Future Fundraising Now

Uncomfortable fundraising

Jonathan's blog asks a great question about fundraising: Should we Make em uncomfortable?

Jonathan says fundraising should make people uncomfortable. And I agree.

But his question made me realize something: A lot of fundraisers spend enormous energy trying to make sure their work causes nobody any discomfort whatsoever.

This is why so much fundraising is watered-down, namby-pamby, dull -- and unsuccessful. Large committees are assembled to sniff out and destroy any semblance of emotion or anything else that might raise an eyebrow.

Real fundraising creates discomfort -- it makes it clear to a donor that something needs to be done.

What fundraising images are unethical?

I posted a couple times recently on the use of images in fundraising (Images that work in fundraising and What kinds of photos of hunger work in fundraising?).

There were several comments on the "ethics" of fundraising imagery that bear some commentary of their own.

I my experience, most of the time, "ethics" is a big, fat straw-man, used to confuse the issue: Unethical is how some people label images they don't like. Which is fundamentally dishonest. Your taste is not a matter of ethics.

The ethics of fundraising images are straightforward:

1. Never use images that inaccurately portray a situation. There's no excuse that makes it permissible.
2. Don't use images of people who don't want their image used.

If you aren't violating one of those, you are probably on solid ethical ground, even if you use very negative images.

And if someone throws the ethics argument at you, you should be able to comfortably ignore them, because it's a bogus argument. (Unless they have authority over you or your work, which makes it a different situation.)

A more reasonable (though still wrong-headed) position against negative imagery would be one of branding: Some organizations ban the use of photos of people who are malnourished, visibly in pain, crying, in squalid conditions, or any number of situations like these. They say these images are at odds with their brand.

Fair enough.

There's a good chance that brand is hurting fundraising in this case, which is a very common situation (see How a brand change will impact revenue: Real-life figures). But an organization has a right to define itself, even if elements of its self-definition are unwise.

Just don't call it a matter of ethics. That cheapens true ethical issues.

(I've written more at length elsewhere on similar topics, including the "dignity" of those we seek to help and what happens when political correctness infects fundraising.)

Branding, Fundraising Living in Harmony

Here's my column in this month's FundRaising Success magazine, Branding, Fundraising Living in Harmony.

Teaser: "If the donors don't get the brand, doesn't that mean the brand experts didn't get the donors? Which came first, the donor chicken or the brand egg?"

How not to annoy your donors

Are you tormenting your donors? If you are, you may not know it, because they aren't complaining.

That's the insight from Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog at What your donors aren't telling you:

... there are two industries in which people are often unhappy with service but don't complain: health care and nonprofits. Just because you're not hearing disappointment doesn't mean your donors are pleased with you.

They don't complain because the ways we annoy them aren't all that painful. Just annoying. But an annoyed donor is not in a charitable mindset.

Here are some ways to have good, non-annoying service for your donors:

• Process and receipt gifts quickly.
• Show that you're thankful for their giving.
• Report back to them about the impact of their giving.
• Make it easy for them to communicate with you.
• Give them control in the relationship.
• Never mess up their data -- probably the most fatal type of common service shortcoming committed by nonprofits.

Stupid nonprofit ads: garbage in, garbage out

News flash! A Stupid Nonprofit Ad wins an award!

Well, almost. It was a student division of the D and AD awards (a UK ad industry association).

(Thanks to Queer Ideas for the tip, and don't miss Mark's cogent discussion of this project.)

(Or watch it here on YouTube.)

I realize it's really not fair to label the work of students as "stupid." What's stupid about this is that it won an award, judged, presumably, by professionals who should know better.

Further, it was an assignment that could hardly do otherwise than produce stupid work: The challenge to students was to "present an idea that engages support for Oxfam by triggering shared values and concerns in a wide range of people." There's a brief with a lot more information, but the direction is no better.

The main problem here is the "wide range of people." That's not an audience. It's simply not possible to communicate effectively with everyone. In fact, the students who produced this ad solved that problem by aiming at themselves.

At least, I think that's what they did. How else could you explain an attempt to stir people to compassion by parading a series of snarky, pissed-off potty-mouths who would rather do anything else than fight poverty? These kids seem to think fundraising is a bigger enemy than poverty itself.

In other words, this ad doesn't have the faintest clue about the psychology behind charitable giving.

I'm sure the students who produced it learned a lot from the project. And that's the main point for them. But the judges then told them their work was good, thus potentially setting them out on careers of more stupid nonprofit ads. They also signalled clearly to all the other students who entered their work, some of them quite good, that the stupid, snarky stuff is the gold standard.

So we can expect the plague to continue in the coming years. Shame on the D and AD judges.

More Stupid Nonprofit Ads.

The fundraising potential of mobile giving and other shiny objects

Non-Profit Chas tells us Why You Should Ignore Mobile Giving:

... it's just another shiny object to distract us from our fundraising fundamentals -- communicating our mission, building relationships, and helping donors understand how best to support us.

So true. Countless hours are being wasted by people at nonprofits pursuing the doubtful promises of mobile giving. The conferences are full of sessions where people eagerly hear how they can get in on the mobile giving gold rush.

Like most gold-rush hopefuls, almost all of them are wasting their time. Unless you're the Red Cross and have the First Lady and every other celebrity pushing it for you, the potential is painfully low.

Here are some other shiny objects that probably aren't worth spending much time on:

• Smartphone apps.
• Millennials.
• All social media other than Facebook.
• Probably Facebook too.

If you're serious about raising funds, you should spend some time on grubby old unexciting objects that are bringing home the bacon at astounding levels. Things like these:

• Direct mail.
• Telemarketing.
• Email.
• Search engine marketing and optimization.

Or maybe you should look into some slightly shiny objects that might (or might not) work for you:

• Print fundraising.
• Broadcast fundraising.
• Face-to-face fundraising.
• Events.

The shiny objects attract our attention. But they're mainly just distractions from our real business: Motivating lots of people to support our causes.