Future Fundraising Now

Help donors climb Charity Mountain

Superman was on to something with his iconic battle cry, Up, up, and away! As reported in Scientific American: Why Escalators Bring out the Best in People, several studies that linked upward motion with virtuous behavior, including this one:

... twice as many mall shoppers who had just ridden an up escalator contributed to the Salvation Army than shoppers who had just ridden the down escalator.

Don't conclude too much from this, but I think it hints that using the imagery of upward motion and height is likely to be good fundraising.

Find reasons to use verbs like:

• Climb
• Ascend
• Soar
• Rise
• Fly
• Take Off

And nouns like:

• Mountain
• Hill
• Heavens
• Sky
• Flight

Make your copy feel like the equivalent of riding up an escalator. Or leaping heroically into the sky like Superman. When your readers see that donation bucket at the top, they may be a little more likely to give.

Thanks to Transformational Giving for the tip -- which added the astute observation that it might be smart to hold your luncheon or other fundraising event on the second floor of the venue rather than the ground floor.

Are US fundraisers better than their UK counterparts?

Martin Brookes of New Philanthropy Capital stirred up a hornets' nest when he told a parliamentary committee:

We just don't have a very high-quality fundraising sector in Britain. There is a dearth of quality fundraisers in the UK -- unlike, say, in the US.

(Reported at Third Sector: Fundraising in the UK is 'not very good', Martin Brookes tells MPs.)

That comment annoyed a lot of people, who kicked around the questions Is fundraising harder to do in the UK? and Is fundraising really better in the US than the UK?

I've done some fundraising work in the UK, and I have an opinion on both:

Fundraising in the UK is more difficult than in the US. The main reason is the lower level of religious participation there. It's just harder to find and motivate donors.

Now the harder question: Are US fundraisers better?

Many UK fundraisers are trapped an attitude: A belief that what's perceived as "American style" fundraising won't work because UK donors or the British public in general are "different." Sometimes they say it's that UK donors are more educated (actually, the US is slightly more educated). Sometimes it's that they're more "sophisticated." What it means to fundraising is this:

• UK donors won't respond to emotional appeals
• UK donors are put off by urgency
• Specific, clear calls to action are too simplistic for UK donors, so they won't respond.

If you fundraise this supposedly uniquely British way, you aren't so good.

To be fair, many US fundraisers have the same attitude, and it blocks their fundraising too. The difference in the UK is that it's combined with a kind of nationalism that makes fighting it futile most of the time.

But not all UK fundraisers are mired in this attitude, and a lot of truly excellent fundraising is happening there. Note that 100% of the winners (okay, all two) of the prestigious Fundraiser of the Future Award are UK fundraisers.

Don't worry about what Martin Brookes says. Do your best with the hand history and culture have dealt you. Ban the "we're more sophisticated" delusion. Do those things, and UK fundraisers will give us Yanks a run for our money every time.

Thanks to Beautiful World for the tip.

Advertising industry is starting to get it?

From the New York Times -- the front page, no less: In Shift, Ads Try to Entice Over-55 Set:

After 40 years of catering to younger consumers, advertisers and media executives are coming to a different realization: older people aren't so bad, after all.

Advertisers are being driven in this direction by two factors:

1. The formerly-young Boomer generation is now getting old. The very generation that sparked the youth infatuation of the ad industry is no longer youthful.
2. People over 55 have more wealth than those under, lower unemployment, and high levels of media consumption in all channels. They're basically a massive goldmine for those who want to sell stuff.

This is great news for nonprofits. One of the biggest problems we've faced for a long time has been the influence from the youth-worshipping ad industry. Because advertising is kind of like fundraising's older, richer cousin, we can hardly help but be influenced by the assumptions and culture of ad agencies -- directly and indirectly.

Billions of dollars have been wasted by fundraisers who borrowed the techniques and approach of advertisers: edgy, modern design; clever, indirect messaging; media assumptions that are basically guaranteed to miss older people. People do those things because that's what so much marketing looks like. It just doesn't work in fundraising because we have a very different target audience.

Then there's the hilarity that ensues when ad people work directly for nonprofits.

Let's hope that this maturing and refocusing of the advertising world will trickle down to the fundraising world. Only good can come of that.

The most deadly error in fundraising

The most deadly (and common) error in fundraising:

Assuming your donors don't like to hear from you -- and that too much contact (whatever that means) will drive away donors, causing your donor file to erode and eventually collapse.

There's no evidence that it's true. In fact, the evidence shows us that decreasing donor contact almost always leads to not only less revenue but worse donor retention.

In other words, you're a lot more likely to drive away donors by not communicating enough than you are by over-communicating.

Of course, there are donors who are annoyed by hearing from you, and tell you so. They tend to loom large, but don't assume they speak for anyone but themselves.

Here's what you can expect when you communicate less with donors:

• It'll cost you a lot of revenue in the short term.
• It'll erode your file in the long term.
• Worst of all, if you think fundraising is sucky and annoying, your fundraising will be sucky and annoying.

I don't know too many fundraisers who can afford that combination of plagues.

Create good experiences for your donors

According to the Customer Experience Matters blog, customer experience matters.

Okay, that makes it sound about as un-newsworthy as possible. But really, this is interesting stuff at New Report: The Customer Experience-Loyalty Connection.

The report looked at a number of customer experience factors in 12 industries, from airlines to wireless carriers, and found that better customer experience correlated with increased revenue:

Customer experience leaders enjoy a double-digit advantage in customers willing to buy more from them, reluctant to switch business away from them, and likely to recommend them. A modest improvement in customer experience can drive between $179 million (for health plans) and $308 million (for hotel chains) of incremental revenue over three years for every $1 billion in annual sales.

It begs the question: Does donor experience matter in a similar way? After all, the difference between a good and bad charitable giving experience probably isn't as dramatic as the difference between a good and bad experience at a hotel. We fundraisers just don't have nearly the capacity for tormenting our donors that airlines do.

But I'm guessing experience matters, and that if they applied the same study to nonprofits we'd see similar results -- that treating people right means they give more and stay with you longer.

I think giving donors a good experience includes these things:

• Get the data right. Don't spell names wrong. Don't have duplicate records. Don't mess up giving records.
• Be thankful. Receipt promptly. Thank specifically for what they gave. Thank more than you have to.
• Report back. Let donors know about the difference they make. Send a newsletter that's about them, not you.
• Offer choices. Let them control how often and how you communicate. Let them direct their giving to the things that interest them. Find cool ways to put them in the driver's seat.

Are address labels going to kill you?

To hear some people talk about it (including some recent ill-considered survey research), you might think raising funds by means of premiums is just about the dumbest, most self-destructive thing you could do.

Most people who have actually done it will beg to differ, as in this post from the Integrated Direct Marketing blog: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Premium.

Turns out it's usually not stupid or self-destructive. The average gift is usually lower, but not that much. Premium acquired donors often need no further premiums to keep on giving. In general, it's almost all good news:

The premium also allowed us to mail into new lists that we had not been able to make work with a non-premium offer. We did see a decreased life-time-value as we pushed further into new markets, but the trade off was well worth it since we were able to acquire thousands of new members who were previously unreachable.

I've worked with organizations that seemed to suffer terribly from premium addiction: Their donors gave tiny gifts and only responded to premium mailings. Retention was terrible. If they stopped using premiums, their numbers got even worse.

But here's the thing: Their real problem wasn't premiums, it was their steadfast refusal to be relevant to their donors. They only talked about their cause in the most general and abstract terms, because they didn't want to be limited by specificity or even imply that gifts would be used for anything in particular. They basically acted like they hated and feared their donors.

Premiums were probably the only thing keeping them alive. And just barely.

Much more often, I've seen smart, relevant, donor-loving organizations use premiums as one useful tool in their donor acquisition toolbox. And it worked just fine.

Don't fall for the anti-premium hysteria. Test it for yourself. There's a good chance you'll see the light. And the revenue.

The book that sent me into orbit

There's a great question for this month's Nonprofit Blog Carnival: What Book Has Changed Your (Professional) Life?

Orbiting the Giant Hairball: A Corporate Fool's Guide to Surviving with Grace by Gordon MacKenzie

This book changed my professional life. It's the only "business" book I ever recommend to people.

Don't get me wrong -- there are some truly excellent books about fundraising that have helped me in a big way, and you should read them. Anything by Tom Ahern or Mal Warwick is well worth your time, and will make you a better fundraiser. There are others too.

But Orbiting the Giant Hairball transformed the way I approach life as creative professional who wants to make a difference.

Here are the main points:

• For most of us, we're going to make a lot more positive impact as part of a community than alone. That means working within an organization.
• The problem is, every organization has a "hairball" -- a mass of policies, procedures, rules, and bureaucracy. These things can strangle your ability to do great things.
• All organizations have hairballs. Some are worse than others, but a hairball-free organization does not exist. Trying to conquer the hairball is pointless.
• But if you let yourself be trapped in the hairball, you will while away all your time on triviality. You'll accomplish little that matters. On the other hand, if you completely escape the hairball, you are no longer part of a community.
• The solution is to "orbit" the hairball. Stay just within its gravitational force, but never tangled up in it.

The book is full of inspiring examples of orbiters and hints for how to orbit. It has probably helped me solve more conundrums and deal with frustrations than anything else I've read.

It's not a "normal" book. It's filled with sketchy drawings and weird design. But it makes its point well.

Maybe it can change your professional life too. I highly recommend it.

You can get a copy of Orbiting the Giant Hairball at Amazon or at Powell's.

Bad advice for fundraisers

There's a fun post at the MarketingProfs Daily Fix Blog: What's the Worst Marketing Advice You Ever Received?

Some of the bad marketing advice:

• "If you build it, they will come."
• "If we make a brochure, we'll increase sales."
• "Just have the intern do it."
• "A/B testing can wait."

Bad advice is a plentiful commodity. Here's some common bad advice heard in fundraising circles:

• "When donors give, let them "rest" from hearing from you for awhile."
• "Nobody reads any more. Let's cut way back on our direct mail."
• "Let's hire someone who's spent their career in commercial marketing to revamp our brand."
• "Let's replace our elderly donors with hip and affluent young donors."

What's the worst fundraising advice you've heard lately? Share it in the comments below!

How to make sure bloggers don't pay attention to you

The Damn, I Wish I Thought of That! blog asked an interesting question: Q. How do we STOP a blogger from writing about us?

The answer: Send them a canned pitch from your PR firm.

These pitches are instant turn-offs to bloggers. We get them every day. And we never write about these companies again.

Getting bloggers talking about you is a good way to spread the word. But the old-line PR approach of blasting out a snowstorm of press releases is counterproductive.

I get dumb, off-point, misdirected, press releases every day. Just about 100% of them are from PR people who clearly have never read one word of my blog. I think most bloggers have that experience and quickly develop a deep disdain for clueless PR people and their irrelevant press releases.

So if you want to get a blogger's attention (including me), try these things:

• Read the blog. Just a few posts will tell you what their topic is. You'd be amazed how many PR people clearly have no idea what my blog is about and send me insanely off-topic stuff. You'd think the name of the blog would clue them in to the fact that I'm not likely to post about new games or banking services.
• Read the blog policy if they have one. (Here's mine.) This will tell you even more about what the blogger cares about and is likely to respond to.
• Be part of the conversation. Actually discuss your topic with the blogger. You'll quickly find out whether what you're pushing is a no go, or what it might take to make the blogger pick up the story. It would help to be a recognizable name from the blogger's comments.
• Don't send a press release at all. Most bloggers take that as a clear sign that you're irrelevant.
• Most important: Do something worth talking about.

Your competition: more than a trillion ads

This is fascinating in a sickening sort of way. Adrants reports 1.1 Trillion Display Ads Delivered in Q1 2011.

That's 1,100,000,000,000 online ads in the US alone. In one quarter. January, February, and March of this year. It's more than twice as many as the same period in 2010.

Your personal share of these ads was 5,263. (That's 1.1 trillion divided by the 209 million Americans who use the Internet.) In a year, that's more than 21,000. Of course, at the rate it's accelerating, you're going to see a heck of a lot more than that by the end of the year.

Point is, we live in an extraordinarily noisy environment. Advertisers are clamoring for our attention everywhere, all the time.

That's what we're up against. It's the noise our donors live in every day. This is one reason fundraising is hard.