Fundraising and Repetition

Jeff Brooks had a great post today on his blog Future Fundraising Now titled The power of repetition in fundraising. I believe the root cause of most poor fundraising response results is the insidious belief that donors will like us better, and as a result donate to us, if we refrain from communicating with them "too often" and make the same pitch over-and-over.

If I may quote Jeff, "Despite what many people think, simple repetition is one of the most powerful tools in your creative arsenal. The savviest fundraisers use it all the time to ratchet up emotion -- and results -- from their donors."

 Jeff goes on to relate a study of new direct-mail donors that found that these mail recipients had received a direct mail acquisition piece six times before they responded to it. Many charities that I am familiar with believe that it is sufficient to mail prospective donors once or twice a year! No wonder total acquisition numbers are declining precipitously.

Think that just is the nature of a dying direct mail field? Nope, electronic media such as email requires even more repetition.

Jeff also recommends that repetition within the letter or email is also critically important. He states the call to action should be repeated five, ten, or even more times. Clearly, once is not enough.

So, get over your reticence. Your organization is worthy, your mission is important. Those who want to give to you deserve your perseverance.

What Does the Donor Hear?

I loved cartoonist Gary Larson. It was a sad day when he retired in 1995. One of my favorite cartoon panels was "What we say to dogs". There we go. Barking out commands to our canine friend, fully expecting that he hears and understands every word. Even raising our voice to ensure we are understood. What hubris! What the dog hears is it's name. That's it.

Sasha Dichter of the Acumen Fund cleverly illustrated the parallel between "dog/human" and possible "non-profit/donor" communication.

As Sasha wrote, "I wonder if we could re-title this cartoon 'our needs', as in: every time we regale someone with 'what we need' we remember all they're hearing is 'blah blah blah blah.' But whenever we say their name, whenever we paint them into the picture, whenever we make them a part of the story, they hear us loud and clear.

If you agree with the notion, rather than thinking tactically how to make this shift by 'changing your pitch', you might instead ask yourself who's keeping you from actually seeing the person across the table as an integral part of the story...because she is."

Amen,  Sasha! The donor is more likely to hear you if the presentation or case is more about them. It's like hearing your own name. And everyone loves to hear their own name.

Other mistakes that undermine your web fundraising

Last time I wrote about the "beginner" mistakes that undermine your web fundraising. This time I will cover the more intermediate mistakes that cost you online donations.

1. No Benefit for the Donor

If your website is all about what a wonderful non-profit you are, all your achievements, all your programs, you sound just like most other mediocre websites, whether charitable or commercial. If, on the other hand, you communicate what your organization can do for the donor, you immediately separate yourself from the pack. As with successful direct mail text, use the words “you” and “your” often. Your website should not appear to be a snare to catch a gift, but a tool for the donor to achieve his or her philanthropic goals.

2. No Urgency

Make it clear why the donor must do something now. What are the implications if they delay? Perhaps even set a deadline. “We need to raise $xxxxx by xx date in order to ensure children are fed.”

3. Colors Blend In

Does your call to action stand out or are you enslaved by corporate brand guidelines? Fundraising is often about creating action out complacency. It is hard to do that if everything is subject to the tyranny of a non-intrusive color palette. Your “donate” button should be big, bold and assertive. Your call to action statements should stand out. Tell the snarky designers to apply their sacrosanct brand guidelines on a nondescript brochure. You need to make sure your case for giving literally vibrates on your web page.

4. No Credibility

Donors are not only concerned about ensuring that their gifts are well used but also that they appear to be savvy philanthropists.  They don’t want to look like fools to their peers. They want to give to organizations that are winners. Nothing cuts through the “Who are these people?” question better than donor profiles, complimentary quotes by supporters, or the logos of recognizable corporate sponsors. Use them.

5. Loaded with Jargon

Sometimes it’s fun to use big words that make you look smart, right? Maybe, but it is a terrible fundraising tactic. Few but your own employees will understand highly technical industry jargon. Simple words work best when trying to persuade someone to take action.

Apply these elements and see your website giving soar.

7 "beginner" mistakes that undermine your web fundraising

A couple of years ago Jeff Brooks referenced on his blog, Future Fundraising Now, a post from  Copyblogger regarding unfortunate content mistakes that undermine website sales. Jeff noted how these same issues could easily be applied to fundraising websites. Here are the first seven "beginner mistakes":

1. No Call to Action
Optimizing, tweaking, beautifying your website is nearly fruitless (from a fundraising perspective) if you don't ask for a gift.

2. Below the Fold
Web visitors shouldn't have to scroll down to see your call to action. State your case and ask for the gift in the upper portion (above the fold) of the screen.

3. Not Authoritative
Tell your readers exactly what you want them to do, and do so with conviction.

4. Not Specific
Don't make it a guessing game. Spell out exactly what you want your visitors to do. Give, sign-up, share, like, etc. Make it easy, make it clear.

5. Too Much Self Proclaimed Hype
Tooting your own horn comes off as so much puffery and bloviating. A third party endorsement is much more effective.

6. Multiple Calls to Action
What's the most important thing you want your visitor to do on your website? This is often very difficult since we are tempted to provide the vast array of things we do as nonprofits and present all the things we want the visitor to do as a result. People are often stymied by choice and they end up doing nothing. Prioritize.

7. Puny Call to Action
As the Copyblogger author states, "I've never seen a website call to action that is too big."

In the next post I will share what Copyblogger regards to be the more "advanced mistakes". In the meantime, go back over your website and see if you have committed any of these rookie blunders.

Grants: Rejected! Done? Fini? Move on?

You've done your research. You found a great foundation that is a perfect fit for your organization. They have supported other organizations just like yours. You've even connected with the grants manager and they think you're wonderful. You have a fantastic program and write a bang-up proposal. Months go by and then you receive the following, dreaded response: "We receive requests from many worthy nonprofit organizations. We wish we could fund them all. Unfortunately, we cannot support your program at this time." Drat! All the planets seemed to be aligned. The heck with them! Next proposal...right? Wrong!

You need to find out why you were rejected. It may not be what you think. I found just such a foundation and the outcome was initially disappointing. But I called my contact and asked why we were rejected. I expected to hear something like this, "Although you are a great organization, ___________ (fill in the blank: "...your organization is not a fit, your program is not a priority, we are supporting XYZ organization that does the same thing, your proposal sucked, etc.")

What I heard was, "Your proposal was really great and it is something that we would really like to support. Unfortunately, we ran out of funds by the time we got to your proposal. Let's get together at the beginning of the next funding year and talk about it. I recommend you submit your proposal again just as it is. Don't change a thing."

If I had just moved on, reacted defensively, or just slinked off into the night with my tail between my legs, I would have never found out that it was still very viable. Now, not all calls reveal such great opportunities. Even candid, helpful, rejection feedback about NOT being a fit would be good for future proposals.

The point is ask, probe, follow-up.

Growing Philanthropy Part 3: Identifying New Audiences, Channels, and Forms of Giving with Strong Potential for Growth

Encourage the adoption of monthly giving. Monthly giving has so many benefits for charities and donors that I am always amazed at how few nonprofits promote this option. Per Sergeant and Shang, the lifetime value of supporters giving in this way is estimated to be 600 to 800 percent higher than "non-sustainer" donors. They note that younger donors prefer monthly giving because it is considered more convenient and environmentally friendly, requiring less renewal and reminder mailings. Donor retention is far higher for sustaining donors as well. It's a no brainer.

Improve the sector's engagement with young people. Promote giving at an early age and help develop a "giving habit". Utilize new digital media such as digital applications, virtual environments, gaming platforms, and social networking. Find ways to make it easy, affordable, and enticing to include them in the philanthropic process.

Encourage and promote best practices in social media. Traditional giving channels still significantly outperform online giving, and social media accounts for only just over 10 percent of that small portion. Nonetheless, social media has a huge potential to greatly increase a supporter's engagement, and engagement is the key to healthy giving. Social media also has the potential to build donor commitment, trust and loyalty. But it must be done well. This is a great opportunity for an astute nonprofit since so much social media based fundraising is done so poorly.

Encourage asset-based giving. 93 percent of American wealth is made up of stocks and non-cash assets such as real estate, business interests, and personal property. Charities are "missing the boat" if they are solely focused on chasing the 7 percent cash available. Provide easy means for donors to contribute asset-based resources.

Improve the quality of bequest fundraising. Although 80 percent of Americans will support the nonprofit sector during their lifetimes, only 8 percent will provide for charities in their estates. Sergeant and Shang believe part of the challenge is that charitable bequest solicitation has been relegated solely to the planned giving departments at nonprofits. They suggest that soliciting bequests should receive wider and broader communication and informational materials be accessible and employed by all staff.

Leveraging companies to promote philanthropy. Since many individuals spend most of their waking hours at work, provide opportunities in the workplace to educate employees about charity missions and outcomes. It must be more than simply a card table and brochures set up in a lobby. One nonprofit had launched a campaign to address obesity and set up a fajita bar at a local business to teach workers how to prepare healthy fare. They effectively hammered home their brand, their goals, and addressed latent objections such as proper dieting is no fun.

Although Sergeant and Shang's report included other recommendations, they concluded with this insightful statement, "Instead of viewing donors as a source of revenue and maximizing the value of that relationship, they (nonprofits) need to focus more on the individual and the articulation of that person's philanthropy. Only when we stop asking for money and instead ask for individuals to reflect on their own philanthropic identity will the needle truly be moved on giving."

Let's move the needle.

Growing Philanthropy Part 2: Developing Public Trust

The second finding that Sargeant and Shang suggested in their whitepaper, Growing Philanthropy in the United States, is the necessity to develop public trust and confidence in the fundraising sector. They state, “Organizations are the conduit by which donors fulfill their own aspirations. Donors don’t give to organizations but through organizations.” The disconnect that Sargeant and Shang see is that, as charities become more focused on removing financial risk, enhancing effectiveness, and employing more proven fundraising techniques, the process becomes more mechanistic. The donor can be viewed as, and feels like, a “piggy bank” rather than a partner in the cause. I believe some of this is the result of a rather corrosive, if initially well-meaning, emphasis by industry watchdog organizations on the percent of funds spent on program versus fundraising costs. I believe this puts undue pressure on nonprofits to squeeze as much revenue out of each transaction as possible.

Sargeant and Shang propose that nonprofits must see supporters as more than simply donors, but they should be regarded as “individuals with their own philanthropic aspirations and goals.” They suggest that donors may not even be aware of what their goals truly are and that it is the responsibility of the organization to “find new and creative ways through which individuals can discover and express their own philanthropic identity and thus experience the joy of giving.” They admit that this sort of identification on the charity’s part would require a greater degree of donor research and necessitate additional staff time, expertise and cost. All at a time when the aforementioned “program vs. fundraising” metric is being put forth as a litmus for what is a “good charity” worthy of donor investment.

Additional recommendations include:

Empower regulators to enforce 100 percent filing of Forms 990 and increase their utility.  Include more narrative that would focus on the outcomes achieved by the nonprofit thus shifting the emphasis from efficiency to effectiveness.

Blow the whistle on organizations claiming to have zero cost of fundraising. Recent research found that 59 percent of organizations did not claim any fundraising expenses. Come on! How can you believe anything a charity reports with this sort of blatant info manipulation?

Fund the development of a website in the United States to educate the public, boards, and other stakeholders. “There is gross misunderstanding in the public as to how nonprofits work. Many Americans still believe the sector is populated largely by volunteers, that managers are paid poorly (if at all), and that income can be generated at zero (or close to zero) cost.” It is critically important to communicate how nonprofits really work.

Encourage nonprofits to develop complaint schemes.  Many organizations are hesitant to create complaint schemes for fear of raising false expectations about their ability to resolve issues. Good complaint handling boosts loyalty. In fact, there is some indication that resolving a problem successfully creates greater loyalty than being problem free.

Fund the development of a website to facilitate peer-to-peer evaluations of nonprofits. Much like the comments and ranking sections on commercial online sites such as Amazon, providing a forum for donor commentary and evaluation may well inspire more people to give.

Develop new and more appropriate measures of performance. Watchdog groups such as Guidestar, Charity Navigator and Charity Watch place far too much emphasis on charities demonstrating what tends to be stifling efficiency standards rather than organizational effectiveness. Nonprofits need to be proactive and help define what is effective and better articulate the investment needed to achieve mission outcomes.

Develop the self-regulation of fundraising. The key concerns of the public appear to be:

• A perception of an “excessive” volume of communication
• The quality and tone of that communication
• The use of enclosures in mail
• The use of inappropriate or shocking imagery
• Data errors in the communication
• A sense of intrusion, created by the media employed for the message

Sargeant and Shang claim no one has yet addressed these issues properly. They recommend a greater focus on the development and promotion of professional standards or the creation of a body that would accredit good quality fundraising in a similar way that the Better Business Bureau accredits good business practices.

Wow! We have a lot of work to do. And we're not through all of Sargeant and Shang's recommendations or themes.

Next post I'll review their third theme, Identifying New Audiences, Channels, and Forms of Giving with Strong Potential for Growth.

I Resolve to...

A year ago January, the Advancement Best Practices LinkedIn Group asked their members to list their fundraising resolutions or goals for 2012. Here is what they answered:

42% Build a philanthropic culture
20% Link metrics to ROI
17% Engage trustees/ CEO
16% Identify new potential donors
5% Not one of the above

I think it is interesting that the top goal was to build a philanthropic culture. You would think that was a given for anyone working for a nonprofit. The fact that it was yet to be built, (not even simply improved), says something about the state of our business. If a nonprofit or charity doesn't have philanthropy at the core of what they do, how are they surviving? How are they connecting with and motivating their donors? By coercion? Yikes!

According to Guidestar, up to 60,000 nonprofits fail each year and in 2010 8% claimed they were in imminent danger of going under. Why?

I think the lack of a philanthropic culture is part of the problem. But more importantly, there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to how and why donors give. Here is what nonprofit leadership must understand:

• The heart is more important than the head. Executive Directors and Boards are often embarrassed to present the emotional side of their story. They want to "convince" the donor that they are a good "investment". Leave the investment up to the bank. Your charity or nonprofit most likely grew our of a compelling need. Don't forget that. 
• You must ask to receive. The classic "If we build it they will come" is hooey. If you don't ask, someone else will -- and they will get the donation.
• Everyone in your organization must be comfortable with the fundraising process. I have heard some fundraisers say, "Everyone in our organization is a fundraiser". I don't buy that. Fundraising is a skill forged from experience and an art born of personality. Not everyone is good at it nor do they have to be. If this wasn't so, why would we hire fundraisers? But the entire staff should understand how it works, if only to support the efforts of the fundraising team. The one thing that can kill an organization is an employee who is constantly denigrating the fundraising process.
• Take advantage of every avenue to raise funds. There are 1.5 million nonprofits in the US. That's a lot of competition. Make it easy for the donor to give to you through the channels they prefer. You must have an annual fund program, solicit major gifts, make use of social media and e-philanthropy, create profitable events, accept planned gifts, and keep abreast of whatever is working for other organizations.
• Test, test, test. Be fiscally prudent but don't be afraid to take risks. Risk can often be reduced by testing. I am constantly astounded to find experienced nonprofits that fail to test fundraising approaches. 

There are certainly other elements of successful fundraising. As the survey identifies, link your metrics to return on investment. (This is especially true of events. I am sure many organizations would be shocked if they included direct and all indirect costs in their event profitability assessment.) Engaging trustees and all leadership in the mission as well as the fundraising process is helpful. And yes, finding new donors is important. But, I would have ranked "steward current donors exceptionally well" ahead of prospecting and that isn't even listed! Your most valuable donors are the ones who have already provided you with a gift.

What are your resolutions for 2013? I will list mine in my next post.

Quote of the Week: Building a Culture of Philanthropy

"Donors are not considered a means to an end, but just as vital as the work you carry out meeting the worlds greatest needs." 
Jeff Schreifels 

The Passionate Giving blog is launching a six part series about how to build a culture of philanthropy at your nonprofit. The brains behind The Passionate Giving blog, Jeff Schreifels and Richard Perry, know their subject well. They have over 55 years of experience fundraising for nonprofits such as Oxfam, The Salvation Army, World Harvest Mission, and United Cerebral Palsy.

Here are the key elements mentioned in their first blog post that they state must be part of an organization intending to build a vibrant culture of philanthropy:

• The mission of the organization includes donors.
• The leadership of the organization and the entire staff embrace the idea that fundraising is essential in fully carrying out the work and that it brings joy to donors to  give.
• Board members are your biggest cheerleaders.
• It's hard to tell who is working in "program" and who is in "development".
• Donors of the organization trust it.
• Everyone in the organization knows "the story".
• When anyone walks through the doors of the organization what is felt is love, empathy, righteous anger, grace, hard work, personal care, and...more love.

Here are my comments regarding these excellent points:

- I am not sure I have ever seen a nonprofit mission statement that includes donors. (If you have one that does I would love to see it.) What a great idea! 

- Although most nonprofit employees will grudgingly admit that fundraising is a "necessary evil", fewer accept the need for everyone to participate in the fundraising process, and still fewer believe that true philanthropists delight in giving.

- If board members are not your biggest cheerleaders, should they be on the board?

- Too often staff and program people see themselves in completely different worlds. How often have you heard program people speak disparagingly about "the suits", or development people complain of the unrealistic demands of the field staff? An organization with a flourishing culture of philanthropy respects each other's work and worth. 

- A nonprofit will not survive if there is no trust.

- Does everyone at the nonprofit have the same vision, a sense of the mission, a passion for the organization's core story regarding why it exists? Do they appreciate the incredible impact it is having on their community or even the world? Is it a culture where each employee can't wait to go to work each day?

- Walk through your door some day with the mindset that you are a new visitor. How are you greeted by the first person you see? What kind of small talk happens in the hallway, in the lunchroom, around the water cooler? Is it whiny and critical or is it filled with positive enthusiasm. Office atmosphere has a way of creeping into all that you do, even your interactions with your supporters. Make sure it is filled with the same optimism, care, and compassion you bring to your mission.

These are great ways to ensure that your organization is fostering a culture of philanthropy. Be sure to check out the Passionate Giving blog for their next five installments.

Quote of the Week: YOU are awesome!

I saw this great cartoon from the Marketoonist site authored by Tom Fishburne with the title 5 types of social media strategies - (by way of Jeff Brooks' Future Fundraising Now blog). 

Some of the most cutting and insightful commentary on modern marketing comes by way of the artistic wit of Mr. Fishburne. Fundraiser Jeff Brooks notes in his own blog's commentary on this 'toon that the self-absorbed, self-focused approach so often promoted on social media platforms must be avoided by fundraisers -- and all marketers, really.

Repeat after me- It's all about the donor. It's about how we can help them feel awesome. It is how awesome they ARE. 

Are You Creating Pablum?

Pablum - the ultimate pejorative? 

Actually, Pablum was a breakthrough medical product created by a team of Canadian pediatricians in the 1930s to prevent rickets, a crippling childhood disease. It was a vitamin packed and digestible mush made from a mixture of ground and precooked wheat, oatmeal, yellow corn meal, bone meal, dried brewers yeast, and powdered alfalfa leaf -- all fortified with reduced iron. 

Sounds yummy, doesn't it?

Pablum had everything these doctors knew would be good for sick or at risk babies. And it seemed to help. So what if it tasted like wallpaper paste! It was good for you!

How interesting that pablum has come to define worthless, oversimplified, insipid or bland communication or information. Perhaps the problem with this sort of communication is similar to what might have been going through the minds of those well-meaning pediatricians eighty years ago. They might have been more focused on solving the problem at hand then in making the product appealing. In their instance, that might be justified. For a charity today, it is not.

Are we more focused on making sure the recipient of our messages or solicitations is informed about our great need than making our message compelling? Is it more important that the reader understand what is important to us -- our charity -- than for us to find a way to connect with the reader or donor's interests? Is that the reason for so many uninspired "wish lists", droning "opportunities to give", and endless tomes harping on needs, rather than stirring stories of actions and outcomes?

Let's think about what inspires and motivates us. Is it incessant begging and cajoling? Or, is it that rare and rousing tale from the heart that touches us and moves us to make a difference?

Oh, and it should be noted that Pablum became even more commercially popular when the manufacturer added flavored versions. 

Imagine that.

It's Not About You.

Yesterday, I read a short, fascinating little tome by Bob Burg and John David Mann called "It's Not About You: A Little Story About What Matters Most in Business". (Bob is also the author of "The Go-Giver: A Little Story About a Powerful Business Idea".) "It's Not About You" is a compelling parable about how extraordinary leadership is achieved when you focus on others. A no brainer, right? Well, it's amazing how often we get tangled in the web of "meism" without noticing it. This book will help you identify whether this is an issue for you and how to redirect your thinking process.

A blog post by Jeff Schreifels of the Veritas Group entitled "The Six Secrets to Becoming an Extraordinary Major Gift Officer" -  Secret #5 - You Don't Have All the Answers, covers similar territory.

As Jeff states, "Curiosity is such a powerful tool for a MGO (Major Gift Officer). Yes, I said tool -- because curiosity can become the driver to help you figure out a problem. It creates the basis for understanding a donor and can catapult you to the answer to some very complex situations.
So, quite frankly, if you are not a curious person, you should NOT be a major gift officer."

The post continues by describing a real-life instance of a brand new, inexperienced gift officer who proceeds to build a caseload of over 100 high-value donor prospects -- multi-millionaires and leaders of industry-- and in one year secures over $300,000 in donations simply because she was brimming with curiosity, loved to ask questions, and was fearless. It wasn't about her.

Similar to the tact the character initially employs in Bob Burg's parable, how often do we go to a donor meeting or address a fundraising event thinking, "I have to persuade them to do what I want"? Even if we thoroughly believe it is the best course of action for said donor or charity, it is an approach doomed to fail.

It is about the donor, the charity, the charitable foundation, and the beneficiary of your work -- it's not about you. Find out all you can about them. Do your homework. Be curious. Ask questions, probe, and be truly interested. You may be amazed at how much you learn that can be helpful. And how much fun you'll have listening to the inspiring stories and lofty aspirations shared by the people you meet along the way.

What At Your Charity Is Broken?

Seth Godin is an amazing thinker. Here is how Wikepedia describes him:

"Godin believes that the end of the TV-Industrial complex means that marketers no longer have the power to command the attention of anyone they choose, whenever they choose. Second, in a marketplace in which consumers have more power, he thinks marketers must show more respect; this means no spam, no deceit and a bias for keeping promises. Finally, Godin asserts that the only way to spread the word about an idea is for that idea to earn the buzz by being remarkable."

You can't be remarkable if your actions and processes are broken. 

The attached video was recorded at the Gel 2006 conference in New York City. Gel is short for "Good Experience Live", and is a conference and community exploring good experience in all its forms -- in art, business, technology, society, and life.

At Gel, Seth railed against the world's indifference at fixing things that just don't work. He claims just some of the reasons that things are allowed to be broken include these corrosive elements:

• Not my job
• Selfish Jerk
• The world changed
• I didn't know
• I'm not a fish
• Contradictions
• Broken on purpose

Watch this video. You'll probably laugh a lot -- and wince a little.

Then ask yourself, "What are we doing that is clearly "broken"? (How easy is it to make a gift online? How fast do we send out thank-you letters? Does one size (fundraising appeal) fit all? Are our communications, newsletters, emails, press releases, etc. all in techno-speak, acronyms, or a language code only we understand? Is everything we do "donor centric"?)

If it's "broke", you must fix it. 

There are 1.5 million non-profits in the US and a new nonprofit organization registers with the IRS every 15 minutes. If you don't have it fixed, someone else will.

Quote of the Week: Scarcity and Abundance

I am sharing another great post by Sasha Dichter, Chief Innovation Officer at the Acumen Fund. It is about the concepts of scarcity and abundance. He says:

It is so easy to experience what we feel we lack.


There's never enough time or enough money.


We could do it if we just had a little more access, a little more support.


I'll start my new business soon, I'm just not quite ready.


I'll start blogging as soon as I come up with a few more ideas.


I'll take that big leap once it becomes just a little clearer what the other side looks like.


Scarcity.


Abundance comes when you start practicing abundance. It's a decision, an attitude, a state of mind, and a practice.


I know I have to work on it each and every day. And it is work. But I keep at it.


What a critically important concept for charities and fundraisers. Think about it. Who wants to fund scarcity? What is "richer" than an abundance of ideas, optimism, affirmation, and certainty? It is a state of mind, an attitude, an outlook. 


Abundance. 


Let's all work on it -- and practice it everyday.

The Two Faces of Fundraising Events: Part 1

The Run Walk Ride Fundraising Council's sixth annual study revealed that in 2011 the top 30 fundraising races, walks, and other athletic events took in $1.69-billion, up $40.8 million or a 2.46% increase over 2010. 11.6 million people participated in some sort of "thon fundraising" according to the study. This was an increase of over 200,000 over the previous year.  36,422 events were held by the top 30 event sponsors. (The American Heart Association held over 24,000 separate events alone in 2011.)

The top five grossing events were:

• American Cancer Society - Relay for Life - - $415,000,000
• Susan G. Komen for the Cure - Race for the Cure -  $131,315,739
• March of Dimes - March for Babies - $105,000,000
• American Heart Association - Heart Walk - $99,088,367
• The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - Team in Training - $87,511,103

It seems as if the "fundraising event" is a favorite for every nonprofit. Looking at the numbers above it is easy to see why it is so tempting. Even a more modest event can gross significant dollars and attract many new prospective supporters.

Let's consider the "good face" or advantages of event fundraising:

• An event can attract new supporters such as hard to engage donors, government officials, corporate leaders, and local or national media personalities.
• It can often raise significant gross revenue.
• A well executed event can help burnish your brand and enhance your charity's awareness in the community.
• It can unite supporters in a sharply focused common goal.
• It can provide a compelling platform for media exposure and raise public awareness in your cause.
• It can present an opportunity for nonprofit leadership to interact with important community representatives.
• An event can be specifically tailored to leverage your charities brand.
• People like to hobnob with their peers or with the socially elevated. 
• You can obtain sponsors that might not ordinarily associate with your organization.
• Events can be a nice way to thank current supporters.
• Successful events tend to increase in effectiveness over time.

And now the disadvantages or "bad face" of event fundraising:

• They can take a year to plan and three years to reach optimum revenue returns.
• An unsuccessful event can tarnish your organization's reputation and brand.
• Events suck-up a tremendous amount of staff time managing volunteers and interacting with vendors.
• They can have high initial costs, hidden costs, and can even cost far more then revenue raised.
• Events could be the victim of unrealistic expectations ("American Cancer Society raised $415 million, why can't we raise a percentage of that?")
• Attendees may have no long-term interest in your organization and will need to be kept engaged through future events.
• They could be sensitive to outside influences such as disasters, wars, or scandals.
• There are tens of thousands of events each year with probably hundreds in your own backyard competing for the donor's attention and engagement. Many events will be run by big, national charities that could overwhelm any marketing presence you may attempt to create if you are competing with them for airtime and "share of mind".

These "good and bad" elements of events don't even tell the entire story. It really depends on how your organization looks at events. Do you consider them an important revenue generating activity or do you look at them as more of a friendraising, cultivation, and stewardship opportunity? This is a critical distinction that I will explore more in my next post.

In the meantime, consider these questions:

• How do you calculate the financial success of a major event?
• Do you rely upon gross revenue compared to direct expenses?
• Do you understand what your indirect costs are and why they should be included in your calculations?
• Are there more effective means to accomplish the same end?

They Could Have Given More

"I could have given more."


That is what was revealed in just released preliminary results from the fourth annual Cygnus Donor Survey. Close to 50% of donors surveyed agreed that they could have given more money last year but held back.


The big question is - why?


Tabulation of all the data is not yet complete so Cygnus President Penelope Burk cautions that these preliminary findings are not statistically relevant. But they do begin to hint at what donors are thinking, specifically in relation to the survey question, What could unleash your philanthropy at a whole new level?


Here are a few feedback snippets from this question:


Being reminded of how long I have been giving and what that has added up to over time would, in itself, be a new incentive to giving more.

...having more control over managing my giving through an online portal available on the websites of charities I support.


...knowing that the money I give is making a real difference in people's lives (not just a drop in the ocean of need).


...having the names and phone numbers of real people on not-for-profit websites so that I can contact someone if I need information. It would also be good to have the names and photos of Board members...


...seeing charities with similar goals come together in a single organization with a unified fundraising program.


...knowing that my giving produces results...providing measurable results.


...helping believe there is something I can do.


I think people are tired of hearing about big insoluble problems and interested in hearing about people who say: "Yes, but there is a way to get at this and we are going to start the ball rolling!"


...showing donors they are connected to the people who need our help.


...having the need for funds translated into personal stories.


So what does this preliminary feedback tell us about why donors could have given more last year but didn't? Here's what I believe donors want:

• Empowerment: Make the giving experience easier and give the donor some control. Retail institutions like banks, investment firms, e-vendors and others are providing the consumer with online tools to pay bills and manage their budgets, identify wish-list items, or receive purchase suggestions based upon past actions. Donors want and expect this sort of control with their philanthropic activities as well. Imagine if they could log onto your website, view their giving to date, find out exactly what your charity has done with their money, and receive suggestions of other projects they might be interested in based upon their past giving.
• Impact: There is more and more talk about "charitable fatigue". Some issues seem so overwhelming that they might never be solved. Communicate to supporters that they really are making a difference and illustrate how in a compelling, genuine way. Report back to them on a regular basis. Have the information come from field workers, program directors, or aid recipients.  Assure them that there are solutions to critical issues and they are helping to advance those solutions through your charity. 
• Transparency: Prove to them that you are using their funds in an effective and efficient way. If that means partnering with similar institutions, do it. If it comes down to justifying increased funding for infrastructure in order to serve the mission better, so be it. Respect their intelligence and tell them straightforward what you need in order to be successful. Be honest and forthright.
• Authenticity: Don't feed supporters blathering generalities. Don't ply them with self-congratulatory drivel. Provide exhilarating and bona fide tales of transformation. There is a reason why storytelling has been foundational to every civilization down through history. It makes your mission come alive. Surely, you have scores of great stories. Share them!
• Immediacy: Help establish a robust and uninfringeable connection between the donor and the beneficiary of their giving. 21st Century philanthropists want to hear directly from someone they helped, see a video of their contribution at work, or even go out into the field to experience firsthand the impact of their funding. 

Do these things and you will be less likely to hear, "You know, I could have given more."

Weekly Quote: What Fundraisers Should Give Up for Lent

Jeff Brooks shares two things he believes nonprofits should "give up for Lent" (from his excellent Future Fundraising Now blog). Here is one of them:


"Educating Donors


If your donors knew more about you and your cause, they'd give more. It doesn't follow that the way to increased giving is to bludgeon donors with facts and educate them into 'getting it'.


Giving is not a rational act. It's relational. When you try to educate donors into giving, you are at cross-purposes with this important fact. Instead, build a relationship. Some donors will seek 'education' about your cause as the relationship deepens. Others won't. But both kinds of donors will give more because of the relationship-- because you respect them and are aligned with them. Not because you filled their heads with more and better facts."


Click here and see Jeff's other Lenten recommendation. (Hint: It's not how great we are, it how great the donor is!)

Super CRM

My wife and I listen to only a few radio stations on a regular basis; national public radio, a political affairs talk station, and during the football season, a sports station. Listening takes place mostly in the car dropping the kids off at school or picking them up later in the afternoon.


We had our preferred programs and looked forward to hearing from our favorite hosts. One day, to our dismay, a favorite radio talk-joc was missing. We waited a couple of days to determine if this was just a temporary situation or to see if she was assigned to a different time-slot. Nope. She had totally vanished.


My wife fired off an email inquiry to the station with little expectation of receiving a reply. Low and behold, within three minutes she received this reply:

Thanks for the note (my wife's name),

It was very  tough to part with (radio personality).  She is a personal friend and has been part of the station for almost 10 years.  But, we have been asked consistently by the listeners for more live and local coverage.  This does that.  Also, (replacement personality) has a national profile and we will be increasing the amount of national guests on her show.  Also, (another personality) will be doing more issues based content, especially in the 3pm hour. Things won't be the same without (radio personality) for sure, but we hope they are better over time. 

Thanks for listening, I really appreciate it.

Jeff
Program Director


Wow! Great customer relationship management (CRM).


Following are some of the outstanding aspects of this reply:

• My wife's email received a response in three minutes!
• It was personal. Note the phrase "She (the radio personality) is a personal friend..." The Program Director recognizes that this radio personality was important to the us and wants us to know that she was important to him as well. This establishes a nice "bridge" of empathy.
• He provided a cogent rationale for the change and attempted to relate it as a benefit to the listener.
• He concludes with another personal comment - "Thanks for listening, I really appreciate it." This seems genuine, sincere.

Strive to be timely, personal, genuine and empathetic in your communications with supporters. You're likely to get a wow response too!

Generosity Day: A Valentine Reboot

Last year, a couple of days before Valentine's Day, Sasha Dichter, Chief Innovation Officer for Acumen Fund launched an effort to completely change the nature the 14th of February. He and his friend Katya Andresen, of Network for Good, came up with the idea of turning Valentine's Day into Generosity Day. As Dichter stated, "We wanted to reconnect (the day) to the core ideas of love and human connection."

Sasha says it started as an idea with him when he decided to spend the month of December saying "yes" to everyone who asked him for money -- a homeless person, a street musician, a nonprofit. Soon he posted on his blog that "I want all my readers to hear first. This Monday (Valentine's Day in 2011), is going to be rebooted as Generosity Day: one day of sharing love with everyone, of being generous to everyone, to see how it feels and to practice saying "Yes." Let's make the day about love, action and human connection -- because we can do better than smarmy greeting cards, overpriced roses, and stressed-out couples trying to create romantic meals on the fly."

The results were heartening. "We reached a few million people last year through blogs, Facebook, Twitter. Our hunch was spot on: People are hungering for something more in their lives -- more connection and more meaning", said Dichter.

What are you doing for Generosity Day? Have you thanked your donors, staff, friends?  Have you thought about the transformative nature of gratitude? Are you so focused on need -- your need,  that you have overlooked the power of reciprocity? 

I have included two videos below. One describes the concept behind Generosity Day, the other was created by the Jubilee Project and poses the question "What is love?" to a variety of people met on the street. (The Jubilee Project was born out of the Haiti earthquake in 2010 and creates videos for good causes.)

Give it  a try. Let's reclaim Valentine's Day.