October 2006

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2006.

Any article or blog post dealing with the issue of not being afraid to ask will automatically get my attention.  I really like this post by Amy Kincaid on her blog, Fundraising Breakthroughs. This post is smart, honest, funny and full of insight . Thought you’d enjoy reading it too.

Here’s a quick snippet: 

The introductory paragraph ends in “And to make all this happen, we need-you guessed it–money. Perhaps even your money.”
The fundraiser in me got a sinking feeling.

It goes on: “So we’re hitting up friends for financial support.”
Holy smokes (sorry, I’m from Kansas City, and we talk that way). Promise me, novice fundraisers, no more violent language. We’re inviting people (aka donors) to join us in work that has meaning.

– Very funny.

The Muttart Foundation recently released their consumer survey report, “Talking about Charities 2006: Tracking Canadians’ Opinions about Charities and the Issues Affecting Them.” The report was released in 2000, 2004 and September 2006.

Highlights for me are:

  • 79% of all Canadian trust charitable organizations; 29% trust them a lot (nearly the same percentage holds true for leaders of organizations)
  • Hospitals are trusted most (80%); children’s causes (85%); health prevention/research (84%); education (77%); social services (74%); protection of the environment/animals (73%); churches (67%); the arts (61%); international relief and development (57%).
  • 87% believe more attention needs to be given in the way charities raise their funding
  • Many Canadians do have objections to charities hiring commission based fundraisers. 62% find this practice unacceptable
  • Half of Canadians would like more information about the work charities do, even though it may require more money to be spent on communications
  • When considering making a donation to a particular charity, 58% are most likely to research that charity though its website; 46% will call the charity to ask for more information and 44% will look at financial statements.

While reading through a study such as this, I tend to take notes to see how these findings can and should be addressed in organization-wide key messaging and position statements.  Moreover, time spent speaking with donors will clarify our own specific issues that must be addressed. In other words, are we addressing key consumer/donor issues or just speaking about what’s important to us?

One particular nonprofit I know uses a “message tree” approach (the longer the communication piece, the more key messages are to be prioritized and included) while another has developed a very deliberate positioning document that is reviewed with communications writers (both external and internal) at the start of each creative development process.  While this may not be new, it is critical to keep on track of what we are communicating and what we should communicate given organizational mandates.

“By the very act of not communicating, we are, in fact, communicating.”

Great ad from the MS Society UK:

MS Ad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The copy in the upper right corner might be hard to read:

“When vertigo, numbness or loss of muscle coordination can strike without warning, the last thing you feel is at home.”

Credits:
Saatchi & Saatchi London
Kate Stanners (Creative Director)
Cassandra Yap (Copywriter)
Marion Cohen (Art Director)
Illustrator: Marion Cohen/ Alex Normanton
Retouching: First Base

While I realize there are many nonprofit organizations using viral campaigns to raise funds, I recently came across one worth a closer look for reasons explained later.  Fight Hunger: Walk the World is conducting viral video contest.  The winner receives a chance to win a trip to film a WFP school feeding project in a developing world. 

Fight Hunger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, this is not a new story — Beth’s Blog has written about it, as has Netsquared and Citizen Brand (I’m sure I’ve omitted others.)

However, here are my takaways:

  • It’s a fresh, new and innovative way to bond a donor to the organization.
  • It hits the target audience (youth/young adult) right down-the-middle.  When I showed this to my teenage son, he jumped at the chance to give it a try.  Haven’t seen this much excitement since the PSP.
  • The contest pay-off is substantial. The winner receives a filming trip and the video will be used in the upcoming Fight Hunger ad campaign.
  • The web site copy sticks to the mission of the organization. “Everyone who enters is a winner because by sharing your creativity you’re joining our global movement to end child hunger by 2015.”  There’s no fluff here to get the reader sidetracked.
  • The contest and rules are easily understood and clearly stated.
  • Readers can further spread the word about the campaign by adding one of several banner options to websites and blogs. Nice way to extend the idea beyond the contest landing page.
  • And in addition to everything else…you can donate to Fight Hunger right from the contest site. If you don’t ask, you won’t get.

Has the public responded?  I dunno.  I searched for the keyword “fhvideo” on YouTube, Google Video, blip.tv and ourmedia.org and didn’t find anything.  I’m sure I was doing something wrong. 

I’d love to hear from others out there that have had success with viral video or photo campaigns.  I guess I’d have to define success, but maybe I’ll let you do that.

The link to an article I posted on October 26 , “Running a Non Profit Like a Business”, (Inside Collin County Business, Plano, TX) caused a few writers in our community to fire up the ‘ol computer.  Don’t Tell the Donor, The Agitator and Ken Goldstein had excellent perspectives on the subjects of public confidence in the nonprofit sector and, as the title suggests, running a nonprofit like a business. I recommend reading the posts AND the comments.

And just when I thought the firestorm coals had cooled and I could go back to sleep at night, I read today’s post from Pam Aslund, “Non-Profit Confidence Problem?”

To steal Ken Goldstein’s headline, these subjects are certainly, “Pressing Our Buttons.”

I didn’t realize how a little article could cause such a large, thoughtful and intense response.  But that’s why I wanted to enter the blogosphere in the first place: to foster cross-cutting dialogue in the nonprofit industry so that we can express our views and learn from each other.

Ok, I know that’s a goofy title, but it somewhat describes what is happening in our industry of late. These are great days for the nonprofit fundraising sector and for those this industry ultimately serves. Reading though the daily links for the past week or so and we see that:

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports American largest charities grew an astonishing 13 percent matching the highest gain since the Chronicle has been publising the Philanthropy 400 Survey.

Individuals increased their charitable contributions to health care facilities and organizations by a record 16 percent in the U.S., to $7.01 billion, and by 11 percent in Canada.

Estimated giving by California foundations rose in 2005 to a record $4.11 billion, and a survey of leading foundations projects that their giving will grow faster in 2006, according to a report released Wednesday by the Foundation Center.

Bank of America’s landmark philanthropy survey released today indicates:

Charitable giving increased over the last five years. When asked about the level of their charitable donations, nearly two thirds (65%) of wealthy donors somewhat or dramatically increased their charitable giving over the past 5 years. Less than 12% of high net worth households decreased their contributions.”  (For an excellent commentary on this study, head over to Sean Stannard-Stockton’s blog, Tactical Philanthropy.)

And the list goes on and on.  Are we getting better at fundraising? Yes.  Is the general public more generous?  Yes.  Are there more prospective donors in the donor pool? Yes.  Does the public trust us? Yes, despite what a United Way public poll might indicate (and oh-so thoroughly addressed by Don’t Tell The Donor yesterday.)  Are corporations more involved in charities? Yes.  And by all the Red and Pink we see these days, it’s now hip to donate.  Who’d a thunk it.

Any why am I so excited?  Because, in the end, we don’t raise funds for ourselves.  We raise funds for those who do not have the voice or ability to ask.

The time is right to:

  • innovate
  • take chances
  • be creative
  • test, test, test
  • try new ideas
  • rollout
  • dare to dream
  • ask for more
  • ask for more again
  • build strong relationships

Growing up in Ohio, we used to say, “Make hay while the sun still shines.”  Who knows? The bright sun may soften to sunset tomorrow.  But as for today, I’ll set my face to the sun and get after the work at hand.

Make Hay

Just a quick note to point you to a most excellent article by Peter Deitz, “Social Networking and Group Fundraising.”  Actually, this article points to the main web post, “How to Use the Internet for Group Fundraising”.  Peter has written one of the most practical pieces I’ve read on the subject of how to approach a viral fundraising campaign.  Here’s an excerpt:

In the last four years, the number of websites that help individuals design and implement their own group fundraising campaigns has exploded. Networks of friends, family, and activists can now raise money effecitvely and collectively for any number of causes. But with all the options available, sometimes it is difficult to know which platform to choose and how best to put it to use.

This guide features:

  1. 5 questions to ask yourself before starting a fundraising campaign, and
  2. 3 factors to consider when choosing a group fundraising platform.

The phenomenon goes by several names: viral fundraising, team fundraising, grassroots fundraising, group fundraising, and even network-centric fundraising. In each case, the concept is the same.

An individual or group creates a page on a website and sets a fundraising goal on behalf of a non-profit organization or project. The initiator then emails friends and family requesting financial support for the cause.

On occasion, friends and family are so enthusiastic that they forward the announcement to their individual networks. Sometimes news of the project reaches the “blogosphere” or catches the attention of a journalist.

Suddenly thousands of people are responding and the fundraising goal is met in record time. Well, that’s the best case scenario. More often than not, close friends, family, and a few anonymous philanthropists come through with the cash needed to meet the fundraising goal.

Very good stuff.  Thanks Peter.

Automotive salespeople are typically taught to take a few moments getting to know prospective customers before moving on to The Most Important Thing. Otherwise known as The Sales Pitch.  Get to know the family a bit, talk about occupations, the weather, and hockey.  A few minutes of customer engagement before spending the next day and a half making the sale.

You see, this notion of “engagement” is really nothing new.  Engagement is a new skin to an old, and yet very important concept.  Often the issue becomes how we define, plan and execute our donor engagement strategy. (For what it’s worth, my perspective is that Donor Engagement should never take away from direct response principles, but rather add to whatever we are already doing. It’s an enhancement, not a replacement to fundraising excellence.) 

This is where Marvin enters the stage.  Halfway through his famous song, “What’s Going On”, the lyrics emerge:

Marvin Gaye

 

“Talk to me
 So you will see
 What’s going on”  

 

 

I picture our donors saying this:  “Will somebody just talk to me?  How about a quick phone call to get to know me and find out what’s important to me.  Ask me about my cause and not your cause.  You send me direct mail appeals each month that cost a buck a piece.  You send me newsletters and magazines and even call me…but that’s when when you want something from me and when you want to talk to me.  I’m your neighbor down the street. I want to talk to you for a little bit, to let you know what’s really going on with me and why I supported you in the first place.”

I know of one organization that has seen a 16 percent increase in donor retention and “renewal” rates year-over-year by simply calling each donor, saying thanks, and talking for two minutes about that is important to the donor.  Is it costly?  Yes.  Rather, it’s an investment of three or for bucks that pays off later in spades. And when the next direct mail package is sent out, that donor sees copy directly tailored to what’s important to her.

Isn’t this exciting and radical?

In my mind, this is a bit closer to real donor engagement.  Of course, it’s what major donor development/advancement professionals have known since the beginning of time.

“Oh, you know we’ve got to find a way
To bring some understanding here today”

Thanks, Marvin.

 

In most nonprofit organizations, a tension exists between fundraising disciplines to determine who “gets the credit” for certain types of donor solicitations.  In this day of accountability, ROI metrics and budet struggles, stuggling over initial donation source codes has become, sadly, standard operating procedure.   For example, departments responsible for lower-end donors (typically direct mail solicitations) find themselves at odds with the major donor development group after the big donor mails in a big check to a routine direct mail appeal. 

Enter the online donation transaction and things really heat up.

I recommend the following article, “Smashing Through Reporting Silos” by, Duncan Rein, CEO of Silas Partners.  Here’s a quick summary:

“Organizations that evaluate online success by looking at online revenue exclusively are likely to conclude that their online efforts are more and more successful over the next several years. The Harvard Initiative on Social Enterprise estimates that up to 30% of all donations will be raised online by the Year 2010. Therefore, it is likely that all nonprofits will see their online revenue increase, whether or not they are doing a good job online.”

“Furthermore, we believe that the value of online communication efforts are often under-estimated by organizations that have not instituted a framework for integrated reporting due to the hidden boost an effective online presence gives to all offline communication initiatives.”

The bottom line? Begin now to develop an accurate and integrated reporting framework. Assemple your team to perform a rigorous analysis of how donor communications affect each other and learn how each appeal effort interacts with each other.  Tear down the silos. We are in a New Day and we need to give this issue serious attention.  

Until this happens, we’re only guessing.

 Largest charities saw donations rise 13% in 2005

By Noelle Barton and Holly Hall

Donations to America’s largest charities grew by 13 percent last year, to $62.7- billion, according to The Chronicle’s annual Philanthropy 400 Survey.

That increase matches the highest percentage gain in the 16 years that The Chronicle has been ranking the 400 most-successful charities. At the height of the technology boom, in 1999, charities in the Philanthropy 400 achieved a 13.4-percent increase.

All signs suggest that the pace of giving continues to be strong this year: Among 49 charities on the list that projected a rise in 2006 giving, contributions are expected to grow by a median of 13 percent, meaning that half the groups expect a greater increase and half expect less.

(read more)

By Andrea Coombes, MarketWatch Last Update: 4:02 PM ET Oct 20, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Charitable giving got a lot easier for some taxpayers — and harder for others — thanks to some tax-law changes in the recent Pension Protection Act. The good news is taxpayers who are 70 1/2 or older can take up to $100,000 out of their IRA tax-free this year and next, as long as they donate it to a qualified charity.

Meanwhile, taxpayers of all ages face slightly stricter rules when it comes to deducting charitable donations: Next year we’ll have to make sure we document any monetary donations, even if less than $250. And, starting this year, those donating clothing or household goods will need to make sure the items are of “good or better” quality. The real windfall is for those charitable givers who are in their 70s and who’ve got hefty IRA assets. Now they can “take out up to $100,000 per year, give that to charity and not have to include that in income,” said Jere Doyle, senior vice president of wealth management for Mellon Financial’s private wealth management group, in Boston.

(article continues)

I love this article by Paul Loeb in that he demonstrates, from his personal experience, the power of matching grants in a fundraising offer.  Typically, matching grants come from corporations, foundations, governments and major donors.  However, the Democratic National Committee “has invited ordinary citizens to make modest online pledges, to be redeemed when new donors contributed.”  Ok, I’m not endorsing the DNC.  But this issue of finding and offering matching donation opportunities to infuse our fundraising appeals is critical. And this approach is innovative.  The article goes on to state that this matching offer appeal became the organizations most effective direct mail campaign in the past two years. 

Yes, nonprofit organizations are still “prospecting” for new donors and that’s how large donor files are created. But the fact is, the face of fundraising is changing.  Our donors are finding new donors.  In turn, we’re rediscovering the “new truth” that fundraising by word-of-mouth is the most effective acquisition strategy we can employ.

San Francisco Zoo 

Great use of outdoor space to promote the Zoo.   

I see the light…

Credits:
BBDO West, USA
Jim Lesser (Executive Creative Director)
Brandon Sides (Art Director)
Neil Levy (Copywriter)
Leslie DiLullo (Agency Producer)
Graphics/Editing/SD: David Anderson.

(I encourage everyone to get this report!) 

San Francisco, October 17, 2006 - The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) today released its 2006 Response Rate Trends Report, containing some of the most sought-after data on the benchmarks of successful direct marketing campaigns.

“In providing research and information about direct marketing, our most asked questions are what is a typical response rate and what channel will yield the best response for a particular direct marketing campaign,” said Anna Chernis, DMA’s senior research manager. “This report provides a dependable and robust benchmark for a wide range of industries and campaign types.”

In the report, four direct marketing objectives are isolated and reported on separately: direct order, lead generation, traffic building, and fundraising. The report also provides breakouts by direct marketing channel and type of list used (house file vs. prospect), as well as the market (consumer vs. business-to-business) and the industry being advertised.

Among the findings of this year’s report: · Direct Order & Fundraising: For direct marketers whose primary objective was to solicit direct-order sales or motivate customers to make a contribution, Catalog (2.30%) and Direct Mail (2.18%) produced the highest response rates.

Lead Generation: Telephone (2.60%) and E-mail (2.45%) produced the highest response rates for direct marketers whose primary objective was to generate leads.

Traffic Building: Catalog (10.34%) and Telephone (7.83%) have the highest response rates for traffic building, although these figures are based on a small sample of only five campaigns for Catalog and four campaigns for Telephone.

House File v. Prospects: House-file campaigns generally outperformed prospecting campaigns.

Consumer v. Business-to-Business Markets: When used for direct-order generation and fundraising, Direct Mail and Catalog work better in consumer markets. Other media, however, reported their highest response rates in the business-to-business market. Lead-generation and traffic-building campaigns both reported higher response rates for consumer audiences vs. B-to-B. Seven Media, 19 Industry Categories, 30 Products & Services.

The DMA 2006 Response Rate Trends Report includes data for more than 1,500 campaigns received in 2004, 2005 and 2006. For the first time, the report includes trend overviews. The report looks at seven media channels that may have been used solo or in combination to achieve specific campaign objectives: direct mail (flat), catalog, e-mail, inserts, outbound telephone, newspaper, and magazine. In addition, information is provided for 19 major industry categories consistent with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), as well as a selection of 30 specific products and services.

The full report is priced at $245 for DMA members ($445 for non-members). It can be ordered through DMA Book Distribution Center by calling 1.800.344.8328 (US) or +1.610.461.3548 (internationally) and online at www.the-dma.org/bookstore.

Source: Direct Marketing Association

An interesting 2006 DMA Conference article from DM News highlights multichannel marketing’s critical role in reaching today’s consumers and the resulting challenges to determine response metrics.  Again, when I read articles such as this I think of how we speak to donors or prospective donors.  More than ever before, donors are in tune to various “frequencies” of possible response transmissions — direct mail, interactive, online, print, broadcast, face-to-face.  Determining how “signals” work together, and how to attribute proper response metrics for each message transmission is getting difficult to accurately track.  From the article:

Casey Carey, senior vice president of Abacus Alliance Solutions, the multichannel database arm of Abacus, spoke to the number of complications that can arise as the available points of purchase and cross-channel marketing efforts increase.

“I say one thing about multichannel marketing and that’s just: complexity,” Mr. Casey said.

By first separating a company’s offer channels from its response channels, marketers can focus budget planning around the offer channels to decide which media mix is the most effective, he said.

It’s my experience that donors are becoming more adept at moving between response channels before making a final donation decision.  As well, today’s fundraising professionals are beginning to move beyond the endless testing of small things in traditional channels (e.g. 1st class stamp versus bulk rate postage) and are putting more thinking around determining how individual fundraising efforts work together to create the desired response. 

Larry Rowen & Dave Warren’s excellent MediaWeek article, “Embracing the Brave New World,” offers a thoughtful view of message convergence in the new media environment.  Applications for fundraisers are vast and deep.

Read through the article. Go through it again, this time substitute the word (or concept) “fundraiser” in place of “advertiser.” 

Here’s a sliver of my take:  As fundraisers, we realize that branding and direct response fundraising must cohabitate the same space, in the same house…under the same roof.  Many charities don’t have the luxury of having separate “branding” and “direct response” budgets.  Heck, most barely have enough budget to aggressively grow year-over-year revenue.  So?  Fundraising must build the brand in an entirely new and complex (rich) media environment.  It’s the “new and complex” part that’s got my goat and has me up at night.

“Over fifty years ago, Bill Bernbach came up with the revolutionary notion of throwing an art director and copywriter in the same room and tasking them to come up with effective ads. Today’s advertising agency must now begin throwing branders and direct-response experts in the same room. Their task is still the same: to come up with effective ads. But now those ads need to work on entirely new levels and work in entirely new media.”

Be sure, donors are devouring new media and are responding on entirely new levels.  We see it in our direct mail response rates and our DRTV call-in volumes. Donors are responding via online channels at an astonishing rate.

Are you ready for this Brave New World?

Two very bright fellows think you just might.

10 over 100 is a brilliant concept begun by James Hong and Josh Blumenstock.  The idea is simple:

“We hereby make a personal promise to you that we will give 10% of whatever we make over $100,000 each year to charity.  We’re making this committment because we think it will help make the world a better place, and we’re encouraging people to make the same promise to themselves and to their friends.”

Individuals are encouraged to “take the pledge”..and so far over 2,100 people around the world have done so.

The reason I like this idea: it’s straightforward, simple and from the heart.  And it’s based that rare commodity, trust.  Finally, these guys aren’t afraid to ask.

In this day of overcomplicated appeals that work overtime to “sell” the offer to uncaring donors, this idea strikes the bell with a pure and clear tone.  And this is better than doing nothing at all.

Oct 8, 2006 — Sorry everyone, due to circumstanced beyond our control, all previous entries were inadvertantly lost during this weekend’s database upgrade.  As in the past, we look forward to providing you with timely and relevant information to help you grow your organization.