Donor Power Blog

Sticks, stones, and words that can hurt

fundraising

Writers who pay attention to their work often have lists of words or phrases to avoid. Here's a good one from the Otis Regrets ... or Not blog. 5 words that hurt (your marketing results):

1. "I"
2. "We"
3. "It"
4. Words that can be read more than one way. (Like "read" (present tense) and "read" (past tense).
5. Words that look similar enough to be misinterpreted by a hurrying reader. (Like "through/thorough/though")
6. "As I just mentioned"

Well, six. Check them out.

Technorati Tags: marketing, copywriting

Marketing myths that many fundraisers believe

From Chief Marketer: 7 Myths CMOs (and Their Bosses) Gotta Stop Buying

1. "I'll just hire me one of them superstars."
2. "If everyone just picks themselves up by the bootstraps and tries harder (or works smarter) ..."
3. "If we can just get some of that marketing automation, that'll solve our problems."
4. "If we can't quantify it, we shouldn't do it."
5. "I don't care what it takes, just get it done!"
6. "We can't spare a dime to invest in research."
7. "We don't have time to examine our own navels."

Chief Marketing Officers aren't the only ones who buy myths like these. It turns out, in both marketing in fundraising, that you win when you stick to the basics, worth with the facts, and keep your eyes open. Not easy, but fairly simple.

Thanks to Church Marketing Sucks for the tip.

Technorati Tag: marketing

Decades-long string of final notices undermines nonprofit brand

I get variations of this piece of mail from the ACLU several times a year.

I've been getting these since I sent a donation during the Bush I administration, who tried to smear his election opponent by calling him a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU -- which, as far as I was concerned, was a dynamite recommendation of the organization.

That was about 20 years ago. The ACLU has told me literally hundreds of times that this is my last chance to renew my membership. My kids have spent their entire lives seeing these urgent final messages in the mailbox.

Do you think anyone in my household remotely believes that my last chance to join the ACLU is now, or ever? And how might our collective cynicism affect our faith in the organization's truthfulness in general?

If you get right down to it, the ACLU has spent a fair amount of money to undermine its brand among members of the Brooks household.

I'm in the biz, so I understand what's really happening, as do others in my family. (The Talk in our home is mainly about the ways of direct-response fundraising.)

But what about normal people? How many see the ACLU as a laughable wolf-crier? Or unrepentant liar?

I don't know what the answer is. If the ACLU were to ask me what they should do, I would not tell them to abandon the control, which I assume this piece is. I'd tell them to test against it. Which I'm pretty sure they're already doing.

But are they in accidentally trashing their brand and reputation? And maybe helping take down direct-mail fundraising in general with it?

Technorati Tags: direct mail, branding, ACLU

How to avoid telling boring stories

From Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog: Are your nonprofit's stories winners or snoozers?

If the stories you're telling are compilations of facts, Katya points out, you're just spreading around "emotional Novocain."

Real stories always contain:

• Character
• Desire
• Conflict

That's exactly what you'd learn in a fiction-writing or screenwriting class. Stories are stories no matter where they are. And when they're good, they're irresistibly compelling.

Give it a try.

Technorati Tag: story

Which words are you wasting energy by banning?

A number of years ago, I had two different clients that were both engaged in fighting poverty on different fronts.

One organization banned the word "poor" from their vocabulary. They felt it unfairly stereotyped the people they served, undermined their dignity, and created in donors an insidious sense of superiority. The preferred word for describing poverty-stricken people was "needy."

The other organization banned the word "needy" from their vocabulary. They felt it unfairly stereotyped the people they served, undermined their dignity, and created in donors an insidious sense of superiority. The preferred word for describing poverty-stricken people was "poor."

I never managed to introduce the two organizations to each other. Which is probably just as well.

We can get awfully wrapped up in the words we can and can't use. But here's a hint: If you have a list of forbidden words that contains anything other than profanity, you're just being clueless. And probably hurting your fundraising and communications.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, words

Donors are figuring out how to shut you up

Charity Navigator shows donors how to protect themselves against unwanted charity junk mail:

Or watch here on YouTube.

The video gives donors tips for reducing their mail. And asks fundraisers to "respectfully promote their good works to potential donors rather than harass them with endless appeals."

It's more than a little irresponsible for Charity Navigator to buy into the myth that fundraising is a form of harassment. Some fundraising could be called harassment. But that's the bad stuff; there's a lot more that's a welcome and legitimate part of donors' self-actualization. You and I and Charity Navigator may think it's ugly and tacky and simplistic, but that's a matter of taste, not fact. Charity Navigator should help donors get the fundraising they want, not assume the worst and call names.

But there's a more important message here: Get used to it. Whether it's Charity Navigator, financial advice columns, or hucksters selling "remove my name" products, more and more donors are going to learn that they can limit what shows up in their mailbox. Here's what you should do about it:

• Don't let a handful of complainers drive your policy. One person's annoying junk mail is another's welcome communication on an issue they care about. When you put the number of complaints an appeal generates against its number of gifts, you'll usually find gifts outnumbering complaints by a factor of multiple thousands.
• Respect your complainers. Give them what they want. If they want less mail, or no address labels, or never to hear from you again -- just do it. And do it fast. This is how you can either keep them as donors or s stop wasting money on them.
• Create opportunities for donors take control of the relationship. Let them set the frequency to their own preference, rather than waiting for them to get annoyed before anyone makes a move to correct things.
• Be relevant. If your communication comes across as a stream of harassing appeals, you have a relevance problem, as unfortunately many large fundraisers do. It's time to rethink how you win people to your cause and motivate them to give.

Technorati Tags: direct mail, junk mail

First things first: strategy, THEN tactics

So many nonprofits are asking if they should blog, or Tweet, or do something in Facebook. Even more keep asking age-old questions about direct mail, like How often should we mail? How long should a letter be? or What colors "work"?

There's a problem with those kinds of questions, says Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog at The backwards move that will kill your marketing ... and how to avoid it. Here's Katya's important point:

Don't ask questions about tactics till you have strategy. That's backwards. It will really mess up your marketing efforts.

There's no context for almost any tactical question until there's a strategy. Any answer, no matter how expert, is likely to be wrong.

The questions people ought to be asking are these:

1. My strategy is X; should I do tactic Y?
2. I'm considering strategy Z; is it likely to accomplish my objectives?

Technorati Tag: strategy

How and when it hurts to ask

An inexperienced fundraiser will sometimes say it never hurts to ask, usually as cover for some ill-conceived idea.

Seth begs to differ, at "It doesn't hurt to ask." He notes that a bad ask can do a lot more harm than good. As in this example:

If you run into Elton John at the diner and say, "Hey Elton, will you sing at my daughter's wedding?" it hurts any chance you have to get on Elton John's radar. You've just trained him to say no, you've taught him you're both selfish and unrealistic.

Sounds like one of those ill-conceived fundraising ideas, doesn't it? The inexperienced fundraiser say, "Well, we didn't have Elton before and we don't have him now. What have we lost? Nothing!" Except you've lost the ability to get Elton to do anything for you.

Fundraising works when you go to the right person with the right offer at the right time. Sometimes asking someone for a million dollars is exactly right. More often, especially with donors you don't know well, the right offer is something small, easy, and low-impact.

As Seth put it: "... invest some time and earn the right to ask. Do your homework. Build connections. Make a reasonable request, something easy and mutually beneficial."

Fundraising is built on learning about people. What they can and will do. Don't skip that part in favor of wild gestures that might work.

Technorati Tags: Seth Godin, marketing

Brag about your donors, not about yourself

This, in my opinion, is not a Stupid Nonprofit Ad. I know -- that's no fun. But it's worth looking at for a couple of reasons.

It's a sort of "guerrilla" awareness campaign done by The Salvation Army of Northern New England that scrawls the message we spend money on people, not on advertising and leads people to salvationarmydonate.org.

Here's what's good about it: Most donors love it when we spend less on marketing. So a campaign that centers around cheapness -- excuse me, efficiency -- is likely to be motivating. Here's how they explain it:

Recently, local businesses in Portland, Maine, helped us launch an ad campaign that cost absolutely nothing. That's right. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Sure, a big, expensive campaign could have gotten our name out there. But at what cost? See, it's thinking like this that helps us give 83 cents of every dollar donated directly to the people who need it most.... Now more than ever, it's important to make every dollar count. It's nice to know The Salvation Army of Northern New England is committed to "Doing The Most Good" with your donations.

They almost got it right.

But they made one near-fatal flaw: They made this whole thing about themselves.

It should have been about their donors.

(The salvationarmydonate.org page is also self-referential, basically a portfolio of the campaign with a donate button at the bottom. A potential donor who's at that page is there because the campaign worked; they don't need to know more about the campaign. They need a page where they can take action.)

Bragging about yourself is not attractive. And it misses the point. Donors don't give because you're smart, or efficient, or clever. They give because they are excellent people. Your excellence is part of the price of admission into their world. But it's not what motivates them to give.

This campaign would sing like Callas if they made a simple and fairly subtle change:

... it's thinking like this that helps us put 83 cents of every dollar you give to help the people who need it most.... Now more than ever, it's important for you to make every dollar count. That's why The Salvation Army of Northern New England is committed to "Doing The Most Good" with your donations.

It's about donors, not us. That's what matters. That's what works. That's what we should always do.

(This didn't make the Stupid Nonprofit Ads list. But here are many that did!)

Technorati Tag: advertising

When nonprofits do wrong

I wince every time I see something like this post at Keeping a Close Eye: Funding Incompetence that fingers the American Red Cross and the Smithsonian Institution as "tarnished charitable organizations":

These two charities are representative of a diminished sector that needs to replenish its cherished place with America's trust. Unfortunately, they parallel AIG, Merrill Lynch and the rest of the large financial institutions that are apparently too big to close or sanction. The taxpayers have become the guarantors of their survival.

It's a painful piece to read. I don't know whether it's entirely fair. But I do know two things:

1. We're likely going to see a lot more of this kind of thing in the coming years. And not all of it is going to be this well-reasoned; some will be completely off-the-wall. Because anybody can say anything online. Be ready for it.
2. Stories like this may hurt us all in the short term, but help us in the long term ("us" being the honest, ethical, and competent fundraisers). Charity scandals tend to fester for years as people vaguely remember that some charity did something nefarious and they don't want to give to whole categories of organizations as a result. By noting who did exactly what, these stories can place blame where it's due, not on everyone.

What's the ethical nonprofit to do?

• Be super ethical, all the time. Many actions that used to be tolerated probably won't any more. And many more things that never saw the light of day will become public.
• Don't participate in sweeping dirt under the rug. If another nonprofit screws up, don't be seen as circling the wagons and protecting the guilty. You'll get painted with the same guilt.
• Have a plan for responding if you get unjustly painted as an evildoer.

See also this report from the Federal Trade Commission on an operation against some charity bad guys: Operation False Charity.

Technorati Tag: scandals

The upper limit of asking frequency

Yesterday we noted that there are only a few reasons not to ask your donors to give. The lesson is this: "ask and you will receive."

Up to some point (which I have yet to witness) every appeal you add will produce more net revenue. So why not just mail all the time?

For one thing, there's the threat of insanity. Direct mail is tough work, and getting it right takes a lot of concentration and energy. Then there's the question of relevance: How many distinct, meaningful, relevant appeals can you make before you're either over-repeating yourself or getting irrelevant? (The answer to both of these lie within, as they say.)

But for the sake of argument, let's put all that aside and say you were to mail 52 direct mail impacts a year.

52 impacts would probably produce more net revenue than one appeal -- or than 51. But at the cost of efficiency. Appeals generally have a suppressing effect on appeals mailed before and after them. The closer they are, the stronger the suppression. So while your net might be higher, your ROI would go down, getting closer to 1:1 as your expenses rose faster than your revenue.

How much asking, then, is too much? I'm pretty sure 52 is too much. But I've seen programs that were mailing around 35 impacts a year that raised impressive net revenue with only minimal impact on ROI.

The answer for your organization is: Unless you're already in the 30+ ballpark, you can probably mail more.

Just be aware that sudden, radical increases in frequency are counter-productive -- you'll see a surge of complaints, and not the corresponding increase in response. It works better to grow your revenue by increasing slightly each year until you reach your right frequency.

If you're mailing quarterly now, add one or two impacts. If you're mailing, monthly add two or three impacts during high-response seasons of the year. That's how you maximize revenue through frequency.

Technorati Tag: direct mail

When not to ask for funds

To hear some fundraisers talk, you might believe that one of the coolest secret fundraising weapons around is not asking for money.

It doesn't work.

For the most part, not asking is the quick route to not receiving.

But I do know of three situations when it's better not to ask than to ask:

1. When a donor specifically requests that you not ask.

Common courtesy says you don't talk to someone who doesn't want to be talked to. But in fundraising, it's better than that: When someone requests less communication, they often end up giving as much or more than someone who makes no choice at all. In fact, it works so well, you'd be smart to encourage donors to tell you when and how you should contact them. Just giving them the choice improves their future responsiveness. It's like magic!

2. When it's not worth your money to ask.

With some donors, it might be costing you too much to ask. Someone who gives you $5 will most likely give you $5 each time they give. Pay attention to the costs and revenues of your fundraising by donor giving level. You'll likely find groups where you're paying more to ask than you're getting back. This is often masked by the overall performance of the file as a whole.

Finally, and most important, the main reason not so ask for money:

3. When you don't need any revenue.

Takeaway from all this: If you need money, you should ask for money. With some rare exceptions, more asking means more revenue.

Tomorrow we'll look at the theoretical upper limit to the frequency of asking.

Technorati Tag: direct mail

What a cheese shortage teaches us about fundraising

As of the moment I post this, it's 36 days, one hour, 44 minutes, and 36 seconds until Tillamook Sharp Cheddar goes back on sale.

If you don't live on the West Coast, you may not be aware of Tillamook Sharp Cheddar. If that's the case, I pity you. But right now I also pity myself and cheese-lovers across the Northwest because there's no Tillamook Sharp Cheddar!

They didn't make enough, and ran out. It takes a long time to make, so we're living without until July 1. And people are taking notice. At places like the Tillamook Fan Club.

Scarcity is compelling. It focuses the mind.

I, like many others, have thought more about Tillamook Sharp Cheddar in the last few days than probably in the entire rest of my life. I really want some, and if I were a bit younger and had fewer things to do, I might even camp outside my supermarket the night before July 1 to make sure I got some. (And since when has a blog about fundraising covered a cheese shortage?)

Scarcity can also power your fundraising. But it needs two qualities:

1. Be real. Don't make up bogus scarcity. It's probably not believable. Even if you make it believable, it's not ethical.
2. Seem real. Being real only gets you half-way there. The reality has to make sense to your donors. It has to be easy to understand and clear, not surrounded by a blanket of legalese.

Matching fund offers create a kind of scarcity. There's only a certain amount that can be matched, or there's a limited time to take advantage of the fund.

Time can create scarcity. If there's some reason you have to fund something before it's too late (like somebody will die if we don't send the help right away), emphasize that fact.

Look at the facts about your programs. Look for scarcity. If you have it, trumpet it. I'll celebrate with you over a cheese sandwich -- in July.

Technorati Tags: Tillamook, marketing, scarcity

10 ways to get direct mail wrong

There are a lot of ways direct mail acquisition can go wrong, and a lot of them are self-inflicted.

Jerry Huntsinger outlines some of the more dangerous ways we hurt our acquisition efforts in FundRaising Success magazine: 10 Temptations to Avoid in Acquisition Packages.

Each of these is a temptation to overcome:

1. Starting the project by writing the letter.
2. Creating the package and then finding out how much it will cost.
3. Creating a package without first examining what you’re testing against.
4. Writing any copy without first working out the design for each piece in the package.
5. Putting teaser copy on the carrier envelope just because everyone else seems to do it.
6. Trying to win with words.
7. Saving the reply form for last.
8. Writing an encyclopedia of every fact about the charity.
9. Using dense paragraphs.
10. Finishing your copy without first reading it aloud.

Remember, don't do these things. And don't miss the details at the article. These things happen -- or start to happen -- frighteningly often.

Technorati Tags: temptations, direct mail

Don't get your briefs in a twist

If you like to succeed at fundraising, one of the best things you can do is plan your project by writing a brief. And make it thorough, complete, and well-considered.

I'm not the only one who thinks so. That's the message at the Queer Ideas blog: 5 ways to screw up a brief. Here are the five things to avoid:

1. Don't show the brief to the people who will sign off the creative work.
2. Define the target market as simply a broad demographic.
3. Put in a list of all your brand values or refer to a website that lists all the brand values.
4. Set your target as 'raising as much money as possible.'
5. Put as much as possible in your single-minded proposition.

These are all symptoms of sloppiness, and they are all too common. But the biggest and most common way that people screw up a brief is not doing it at all.

If you want a project to go well, put down its goals, message, audience, and other important requirements in writing. Make sure everyone understands and owns those requirements.

If you have some general goals and beliefs about how a project should turn out, just tossing it to a copywriter will usually not accomplish the miracle of organizing your thoughts for you. In fact, you'll likely end up more confused and further away from completion than you were when you started. Not to mention all the time you'll waste along the way.

An hour spent at the beginning of project defining and planning what you intend to accomplish saves many hours later on.

(See also Don't go out without your briefs.)

Technorati Tags: marketing, brief

"Best practices" -- not always the best practice

A lot of fundraisers focus on "best practices." What is everybody doing that's not stupid?

I'm not sure that's the right way to do.

Because being obsessed with best practices can be the road to mediocrity.

"Best practices" is supposed to be about not making stupid mistakes. And that's fine. Applying experience to the situation at hand is important.

Too often, though, "best practices" ends up meaning risk aversion and creativity avoidance.

It's great to know what you're doing. But if you zero in completely on doing everything the standard way, you won't achieve greatness. You may avoid embarrassing errors, but you won't go beyond the middle.

Doing something innovative or amazing often means you don't know what you're doing. It's not a best practice. And it might fail. But it might succeed in a breakout way.

So be aware of the best practices. Be smart and experienced (or hire someone who is). But know when to go beyond the standard way of doing things. That's how you make a difference.

Technorati Tags: marketing, risk

How story-telling goes wrong

It's no big news that stories are an important part of fundraising. Stories are one of the main ways we motivate people to join our causes.

There's a long, detailed post on story-telling for fundraisers at the Sea Change Strategies blog: Andy Goodman Ruined My Life. Now I Want to Ruin Yours. There's a lot there that's worth reading if you want to tell better stories. But here's one part, the fatal flaws that derail our stories:

1. Fear of Emotion.
2. Bad casting. (You're casting yourself as the hero of the story.)
3. The "everyone can do it" myth. (Get professional help!)
4. It's "story telling," not "stories telling." (One story, not 1,001 Tales.)
5. Happy ending syndrome.

Technorati Tags: stories

Always listen, but don't always obey

Hey, I'm really honored to be taken as the poster-boy of donor-centrism. (I'm usually seen as the poster-boy of messy desks.) But the guys at The Agitator are pushing it a little too far in their post, Listen To Your Donors? Sometimes when they impute on me an extreme belief in donor listening:

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Jeff Brooks over at donor-centric Donor Power Blog would probably say "Always!"

Come on, guys. You're totally putting words in my mouth.

Well ... technically, you aren't exactly putting words in my mouth, because I would indeed say Always listen to donors. I just wouldn't say Always do what donors tell you to do.

Let me show you two examples:

1. Suppose some donors -- maybe a whole bunch of them -- want you to change your mission. You don't have to obey. In fact, you almost certainly shouldn't obey. Your donors support your mission, but they don't know it like you do. It's up to you to lead in this area. To find the donors who want to come along with you. To let go those who don't. It's your job and your duty to bring that leadership to the table.
2. Donors complain that you send too much mail. (Sound familiar?) If you follow their advice and cut back on your fundraising, you're going to have to cut back on your programs too. Because you're going to get less revenue. Your donors don't know squat about fundraising! One of the worst things you can do is let complainers set your course. By all means, send less mail to that donor who says you're sending too much. Just don't be tricked into assuming that's what's right for all of them.

You are not an empty vessel, waiting to be created by donors. You exist to accomplish your mission, and you need donors to join you. A donor might have a really cool idea about how to do your work, something you never would have thought of. But don't count on it.

You should not only listen to donors, but actively seek their thoughts on any topic you or they can think of. But don't hand them the steering wheel, because they'll crash you in about five seconds.

By the way, if I were Facebook (the actual topic of the post on The Agitator), I'd create a button for their two million belly-achers who hated the new design. Clicking that button would allow them to stay with the old design. If the new one really was a lot better, people would eventually all migrate over to it.

Five things you can learn from infomercials

I've seen more than one fundraiser object to a fundraising message because it's "like an infomercial." If you're of that mindset, you're not going to like this slideshow from the Influential Marketing Blog: 5 Marketing Secrets From Infomercials.

But if you're smart and open-minded, there's a lot you can learn here:

5 Marketing Lessons From Infomercials

Write it down, because these things can work wonders in your fundraising:

1. Have a backstory.
2. Show the product in action.
3. Use real testimonials.
4. Make a specific offer.
5. Give a reason to act NOW.

Technorati Tags: marketing, infomercials

Direct mail fundraising: Longer is still better

One of the more common critiques you'll hear of direct mail fundraising letters:  It's too long.

Meaning:  I'd never read a letter that long.

Talking about how long a letter should be is rather like debating how long a piece of string should be; it depends on what you want to do with it.

But really, that long letter (however long it is) is probably not too long.

Longer letters usually work better than short ones.  That's a fact, not just my opinion.  I've tested different letters more times than I can count.  In the last five years, I can think of one time that a shorter letter motivated more giving than a longer one. 

Yeah, it's weird, but it's true. 

Direct mail is still a readers' medium.  And those most responsive to direct mail are those who actually intentionally get their information through reading.  So longer letters work better.  We don't know if people actually read longer letters -- it's entirely possible that they don't.  But we know the response is usually better.

This could change in the coming years as a new generation of busier, more cynical, less print-friendly donors become our audience.  But I'm not going to assume shorter letters are the better choice until donors prove it to me.

(It doesn't quite go without saying that relevance trumps the length question any time.  A short relevant letter will almost always beat a long irrelevant one.  But a long relevant one will generally out-pull both.)

Your donors may be different.  You may have tested into more success with shorter letters.  But if you're relying on short letters because you personally don't have time to read longer letters, you're probably making a mistake. 

(For more on the dangers of using your own taste and experience to judge marketing efforts, see The pathetic fallacy in fundraising)

Lower media costs can give fundraisers big advantages

From the Silver Lining Department: Charity Broadcast Appeals Cost a Lot Less in a Down Economy (Prospecting blog).

With many businesses hurting, they're buying a lot less advertising. That has driven down the cost of broadcast media by as much as 50% compared to a year ago.

This is a great opportunity for fundraisers. Because even though response may be down -- as it is for some, but not all -- lower costs make effective fundraising more do-able than ever. The simple math, outlined by Tom Harrison of Russ Reid, goes like this: With cost down by 50% and response down by 25%, "you're still 25% ahead."

We're likely to see this in all media. Printers and lettershops are also likely to be slashing prices.

Just be careful of donated media, which is also likely to rise. It can hurt you, big time. (See How free media can make you stupid.)

Technorati Tags: marketing, advertising

Your key to recession survival: focus on donors

Here's Katya Andresen's column in this month's FundRaising Success: Pulling Out of the Nonprofit Nosedive.

Her important point: When times are hard, the best thing to do is to give donors what they want. Meaning, says Katya:

1. Donors want to feel good
2. Donors want familiarity
3. Donors want tangibility
4. Donors want flexibility
5. Donors want personalization

If you focus in on your donors, you just might survive. But the funny thing is, you're going to have to keep thinking this way when the rest of the economy turns around, or you're going to stay in your own private recession for a long time.

Technorati Tags: recession, marketing

Imagination is the key to getting support for your cause

One thing nearly every cause has in common: Its believers think all other causes have huge support and attention, while their own is unjustly under-publicized.

Truth is, pretty much all causes are under-publicized, at least in proportion to their importance. So what do you do?

John Sauer, communications director for Water Advocates, has an idea for his cause. Writing in the Huffington Post, at No-Plumbing Disease. He put forward that around 25 water-borne diseases -- including cholera, typhoid, amoebic dysentery, Guinea worm, and schistosomiasis -- together constitute one of the world's top health risks, killing more than 1.5 million children each year.

He figures giving this complex problem a single name would help catapult it into the echelons of more-noticed issues. His proposed name: No-Plumbing Disease.

He's half-right. Naming a problem is a large part of what fundraisers do. That moves it from abstract to concrete in the minds of non-experts.

Part of the reason it's hard to "sell" the problem of water-borne disease is that too many of us still talk about them the way medical professionals talk about them, not the way their victims experience them.

I'm not sure "No-Plumbing Disease" has the oomph you'd need to break through this one: It sounds a little like the punch-line to an un-funny joke. Not really painful or life-threatening.

Frankly though, if you can't motivate people to give to fight Guinea worm (<- CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK; ICKY IMAGE ALERT!), you just aren't trying.

And not trying is the root of the problem. A little imagination, some copy-sweat, and the willingness to appear less buttoned-down than your bank -- that's what it takes to bring people along on your cause.

Thanks to Give and Take for the tip.

Technorati Tags: marketing, water

More useful stuff for fundraisers

Want some more great resources to help you be an effective fundraiser? Here are the slides from a talked given that January's DMA 2009 Washington Nonprofit Conference by the ASPCA's Steve Froehlich, Senior Director of Direct Response: The Resources that Make Good Fundraisers Great (PDF).

Lots of good stuff here. And Steve has (ahem) good taste in blogs.

(And, in case you missed it, see Best blogs for fundraisers.)

Technorati Tag: blogs

Jargon: the hidden killer of fundraising

You might be speaking a foreign language to your donors -- and not even know it. That's the somewhat frightening prognosis from the Ahern E-Newsletter, at Does your stuff suffer from jargon breath?

Jargon is shorthand. To you, it could be rich and nuanced, connected to real experience and bursting with reality. To non-experts (that is, your donors) it's just a goofy word that doesn't mean much:

... an outsider simply cannot accurately visualize what your jargon means. The references are missing. The daily exposure is missing. The context is absent. For insiders, jargon can conjure a rich world. For outsiders (i.e., donors), jargon just conjures confusion and blank mental screens.

I once had a client who loved the phrase civil society. In his eyes, that stood for everything good his organization was working to accomplish. Nothing else really captured it in his eyes. We said "civil society" a lot in his fundraising. Like every sentence.

Want to know how well that fundraising worked? It wasn't pretty.

Fundraising is about communicating with other people, not with ourselves. Ask a non-insider about the ways you describe things. You might be surprised how far away from understanding your jargon they are.

Thanks to Mal Warwick for the tip.

Technorati Tags: marketing, copywriting, jargon

Swarm of blood-sucking insects helps spread the word

How's this for making a cause real and immediate:

While speaking at TED about the fight against malaria, Bill Gates released a jar of live mosquitoes into the auditorium. "There's no reason only poor people should have the experience," he said. Then he waited just a few seconds that must have seemed like a long time to the audience and assured him that they weren't infected mosquitoes. (Reported at The Business of Giving.)

Do you think those people came away from that talk bored and disconnected from the cause of fighting malaria?

Gates wasn't fundraising, but I'll bet he motivated some giving that day.

We should all be so gutsy about making our causes come to life.

Here's the talk. It's very good:

(Or see it here.

(Some reaction to the stunt at the TED blog.)

Technorati Tags: malaria, Bill Gates, TED

Is your fundraising all out of love?

A sad but all-too-true and all-too-common tail at Gift Hub: Is Love such a Bad Thing to Mention in Philanthropic Circles?

... I find myself endlessly writing words like "love," "care," "compassion," and then deleting them as unbusinesslike.... We confirm our own prison, each of us abstaining from the very language that best expresses our best thoughts and is most conducive to the social change we seek.

Too many of us edit "love" out of our copy because such things just don't seem "professional."

If you're doing that in fundraising copy, you're not just being untrue to yourself -- you're missing the entire point.

Fundraising is all about love. If it isn't, you might as well be banging away at a gong for all the good you're doing.

Asking and giving are activities of the heart. They always will be, no matter how professionalized fundraising becomes.

Don't be afraid of love and its cousins. Instead, be afraid of operating without them.

Technorati Tags: love, copywriting

What you can learn from President Bush's mistakes

Not to pile on the former president or anything, but a recent article in the National Review, Ten Bush Mistakes, points out some things fundraisers can learn from the Bush Administration. Some of them are a lot like the mistakes that plague many nonprofits.

So, leaving out the very specific ones from the Review article, here are some Bush-like errors fundraisers often make:

An ineffective management style.

Management is boring. I think so, and so do most people. But when you get it wrong, nearly everything else goes wrong. Putting people in the right places, letting them know they're valued, not making stupid, morale-killing mistakes -- that's what management is. Not as cool as your Cause, but critical nonetheless.

Deferring to his generals.

Fundraising goes bad in a big way when the "generals" lead the "commander in chief." That's because the generals (in our case, the leaders of programs, marketing, fundraising, and other distinct specialties in organizations) have different agendas, some of which can be in conflict with each other. The Commander needs to create alignment. That means saying no when a general is pulling against the common good.

Too much accommodation of a GOP Congress.

Even when they're on your side, you still have to lead them. Many nonprofits are hotbeds of self-destructive activities because people aren't held accountable for their actions.

Not reading enough history.

Too many nonprofits behave as if they just sprang, fully formed, from their founder's head. Pay attention to what's happened before. Hire experienced employees and consultants -- and listen to them. 90% of what happens to you has happened before. The problem has already been faced and solved. You don't need to start at square one every time.

Refusing to settle the internal war within his administration.

It's easy for organizations to develop silos of expertise that don't cooperate, and eventually become mutually hostile. Without effective leadership, huge amounts of energy gets diverted into the conflicts between silos. Your Cause is too important to waste your energy.

Underestimating the power of explanation.

Really. Just telling people what's going on makes all the difference. In fact, the exercise of explaining forces you to think more clearly.

Technorati Tags: Bush, npmanagement

How free media can make you stupid

Yesterday, we looked at how Stupid Advertising helped crush One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). Unfortunately Stupid Ads weren't the only problem they faced.

As part of their Give One Get One campaign last fall, OLPC was the happy recipient of as much as $15 million worth of donated media, including TV, print, and billboards.

Donated media can be fine, but here's a precaution: Don't take something free that you wouldn't pay for.

When someone gives away free media, it's possible they're being truly philanthropic and donating something of value. More likely, though, they're unloading "garbage" on you -- media they haven't been able to sell because it has little or no value in the marketplace.

It does you more harm than good to accept donations of garbage.

It's easy to say, Heck, what's the harm in it? Even if it performs terribly and all we get are a few responses, those responses are gravy, right?

Not quite.

First, there's the opportunity cost. Every moment you spend creating and managing campaigns for free media is a moment you're not working on something that might actually get you somewhere.

I don't know too many nonprofit fundraisers who have extra time on their hands.

(There's also some kind of corollary to Murphy's Law that shows how campaigns created for free media have an abnormal level of complications and problems.)

The other downside: Free media breeds stupidity.

Exhibit A: Billboards for OLPC's Give One Get One campaign. I don't know how much of the free media bonanza consisted of these billboards, but these are everywhere in Seattle. (The fact that they're still here, many weeks after the campaign is over, is a good indication that these are excess inventory, not valuable advertising space.) Here's one in my neighborhood:

Signs of Stupidity on this billboard:

• The headline is above the image. Basic design knowledge tells us that this virtually guarantees that the headline won't be read by most viewers.
• Not that much is lost if nobody reads that headline. It's at best an oblique, abstract call to action.
• What exactly is this an image of? A kid with a laptop on her head? And what does that communicate? It's a cute image that communicates neither a need for laptops, or what happens if you do give a laptop. (I'm pretty sure when kids get their laptops they don't schlep them around on their heads. They probably use them as they're intended to be used.)
• Finally, the response option is pretty much invisible. Can you see it? It's the tiny type in the lower right corner.

I don't know who designed this billboard. Maybe the same award-winning jokers who did the John Lennon TV spot. Whoever did it, it's not competent response advertising. It's a Stupid Ad.

(And frankly, even when done well, billboards aren't a very effective response medium.)

So next time you're offered free media -- whether it's print ad space, broadcast, outdoor, or anything else -- look at it with a jaded, cynical eye. If you find it's something you'd never buy, don't take it for free.

You shouldn't do things that don't work just because it's affordable to do so.

Technorati Tags: advertising, billboards

How deadly are stupid nonprofit ads?

How much can stupid ads hurt a nonprofit?

Plenty.

Consider the sad case of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), an organization with an innovative mission: to supply sturdy laptop computers to third-world students.

One marketing campaign by OLPC, Give One Get One, had the cool premise of allowing you to buy one of their laptops for yourself while providing one for a child. In 2007, the campaign sold 185,000 laptops and generated $37 million in revenue. Not bad for a new organization with an unfamiliar offer and marketing that relied largely on word-of-mouth.

In 2008, they hoped to do even better: With $12 million to $15 million in donated advertising, including TV, print, and billboards, and with Amazon.com to handle fulfillment. It seems they should have had a blockbuster on their hands.

They didn't.

The 2008 campaign numbers were 12,500 laptops and $2.5 million. Ouch! That's a 93% drop. It has forced the organization to lay off half its staff and drastically scale back its mission, as announced on the OLPC blog. (You can also read about it at The Boston Globe: Fund loss staggers group giving laptops to poor children.)

OLPC believes the drop was caused by increased competition from organizations with similar missions plus the economy.

Bosh. Virtually all fundraisers survive fierce and constant competition. And the recession hurts, but not that much.

I believe OLPC was shot down at least in part by Stupid Advertising.

The campaign featured a spot using a digitally recreated John Lennon as spokesman. It got a lot of press. Check it out:

(Or here on YouTube.

First, let me say that this Stupid Ad doesn't have the dumbfounding WTF? quality that defines most of the Stupid Nonprofit Ads I write about. And, I've gotta admit, John Lennon has to be the Coolest Spokesperson in the Universe.

Produced by award-winning creative boutique TAXI NY, the spot drops the ball in nearly every possible way, other than "coolness":

• The first 21 seconds (that's out of 30) have only abstract information -- neither the audio nor the visual bring you one step closer to understanding the need or even grasping what the spot is about. That's 70% of its meager time wasted.
• There's no call to action. Barely even a suggestion of what they want people to do.
• The URL is on screen for just four seconds. Try writing it down that quickly. Really.
• There's no urgency, no specificity, no deadline -- every single element of successful response marketing is omitted.

The smallest, most unsophisticated hayseed direct marketer from any benighted flyover exurb wouldn't have made those mistakes. The 93% drop isn't so surprising. For comparison, see the ad from the 2007 campaign:

(Or here on YouTube.)

Not the greatest spot ever (unless Hurricane Katrina just hit, motivating response with a 30-second spot is a very tall order), but it has many of the response basics. So it got responses.

My advice to OLPC (and any other nonprofit):

• If an award-winning ad agency approaches you offering to do award-winning work for you, run as fast as you can the other way. Even if they offer to work for free. Change your phone number. Go into hiding. Don't let them crush your cause with their Stupid Ads.
• Start talking to an agency that practices disciplined, knowledge-based direct-response fundraising -- *cough* *Merkle* *cough* -- and get some work done that will move you forward in measureable, meaningful ways.

There's another lesson in this debacle, and we'll look at that tomorrow.

Thanks to Otis Regrets for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, advertising

Don't snub donors with the Myth of Self-Sufficiency

Do you need your donors?

Then tell them so!

I know that sounds like relationship advice from a radio psychologist, but it needs to be said because so many fundraisers believe in the Myth of Self-Sufficiency.

The Myth is expressed in a recent post at Sue's Muse, a fundraising blog, Do Donors Trust Your Brand?

NEVER NEVER NEVER ... tell your donors that, unless they send money ... there will be no program(s). Rather focus on the positive aspects of your programs and the impact you and your organization are making in spite of the current recession and how, with their continued support, you can make an even greater impact.

Remember - No one wants to donate money to what they perceive as a sinking ship!

This is not just one blogger's opinion. It is widely held by fundraisers who practice it every day.

No wonder so many donors think they aren't important to the organizations they support. The Myth of Self-Sufficiency inadvertently tells them things are fine without them.

Listen: Unless you have a funding structure that makes your donors unnecessary, tell them you need them. If you need them urgently, if you need them to keep the doors open for the next 48 hours, if programs would be cut without them -- don't hide it. Be honest, open, and urgent.

It makes a lot of people in nonprofits uncomfortable to admit their dependence on donors. They think it reflects poorly on their management. But donors want to be wanted. Years of experience, including head-to-head message testing, tells me this: An appeal that says, We may have to cut programs unless people like you give outperforms an optimistic things are great, please join us message by dramatic margins.

It's probably possible to become the boy who cried wolf if your messaging is always desperate. But I haven't seen that happen.

There's no fundraising reason to downplay the critical importance of donors.

So put the Myth of Self-Sufficiency to rest and go out there with some good fundraising that tells your donors you really need them!

Technorati Tag: donor psychology

Slogans: Too artificial for the real world

Want to know another reason so much advertising, marketing, and fundraising is bad? Dan Heath and Chip Heath (authors of Made to Stick -- reviewed here) have a theory in Fast Company: Made to Stick: The Anti-Slogan Argument.

They've noticed that attempts to motivate people devolve into sloganeering -- catchy little phrases that no mentally healthy human would use in conversation. You know: taglines. They're meant to capture the essence of whatever you're talking about in a clever, memorable way.

Trouble is, it just doesn't sound real. As the Heaths say:

People don't speak slogan-language today unless they're trying to put one over on you. So when you hear one, you immediately become cynical. (Just imagine your prickly reaction if your kids started minting slogans: "If you love somebody, get them Wii.")

The solution: Just start telling stories. The way you do with your friends.

Slogans, taglines, advertising, brand guidelines -- that stuff is over. If you want to motivate people, act like a person.

Thanks to Brains on Fire for the tip.

Technorati Tags: marketing, slogans

Direct mail fundraising mistakes

There's a good series running in FundRaising Success magazine: Fundraising 101. This month is on Direct Mail. Especially commend your attention to the article, 7 Rookie Copywriting Mistakes to Avoid.

Here they are:

1. Not having a clear plan
2. Starting with the letter
3. Overlooking the response device
4. Failing to consider donor benefits
5. Avoiding the ask
6. Writing 'purple prose'
7. Forgetting that the letter is a letter

It's worth admitting that rookies aren't the only ones who make these mistakes.

Go read it. It's good advice that can save you some trouble and boost response to your direct mail.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, direct mail

Obama isn't faking it about his BlackBerry -- but ad execs would make it seem like he is

"I'm still clinging to my BlackBerry. They're going to pry it out of my hands."
Barack Obama

You can't buy advertising like that. But if you could, according to a recent New York Times story, it would cost you something like $50 million (For BlackBerry, Obama's Devotion Is Priceless).

It works because it's real. He's not spouting a slogan. He's not repeating the tortured platform from the brand guidelines. He's just saying, in his own words, that he likes the product. Oh, and he's super-famous and generally admired.

That's the kind of endorsement you want -- the kind that can super-charge your marketing and fundraising. It's rare, but it happens (Bill Clinton did it for Kiva -- see it on YouTube).

But here's how not to get it: From an ad agency.

One ad industry guy quoted in the Times suggested this tagline for the Obama/BlackBerry campaign: "If Blagojevich can pick my replacement, I can pick my device." Another described a print campaign that looks like this: "In the foreground, you have the desk, but instead of having the proverbial red phone, you have a red BlackBerry, with the tagline 'Shot Caller.'"

Leave it to ad people to come up with such utter authenticity and make it false, glib, and artificial.

Advertising is so over.

Do you do something really, really cool? Be real about it. Don't "advertise."

Do you do something pretty ordinary and not likely to capture anyone's heart or imagination? Well, you might need to advertise. But it's not going to help much -- like doing CPR on a skeleton.

Authenticity is the heart of great marketing. Advertising, as the saying goes, is the penalty for having an ordinary product. And the way ad agencies work these days, it's a very high penalty.

(Want examples of how advertising mangles the good work of nonprofits? See Stupid Nonprofit Ads.)

Technorati Tags: advertising, marketing, BlackBerry

Fundraising from introverts

Have you thought about the people you fundraise from? Most marketers don't, says Roy Williams, in his MondayMorningMemo: Introverts and Extraverts.

The population is split almost evenly between introverts and extraverts, but you wouldn't know that by the way marketing and communication is done:

Focus groups measure the opinions of extraverts. Churches plan social events for extraverts. Companies hand out promotions to extraverts and sales trainers teach us how to sell to extraverts.

Too much marketing and fundraising is aimed at the extraverts. That means it misses the other half of potential buyers and givers. It's fine to aim squarely at one group. But if you forget the other one exists, you're writing off a lot of support.

The error can go both ways: As a certified introvert, I'm always dumbfounded that telemarketing works. If I paid attention to my instincts, I'd never have anything to do with telemarketing. And that would be a mistake because telemarketing works. It works because extraverts are perfectly comfortable with it.

Some people (introverts) figure stuff out in their minds before they talk or take action. Other people (extraverts) figure it out by talking about it. Each of us acts one way or the other. The best fundraising allows both types to function.

Your own way of thinking is not the only way. If you think it is, you're missing the other half of the human race.

Technorati Tags: marketing

Charity Navigator to truly empower donors

If you believe in empowering donors, you pretty much have to like charity rating services, like Charity Navigator and GuideStar; they provide donors with objective outside information that help them make their own giving decisions.

Trouble with both of these organizations -- as well as nearly all others like them -- is they rate nonprofits solely by their efficiency, as measured by their ratio of program expense to overhead. Which doesn't tell you very much about how effective an organization is.

Efficiency matters, and an out-of-whack expense ratio should give a potential donor pause. But it's only part of the picture. Effectiveness is more important. The type of work a nonprofit does can inflate or deflate its efficiency. The charity raters ignore this fact, leaving the very complicated question of effectiveness up to individual donors.

That's why it's great to read an announcement from Ken Berger, CEO of Charity Navigator that his organization is interested in giving donors more information. You can read about it at Ken's Commentary blog, A Measure of Outcome.

Hats off to this fine organization for embarking on the important (and difficult) project of finding a way to better equip donors. I wish them well, and look forward to what they come up with!

How not to raise funds

A lot of things work in fundraising. But here's something that doesn't work: Talking about your cool activities.

That's what Tom Ahern says in his About Donor Communications E-Newsletter, at Would you buy a mattress from this charity?

... nonprofits talk way too much about their activities, and way too little about their accomplishments. Sorry: wrong audience. Only insiders care deeply about what you do: the details, the nuts and bolts, the daily grind, or the underlying theory. Outsiders ... care mostly about your results.

It's tempting to sell to yourself when you're trying to sell to others. That's why so many fundraisers think they have good fundraising when they can say I'd give to that.

Actually, when you reach the I'd-give-to-that stage, you've almost certainly created poor fundraising.

Here's how to think about this: You are not your donor. If you describe what you do in the way that sells it to you and your colleagues, you're missing the boat.

Technorati Tag: marketing

Fundraising resolutions for 2009

Two recommendations for you to make this year a better your for your nonprofit organization:

Evangelize fundraising.

You already get it. But I can almost guarantee there are people in your organization who think of fundraising as a dirty job, a necessary evil, an embarrassing add-on to the real work.

That attitude does more to hobble the work of nonprofits than anything but pure incompetence. If there's an anti-fundraising attitude in an organization, it will always end up shooting down good fundraising and instead practicing a lame, half-hearted, old-school fundraising. Which means less revenue and less public support.

So spread the good news: Fundraising isn't just about money. Giving helps donors be better people -- happier, healthier, more conscious. The more that's believed within your organization, the better off your fundraising, your mission, and your donors will be.

Be not afraid.

Or at least act like you're not afraid. These are tough times. We face hard choices and painful situations.

But if you let fear drive your thinking, it's going to be a lot worse. The fear-driven nonprofit that cuts fundraising and crawls into a hole will stay in their own recession one to two years after the general recession ends.

That's because when you stop filling the pipelines with new donors, you end up in the following year with few second-year donors. The second year after you stop acquiring donors, you have a shortage of core donors -- your best, most committed, most valuable donors. And the empty donor class continues to echo through your fundraising, hurting you for years into the future.

At the very least, keep acquiring donors.

Better yet, ramp up your donor acquisition. You may find that the fear-driven cutbacks of other organizations have left donor mailboxes less crowded.

Your mother would give you this fundraising advice

Sometimes it's so easy, it's hard. Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog, at The best kept fundraising secret in the world, points out a great "secret" that should be obvious:

... be nice to your donors. Lavish them with love, thanks and special treatment. Because most charities do not. You can stand out and save your donors if you get better at this.

Be nice? Who'da thought?

In my book, being nice to donors includes these things:

• Showing their gifts matter by receipting within 24 hours.
• Thanking them specifically for what they did.
• Being as personal as you can possibly be in your thanks.
• Offering them choices -- about how and how often you'll communicate, what you'll communicate about, how you'll use their name -- and then honoring their choices.
• Talk to them about themselves, not just about you.
• Don't screw up their names, addresses, gift amounts, or any other data.
• Go the extra mile to help them if they call or write with a request.

I know that's just a start, but Katya's right: If you're nice at all, you'll stand out in the crowd of the 10 to 15 charities most donors support.

Technorati Tags: customer service, marketing revolution

Warren Buffett's fundraising advice

Okay, Mr. Buffett's advice isn't about fundraising; it's about investing. But it's good advice for fundraisers too:

"Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful."

The sloppy, fear-driven everyday fundraisers are freaking out. They're cutting budgets and crawling into their caves to wait this thing out.

You, on the other hand, are keeping your head on. You realize their fear-based cuts mean a less crowded fundraising marketplace: Less stuff in the mailbox. It also means printers and mailshops, facing less business, are more willing than ever to give you deals.

You also understand that treating your donors right will keep them on board. But of course, you were already doing that.

You can spend less to get more. Unless you're too afraid.

When this storm finally blows over and mailboxes again fill up with junkmail -- that's when you should feel nervous and thinking about retrenchment.

Most nonprofits face pain in the coming months. But if you follow Warren Buffett's advice, you'll emerge faster, and in far better shape, than if you follow the freaked-out herd.

Technorati Tags: recession, Warren Buffett

Don't create fundraising that you like

Here's a good insight from a long-time pro in direct marketing: Denny Hatch, in his Business Common Sense newsletter, at It's the Design, Stupid!

It's mainly a wonderful, cranky critique of a badly designed direct mail piece. (I want to be him when I grow up.) But here's what he says that should really get your attention:

When someone asks for a critique, I never say whether the piece is good or bad, or whether I like it or not. Long ago, I realized I can't judge good direct mail. It judges me.

If the mailing works -- brings in orders, inquiries or donations at an acceptable cost per order -- it's good direct mail.

It's not about whether or how much we like something that matters. It's whether or not it works.

So much energy and money are wasted in misguided quests to create fundraising messages that we (or our superiors) like.

That's all wrong. Your (or my, or your boss's) personal taste tells you almost nothing about the potential power of a fundraising message.

In fact, the I-like-it factor is probably a strong counter-indicator of potential success.

You aren't your donors. Your sense of what's cool, motivating, or interesting are very different from your donors'.

Furthermore, you aren't trying to get even your donors to like your fundraising. You're hoping it'll motivate her to give. Amazingly often, effective fundraising is not very likable. If you've ever watched a focus group look at successful direct mail pieces, you've seen how the winning pieces do. People hate 'em!

The secret to successful fundraising is to move completely beyond like/dislike and operate from a body of knowledge of what has worked and tested well before. Add to that passion, energy, and a willingness to take well-considered risk, and you'll produce good work that succeeds more often than it fails.

Don't waste your time talking about whether you like it or not.

Technorati Tag: marketing

Do your job like it matters

Watch this inspiring report. It takes less than three minutes.

Do you feel this way about fundraising?

You should. If a teenager can bring that sense of mission and passion to running a grocery store, you can do at least as well for fundraising.

And you should, because passionless, going-through-the-motions fundraising sucks.

Thanks to The Chief Happiness Officer for the tip.

Technorati Tags: passion

Treat your donors to some unexpected kindness

It's not all about how clever you are in your fundraising. It's also about how you make your donors feel in all the ways you connect with them.

The (small) community of non-stupid businesses are figuring this out in the commercial context, and the Return Customer blog is talking to them in 10 Tricks Customers Hate and 10 Treats They Love. Here are the "treats":

1. Show the Customer some empathy
2. Share a deal or discount with customers
3. Do something for customers instead of just telling them what to do
4. Do more than the customer expects
5. Be proactive in your customer service
6. Make a personal connection with your customer
7. Remind customers of the benefits you've provided
8. Reassure customers when big changes are happening
9. Respect your customers' time
10. Explain the details to your customers

(You'll have to go see the "tricks" yourself.)

As a nonprofit, your capacity to inflict pain on your donors is much less than that of some companies (think airlines, insurance companies, cell phone companies).

But these acts of kindness (aimed to make commercial relationships nicer) can make you stand out in a donor's mind. It's little things that can make life a little easier and more pleasant for your donors. Be human. Go out of your way to do something helpful. Just being empathetic and kind will be like a fresh breeze out of nowhere for your donors.

Technorati Tags: marketing, customer service

How to practice Obama-style fundraising

More useful post-mortem on the presidential election. Advertising Age explores What Marketers Can Learn From Obama's Campaign.

 It's pretty straightforward. The campaign practiced:

1. Simplicity.
2. Consistency.
3. Relevance.

(Read the article. Lots of details under each point.) You can't go wrong with that.

Ask Mr. Obama.

Technorati Tags: Obama, campaign

What a great speech shows us about fundraising

When this blog launched after the 2004 election, there were a lot of unfortunate examples from the failed campaign of Senator John Kerry on how we often get fundraising wrong -- how we fail to connect with people by using our language instead of theirs, how we insist on framing issues in our own way, rather than submitting to the way regular people do.

How things have changed. Now we have a successful campaign to learn from, with tons of positive examples to inspire and instruct. This will be more fun.

Here's a great start: The Create Your Communications Experience blog looks at Barack Obama's election night speech and why it worked so well: Transformational Election - Transformational Speech!

Here's what the President-elect did right in that speech:

• It was all about you.
• He stayed on point.
• He told a story.
• He was likable.

If you can do those four things in your fundraising and marketing, you're a long way toward success.

Tomorrow: Positive lessons from the Obama campaign.

Technorati Tags: marketing, Obama

How not to talk like a clueless advertiser

What's wrong with advertising these days? Roy Williams has an idea, in his MondayMorningMemo, at The New Language of Effective Ads:

Although we're rarely drawn to people who begin all their sentences with "I," "Me," and "My," this first-person perspective remains central to mainstream advertising. And it's why most Americans detest mainstream advertising.

Sadly, a lot of fundraising shares this character flaw with advertising. The message is: Look at me! See how effective I am! Notice how long I've been at work! Me! I! My!

That's not how you motivate people to join you. As Williams says, you have to use the language of courtship to win donors. (And don't miss Williams' R-rated description of courtship marketing!)

(I have an additional theory for Why advertising is so bad.)

Technorati Tags: advertising, marketing

How to deal with irrational donors: Don't

Law-watchers say "hard cases make bad law." We could probably ad a nonprofit corollary to that: Crazy donors make bad fundraising.

The For Impact Daily Nuggets Blog looks at this issue at The Irrational Investor, making the observation that around 1 out of 40 prospects are "completely irrational." They ask weird questions. They have eccentric agendas. They just throw you for a loop. But ...

... you cannot and should not be focusing on 1 out of 40. You need to focus on the other 39 -- RATIONAL investors -- the prospects ... that want to save lives, change lives and impact lives ... the prospects that want to have real conversations ... with YOU.

(A 1-in-40 irrational rate seems high to me; that's 2.5% crazy. Yow.)

It's always best to focus on the normal part of any audience you engage. Nearly all of your donors are reasonable, like-minded, clear-headed, and rational. Aim your efforts at these people.

The effort you put into dealing with your irrational donors is time you aren't spending with the normal ones who give you all the money. And no amount of prep is going to help you turn a crazy person sane.

Technorati Tag: marketing

It's (almost) all about asking

I'm far from the first to point out this excellent Manifesto for NonProfit CEOs (PDF) at Sasha Dichter's Blog.

If you know anyone in fundraising who doesn't care for fundraising, give them this document. Teaser:

There's this unspoken idea floating around that "fundraisers" can go about their work in a vacuum, having quiet, unimportant conversations with nameless, faceless rich people, while all the while the people who do the real work (the program folks) can go about their business, separate from and unconnected to this conversation. What a waste.

Technorati Tag: asking

If you're not a filthy liar, prove it

You might be amazed how cynical donors can be.

I once interviewed a lot of folks who were sponsoring needy third-world children. Again and again, these good people said what impressed them most was when they discovered that the child they sponsored was a real person. It floored me: These normal, decent people had started with the assumption that the organization (a well-known religious charity) was lying to them about their sponsored child.

Good chance you've got donors who think that ill of you. Apparently it doesn't take a psychopath to believe a nonprofit organization is psychopathic. Many donors have a nagging fear that they're being taken.

This is why it's so important that we report back to donors on what their giving accomplished. Here are three ways to do that:

• Your receipt is about the same topic the appeal talked about. Too many nonprofit receipts are generic -- not connecting back to the gift. It should use the same language, with same level of emotion and urgency that motivated the response.
• Nearly all the content of your newsletter is about the impact of donors' giving. (You do have a newsletter, of course.) Not an "education" piece, but a clear and obvious reporting back vehicle.
• Consider special progress reports, especially for key donors, about ongoing projects they support.

These things give evidence that your work is real, that she hasn't been tricked. But even more important, they show her that her support matters and is appreciated.

Prove to donors that their giving is real and you'll have better donor retention, more upgrading, and great word-of-mouth in the marketplace.

Technorati Tag: skepticism

More on surviving a down economy

There's a lot of advice out there about surviving the economic crisis. Some of it is good, like what you'll find at Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog 6 Ways to Survive the Economic Storm. The advice:

1. Don't be steered by fear.
2. Set realistic goals.
3. Don't abuse your existing donors.
4. Get online today.
5. Don't undersell yourself.
6. Admit to donors that it's hard.

Most important: #1. Fear will drive you to bad decisions that will hurt you worse than the recession itself will. Be realistic, be smart, watch the horizon -- but don't be afraid. At least don't act afraid.

Technorati Tag: recession