Future Fundraising Now

Attack of the spokespersons and bad fundraising

The Chronicle of Philanthropy is at it again, serving up unsupportable conclusions from dubious research and appointing spokespersons for entire generations. This time at Wealthy Young Donors Push Charities to Show Results.

The story is about a recent survey of a small number of wealthy young people who run their own family foundations.

But it's reported as if it's the truth about the needs and preferences of young donors in general, with characterizations like "younger donors want" and "another characteristic of younger donors." This is about like surveying Lamborghini owners about their experiences with their cars and reporting the results as if that's how all car owners feel.

That's a very quick route to delusional thinking.

I've seen and heard several citations of this study and article given as reasons why we need to totally change the way we do fundraising.

For example, this little bit of verbatim, said by a 29-year-old trustee of a foundation that was established by her great-grandfather: "Heartstrings don't do much for us."

That loud sucking sound you've been hearing? That's dozens of young-donor-hungry nonprofits who took that spokesperson's half-baked statement as a piece of foundational research and stopped raising funds because they think the donors they want won't give for emotional reasons.

Truth is: "Heartstrings" are the main active ingredient in getting anyone, of any age, to make a charitable gift.

People who professionally run foundations no doubt put a lot of rational parameters around their professional giving decisions. That's what makes them abnormal.

The Chronicle article repeatedly makes this two-headed error:

1. Reporting survey findings as if they are fact. They aren't. They tell us what people say, and that's not related to what they do.
2. Reporting a survey on a very specialized and unusual group as if it were the entire generation.

That's bad reporting.

But nothing is forcing anyone to believe it or follow it.

If you want to succeed in fundraising, pay attention to what donors actually do, not what some drummed-up spokespersons say in The Chronicle.

How to plug along like a fundraising machine

The secret to success isn't dramatic, and it isn't new. As the Passionate Giving blog puts it, the secret so success is to Trust the Process.

That's right: Just keep plugging along, doing the stuff that works.

I know a lot of people don't want to hear that. They'd prefer something magic and new that will free them from the process. Those people don't last long. They screw up and move from job to job, talking a good talk, but failing again and again because they don't trust the process.

Here's Passionate Giving's process. It's for major donor fundraising, but it applies well to all types of fundraising:

1. Cultivate the right donors
2. Have a revenue goal for every donor
3. Have a strategic plan for every donor
4. Half of your time should be spent face to face with donors
5. Match program with the hopes, desires and dreams of your donors
6. Report back
7. Be accountable

Number 3 is the only one that doesn't have a direct parallel in general donor fundraising -- but there is something similar you should do: Read donor comments. Take donor phone calls. Meet them face-to-face whenever possible.

Just keep doing this stuff. And doing it. And doing it. That's where the big money comes from.

How negative social proof persuades people not to give

The KISSmetrics blog recently posted 7 Things You MUST Understand When Leveraging Social Proof in Your Marketing Efforts. Social proof -- giving people a sense of how they compare do other people -- is powerful in any kind of marketing.

Of those seven things, I want to focus on one: Negative Social Proof is Horrible for Persuasion.

The classic study on negative social proof was done at Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. People were stealing petrified wood.

To discourage theft, different signs were displayed, one of which said:

Many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, destroying the natural state of the Petrified Forest.

When this sign was up the amount of theft tripled. By telling people that many visitors steal, it was making the case that stealing was normal. That made the bad behavior easier for more people. There would be less stealing if the sign made people believe that removing petrified wood was the rarest and most pitiful of actions taking only by the worst of losers, of which there are fortunately few.

We are often tempted to use negative social proof in fundraising. It's usually statements like these:

• Nobody gives to support this cause, so please give now.
• Not enough people are doing their share, but we hope you will.
• Hardly anyone cares about our cause, except for you.

That's the equivalent of saying giving to us is a deviant behavior.

The way to use social proof correctly in fundraising is to show potential donors that there are many other donors. That giving to us is a thing lots of people do.

Tell them how much people give. How often. Why they give. How much they enjoy giving. Show pictures of donors. And quotations.

That's how social proof can power your fundraising. Just don't go negative!

Is your brand a prison?

One of the theories behind branding is that consistency helps your audience remember who you are. So you zero in on a look and feel, and stick to it.

There's nothing wrong with that theory. An undisciplined stream of messages can leave donors unclear who you are, often confusing you with other organizations. You have trouble gaining relationship traction, because you aren't solidly anchored in people's minds.

But there's consistency, and there's mindless, imprisoned, unvarying conformity that blocks communication.

Here's one of the latter, from Food Lifeline:

Really, when it's Holiday time, the best approach is to look, feel, and sound like the Holidays. That probably means using the Holiday colors that live in the minds of the people you're communicating. Mainly, those garish reds and saturated greens.

And if those colors aren't in your brand color palette? (Chances are they aren't in anybody's color palette, other than Santa Claus.)

Well, it's time to consider coloring outside the lines.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a branded color palette. But if those mandated colors are overruling your real goals -- like reminding donors to send you a Holiday gift -- then the palette is doing you more harm than good.

Your brand standards should exist serve your fundraising, not the other way around. Too many organizations cripple and distort their attempts to mobilize donors in order to stay obedient to the brand's all-purpose consistency.

More from the Trove

How common sense fails fundraisers

When become fundraisers for the first time, you can do them a big favor by helping "reprogram" them. Most fundraising newbies have some very common-sense opinions about their new profession. If they've thought much about it, they'll probably have a list of reforms they intend bring about. Things like:

• Get rid of direct mail. Nobody responds to it any more.
• If we contact people less, they might give more.
• Short and to-the-point messages will work better.
• We could raise a lot more money if we go to people in their 20s.
• Don't be so simple and urgent. We're putting people off.

Common-sense stuff. But wrong.

Writing at the Hilborn Blog, Jonathan Grapsas points out the problem with common sense, at Fundraising reprogramming:

Don't be one of those people who say, "I wouldn't respond to this," or "I don't like it." Listen to data, not just your instinct. Often they will be at odds, and direct response is about what the data says, not what you think it might say.

Your own sense of how things ought to be is a terrible barometer for effective fundraising. In fact, you can almost use your own taste and common sense as a counter-indicator: If you like it, if it makes sense to you -- it's probably not going to work.

Flattery works wonders in fundraising

Most people already knows this, but flattery works.

And it's been proven once again in a study reported at the Neuromarketing blog: Flattery: A Free Way to Increase Recall. This time the finding is that praising people can improve their memory:

...when subjects were given a task to learn involving motor skills, praise for their performance afterwards resulted in their remembering the task better than control groups who received no praise.

Boosted memory is good. It means they'll more likely remember your offer. Or remember who you are.

Praising donors isn't just empty flattery. They are, in fact, extremely excellent people who are doing more than their share to make the world a better place. (They're not only giving to you and to other causes, they probably also volunteer, give blood, and randomly do kind and helpful things for others. All at a much higher rate than other people.)

Its more evidence that the real job of fundraising is not to brag about ourselves in hopes that we'll persuade donors to hitch their wagons to our stars. It's to remind donors who they are and show them how our values align with theirs -- and help them see that we are an effective vehicle for their passion and generosity.

How to make your fundraising focus on your donor

by guest blogger Andrew Rogers

Author Alain de Botton (I recommend his The Art of Travel and The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work) puts a lot of time into being aphoristic on Twitter. My favorite tweet of his, from a couple of years back, is "Writing: A field where the consequences of mediocrity are considerably more serious than in banking or the law."

Here's one he tweeted recently:

Writing: if I've properly studied what's going on in me, there's a good chance it'll read as if it's about you.

— Alain de Botton (@alaindebotton) January 8, 2013

Is it stretching a point to see an application for fundraisers here? We're always in danger of making our work about ourselves -- our cause, our organization, our process.

If we've "properly studied what's going on," though, we've placed the donor at the center of our organization and of our thinking. Then, there's a good chance that what we say will "read as if" -- and actually be -- about her.

Speaking to a donor that way isn't an artificial "technique." It's an honest and human interaction. It builds and strengthens relationships. To use de Botton's word, it's "proper."

How to make your fundraising focus on your donor

by guest blogger Andrew Rogers

Author Alain de Botton (I recommend his The Art of Travel and The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work) puts a lot of time into being aphoristic on Twitter. My favorite tweet of his, from a couple of years back, is "Writing: A field where the consequences of mediocrity are considerably more serious than in banking or the law."

Here's one he tweeted recently:

Writing: if I've properly studied what's going on in me, there's a good chance it'll read as if it's about you.

— Alain de Botton (@alaindebotton) January 8, 2013

Is it stretching a point to see an application for fundraisers here? We're always in danger of making our work about ourselves -- our cause, our organization, our process.

If we've "properly studied what's going on," though, we've placed the donor at the center of our organization and of our thinking. Then, there's a good chance that what we say will "read as if" -- and actually be -- about her.

Speaking to a donor that way isn't an artificial "technique." It's an honest and human interaction. It builds and strengthens relationships. To use de Botton's word, it's "proper."

Are you treating your donors right?

Here's something you should do, from the Bright+3 Blog, at Pretending to be your donor: Do everything you want donors to do. Find out first-hand what it feels like to be one of them when they deal with you:

Every user touch point sends a sharp signal to your supporters and potential supporters. It tells them how much you care about them and their contribution. And beyond the symbolism and messages, the more friction and the less pleasant your user experience, the fewer who will actually complete the transaction.

Call your information phone number and find out if you get through and get courteous help. Give a gift and discover how long it takes to get an acknowledgement -- and note how personal and satisfying that acknowledgement really is. Request some information and see if you get it, and get it accurately. Send an email and see if and how long it takes to get an answer. Try to make an online gift -- that's the one that may shock you.

These can be painful, eye-opening experiences. But it's information you need to know.