Donor Power Blog

What wealthy donors want

Ever wonder what it's like to be one of your donors? There's an interesting study out from the University of Pennsylvania's Center for High Impact Philanthropy that doesn't quite get you into your donors' heads, but it does give you a look at how some high-end donors think: "I'm Not Rockefeller": 33 High Net Worth Philanthropists Discuss Their Approach to Giving (PDF).

(It's also summarized in the Chronicle of Philanthropy at New Study Sheds Light on What Wealthy Donors Care About; Many Say They Will Support Operating Costs.

It's worthwhile just hearing what they say. Sometimes surprising. I found three interesting points:

1. Their main source of information on what organizations to support is social contacts:

... most donors said they choose which charities to support by relying on information obtained from peers and other social contacts, rather than doing research or turning to watchdog organizations ...

2. They prefer to support tangible projects:

Donors frequently reported that it is difficult to track the results of their gifts. Consequently, some said that they intentionally give to tangible or time-limited projects such as a new building or a scholarship with easy-to-observe results.

3. But most don't mind helping cover operating costs.

The report is worth reading.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

How much email is too much? It depends

We often live in mortal fear of overmailing our donors, especially email, which we can send without the cost limitations of postal mail. Surely, there's a point where you're sending so much email you become an annoying spammer. The DMA (UK) Email Marketing Blog looks at this questions at Maximising ROI without overmailing.

The post points out that there's not one "right" frequency of mailing for the entire file. Every email file has different groups that behave very differently from each other:

• 1 - 5% of the list open, click and buy almost every time they receive a message.
  
• 40 - 60% of the list will interact with the offer mailing once or twice a year.
  
• 35 - 55% of the people on the list will not have opened or clicked, let alone bought off an email you sent in over a year.
  

This insight -- that your file is not one monolithic group, all experiencing your messages in the same way -- frees you to be more relevant to more people: For the first group, you can probably send even more. For the second group, you're likely about right. For the third group, you're almost surely sending too much already.

And you'll know if you're getting it right because you're testing.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, email, nptech

Don't bother blogging

Yesterday, we asked if your CEO should blog for your organization. Today, let's take it a step further: Should you have a blog at all?

B.L. Ochman's What's Next Blog gives us 10 Reasons Your Company Shouldn't Blog:

• Most blogs ... are boring.
  
• A blog has to have a personal voice.
  
• You need original content.
  
• Blogging takes time -- lots of it.
  
• You need to read constantly to be a good blogger.
  
• A blog is not a substitute for a marketing campaign.
  
• A blog is not a substitute for advertising.
  
• A blog is not a quick fix -- the results come in the long term, the same way they do with PR.
  
• Blogs are not cheap.
  
• You need to drive traffic to a blog.
  

The point isn't that having a blog is a dumb thing. It's that doing it right takes real commitment. Before you dive in, make sure you're committed, willing to do (and spend) what it takes. Or you'll be talking in an empty room.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, blogging, nptech

Don't make your CEO write your blog

Who's going to write your organization's blog? Your CEO?

Not such a good idea, says Katya's Non-Profit Marketing Blog, at Should you make your CEO blog? The point:

It takes a huge amount of energy and time to blog. You have to be really enthusiastic about the medium, or it's really not going to work.

Any CEO's time and energy are at a premium. A blog would have to be awfully good and reach a whole lot of the right people to justify the amount of time it would consume.

(For example, this blog takes about eight hours a week to maintain. That's a meaningful time commitment, but it's worthwhile to my organization, Merkle. But I doubt it would be worth that much of our CEO's time. He has a lot of other fish to fry.)

Beyond the question of time, you have to ask if your CEO actually wants to do it. And keep doing it. Blogging is a long slog. If you don't enjoy the journey itself, the destination probably isn't worth the trouble.

I'm sure there are nonprofit CEOs out there who do (or should) write great blogs that really engage people and forward their organization's mission. But I'm with Katya: It's not likely to work.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, blogging, nptech

Did your mission shift? Really?

It seems that at some stage in nearly every nonprofit organization's life, there comes an urge to repudiate its mission. To say We don't do what everyone thinks we do.

This may be the right thing to do.

Or it may be a dishonest disaster.

Let's look at the issue in the life of a fictional organization called Save the Penguins. For years they've accomplished their penguin-saving mission was to scoop up penguins from dangerous icebergs and deposit them on safe icebergs.

Then, that magical moment arrives. Someone at Save the Penguins says, We don't save penguins.

There are several possible scenarios that might have prompted this belief. Here are a few:

Scenario 1
In addition to saving penguins, Save the Penguins now also saves auks, which face similar dangers on the icebergs.

In this case, they're still saving penguins. The addition of auks to their portfolio doesn't change that, and few donors would complain about the auks. They do need to be clear that they're saving more than penguins, but the claim that they "don't save penguins" is fatuous and false.

Scenario 2
The new way Save the Penguins works is to teach safety seminars to the penguins so they waddle over to the safer icebergs on their own and avoid the dangerous ones. They tell their penguin babies and penguin friends about this "waddle-to-safety" technique. It's replicable, and a lot more penguins get saved in the long run.

They're still saving penguins. They're doing it better than ever. They owe it to themselves not to change their message. A narrow interpretation of "saving" as an activity exclusively involving helicopters and nets is meaningless. They have no good reason to change their core messaging.

Scenario 3
The penguins-in-danger problem is over. All the penguins waddle to the safe icebergs without prompting. But the auks still need saving, and that's what the organization does now.

It's clear: They are no longer saving penguins. They need to think and talk differently about what they do.

If your organization is in the "let's change everything" stage, ask yourself why. If the reason is you're just bored with the old way, that's not valid reason to change. If the reason is you want to impress people with your new higher level of sophistication, that's not a reason to change. But if the reason is you really aren't doing the old thing any more in any way -- that's a good reason to change.

The cost of change can be high. Don't do it simply for self-expressive reasons.

Technorati Tag: branding

What's really wrong with direct mail fundraising?

Are nonprofits dangerously addicted to direct mail for fundraising? Michael Gilbert at Nonprofit Online News thinks so at The Direct Mail Addiction. His point is that direct mail is stuck in such an unimaginative, inauthentic mindset that even the voice it uses is problematic:

This voice lacks humor and irony. It is often pompous, cliched, and insincere. It almost never sounds like a real human being. It's overdesigned and of obvious expense. It is emotionally untouchable. Most critically, it provides for no listening whatsoever. It is utterly one-to-many in nature, with the single sad exception of our ability to receive funds.

I don't know whether to day amen or give me a break. This is a spot-on description of bad fundraising. And I think anyone who pays attention would have to admit that there's a lot more bad than good fundraising in the mailbox these days.

But the problem isn't caused by direct mail. The problem is caused by fundraisers who are:

• Unable give power to donors.
  
• So wrapped up in their brand that they can't see their donors.
  
• Afraid to try anything new.
  
• So committee and consensus driven that authentic voice is impossible.
  

Guess what: You can have all those problems no matter what medium you use.

(I do have to disagree about humor; as much as I like it myself, humor is not conducive to compassion -- most humor is a little bit mean. And jokes don't cross generational lines very successfully, which is what virtually all fundraising has to do.)

There's no question we really need to be more sincere, more real, more human. We've got to learn to listen to donors. And we'd better figure out how to get the right message to the right donor at the right time -- in in the right medium. If we don't, we're screwed. Add to that the spiraling costs of direct mail, and the fact that every day more people choose the Internet as the place they communicate, connect, and transact -- it's easy to see that direct mail is not where the action will be forever.

But if we don't change the way we think about donors and how we talk to them, our fundraising is going to be lame (and ultimately self-defeating) whether the Postal Service is involved or not.

I hope more fundraisers will get it right -- in every media. I know for a fact that some are.

Technorati Tags: direct mail, marketing

How to make time for fundraising

How often has your organization let fundraising slip through the cracks?

If it has ever happened, you've lost money. But it happens.

Duct Tape Marketing has an idea for you, at I Don't Have Time for Marketing:

Marketing is and must become a habitual activity in your business. You must live by the marketing calendar or die by the lack of time available to complete the greasing of the squeaky wheel.

It's true for businesses, and it's even more true for nonprofits: marketing (fundraising) is time-consuming, and it's likely not the main reasons you're in the organization you've chosen. You may even find it difficult, unrewarding, and distasteful. It's the first thing you'll not do when things get busy. Which is always.

The discipline of a calendar you follow without fail can keep you on track.

Technorati Tag: marketing

Podcast: Program vs. Fundraising: How to Break the Tension

In almost every nonprofit organization there's tension between program people (those who do the organization's mission) and fundraising people (those who raise the money to make the work possible). This podcast reveals some things you can do to ease the tension, keep the peace, and move forward in a way that brings about the most good for everyone.

To listen, click here to download the audio file or visit the Fundraising Is Beautiful page here, where you'll find several listening and subscription options.

Or subscribe with iTunes:

Is the Red Cross losing its cool?

Is the Red Cross becoming uncool?

I know it sounds like an idle question, but it could start to matter. To the Red Cross, as well as other top-brand nonprofits.

Check out this post at Personal Democracy Forum: Really, Give to the Red Cross?, which takes the Obama campaign to task for directing its supporters to donate to the Red Cross during the recent hurricane threats:

Supporting the Red Cross is like supporting General Motors -- they're both large, unwieldy bureaucracies that are way past their prime and need to get their acts together and stop depending on the Feds to do it for them.

That's not a completely fair description of the Red Cross. But it you have to wonder: Does the Red Cross seem like a lumbering, ineffective dinosaur? That's a different question from "Is the Red Cross a lumbering, ineffective dinosaur?" -- because its about perception, not reality. And while perception and reality are linked, perception has more impact.

The long string of organizational woes and scandals that have swirled around that venerable organization may be coming home to roost in the form of people just not liking them. That could start to hurt fundraising efforts in a very big way.

Reality check: When disasters happen, most Americans automatically think Red Cross. It's going to take a long time and a lot more missteps to change that.

But if a new generation is not proud to be associated with the Red Cross, they'll find other places to give. If the Red Cross was my client, I'd be spending a lot of my energy thinking how to turn that around. Because once you lose your coolness, you can't really get it back.

Thanks to Tactical Philanthropy for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, Red Cross

Should you raise funds for disasters?

When disaster hits, people are moved to action. Donations to nonprofits surge. It's a fact of life. But more than a few people have noted that disaster relief is not the most impactful way to help people in need.

You'll see this argument at The GiveWell Blog, in The case against disaster relief.

When a natural disaster and humanitarian crisis hits the headlines, many of us ... reach straight for our wallets. Emergencies have an easier time getting our attention (and emotional investment) than the chronic health problems that plague the developing world every day. But ... emergency aid is one of the worst uses of donations, despite being one of the most emotionally compelling. (Emphasis added.)

(Note that GiveWell is aimed not at fundraisers, but at donors who seek to maximize their giving; this isn't fundraising advice, it's giving advice.)

If you buy the thesis that disaster relief is not the best use of donations, you should go in one of two directions:

1. Stop raising funds for disasters. Some organizations have done that. This is an extremely expensive step to take. Putting your money (or lack of it) behind your principles.
   
2. Or you can do your part to redeem the situation.
   

You aren't going to change this fundamental fact about human psychology: People react more strongly to more dramatic events. And a disaster is a lot more dramatic than the ongoing toll of malaria, HIV/AIDS, unsafe water, or lack of access to education. The fact that those other things kill more people, doesn't enter the equation. They're less dramatic, so they move fewer people.

With each major disaster, millions of people give, some of them for the first meaningful time in their lives.

You can do your part to mobilize the outpouring of support that comes after a disaster, you usher new people into the ranks of donors. If you give them a good experience, speak their language, and treat them with respect, they'll discover the joy of making a difference through your organization. And they'll stick around. Not just for disasters, but when there's need.

To say no to disaster fundraising because it's less than the best is to cede your role in bringing ordinary people along, actually helping them move beyond disasters.

So keep it up. Do it well. That's how you help more people join you in changing the world.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, disasters

Can you call it "philanthropy" when monkeys do it?

A widely reported study informs us that monkeys like being generous (to certain other monkeys). Here it is, as reported by Reuters: Monkeys experience joy of giving, too, study finds. Here's the key finding:

Tests in capuchin monkeys showed the animals consistently chose to share food with another monkey if given the option, suggesting they are capable of empathy....

I'm not sure what this tells us: Monkey generosity supports human generosity? If monkeys can do it, surely we can too? Philanthropy lives deep in our psyche, at some pre-human level that we don't understand?

But it does raise a question: Can we rent lists of these generous monkeys' names? Seems worth a test.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, monkeys

Low-torture RFPs

RFPs between nonprofits and agencies are a wondrous thing. A combination of a waltz, a bar-brawl, and a Woody Allen movie.

BeaconfireWire has some interesting advice for nonprofits on doing an RFP: I've Looked at RFPs from Both Sides Now.

The first piece of advice on RFPs is don't do it unless you're forced to. But since you very likely are forced to, here are some ways to make it go better:

• DO allow vendors a reasonable amount of time to respond.
  
• DON'T send out a 50 page RFP.
  
• DON'T forbid vendors to contact you.
  
• DO be realistic about your project time frame.
  
• DO be up front about your process and keep your prospective vendors informed.
  
• DO try to provide a ballpark budget.
  
• DON'T hide information.
  

Technorati Tag: RFP

Does your work make sense to others?

From F Minus, a dependably funny comic:

Is this your organization? Proud of your uniqueness, even though nobody else can appreciate or like what you do? Does your work make sense outside of your narrow slice of turf? Are you making fine handcrafted furniture out of stinkwood?

The Futility of Educating Donors

Here's my column in this month's FundRaising Success magazine, The Futility of Educating Donors.

Teaser: ... educating donors is a futile and money-wasting exercise. Not only does it squander resources and opportunities -- but it nearly always fails to educate.

Mobile giving: What's it worth?

To hear some people talk, you might think "mobile giving" -- where donors use their mobile phone to text a certain word to a certain number, which triggers a small donation to a cause to be charged to the cell-phone bill -- is the future of fundraising.

There's a good how-to on mobile giving at About.com's Nonprofit Charitable Orgs blog: Mobile Giving - How to Make it Work for Your Nonprofit. It gives this example:

Recently, Alicia Keys ... asked concert goers to pull out their cell phones and text the word "ALIVE" .... More than 8,000 people did so right at the concerts, raising more than $40,000 to fight AIDS.

Raising $40,000 from 8,000 people sounds pretty cool. But it's unambitious. You should be able to net more than $1 million from that many donors -- if you're smart and patient (willing to wait a few years).

Real fundraising is about building relationships with donors. The real pay-off comes when the relationships are most developed.

Mobile fundraising specifically avoids relationships; you walk away with some impressive cash from a very attractive investment -- but you have no idea who gave it to you. There's no next step.

I wouldn't completely ignore it. Mobile fundraising may be a good and cost-effective way to raise funds from young people, who are unlikely to stick with you anyway. It's just revenue you wouldn't get otherwise, even though it has no future. The cost of getting the money is low -- usually just 5¢ on the dollar, plus whatever it costs to get out the word in the first place.

And better yet, I've read that they're talking about a monthly giving option for mobile donors. And who knows what next generation devices and services might offer that allow connection and relationship-building.

Keep your eyes on it.

More about Mobile giving at GenerationYGive: Mobileization: Is it keeping you up at night? and Mobileization: Part II.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, nptech

Ready, aim, fundraise!

Maybe you've heard fundraising compared to war. At the beginning of an especially hairy capital campaign, maybe. PhilanthroMedia (a donor-oriented blog) riffs on the comparison in Fundraising is War!

If fundraising is war, then givers had best arm themselves with a clear vision and with the fortitude to say "no," or to confidently and forcefully say "yes" when the cause and the timing are right. If turf is to be won, then let it always be held in friendly, honest hands.

Like war, fundraising requires focus, determination, unity or purpose, and serious marshalling of resources.

But unlike war, fundraising shouldn't have losers. You don't defeat anyone -- except maybe apathy.

If you see yourself as going out against your donors and hoping to win -- you're doing it all wrong. It's a pretty common view among fundraisers. It's why they feel vaguely guilty about raising funds -- as if it's a type of pillage. They don't realize that with every gift, donors become more enriched. In fact, if somebody gets the shorter end of the stick, it's the fundraiser, who just gets money.

Everyone wins when you raise funds for a good cause.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, war

How to write like a human

You don't have to search far before you come across an example of artificial, wooden, committee-driven fundraising copy that sounds untouched by human vocal cords. Break your materials out of that mode, and you'll shine like a star in your donors' lives.

The Bad Language blog talks about human writing at Being human is overrated (but not when you are writing). Here are the hints for writing like a human:

• Write like you speak.
  
• Interview someone.
  
• Short sentences.
  
• Short words.
  
• Marketing speak has no place in people-centered writing.
  
• Don’t be afraid of humor. (I don't agree with this one: You can't count on other people getting your joke. In fundraising, humor usually falls flat.)
  
• Replicate speech patterns.
  
• Embrace the exclamation mark.
  
• Use everyday metaphors.
  
• A sense of person, place or time.
  

It takes an excellent writer not to sound like a writer.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, marketing

Tough times? Don't give up

Has anyone told you to crawl into a hole and stop raising funds until the recession blows over?

Bad advice.

The most effective reason for raising funds -- the one reason that motivates donors more than anything else -- is needing funds.

So if the economy is causing you to need funds -- either because the demand for your services is up, or donations are down, or both -- you should be confidently, even aggressively, raising funds.

That's what an article in Philanthropy Journal says: Time to ask is now, fundraisers say.

The principles of fundraising remain the same, even during the economic crunch.... One of these is the need for development officers to convince prospects of the importance of the organization's mission.

The economy is rough. It may very well depress your fundraising results. But the worst possible thing you can do is defeat yourself by giving up.

Technorati Tag: recession

Irrelevant charities, or extra-relevant donors?

Interesting post at The Chronicle of Philanthropy's Prospecting blog: Fund-Raising Lessons: Are Charities About to Become Irrelevant?

Web sites like Kiva.org and ModestNeeds.org, which enable donors to give directly to needy people and then get updates about their progress, are part of a trend that is making nonprofit organizations increasingly irrelevant.... With Kiva, you don't get telemarketing calls and e-mails. The donor controls the relationship.... It's much more fun to give to Kiva than the Red Cross.

I'm not sure it's a question of charities becoming irrelevant. It's a question of charities letting donors become more relevant. You can look at these new-fangled, donor-empowering organizations two ways:

1. A nonprofit can become a virtually invisible pass-through for donor generosity.
   
2. A nonprofit can become a highly visible source of vision, information, and shaping for donor generosity.
   

I think both can work as fundraising models. But #2 is the one that does more good in the world. That's where I'd rather be involved.

Donors are great people. But most of them are not experts in the causes they support. They're looking to you to be expert, to apply their generosity for maximum impact. Or even to invent some new better way to change the world that they'd never dreamed of.

The best nonprofits bring vision and expertise to the table, then set donors free to help them make good things happen.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

The winning phrase in recessionary fundraising

Fundraising works best your audience already knows what you're telling them. That's what Herschell Gordon Lewis, writing in The NonProfit Times, points out about fundraising in hard economic times: Times Are Tough. You Should Be Tougher.

In a negative fundraising climate ... the truth could be the factor that sets you free. So a mailing or email that states quickly and forcefully, "I don't have to tell you that these are lean times" will have at least a few heads nodding in your direction.

It's really the same principle as the old conversation-opener, "What about those Mariners?" (Okay, bad example.) You talk about something everyone knows. Then go from there.

In hard times, the economy is the elephant in the room. Nobody likes talking about it, but it's there. When you mention it, you place yourself in the same place as your audience. You establish rapport. And that puts you on the path toward a gift.

Technorati Tag: fundraising,

In fundraising, donors matter -- not you

I know your organization is great. But people don't support you because you're great. They support you because they are great.

When you get your mind around that fact, you are more than half-way to consistently great fundraising.

Copyblogger makes this important point at I Don't Care About You. Here's a way you can approach this in fundraising copy:

... write your content as if you're addressing readers directly, while focusing on their desires and needs. Don't flatter your own ego by penning boastful descriptions of you and your business. Show people you're listening instead.

Donors have no reason to care about you -- until they see how you fit into their world. It's your job (not theirs) to make the connection clear. Bragging about yourself will never do that.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, copywriting