward system in real life volunteering as well…i mean it doesn’t seem too different from virtual volunteering…am I right?
I agree with the statement you made in the last paragraph in which you talked about incentives and how there is a tremendous amount of motivation for you to be involved with NASA because they are so well established and almost have a flawless reputation. Isn’t the power of a brand remarkable? I compare this phenomenon of gaining more and more support to a bank account. At first, not much interest can be yielded because there simply is not much money in the bank. However, as your funds grow, you are able to earn more interest much like the way organizations like NASA don’t have to exert much energy to secure volunteers like Becky. NASA has become so successful that they don’t need to put ads in the paper! One day they may have to turn people away!