Showing posts with label solicitation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solicitation. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

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.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

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.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Is Your Job To Serve Or To Sell?


Back in 2011,  one of my favorite fundraising blogs, Passionate Giving, penned by major giving experts Jeff Schreifels and Richard Perry, posted about a new year's resolution they suggested all fundraisers adopt for that year. Make sure you are serving your donor, not selling them. Jeff shared an experience he had in an Apple store when it was clear, to his chagrin, that he could have been easily "sold" a solution to a computer problem he had by chucking his old computer and upgrade to a more expensive and newer model, but wasn't. He asked the salesperson why he wasn't trying to sell him a new iPad? The salesperson's said he was there to make his experience the best it could be, show him the product and let the product sell itself. He added, "We don't get commission on sales. It is all about serving the needs of the customer." Jeff continued, "I didn't buy the iPad that night, nor were they able to fix my software problem (it was a Microsoft product), but I left feeling so good about my experience that I can't think about NOT buying an Apple product in the future."

Do our donor interactions leave them with the same sort of feeling? If the moment was not right to make a gift, do they walk away feeling they couldn't even think about NOT giving to our organization when they are ready to contribute? If our objective is to sell them, put another notch in our "closed deal belt", then it will likely fail. Serving our donor demands more listening, research, and interaction. It will be necessary to unearth what our donor's goals or interests are that need to be served.  It must be more than just identifying financial capacity or finding out about their other philanthropic giving.

Listening, really listening, demands putting aside our egos and our objectives and really concentrating on the prospect. Listening, not to find a window to "pounce" but to find a connection between what our organization does and how that aligns with the donor's aspirations. Listening. So important, and seemingly so hard to do. Which reminds me of a fantastic TED talk by deaf Scottish percussionist Evelyn Glennie titled "How To Truly Listen". But that is for another post.



Saturday, December 1, 2012

Half of Nonprofits Say They Are Hurting


Half of the 500 nonprofits recently surveyed by Guidestar state that fundraising results have been very bleak this year. The percentage of charities reporting a decline was the second highest since the survey was started 11 years ago. Not only were the charities receiving fewer gifts, but even contributions received were smaller than before. Many institutions predict that the traditionally strong year-end gift giving period will not close the gap. Worse yet, this seems to be happening at the same time that many nonprofits state that their communities are requiring more of their charitable services.

Now, the recession has been dragging on for a number of years. Why has 2012 been so tough for charities? One fundraising professional speculates that many nonprofits have done a poor job of stewarding their donors and its "coming home to roost".

For me, stewardship is receiving a high priority. I have enlisted my Board to call all our donors and thank them for their past support. I have also engaged staff and volunteers to call unrenewed supporters. We are finding as many ways as possible to be donor-centric and share impact and outcomes of our donors' philanthropic support.

Take the time. Reach out. Touch your donors in an authentic, meaningful way. And make sure it is not just once a year but throughout the year. It may take a while to see results but it's worth it. The "new reality" is that it is going to take a lot of effort to retain and engage your supporters. But frankly, it's probably something we should have been doing all along - isn't it?

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Going That Extra Mile

How often have you experienced someone going "above and beyond"? It seems to be a rare occurrence these days, especially in a retail experience. (I don't think the mindless, robotic response, "Can I help you find something" thrown your direction by a busy salesman as they speed past you on their way to the mysterious "back room" counts.)

When it does happen, when you find yourself in front of someone who gives you their full attention, who really seems to want to help - and knows how to - it can give you tingles.

A number of months ago, Sasha Dichter, intrepid blogger and Chief Innovation Officer at the Acumen Fund shared a story of one such experience he had at an Apple store. His salesperson's name was Hakiem and his post was a letter of thanks addressed to him:
Dear Hakiem,
I know everything at the Apple Store is  designed to  be techno-blissful, but you really took things to the next level. Not only did you shake my hand, make me feel welcome, and help me get a Genius Bar appointment in less than five minutes, but you managed to make me feel just a little bit less bad about dropping my iPad on 6th avenue and cracking the screen (and I was feeling REALLY bad). 
I was already appreciative of you for that, but then as I was walking up 9th avenue, you ran out of the store and up to 15th street and stopped me to make sure that my problem had been solved. Wow. 
I bet you go above and beyond every day for folks, and I'm sure they appreciate it more than you know. I'll be sure to tell everyone who goes to the Apple Store at 4th and 9th in New York City to look out for you.
Okay. Why don't we all provide this sort of care and service? It has incredible impact just because it is so infrequent. And it really didn't take much for Hakiem to do it. Probably no more than a couple of minutes to run down the street and make sure Mr. Dichter was satisfied.

Think about how much time we spend in the fundraising profession researching, cultivating, soliciting -- hours and weeks, even years. And yet, we often overlook the truly personal and momentous act of going "above and beyond" that is not only very gratifying for the prospect, but it makes us feel so good as well.

Do it. Go the "extra mile" because it is so rarely done. Do it because it is the right thing to do. Do it for how it makes you feel. Our profession needs it. And frankly, the world needs it.


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

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.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

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.




Monday, May 28, 2012

Quote of the Week: "I'm Bored With My Fundraising."


I'll admit it, I like "high-brow" Masterpiece Theater costume dramas. One of my favorites is Bleak House that ran on PBS in 2007. Dickens' beautiful and droll Lady Dedlock was definitely bored - bored with the rain, bored with her husband, and bored with her life.


But can we afford to be bored with our fundraising. Not according to fundraising guru Jeff Brooks in a blog post entitled How to break free from boring fundraising. To quote, "Are you getting bored with your fundraising? Are you tempted to "get creative" and change everything?


Jeff continues and references a blog post from Kivi Leroux Miller's Nonprofit Communications Blog entitled Your Boredom is a Bad Way to Measure Success


Brooks states that the fact that you've grown bored with your fundraising has no bearing on whether it's time for a change. Actually, he maintains, "there's a slight correlation: If you're bored with it, you're probably on the right track:
Getting creative is NOT a high value goal in direct mail...The goal of direct mail is to find a "formula" that works and then do it until it stops working. You'll know you've succeeded if your appeals make money and you're bored with them."
He suggests concentrating on these key fundraising elements:
  • Finding new fundraising offers.
  • Discovering ways to encourage cross-channel behavior. 
  • Finding images that work.
I encourage you to review both Jeff and Kivi's blog posts. Unfortunately, some nonprofit executives question, ignore, or even scorn these recommendations. Ignore them at your own risk. 

Monday, March 19, 2012

The Two Faces of Fundraising Events: Part 2 - A Hydra Head?


In The Two Faces of Fundraising Events: Part 1, I noted that fundraising events are very popular with many nonprofits. The big charities often make a boatload of money on their "walks" and other "thons". Most staff and volunteers "get" events. They know the purpose is to raise money for the cause. Attendees understand this too and don't object to paying their share. They also feel they receive something tangible in return - a fun time, a chance to rub shoulders with community leaders and maybe even "the famous". Staff and leadership like events because they are often well covered by the media and goodness, they don't have to make a complicated "pitch and ask".

But is it the most effective fundraising vehicle?

Let's look at the potential investment numbers. Here's where the hydra-headed aspect of events raises its ugly...well, you know.

Let's suppose a nonprofit puts on an annual black-tie gala with music, upper tier catering, and an auction. Planning starts a year in advance. At least one staff member spends half of his/her time working on the event. Board members are involved in touching their friends and contacts. The President and Director of Development have roles. The event goes off well and grosses $100,000. Super, huh? Maybe. (Thanks to Nell Edgington, President of Social Velocity for the following cost presumptions. They ran a superb series of blog articles on the cost of fundraising which can be found here .)

Let's suppose some direct expenses:

Venue, music, food, decorations, invitations: $50,000

Often, this is how many nonprofits view their net profit from the event - $100,000 in gross revenue minus $50,000 direct expenses = $50,000 net profit.

But we need to consider the total costs of running this gala and how that compares to other fundraising opportunities. It is imperative to look at the indirect expenses such as:

Cost of staff members to prepare for and manage the event (hours worked by staff members times salary + benefits). 

Staff Event Coordinator's time: $15,000
President's time: $4,000
Development Director's time: $5,000

And let's also figure Board Member time utilizing the standard value of volunteer hours ($20.25): $3,000

Total indirect costs are $27,000
Add direct costs of $50,000
Total indirect and direct costs = $77,000

Our new net revenue is $100,000 - $77,000 = $23,000

The nonprofit made $23,000. Still seems like a reasonable number doesn't it? Especially, since so many new people attended the gala, and the mayor was there -- and it was mentioned on the 6 o'clock news.

But let's look at the cost to raise each of those 23,000 dollars. 

Cost to raise $1.00 = Direct + Indirect costs/ Net Revenue

$77,000/$23,000 = $3.35 cost to raise $1.00

(Also, how many of those new people are really connected to your cause? Is the mayor a prospect? Will anyone remember the 6 o'clock news?)

Now let's suppose you have a salaried staff person working on major gifts prospects. This person's salary is $65,000 per year plus benefits. Indirect costs might include leadership or Board members attending donor visits for a total of $100,000. Their activities result in $500,000 worth of donations in a year. The net revenue figures work out like this:

$500,000 - $100,000 = $400,000

... and the cost per dollar raised ($100,000/$400,000) would be $0.25.

Not only that, but hopefully you have been soliciting and stewarding warm prospects, not a random group of event attendees who may or may not be smitten by your mission.

Doing the math is illuminating.

Does that mean events are a waste of time? No. But it does depend on how you view the investment. How much staff time do you want devoted to this sort of return? Can it be spent more effectively elsewhere? Maybe you can afford to have staff devoted to events and major gift prospecting. Or, maybe you look at the value of events being more resident in their friendraising, cultivation, and stewardship value?

Do the math -- and see what makes sense for you.




Sunday, March 11, 2012

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?












Tuesday, February 28, 2012

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!)






Thursday, January 12, 2012

How to Be a Great Major Gift Officer

Richard Perry and Jeff Schreifels

Passionate Giving is a terrific blog penned by Jeff Schreifels and Richard Perry, the founders of the major gift agency Veritus Group. At the end of 2011 Jeff posted a wonderful series entitled: Six New Year's Resolutions that will Change Your Life...or at least make you a better major gift officer. 

I am sharing snippets from each of the six but I encourage you to visit their blog and read each one in its entirety. If every major gift officer resolved to enact each one in 2012, they would surely experience success, satisfaction, and great joy. And as Jeff states “…2012 will be an incredible year for you, your donors and your organization.”
       1.    Serve your donor, don’t sell them
To drive home his point in this posting, Jeff relates a story of visiting an Apple store in an attempt to fix a software problem with his MacBook Pro laptop. From the get-go he was impressed by how the Apple attendants interacted with their customers. (If his Apple store was anything like the one I visited recently, it was packed with people waiting to be served, browsing, or receiving instructions for their new purchases.)
He was asked if he had an appointment, which he did not. No problem. Someone would be right with him.
Then, I asked him point blank, “Why are you not trying to sell this thing to me?.”  He said he was there to make my experience the best it could be, show me the product and let the product sell itself.  “We don’t get commission on sales”, he said.  “It’s all about serving the needs of the customer.”

He wandered over to the iPad display and was soon joined by a salesperson. Jeff asked the salesperson about the differences between an iPad, laptop, or an Amazon Kindle e-reader and received an unbiased assessment of the pros and cons of each. Jeff relates:
Here are snippets from the rest of Jeff’s posts.
I’m telling you that if you’re finding you have to “sell” your programs, organization or project to donors, you’ve already lost.  However, if you are truly “serving” your donors, you will understand what brings them passion and present projects and programs they will find joy in.
        2.   Love your work
If you don’t love your work in major gifts you either need to figure out what has to be overcome to love it, or you have to leave. I know that sounds harsh, but this major gift work is too difficult, frustrating and draining to NOT love it. 
        3.   Set better goals
…goal setting allows me to have a direction and something to aspire to.   And, it works! Surprisingly, many major gift officers whom I’ve worked with often don’t have goals- neither caseload, professional or personal.
This is tragic.
        4.   Make mistakes
I think our natural tendency is to play it safe.  It takes “something extra” for a person to take a risk and fall flat on his face.  Look, of course no one sets out to make mistakes.  But if you want to break through with your work, you have to walk through that fire of fear and risk failure. And when you do, one of two things will happen:  1) you will become wildly successful, or  2) you will fail, but at the same time will have learned an incredible lesson and moved forward. 
        5.    Be curious – ask questions
In my experience, one of the major reasons MGO’s get stuck in their work with donors is that they fail to ask good questions.  And they fail to ask good questions because they are not curious enough about their donors, their own organization or the projects they are raising money for.
        6.   Seek joy
When you have served your donor well, when you realize that you can’t wait to get to work in the morning, when you have set goals for your caseload, when you have a plan to take risks during the year and when you’re asking great questions left and right…YOU will find joy. 
Seek joy this year and it will find you.

Amen Jeff. 

If every Major Gift Officer resolved to enact each resolution, 2012 would indeed be an incredible year for you, your donors and your organization!









Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Can we get rid of that "old" direct mail?


Here is another great infographic from Kivi Leroux Miller's Nonprofit Marketing Guide.com site. It is compiled from their 2012 Nonprofit Communications Trends Report

It is interesting how the "new media" -- website, email marketing, e-newletters and Facebook -- are deemed either very important or somewhat important to a higher degree than the "tried-and-true" print newsletters and direct mail. 

This is particularly intriguing in light of fundraising expert Jeff Brooks' recent post on his Future Fundraising Now blog entitled What's wrong with the Next Big Thing? To quote:
One of the most pointless and uninteresting things you can hear is that something is the Next Big Thing in Fundraising.
Anything that's being bandied around as a "big thing" is not a big thing. Not yet, and probably not ever.
You'll know a thing is big when nobody's calling it a big thing any more -- but they're just using it successfully to meet their goals. 
Another way you can tell a thing is big is when people start claiming it's "dead".
The two Biggest Things in Fundraising today are direct mail and the house of worship collection plate.
Now, it is important to distinguish considering these newish channels from the standpoint of communication versus solicitation.  Electronic channels will serve an ever more prominent role in getting the word outTruly, email, websites, social media, et al are important components in any nonprofits communication arsenal.


The problem lies in the belief that any of these will supplant direct mail or in-person solicitations as a significant source of gift revenue any time soon. And oh, how we yearn to replace costly direct mail with something inexpensive such as email! Do not succumb to this spurious temptation! 

Use email to support direct mail. Employ social media to provide broader opportunities for education and engagement. Spruce up your website and make sure that it tells your story in a clear and compelling manner. But realize your gifts will come mostly through old-fashioned but lucrative channels. 



Thursday, December 29, 2011

15 Things I'd Do As the New Head Fundraiser - Part 1


So, you’re new on the job. The expectation is that you will raise a lot of money for your nonprofit – and fast. What do you do first?

Ken Burnett, intrepid Scotsman, fundraiser par excellence and author of The Zen of Fundraising, Relationship Fundraising and other key fundraising tomes outlined 15 Things I Would Do If I Were The New Head of Donor Development on the SOFII (Showcase of Fundraising Innovation and Inspiration) website, an online fundraising resource site he helped establish.

Here are the first 8 suggestions with my comments in italics -- but I highly recommend visiting SOFII and reading the details of all 15. They are really terrific.

1.    I’d aspire to be the most learned fundraiser of my generation.
 The fundraising community is blessed to have at its disposal scores of superb educational resources. Few professions are populated with individuals so willing to share as generously of their knowledge. Blogs, podcasts, seminars, books, publications, and very lively and active professional associations – all result in a plethora of advice and inspiration.

2.    I’d teach all my fundraising colleagues to make the 90-degree shift and to aspire to be 15 minutes ahead.
      
        Put yourself in the donor’s shoes. There is no greater folly or act of hubris than to think that donors should give to your non-profit simply because you have told them they should. Truly, our job is to determine what is important to our donors and how philanthropy fits with their values and aspirations. Then we can match our mission with their priorities.

3.    I’d develop a culture of appropriate but high quality donor service in our organization, top to bottom.

As Ken Burnett states, “I’d make sure we are always a pleasure to do business with.” Think about your organization’s customer relationship management. Can you honestly state that every donor “touch point” is exceptional -- or even acceptable?

4.    I’d be very choosy.

      Focus your efforts on areas with the potential for the greatest return on investment. Is it really the multi-millionaire who was a guest of one of your donors at a recent gala and is therefore in your database? Or is it perhaps the “less sexy”, long-time supporter who has been a modest but consistent donor for 25 years?

5.    I’d cut out all short-term thinking, including all hard-sell activities.

If you have determined what the donor’s values and aspirations are, made a connection between your mission and these values, and provided a long-range strategic path that resonates with them– you don’t have to “hard sell”. 

6.    I’d switch our organization’s contact paradigm from “marketing” to “communication”.

It’s the difference between being sold or being engaged. Resist the temptation to be hoodwinked into thinking that slick graphics, uber-clever concepts, and double entendre laden copy presented to you as edgy marketing is good communication, or more importantly – good fundraising.

7.    I’d make sure we only send effective, imaginative communications.

Given the comments above, will your fundraising communication be dull? I’ll bet your non-profit’s mission isn’t dull! Concentrate on clearly communicating what you do that is important and special. Do it in a compelling and authentic way. Being authentic is really a lot harder than being clever. And it is far more effective!

8.    I’d make ours a listening and hearing organization.

Back in the donor’s shoes again. Talk to them. Survey them. Listen to them. Let them know you have heard them. Then act upon what you have learned.

Next, I’ll share the last seven suggestions from Ken Burnett with my comments. 

Sunday, November 20, 2011

It’s Not Over Solicitation If It’s Relevant



L.L. Bean is a master of customer relationship management. 

I ordered a couple of Christmas gifts for the kids online the other day and here is what I received:

10:00 PM, Sunday night: Gifts ordered online
  • 10:07 PM, Sunday night: L.L. Bean sent me an email with the subject line “Thank You For Your Order (Note: May Contain Gift Information)”. This was great. I could confirm that my order was received properly and Bean provided a toll-free number in case there were any issues. They even included a heads-up that this email could contain gift information if I needed to keep it from my kids peering over my shoulder. Also prominently displayed was a link to a video titled “Ever wonder what happens after you place an order?” Check it out here, it is a paragon of customer focused communication: http://www.llbean.com/shop/video_collection/#featured_47
  • 11:44 PM, Sunday night: Less than 40 minutes later I received another email with the subject line “ Your L.L. Bean Order Confirmation (Note: May Contain Gift Information)”.  This time the email included a link to track my order and noted that one of my items was back-ordered (along with the anticipated availability date). I was also informed that my order qualified for a $10 promotional gift card that would arrive in about 10 days. Wow! Nice surprise.
  • 10:14 PM, Monday night: I received a shipping confirmation email letting me know which items had shipped.
  • 3:42 PM, Wednesday afternoon: I received another ship confirmation email showing what additional items had shipped and included a link that showed me where my package was at that very moment (the trip from Maine to Illinois to Missouri)
  • 4:30 PM, Thursday afternoon: I received two of my four ordered items. Waiting in my inbox was an email with the subject line “Good News, Your Packages Have Been Delivered (Note: May Contain Gift Information)”.  It also reiterated the Bean 100% satisfaction guarantee and provided step-by-step instructions for returns.

Five emails in five days. Each one relevant and helpful -- one even providing notice of the unexpected $10 gift card. 

Oh, and with each email L.L. Bean featured pictures of and links to interesting items related to my purchases tempting me to consider additional purchases.

What can fundraisers learn from a top-notch merchandiser like L.L. Bean? 

Let’s consider the following potential scenario:
  1. Within minutes of an online contribution you send the donor an effusive thank-you email. 
  2. On day two you send an email note stating that the donor's contribution has been directed to a program or department to be put to immediate use.
  3. Then, within a day or two, you report back to the donor the potential impact of their gift. Perhaps you share a story of a person or a program that will be helped. 
  4. Lastly, the donor receives an email note of gratitude directly from a program director or an individual who has benefited from the gift. 
You also include in one of your emails a link to a video titled “Have you ever wondered what happens after you make a gift?” I'm sure many donors really do wonder about that, especially since they often never hear from an institution again until the next “ask”.

Additionally, each email correspondence includes links to other programs and giving opportunities. 

Do you think the donor would consider this over solicitation? 

Bet not. 

I dare say the donor would be thrilled and might even spring for an additional gift just to start this satisfying process all over again. 

Give it a try and report back your results!

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

People Don't Give to Need. People Give to Opportunity.


I have something posted on my bulletin board next to my computer that I look at every day.

People don’t give to need. People give to opportunity.

I don’t remember where I first heard or read that statement but it is an incredibly important fundraising premise.  We probably have all been faced with the mandate to raise X dollars in order to build this or that or fund some worthy program. How tempting it is to just get the word out, “We need your contribution. We need your renewal. We need an extra gift!” 




It’s a bit like banging a gong. It results in reactionary giving. The donor sends a check or clicks a button and then forgets about you. They give to quiet the noise.

Now, imagine a donor making a gift because they see the opportunity. They give to make a difference, to accomplish something. They become engaged.

How do you communicate the distinction? Let us consider two different lead sentences for an appeal letter.

The need approach, “As a past contributor to our student aid fund we ask that you consider another gift to The University of Crying Need. We provide over twenty million dollars worth of aid to needy students each year. If we are to continue this type of critical support we need your contribution today.”

The recipient of an appeal like this may react to this approach in many ways. Certainly, the enormity of the need stands out – twenty million dollars a year in financial aid. But, they may also be thinking, “What will my measly (twenty-five, one hundred, or even one thousand dollars) do to help?” The focus is shallow. It is numerical rather than emotional.

Now consider the opportunity approach. “Martha Smith grew up in a tough part of town. Her mother worked two jobs and took in laundry to send her to Opportunity College. Last year as a freshman Martha got straight A’s and discovered she loved science. Her physics professor sent her most recent research paper to the National Academy of Science for which she won commendation. Without generous student aid donors like you Martha might still be doing laundry with her mother rather than excelling in her class. There are twenty-five hundred more Martha’s who want to thank you for making another gift today.”


I would give to make sure Martha has an opportunity to finish school, wouldn’t you? Take the time to determine what the impact of a gift will be. Communicate the opportunity that the donor has to make a difference.