« Fun week: Award-winning stupid nonprofit ad raises eyebrows (but probably no money) | Main | Is direct mail dying, or should we just kill it? »



I beg to differ with #1. I think what "hatred of fundraising and donors" is covered by the "nons" Seth brought up. What I've observed is that some organizations are stuck on a myth (similar to the starving artist myth.) In it, they are saints struggling to "do good" in a hostile and greedy world of corporate raiders and apathetic nobodies, blah, blah, blah.

"Rich" potential donors, then, are expected to seek redemption by handing over the moula, no questions asked.

People who don't have money are "losers" to be condescended to. (Staff are often treated as such.)

John B.

Next week. How to stop people spamming blogs.

Bill Huddleston

Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) - The Most Donor Friendly Means of Giving to Charities in America

An element of the consensus thinking box is the inability to recognize what is truly donor centric fundraising versus non-profit centric thinking.

I'm not suggesting that the Combined Federal Campaign be any non-profit's sole means of fundraising, but if you onsider the charitable giving process from the donor’s perspective, not just the non-profit’s perspective, the CFC is the most donor friendly means of donating to any non-profit. As much as most non-profits refuse to admit or acknowledge this, most of us who give to charity, contribute to more than just one.

The Federal public servant donor, with one pledge card and one transaction:
● Can donate to multiple charities with just one pledge.
● Gives money to the non-profit before it ever hits their checkbook.
● Accrues no interest charges from credit card donations.
● Makes a secure donation —their personal information is never on the Web, and government payroll systems are secure.
● Donors may remain anonymous if they wish -- CFC anonymous donors are some of a nonprofits best supporters, and a majority of the CFC donors choose this option.

Given the amount of credit card debt that the average American is carrying, if you a non-profit LEADER, why in the world are you interested in having your donors accrue extra finance charges when they don't have to? I know, all your donors are like the school children of Lake Woebegone, they're all above average and not a single donor is carrying any credit card debt.

Are we talking about real money with the CFC? One Billion Dollars of UNRESTRICTED Funds over the past five years. The CFC is the world's largest source of unrestricted funds and has less red tape than almost any grant. Not bad for a government program.

Bill Huddleston
The CFC Coach
Blog: www.cfctreasures.wordpress.com

Brad Bell

Twitter is just a sign. It's not the issue. The issue is the internet. The lack of charities on Twitter is a sign that charities have failed to claim their birthright - the internet. The rationale goes like this:

Mass media (print, radio, TV) is expensive and one-to-many. It's broadcast - good for monologs - perfect for commercial brands that can buy their way into the spotlight. In contrast, internet media is almost free and democratic. It's difficult for a brand to pay to become the centre of attention. The internet is too democratic and cluttered. The internet tends to be composed of conversational, one-to-one, or many-to-many media. And unfortunately for them, commercial brands are not really conversational entities. They simply don't have anything to talk about.

The mass media was a perfect fit for commercial brands.
Internet media is a perfect fit for non-profits.

Because internet media tends to be almost free and conversational, it's a perfect for charities. They don't have any money, but they have something better to talk about than anyone else: changing the world.

(Of course, the internet is not limited to communications tools either. It is a medium that can simulate any medium, but it is also a tool that can simulate most any tool. One implication is that the internet has more importance for the good of humanity than any particular charity could ever have. The internet looks at a CharityX or CharityY and says, "I dunno. Do you think it's a fad?)

I guess problem #1 and 2 explain the existence problem #3.


Can I just say: YES!!!

I've experienced this countless times. Thanks for putting it into perspective.

The comments to this entry are closed.

What is this blog all about?

If you're serious about raising money from donors, you need to get serious about donors. More than ever before, donors are insisting that you share power with them, not treating them like passive ATMs. This blog is about the ways you can do that -- and the rewards that await you and your donors when you do.

About the Blogger

DonorPower Blog is penned by Merkle's Power Blogging Team, led by Greg Fox, our senior vice president of strategy. Working with Greg is a police line-up of guest "artists", fundraising pros all, who like to pose as blogatorialists when the sun goes down. You can reach this blog, and any of our regular contributors, at
donorpowerblog [at] merkleinc [dot] com. See this blog's policies.

A great partner for the nonprofit that wants to get donor-powered and grow revenue like crazy!
Subscribe by e-mail

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

AddThis Feed Button

Add to Technorati Favorites