Twestival, the world charity fundraiser organised by Twitter users has returned after last February’s international event. Billed as “a series of tweet-ups with a social conscious” the event has drawn massive support from new media users and generally positive press from those technologically savvy enough to be aware of its existence. This year, I attended London Twestival at Vinopolis on 10 September, a glam party certainly a sight more impressive than I remember Twestival San Jose from February (apparently the cool kids had gone to San Francisco that night).

Of course the first Twestival drew detractors and a particularly vocal opponent to some of the self-important chatter surrounding the event was The Register’s Andrew Orlowski. This time, Orlowski has once again weighed in with a Twestival review and cites similar problems the second time around – namely the fact that, for a charity fundraiser, Twestival pretty much fails to convert the tweet-friendly booze-fests into so much as a underpaid social worker’s salary let alone a sizable contribution to the charity of choice. Orlowski writes

Now, bear in mind that these are some of the best-paid people in the UK. They’re employed in marketing, advertising, public relations, web design and journalism - competitive jobs in an expensive capital city. But they were so busy air-kissing, they forgot to put their hands in their pockets. More money probably fell on the floor of Tube trains later that night, as these yuppies slumbered their way home, than they raised for charidee.

London Twestival asks for £15 up front for a ticket - guaranteeing they will extract at least some money from the tight-fisted expense account holders. The recipient charity ChildLine hopes for £16,000 from ticket sales and sponsorships.

There is a serious error when a massive charity event in a city like London aims to raise £16,000. £16,000 is peanuts to the major charitable organisations. Orlowski is right to call for a reevaluation of the whole process and the congratulatory follow up in particular. Where I disagree with his view, however, is in the underlying cause of this ineptitude to raise serious amounts of money. There is no doubt that the hearts of Twestival organisers are in decidedly the right place and I would argue the lack of funds actually raised have less to do with any perceived self-importance of the attendees but with a larger issue that faces new media and 21st century charity drives.

Many people – and techie social media and ‘net users in particular – have become crippled by a sense that they are entitled to receive everything for free. Music, movies and television stream like water through the web. The most powerful enterprise software can be experienced through open source downloads. And anything that isn’t free is available at a fraction of the cost through Ebay, Craigslist or bargain websites. This is the generation that believes that to raise awareness and support for their favourite charity the best step they can take is to change their Facebook or Twitter user icons.

How, then, is a charity going to compete with this mentality? Why is it surprising that to the attendees of Twestival, simply attending the event is enough of a display of support? For a demographic where time carries more weight than money it’s less about an active decision not to donate but more about an underlying belief that really, all one has to do to make things happen, is to shout loudly enough about it on their social network of choice. Problem is, you’re shouting very loudly in a very small room and the people and organisations that need support are in another building down the street. A building where money still talks.

Twestival is an excellent opportunity for Twitter users to interact with one another in their local towns and cities – it even manages to turn that social opportunity into a bit of spare change for good causes. But new media is a long way from being able to efficiently support charities that could use the financial and creative help of new media users. Unless the belief that free goods and services are a right, and that money is secondary to number of followers, size of digital footprint or recognisability of the event’s booze sponsor are of primary importance, charities are going to struggle to get what they need from the social concious new media crowd.

By Meaghan Fitzgerald