Donor Power Blog

Sticks, stones, and words that can hurt

2009-07-13T09:05:57-07:00

fundraising

Writers who pay attention to their work often have lists of words or phrases to avoid. Here's a good one from the Otis Regrets ... or Not blog. 5 words that hurt (your marketing results):

"I"
"We"
"It"
Words that can be read more than one way. (Like "read" (present tense) and "read" (past tense).
Words that look similar enough to be misinterpreted by a hurrying reader. (Like "through/thorough/though")
"As I just mentioned"

Well, six. Check them out.

Technorati Tags: marketing, copywriting

Three Laws of Fundraising Dynamics

2009-07-10T08:14:35-07:00

Here's my column in this month's FundRaising Success magazine, Three Laws of Fundraising Dynamics.

Teaser: ... self-focused organizations are so uncool, they think they're cool. They press on with their look-at-me monologues, never noticing that nobody's impressed and nobody's listening.

Donors aren't old, regardless of their age

2009-07-09T08:47:59-07:00

Nobody thinks he's old. That's what a recent survey found, as reported in USA Today: Few see themselves as 'old,' no matter what their age.

Seems no matter what your age, "old" is something yet to come:

People under 30 say 60 is old.
Those between 30 and 65 figure 70 is old.
People older than 65 don't think you're old until you're 75.

Only 21% of people ages 65 to 74 say they feel old. Among those 75 and older, only 35% say they feel old.

If you're raising funds, you're mostly dealing with the chronologically advanced. (I can't call them old, can I?) That's a fact you ignore at great peril. There are clear and strong differences between generations. You can't talk to people decades older than you are they same way you talk to your age-peers.

But one of those age-appropriate things it seems, is not treating them like they're old. Because as far as they're concerned, they aren't old. And don't forget it, whippersnapper!

Thanks to The Boomer Blog for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, aging, psychographics

Why you need to raise restricted funds

2009-07-08T08:30:21-07:00

If you're like most fundraisers, most of the funds you raise must be unrestricted, undesignated, unearmarked. Meaning your organization, usually your financial people, have sole control over where donors' dollars end up.

The lower the dollar value of your donors, the less control or say they have on this subject. Money from government or foundation sources is often highly designated. Major donors and top benefactors can tell you what they want you to do with their money. But everyday donors -- people whose checks have four digits are less -- well, they just have to trust your wisdom and be okay with the way you allocate their unrestricted gifts.

I hope you're asking why, as the Queer Ideas blog is: Why does it always have to be un-earmarked?

... with organisations like Kiva growing at a fantastic rate by offering choice over how money is allocated and what percentage is added to cover administrative costs, it might not be too long before charities have to start changing the way they work....
Donors are already getting increasing amounts of choice in how they give to the causes they care about. And it's those charities that respond most effectively to the changing environment that are going to succeed.

We all understand the value and importance of unrestricted funds. But are we balancing that with the power of offering restricted funds?

The time when we could count on regular donors to quietly and happily provide no-questions-asked unrestricted funds is coming to an end. The "Have It Your Way" generation is entering its donor years, and they want to fund what they want to fund. And organizations like Kiva, DonorsChoose, and Global Giving are offering hyper-designated giving -- just what they want.

It's time for your money folks to step up and help you figure out how to deal with restricted funds. If they don't, you may find yourself with fewer and fewer funds -- restricted or unrestricted -- to work with.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

How to create a failing e-newsletter

2009-07-07T08:35:59-07:00

Here's a great way to create an e-newsletter that nobody will read or respond to: Think of it as the July e-newsletter.

The moment you designate an e-newsletter by the time when it's to be sent out, you are off on the wrong foot. Instead, you should designate it by an event or action: Hurricane newsletter, opening night newsletter, food shortage newsletter.

Then, with that set, give your recipients a handful of actions related to the topic. Like find out more. Give to that fund. Buy something. Sign a petition, play a game.

That's a newsletter that will sing -- as in motivate action.

I'm not saying a time-based subject line is what causes failure. It might be -- I've seen them crash, and I've seen them work. This is something you really should test.

But before you get to the test, you need to have compelling content. Which you will have trouble bringing together if your starting place is Well, another month has rolled around. What shall we put in the newsletter?

Technorati Tags: fundraising, nptech

Four more years? Already?

2009-07-06T08:50:05-07:00

This is Donor Power Blog post #1,029. Okay, that probably doesn't mean much, but four years ago yesterday (July 5, 2005) this blog was born. In blog years, that makes us ... I don't even want to think how ancient we are.

Back in 2005, there weren't many readers. Page views were in the dozens per day, quite a few of which were me, checking to see if my posts were really there. There were also hardly any fundraising blogs. I think this one was the third or fourth. There are now around sixty. It was an intense conversation between a few people in a small room.

My first post, an earnest little manifesto that nobody read, was called New Fundraising for the New Donor.

The first real "controversy" on this blog started with a post on November 8, 2005. It said:

How Google might look, if it were run the way many nonprofits operate today. It linked to this graphic:

The comments -- which by the standards of that time amounted to a tidal-wave worth -- are quite amusing. They are basically an argument whether or not the post is funny.

A lot happens in four years. I'm thankful for each person who's taken the time to read this blog. I'm especially thankful for those who have left comments. Even those of you who are wrong (heh heh -- I get to say that here). I hope in some way, however small, you've been equipped or inspired to do fundraising a little bit better.

I can't see four years ahead. But I hope something like this blog is still going. And I hope you're there too. Thanks.

How to save your donors' lives

2009-07-02T08:26:00-07:00

You just might be saving your donors' lives.

A recent HealthDay report, Have a Purpose in Life? You Might Live Longer, finds a correlation between purpose and longevity:

We found that people who reported a greater level of purpose in life were substantially less likely to die over the follow-up period -- only about half as likely to die over the follow-up period -- as compared to people with a lower level of purpose.

This sense-of-purpose stuff is their responsibility, not yours. But you can play a meaningful part by the way you communicate with them:

By really bringing them in to the cause of your organization. Making it clear how important there gifts are.
By thanking them promptly and specifically when they give.
By reporting back to them what their gifts make possible.
By giving them meaningful choices in the relationship about when, how, and about what you'll communicate with them.
By letting them direct their giving where they want to.
By inviting them to other kinds of participation than giving -- like volunteering, advocating, recruiting, advising.

Old-line fundraising tends to de-emphasize the relational and cause aspects of giving, making it more of a simple transaction. Too bad, because that's what boosts the sense of purpose that's already innate in charitable giving. Which saves lives. And it raises more money.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, purpose

What does Gates have that you don't have?

2009-07-01T08:23:38-07:00

Here's a problem more of us could do with: Last year the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation raised $10.4 million dollars without asking for anything. They didn't even really want it. (See the Chronicle of Philanthropy report: Gates Foundation Raises $10-Million in Unsolicited Gifts.)

Why would so many people give to an organization that doesn't want them to give, offers no easy way to give, and will, in fact, just turn around and give their money to organizations they could have given to themselves in the first place?

They've heard of the Gates Foundation. Or at least they've heard of Gates. A lot of visibility comes with being the world's wealthiest person.

They think Bill Gates is smart. (Anyone who would use live mosquitoes as a visual aid, in a speech is smart in my book.) Donors must figure he's going to make better use of their giving than they can themselves. That may or may not be true -- but it's clearly a perception.

Other smart people have given to the Gates Foundation. Well, one other: Warren Buffett, who's given billions and says he plans to give more. (Buffett dollars are not among the $10.4 million given last year.) That's one heck of an endorsement.

Most of us have a long way to do to get that Gates Foundation magic. But here are some things that can point you in the right direction:

Do something nobody else does. If your distinctive can only be grasped by professionals, it's not a real distinctive. You have to make regular people say Wow!
Be really good at it. So good that anyone can see what a difference you're making.
Help your donors tell your story. They can be your "celebrities" if you give them the tools and something great to talk about.

(Another take at Tactical Philanthropy: Would You Donate to the Gates Foundation?)

Technorati Tags: fundraising, Gates Foundation

Marketing myths that many fundraisers believe

2009-06-30T08:56:00-07:00

From Chief Marketer: 7 Myths CMOs (and Their Bosses) Gotta Stop Buying

"I'll just hire me one of them superstars."
"If everyone just picks themselves up by the bootstraps and tries harder (or works smarter) ..."
"If we can just get some of that marketing automation, that'll solve our problems."
"If we can't quantify it, we shouldn't do it."
"I don't care what it takes, just get it done!"
"We can't spare a dime to invest in research."
"We don't have time to examine our own navels."

Chief Marketing Officers aren't the only ones who buy myths like these. It turns out, in both marketing in fundraising, that you win when you stick to the basics, worth with the facts, and keep your eyes open. Not easy, but fairly simple.

Thanks to Church Marketing Sucks for the tip.

Technorati Tag: marketing

Is video-game charity real or a joke?

2009-06-29T08:42:24-07:00

As the middle-aged dad in the room, I'm often last to get the joke. So I could use some help here: Is Pixel Equity a joke?

It has many of the qualities of something you'd find in The Onion: It's a nonprofit with this compelling mission: "... connects those who want to share video games with those who want to play them."

That's right. Video games. Which, the website proclaims with a glorious lack of parallelism, help kids in these ways:

Exposure to different cultures
Learn to think scientifically
Follow directions and read critically
Develop social and communication skills

This is all shared with (I think) a straight face. There's even a mind-numbing Terms of Service page, as if the very existence of the charity is like a piece of software.

It's funny, but not quite funny enough to make me sure it's a joke. Another blog, Cashewman, takes it seriously and takes it to task with Avoiding More Useless Charities: 3 Questions to Ask Yourself.

But I can't shake the feeling that we've been had (or, more likely, pwned).

What do you think?

Thanks to Give and Take for the tip.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

Decades-long string of final notices undermines nonprofit brand

2009-06-25T08:18:37-07:00

I get variations of this piece of mail from the ACLU several times a year.

I've been getting these since I sent a donation during the Bush I administration, who tried to smear his election opponent by calling him a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU -- which, as far as I was concerned, was a dynamite recommendation of the organization.

That was about 20 years ago. The ACLU has told me literally hundreds of times that this is my last chance to renew my membership. My kids have spent their entire lives seeing these urgent final messages in the mailbox.

Do you think anyone in my household remotely believes that my last chance to join the ACLU is now, or ever? And how might our collective cynicism affect our faith in the organization's truthfulness in general?

If you get right down to it, the ACLU has spent a fair amount of money to undermine its brand among members of the Brooks household.

I'm in the biz, so I understand what's really happening, as do others in my family. (The Talk in our home is mainly about the ways of direct-response fundraising.)

But what about normal people? How many see the ACLU as a laughable wolf-crier? Or unrepentant liar?

I don't know what the answer is. If the ACLU were to ask me what they should do, I would not tell them to abandon the control, which I assume this piece is. I'd tell them to test against it. Which I'm pretty sure they're already doing.

But are they in accidentally trashing their brand and reputation? And maybe helping take down direct-mail fundraising in general with it?

Technorati Tags: direct mail, branding, ACLU

What's wrong with your e-newsletter?

2009-06-24T08:41:54-07:00

It might be an overgeneralization, but the large majority of nonprofit e-newsletters are a waste of electrons.

Limp, incoherent, uninspired, ill-targeted to their audience.

The Nonprofit Marketing Guide has some notions what the problem might be if your e-newsletter isn't doing its job: Does Your E-Newsletter Need a Makeover? Look for these signs:

You hate writing it.
You know it's too long, but ... you just can't figure out how to make it shorter.
You transitioned from a print version to an email version in a hurry.
You use the same subject line over and over.
The newsletter rarely links back to your website.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, e-newsletters, nptech