Future Fundraising Now

Does your fundraising subtext tell donors they matter, or that they don’t? [PODCAST]

What’s the subtext of your donor-communications stream? That is, what’s the overarching message they’re getting, even though you might not be saying it out loud?

For many organizations, it’s:

• We’ve got this.
  
• We’re taking care of the problem.
  
• You can partner with us if you like.
  

But for the really effective fundraisers, the subtext is more like this:

1. There’s a problem.
   
2. We’re looking for great people like you to help solve it.
   
3. Are are helping solve it!
   

This is the basis of donor love. The big message you communicate with them.

We’ll show you how to change your subtext into one that thrills and involves donors — and keeps them giving.

From the archives of the now-defunct podcast Fundraising Is Beautiful. This episode first aired on September 27, 2017. Listen here:

(If you don't see the audio player below, click here to listen.)

2 photos, and how they're poised to influence donors

A picture is worth a thousand words.

So when it's visible alongside 30 or so actual words -- as in this Facebook post from Feeding America -- do you think the photo might dominate? Just a little?

Okay, that's a silly question.

Because you know the answer: The photo speaks much, much "louder" than the words. Even a thousand words crafted by the best fundraising writer in the world have a pale shadow of engagement power when compared to a photo.

So why did they choose a photo that tells a story that's the exact opposite of the words?

Whatever the reason, it was likely an expensive choice.

Even though the words tell us about "the ache of hunger," there's no sense of ache in the photo. We just see a happy kid. Which is nice, but doesn't as clearly call for action.

Compare the photo to this one that was in an email from Mercy Corps:

This words and the photo are completely aligned here.

Note that the photo is not gory and awful. But it doesn't give you a warm and fuzzy feeling. Not even close. It shows strong emotion that's entirely appropriate to the situation.

Which is what fundraising is about.

Negative photos can bother and upset us. So much so that many fundraisers vow never to use them.

You can raise money with happy photos.

But seldom as much as with “negative” photos.

Are you serious about raising money for your cause? Seek the more difficult images.

(This post first appeared on March 9, 2018.)

Your excellence matters, but it might be crushing your fundraising

A few weeks ago, the BBC announced that it was going to shut down the BBC Singers, a top-level professional choir that’s been around almost 100 years.

The reaction was quick and furious. Musicians, the public, and politicians cried out against the move. And it worked. The BBC reversed the decision.

Scary story, happy ending. So far.

But there’s something in this situation for all fundraisers, in the arts or not. It’s how we need to talk if we really want people to donate. That’s what this great post at Culture for Hire says: What the BBC Singers need to know about persuasive messaging.

The post takes a look at an open letter to the BBC on why they should reverse their decision to cut the BBC singers. Here are the ten reasons they gave:

1. We enjoy worldwide renown.
   
2. We are the UK’s only full-time professional choir.
   
3. We have a nearly 100-year history.
   
4. This will be devastating to the livelihood of the current singers (and future singers).
   
5. Our composers will no longer have a professional choir for which to compose.
   
6. We are exemplars of dedication, versatility, and artistic excellence.
   
7. The BBC’s arts legacy is envied around the world.
   
8. Professional musicians shouldn’t have to work as freelancers.
   
9. A top-class symphony orchestra can only produce its best work in a stable environment.
   
10. We deliver excellence to our audiences.
    

Basically, You should not not cut us, because we are really awesome.

Sound familiar?

That’s because it’s the basic platform of a lot of fundraising in all sectors.

“Give because we’re great.”

It’s not effective.

What defenders of the Singers might have said:

• Through our music, we have had a wide-ranging impact on society.
  
• We are one of the best sources of new compositions that address and respond to issues facing society today.
  
• We provide transformational musical experiences to our community.
  
• We are sharing stories and shaping culture with our music.
  
• We want to continue doing this transformational work on a full-time basis because our community needs us.
  
• Community-centric work is all-consuming and integral to our mission.
  
• Our wide-ranging repertoire reflects the diversity of our community and helps all voices be heard.
  
• Studies show that art helps create a more collaborative society, physical and mental wellbeing, deeper connections, and joy.
  

“We are awesome” is not, by itself, a reason to fund an arts organization -- or donate to a nonprofit. My guess is that the reason the BBC reversed their decision was because a lot of people had reasons for keeping the Choir going -- reasons from the second list. Not the first.

People love a musical group because of what it does for them.

This is just as true outside the arts. People donate too an organization for reasons of their own, such as...

• The organization helps make the world better in a way they want it to be better.
  
• The organization puts their values into action in ways they can’t do by themselves.
  
• The act of giving helps them be the people they want to be.
  
• Giving feels good.
  

Droning on about your excellence misses the point. Your donors' point.

It used to work. In the arts and across fundraising.

But things are changing. Audiences and donors take a much closer look at their choices. They want to solve problems and make progress, and they know better than to believe everything they hear.

I’m not saying excellence doesn’t matter. It’s necessary. Hard-won excellence that you prove every day. But it’s just the price of admission into people’s lives. It’s not why people care.

Think about your purpose, your why, what you have to offer.

That’s what it takes to raise money.

Do you really want your logo on t-shirts?

Would donors want to wear a t-shirt with your organization’s logo on it?

Chances are, most of them would not be interested. That doesn’t mean they dislike you. It’s just that except for a few, nonprofit organizations just are t-shirt brands, as Seth Godin outlines at Is it a t-shirt brand?

T-shirt brands are those want to wear because they offer people “identity, possibility, connection, status,” says Godin.

Being a t-shirt brand would be cool, but there’s no shame in not being one. You can be just as loved, admired, and connected without being something people want to wear.

The most powerful nonprofit brand in existence is The Salvation Army. It’s a top-5 brand -- not just among nonprofits, but among all brands.

And it’s really not a t-shirt brand.

And that’s okay. Really.

I know you have at least one colleague or board member who will feel your organization is fundamentally failing until people everywhere are wearing your logo on their t-shirts, hats, bumpers, and skin.

But, as Seth puts it:

If you’re simply providing a good service at a good price, perhaps you don’t need to go to all those meetings and waste so much time and money on “branding.”

Spend your energy on doing great work -- your mission and your fundraising. Don’t worry about getting onto t-shirts.

The donor hasn't given in 9 years -- should you keep trying?

I want to show you a smart piece of fundraising I got in the mail recently from Feeding America.

First the envelope:

This is a smart envelope. I don't know what DONOR CONFIRMATION ENCLOSED means, and that's its power. (Also, the organization that sent it is not identified in any way -- there's only a PO Box address on the back flap.

Because it incites curiosity, it likely gets a good open rate. (Wouldn't it be cool if we could measure the open rate of direct mail the way we can for email?

But here's where it gets interesting:

This, along with a return envelope, is the entire contents of the pack.

As you can see in the box on the lower panel, I am a deeply lapsed donor to this organization -- nearly nine years. The amount of my last gift (which I've crossed out to protect my meagre privacy) was enough to put me in a mid-value donor category.

For reasons of my own, I stopped giving to this organization. They have no idea why, and really no way to find out, short of asking me directly. But they want me (and my mid-value potential) back!

For most donors, it would be crazy to keep mailing someone as deeply lapsed as I am. The response rate will be abysmal -- probably lower than 0.2%. A crazy waste of money.

But if the donor's last gift is high enough, all the math changes. Because the small number of those donors who do reactivate at a very high average gift. And be more likely than average to upgrade. Suddenly that terrible response rate doesn't look so bad!

Two more things I want to point out about this pack:

1. It has a good offer -- a match that will "TRIPLE your impact". Smart move, as a match dependably works better than the same pack without a match.
   
2. The pack is dirt cheap. That's not always a smart tactic, but in this case it might be -- over-spending on an audience as cold as I am can quickly undermine the feasibility of the project.
   

Winning back a deeply lapsed mid-value donor is worth a little extra work!

(This post first appeared on February 8, 2018.)

3 fundraising fears and how to stare them down

What are you afraid of in your fundraising? What does your board worry about? Here are 3 common fundraising fears and how to face them from the BDI Blog:

1. Am I asking too often? Almost certainly not. If communicating too much were a problem, you’d see donor retention drop as you increase communication. That never happens. Retention increases as you add communication. So does net revenue. You’re far more likely not asking often enough to keep donors on board.
   
2. We send the same messages over and over – donors must be getting sick of them. You are paying close attention to every piece of communication you send out. Donors are not. What seems like mind-numbing repetition from your point of view is just a message starting to get through for most of them. Repetition is your friend!
   
3. Do my communications make my organization look bad? Effective fundraising is about problems that urgently need solving. It’s easy to get the sense that all you have are problems and no solutions. Unless you are regularly reporting back, showing donors that they’re giving makes a difference. Fundraising is a relationship, not just an endless parade of asks.
   

Fundraising books finally back in print

For about a year, I’ve been getting queries from people who wanted to read one of my books -- and couldn’t find a way to get them. Or all they could find were used copies and exorbitant prices. What gives?

What gave was this: They were out of print.

“Out of print” meant new copies weren’t being printed, and nobody who was willing to take your money and ship a book to you had any copies. You may be able to get used copies, but those quickly grow scarce (and expensive).

My books -- and a whole lot of other books on fundraising -- went out of print because the publisher closed its doors. That left literally nobody to handle selling them.

The publisher was Emerson and Church, which specialized in fundraising books, and had a large catalog of them, including the all-time bestseller among fundraising books, Asking, by Jerold Panas. And books by Tom Ahern, Roger Craver, Andrea Kihlstedt, Harvey McKinnon, Andy Robinson, Kay Sprinkel Grace, Martin Teitel, and others. It was a significant loss to our profession.

Fortunately, another publisher has stepped up put much of the E&C catalog back into print: Civil Sector Press, a Canadian publisher that had an excellent catalog of fundraising books already. They also assumed publishing for The White Lion Press, a UK publisher with some major fundraising titles.

So I’m happy to say these two titles are available again:

• The Fundraiser's Guide to Irresistible Communications
  
• How to Turn Your Words Into Money: The Master Fundraiser's Guide to Persuasive Writing
  

You can buy them from the publisher or at Amazon, or at most other booksellers.

(If you’re wondering, I’ve also written a third book, with a different publisher, also available: The Money-Rasising Nonprofit Brand.)

6 ways to fix your nonprofit website

You’ve got a great looking website with tons of excellent content.

You’re getting lots of visitors to the site.

But not many donations.

What’s wrong? It’s your conversion rate -- the percentage of visitors who end up taking action.

Here are some of the common problems that hurt conversion rate -- and cost you revenue, from the Wired Impact Blog, at 6 Nonprofit Website Conversion Rate Killers (and How to Fix Them)

1. Targeting Everyone. Connecting with No One. There’s no cause in the world that “everyone” will support. (Yes, there are many that everyone should support. But they don’t.) Know who cares about your cause and laser-focus on them. Speak their language. Connect with their values. Discover what moves them.
   
2. Your Pitch Isn’t Clear. A lot of nonprofit websites are trying to be tutorials on how your organization works. That will never get people to donate. Keep it simple, clear, and outcome-focused. Donors don’t give to fund your processes. They give to make things happen. Figuring out how to communicate your outcomes is one of the most difficult tasks in fundraising. But it’s a must.
   
3. Broken or Slow Conversion Paths. You might be shocked how many nonprofit websites make it impossible to donate because something is broken. Or frustratingly slow. Periodically check your giving pages from many different systems (including mobile). Fix anything that’s broken, confusing, or slow.
   
4. Overwhelming Visitors with Too Many Choices. There might be a whole lot of different things you want your audiences to do. Don’t pile them all into a massive list. Keep it simple. Most pages on your site should have only one call to action.
   
5. Your Actions Are Too Complicated. Complexity kills conversion. Remove actions that you don’t need people to take. Keep everything as simple as possible.
   
6. Visitors Don’t Trust You. Sadly, a legacy of scam and incompetent nonprofits have made many people not trust you. Give them reasons to trust. Show watchdogs logos. Make financial information available. Make it easy for people to talk to a human. Share your privacy policy. Display a pledge to donors. It all helps!
   

(Tons of details on the fixes at the post!)

Mistakes in fundraising that work out well

Cross-posted at The Better Fundraising Blog.

What do you think when you see this direct mail fundraising envelope?

A mistake? The handwriting goes across the window ... that can't be on purpose, can it?

Turns out, this was a mistake. A miscommunication between the designer and the printer.

Big problem?

Nope. It worked great.

It's the kind of "mistake" that usually improves fundraising. An odd, out-of-place, not-the-done-thing that grabs your eye and makes you cringe.

More often than not, this kind of mistake works for you.

I was once involved in a direct mail piece that included a bounce back paper placemat. Donors were asked to sign the placemat and return it with their donation. The placemat would be put on the table at a meal the donation helped fund. It's a good (and proven) way to increase response to meal-focused offers.

But here's the error: on the reply coupon, there was a quick reminder about the placemat. Despite many layers of quality proofreading, the printed final that went to out donors said:

Please sign the enclosed placenta and return it with your donation.

Are you cringing?

Whether you're cringing or not, the piece broke records for response. A few donors wrote to point out the bizarre error -- mostly along with their donation.

Why did this mistake seemingly boost response?

Our theory: Errors grab attention. And someone who's paying attention is a lot more likely to donate.

So when an error happens, it may not be a problem. It might even be great! So great you'd consider making a mistake on purpose.

New fundraising laws concerning artificial intelligence

Everyone is talking about artificial intelligence and what it will mean to humanity.

And fundraising.

Here are some laws to help us navigate this brave new world:

Brooks’ Warning about Quality and Quantity

People who are bad at writing will also be bad at using AI in their writing; the net result will be no meaningful change in writing quality. But the quantity of bad writing will dramatically increase.

AI Output Law

Garbage in; garbage out. But to those who don’t understand, the output garbage is indistinguishable from really excellent fundraising.

The Snake Oil / Killer Robot AI Conundrum

There are two beliefs about AI and fundraising that you should ignore:

1. AI is going to revolutionize fundraising and take it to a new promised land.
   
2. AI is going to utterly destroy everything in fundraising.
   

More Laws of Fundraising