Future Fundraising Now

Sexy models demonstrate fundcrushing

At more than 3 million views, you might call this video from Save the Children extremely successful.

You also might call it a Stupid Nonprofit Ad. After all, it has many of the characteristics of a SNA: High production values, mind-puzzle message, no call to action...

But I'm going to call it an example of fundcrushing -- the evil twin of fundraising that works from the false assumption that people become charitable when you impress them with how big the problem is.

Here's the video:

Or watch it here on YouTube.

The joke here involves confusing two meanings of the word "sexy":

1. Compelling, interesting, attention-grabbing.
2. Actually having something to do with sex. (If you're to believe most of the models in the video, being "sexy" involves caressing one's own neck.)

It's almost funny. Though it's a lot more cringe-y than funny.

But it really falls apart with the statements they choose to try to make "sexy." Things like:

Almost 800 mothers and 18,000 young children die each day, mostly from preventable causes.

That's not sexy at all. In either sense of the word. Even if you somehow capture someone's interest with a statement like that, you're still miles away from what it takes to move people to give.

Because it's fundcrushing. It's anti-fundraising. It says, The problems are staggeringly huge. Your compassion is less than an ant in comparison. Don't bother to give, because you can't make a difference. Just feel bad.

The would-be donor is just as bamboozled as the models trying to make these things seem "sexy."

So what's the message of this video? That it's not possible to make people care about poverty and suffering in the world? Why would a nonprofit involved in fighting those things say that? That's like a food producer telling us it's impossible to make tasty and nutritious food.

Especially when there's already a very effective way to make those things "sexy" (in the "compelling" sense): Telling stories of individual people who are suffering and offering clear, possible, within-reach actions that allow the donor to make a difference.

Yeah, it's hard getting our message out. But creating videos about how hard our work is -- that's just a silly thing to do.

Don't give in to the temptation to be a fundcrusher. Be a fundraiser instead.

Thanks to Osocio for the tip.

More examples of fundcrushing.

Podcast: 3 things your donors should be able to find on your website

Your nonprofit website does a lot of things. If you want it to be helpful to your fundraising, make sure it has these three elements:

1. Information that tells them they can trust you.
2. A clear statement of what you do.
3. Easy-to-use donation form(s).

That's not a complete list of everything you should have -- just three musts you shouldn't let slip. These things will help you raise more money, both online and offline.

To listen, click here to download the audio file or visit the Fundraising Is Beautiful page here, where you'll find several listening and subscription options.

Or subscribe with iTunes:

Get your nonprofit email newsletter right

From the Duct Tape Marketing blog, 5 Steps to an Email Newsletter Your Customers Will Love (and share!):

1. Go pro with your email newsletter. (Use a real email-sending service, not your own Outlook account.)
2. It's not about you. (Everything must be about the donor.)
3. Make it scannable. (Short bits of copy, lots of entry-points, plenty of images.)
4. Make it actionable. (Give them things to do.)
5. Write a good subject line.

Email newsletters are still a good tool, but it's getting harder to keep them effective. This list will help.

False fallacies can hurt you as much as the real ones

The Agitator recently proposed a list of Top Fundraising Fallacies:

1. Best practice is good enough.
2. It works for them.
3. One gift makes a donor.
4. There are plenty more donors where those came from.
5. It's OK, our online fundraising is up.

First, I want to disagree with #1 and #2: They are only fallacies some of the time. Best practice is a heckuva lot better than what many organizations routinely do in their fundraising. What works for others is more likely to work for you than your (or your boss's) hunch about what should work. The large majority of fundraisers work in quantities too small to make testing a valid way of learning the facts, so doing the proven is necessary. Best practices and imitation will ultimately limit your possibilities, but tossing them out will kill your program before it can get off the ground.

I'd like to propose counter-fallacies for those two that I think are more common and more damaging:

1. Best practices are bunk; we are smarter than the entire rest of the fundraising industry.
2. Our donors and our cause are so utterly unique, we shouldn't even consider doing what works for others.

Now that I got that of my chest, let me add what I think is the biggest, deadliest fundraising fallacy of all:

If everyone knew how awesome our organization is, everyone would donate. If you're trying to show the world how awesome you are, you're spinning your wheels. Fundraising is about connecting with the awesomeness of donors, about showing them you offer an outlet for their awesomeness. Bragging is not fundraising!

That cool new way to reach people -- will it work?

How often has this happened to you? The boss, or a board member, or a colleague says, with great conviction: We Need a Billboard, and Ads on Pandora and NPR Too (Kivi's Nonprofit Communications Blog).

No idea is a bad idea, right?

Actually, there are some bad ideas out there. And "spend money in an unproven channel" is likely among the bad ones.

But there's a way to tell for sure. Ask these questions:

1. Who is the targeted group for this communication?
2. What is our message to that group of people?
3. What is the best communications channel to reach that group with that message?

Hip new channels can work if they are actually effective at driving people to action and if their audiences are your audience. Otherwise, they're probably a waste of money.

Fundcrushing vs. fundraising: see the difference at work

Fundcrushing is the practice of using large numbers to motivate donors to give. It doesn't work very well most of the time. Because it reinforces the common belief that "my gift is too small to make a difference."

Fundcrushing is common, because it's so tempting. Big numbers, after all, are newsy. They get our attention. They are important. But they have the insidious (and cumulative, I think) side effect of draining away donors' hope.

Here are two mailings from the same organization. The first one is fundcrushing. The second, fundraising -- and nicely done, at that.

Fundcrushing

Fundraising

The first mailing (which was probably sent after the other one) presents a big problem: 52,159 meals left to provide. Chances are, the problem isn't really as big as it looks. But if you look at it through a donor's eyes, it's a staggeringly huge problem, almost too big to comprehend, and containing little emotional information other than a sense of trouble.

The second mailing gets it right. It presents a completely solvable problem: One meal for one hungry child at the cost of only $1.92. Any donor can solve that one! In fact, they can easily do a lot more than that.

So instead of presenting the donor with a problem too big to solve, it gives them a clear and easy opportunity to make a real difference.

Donors understand -- with their left brains -- that a lot of people are in need, that problems we face are big, and that their gift joins with others' to make a difference.

But they give with their right brains. So those facts have little weight in their decision.

That's why fundraising is about solving human-sized problems.

These mailings are taken from Uncle Maynard's Treasure Trove of Direct Mail Knowledge.

How to show your donors that giving is for losers

I was at a lunch event, and when it came time for the obligatory fundraiser, they made the case. The ask went something like this:

• In 2010, we raised $5,000.
• In 2011, we raised $4,000.
• In 2012, we raised $2,500.
• Last year we raised $2,000.
• This year, let's see if we can raise $5,000!

It was social proof that we shouldn't give. That giving is less important, less popular, less something the community does each year. Giving to that cause looked like a sinking ship.

The cause was no less important or compelling. But giving to it seemed to everyone in the room like something smart people just don't do.

That fundraiser was ignoring two truths:

1. People are inclined to go with the social proof they get. If you tell them "hardly anyone is giving," they are more likely to join the larger group of non-givers than the smaller group of givers.
2. People aren't likely to give to help you solve your fundraising problem. They want to solve real problems. There are plenty of those for them.

Preheader text: another way to get your fundraising emails opened

Are you paying attention to what recipients see in their email inbox? If you are, you're thinking about the preheader text. It's extra text that shows up in many email programs after the subject line, often in a smaller or lighter-colored font.

Done right, it can improve open rates.

Often, it's some kind of meta-data gobbledygook. Or the first few words of the message. Here's one from my inbox:

This one isn't doing itself any good. But you can control what the reader sees in the preheader.

Here are some ways to make it work, from The Emma Blog, at 9 ways smart email marketers are using preheader text:

1. Tease the content of your email.
2. Provide a strong call-to-action.
3. Elaborate on the subject line.
4. Write a personal message.
5. Give an incentive to open.
6. Repeating yourself is repetitive.
7. Keep it short. (75 characters at most)
8. A/B test.
9. Include an emoji.

How your website is getting in the way of your fundraising

Your donors are more on the web all the time. They may be looking at you, trying to speak to you, and trying to give. You may be blocking them without knowing.

The Duct Tape Marketing has some thoughts (aimed at commercial sites) on what could be going wrong, at 5 Ways Your Website is Hurting Your Bottom Line:

1. Unresponsive Web Design (it's not usable on some devices)
2. Slow Loading Time
3. Unreliable Hosting Services
4. No Calls to Action
5. Lack of Search Engine Optimization

I have one to add that's common for nonprofit websites: Poorly designed, difficult-to-use giving pages. That may be the number-one crusher of website success for nonprofits.

Podcast: 5 ways to drive away donors

Are you getting too much fundraising revenue? Do you need fewer donors to support your work? Here's how you can help solve that problem:

1. Write and design for your coworkers (or yourself).
2. Change the subject between your acquisition and cultivation messages.
3. Educate your donors.
4. Develop your website differently from your offline messages.
5. Have sloppy donor data.

To listen, click here to download the audio file or visit the Fundraising Is Beautiful page here, where you'll find several listening and subscription options.

Or subscribe with iTunes: