Donor Power Blog

Facebook Giving: How one donor got recruited

As social media increasingly becomes a part of the nonprofit marketers’ toolkit, many nonprofit fundraisers are wondering whether the big mama of all social networks—Facebook—is really worth the effort and investment from a fundraising perspective.

Sure, we all know we can get people to like our page, maybe post some comments, watch some videos, but, stories abound about the lack of success in terms of turning Facebook followers into donors.  Sure, there is Facebook Causes, and socially branded efforts by commercial marketers (check out the Chase Giving campaign for a great example), but can Facebook actually cultivate the kind of donor relationship that results in “real” donations?

Based on personal experience, I have to say yes.  As a fundraising professional, I get A LOT of solicitations—DM, online, TM, you name it.  And I read most of them, and every once in a while I get moved to give.

Below is the story of one organization that regularly receives donations from me, and my relationship with them exists entirely because of, and continues to be cultivated by, their Facebook presence.

I first became familiar with the Wildlife Friends of Thailand (WFFT) because a friend “recommended” it to me on Facebook. I am an animal lover, so I was eager to learn about what these folks were doing to help animals in Thailand.

Before you knew it, I was giving on their website 3-4 times a year. Why? Because the WFFT follows some very basic best practices that we all apply in our marketing programs every day, and is successfully using them on Facebook.

We all know the age-old truth that a compelling story of an individual will in most cases beat statistics and generalized calls to do “something” for “everyone.”  So, instead of telling me about the plight of animals in Thailand and making me feel helpless about the magnitude of the problem, WFFT’s posts are frequently focused on a specific need:

· We need money to help transport Jane the elephant to our facilities. Here is how we found Jane the elephant, her condition, and why we need to help her.

They also do a great job of providing updates and showing my money at work:

· Hey remember Jane the elephant that you helped us rescue? Well, here are photos of Jane, us treating her, and here is how she is doing.

They make me feel like my contribution is really accomplishing something on a regular basis (it does not disappear in some giant hole of “helping animals.”)

· Here are 7 monkeys who’ve lived with us and we’ve helped support for 6 years. See them play in their new enclosure.

They regularly thank the community for its support:

· It was hard for us to struggle through the political tensions in Thailand. Some of our largest volunteer groups cancelled. But, because of your support, we were able to continue on.

What WFFT is doing on Facebook is no different in its essence from the best practices of direct fundraising:

· Make the ask relevant and compelling

· Provide updates and feedback of donor’s money at work

· Engage donors as part of your cause and mission—turn them into constituents, not just wallets

· Create a  two-way discussion (make donors feel a part of your mission every day)

 

The moral of our story: sure Facebook is a great way to cultivate a community, spread your brand, but, tell people about your need in the right way, and it IS possible to get people, well at least some of us, to open our wallets.

 

So, ask yourself this:

· Who in your organization owns your Facebook presence and what do she/he/they believe its ultimate value prop is for the organization?

· How thorough is your Facebook post follow-up?

· How frequently do you measure the impact of calls to action (if there are any)?

· Has your organization truly developed a strategic approach to Facebook fundraising that is able to measure the long-term impact to organizational revenue from Facebook donor cultivation efforts?

 -Miriam Kagan

(Miriam is a strategy director with Merkle's nonprofit group. She is obsessed with everything Social Media and Do-Gooding.  Find her @MiriamKagan on Twitter.)

(WFFT is not a client or associated with Merkle)

Darwinism and Fundraising – an Observation.

 “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.” – Charles Darwin

Most industries, whether it be financial services, telecommunication carriers, sportswear brands, or whatever other commercial entity you can think of, go through a general business cycle as they evolve.  A period of initial expansion, where many new “players” enter into an industry to capitalize on an opportunity, is then followed by a period of contraction or consolidation, where the strongest “players” acquire, overrun, or otherwise defeat their rivals to take hold of the marketplace.  This is considered to be the healthy and natural way of things in the world of business and economics.

Now consider for a moment what has been happening in the fundraising industry.

· In 1998 there were 1,158,031 Non-Profit organizations in the United States, and by 2008 there were 1,536,134.  That is a growth rate of 33% over a short 10-year span of time. 

· The U.S. population underwent an annual rate of growth that hovered around 1%.  So the population in 2008 is approximately 10% greater than it was in 1998.

· Median Household Income over that same 10-year window of time grew at a slightly higher rate of 15%. 

· In 2007, public charities reported over $1.4 trillion in total revenues and nearly $1.3 trillion in total expenses.

(Statistics from U.S. Census Bureau and Charity Dynamics)

We begin to see the problem.   

The nonprofit industry is growing at a far more rapid rate than is the population or our median income, and fundraising itself suffers from an increasingly higher cost to raise a dollar.  Even despite the migration of the massive Baby Boomers population into that fundraising sweet spot of age 60+ and the fact that since 1998 charitable giving has steadily increased year-over-year, there just isn’t enough economic fuel to burn for this continuous sustained growth for all of the charities in the ever expanding nonprofit sector of the future.

The newly-created nonprofits that spring up across the years all believe they have a viable chance at sustainability, and who can blame them?  Their causes are no doubt worthy and urgent, and as we know many needs go unmet even despite such a large universe of nonprofit organizations.  But that just isn’t a fair or realistic expectation. 

The pot of charitable dollars that the U.S. population is willing to contribute annually is rapidly approaching its threshold, which means that either charities need to redefine what a successful year means – where growth from one year to the next might not be possible – or larger organizations may need to begin to consider acquiring or absorbing smaller organizations of similar mission to eliminate the competition for charitable dollars.  At the very least small organizations will soon need to band together to leverage the “strength in numbers” approach, in order to manage an ever-increasing cost to market to their donors.  If not just for the benefit of the industry, for the good of the donors across the United States who are being flooded with donation requests.

A good donor for your organization is likely a good donor for another organization, and as a single donor spreads his or her charitable dollars around, he or she quickly becomes a multi-buyer in the world of list rentals – which leads to a massive load of impressions.  The donor’s mailbox quickly fills with appeals and prospect pieces from local, regional, and national charities.  The donor’s online inboxes overflow with an endless stream of emails.  And not too far in the distance, the donor’s cell phone will be buzzing with text message after text message.  All of these contacts vying for the same pot of charitable dollars. 

My point is that it is unfair to the donors who are now bombarded with requests for support from every direction, when all they did “wrong” was make a generous gift to a cause they deemed worthwhile to them.    For the good of the donors the time to start considering consolidation, cooperation, partnerships, and co-branding between nonprofit organizations is upon us – and we need to decide if we embrace this new reality, or if we ignore it – risking further alienation of the donor population and ultimately leading us as fundraisers to a future not unlike that of the dinosaurs. 

Because as Charles Darwin would no doubt tell us, "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed at adapting themselves best to their environment."

-Stephen Ferrando

Stephen is a Strategy Director at Merkle with a combined 12-years of expertise in both commercial  and nonprofit marketing, strategy, and analytics.  In his free time Stephen is working on becoming a ninja, as well as focusing on his life-long dream of completing the last side on his Rubix Cube.

 

 

 

An Equal Opportunity Stimulus

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill allowing taxpayers who make a donation to victims of the Haitian earthquake to claim a charitable donation when filing their 2009 taxes this spring.  

Nonprofits who have the most to gain from this legislation, such as the American Red Cross and other disaster relief organizations, “wholeheartedly” favor this move because it encourages people to continue supporting their relief efforts. 

My initial thought that this was a good thing.  Anything done to motivate more people to support earthquake victims in Haiti should be encouraged and of course, is greatly appreciated.  A comment made by Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who said, “it’s a simple gesture, but it will encourage giving in this challenging economy,” has me rethinking my position. 

The generosity of the American people is well documented, especially in times of natural disaster.  In fact, in the week following the Haiti earthquake, individual donations to the Red Cross, alone, exceeded $130,000,000.  A genuine and compassionate desire to help the people of Haiti is the motivation behind these gifts, not the promise of personal gain and incentive.

What message is being sent to all the other American charities struggling in this economy?  What about concerns that as donations are redirected to Haiti there could be greater hardships here in America?  Why would the House encourage people to give only to the earthquake victims when there is so much need here in our country? 

Are they saying that feeding and sheltering America’s growing population of hungry and homeless, caring for our nation’s sick or preventing life-threatening diseases is any less noble than the relief efforts in Haiti? 

If Rep. Blumenauer is correct and the bill is designed to stimulate giving, then the only equitable solution is to extend the same tax incentives to all tax payers making donations to any approved American charity. 

-Greg Fox

“DONOR” A Title Earned … Not Given

I’m on a crusade to change the way the fundraising industry “labels” people who give to charity – primarily money, but also old cars, used clothing, outdated furniture, canned food, etc.  Regardless of intent or motivation, we call them our “donors.”

 

We also call people who give blood, tissue, organs or reproductive material donors.  In fact, there is a National Donor Memorial located in Richmond, Virginia that honors people who have donated an organ and/or tissue.   

 

Think about that … a person who is willing to donate blood, a kidney or bone marrow to literally save someone’s life is given the same title as the person who randomly gives $10 or $15 in response to charitable solicitations, often times because they included items such as name labels, cards and calendars. 

 

Don’t get me wrong.  My intent is not to belittle those who donate money to charity or de-value their contribution to society.  In fact, our world would be a better place if more people did so.  I’m just not sure this act of giving warrants the title “donor,” at least not yet. 

 

Becoming a “donor” should be a prestigious title (an honor) and should be reserved for only those who demonstrate through an extended period of time that they are “fully committed” to the organization, regardless of the size of the gift.    People who give contributions are not donors, but donors give contributions.  There is a huge difference between the two.

 

So how does someone earn the title “donor”?  There’s no rule, of course, but perhaps it’s those who:

 

• Are among the 15% who give 85% of the revenue
• Contribute 10% or more of their annual household income to only a few select charities
• Demonstrated a sustained pattern of giving over three or more consecutive years
• Give and who also advocate for your organization, or
• Have a personal relationship to the charity

 

 “Who is a donor?” – someone you can least afford lose.  Someone you’d go to great lengths and expense to retain.    Lots of people give to charity, but a precious few earn the right to become a “donor.”  

 

Join my crusade.  People don’t have to give an arm and a leg to earn the right to be called a donor, but they do have to jump in with both feet!

 

-Greg Fox

 

Empathy builds deep connections with donors

Until not so long ago, I was a care-giver for a family member with a progressive, debilitating disease.

If you've been through that, you know how utterly draining, stressful, and demoralizing it can be. Even with a good support system, you often feel alone, trapped, and like a failure.

When people learned about my situation, they often tried to be helpful. As you can imagine, I got a fair amount of well-meaning but mainly bogus advice. You endure the advice.

But there's another kind of comment that actually helped. Things like It must be hard. Or I know what you're going through.

Empathetic words like that were refreshing, restoring, comforting. Just words, but with a power that nearly took my breath away for the way they made me feel less alone and more understood.

Empathy is powerful.

You may be able to offer empathy to your donors. It comes most naturally for disease-support organizations whose donors include many with the disease and their caregivers. But really, any nonprofit that builds relationships with donors can be empathetic:

• We're all living through the toughest recession in a long time -- and older people (i.e. donors) are especially impacted by it.
• We're all stressed by the speed of life these days.
• We all have hard decisions to make, including hard decisions about where to make donations.

Think about the points of empathy you share with your donors.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, empathy

Emotional messaging works; rational messaging hurts

Anybody who knows what they're talking about will tell you: emotional appeals work better in fundraising than rational appeals. Yet we keep churning out low-emotion fundraising, because too many of us simply find that fact unbelievable.

Want it in writing? Here's a study of emotional appeals in advertising, reported in the Neuromarketing blog: Emotional Ads Work Best. It's a large study of print ads that compared the profitability boost connected to ads that had purely emotional content with those that used rational content and those that used both.

The findings were startling. The emotional ads did about twice as well as the rational ads. The mixed ads were in the same ballpark as the emotional ads, but it appears that rational content cost them effectiveness.

(It's not clear to me what these percentages measure. Go see the study.)

Why does emotional messaging work better than rational messaging?

[The study] attributes this split to our brain's ability to process emotional input without cognitive processing ... as well as our brain's more powerful recording of emotional stimuli.

This is very hard for a lot of people to believe. Probably because our own emotional decisions seem to us to be rational decisions. That's an illusion, and a terrible thing to base your fundraising strategy on.

The more, and more effectively, you can grasp this simple (but also complex) truth, their better your fundraising will be.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, advertising, emotion

How your other mission strengthens fundraising

Here's a great way to reorient your thinking about fundraising from the queer ideas blog: The Society for Nice, Middle-Class Older People needs your help.

Here's the premise: When you're doing fundraising, no matter what organization you're working for, you're really working for the Society for Nice, Middle-Class Older People, or SONMOP. This organization's mission is to help such people feel good about themselves. The cause you're raising funds for us just the raw material you're working with to help the folks you're writing to feel good about themselves.

If you've been doing fundraising right, this thought experiment will change almost nothing about your work. If you've been getting it wrong, it changes everything:

... rather than taking organisational needs such as explaining a new policy, featuring a 'representative' balance of different projects, communicating a set of key brand values or even explaining a project in unnecessary detail our goal is now to give the donors what they want -- or more accurately -- what they need from a charity.

This is a brilliant exercise, and you really ought to do it.

At least half the good you do when you motivate people to give takes place in the lives of those who give. When you know that and shape your messages around that knowledge, you'll raise a lot more for your other cause.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

Do sad faces make donors give more?

Do pictures of sad children stir more people to give than picture of happy children? In my experience: sometimes.

Recent research in the Journal of Marketing Research offers a more definitive answer than I do at The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements (PDF, 54 pages).

From the abstract:

This paper examines how the expression of emotion on a victim's face affects both sympathy and giving. Building on theories of emotional contagion and sympathy the authors propose that (a) people "catch the emotions displayed on a victim's face and (b) they are particularly sympathetic and likely to donate when viewing sad expressions, relative to happy or neutral expressions.

These findings straddle the line between blindingly obvious and just plain wrong.

Obvious because anyone who's done repeated image testing in fundraising will tell you that "sad" images are usually more effective than happy ones.

But wrong because the research didn't look at actual fundraising results. And anyone who does that knows that sad faces are not always more effective. It depends on what you're raising funds for. Sometimes a happy image just kicks butt over a sad one.

Other times a sad image doesn't quite work for various reasons. For example, when children are in pain, they frequently furrow their brows so their expression of pain seems in the context of a photo to be an angry scowl. Not sympathetic. That type of image often doesn't work very well.

The photo problem I see most often in fundraising material isn't whether images are sad or not, but it's a radical disconnect between the message in copy and the message of the photos. It very often goes like this:

Copy: 35,000 children died today from hunger.

Photo: Happy child.

These two conflicting messages basically cancel each other out.

It would make our jobs easier if we could trust a blanket statement about the types of images to use. But here in the real world, it's just not that simple.

Thanks to Cause Marketing for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, images

Borrow from Madoff's playbook (but not everything!)

Looking at it now, it seems so obvious that Bernard Madoff was ripping off his clients. But it wasn't at all clear at the time. In fact Madoff was a master marketer, as noted at the Unconventional Thinking blog in Madoff Marketing:

Madoff knew that other people can do a much better job of bragging about you than you can do on your own. Bernie built a network of a thousand third party endorsements. All he had to do was sit back, feign indifference and watch the machine do its magic.

Want to do well? Do what Madoff did -- minus the lies, fraud, larceny, and evil. Do something so exciting that other people do your marketing for you.

It worked when the product was too good to be true -- and there were open-eyed nay-sayers calling attention to that fact. Imagine how it can work if the product is real, true, and fully above-board.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, marketing, Madoff

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