Thinking Outside the Box: Donation Payments

I don't know about you but I don't keep a lot change -- or even cash -- in my pocket any more. I use my discount debit or cash rewards credit cards nearly exclusively. Recently, I have been wondering how that might affect charities that depend upon "point of sale" or impulse contributions.  How has that adversely affected an organization such as the Salvation Army and their extremely lucrative Red Kettle program. Even though Red Kettle contributions exceeded $147 million in 2011, how much revenue was lost because people don't have as much loose change?

Well, the Salvation Army isn't taking any chances and last year started using a device that can be plugged into a smart phone, an iPad, or an Android device and accept credit card donations on site. A volunteer can take a contribution with his left hand as he continues to the ring the kettle bell with his right. It is called Square and it was developed by Jack Dorsey, the fellow that created Twitter. Unlike the clumsy credit card machines that could barely be jerry-rigged on a remote site, Square is really simple. Plug the Square device into your smartphone's headphone jack.

You can then swipe your donor's card, punch in the payment or donation amount, and have the donor sign the touch screen. Done!

Pretty cool, huh?









There is another device that might just be a boon to nonprofits unwilling to leave even the smallest contribution on the table. It is called DipJar. DipJar was developed in 2008 by another enterprising entrepreneur, writer, and (aspiring) academic named Ryder Kessler. As the story goes, Kessler was at his favorite coffee house and remarked to one of the baristas that although the place was "crazy packed" that night, the tips must make up for the mayhem. He was shocked to learn that this wasn't the case and that gratuities had really plummeted in recent years. Apparently, few patrons had much pocket change since they were making their beverage purchases on plastic. Well, as any brilliant entrepreneur would do, Ryder decided that this problem needed a solution. Hence, DipJar was created.

DipJar is particularly spiffy because it blends high-tech with high-tactile. Its design is simple and familiar. Slide your card into the opening just like dropping a tip into a cup. DipJar is set up to accept $1 dollar donations for each dip or swipe but it could be modified to charge different amounts.

How could you use tools such as these to advance your fundraising? Let me know about great, outside the box ideas.




*Thinking Outside the Box is an occasional post about innovative possibilities in fundraising.

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.

Post Direct Mail Fundraising

Direct mail is still the king of fundraising. Despite the incessant drumbeat of speculation that direct mail  is on the wane, dying, or already dead, it is still responsible for 75% of all fundraising revenue for a typical nonprofit (source: Blackbaud 2011 donorCentrics Benchmarking Report). 

By the way, bad direct mail should be dead. With a stake in its heart!

Personally, I believe that the most successful fundraising strategies include a multifaceted approach. Coordinated campaigns that include complimentary direct mail, online, social media, telefundraising and personal solicitations are proving to be extremely effective.

But what would post-direct mail fundraising look like? Are alternatives to direct mail dependent campaigns really working for certain charities?

Is post-direct mail fundraising already here and does it looks like Charity:Water?

Tom Belford of the Agitator blog recently asked regarding Charity:Water's September campaign Is this any way to launch your annual appeal? He answered with a definitive "You bet it is!" And Beth Kanter recently posted about Charity:Water's brilliant use of Instagram. 

The following video hints at why Charity:Water is so successful, why it connects so strongly with donors on an emotional level, and how it utilizes electronic media so well.

September Campaign 2012 Trailer: Rwanda from charity: water on Vimeo.

The video tells a great story and illustrates how Charity:Water is a key part of the story. But it has the astuteness of understanding that Charity:Water, the nonprofit, is not the story. It is all about the people of Rwanda. It is their story. The story is told clearly and simply. It promises that if you - the donor - partner with Charity:Water you can help ensure the story ends well.

Paull Young, Charity:Water's Director of Digital Engagement, recently summed up their approach this way:

• ask supporters to give up their birthdays, offering a great experience in return
• focus on sharing great content, not asking for money
• make the campaigner the hero, not the organization
• strive to have a ten year relationship with constituents
• rely 100% on social media and online platforms with no direct mail

This approach seems to be working extremely well for them. Charity:Water raised over $8.6 million in 2009 and over $16 million in 2010. All without utilizing direct mail.

Let's take a look at how they do it online. Click on this link for their September Campaign 2012. 

Charity:Water leverages the web beautifully. An arresting first frame of an embedded video takes up nearly half of the page. Towards the top of the page is a progress bar showing how much has been raised so far and what the ultimate goal is. Under this first video titled "The Trailer" you see there will be four other videos that can be viewed on August 28, September 4th, 7th and 11th. These are tempting teases encouraging the visitor to return to the site. Naming the lead video The Trailer makes it seems like a movie premier and I think you will agree the clip has the impact and production values of a Hollywood blockbuster.

As you scroll down you see that you can donate now or start your own campaign. You also see that they promise to "prove" they have completed their goals with photos of each completed well site. They will even supply GPS coordinates for each project just in case you want to check them out yourself.

Lastly, as you continue to scroll down on the landing page you see project cost information, links to individuals who have started campaigns, profiles of the people they are helping, more outcome data, and information on what different levels of contributions will accomplish. Scattered throughout the page are multiple links providing ways to give, start a campaign, or receive additional information and project updates.

The entire site is beautifully designed. The data is simple and compelling. The visuals are eye-catching.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that does this better than Charity:Water.

Is Charity:Water unique? Could this same "no direct mail" approach work for all charities? I am not sure it could. Many nonprofits have a more complex and nuanced story to tell that may require more traditional communication media. Additionally, many prospects may be less comfortable with online giving. Perhaps more telling, many charities may not have the superb "new media" talent to pull something like this off.

What do you think? Is this the future of fundraising? Or, is this simply a superbly executed exception?

Quote of the Week: Good Enough Isn't

The Sonata by Childe Hassam

One of my favorite nonprofit "thinkers" is Sasha Dichter.  Sasha is the Chief Innovation Officer at the Acumen Fund, a nonprofit that is "creating a world beyond poverty by investing in social enterprises". He is also a prolific blogger and posted the following under the title of "The long, hard, stupid way".

"Our opportunity, today, is to recognize that now more than ever, how we do everything is what defines us, what humanizes us, and what differentiates us. To recognize that cutting corners is a race to the bottom. To see that we're not going to make massive change by cutting one more corner or by squeezing out that last half a percent of efficiency.

We have the opportunity, today, to give our gift to the world.

Giving this gift is what changes everything. "

According to Sasha, that gift may require doing something the "long, hard, stupid way". In his blog he relates listening to his concert pianist father practicing a particularly difficult Beethoven passage over and over - long past what his ears perceived as already perfect. 


How often has this passion for perfection, for ensuring that we provide our client, donor, or beneficiary with the very best we have to offer been our relentless goal? Or are we more likely to go for intelligent compromises and justifiable efficiencies? 


How do we wish to be defined?

15 Things I'd Do As the New Head Fundraiser - Part 2

Continuing commentary (mine are in italics) based upon Ken Burnett's 15 things I would do if I were the new head of donor development as shared on the SOFII (Showcase of Fundraising Innovation and Inspiration) website:

9.    I’d work on strategies that build our donors’ trust and confidence in us and our organization. I’d make our nonprofit a model of proactive accountability, to show we are effective and well-run.

Perhaps our greatest responsibility to the donor and one often poorly executed involves earning the donor’s trust. This will involve focusing on establishing superb communications, being transparent regarding our operations, and being guided by a set of principles that are donor-centric. An excellent place to start is encapsulated in the Donor Bill of Rights as outlined on the CASE (Council for Advancement and Support of Education) website.

10.    I’d focus on the major motivations that have attracted our donors to our cause in the first place. I’d try to understand these, and make the best possible use of them.

Do you know what the main motivators are for your donors? Is that an assumption or have you asked them? Distribute surveys, provide opportunities to assemble small groups of supporters for feedback sessions, and establish groups of volunteers that can provide ongoing input. And don’t forget to communicate with the beneficiaries of your organization since they often hear first hand from donors why they give. Keep an open mind. Motivating triggers may be quite different than what you assume – or even think you want.

11.    I’d have our donor database properly profiled at least once a year.

Your most valuable source of information is right in your own database. Consider having it profiled for demographic and response information as frequently as possible. I have had great success utilizing the resources of Marts and Lundy and Target Analytics but there are other excellent services and resources available that will provide invaluable insights and benchmarks. Do it. It is well worth it. Then make sure you act upon what you have learned.

12.    I’d offer donors and other supporters the chance to choose when and how often they hear from us and what they might want to hear about.

As Ken Burnett states, “Donors will always be more responsive if what we send them is what they want to receive.” And as Burnett adds, “When this strategy starts to work, I’ll try introducing other choices for our donors, so they can in effect choose their own personal communications programs.”

I would reiterate that allowing a donor to “choose their communication program” is not the same as removing the donor from a communication stream in the mistaken belief that they will be grateful “not hear from you”.  Remember, donors like to give. If they aren’t giving to your organization they are likely giving to another. Shouldn’t they be given the opportunity to give to you? It is the rare donor indeed that will search you out to send you a contribution unsolicited.

13.    I’d create an environment where innovation and creativity can flourish, so I could readily develop appropriate products and propositions designed to suit our donors.

There are over 1.5 million non-profits in the US and a new nonprofit organization registers with the IRS every 15 minutes. It is the responsibility of each nonprofit to create programs that are compelling, unique, and deserve the support of donors. It will take talented communicators to make sure your nonprofit stands out and establishes a clear niche.

Likewise, fundraisers must balance utilizing “best practices” in their appeals for these nonprofits with innovation and creativity. This will require testing our “tried and true” against new ideas. Test, test, test and test some more.

14.    I’d make our organization the best communicator anywhere.

Communication can take place through many different channels. It could be through your website, fundraising appeals, thank you letters, public events or publications.

Let’s consider nonprofit websites. A significant percentage of donors go to a nonprofit’s website to research the organization prior to making a gift. Yet, recent research has found that donors find giving online far more difficult than what they are accustomed to when utilizing commercial sites. Researcher Jakob Nielsen found that a top priority for nonprofit websites should be to “write clearer content”. As he states in a recent Jakob Nielsen Alert posting, “Non-profits must clearly communicate their value proposition if they want to attract volunteers and online donations. Sadly, such communication is the sore point in the non-profit user experience.”

All areas of communication require the sort of scrutiny that ensures top-notch clarity.

Scrutinize everything you do. “Mystery shop” your branch offices, run your communications past your beneficiaries for their perspective, call donors after appeals and ask for their input. Try to make an online gift and see what the process is like. Remove all impediments from engaging your supporters.

15.    Finally, I’d give a little bit extra.

Going “above and beyond” expectations will set your organization apart from your 1.5 million nonprofit friends. Establish a culture that encourages each of your employees, volunteers, and representatives to exceed expectations. Your mission deserves it. Your donors deserve it.