Donor Power Blog

Donors aren't old, regardless of their age

Nobody thinks he's old. That's what a recent survey found, as reported in USA Today: Few see themselves as 'old,' no matter what their age.

Seems no matter what your age, "old" is something yet to come:

• People under 30 say 60 is old.
• Those between 30 and 65 figure 70 is old.
• People older than 65 don't think you're old until you're 75.

Only 21% of people ages 65 to 74 say they feel old. Among those 75 and older, only 35% say they feel old.

If you're raising funds, you're mostly dealing with the chronologically advanced. (I can't call them old, can I?) That's a fact you ignore at great peril. There are clear and strong differences between generations. You can't talk to people decades older than you are they same way you talk to your age-peers.

But one of those age-appropriate things it seems, is not treating them like they're old. Because as far as they're concerned, they aren't old. And don't forget it, whippersnapper!

Thanks to The Boomer Blog for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, aging, psychographics

How to save your donors' lives

You just might be saving your donors' lives.

A recent HealthDay report, Have a Purpose in Life? You Might Live Longer, finds a correlation between purpose and longevity:

We found that people who reported a greater level of purpose in life were substantially less likely to die over the follow-up period -- only about half as likely to die over the follow-up period -- as compared to people with a lower level of purpose.

This sense-of-purpose stuff is their responsibility, not yours. But you can play a meaningful part by the way you communicate with them:

• By really bringing them in to the cause of your organization. Making it clear how important there gifts are.
• By thanking them promptly and specifically when they give.
• By reporting back to them what their gifts make possible.
• By giving them meaningful choices in the relationship about when, how, and about what you'll communicate with them.
• By letting them direct their giving where they want to.
• By inviting them to other kinds of participation than giving -- like volunteering, advocating, recruiting, advising.

Old-line fundraising tends to de-emphasize the relational and cause aspects of giving, making it more of a simple transaction. Too bad, because that's what boosts the sense of purpose that's already innate in charitable giving. Which saves lives. And it raises more money.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, purpose

What happens when people report on their own behavior

When I was a kid, there was a pizza place in the neighborhood that we never went to. My Dad said, "Nobody ever goes there. It's always too crowded."

Apparently some radio stations are like that.

Seems when you ask people to report what stations they listen to, they tell you they don't listen to the most popular stations. This issue has recently hit my city, as reported in the Seattle Times: Seattle radio rankings shaken up.

Arbitron, the company that supplies ratings for radio stations, is switching the way they determine who's listening to what. The old system was to have folks write in a daily diary what they listened to.

The new system provides people with a device called a Portable People Meter that they keep with them; it detects an inaudible signal and records what people are actually in earshot of throughout the day.

When the ratings company went from recording what people said they listened to to tracking what they actually listened to, there were a few changes:

Two "adult contemporary" stations jumped into the top two spots. A venerable news/talk station fell from #3 to #17. The conservative talk station plummeted from #9 to #21. There were changes up and down the dial. No small amount of weeping and gnashing of teeth ensued, as ratings determine ad rates.

Ask people what they listen to, and they'll tell you what stations they think highly of. Or what they think they ought to listen to. Or what they think you think they ought to listen to. But sometimes -- often enough that the Portable People Meter creates a newsworthy shake-up of radio ratings when it enters a new market -- what people say and what people do are very different things.

Here's the good news for us fundraisers: If you do direct mail, email, or any other form of direct-response fundraising, you already have a "portable people meter" that accurately measures what people actually do.

Congratulations.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, Arbitron, research

What research can't tell you

If you've ever made important decisions based completely on the findings of survey research or focus groups, there's a good chance you've been stung by the bad -- the sometimes shockingly bad -- information these sources can give.

That's because what people say about what they do or think is seldom what they will actually do or think.

That's the important point from the Ageless Marketing blog, at Traditional Consumer Research Can't Do the Job.

The reason traditional research so often fails: People can't tell you what their motivations for their actions really are. Sometimes, they don't want to admit what their motivations are, so they fail to tell you the truth. But more often, they just don't know.

Most human motivation takes place in subconscious and unconscious parts of our mind:

Brain scan technology supports ... the incompleteness of our knowledge of our motivations. More often than we're inclined to admit, the reasons we give for doing something better fit the category of speculation than reality.

The dumbest thing you can do in a focus group is show direct mail and ask for reactions. They will hate direct mail that works. They will praise to the skies pieces that don't stand a chance in the mail. They aren't trying to deceive you (at least most of them aren't); they honestly don't know. There's almost no way they can accurately report this.

The next-dumbest thing you can do is ask them what causes and issues they would support. People are a lot more concerned, involved, and sophisticated when discussing issues theoretically in s focus group than they are when your message lands in their life among all the other noise.

Asking people how they would respond or what they would do doesn't tell you how they'd respond or what they'd do.

Don't get me wrong: I really value focus group research that does it right, getting non-insiders to talk about our issues in their own idiom and understanding. And surveys that ask the right questions can tell you things you won't find out otherwise and give you direction and ideas.

But if you really want to know what people are going to do, you have to give them the opportunity to respond in real life. It's direct-response marketing, and it give you facts you can take to the bank. It's the best way to learn what works in fundraising. And most of us have it at our fingertips.

(Tomorrow we'll look at how this issue is playing out among commercial radio stations. There's a new way to find out who listens to what, and it's shaking up the industry.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, research

Fascinating information you can't use

People try so hard to learn deep new truths about fundraising. Here's an effort to see if nonprofits can use nostalgia to motivate donors to give, reported at Third Sector a UK publication for nonprofits: Nostalgia as a fundraising tool (registration required).

But here's how the research happened:

... asked more than 500 US donors who had given to charity in the previous 12 months about what made them feel happy, sad, lonely or angry. They were encouraged to remember significant events in their lives and write down how these made them feel. They were also asked if they were more likely to donate if the events were linked with a cause.

Wow. That's a lot of heavy lifting to learn something you can't really use in real life.

Problem is, there's no relationship whatsoever between what people tell you in an artificial, clinical setting and what they'd actually do when looking at the stuff in their mailbox. Folks can tell you they'd be likely to give after you've got them thinking about their past, but that doesn't mean if you evoke nostalgia in direct mail you're going to get a higher response rate.

That's not to say you won't find nostalgia a useful tool in your motivational toolbox. It might help.

But this study doesn't tell you that.

The only research into how people respond that you can take to the bank is disciplined direct-response testing. That's how you find out what people really do in the fundraising situation that matters. Not what they feel comfortable telling a researcher in an artificial setting.

(Same goes for focus groups: they can kill you.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, research

Mad Men can teach us a thing or two about fundraising

Here's how you raise funds:

(Or watch it here on YouTube.)

If you think this isn't about fundraising, you haven't been involved in fundraising yet.

The guys from Kodak are all concerned with the technology of the new device, worried that people won't understand or appreciate the features. The ad get sees through the technology to the emotional content of the device. Technology, schmechnology, he basically says. This thing hooks up to your heart.

Too many fundraisers don't get around to the real core of what they're trying to "sell" their donors. They need money, so they ask for money. Fortunately, a lot of donors have the imagination and life experience to do the fundraisers' jobs for them and find the heart themselves.

But you raise a lot more when you lead the donors to the heart of the offer.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, advertising, Mad Men

Your donor is ticked off: Now what?

Charity Navigator Blog recently published a A Donor's Wish List, a well-reasoned and very typical complaint from a donor about direct-mail fundraising. The donor had two main issues:

1. It infuriates me to get labels, T-shirts, and other offers .... Particularly obnoxious are the ones that send nickels, to put those together must be very expensive.
2. I am inundated with charitable mailings.... This is ridiculous and a real waste of money. Charities should send no more than three, and if there's no response, then they should take you off the list.

You hear this all the time, right?

These complaints are potent because they feed into fears many nonprofits already have: That their mailings are annoying, and that they mail too much. So an articulate complaint like this is sometimes taken as proof that your fears are real and that you should make some meaningful changes to your fundraising plan.

Before you do that, remember this: Donors matter more than complainers. Compare the number of people who wrote you checks to the number who complained: Unless you have a shockingly dysfunctional program, your donors outnumber your complainers by hundreds or thousands to one.

But don't ignore the complaint. It's real and significant. It voices something many donors feel. So here's what to do:

• Scrupulously obey the donor who complained. No, don't implement their proposed mailing plan for the file, but do what they want. If they want less mail, reduce their mail. If they don't want premiums, don't send any more premiums. Someone who cares enough to complain is a candidate to be a great donor.
• Make sure you're being relevant. If a donor perceives your mailings as a bunch of undifferentiated trash, that's a sign you aren't being relevant. Are fundraising offers vague and generic? Are you asking donors to supply unrestricted funds? Are you making a clear connection between their gifts and what happens as a result?
• Give all your donors power. Give your donors the option to opt out of anything. Give them total control over the terms of your relationship. Very few will take any action, but your donors as a whole will respond better after they've been offered control.
• Get smart with your data. Databases can be really smart these days. Predictive modeling and other cool tricks can help pinpoint what individual donors should be getting from you. (But get professional help! This is tricky stuff.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, complaints

What to do with irrational donors

Donors can just drive you crazy. They don't see things the way we do, and that makes them seem "irrational" -- they don't care about the right things. The for-profit world struggles with this too, as outlined by Seth Godin at The rational marketer (and the irrational customer).

You know your product (or program) is truly excellent; they don't care. And try as you might to show them the facts, they still don't respond. You could just throttle them!

Not so fast. Seth says:

The opportunity ... is not to insist that your customers get more rational, but instead to embrace just how irrational they are. Give them what they need. Help them satisfy their needs at the same time they get the measurable, rational results your product can give them in the long run.

I've seen more than one nonprofit throw up their hands and basically decide to abandon their donors. To hell with our irrational donors, they said. We're going to go out and find a whole new set of (rational) donors who will listen to us!

Want to know how well that worked?

It didn't.

The new "rational" donors turned out to be either not donors at all, or, when they were donors, they were exactly like the old irrational donors.

Donor "irrationality" is a fact of life. They will never "get it" like you do. Get over it. Get on with life, and listen to Seth: Meet their annoying, irrational needs, and they will take care of you!

Technorati Tags: fundraising, marketing

Give donors more experience for their giving

Donors know that money can buy happiness -- when you give it away. They seem to know another truth that's only now being "discovered" by scientists -- that gathering life experiences is a much better path to fulfillment than gathering stuff.

It's reported in ScienceDaily at Buying Experiences, Not Possessions, Leads To Greater Happiness:

A new psychology study suggests that buying life experiences rather than material possessions leads to greater happiness for both the consumer and those around them.... because they satisfy higher order needs, specifically the need for social connectedness and vitality -- a feeling of being alive.

As fundraisers, we are in the business of creating life experiences. Even the lamest, most old-school, donor-unaware fundraiser does that, because giving is a meaningfully positive action. Even when it consists of little more than writing a check and getting little feedback. It makes donors more alive.

That's our advantage. Our strength. So press it!

Make donating to your organization a real experience. More than the positive but short-lived experience of writing a check.

Make it more memorable.

Make it cool and worth telling their friends about.

More experiential.

Create more connection to the cause, the people, and fellow donors.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, experience

Top donor reveals all

What do donors want? Sometimes you find out when you just ask. Lorry I. Lokey, one of the top donors in the US, recently gave an online talk at The Chronicle of Philanthropy, reported in the Prospecting blog at Treat Donors Like Investors, a Top Philanthropist Urges. Here's part of what he said:

I like gift officers who approach me on a peer level and truly are friendly whether or not I say yes. And if I become a donor, I, in effect, am adopting that organization as if I worked there or owned it or had close experience ties with it. It becomes an investment that I want to follow and see success. My grants are not gifts. They are investments.

That's how you should treat all your donors, not just the big ones.

Donors may or may not want the intense level of contact that Lokey describes -- most, in fact, don't. But assume they do. Shower donors with reporting back, with thanks, with information about their investment.

That way you'll uncover your fanatics and super-supporters -- people who give more money, people who tell your story, people who advocate for you.

And the others, the regular donors who are happy to write a check and leave it at that? They'll respond positively to being treated like insiders. Even if they don't come inside.

Transcript of Mr. Lokey's discussion here.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

How to make your donors trust you

Wouldn't it be great if your donors to trusted you more? There's one way to get them to do that: trust them.

That's the message at the Neuromarketing blog, Show You Trust Your Customer.

Apparently, when you perceive that someone trusts you, that stimulates the production of oxytocin, the "magical neurochemical" that helps us build relationships. (We've talked about the importance of oxytocin in fundraising before.)

Neuromarketing suggests that companies that want to engender trust with their customers do things like making loaner or trial products available or make it easy to establishing credit terms.

Do you have policies designed to protect you from potential evil donors might inflict on your organization?

You might be signaling your distrust with small and symbolic things like those legal email signatures that warn, "don't misuse this email or else."

Or you might be doing it in huge and systemic ways, like not allowing donors to designate their giving -- because you're afraid they'll screw up your programs.

Get rid of policies like those. Let your donors in. Show them you trust them and consider them meaningful partners. (And don't just show it -- believe it!)

When your donors see that you trust them, they'll return the favor. And that can only boost fundraising.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, oxytocin, trust

Wealthy donors say they don't make a difference?

Something's wrong with fundraising. At least, that's one conclusion you could draw from a study reported in the Wall Street Journal Wealth Report blog at Why the Rich Give to Charity.

The survey, by the Center on Philanthropy and Bank of America, asked people with incomes of $200,000 or more or a net worth of $1 million-plus, about their motivations for giving to charity. Here's the key finding:

... 46% of respondents said their charitable donations have a "greater impact on their own personal fulfillment" than on those who receive their gifts.

Less than 20% believed their giving has a major impact on the organizations they support, and only 6% feel that they're making significant impact on society.

If you pay a lot of attention to donors, the fact that giving creates a lot of personal fulfillment will be no real surprise. What's distressing is the low level of belief in their impact on the organizations they support and on society in general.

Why are these donors so unimpressed with the impact they're making through their giving?

It's (at least in part) a failure of communication.

Are you doing your part to persuade your donors (major donors especially) that their giving does have a major impact on your organization and that they do significantly impact society?

Maybe more important, do the facts support those two assertions? (If they don't, what is your organization doing wrong, and how are you going to fix it?)

You know how I feel about surveys: They don't necessarily uncover truth; they only reveal what people said in the survey. But really, a strong, smart, donor-centered nonprofit should make it so abundantly clear to its donors that they matter that it would be impossible for them to say they don't.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, major donors

Another reason to personalize your fundraising

Posted by guest blogger Andrew Rogers

Direct marketers have long understood that perhaps the most powerful words you can print on a mail piece are your donor or prospect's own name. New research from the UK suggests another way personalized mail increases the perceived value of the message you're communicating.

A British market-research firm with the unlikely name of CCB fast.MAP found that 46% of people surveyed believe "unpersonalized leaflets, coupons, and samples" are bad for the environment. However, once the mail package is personalized, only 20% consider it un-green. The study was reported on the UK marketing-news site Brand Republic last month.

How much should we read into this? Perhaps not a lot: Jeff always reminds us to put less stock in what people tell researchers than in how they behave in real life.

Still, it's easier to engage in conversation with someone -- and convince them of your interest in, and relevance to, them -- when you know and use their name. Anyone can toss a generic flyer or coupon at them. When you call someone by name, you're engaging them as a person. And at least for a moment, they may place a higher value on what you're trying to tell them.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, personalization

Leave the funny out of fundraising

Here's an example of the pitfalls of humor in fundraising. A Blah Fund-Raising Appeal Backfires.

Trying, I guess, to be edgy and cool, Framingham State College sent an unusual fundraising letter to around 6,000 younger alumni who had never previously given. It went something like this:

With the recent economic downturn and loan crisis, it has become even more important for Framingham State College to receive your support. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

There were (surprise) quite a few complaints. Now, fear of complaints should not drive your decisions (more on that here, here, and here). But bad results should get your attention: According news reports, the blah-blah letter raised around $2,000 from "nearly" 40 donors. That's about a 0.67% response rate with something like a $50 average gift. I don't know what the mailing cost, but I bet it cost well over $2,000 to mail to those 6,000 donors. I'm guessing that substantial negative net revenue is not what they wanted.

That's the problem with humor in fundraising. It just too often doesn't work. Because you can't count on people getting it.

And there's hardly anything more awful than a joke that falls flat. It morphs into anything from a purely incomprehensible babble to a slap in the face. (The blah-blah letter seems to have managed to be both.) Neither of which is conducive to acts of charity and generosity.

Humor isn't easy, even in situations created for it, like nightclubs, where everyone wants to laugh, expects to laugh, and is well lubricated with alcohol. Try humor in a direct mail piece, or across generational lines, and your chance of getting a laugh shrinks to very nearly zero.

If you want people to give, you have to appeal to their highest natures. That's hard to do. But a lot easier than a successful joke.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, humor

Hold the smoke, but try the mirrors

Wily researchers have found that people behave more virtuously when they can see themselves in a mirror. The Neuromarketing blog wonders how this might improve fundraising, at Reflecting on the Mirror:

It seems that seeing one's image causes one to think about one's behavior and ultimately behave in a more socially desirable way.... What better way to boost the success rate than letting potential donors see themselves?

The post suggests two mirror-related actions for fundraisers:

1. Installing mirrors in the physical space where charitable solicitation takes place.
2. Including an actual mirror in some direct mail, or where that might be too expensive, some kind of inexpensive reflective surface.

If I were doing in-person fundraising, I'd be all over #1, assuming the space would still feel natural with mirrors.

I'm not so sure about #2. Just because there's a mirror in a package doesn't mean anyone is going to look into it. And inexpensive reflective surfaces? Well, they aren't quite mirrors.

I bet, though, that you could get a lot of the same benefit by holding up a "word mirror" to your donors. Tell her about herself. List her qualities that make her likely to give.

Donors want to be (and in fact are) generous, caring, committed to making the world better, and meaningfully connected to your cause. These things are both aspirations and facts. Reminding your donor can really help motivate giving.

Talking this way also forces you to put more of your focus where it should be in the first place: on the donor, not on yourself.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, mirror

What donors want

The more you know about people, the easier it is to motivate them. That's what advertisers do all the time, and you can see some of the thinking behind it at Copyblogger, 12 Tips for "Psychological Selling" The tips:

• People make decisions emotionally.
  
• People justify decisions with facts.
  
• People are egocentric.
  
• People look for value.
  
• People think in terms of people.
  
• You can't force people to do anything.
  
• People love to buy.
  
• People are naturally suspicious.
  
• People are always looking for something.
  
• People buy "direct" because of convenience and exclusivity.
  
• People like to see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, or smell it before they buy it.
  
• Most people follow the crowd.
  

Yes, these tips are for selling stuff. But every one of them has application in fundraising. Persuasion is always psychological at its root.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, marketing

Older brains are different; what about older boomer brains?

You know that as a fundraiser, you're a specialist in marketing to the elderly, right?

Once you see it that way, you can start to ask interesting questions, like one raised recently at the Neuromarketing blog: Marketing to the Senior Brain.

The post notes that "... the brain's reward system ... is dialed down as our brains age." That's why older people are less susceptible to fads and shiny new things -- and instead tend to prefer trusted, well-known things. (Less gullible is another way to look at it.)

But today, with 78 million baby boomers in the US alone entering old age, it's worth asking: Are boomer brains different? Neuromarketing's answer:

Probably not -- it's important to realize that the brain's reward system doesn't shut down with age, it's just toned down a bit. It's equally important to realize that many other factors affect senior marketing, and, of course, individual seniors are no more alike than individuals in other age demographics.

Yes, boomers are different from previous generations. But their brains are fundamentally the same. Our task is to find the points where the different culture of the boomers directs them to see things differently -- and where it doesn't.

Getting an understanding of this will be one of the most important factors in the success of fundraising in the next few years.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, boomers, demographics

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

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

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

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

Old news: People like "new"

In marketing, new is one of the best words available. (The other one is free.) Apparently that's because being attracted to newness is an innate feature of our brains, says a post at the Neuromarketing blog, The Power of "New".

Novelty activates the brain's reward center, causes us find new products (and even repackaged old products) attractive:

... making a product "new" in some way may give it a boost when compared with competing products. At the same time, marketers should be mindful of long-term brand attachments.... marketers need to steer a careful course -- emphasize the novelty of their offering while still using the power of long-term brand affinity.

Nonprofits seem to focus either on their long histories (lack of novelty) or their amazing new cutting edge-ness. Success lies in balancing those two things.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, neuroscience

Donors buy happiness every day

Money can mess you up. Despite the old wisdom that money can't buy happiness, millions of people ruin their lives trying to do just that.

But there's a loophole: There's one way that money can buy happiness: When you give it away.

Anyway, that's what many researchers have found, including a recent study reported at the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge: Spending on Happiness.

... spending as little as $5 over the course of a day on another person led to demonstrable increases in happiness. In other words, people needn't be wealthy and donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity to experience the benefits of prosocial spending; small changes -- a few dollars reallocated from oneself to another -- can make a difference.

As a nonprofit, you are essentially a money-to-happiness conversion factory. It's one of the greatest things you do.

You are helping people create meaning in their lives and breaking free from delusional struggles to spend their way to happiness.

So the next time you hear someone talk like they're ashamed of fundraising, tell 'em to go be ashamed of something else. This one is to be proud of!

Technorati Tags: fundraising, money

Amazing new study shows that donors donate

I love those human guinea pig psychological studies that claim to inform us about fundraising realities. Their findings tend to be either blindingly obvious or laughably wrong.

Here's one, reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy's Prospecting blog: Want Bigger Gifts? Ask People to Volunteer Before Asking for Money, with the study itself available here.

The gist:

Asking people to volunteer their time at a charity before asking for their money increases the amount they ultimately give to an organization...

Wow! And how did they come up with that conclusion? They put college students in artificial situations and asked their opinions on how much they'd theoretically give to a phony organization. Oh, and the total study group was less than 200 people -- a number so laughably insignificant that a direct marketer wouldn't pay attention to it.

Don't take this type of study as gospel truth. The best they give us are ideas and directions that we can explore with real testing.

In this case, the studies point out a phenomenon that most good fundraisers understand: Someone who's done something for you is more likely to do something else for you.

That's why someone who's given to an organization is ten or more times likely to give again than someone who's never given. And the more times someone has given, the more likely they are to give again.

It might also tell us that volunteers are very warm prospects to become donors. As are event participants.

But don't take my word for it. Test it for yourself.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, volunteerism

Tiny gifts: good or bad?

Maybe you've encountered donation websites that don't take gifts below a certain amount. The purpose, I suppose, is to keep the small-gift riff-raff out.

The Firstgiving Blog looks a this issue upon encountering a site that turned away donations under $25 (!): Every little bit helps for a good cause, doesn't it?

Why would you refuse to accept donations under $25? ... we all know that there are processing fees, but they're a lot more for checks than for online transactions. And processing fees are usually a percentage of the donation -- like Firstgiving's are -- so why would it matter if somebody wanted to give even just one dollar online?

I can think of one good reason you don't want tiny gifts: The vast majority of donors who give very small gifts keep giving very small gifts. Their value to you will remain small, and if you aren't careful, you can end up spending more cultivating them than they'll give you over time.

Someone who gives $1 (or even $5) -- especially online, where the norm is up around $100 -- is likely not a serious donor.

But there's more to it. Many small gifts are "Widow's Mite" gifts -- far more meaningful than their amount indicates. I know I'm in unmeasurable, spiritual territory here, but it's true. Charitable giving is a lot more than just a monetary transaction.

And that's why you should accept tiny gifts. Nothing's forcing you to spend on a $1 donor the way you would on a $50 donor.

Giving people a chance to give is a great service. One of the best you have to offer, really. It's just not right to turn people away from the benefits of giving just because they can't give very much. That's basically a harsh form of discrimination against the poor. Not all the tiny-gift donors are poor; some are just cheap. But we can't tell the difference, can we?

Here's what I'd do: Include the line, "Suggested minimum" (say $5 or $10), but don't enforce it.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

What do donors want?

It's a complicated world. What should donors do? Some notions over at the GiveWell Blog (Emergency assistance for donors), which worries that in times of crisis, donors have no scientific, objective way to decide how to best put their giving to work.

Meanwhile The Agitator (Donors Need Emergency Help) sees it differently:

Part of me doesn't want a donor to even blink an eye before opening their wallet. Or even better, clicking their mouse. I want them to react to a humanitarian crisis quickly and generously ... from the bottom of their heart. Leave the brain out of it.

I know it may not sound like me, but I think they're both right. And wrong.

Because it doesn't matter what any of us want donors to think or do.

They are going do what they do and think the way they think regardless of what we wish. Trying to change them is a delusional, Sisyphean job.

Some donors will carefully research their options, seeking maximum impact for their charitable dollar. Others will make knee-jerk gifts with little or no strategy, just raw compassion.

Bless them all, I say.

The emotion-driven donors are bound to give unwisely now and then, supporting fraudulent or under-performing organizations. But their dollars are the fuel of the world's good works. Without those knee-jerk gifts, virtually all nonprofits would be left high and dry.

The strategic donors don't always get it right; even the most rigorous research can lead you to the wrong conclusion. But their insistence on information and proof is driving nonprofits to be smarter and more open. This group is by far the minority of donors. But they're increasing.

It's our job to pay attention to our particular universe of donors and provide them the motivation they need to do the good deeds they want to do.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, disasters

The fundraiser's real story

People always ask me, How do I tell my nonprofit organization's story? They consider this a difficult or interesting question because their story is "very complicated" or "unexciting" or "never in the news" -- stuff like that.

The answer: Don't. Don't tell your story.

Your story isn't the relevant story.

The important story is the donor's story.

Check out this wise post at Gift Hub: Whose Story do You Tell? Your Nonprofit's, Or Your Donor's? ...

First listen to and master the donor's life story, then position the gift as a meaningful milestone or destination on that donor's journey. Think of the gift in the context of all the donor's dollars, days, and dreams.

Now, Phil is talking about face-to-face big-dollar fundraising. But the principle is true across the board. Donors don't give because of who you are. They give because of who they are. Remind them who they are and show how you fit into their world. That's how fundraising is done.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

When donors gossip

If you know they're watching, you're nicer. That's more or less what a recent study found, as reported by Reuters: Worried about gossip? It could influence generosity.

Study subjects were asked to distribute tokens with monetary value between themselves and someone else. Half were told that what they did was going to be discussed...

Participants who were told that the receiver would be communicating their economic decision with the third party were significantly more generous in their allocations of the tokens than participants who were not led to believe that their decisions would be discussed.

So once they thought others would know what they were up to, their philanthropic behavior improved. Big surprise, huh?

One of the reasons donors give is because they are part of a community. Call it gossip, or call it social interchange, but communities keep tabs on their members -- and members keep their eyes on their communities.

It's easy in our numbers-driven direct-response fundraising world to see donor transactions as isolated, private events. That's what they are -- sometimes. But more often, a donor gives for more than purely internal motives.

This may be one of the reasons large disasters like Hurricane Katrina motivate so many people to donate: Everyone's doing it; I guess I'd better do it too.

You probably don't want to encourage donors to rat each other out. But what can you do to foster the community that encourages giving?

Technorati Tag: fundraising

The importance of being thankful

Being thankful is good for you. Your Grandmother isn't the only person who believes that. Brain Based Biz, for one, also thinks so: The Power of Thanks ...

Thanks brings well-being to your day... since it brings more serotonin, a brain hormone of well-being. By saying thanks, you can not only launch a better day, but boost your brainpower, too.

I know they're talking about the salubrious effects being thankful has on individuals, but I can't help think it might work for organizations too. If you think a lot about your gratitude for donors, your thinking about who they are and what they mean to you could transform over time.

That could lead to cool new ways of thanking them. It might even make you a better fundraiser in the first place.

Give it a try.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, gratitude

The misdirected power of wordplay

I like jokes, wordplay, and irony. There's a better-than-average chance that you enjoy those things too.

What about normal people -- those who don't make a living with words and ideas?

That's pretty much the question over at Water Words That Work: Sarcasm? Does it Work? Does a clever, sarcastic bumper sticker like this one work?

AT LEAST THE WAR
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
IS GOING WELL

I think that's pretty funny.

But that hardly matters at all. Does the message get the desired response?

Social research generally finds that everyday citizens are most responsive to environmental words and pictures that are wholesome, sentimental, and generally rated G. But I have never come across any rigorous research that specifically explores how nonexperts respond to messages that are sarcastic, snarky, and snide.

A lot of nonprofit messaging is designed to please the messenger. In the effort to write copy that feel right, we so often forget an important truth:

You aren't going to motivate people to action by requiring them to solve a word-puzzle to understand your message. What's pleasing wordplay to word-oriented people is more like an unwanted equation to everyone else.

And you aren't going to change anyone's mind by being sarcastic or by pointing out that they or their leaders are stupid.

If you want to influence attitudes and behavior, be straightforward and literal.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, sarcasm

Science Confirms what Marketers Already Know

Posted by guest blogger Andrew Rogers

People love themselves.

Well, that's not exactly the way the scientists put it. A recent fascinating article in the New York Times, Names That Match Forge a Bond on the Internet, on the phenomenon of "Googlegängers" -- people you meet online because they share the same name you do -- puts it this way:

[H]uman beings are unconsciously drawn to people and things that remind us of ourselves.

A psychological theory called the name-letter effect maintains that people like the letters in their own names (particularly their initials) better than other letters of the alphabet. ...

"It's what we call implicit egotism," Dr. Pelham, who is now a writer and researcher for the Gallup Organization, said. "We've shown time and time again that people are attracted to people, places and things that resemble their names, without a doubt."

Savvy marketers have known for a long time that liberal use of the donor's own name is one of the magic phrases that can boost results. But when it reflects your commitment to your donor and her dreams and desires -- in other words, when you're speaking honestly and personally, not simply employing a tactic -- it can build a powerful bond.

When your donors look at you, do they see themselves?

Andrew Rogers is an associate creative director and writer at Merkle. He is not a sculptor, a lawyer, or the guitar tabs guy, although he receives their email sometimes.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, googlegangers

Fundraising is for the heart, not just the head

Everyone wants their charitable giving to have an impact, which is why some donors are so interested in things like administrative costs and other measures of efficiency.

In a recent Financial Times article, Perla Ni advises donors: Use your heart and head when giving ...

What gets lost in all of this focus on evaluation and numbers is the grace and joy of philanthropy. Philanthropy inspires. It tells stories. It reconnects us with others and reminds us of our shared humanity.

This is an important principle for fundraisers to remember: People don't give to you because of your great numbers (though they might choose not to give if you have lousy numbers). People give because what you do touches their heart.

Now, advising donors to follow their hearts when they give is a little bit like advising fish to use their gills when they breath. But it's important for us to remember the source of people's generosity.

Inspire your donors. Aim for the heart. It's what they want.

Thanks to Tactical Philanthropy for the tip.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

Make fundraising paint a beautiful picture

A post at the Neuromarketing Blog, A New Role For Marketing, makes the point that marketing is not just about pushing people to buy stuff; it's also about helping people like the stuff they buy -- that, in fact, what people expect to get has a huge impact on their experience once they buy.

That means marketing has a high responsibility:

... be sure your marketing is geared not only to getting customers to buy your product, but to improving their experience once they try it. That means setting high but realistic expectations for the product’s quality, taste, performance, or whatever measures apply to it. .... If you succeed, you’ll have happier customers and, of course, higher sales.

The same could be true for fundraising.

Flat, dull, transactional fundraising leads to low donor expectations. Donors don't think giving is going to be a great experience, so they don't have a great experience. For a lot of donors, that's okay. They aren't seeking experience when they give. They give because they know they have a duty to give.

But what about donors who want more out of their giving? What about people who have a need to shape to their world, and to know that their giving makes a profound difference?

Those are the donors we should work to inspire. And that means describing our causes in their terms, not ours. It means that the measurements nonprofits use to judge the quality programs are very likely not the things that will excite donors.

I'll bet the fact that expensive wine tastes better (studies show) breaks vintners' hearts; of course price is a bogus indicator of real quality. But it's one that even the most novice wine drinkers understand, so it works to shape their experience.

Are you willing to humble yourself to your donors' perceptions -- so you can help them have a better experience of your work? That's what it's going to take to reach these strange new donors who want their money's worth when they give.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, neurology

Generosity: Another chemical weighs in

Here's more on what's going on in the brain when people give: Hormone May Have Link to Generosity. In a nutshell:

... subjects in the experiment who were given a nasal spray dose of oxytocin, a hormone that acts on the brain, were willing to give away 80% more money compared to those taking a placebo nasal spray.

Oxytocin is strong stuff (read about it here on Wikipedia). It's linked to our feelings of love and connectedness with others.

I'm not bringing this up not because I'd favor putting oxytocin powder in direct mail packages, but because this reminds us once again that charitable giving is a deep, elemental act for human beings. It's related to maternal love, romantic love, and our ability to relate to others on many levels.

Fundraising? Don't take it lightly.

Thanks to Neuromarketing for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, oxytocin

For donors, $1 does not equal $1

Here's an article in Condé Nast Portfolio that gets right to the point: Giving Makes You Rich.

It works like this: Give away $100, and you'll earn (on average) an extra $375. That's an ROI of 3.75:1. Not too many investments can beat that.

How the heck does that work? would be a fair question to ask. Shouldn't giving away $100 make you $100 poorer?

There's a spiritual explanation: "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Luke 6:38; you can find similar statements in many faith traditions.)

There are also prosaic, researched, secular explanations:

... charity stimulates parts of the brain called the caudate nucleus and the nucleus accumbens, which are associated with meeting basic needs such as food and shelter -- suggesting to the researchers that our brains know that giving is good for us. Experiments have also found that people are elevated by others into positions of leadership after they are witnessed behaving charitably.

Whatever the cause, charitable donors are tapped into something powerful. Most donors are unaware of and unmotivated by material return -- and if they knew, most would says it's the least of the good things they get from giving.

So many fundraisers are crippled by a belief that giving is extractive from donors; they feel guilty for impoverishing these good-hearted people. Don't feel guilty about asking; your donors get more out of the gift than you do.

(Disclosure: The author of the article quoted here is my brother. The material comes from his book Who Really Cares, which you can find reviewed here.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, giving

The differences between bad and good fundraising

Bad Fundraising	Good Fundraising
A form of marketing.	A form of relationship.
Something you do to donors.	Something you do with them.
Organizations focus on their mission (as they should), but it has no connection with their donors -- in fact, the mission-focused people are often hostile to donors, seeing them as a problem, something they'd be better off without. As a result, fundraising becomes an external discipline, a set of practices they adapt out of necessity, like an ugly old coat that doesn't quite fit.	Mission matters, and so do donors. They work to make their programs understandable and motivating to non-experts. Fundraising becomes an integral part of who they are, and everyone is responsible to make it happen
Organizations get caught up in a "gimmicks arms race." Since they don't share real information with donors, they struggle to get their attention with things unrelated to their missions. Other bad fundraisers are also doing this, so the gimmicks that work eventually become boring and stop working.	Organizations' main struggle: How to share so much richness of information without being overwhelming?
Fundraising impacts have to re-acquire donors over and over again.	Fundraising impacts promote an ongoing relationship that deepens at each donor's speed and level of interest.
In bad fundraising, relationships are incidental, beside the point, often avoided.	In good fundraising, relationship isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

Want results? Talk to the brain

The Neuromarketing blog reminds us of the recent research that shows people are more responsive to one person in need than to a huge problem that threatens millions. Nonprofit Marketing: The Power of Personalization says:

Nonprofit marketers would do well to remember that the vast majority of their donors aren't adept at converting statistics into a donation strategy, and that our brains are wired to respond more strongly to an individual plight than the same condition afflicting a group.

By now this piece of knowledge should be old hat among fundraisers. But it isn't. This is just an estimate (based on reading a lot more nonprofit direct mail than is good for me), but somewhere between 80% and 90% of fundraising appeals use the argument of huge numbers. Some include "individual plight" along with the numbers, but many more never bring it down to the individual level.

I know it can be difficult to find the true stories that tell the bigger true story. It's also hard to turn the call to action into a call for not the one, but the many -- and the bigger problem.

But really, do you want to get people walking with you? If so, you need to speak the language their brains are built to believe.

The Neuromarketing post also comments on the recent article in Wired, Clive Thompson Explains Why We Can Count on Geeks to Rescue the Earth, which says it takes someone as smart as Bill Gates to understand big problems and solve them. I guess the rest of us poor schmucks have about as much chance grasping how to really change the world as we do have founding a world-dominating software empire.

I'd be willing to bet, though, that somewhere in his experience, Gates had an encounter at a human level that motivated him to start thinking about his part in making the world better. Maybe it was the plight of someone suffering needlessly. Maybe it was something his parents said that powerfully sunk in. I don't know. But even Bill Gates is reputedly human. His brain may work better than most of ours, but it's still a human brain.

You can choose to ignore the way the brain works, but it's going to cost you.

(See also Fundraising the hard (but effective) way and The right focus for fundraising.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, Bill Gates

When charitable giving is no good

Holden, over at The GiveWell Blog, hit my #1 rant topic square on the head the other day in Giving: like heroin, but more expensive ...

I think that giving because of what it does for you -- whether you call it happiness or fulfillment or what -- is crass and misguided and yuck.

Sorry Holden, but you're way out to lunch on this one.

For one thing, you're claiming a lot more knowledge of other people's motives than you can possibly have. Sure, some people have entirely selfish motives for giving, and thus give badly. But who are you (or anyone else) to make that judgment about someone else's giving decisions?

Talk to a few donors, and you might find your pronouncements a little harder to make.

If you want to get really annoyed, take a look into "prosperity theology," a twisted belief that says if you give lots of money -- generally to a specific televangelist -- you'll get rich. Time covered it about a year ago in Does God Want You To Be Rich? But even there, I don't think any of us should feel confident that we have a lock on someone else's motives. I don't know about you, but I don't even fully understand my own motives, much less theirs.

It's too bad people don't live up to your high standards, that they don't approach their charitable giving with the rigor you require. But seriously man, is that realistic? Would it even be desirable?

Donors are who they are. They know what they know, which may be different from what you know. They have to start somewhere. I don't think you're saying you'd keep them out of the party until they reach your exalted state. But you are sneering at and belittling their unenlightened gifts, which are still much, much better than the best cheeseburger ever made.

Either way, fewer needs get met, fewer people grow, less positive change happens.

But here's the most important part: you should note that the jabber you're getting sick of -- it's not aimed at donors. Take another look at those blog posts: They aren't saying Hey donors, you should give more cuz it'll make you feel good! This lobe of discussion is aimed at and happening among fundraisers. It's an important discussion because so many fundraisers labor under the delusion that giving is harmful to donors. This delusion makes them do ineffective and disrespectful fundraising. It hobbles the ability of hundreds of nonprofits to do what they're here to do. It's a millstone around the neck of our industry.

That's why I'm spending an entire post arguing with one man's attitude about giving. I try not to worry about what other people believe. But the belief that there's something wrong with donors who don't think or act like us (the smart, good, aware, evolved, or whatever people) is flat-out poisonous.

That's all. I'll go back to my cell now.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

Amish community demonstrates the power of charity

If you have any doubts about the deep and abiding power of charitable giving, check out this story: Amish donate money to widow of schoolhouse gunman.

You've heard about the Amish community in Nickel Mines, PA, because that's where a gunman attacked a school and killed five girls and injured five more before taking his own life a year ago today. That same community is making a donation to the killer's widow, who has three children.

A statement about this nearly inexplicable move said:

Many from Nickel Mines have pointed out that forgiveness is a journey, that you need help from your community of faith and from God ... to make and hold on to a decision not to become a hostage to hostility.

That's an extreme example, but it shows us what giving can mean. It connects givers to something deeper, stronger, and better than they might be otherwise. It can heal people and communities. Imagine what kind of world we'd live in of more people gave -- and gave the way Nickel Mines is giving.

So please: Don't talk about fundraising as a necessary evil. It's a necessary blessing.

Thanks to Philanthropy Today for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, forgiveness, Amish

Reality-based fundraising: appeal to the emotions

Good article in the current GuideStar newsletter: If You Write It (with Emotion), They Will Give. Author and fundraising consultant Tom Ahern writes:

... reason has surprisingly little to do with decision making, neuroscientists now know. People don't give to your organization because they've made a coolly calculated decision to support you. They give because you've moved them somehow....

This is excellent advice. If you take it to heart and put it into practice, you'll raise a lot more funds.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this article published by GuideStar, a charity watchdog. Apparently, they have their act together about fundraising. They'd rather it be done well than poorly, unlike many in our business who would rather have fundraising meet their own personal preferences than be effective.

Despite the good advice of Mr. Ahern (and he's not alone in this), the nonprofit world is crowded with folks who believe emotional messaging is somehow less honest, or gimmicky, or lacking in nobility -- and out-dated practice that needs to be stamped out.

Science tells us otherwise.

Now if you believe the emotions are less noble or moral than the intellect, think it through: Why would that be? These two facets of the mind are very different. But neither one is inherently better than the other.

Are you going to turn away donations from people who are emotionally touched by your cause but don't quite grasp it intellectually? (Don't laugh: I've heard such things proposed!)

Or are you going to just do fundraising that works?

Technorati Tags: fundraising, emotion

Fundraising the next morning

Fundraising as relationship gets a new look at the Ready, Aim, Inspire! Blog in What fundraising and one-night stands have in common. It takes the form of the "Top Ten Turn Offs" fundraisers commit, the first of which is:

No thank you letter sent - the ultimate sin!
If thank you letter is sent, it contains spelling mistakes (including our name!) and appears to be a form letter with no impact statement or relationship to our specific gift.

So many organizations mess up at this point of the relationship. The donor has reached out to you, taken a risk, exposed herself. If you care at all, you need to respond. Quickly and relevantly.

Late, sloppy, impersonal, or non-existent gift acknowledgements tell the donor that her gift wasn't important. That it wasn't good for you too.

So if you're going to do just one thing right, make it gift acknowledgements. The relationship's not going far if you don't start it right.

(See also Are your receipts a positive experience?)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, receipts

The myth of myth-busting

How many times have you heard (or said) We need to change our donors' minds about [some pressing issue]!

This thought sometimes leads to fundraising that focuses on busting myths. You've seen the type; it goes something like this:

MYTH: Africa doesn't exist.

FACT: Africa is very much a real place, home to nearly a billion people, [etc].

I've just made a terrible mistake. Because some readers of this blog (not you, of course) will remember my refutation of the falsehood that Africa doesn't exist as a statement of fact.

That's what some recent research found. Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach, an article in the The Washington Post, says that when you tell people something is a myth, some remember it is a truth:

The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

In other words, when you attack false beliefs, you help spread them. It's not true with everyone, but it is with enough people that this is worth paying attention to.

Widespread myths are simply pieces of information that are sticky -- albeit false. Like Iraq was responsible for 9/11. (Oops. I did it again.) They're stickier than any negations or denials around them.

This tells us two things for fundraising:

First, the myth-busting approach to fundraising is probably a lost cause. Don't whack 'em around for believing untrue things. Give 'em something better (and more true) to believe.

Second, and more important, we need to keep a realistic view of the power of information. It's a clumsy tool. Having facts doesn't mean someone will take action (Katya will back me up on this -- on video, no less!). Really, having facts doesn't mean someone will have the facts.

We spend a lot of energy on fine-tuning our messages, making sure they match the subtle shading of our unique philosophical platform and that they say everything everyone wants said.

Instead, we should make sure our messages say one thing at a time, with simplicity, clarity, and deeply affecting emotion.

If you want to raise funds, just raise funds. Leave educating to the teachers. Leave improving donors to themselves.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, misinformation, copywriting

Reaffirm a donor's decision to give -- and hurry!

What happens after a donor gives? Are you doing everything possible to make sure the donors gives again?

They think about this a lot in the commercial world. You can see how at the Return Customer Blog: Why You Need to Reaffirm Customer Decisions:

There is always a bit of uncertainty when a customer decides to make a purchase. By immediately giving positive feedback to the customer that they made the right decision, you can remove that doubt.... Armed with this confidence, your customers are more likely to be happy with their purchase. They’ll be less likely to have buyer's remorse and return your product the next day.

If this issue is important for buyers, it's even more important for donors.

Giving creates a feel-good "warm glow." It also creates uncertainty.

The uncertainty that preys most on donors is whether or not their gift really makes a difference. Are they going to use my gift the way they said they would? Are they effective? Will my gift be frittered away on overhead and fundraising? Was I tricked into a charity scam?

Every hour that ticks by after they make their gift, the warm glow fades -- and doubt can gain the upper hand. And as you know, when we lack information, we tend to make up stories to fill the gap. These stories are based on how we feel. So the longer it takes you to get back to a donor about their gift, the more likely they are to have negative feelings about you.

Here are some things you can do to reaffirm donors:

• Speed your receipts into the mail. The faster, the better. If you're taking more than 48 hours, you're taking too long.
  
• Make sure your receipt is relevant to the gift the donor gave. Talk about the same specific things that motivated the gift.
  
• Consider making a special thank-you phone call. If not to all donors, at least to those above a certain level.
  
• For gifts above $100 or so send the donor a personal, maybe even hand-written, thank-you note in addition to the receipt.
  
• Publish a donor-centered newsletter that's all about the impact of donors' giving. It's not how cool you are, but how cool they are.
  

Technorati Tags: fundraising, reaffirmation

Fundraising the hard (but effective) way

From The Resource Alliance eNewsletter, a quick look at what it takes to get donors on board. Stephen Pidgeon, a UK fundraising consultant, writes The Secret of Developing Supporters, which includes the following important point:

... deciding to give money to a charity is an emotional process, it's much more to do with the heart than the brain. So a mailed appeal should aim to produce tears of sadness or outrage or anger. An event must produce laughter or comradeship or unity. You should try to give your supporters ... 'planned emotional moments,' moments when they feel like thanking the charity for the opportunity you've given them to do something they'd be unable to do without you.

When it comes time to ask your supporters for money, of course you have facts that support the need. But do you have that emotional hook?

An emotional hook is a lot harder to find than a good portfolio of facts. You can't measure the tear-jerking quotient of a word-picture. You can't quantify the outrage factor of a photo. You can plan emotional moments, but you can't know for sure if you got the right one, until it works.

Here's how you get it right:

• Put an experienced professional on the job. Someone with a track record of creating successful emotional appeals.
  
• Give them full access to the things they're going to be raising funds for. All the facts, sure -- but also front-line, hands-on access to the projects.
  
• Get out of their way.
  
• Test what they come up with in real life.
  
• Repeat.
  

Only then do you know for sure you've got a winner. But if you approach your fundraising messaging this way, you'll get a lot more winners.

(See also The right focus for fundraising.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, emotion

Bust the "rest the donors" myth

One of the most harmful fundraising myths out there is this one: Once a donor gives a gift, you should leave her alone for awhile -- let her "rest" from the exertions of her gift -- before asking again.

It's often believed that failing to "rest" the donors will lead to "worn out" donors who refuse to give. It's sometimes called "frying the file" -- as if asking is applying heat to the donor file, and too much heat causes permanent damage.

It's a long way from true.

To see the falsehood of the myth, look at your own response data. Check the response rates of donors whose previous gifts was six month before. Compare that to the response rates of those whose previous gift was 12 months before.

The difference is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2:1 -- the "less rested" donors giving twice as often as those who've had a year off.

Try it again, this time comparing response rates of donors whose last gift was 12 months ago to those 24 months ago. Again, you'll see a difference of around 2:1.

In other words, the more recently a donor gave, the more likely she is to give now. This breaks down somewhere in the two to three months since previous gift range -- meaning there is some kind of limit to donors' gift frequency. The time between is just smaller than you might think.

Giving begets giving. Here's why: Giving feels good. Donors know this. But many nonprofits work from the belief that giving feels bad.

If you want to be successful in fundraising, be confident, be joyful. Your mission is important, and your donors agree. They love to support you. They want to be asked; they don't need to rest.

See also How soon to ask a donor again? Now!

Technorati Tags: fundraising, door burnout

Research methods that will waste your money

Ask donors what they think about your fundraising, and you're almost guaranteed to get deceptive answers. It's not that people lie; it's just that they don't actually know what they think, so they try to help you by making up answers.

A recent post at Ageless Marketing, a thoughtful and very worthwhile blog, looks at this issue: The Foundations of a New Marketing Paradigm.

... people don't know their own minds very well. Brain scans indicate that as much as 95% of the mental activity underlying our perceptions, thoughts and decisions takes place outside the cognitive reach of our conscious minds. But because we tend to get uncomfortable if we don't have a picture in our conscious mind that makes sense and seems real, we often construct images in our minds of a faux reality just to feel better.

This is why focus groups and other qualitative research are so deadly. What people tell you about their behavior and what they actually do is very often at odds. Every time I've observed a focus group on the subject of direct mail, when a successful control mailing is shown -- a proven motivator or response -- it gets universal comments of I'd never respond to that!

They say they wouldn't respond -- and they surely believe that to be true. But at home, in the mailbox, the hated piece of mail is working.

There are uses for focus groups. But learning how people will behave isn't one of them.

If you really want to know what people will do, watch what they do. The one type of behavioral research you can take to the bank is direct-response testing. Base your decisions on that, and you'll do smarter work and save a ton of money.

(See also Focus Groups Can Kill You.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, research

Donors help those who help themselves

Interesting research reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy: What Works in Appeals for Needy People (subscription required). A study at Carnegie Mellon University showed donors to be more likely to give to poor people who expressed a desire to work than those who didn't. They were shown information about three poor women who needed help:

• One said she used to work full time and wanted to find another job.
  
• One said she had not worked in five years and was not interested in finding a job.
  
• One provided no information about her work history or aspirations.
  

The woman who said she wanted to find received more than four times as much money as the woman who said she didn't.

I doubt many fundraisers would be surprised by this.

But it's worth remembering what goes on in people's heads when they give. Most donors give out of hope. They want things to get better as a result of their giving. The fear that their gift won't make a difference is one of the main barriers to giving. So, at least in the minds of many people, a poor person who doesn't want to find work is a sort of "lost cause." While one who wants work is one who can experience lasting change.

Being part of a community is another reason people give, and that community often extends to the beneficiaries of the giving. If it seems that person isn't taking part in the common cause -- well, why should the donor?

Give donors reason to believe their gift will have a lasting impact. And show them that everyone connected to the giving is committed to making things better.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, philanthropy

Health, happiness, and fundraising

More reasons to feel good about fundraising: It helps improve donors' health, as reported in a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor, Researchers say giving leads to a healthier, happier life.

Stephen Post, a professor at Case Western Reserve University and co-author of a book titled Why Good Things Happen to Good People, has conducted many studies that show doing good things for others (including charitable giving) live happier, healthier, longer lives. Says Post:

Giving is the most potent force on the planet ... and will protect you your whole life.... It's abundantly clear ... that people who live generous lives also live happier lives. Science is showing us that the transformation toward greater love that is taught in the great religions has an empirical credibility.

Hey fundraisers! You're spreading around a sort of miracle health elixir! Keep it up!

Thanks to Fundraising for Nonprofits for the tip.

Technorati Tags: altruism, fundraising

The right focus for fundraising

Do people respond to huge problems, or small ones?

Some recent research, reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, says small ones. New Research Sheds Light on What Works in Charitable Appeals. (Also reported a couple of months ago in the New York Times: Save the Darfur Puppy (subscription to TimesSelect required.)

Subjects were shown a photograph of a specific girl in Africa who is facing starvation.

A second group was shown the same image, plus information about the scale of poverty in Africa.

The girl, alone, without the accompanying statistics, stirred more people to action than she did when she was put in context.

Another study put an even finer point on the issue. It showed one group the starving girl. A second group was shown a boy in a similar situation, while a third group was shown both the girl and the boy together.

People gave equal amounts to each child. But they gave less to the two children combined.

One hurting person is more motivating than millions. One is even more motivating than two.

George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, one of researchers, said, "It really puts fund raisers in a fix. They want to appeal to the mind and the heart. But if they do, there's a real risk of undermining the heart."

I think Dr. Loewenstein gives fundraisers more credit than they deserve: Many don't want to appeal to the heart at all! The standard reason given in fundraising for fighting hunger is the large number of hungry people -- which, this research says, is not motivating.

If you better fundraising results, ask yourself Where's the puppy?

(See also The bigger the number, the smaller the comprehension and Emotional fundraising: 1 > 2,000,000.)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, motivation