Donor Power Blog

Inspiration to start the week

We came across this video this weekend.  Multiplier+ impact+ celebrities=powerful message.

 

 

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)

Fundraising Evolution – Weathering the Storm: Reporting versus Analytics

As the fundraising industry continues to grow towards a digital future from its analog roots, the need for us as fundraisers to adopt and accept a more evolved way of assessing our business becomes imperative.   The era of informed, analytics-driven decisions and strategies is upon us.

 

Gone are the days where creative thinking and “gut feelings” alone were enough to produce success.  In today’s fundraising landscape of fragmented media, contact saturated audiences, and increasing marketing costs, finding the safest and most effective way to our donors is less like finding our way home while avoiding one storm cloud, and more like having to escape a hurricane to get there.

 

For many organizations, and many client serving agencies out there, the true value of analytics is often ignored or misrepresented because of some other mis- words like misconception and misunderstanding. 

 

That is to say, in many cases the “creative thinkers” have wrongly attributed the title of “analytics” to what is in fact “reporting”.  These reports are often times cloaked in the guise of “analytics”, but are truly only useful to us if we enjoy looking backwards and not forwards.

 

So what is the real difference between Analytics and Reporting? Or in this case “Analytics” versus True Analytics?

 

On the most basic level, the difference between reporting and analytics is the difference between reading the newspaper today to hear about what happened yesterday, versus writing today the news of tomorrow.

 

 

"...It rained yesterday..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...It will rain tomorrow..." 
  

To explain it another way, reporting is really the assessment of lagging metrics in established layouts to easily see “what” happened and “when” on a historical basis. 

 

While analytics, true analytics, is the utilization of data (perhaps even some from the land of reporting) in combination with other dependent and independent variables, mathematically and scientifically proven techniques, and robust subject matter expertise, to produce that which reveals and quantifies everything from challenges to opportunities, and facilitate truly fact-based actionable outcomes – outcomes that when strategically deployed have a very real and measurable impact on a business or organization.

 

Analytics is where the future success of fundraisers will be found, identifying deficiencies, opportunities, and optimizations ahead of popular trends.  Analytics is where a better experience for the faithful and dedicated donors will be found, putting the most relevant and desired information in front of them when they want to see it.

 

Because for today’s fundraisers - knowing the location of a past storm, the “what” and “when”, will never be as valuable as knowing the predicted path, causes, and ways to avoid the future storms, the “where”, “why”, and “how”.

 

Reporting:

What most mislabel as "Analytics"

 

 

Predictive Analytics:

Real-time decision-making power

 

 

Stephen Ferrando

Strategy Director

 

 

 

 

 

Video: Doing Good is Good for Business

This past Sunday, former President Bill Clinton was interviewed on ABC's "This Week", where he shared his thoughts on philanthropy, engaging young people in civic action, and how nonprofits, like his Clinton Global Initiative University, can make the case that doing good is actually good for businesses' bottom lines.

Skip past the politics in the first 4 minutes of the video (philanthropic discussion starts around minute 4:20) and share your thoughts with us on what nonprofits can do to engage corporations as corporate citizens.

Can't see the video? Click here to watch it on ABC.

 

Be Stupid

Seriously, be stupid when you look at something; approach it with a totally blank mind.

 

I picked up this phrase from Edward Dolnick’s  The Forger’s Spell– a book that outlines one of the greatest art forgeries of the last century and explains how a mediocre Dutch painter passed his own works off as Vermeers.  His success was due to his psychological manipulation, and he bamboozled many authoritative art historians. 

 

It is a good reminder lesson that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and a lot of knowledge can be dangerous, too.

 

(When you look at the paintings, can you tell which one is a fake?)

 
 
 
The object lesson of this story is confirmation bias. We often see what we want to see. We tell ourselves that we make decisions based on evidence when we in fact skew the results by accepting welcome news without a second glance and subject unwelcome news to further questioning.

While confirmation bias is often linked to beliefs which are based upon prejudice, faith, or tradition rather than on empirical evidence, it does apply to scientific endeavors as well.  Confirmation bias keeps researchers focused on things that tend to support rather than that those which might serve to refute a theory or point of view (good news, while we can’t assume that one person will work hard to refute his or her own theories, we can generally assume that someone else will).

 

When we realize that we have an unconscious inclination to weigh evidence selectively, we will have a better chance at recognizing and utilizing material we might have overlooked.

 

Approach test results with as open a mind as possible. Dig deeper – did a test really work?  Macro level results can say one thing, and more detailed results another. The external environment is changing and so is your file – the test that won four years ago may lose today because your file has changed (e.g., fewer new donors or more lower dollar donors). What are the neutral and lost test results telling us?  For longtime practitioners, balance “that never works” with “why we think it hasn’t worked and should we try again?” I am not saying ignore your knowledge, just be aware of the skew it can have.

 

 

 

-Becky Graninger

 

(Christ in the House of Martha and Mary)-http://www.essentialvermeer.com/vermeer_painting_part_one.html

(Christ at Emmaus, fake)-http://www.essentialvermeer.com/misc/van_meegeren.html

(The Astronomer)-http://www.essentialvermeer.com/vermeer_painting_part_one.html

 

 

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

What can we learn from TV’s most popular curmudgeon?

I am referring to Gregory House, the brilliant medical diagnostician who is the poster-child for unconventional thinking.  

Season 4 introduced a group of Fellowship candidates that had to compete to make the final team of three.  In Guardian Angels (episode 404 if you are interested), House axes the oldest candidate because the candidate thinks too much like House (ignore the fake doctor part). House needs alternatives. His professional relationship with his colleague Wilson is similar. He often says that Wilson’s thinking is nonlinear and sloppy, but it takes House down roads he normally wouldn't go.

How does this apply to fundraisers?  Well, in case you hadn't noticed, most of us are working in mature media or in mature organizations; now add in the effects of the “Great Recession”. We have to think seriously about what we do, how to grow, what to do better, faster and more effectively, and what new things to try.

 

We need to challenge ourselves and that means we have to look at things differently. So, while it is comfortable to develop a sounding-board of people who finish your sentences, look for a few who don't. Develop a cadre of people where you often have to explain, argue and resist. It will make you a better thinker and that will make you a better fundraiser.

 

-Becky Graninger

 

What can we learn from TV’s most popular curmudgeon?

I am referring to Gregory House, the brilliant medical diagnostician who is the poster-child for unconventional thinking.  

 

Season 4 introduced a group of Fellowship candidates that had to compete to make the final team of three.  In Guardian Angels (episode 404 if you are interested), House axes the oldest candidate because the candidate thinks too much like House (ignore the fake doctor part). House needs alternatives. His professional relationship with his colleague Wilson is similar. He often says that Wilson’s thinking is nonlinear and sloppy, but it takes House down roads he normally wouldn't go.

 

How does this apply to fundraisers?  Well, in case you hadn't noticed, most of us are working in mature media or in mature organizations; now add in the effects of the “Great Recession”. We have to think seriously about what we do, how to grow, what to do better, faster and more effectively, and what new things to try.

 

We need to challenge ourselves and that means we have to look at things differently. So, while it is comfortable to develop a sounding-board of people who finish your sentences, look for a few who don't. Develop a cadre of people where you often have to explain, argue and resist. It will make you a better thinker and that will make you a better fundraiser.

 

-Becky Graninger

 

“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

 

How to know if you're wrong about fundraising

Here's the easy test that could save you a kajillion dollars (that's a one followed by a bazillion zeroes). I'm willing to share it with you because I like you.

If your belief, or theory, or intuition about fundraising is based on your own personal experience, you are wrong.

That's right: Your own experience, preference, and wishes always lead you astray. Same with your boss, your consultant, your spouse, and pretty much everyone else who has an opinion about how fundraising ought to be.

That's because your conscious opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with the way real people interact with your message. Add to that the fact that you are not your donor (you're probably very, very different from her) -- and you have a situation where not only are your guesses wrong, they're very often diametrically opposed to what happens in the real world.

Get used to it. Form your beliefs from testing and learning, not personal experience.

Technorati Tags: direct response, marketing

The power of nice

Good post at Conversation Agent: Being Helpful is the New Black.

Seriously, being helpful always works. Never hurts. Be nice. Nicer than you have to be.

Why trying to be cool is self-defeating

Three cheers to the Do More Ministry blog for telling it like it is at Offering envelopes aren't cool ... so what? Another blogger was complaining about offering envelopes that many churches use because they aren't cool (see The Uncool Offering Envelope):

... when I read the that the "cool factor" is a reason NOT to use offering envelopes ... I'm confused. When did "cool" become a requirement ... for anything ... in church? I don't care about COOL. I care about FUNDING!

Trying to be cool is uncool, because it means you're focusing on yourself. That's how you become dull and irrelevant. Trying to be cool makes you shape the way you raise funds to meet your own needs, not the people you raise funds from.

The need to be seen as cool (or smart, or modern, or anything else) causes nonprofits to make all kinds of stupid and self-destructive decisions. Like arbitrarily change they way they raise funds because the old way doesn't reflect well on them. That's a huge self-centered, and very common mistake.

I'm no expert on the effectiveness of church offering envelopes. And I agree they aren't exactly cutting-edge. But if they work, that's a good reason to use them. Cool or not. Same with everything else you do.

The real cool guys? They're the ones changing the world because they're raising enough funds with corny old envelopes. I'd rather hang out with them.

Technorati Tags: coolness, marketing

Not perfect? That's okay

Good words from Too Busy To Fundraise about fundraisers who are stymied by Perfection. You probably know some: fundraisers who ...

... can't possibly fundraise yet because ... things aren't perfect, so we can't possibly ... ask anyone to help us move our mission forward.

Is that you?

Let me tell you a secret: I've worked with some of the largest and most advanced, trained, and with-it nonprofit organizations in the world, and not one of them is perfect. I could tell you tales that imperfection that would curl your toes. Yet these same organizations routinely raise millions of dollars for their causes.

You can always be better prepared than you are. You can always have a few more critical tools in your tool chest.

But you need to start somewhere. Where you are now is the best place to start.

Technorati Tags: perfection

Experts display their lack of expertise over "exploitative" ad

Is this ad, for Médecins Sans Frontières UK, the British arm of Doctors Without Borders, exploitative? Effective?

The controversy is reported at Give and Take: Doctors Without Borders Ad Generates Debate.

Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder. It's not a verifiable fact. (Though I have to say, anyone who finds this ad exploitative is a seriously sensitive plant.)

Effective, on the other hand, is a fact. It's accomplishing its objectives, or it's not. You wouldn't know that from the quotes and comments in the Give and Take post. One expert is quoted with this opinion:

After watching this ad several times (I don't recommend you try this) ... I feel 1) deranged and 2) hopeless, as though nothing I could ever do, much less donate a few dollars to MSF, could possibly have any effect on the vast, incomprehensible suffering in the world.

An "expert" whose opinion consists of how something makes her feel is not an expert at all. Because that tells us nothing useful about how effective the ad might be.

Any schmuck can tell us how an ads effects him. And the schmuckier the person, the more likely he'll tell us.

An actual expert will never bother to mention their own reaction. They'll focus on facts.

Technorati Tags: advertising, experts

It could be worse

Are things rough at your nonprofit, with rivalries, silos, and lack of communication? I bet they're not as bad as at Feed the Children, where an investigator found that three offices there were bugged.

Read about it at NewsOK in Oklahoma City: Oklahoma City police look into wiretapping at Feed the Children.

The wiretaps are just the latest in a string of travails:

It is unclear whether the wiretapping is connected to the power struggle at the charity. During the strife there, [founder Larry] Jones was at odds with four key employees and most of the directors on the charity's board. 

Oh, things are ugly at Feed the Children.

So count your blessings. You are better off.

How not to write headlines that will motivate donors

The most important copy you write anywhere is headlines. In newsletters. On print ads. In the form of direct-mail envelope teasers. Even email subject lines are a type of headlines. If your headlines are weak, dull, and unpromising, nobody is going to read everything else you've written.

So here's some important help from Copyblogger: Don't Do These 12 Things When Writing Headlines. Here they are:

1. Don't be original
2. Don't blend in
3. Don't be clever
4. Don't get desperate
5. Don't ignore your readers
6. Don't ignore your peers
7. Don't ignore social media
8. Don't ignore your personal style
9. Don't ask for opinions
10. Don't settle
11. Don't sweat the failures
12. Don't ask too much

More detail at the source. Don't miss it.

Veteran copywriters will always tell you that you should spend as much time on the headline as on everything else. Write a whole bunch of them and pick your best ones. The pay-off is huge.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, headlines

Should we turn away money from screwed-up donors?

Nonprofits do some astounding things. One of them is recounted over at the Get Fully Funded Blog, at Donor gets dumped over dumb donation.

Seems a donor to a small nonprofit's annual golf tournament wanted to increase his gift, but wanted to make sure it all went to the event. He didn't want anything going to "those people" -- that is, the poverty-stricken clients of the organization. The organization decided not to take his money because it's "tainted."

My question is this: Who's the dumb one in this situation: the donor, or the organization that rejected his money?

There may be additional facts about that donor and his money, but it looks to me like his money is not tainted by having been earned by evil means -- if it were, I'd agree that nobody should touch his money. But that's not the taint they were reacting to: His money was tainted by his thoughts.

And that's a slippery slope that slides to someplace no good at all.

No question the donor in this situation is a moron and a creep. But do you really think nonprofits should be screening donors for ideological purity? I'm afraid we'd find hardly anyone measures up.

People are who they are. They bring all kinds of stuff to the relationship. Not all of it pretty. We are in no position to cut ourselves off from them, as if we are too pure to be sullied by their very presence. In fact, by giving them the opportunity to give, we help them toward redemption and enlightenment. Even if they're seeking neither.

As far as I'm concerned, the organization in this anecdote deserves a big, fat, wet raspberry. They've tainted their cause with their holier-than-thou purity. Shame on them.

Technorati Tag: political correctness

Where's the magic for fundraisers?

Useful wisdom from Katya's Nonprofit Marketing blog: What Harry Potter Knows about Marketing.

Seems someone in the latest Harry Potter book points out something we all need to remember: It's the wizard that makes the wand, not the other way around.

As Katya points out, that's not only true about wizards. It's also true about fundraisers:

You have to be the wizard. The one who injects the tools with feeling and story, an appeal to human nature, and resonance with audience values. If you don't do that, the wand won't work. Nothing will.

I hear from a lot of people who want a magic solution to their fundraising challenges. Truth is, there are all kinds of super tools that have magic-like powers. But not a one of them works until you know how to use it.

Want better results? Work on yourself. The best tools will then fall into place.

You talking to me, or to all those other people?

One of the most common ways fundraising gets it wrong is that it doesn't talk to individuals; it addresses groups. That's the message at Sharpe Tips: Do You Write to Someone, or Everyone, in Your Donation Request Letters? The post asks these questions:

1. Is your letter addressed to "Dear Friend" or to "Dear Fred"?
2. Is your letter signed by a committee?
3. Do you say "you and me" or "them and us"?
4. Does your letter prove you know me?

I'll second those and add a couple more of my own:

• Are you addressing one person, or do you have phrases like "some of you" as if you're talking to a crowd?
• Is your letter about your donor, or about you?

As for the importance of personalization, I've found that personalized letters usually do better than "Dear Friend" letters. But in most cases, the lift is small. Sometimes it doesn't pay for the added cost of personalizing. If you do everything else right, lasering the donor's name onto the piece may not be necessary.

Technorati Tags: direct response, marketing

How I know the sky is falling

We're screwed.

We can't write out way out of a wet paper bag, and we couldn't focus on our audience if they were standing right in front of us. No wonder fundraising results were already dropping more than two years before the recession started. We just don't know how to raise funds!

Here's how I know this awful news: a few days ago, I posted a piece titled The case of the forbidden word about the difference between formal and less-formal words. Shortly thereafter, The Chronicle of Philanthropy's Prospecting blog summarized my piece (What Are Your Forbidden Fund-Raising Words?).

Go to Prospecting and scroll down to the comments (or check out the comments on the original post). What you'll find either place is a string of comments defending bizarre, politically correct circumlocutions. All with apparently straight faces and no intended irony whatsoever. (There are also many comments from people who get it.)

It's just depressing. And it confirms some scary research about the cold and inhuman qualities so common in fundraising copy.

The good news is, you don't have to write that way. If you don't, you'll do better than those who do. There really is a reward for getting it right.

Technorati Tag: copywriting

There's hope for struggling nonprofits

Even the worst mess is fixable. That's the hope-filled message from Christopher J. Doyle, president of American Leprosy Missions, writing in this month's FundRaising Success magazine: We Are Not Afraid to Say 'Leprosy'.

Mr. Doyle is writing in response to my past column, When PC Equals BS, about an unnamed organization that refused to utter the word "leprosy," despite the fact that its mission was fighting leprosy. Doyle correctly deduced that the organization I was talking about was the American Leprosy Missions of the early 90s, before his tenure there.

The leprosy organization that wouldn't talk about leprosy was in deep trouble. Donors were fleeing. Revenue plummeted. That's how it was when Doyle arrived. Among other important changes, he lifted the ban on "leprosy."

And guess what -- things turned around. American Leprosy Missions is now on solid financial footing. They've been growing for several consecutive years. They're even doing well now, when so many others are struggling.

That's what happens when you remember to talk to your donors -- not yourself. As Doyle put it:

We aren't going to ignore leprosy out of existence. The only way we're going to beat leprosy is to fight it on the front lines, one patient at a time. And that's going to cost money -- money that comes from donors who are moved to act by seeing what a vile enemy leprosy is to mankind.

Anyone looking at the pre-Doyle American Leprosy Missions would have seen an organization hopelessly circling the drain. That's what I thought. But things can change. There's hope.

You can hear an interview with Mr. Doyle about what it took to turn a nonprofit organization from trouble to triumph at the Fundraising Is Beautiful podcast: How a Sick Organization Got Better.

Technorati Tags: marketing, leprosy

Will restricted giving destroy your organization?

Reader Gerard Grim of Archbishop Hoban High School in Akron, Ohio, writes to ask an important question about how nonprofits can operate if they're raising restricted funds:

... if you take the unrestricted giving out of a school's budget, how do you keep tuition down at all -- if every dollar is restricted and tuition must cover every dollar of operation a school? If 10,000 donors all move their giving to one area of an institution what happens to the overall quality of the institution?

I have bad news and good news for you.

First the bad news: This is not something we're going to be able to debate about forever. Donors increasingly want choices. And they're increasingly getting them.

If you can't figure out how to run your organization while allowing donors to designate their giving, donors will eventually pass you by. That's a coming market reality.

Much of the solution is a matter for accountant-types. They have the tools it takes. If yours aren't helping you figure it out, they're next to useless. (See Malignant Accountants.)

But here's the good news: Donors are not going to wipe you out. They like you. They want you to succeed. Just be open and honest with them. Tell them what you need and why. Give them choices, and they'll respond. Give them reasons, and they'll help you. Like they always have.

But even better, it appears that most of the power of restricted giving happens when you offer it -- not when they give.

In repeated testing and experience, I've seen that when you offer restricted giving, a majority of donors (sometimes an overwhelming majority -- above 90%) still choose to give unrestricted gifts.

Why even bother with restricted-giving offers? Because response rates (and often average gift) go up when you do. It's very typical that when you use a restricted giving offer, you end up with more unrestricted revenue than when you used an unrestricted offer. Plus you get restricted revenue on top of that.

It's not going to be easy, but this is a transition each nonprofit can (and must) make.

Technorati Tag: unrestricted funds

Would you let this New York Times columnist drown?

Nicholas Kristof thinks we are lame. At least, that's how it seems based on his recent New York Times piece, Would You Let This Girl Drown?

Railing the world's lack of attention to the crises in Darfur in other humanitarian disaster zones, he puts part of the blame on the nonprofit organizations that work in those areas:

... humanitarians are abjectly ineffective at selling their causes. Any brand of toothpaste is peddled with far more sophistication than the life-saving work of aid groups. Do-gooders also have a penchant for exaggeration, so that the public often has more trust in the effectiveness of toothpaste than of humanitarian aid.

(You have to admit, he really has that dismissive, superior NYT tone down, doesn't he?)

Kristof seems to be confounding fundraising with influencing the international policies of the G8 nations. Motivating ordinary people to donate and pressuring policy-makers are not the same thing. Not even close. And peddling toothpaste is yet another thing.

If we did a better job at fundraising, we'd raise more funds and help more people in need. We'd also likely get more of the happy the side-effect of more people urging elected officials to pursue helpful policies. But getting G8 heads of state to act and think differently? That's another job entirely.

The negative comparison between aid groups and toothpaste sellers is 98% bogus. (The non-bogus 2% is that we should indeed pay attention to what they're doing in commercial marketing, because there are things worth learning.) I think the toothpaste companies would be utterly astounded if they could get people to give them money and get nothing back but a sense of connection with the cause of dental hygiene. That's just what fundraisers accomplish every day.

We all should salute Mr. Kristof for his work bringing Darfur and other places to our attention. But his marketing/fundraising/policy advice is weak.

See also Why Humanitarian Aid is NOT Crest Toothpaste at A. Fine Blog.

Technorati Tags: humanitarian, Nicholas Kristof

Computer analysis proves that fundraising copy sucks

If you fed a million fundraising letters into a text-analyzing computer, I bet you'd get back a message of: MAKE IT STOP!

Well, someone pretty much did that -- the text-analyzing, not the making it stop.

Frank Dickenson of Claremont Graduate University, in a study called "The Way We Write Is All Wrong," says he subjected 1.5 million words of fundraising communication to a "linguistic MRI" and discovered that those words were, well, not so great. Among other problems, he found that the fundraising copy:

1. Lacks linguistic features that create an interpersonal, emotional connection with readers (e.g. personal verbs like I feel and I think and contractions.
2. Lacks linguistic features that produce narrative (e.g. past tense verbs and quoted speech). In fact, their texts contain less narrative than academic prose, and even less than official documents!

I'm shocked -- shocked! This research agrees with what almost anybody who spends any time looking at the way nonprofits communicate already knows: Most fundraising copy is wooden, artificial, dull, and ineffective. Furthermore:

The evidence of neuroscience suggests that the current style of writing dominant among fund raisers actually circumvents the way the human brain is hard-wired to process language. The implications: fund raisers should not shy away from emotion, they should tell stories, and they should not over-edit and formalize texts.

Amen, brother Frank. (I'd be even more impressed if the study included correlations between problems in copy and fundraising results. After all, the one measure of copy's quality that really matters is effectiveness at accomplishing its purpose, which is revenue.)

Here's my theory why fundraising copy is the way it is: Committees. The best writing in the world is not going to survive the consensus-driven, CYA-focused, everyone-has-a-say process of most nonprofits. If it wasn't dead yet, it will be by the time the committee is done with it.

There's one very bright silver lining to this dark cloud: If you can beat the system and write good fundraising copy, you will stand out from the pack. You'll be miles ahead of everyone else, a breath of fresh air to donors used to the anesthetic quality of most of the fundraising they read.

Do check out Mr. Dickenson's research: the executive summary (4 pages) or the full study (36 pages; both PDF).

Thanks to The Accidental Marketer for the tip.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, research

Not everyone cares about what you care about

Trying to reach everybody with your amazing message? You're wasting your money. Check out Preach To Your Choir at Know Abundance.

"Preaching to the choir" is usually shorthand for "doing something pointless." It should stand for "smart targeting." (And as a singer in a church choir, I know I need being preached to as much as anybody; probably more.) Think of it this way:

When you are passionate about your work it's easy to think that your organization is the answer -- and that everyone should know about it, believe in it, fund it. Of course, we all want the broadest possible reach for our cause. But fundraising is not a public awareness campaign.

Virtually all fundraisers operate in niches. Usually, niches within niches. That niche is where you're going to be successful. Outside that niche, nobody's listening. No matter how great you are.

So go ahead and preach to the choir. They'll reward you with beautiful music.

Technorati Tag: marketing

The case of the forbidden word

In my indecently long career of working with nonprofits, I've had a ton of clients who work with kids. That's good, because helping kids is just the right thing to do. And, in most cases, you can get a lot of people aligned with you in the cause; it's great fundraising.

A few of my kid-serving clients, however, had a problem.

They were not allowed to say they worked with kids.

They worked with children.

The difference, in their minds, was that the word kids is slangy, unofficial, not quite professional. And children: dignified, proper, formal.

So they had a blanket prohibition against the word kids. And, in most cases, a long list of other words they deemed less than professional.

Professionalism and dignity are fine things. But they are badly misplaced (and misunderstood) if they cause you to abandon a colloquial term for a formal one.

Of course, the colloquial word isn't always the right one for a given situation -- intestines is probably a more appropriate word than guts (assuming you're talking about the literal body part) most of the time. And there are many situations where child or children really is the better word.

Kids are children you know personally. That's usually how I'd like donors to think about the kids I'm asking them to help.

When you eliminate a words from your permissible vocabulary, it's like removing one tool from a builder's toolbox. Yeah, he can work around it -- but wouldn't you rather he had all the tools to work with and motivate people to give?

I guess what I'm saying is this: Leave the writing to writers.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, words

Sometimes a bad question needs a good answer

It's just frustrating. Everyone wants to know a nonprofit's ratio of administrative and fundraising costs to program costs. It's not the right question. In fact, according to Dan Pallotta at his Free the Nonprofits blog, it's The Worst Question to Ask About Charity:

... it's hopelessly flawed, widely abused, utterly useless, a pathetic substitute for meaningful information about a nonprofit's work, inept at exposing fraud, and a danger to human life.

First, let me say I completely agree. The focus on overhead ratio has done a grave disservice to the entire nonprofit community -- and to donors.

But let's be realistic: A lot of your donors really care about your overhead ratio. That's the way a lot of people think. Right or wrong, that's how it is. You can complain all you want, but you'll just come across as a whiner -- probably an inefficient whiner.

Don't waste effort trying to make donors stop caring about overhead ratios. It won't work. You know how hard it is to get people to take action on something they believe in. Now imagine getting them to change what they consider a smart and helpful opinion.

Instead of bellyaching, live in the real world: If your organization is one that has a high ratio, trumpet that fact. It'll make your donors happy.

If your ratio isn't so great, focus on your effectiveness and relevancy. Make it clear to donors that giving to you is a great deal -- that their dollars to change-the-world ratio is fantastic, regardless of your admin costs.

In private, you can work with the watchdogs and others to persuade them to broaden their criteria for charity evaluations. (Charity Navigator is apparently trying.)

But in public, stop complaining.

Technorati Tags: efficiency, charity

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