Donor Power Blog

Inspiration to start the week

We came across this video this weekend.  Multiplier+ impact+ celebrities=powerful message.

 

 

Facebook Giving: How one donor got recruited

As social media increasingly becomes a part of the nonprofit marketers’ toolkit, many nonprofit fundraisers are wondering whether the big mama of all social networks—Facebook—is really worth the effort and investment from a fundraising perspective.

Sure, we all know we can get people to like our page, maybe post some comments, watch some videos, but, stories abound about the lack of success in terms of turning Facebook followers into donors.  Sure, there is Facebook Causes, and socially branded efforts by commercial marketers (check out the Chase Giving campaign for a great example), but can Facebook actually cultivate the kind of donor relationship that results in “real” donations?

Based on personal experience, I have to say yes.  As a fundraising professional, I get A LOT of solicitations—DM, online, TM, you name it.  And I read most of them, and every once in a while I get moved to give.

Below is the story of one organization that regularly receives donations from me, and my relationship with them exists entirely because of, and continues to be cultivated by, their Facebook presence.

I first became familiar with the Wildlife Friends of Thailand (WFFT) because a friend “recommended” it to me on Facebook. I am an animal lover, so I was eager to learn about what these folks were doing to help animals in Thailand.

Before you knew it, I was giving on their website 3-4 times a year. Why? Because the WFFT follows some very basic best practices that we all apply in our marketing programs every day, and is successfully using them on Facebook.

We all know the age-old truth that a compelling story of an individual will in most cases beat statistics and generalized calls to do “something” for “everyone.”  So, instead of telling me about the plight of animals in Thailand and making me feel helpless about the magnitude of the problem, WFFT’s posts are frequently focused on a specific need:

· We need money to help transport Jane the elephant to our facilities. Here is how we found Jane the elephant, her condition, and why we need to help her.

They also do a great job of providing updates and showing my money at work:

· Hey remember Jane the elephant that you helped us rescue? Well, here are photos of Jane, us treating her, and here is how she is doing.

They make me feel like my contribution is really accomplishing something on a regular basis (it does not disappear in some giant hole of “helping animals.”)

· Here are 7 monkeys who’ve lived with us and we’ve helped support for 6 years. See them play in their new enclosure.

They regularly thank the community for its support:

· It was hard for us to struggle through the political tensions in Thailand. Some of our largest volunteer groups cancelled. But, because of your support, we were able to continue on.

What WFFT is doing on Facebook is no different in its essence from the best practices of direct fundraising:

· Make the ask relevant and compelling

· Provide updates and feedback of donor’s money at work

· Engage donors as part of your cause and mission—turn them into constituents, not just wallets

· Create a  two-way discussion (make donors feel a part of your mission every day)

 

The moral of our story: sure Facebook is a great way to cultivate a community, spread your brand, but, tell people about your need in the right way, and it IS possible to get people, well at least some of us, to open our wallets.

 

So, ask yourself this:

· Who in your organization owns your Facebook presence and what do she/he/they believe its ultimate value prop is for the organization?

· How thorough is your Facebook post follow-up?

· How frequently do you measure the impact of calls to action (if there are any)?

· Has your organization truly developed a strategic approach to Facebook fundraising that is able to measure the long-term impact to organizational revenue from Facebook donor cultivation efforts?

 -Miriam Kagan

(Miriam is a strategy director with Merkle's nonprofit group. She is obsessed with everything Social Media and Do-Gooding.  Find her @MiriamKagan on Twitter.)

(WFFT is not a client or associated with Merkle)

Fundraising Evolution – Weathering the Storm: Reporting versus Analytics

As the fundraising industry continues to grow towards a digital future from its analog roots, the need for us as fundraisers to adopt and accept a more evolved way of assessing our business becomes imperative.   The era of informed, analytics-driven decisions and strategies is upon us.

 

Gone are the days where creative thinking and “gut feelings” alone were enough to produce success.  In today’s fundraising landscape of fragmented media, contact saturated audiences, and increasing marketing costs, finding the safest and most effective way to our donors is less like finding our way home while avoiding one storm cloud, and more like having to escape a hurricane to get there.

 

For many organizations, and many client serving agencies out there, the true value of analytics is often ignored or misrepresented because of some other mis- words like misconception and misunderstanding. 

 

That is to say, in many cases the “creative thinkers” have wrongly attributed the title of “analytics” to what is in fact “reporting”.  These reports are often times cloaked in the guise of “analytics”, but are truly only useful to us if we enjoy looking backwards and not forwards.

 

So what is the real difference between Analytics and Reporting? Or in this case “Analytics” versus True Analytics?

 

On the most basic level, the difference between reporting and analytics is the difference between reading the newspaper today to hear about what happened yesterday, versus writing today the news of tomorrow.

 

 

"...It rained yesterday..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...It will rain tomorrow..." 
  

To explain it another way, reporting is really the assessment of lagging metrics in established layouts to easily see “what” happened and “when” on a historical basis. 

 

While analytics, true analytics, is the utilization of data (perhaps even some from the land of reporting) in combination with other dependent and independent variables, mathematically and scientifically proven techniques, and robust subject matter expertise, to produce that which reveals and quantifies everything from challenges to opportunities, and facilitate truly fact-based actionable outcomes – outcomes that when strategically deployed have a very real and measurable impact on a business or organization.

 

Analytics is where the future success of fundraisers will be found, identifying deficiencies, opportunities, and optimizations ahead of popular trends.  Analytics is where a better experience for the faithful and dedicated donors will be found, putting the most relevant and desired information in front of them when they want to see it.

 

Because for today’s fundraisers - knowing the location of a past storm, the “what” and “when”, will never be as valuable as knowing the predicted path, causes, and ways to avoid the future storms, the “where”, “why”, and “how”.

 

Reporting:

What most mislabel as "Analytics"

 

 

Predictive Analytics:

Real-time decision-making power

 

 

Stephen Ferrando

Strategy Director

 

 

 

 

 

Video: Doing Good is Good for Business

This past Sunday, former President Bill Clinton was interviewed on ABC's "This Week", where he shared his thoughts on philanthropy, engaging young people in civic action, and how nonprofits, like his Clinton Global Initiative University, can make the case that doing good is actually good for businesses' bottom lines.

Skip past the politics in the first 4 minutes of the video (philanthropic discussion starts around minute 4:20) and share your thoughts with us on what nonprofits can do to engage corporations as corporate citizens.

Can't see the video? Click here to watch it on ABC.

 

Be Stupid

Seriously, be stupid when you look at something; approach it with a totally blank mind.

 

I picked up this phrase from Edward Dolnick’s  The Forger’s Spell– a book that outlines one of the greatest art forgeries of the last century and explains how a mediocre Dutch painter passed his own works off as Vermeers.  His success was due to his psychological manipulation, and he bamboozled many authoritative art historians. 

 

It is a good reminder lesson that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and a lot of knowledge can be dangerous, too.

 

(When you look at the paintings, can you tell which one is a fake?)

 
 
 
The object lesson of this story is confirmation bias. We often see what we want to see. We tell ourselves that we make decisions based on evidence when we in fact skew the results by accepting welcome news without a second glance and subject unwelcome news to further questioning.

While confirmation bias is often linked to beliefs which are based upon prejudice, faith, or tradition rather than on empirical evidence, it does apply to scientific endeavors as well.  Confirmation bias keeps researchers focused on things that tend to support rather than that those which might serve to refute a theory or point of view (good news, while we can’t assume that one person will work hard to refute his or her own theories, we can generally assume that someone else will).

 

When we realize that we have an unconscious inclination to weigh evidence selectively, we will have a better chance at recognizing and utilizing material we might have overlooked.

 

Approach test results with as open a mind as possible. Dig deeper – did a test really work?  Macro level results can say one thing, and more detailed results another. The external environment is changing and so is your file – the test that won four years ago may lose today because your file has changed (e.g., fewer new donors or more lower dollar donors). What are the neutral and lost test results telling us?  For longtime practitioners, balance “that never works” with “why we think it hasn’t worked and should we try again?” I am not saying ignore your knowledge, just be aware of the skew it can have.

 

 

 

-Becky Graninger

 

(Christ in the House of Martha and Mary)-http://www.essentialvermeer.com/vermeer_painting_part_one.html

(Christ at Emmaus, fake)-http://www.essentialvermeer.com/misc/van_meegeren.html

(The Astronomer)-http://www.essentialvermeer.com/vermeer_painting_part_one.html

 

 

Darwinism and Fundraising – an Observation.

 “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.” – Charles Darwin

Most industries, whether it be financial services, telecommunication carriers, sportswear brands, or whatever other commercial entity you can think of, go through a general business cycle as they evolve.  A period of initial expansion, where many new “players” enter into an industry to capitalize on an opportunity, is then followed by a period of contraction or consolidation, where the strongest “players” acquire, overrun, or otherwise defeat their rivals to take hold of the marketplace.  This is considered to be the healthy and natural way of things in the world of business and economics.

Now consider for a moment what has been happening in the fundraising industry.

· In 1998 there were 1,158,031 Non-Profit organizations in the United States, and by 2008 there were 1,536,134.  That is a growth rate of 33% over a short 10-year span of time. 

· The U.S. population underwent an annual rate of growth that hovered around 1%.  So the population in 2008 is approximately 10% greater than it was in 1998.

· Median Household Income over that same 10-year window of time grew at a slightly higher rate of 15%. 

· In 2007, public charities reported over $1.4 trillion in total revenues and nearly $1.3 trillion in total expenses.

(Statistics from U.S. Census Bureau and Charity Dynamics)

We begin to see the problem.   

The nonprofit industry is growing at a far more rapid rate than is the population or our median income, and fundraising itself suffers from an increasingly higher cost to raise a dollar.  Even despite the migration of the massive Baby Boomers population into that fundraising sweet spot of age 60+ and the fact that since 1998 charitable giving has steadily increased year-over-year, there just isn’t enough economic fuel to burn for this continuous sustained growth for all of the charities in the ever expanding nonprofit sector of the future.

The newly-created nonprofits that spring up across the years all believe they have a viable chance at sustainability, and who can blame them?  Their causes are no doubt worthy and urgent, and as we know many needs go unmet even despite such a large universe of nonprofit organizations.  But that just isn’t a fair or realistic expectation. 

The pot of charitable dollars that the U.S. population is willing to contribute annually is rapidly approaching its threshold, which means that either charities need to redefine what a successful year means – where growth from one year to the next might not be possible – or larger organizations may need to begin to consider acquiring or absorbing smaller organizations of similar mission to eliminate the competition for charitable dollars.  At the very least small organizations will soon need to band together to leverage the “strength in numbers” approach, in order to manage an ever-increasing cost to market to their donors.  If not just for the benefit of the industry, for the good of the donors across the United States who are being flooded with donation requests.

A good donor for your organization is likely a good donor for another organization, and as a single donor spreads his or her charitable dollars around, he or she quickly becomes a multi-buyer in the world of list rentals – which leads to a massive load of impressions.  The donor’s mailbox quickly fills with appeals and prospect pieces from local, regional, and national charities.  The donor’s online inboxes overflow with an endless stream of emails.  And not too far in the distance, the donor’s cell phone will be buzzing with text message after text message.  All of these contacts vying for the same pot of charitable dollars. 

My point is that it is unfair to the donors who are now bombarded with requests for support from every direction, when all they did “wrong” was make a generous gift to a cause they deemed worthwhile to them.    For the good of the donors the time to start considering consolidation, cooperation, partnerships, and co-branding between nonprofit organizations is upon us – and we need to decide if we embrace this new reality, or if we ignore it – risking further alienation of the donor population and ultimately leading us as fundraisers to a future not unlike that of the dinosaurs. 

Because as Charles Darwin would no doubt tell us, "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed at adapting themselves best to their environment."

-Stephen Ferrando

Stephen is a Strategy Director at Merkle with a combined 12-years of expertise in both commercial  and nonprofit marketing, strategy, and analytics.  In his free time Stephen is working on becoming a ninja, as well as focusing on his life-long dream of completing the last side on his Rubix Cube.

 

 

 

An Equal Opportunity Stimulus

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill allowing taxpayers who make a donation to victims of the Haitian earthquake to claim a charitable donation when filing their 2009 taxes this spring.  

Nonprofits who have the most to gain from this legislation, such as the American Red Cross and other disaster relief organizations, “wholeheartedly” favor this move because it encourages people to continue supporting their relief efforts. 

My initial thought that this was a good thing.  Anything done to motivate more people to support earthquake victims in Haiti should be encouraged and of course, is greatly appreciated.  A comment made by Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who said, “it’s a simple gesture, but it will encourage giving in this challenging economy,” has me rethinking my position. 

The generosity of the American people is well documented, especially in times of natural disaster.  In fact, in the week following the Haiti earthquake, individual donations to the Red Cross, alone, exceeded $130,000,000.  A genuine and compassionate desire to help the people of Haiti is the motivation behind these gifts, not the promise of personal gain and incentive.

What message is being sent to all the other American charities struggling in this economy?  What about concerns that as donations are redirected to Haiti there could be greater hardships here in America?  Why would the House encourage people to give only to the earthquake victims when there is so much need here in our country? 

Are they saying that feeding and sheltering America’s growing population of hungry and homeless, caring for our nation’s sick or preventing life-threatening diseases is any less noble than the relief efforts in Haiti? 

If Rep. Blumenauer is correct and the bill is designed to stimulate giving, then the only equitable solution is to extend the same tax incentives to all tax payers making donations to any approved American charity. 

-Greg Fox

What can we learn from TV’s most popular curmudgeon?

I am referring to Gregory House, the brilliant medical diagnostician who is the poster-child for unconventional thinking.  

Season 4 introduced a group of Fellowship candidates that had to compete to make the final team of three.  In Guardian Angels (episode 404 if you are interested), House axes the oldest candidate because the candidate thinks too much like House (ignore the fake doctor part). House needs alternatives. His professional relationship with his colleague Wilson is similar. He often says that Wilson’s thinking is nonlinear and sloppy, but it takes House down roads he normally wouldn't go.

How does this apply to fundraisers?  Well, in case you hadn't noticed, most of us are working in mature media or in mature organizations; now add in the effects of the “Great Recession”. We have to think seriously about what we do, how to grow, what to do better, faster and more effectively, and what new things to try.

 

We need to challenge ourselves and that means we have to look at things differently. So, while it is comfortable to develop a sounding-board of people who finish your sentences, look for a few who don't. Develop a cadre of people where you often have to explain, argue and resist. It will make you a better thinker and that will make you a better fundraiser.

 

-Becky Graninger

 

What can we learn from TV’s most popular curmudgeon?

I am referring to Gregory House, the brilliant medical diagnostician who is the poster-child for unconventional thinking.  

 

Season 4 introduced a group of Fellowship candidates that had to compete to make the final team of three.  In Guardian Angels (episode 404 if you are interested), House axes the oldest candidate because the candidate thinks too much like House (ignore the fake doctor part). House needs alternatives. His professional relationship with his colleague Wilson is similar. He often says that Wilson’s thinking is nonlinear and sloppy, but it takes House down roads he normally wouldn't go.

 

How does this apply to fundraisers?  Well, in case you hadn't noticed, most of us are working in mature media or in mature organizations; now add in the effects of the “Great Recession”. We have to think seriously about what we do, how to grow, what to do better, faster and more effectively, and what new things to try.

 

We need to challenge ourselves and that means we have to look at things differently. So, while it is comfortable to develop a sounding-board of people who finish your sentences, look for a few who don't. Develop a cadre of people where you often have to explain, argue and resist. It will make you a better thinker and that will make you a better fundraiser.

 

-Becky Graninger

 

Compete or Cooperate?

USA Today recently published an article about several animal welfare charities cooperating with each other in dogfighting and disaster rescues; they included HSUS, ASPCA, American Humane, UAN and Best Friends.  

 

Kudos to those organizations for working together, because like many same-cause non-profits that compete for money from the same funding sources, those in the animal sphere vigorously protect their own individual projects and successes. The groups' differing approaches, scope and reach, plus, some ego issues, often block the notion of cooperation, except in occasional joint pushes for legislation. (source: Sharon L. Peters, Special for USA TODAY)

 

Earlier this year I heard another example of cross-organizational cooperation that involved joint fundraising and joint mission delivery.  This instance included an animal organization and a children’s services agency who shared a common entry point. Their innovation – combined home checks for pets and kids along with the provision of various education services.

 

I know … cooperation is hard, whether within, or across, departments in your own organization, much less across organizations. But remember, fundraising is a group effort because it involves people working together, and if you are a successful fundraiser, you already practice partnership.

 

Take it to the next level because working with another nonprofit may help open new avenues of donor engagement. (How to do this? Have drinks with a peer from another organization and then talk about all the things that you want to accomplish. You may be able to do things together that you couldn’t do on your own.)

 

-Becky Graninger

 

Taking “Thanksgiving” for Granted?

Depending on what poll you look you at, Thanksgiving rates as Americans' second favorite holiday, albeit a distant second to Christmas.  To me, however, it’s by far my top holiday.  Maybe that’s because it’s never been compromised.  It’s as pure today as it was decades ago. 

 

Thanksgiving is really very simple.  It’s a time for being with our inner circle—our family and closest friends.  It’s a day when we can simply be thankful. 

 

No one appreciates the “Thanksgiving” more than direct mail fundraisers.  The difference, however, is that it’s not a word that defines a specific day on our calendar, but rather a word that describes our purpose – “giving thanks” to all those wonderful people who support America’s charities through their generosity.  Few, if any, fundraisers would argue that gift acknowledgement isn’t a vital part of their overall direct mail strategy.

 

Yet, actions speak louder than words.  In my opinion, our actions suggest that fundraisers take “thanksgiving” for granted.  I’ll go a step further and suggest that if you stop and think about it, we neglect it all together.

 

Just think about your own gift acknowledgement program. When was the last time you took inventory of your gift acknowledgement strategy? Do you even have a defined and comprehensive approach to gift acknowledgement and do you know its true impact on overall program performance?  If you are like most (and you are honest), the odds are you really don’t. Chances are you spend very little time thinking about it. 

 

Do yourself, your organization, and most importantly your contributors and donors a huge favor and take inventory of your “Thanksgiving” strategy:  

 

• What is the purpose of my gift acknowledgement program?
• Is my gift acknowledgement program on auto pilot?
• Do I act as if my gift acknowledgement is a process or a strategy?
• How much time do you spend thinking about your gift acknowledgement strategy – daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, never?
• When is the last time you tested gift acknowledgement strategies and/or tactics?
• How many days does it take before your donor is acknowledged?
• Do you have a minimum ROI threshold for gift acknowledgement?
• Are all donors acknowledged, regardless of the size of their gift?
• Do you treat regained lapsed donors differently than you do an active donor or new donor?
• Can you quantify the value of your gift acknowledgement program, which also includes New Donor Welcome packages?
• Do you acknowledge actions other than financial contributions?

Lastly, did you take the opportunity to “re-thank” your most loyal and valuable donors for all their support over the past two years, especially since the tough economic climate made giving more difficult for most?  Did you re-thank valuable lapsed donors for their past support and ask that they keep your organization in mind once the economy improves?

 

On behalf of everyone here at Merkle, we hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday, and above all else, we are most thankful for your support and interest in our DonorPower Blog. 

 

-Greg Fox

A Tribute to an All-American Fundraiser

On January 3, 2010, Bruce Joyner will officially raise his last dollars as an employee for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF).  Amazingly, 33 years earlier (to the day), he raised his first dollars as a professional fundraiser – that too for children suffering from cystic fibrosis.   

 

After a long, selfless and esteemed fundraising career (all of which was at CFF), Bruce Joyner will soon begin his journey into retirement.  It will mark the end to an incredible career in which he accomplished far more than he ever imagined.    Through his unique fundraising versatility, Bruce has raised, directly or indirectly, many hundreds of millions of dollars for cystic fibrosis research.  

 

Perhaps, above all else, Bruce Joyner’s fundraising career will be best defined by two things: his “grandfather” letter and his passion to personally thank every donor for their contribution to the CF Foundation.

 

So what’s next for Bruce? He’s being pretty close-mouthed on his future plans. 

I’m sure he’ll continue hosting his annual bike ride, from which he donates pledges and contributions to the fight against cystic fibrosis, and I most certainly expect that we’ll see him fishing along the Carolina coast. 

 

There is wide spread speculation among his closest friends, however, that we just might find Bruce, on o’kayson, sitting back with a couple of sticks in his hand, simply “girl watching.”

 

No kidding. It’s a well know fact, at least around his home town of Wilson, North Carolina, that Bruce is a “girl watcher.” The concern is that with so much idle time on his hands, Bruce might just revert back to his olds ways. 

 

What’s that you wonder? Well, a little known fact about Bruce Joyner is that before becoming a fundraiser, he was a 1960s ROCK STAR! That’s right. As drummer for a band called the O’Kaysons, Bruce received a gold record for their hit song, “I’m a Girl Watcher.”   Take a look at this rare music video footage: (remember he’s the drummer).

 

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raJWuz7qQVc&feature=related

 

It’s truly been a pleasure to have worked with Bruce for nearly 75% of his fundraising career and even a greater honor to be able to call him a friend.   Please join me in extending a heartfelt thanks to Bruce Joyner for 33 years of dedication and outstanding contributions to our industry.  He is truly a great American fundraiser.

 

-Greg Fox