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.

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.

Donors Care About IMPACT

Donors care about impact.

That's not particularly surprising. It makes sense that donors want to know that their donation has made an appreciable difference for the nonprofit they are supporting. What has not been so clear is exactly what sort of information does the donor consider valuable in judging impact?

According to a new report from GuideStar USA, Inc. and Hope Consulting entitled Money For Good II, if charities can compellingly communicate impact to donors, serious money could move to the most effective institutions -- as much as $15 billion!

The report addresses these important issues:

• What information do donors want and how and where do they want it?
• How can you meet the demand for information, including specific tools and initiatives?
• How other nonprofits are already doing this and the rewards they are reaping.
• A view of the future of charitable giving and the nonprofit sector.

What do donors want?

According to the report, 88% of donations go to a nonprofit a donor has given to at least once before. Donors are comfortable with "the familiar" and need to trust the institutions they support. But far more funds could be directed to nonprofits if donors had easy access to better information. It is interesting to note, many donors don't take the time to research the nonprofits they are considering supporting.

Individual Donors Research Some Causes More Than Others 
(Chart shows the percentage of donors that research various nonprofits)

According to the research all donors want to know:

• The financial picture, including how an organization spends its money
• That the nonprofit is legitimate
• The basics of the organization -- its mission, approach, and make up
• The breadth and depth of the cause
• The nonprofit's impact

Most of the above information is relatively accessible. But  the researchers believe information about a nonprofit's impact is grossly neglected.

Why is this so? It would seem that the impact of the work of the nonprofit would be a number one communication focus for all institutions. Unfortunately, this is too often not the case. Are nonprofits too busy? Are their resources stretched so thin they have no time to do the research and disseminate the information? Probably.

The report is emphatic that the nonprofit must make an internal commitment to collecting information about impact.

Collect that information and then communicate it to your donors through a multitude of channels -- websites, emails, newsletters, solicitation letters, videos, annual reports, and social media platforms.

Again, to quote the report, when you lead with impact, you reassure your existing donors that you are using their money wisely, and you attract new donors who are looking for organizations doing the most good.

The report includes a helpful Charting Impact Tool to begin assessing what impact information you should be communicating to your donor. It includes a series of questions, ways to answer, and reasons why such as: 

• Question: What is your organization aiming to accomplish?
• How to answer: Define how your organization will change the world for the better.
• Why it matters: Donors want to know what you stand for. 

As well as:

• Question: What are your strategies for making this happen?
• How to answer: Explain what you are doing to accomplish your goals.
• Why it matters: Donors need to understand, clearly, what you do.

(Check out the other questions and responses in the Charting Impact Tool. You'll find it quite helpful as you collect your impact information.)

Charity rating services and research resources such as Charity Navigator, GuideStar, Network for Good, and the Foundation Center are all playing a role in providing third party, non-partisan information on nonprofits for the potential donor. And although emotion plays an important role in charitable decisions, data from these sources help satisfy the donor's need for the rational aspect of the giving process.

Take the time to collect those impact stories, the third party endorsements, the data that shows your effectiveness. Make it easy for donors to get the information they want. Don't make them dig for it.

Earn some of that $15 billion in available gift revenue. You deserve it!

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.

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?

Why We Fundraise

It was a success story right out of a Hollywood script. Working class boy from an industrial neighborhood in Australia makes it big. Scott Neeson loved movies and had a knack for picking winners. He quickly climbed the ranks of the Australian film industry before becoming President of 20th Century Fox in LA. Neeson was responsible for bringing such mega hits to the screen as Titanic, Braveheart, Independence Day, X-Men, Die Another Day and over 100 other films.

But in 2003 as he was about to transition to a new position at Sony Pictures, Scott decided to take some time off and visit Southeast Asia. Invited by a resident of Phnom Penh, Cambodia to visit Steung Meanchey, a stinking, fetid shanty town perched atop a toxic landfill, Neeson's life was about to flip 180 degrees. Picking through the rotting waste and mountainous garbage were scores of desperately poor Cambodians searching for recyclables that could be turned in for pennies on the pound. Most heartbreaking, many of the pickers were children - clad in tatters, filthy, and wearing the sullen mask of despair.

Neeson and friend at Steung Meanchey, Cambodia

But Neeson's transformation of spirit was launched by an ironic, movie script like incident that took place as he stood ankle-deep in trash that day. He had just received a call on his cell phone from the agent of a Hollywood superstar. The agent was railing against Neeson because his client would not be receiving adequate in-flight entertainment on the private jet that Sony Pictures had provided him. As described in a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor, "Neeson overheard the actor griping in the background. 'My life wasn't meant to be this difficult.' Those were his exact words," Neeson says. "I was standing there in that humid, stinking garbage dump with children sick with typhoid, and this guy was refusing to get on a Gulfstream IV because he couldn't find a specific item onboard," he recalls. "If I ever wanted validation I was doing the right thing, this was it."

Inspired by the staggering needs of the Steung Meanchey community and in stark contrast with that recent hedonistic exhibition of shallow excess, Neeson spent the rest of his holiday considering the creation of what would soon become the Cambodian Children's Fund (CCF). Within a year he had chucked his highflying executive career with his $1 million salary, and sold his home, boats and cars. He even held a giant garage sale to help him jettison all the detritus that before had seemed important indicators of his success.

Today, Cambodian Children's Fund provides refuge, education and medical treatment for hundreds of children across five separate facilities. Nearly two-thirds of these students once lived and worked in Steung Meanchey, picking plastic and metal out of the mountains of burning, hazardous waste and selling them to local recycling centers. CCF has even opened a bakery and restaurant to offer vocational training to older students and unemployed youth living in the area. Future plans include additional Satellite Schools throughout the village. The following three minute video gives an overview of their work.

This is why we fundraise.

It's to support courageous visionaries such as Scott Neeson. It is to ensure the children of Cambodia, Mawali, Santa Domingo, or Tennessee have a better life. It is to benefit those who are powerless, victimized, without hope. It is to provide a better life, an education, a chance to be a future leader to those who might otherwise be no more than a sad statistic. That is why we fundraise. And if we forget, think of Scott Neeson and his children of Steung Meanchey. Think of the children on the dumps of Changde, China, Lagos, Nigeria, Jakarta, Indonesia, Sidon, Lebanon, New Delhi, India, Lima, Peru, or Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Because at each of these dumps --the largest trash heaps in the world-- each one is being "worked" by thousands of children, trying to stay alive. This is why we fundraise.