Seth zeros in on our third-worst problem

Seth says the big problem with nonprofit organizations is they resist change. I know I'm among the last to comment on The problem with non, but I beg to differ.

Fear of change is only our third worst problem.

Our #1 problem is hatred of fundraising and donors. Hardly any nonprofit was founded in order to raise funds. But most depend on fundraising to exist. This seems to fuel a sort of resentment of the craft and of donors that blocks effective, donor-focused communication. Organizations with this problem yearn for "better" donors that don't need the "demeaning" tactics of effective fundraising. They spend needless millions on this failed alchemy experiment.

The #2 problem is group-think. Nonprofit culture is so consensus-driven, that decisions can't be made until every possible stakeholder is satisfied. Which, of course, almost never happens.

(#4, if you're interested, is free and cheap services. See Stupid Nonprofit Ads.)

Yes, fear of change hobbles us. But it's entirely possible that some (maybe most) organizations shouldn't be using Twitter or whatever whiz-bang fad is amazing everyone. If you have the first two problems, you want get Twitter right anyway.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, change

Comments

[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.

Regards.
Bill Huddleston
The CFC Coach
www.cfcfundraising.com
Blog: www.cfctreasures.wordpress.com
BillHuddleston@verizon.net

[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.

[Beverley]

Can I just say: YES!!!

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