Future Fundraising Now

How to keep branding from killing fundraising

Why are the branding discipline and the fundraising discipline so often at odds within nonprofits? Aren't they aimed at exactly the same goal of increasing an organization's ability to do its work?

They should be. But time after time, branding decreases fundraising revenue.

That might not have to be so, and one way to improve that dismal situation would be to follow the advice in the Moving Thinking Blog at Brand vs Fundraising -- 4 ways to prevent war.

Here are the four ways, with my comments:

1. Keep fundraising at the heart. Fundraising isn't the only thing you do in the marketing sphere. But if you're reading this blog, it's probably at or near the top of the list. When branding initiatives start or happen in silos separate from fundraising, they'll usually go bad. So keep fundraising (the people and the discipline) in the same room and with the same authority as branding. Doing this is going to save you untold pain later on.
2. Ensure the audience focus is right. Another reason branding so often hurts fundraising is that it's aimed at making internal audiences feel good. If you want a brand that improves fundraising revenue, you'd better aim is squarely at your donors. Your real donors, not the fantasy donors your brand people claim they're going to capture.
3. Differentiate meaningfully. Almost every time branding people take on a nonprofit, they end up with Hope as the key brand value. That's a value that can apply to almost any cause. It's nice, but vague and unspecific. It's a terrible thing to be saddled with if you want to raise funds. A brand that helps revenue is one that will zero in on your organization's specifics.
4. Test and adapt. Test is the key here. Focus groups are not valid tests. They will lead you astray if they're your only source for what people think. Statistically valid, well-constructed direct-marketing tests will give you truths you can take to the bank.

(See also How a brand change will impact revenue: Real-life figures.)

Do you have dirty donors?

Do you vet your donors for moral suitability? It's not as crazy as it sounds, as brought up recently at the PhilanTopic blog at 'Dirty' Money.

The post recounts a New York Times story about a chapel in Mexico that was funded by a drug lord know as "the executioner." The unsavory benefactor is recognized by a plaque on the site.

None of us could know this, but the Church may be using the drug lord's donation as part of his program of rehabilitation and salvation. (I have to admit, that sounds far-fetched. But stranger things happen all the time.)

If that's not happening, then this seems like one of those cases where accepting the money does a lot more harm than good. It looks like the Church is cooperating with a thoroughly bad actor just because it's convenient do to so. The harm to their reputation is huge.

That can happen to any charity when a donor uses it in an attempt to add a veneer of respectability to their reputation that their behavior doesn't otherwise give them. Donors of that type are probably going to fail in the attempt, but the nonprofits that cooperate with their schemes can be deeply damaged:

In both good and lean economic times (but especially the latter), temptation ... knocks on many a nonprofit door. I recall vividly, many decades later, the words of a civil rights leader in the South who declared, "The problem with tainted money is 'tain't' enough."

The gifts you should be wary of are those made publically, where it's clear the donor is linking their reputation with yours. In those cases, make sure accepting the gift or entering the partnership won't make it look like you aren't paying attention, or you don't really care about your cause, as when Susan G. Komen publically entered a partnership with KFC last year.

But don't be too quick to judge an individual donor as unworthy, especially when it's private, the way most giving happens. Nearly all gifts are given with mixed motives, and all donors, like all humans, have flaws. For all you know, any given donor is shot through with personal failings, like:

• Owns a business that buys or sells Nestlé products.
• Expresses outrageous or obnoxious opinions.
• Kicks dogs.
• Doesn't recycle.
• Is a jerk.

Things like these might make a donor someone you'd rather not hang out with. But it doesn't necessarily make the money dirty.

My advice: Don't worry about the taint of the money's origin. Worry about the taint it could give you.

What they hate about your fundraising copy is exactly what makes it good

If you write fundraising copy, you're probably used to people who review what you've written hating it. Goes with the territory.

But when they give their reasons for hating the copy, a funny thing often happens: They are absolutely right in their assessment of its qualities -- but completely wrong that those qualities are a bad thing.

Here are some common complaints, along with some reasons those complaints name a good quality for fundraising copy:

• It's simplistic. Yes! Simplifying complex ideas is a sign of a professional at work. If your copy is complex, it's not very good.
• It's repetitive. Yes! You can't count on people starting on the beginning and reading every word on through to the end. You have to structure your copy so that a skimmer or someone who starts and ends somewhere in the middle gets the message.
• It's emotional. Yes! If it isn't emotional, it won't work. An entirely rational argument for giving will never carry the day.
• It's dramatic. Yes! To break through the clutter and noise of people's lives, you need drama.
• It makes me uncomfortable. Yes! Good fundraising causes discomfort, imbalance. It needs to make donors uncomfortable, so they'll act to make things right.

Give the money back to donors

Here's a cool idea from the NTEN Blog: Say "No" to Money (to Make Money). Goes like this:

Set an ambitious but not unachievable target, and vow to your donors that unless you hit that target in the allotted time, you will return all the money raised so far. Every single cent.... By opting into the 'conditional giving' or 'in it to win it' strategy, it has been proven that your donors are more likely to rally ... and come through for you. They know exactly what is at stake, and they won't let you down.

I think that's great. It does what fundraising so often fails to do: Make it clear how urgently and specifically each gift is needed.

But I'd change it in a small way: If we failed to raise the total needed, I'd go back to the donors and ask them if they want their money back. (Assuming the promise to give it back wasn't integral to the offer in the first place.)

Having made the decision to give, who wants the money back? From talking to a lot of donors, I get the sense that the key moment of most charitable gifts is the giving. Not the purchase of the equipment that results. Sending back the gift could be just being a pain. You mean I have to figure out what to do with that money again?

And then extend the idea: What if a certain project you've raised funds for gets over-funded? Go back to those donors (or maybe the ones who gave after the need was funded) and tell them they can have their money back. Of course, you can offer them the choice of re-allocating their gift to something similar (which you could make the case for) or even unrestrict it.

My guess: The vast majority don't want their money back, but really appreciate being asked. Some will be moved to give an additional gift. And most will become more connected, committed, and generous than they were before.

Donor-respecting actions that would clearly demonstrate that not only does their money matter, but their opinion too. That's when fundraising becomes a whole new thing.

Facebook: make sure it's worth your time

If you're interested in how to use Facebook effectively, check out Five Nonprofits That Have Found Their Facebook Voice at Nonprofit Tech 2.0.

Beside showcasing five organizations that make good use of the social network, the post points out the importance of learning how to reach Facebook followers:

If your nonprofit rarely earns Comments or Thumbs Ups in response to your Status Updates, then it's time to start experimenting with different content and making a commitment to finding your Facebook voice. At the very least, you should have a goal of two Comments or Thumbs Up per Status Update per 1,000 Fans.

As with any new skill, you could spend a lot of time getting it right. The question you should ask first is this: Is it worth it?

Two Comments or Thumbs Up per status is a good goal, but what does it get you? If the answer is two Comments or Thumbs Up, you don't really have a meaningful Facebook strategy. You should be able to connect activity-on-Facebook goals with tangible goals.

The time you'd spend "finding your voice" on Facebook would likely be better spent crafting effective emails to your donors; that will bring in revenue for the cause. Better yet, spend it on direct mail, which will bring in many times more revenue than email. Or even improving your abilities and knowledge in those areas.

That's not to say you shouldn't spend time mastering Facebook. Just make sure there's a meaningful reason for doing so.

One of the five nonprofits mentioned in the post about Facebook is Operation Homefront, an organization I'm proud to say is a client of TrueSense Marketing.

Check out Operation Homefront's Facebook page. You'll see that Operation Homefront on Facebook is not about fundraising, and it's not aimed at donors. It's part of the organization's mission of supporting the families of deployed military people, and in fact it's part of an overall social media strategy of social that includes a Twitter feed and other outlets. It's all aimed at the organization's beneficiaries, not its donors (though there is some crossover between the two groups).

Facebook isn't a good fundraising venue for most organizations: Response is low, average gift is low, and donor retention is pretty much zilch.

If you're spending a lot of time working Facebook and hoping for big financial return, you're working in the wrong place. If your Facebook goal is something other than fundraising revenue, you may be in the right place.

The case of the stupid, barely visible logo

Here's one of a series of print ads for Cruz Roja Española (Spanish Red Cross) that made it into the Stupid Nonprofit Ads category by a nose. Like many honorees, this one approaches nonprofit marketing through obscure symbolism.

Other than that, it's pretty harmless.

Here's one of the series. Squint real hard, and you can see the cleverness:

Like this one, all the ads in the series are messy, uncompelling photos. Each one contains a red cross, integrated into the photo. The copy says Perhaps you can't see us, but we are there.

I don't get it.

They seem to be saying in this ad that the Red Cross is present at a normal outdoor café. I can buy that. Chances are someone in the crowd has received blood or maybe even disaster assistance.

But what's the point? The Red Cross in omnipresent? Even if true, how is that supposed to move anyone to action of any kind?

Well, really, it's not supposed to move anyone to action. What we have here is the typical ad agency stupidity: Assert (but don't prove) an unremarkable fact about a nonprofit -- but do it in a clever, eye-candy way. It won't impact the real world in any way, but that's okay.

The fact that the copy in these Spanish ads is in English is a sign that these ads are not real attempts at marketing, but award bait.

The world would have been a better place if Cruz Roja had a series of ads that motivated people to give blood or money or even respect. With these ads, the world will be better for the ad agency -- if it wins the award they're after. That's not why Cruz Roja exists, and they should not be participating in it.

Thanks to Creative Advertisements for NGO for the tip. (Other ads in the series are at this link.)

More Stupid Nonprofit Ads.

Fundraising is good, not bad, when it's ugly

This is probably the toughest fact about fundraising: ugly works.

Corny, out-of-date, plain, unattractive fundraising wins nearly every time against sleek, modern, cool, high design.

Why? Honestly, I don't know. But I have some theories:

• Everywhere you look, you see slick, professional design. Design, most of it marketing messages, is in front of us virtually everywhere. No matter how good it is, it's about as remarkable as gray concrete. Homely fundraising messages can really stand out in this context.
• Just because it's pretty doesn't mean it's readable. Sadly, many in the design profession have abandoned readability for their own idea of beauty. That's why so much print and display design is a playground of Stupid Design Tricks, like illegible fonts, reverse type, confusing layouts, and worse. Those things can look nice if you don't care about the actual message. Fundraising doesn't work if the message doesn't get through.
• Authentic is more compelling than slick. In fact, slick design tends to carry the subtext, "This message inauthentic. It has nothing to do with you." People give to charity for intensely personal reasons. The farther away you get from real-life authenticity, the more difficult you make it for people to connect to your cause.

So have we just relegated fundraising designers to creating bland, under-designed pabulum? Not at all. The best fundraising design is:

• Emotional
• Readable
• Authentic

That's a tall order. Only the very best designers can do all that, and they're the ones who work calmly and fearlessly, like Clint Eastwood walking in on an armed robbery.

Sadly, more designers follow their finely-honed aesthetic sense, which leads to ineffective beauty. And that's bad fundraising.

What Aristotle told us about fundraising

I love this post from Copyblogger: Aristotle's Ancient Guide to Compelling Copy.

Aristotle's views on rhetoric profoundly influenced communicators until not so longer ago. They can shape the work of alert fundraisers today if you want them to. Here are three elements of persuasion, according to Aristotle:

Ethos

Readers need to see that you have good character, that you can be trusted. Do that by telling true stories and being completely clear about what you want donors to do.

Logos

That's Greek for "word," "reason," or "logic." Back up what you say with proof. Avoid hyperbole. Be specific.

Pathos

That's emotion. The whole reason they'll give is if you've moved their hearts. This doesn't mean empty, manipulated emotion (that would violate one or both of the other two principles), but deep, heartfelt emotion.

Don't give to Japan?

Felix Salmon's blog at Reuters made a startling suggestion: Don't donate money to Japan.

His reasons (to simplify) are that Japan has the resources to recover on its own, and money going to relief for Japan is not going to relief in places that also need help but don't have resources.

It's provocative, and the blog has been flooded with angry comments. (I think Salmon's blog must have got reported in the wingnut blogosphere, because many of the commenters seem to think his opinion signals a liberal big-government plot -- go figure.) Most of the commenters clearly didn't pay much attention to what Salmon actually wrote. His argument is reasonable.

But I think he's wrong.

Rationally, if you're looking for lives-saved-per-dollar, it makes more sense to donate to help victims of Haiti's earthquake. Even 14 months later, people are dying from that quake's aftermath. Or the everyday catastrophe of extreme poverty, which kills, maims, and crushes many more lives every day than disasters do.

But sometimes the heart has wisdom beyond reasoning. People are giving to help people in Japan because their suffering is before us. That's the essence of charity. To try to lecture or train that compassionate and human impulse into something cool and calculating is just heartless.

Don't give to the thing that's stirring you to action right now, but give to something else that I'm telling you is more important. That's a tough case to make. To people who never give, it's just a bunch of noise. The only people you even have a chance to persuade are those deeply involved in charity, who give frequently and have a sense of connection to the causes they support. A disaster brings new givers to the table. Few of them are invested yet in the subtleties of the cause. But they're taking a first step. Some of them are beginning a personal transformation that will make them wise, involved, and excellent donors. Now is not the time to whack them around because they aren't quite getting it right!

Furthermore, charitable giving is not a zero-sum game. Giving begets giving. How many people, making an impulse $10 gift on their cell phone, will notice how it feels to make a difference and start giving regularly to all kinds of causes?

The fat part of the Baby Boom, those born from the mid 1950s to early 60s, are getting near donor age. There are so many of them, that if even a small percentage of them hit their donor tipping point a few years early, the impact on philanthropy will be huge. If giving to Japan now helps that along, great!

Salmon is just a guy with an opinion. But I know a lot of nonprofits who share that opinion whole-heartedly. They put a lot of effort into finding ways to educate donors -- a massive and fruitless effort to make donors into different kinds of people whose motivations are different from the real donors that give real money in the real world.

That's not just pointless. It's harmful, and it's callous. Gifts to Japan -- even sloppy, emotional, unconsidered gifts -- are a blessing. Not only to those in need who get help, but to everyone: nonprofits, their staff, and donors. Be thankful for the outpouring.

Thanks to @tactphil for the tip.

How many nonprofit choddies have you seen?

You've seen ads like this parody. The genre is called "choddy," and it's a big favorite of nonprofits:

Or watch it here on YouTube.

Don't get me wrong. I'll never criticize a marketing message just because it's derivative, or clichéd, or boring. All we should really care about is whether it's effective. If a choddy is doing the job, then thumb your nose at the ridicule and go for it.

But I have a feeling they don't work, at least most of the time. Because they're usually self-centered, unemotional, abstract, and confusing. Not great qualities for motivating response.

Like this grim example for UNICEF USA, which is so unfriendly, navel-gazing, and self-righteous that it makes 3-1/2 minutes seem like a long morning at the dentist:

Or watch it here on YouTube.

So think twice before committing a choddy. If you want to motivate action, you're going to have to be clear, literal, and specific.

Thanks to Who really gives a toss? for the tip.