**1. Introduction**

The importance of digital communication (hereafter DC) is often related to higher performance in for-profits but less often in non-profit organizations. Organizations considered as innovative engage in new ideas, attitudes, or behaviors that depart from their previous routines or strategies. Such ideas are often transmitted by, or easily traced in DC and the information-technology media, but these advantages seem to have been neglected until recently in the nonprofit sector and outcomes following DC exposure are generally ambiguous (Sidel & Cour, 2003). This is probably because performance in nonprofits is not always clearly defined as the multiple stakeholders involved in nonprofit management have conflicting ideas about criteria of performance. Some suggest that social goals cannot be properly attained through DC whereas others show promising increases in economic goals donations and participation- via digital sites. Not surprisingly, the disagreement as to whether DC definitely improves digital performance (hereafter DP) is an open field for investigation.

The present chapter elaborates on this aspect and attempts to develop a conceptual framework for assessing the contingent effects that mediate the DC - DP link (hereafter DCP) in nonprofit settings. We present a taxonomy based on the stakeholders' approach, followed by a conceptual model addressing: (a) type of organization; (b) type of stakeholder; and (c) type of performance. Lastly, we offer a set of propositions leading to the development of hypotheses for examining DCP links that enable formulation of empirical tests (Beckey, Elliot, & Procket, 1996).

DC enables information to be created, edited, stored, discarded or organized, and is easily accessed from relevant recipients or links in and between different facets of an organization, and/ or social systems composed from multiple stakeholders . In nonprofits DC enables introducing and maintaining innovative services that increase social visibility (Corder, 2001; Balser & McKlusky, 2005; Herman & Renz, 2004). DC is therefore associated naturally with enhanced performance in nonprofits because " ... by making that information available centrally, data can be consolidated, trends can be identified, and campaigns and resources can be more effectively focused ... " (Burt & Taylor 2003, p. 125). Critics of the DC-DP link point though, that defining performance in nonprofits is problematic because the nonprofits rely - among other criteria - on the successful recruitment of social support which can only be attained through face to face interactions (Baruch & Ramalho, 2006; Mano, 2009, 2010).

Indeed the distinction between social and economic goals and their respective terms of effectiveness vs. efficiency suggest that the higher the number of supportive agents the higher that organizational effectiveness whereas organizational efficiency is linked to increasing economic returns to organizational objectives using internal and external resources to produce maximum results with a minimal investment.

As competition increases nonprofit organizations are often "trapped" by the importance of economic criteria of performance, pursuing efficiency (Galaskiewicz & Bielefeld, 1998). Efficiency though does not attest to the nature of nonprofit goals because the quality and importance of social goals is not easily measured and organizations can be efficient in certain dimensions and less efficient in others. As a result efficient operations reflect a limited and often distorted view of performance in nonprofits (Bielefeld (1992).

As remote communication services and the number of internet users increase nonprofits have turned to DC to improve their efficiency levels -lower costs- and effectiveness to increase social visibility by addressing potential audiences and improving relationships existing supporters -volunteers and funding- and develop new alliances. Some have found new efficiencies in their operations when advocating issues, as well as increased funding from virtually unchanged DC. In 2001 Olsen and Keevers made an exploratory study of how voluntary organizations employed 'button' options to enable different forms of contributing, e.g. Donate now; Donate; Donate Online; Giving, How you can help, Join or Give, Make a donation, Show your support. Similarly, the ePhilanthropy Foundation has developed the 'ePhilanthropy Toolbox' as a way of drawing attention to the wide array of techniques and services available. The elements of the toolbox fall into six categories, namely: Communication/Education and stewardship; Online donations and membership; Event registrations and management; Prospect research; Volunteer recruitment and management; and Relationship-building and advocacy (Hart, 2002).

With this taxonomy it is logical to assume that there is need to distinguish between different criteria of performance. In the present study we first distinguish between (a) effectiveness attainment of organizational goals, and (b) efficiency - the economically "best" outcome for organizational operations; then we distinguish between two types of stakeholders: (a) public - recipients of services and providers of services at the national level; (b) private individuals and organizational agents of support. Finally, we distinguish between individual level and organizational level outcomes of DC, applying these dimensions to two basic types of organization, i.e. service and advocacy groups.

A proposed model suggests that DC can give rise to different forms of DP (Seshadri, & Carstenson, 2007), but this necessitates adopting the suggestion that NPO performance is influenced by the different expectations of stakeholders. Accordingly, DC can either enhance effectiveness, i.e. attainment of the organization's social goals; or efficiency, i.e. attaining economically satisfactory outcomes.
