You can't control the conversation

So what is this "Web 2.0 conversation" we keep hearing about? Interesting answer at Beyond Madison Avenue, in The Real Digital Revolution:

All the noise you hear ... about "conversations" is often just a fancy term for people sharing objective opinions of products on review sites, blogs and other digital media. The "conversation" is when the marketer responds to criticism with a pledge to try harder or some such.... But enough "conversations" about how bad your product is, no amount of clever advertising or radical media placement is going to save it.

It doesn't matter what the brand is trying to say about a company; the customers have their own say about it. And customers will believe other customers more than they believe the marketing.

It's only a matter of time before nonprofits start getting the same treatment of being rated, commented on, and critiqued in public by donors. (I've seen a couple of sites that make a run at doing this, but none that really make it count; if you know of any, tell me about it!) If you're ready for this, it'll be good. If not, ouch.

Here's what to do:

1. Pay a lot of attention to your donor experience. What does it feel like to donate to your organization? Do they get acknowledged promptly? Do they learn about the impact of their giving? Do they get choices about what their money does and how you'll communicate with them?
   
2. Make sure what you do is really, really cool. That's partly a matter of describing what you do in a way that wins hearts and minds. It's doing something nobody else does, or doing it in a better way. Or doing it in a way that more closely involves donors.
   
3. Don't have a scandal. That's right, just take that scandal right off your calendar. It will follow you around for a looooong time if it happens.
   

Attempts to force-fed them your "brand standards" are meaningless at best. (At worst, they'll just remind donors why they don't trust you.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, Web 2.0

Comments

[Steve Cunningham]

Jeff - I couldn't agree more. And I think the only way to win hearts and minds is to create meaning in their lives. Easier said than done of course.

And the donor's ability to interact not only with your organization's brand, but with other people who interact with that brand as well (through blogs, rating websites, etc...), is a double edged sword.

When you do it (make meaning) right, your donors will do your marketing for you. Do it wrong, and you'll be spending the majority of your time climbing out from underneath the mess.

[Danielle Hamilton]

I am not looking forward to any rating sites about nonprofits. Those review sites for products can truly skew real analysis. I give little credence to most of those sites and comments on products because of the improper balance of ratings, and the lack of respectability from the raters.

I hate seeing negative comments on a product at Amazon.com that is only written because the person could not figure out a simple function on a camera or toy. If the negative comment were written by someone with authority (an engineer) and not an inept person, then the review could weigh a little heavier. And, how many people like a product, but just never review it? Typically, you only review something if it really pushes you one way or another; you love it or hate it. Not really a great call to action there!

As with many 'one way conversations,' very few donors are going to promote the positive interaction they received with a nonprofit. But, take longer than a day to write a thank you card, or not sign it in blue ink, and it practically makes front page news. Again, the balance is shifted allowing one person's 'perceived' slight to overshadow an entire organization. This means our margin of error in donor relations is always at stake. Treat each person amazingly every single time without fail!

I wonder how many nonprofits actually evaluate their donor experience by 'being' a donor, or looking at the process with truly open eyes.

[Emily Tormey]

I agree with Jeff; both from the standpoint of a potential donor and as a board member of a nonprofit. As a donor, I'm sometimes not sure about whether or not the organization is credible and what I can expect from my participation in their fundraising efforts. As a PR and advertising student and board member of a non-profit org, I welcome the expanding opportunities for donors and organizational management to converse and find out what is important to both parties. So much easier than organizing (and paying for) focus groups! I disagree with Danielle that a person's "perceived" slight shouldn't count as much as the expert's opinion. Unfortunately, donors, just like other product users on sites like Amazon can seem to be "inept" but we shouldn't discount their opinion because of their so-called ineptitude. Aren't these people the ones we are relying on? Nonprofit experts and fundraising professionals aren't the majority of the donor pool - regular people are. And if they perceive the organization to be faulty, then it may as well be. After all, isn't word of mouth the most common form of advertising? Unfortunately in today's word of instant Internet communication, no amount of expert opinion will eradicate the unfavorable reputation originating from the personal antidote of a wretched customer service experience or, worse yet, an ethical slip-up.