Future Fundraising Now

Fundraising Laws concerning co-workers

Maybe you remember the Boss Corollary to Brooks' First Law of Fundraising Effectiveness:

The more your boss hates the fundraising, the better it will do.

That inverse relationship between fundraising effectiveness and boss-love also applies to colleagues are not the boss. Which leads to these corollaries to the First Law:

Corollary #1

There is no fundraising project so brilliant that it can't be completely destroyed by an accountant.

Corollary #2

Or by a lawyer.

Predator Awareness Side Note to Corollaries #1 and #2

While you sleep or eat, the accountants and/or lawyers are actively hunting for successful fundraising projects to destroy.

Corollary #3

If your program people like your fundraising, it will fail.

Corollary #4

The most fundraising campaign you create will cause an emergency meeting of the board about what they should do to keep it from ever happening again.

The truth is, successful fundraising is so squarely aimed at donors that it is virtually guaranteed to miss people who are not donors, especially insiders. But also non-insiders who are not donors. Which brings up Corollary #5 (which is also a corollary to the Fifth Law of Fundraising:

The most devastating and articulate complaints from the public about your fundraising will come from people who have never donated, and never would donate no matter what you do.

Fundraising that works is for and about donors.

More Laws of Fundraising

This poster will guide you to successful fundraising

If you are of a certain age and took piano lessons as a kid, you might remember a book called Music Play for Every Day. It was first published in 1928, but was still in use in my childhood, some decades (ahem) later. (And you can still buy it used on Amazon!)

And if you ever saw this book, the most memorable part was an illustration titled THE ROAD TO THE CLASSICS. You can see it here.

I don't know if it helped many young piano students to reach the Temple of the Classics, but it sure was memorable. Especially the must-avoid "Swamp of Jazz" that was one of the obstacles to avoid.

I think we can use something like this, our own ROAD TO SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAISING.

Download. Print. Learn.

And find your way to the Temple of Successful Fundraising.

Laws of Fundraising regarding donor complaints

Donor complaints rule the lives of many fundraisers, a fact that is captured by the 5th Law of Fundraising:

Donor complaints are a stronger force than anything described in physics or quantum mechanics.

But that's not all. Here's the 1st Addendum to the 5th Law:

Imagined donor complaints are an even stronger force than that.

You have probably seen this force at work: Three donors calling to complain about something in your fundraising will outweigh the hundreds or thousands of donors who responded to that same thing. Angry comments about a particular photo, or a shade of red, or the decorations on a sheet of mailing labels can send some fundraisers into a tizzy of self-recrimination and a lifetime ban against those things, even if they were proven to be effective.

But even more powerful: When someone says, We can't do that; donors will complain! It doesn't matter if anyone might complain or not. The possibility can cause sweeping and often destructive decisions about fundraising.

This is captured by the Einsteinian Quantification of the 5th Law:

D > LTVc²

That is, the Damage caused by a donor's complaint is greater than that donor's projected lifetime value, times the speed of light, squared. (Many fundraising scientists think the Einsteinian Quantification is too optimistic.)

One of the notable feature of the 5th Law is which donors complain. They are frequently not your best donors. As described by the 1st Corollary to the 5th Law:

The likelihood that a donor will complain is inversely proportional to the donor's monetary value.

In other words, complaints most often come from low-dollar donors, deeply lapsed donors, and even non-donors.

Likewise, what donors complain about is not random. The 2nd Corollary to the 5th Law states:

The number and intensity of donor complaints is directly proportional to the effectiveness of the fundraising campaign they are about.

That is, donors rarely complain about minor and unimportant fundraising initiative. They go after the large and important ones.

Here are two additional useful corollaries to the 5th Law about the complaining donors themselves:

If there's a donor who hates everything about your fundraising and constantly complains about it ... that person is your board president's best friend.

If you make a really terrible errors in fundraising -- especially in direct mail -- it will most likely affect cranky donors who are already annoyed with you.

More Laws of Fundraising here.

Stupid claim that a color can do your job for you

Colors can pack in quite a lot of emotional information. But if there were a color that somehow compelled viewers to pay attention, I figure we'd know about it because:

1. It would have been discovered by advertisers or propagandists many years ago.
2. It would be licensed for use selling soft drinks and athletic shoes, thus not available for fundraising.

Apparently not.

According to Pantone and United Way Centraide of Canada, a new color has been developed (wait, do you develop a color, or discover it?) that will make "local issues" "#unignorable." That's also the name of the color.

Here's the amazing new color:

It's ... red! Well, not quite. In fact, it's suspiciously close to Pantone's color of the year for 2019, living coral. (Do I detect a fad?)

To understand the claims for this color, you have to read the inevitable press release on this amazing new color: United Way and Pantone Color Institute™ Join Forces to Make Local Issues Unignorable. It quotes a Pantone executive with this little explosion of hyperbole:

To highlight these issues, we wanted to create a distinctive color that was virtually unignorable.... Displaying a radiant glow that instantly mesmerizes, this irresistibly captivating coral shade we call "unignorable" stands out from its surroundings, draws immediate attention and with its high physicality, induces us to act.

Making local issues "unignorable"?

That's a heavy lift for a color.

Maybe the video will help clarify, since it's not at all about those "local issues," but about the campaign and the color itself, with what you might call "color porn":

(Or view it here on YouTube.)

How does this color make "local issues" unignorable? And what exactly are "local issues"?

You can find out at this website. But the short answer is this: They use the color in abstract art depictions of abstract issues like this one:

The local issue you can no longer ignore now that you've seen this is homelessness. That's the theory. Because of the color, this completely abstract image has grabbed your consciousness. Presumably, you are now looking for a way to donate.

Yes, that's utterly ridiculous.

There are a lot more like that. Puzzling, abstract images that feature this coral-red color.

My question is this: Since when is a color more "unignorable" than a human face or a true story?

Answer: Never.

It's another case of high-end branding "experts" bamboozling nonprofit executives who are bored with the job of actually communicating with people.

Our job is not to make issue unignorable. It's to stir people to action.

That means connecting with the right people -- meaning the ones most likely to care and take action.

That means giving them a reason to express their values through your organization. Which they'll do when you get specific and make it about concrete action they can take.

Using the right color can be part of doing that effectively. But it's a relatively small part.

Fundraising is hard. There are no shortcuts, no magic color that will force people to pay attention, care, and donate.

So if someone tries to sell you a shortcut, ignore them.

They're completely #ignorable.

More Stupid Nonprofit Ads.

INFOGRAPHIC: The way fundraising generally turns out

This matrix illustrates an odd tendency I've seen in fundraising projects.

The vertical scale is about the potential impact of the project: High or low.

The horizontal scale is about the quality of execution of the project: Rushed, sloppy, and slapdash or Careful, well-built, and excellent.

X identifies the two quadrants where most fundraising is.

Maybe you've noticed this too.

Any idea why?

Stupid guy burns guitar, fails to help the poor, confuses everyone else

I've been fortunate to have worked with quite a few Salvation Army units in my career.

The Salvation Army is one of the most real organizations you'll ever encounter.

So why someone thought they had to create a symbolic representation of what the Army does is a mystery to me. The literal truth is more than thrilling enough to inspire normal people who live in the real world.

The victim of this stupid ad scam is The Salvation Army of Switzerland:

(Or see it here on YouTube.

I'm assuming the Army is the victim of an ad agency stupid ad scam here, even though I can't find a self-congratulating agency taking credit. My only evidence it's a scam is the weird explanation (suspiciously in English) on the YouTube page:

Every year in Advent, the Salvationists take out their guitars and play heartwarming Christmas songs. Will that always stay that way? Or is this tradition ending soon, because the Salvation Army is running out of guitars? Watch this perhaps the last music video and share it.

The implication is that the Salvationists have been foolishly singing to people who needed more tangible help, in direct disobedience to the biblical call to help those in need: If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? (James 2:16)

I don't think so. In fact, the gritty, open-eyed realism of the Army is what sets them apart from a lot of would-be do-gooders who'd rather strum a guitar than actually work to help someone. And that's not something they're just now figuring out.

I'm also pretty confident that even if a Salvationist out with his guitar on a frigid December night would burn his guitar -- or even a nice log of firewood -- to give a homeless person on a few minutes of slight warmth.

I think he'd invite the homeless guy to come inside, to get a warm meal and a comfortable bed. And maybe start work on the issues that made him homeless in the first place. I mean, they'd do all that before they thought about tossing a guitar into a burn barrel.

I realize I'm taking this all very literally, and that the video's intent is probably more symbolic. But that's just the problem.

For a feet-on-the-ground organization like The Salvation Army, reality is far more interesting (and far less silly) than goofball symbolism that doesn't even capture the situation.

If you actually want to help people understand the Army, to think well of them, or -- who knows? -- maybe even donate ... show them the reality. And give them a chance to be part of it.

It's not rocket science.

Though it's unlikely to win an ad industry award or bulk out an agency demo reel.

If my guess is wrong, and this video is self-inflicted by the organization ... then I have no explanation. Either way, it's a towering example of a Stupid Nonprofit Ad. A waste of money, time, and opportunity.

More Stupid Nonprofit Ads.

Brooks' Laws of Fundraising: Time vs. Fundraising

Brooks' 4th Law of Fundraising is about the odd relationship between your time and the importance of the projects you work on:

The less important a fundraising initiative is, the more time you'll be forced to spend on it.

There are several important corollaries to the fourth law, including some important ones about meetings:

Every planning meeting on a given project cuts in half the likelihood of the success of that project.

The IQ of a meeting can be calculated by taking the IQ of the dumbest person in the room and dividing by the number of people in the room.

And finally:

That meeting you're about to go to? For the love of all that's holy -- don't go!

There are also a couple corollaries about the sources of time-wasting:

Donations of free media will waste more of your time than almost anything else, other than pro bono work donated by advertising agencies.

Board members have most of their craziest, time-wasting ideas in December.

More Laws of Fundraising here.

15 really bad real ideas from real nonprofits

A lot of crazy bad ideas get kicked around at nonprofits.

Most often in board meetings.

Here's a list of some that have actually been considered, from Wild Apricot, at 15 Utterly Insane Fundraising Ideas People Actually Thought Would Work.

Please use these as a warning!

• "Just call Bill Gates!"
• Collect and sell slightly used airplane toiletry kits on eBay.
• Become a medical or recreational marijuana dispensary.
• We have an anonymous syringe exchange program that works primarily with homeless substance users. It was once suggested by a funder, that we take pictures of all of them and make a coffee table book."
• Host a naked cycling race for sponsorship.
• "Have you ever heard of crowdfunding!??!?"
• Hold an onion peeling competition with sponsorships to see who can last the longest without crying.
• "Hire only very attractive young women with nice bodies...it works for pharmaceutical reps?"
• "Just write a grant!"
• Create a heartwarming animated film about cats to make some extra cash.
• "What if you challenged people to dump ice over their heads?"
• Make an indoor pool "nude" for one night only and charge admission.
• "Just ask [sponsors] nicely."
• Offer lap dances to your biggest donors.
• Agree to be tasered, charging $1,000 for each second of shock.

Keep searching for good ideas.

Just move on from the bad ones before anything terrible happens!

Stupid Batman is a registered trademark -- not fundraising

Award bait. It's one of the most common causes of stupid nonprofit ads.

It works like this: Ad agencies pride themselves about their "creativity." But their clients rarely let them be as "creative" as they want to be. (Those annoying clients have this dumb need to actually get some kind of measurable results from their advertising dollars. The nerve!)

So how can they show off their true creativity?

Create really, really "creative" ads for clients that don't care about the actual effectiveness of those ads. Partly because they aren't sophisticated enough to know effective from ineffective, but mainly because they aren't paying for the work anyway. They're just pleased to end up with something cool they can show their friends.

And the agency gets "creative" that has a good chance of winning an award!

Like this spot for War Child:

(Or view it here on YouTube.)

The whole thing leads up to this punchline: For some children, fantasy is the only way to escape reality.

That may be true. But it has no bearing on anything. No action a viewer might take. It's just a clever way of making a point ... apropos of nothing.

The real achievement of this spot is not the message or the impact it might have on the real world. It's two towering achievements:

1. It legally uses the Batman character.
2. It legally uses a pop tune that you've actually heard before.

Congrats.

But why?

Effective fundraising is always and only about showing potential donors an action they can take. It's concrete, not abstract. It's action, not just ideas. It makes people say What can I do? not How did you do that?

Your job as a fundraiser is to empower donors to change the world. Not to help ad agencies win awards.

(Thanks to alert colleague Stephen Butler for the tip.)

More Stupid Nonprofit Ads.

The stupid ending of a really stupid movie

It's been a long time since a Stupid Nonprofit Ad has been featured on this blog. More than a year. I'm not sure if that's because there's less nonprofit stupidity out there or because I'm just becoming numb to it. (I hope it's the former, but it's probably the latter.)

This example of nonprofit stupidity is interesting, because it's trying to do something smart. Bit it tripped and fell into a big vat of stupid along the way.

It's part of a series of print ads (I guess that's what they are) done for Oxfam UK, a long-standing champion (or victim) in the International Stupid Nonprofit Adlympics.

I'm not sure it's clear what we're looking at, so I'll tell you. It's a take on how old movies used to end: While the dolly-camera pulls back from the finally shot, the gigantic words THE END fill the screen.

It makes no sense whatsoever, at least on its own, so it was necessary to add a little bit of explication. (Which ought to have served as a warning way back in the brainstorming stage that the concept isn't quite as crisp as they hoped it was.)

Here's that explication:

Extreme poverty has been halved in just fifteen years
Together we can make it a story from the past

I am 100% in favor of letting our donors know that their giving is actually succeeding at making the world a better place. Far too many people never give to charity because they believe there's no point -- that nothing changes no matter how much money you apply to the problems.

Which is a huge and tragic lie. Because in so many areas, from poverty fighting to animal welfare to medical research, things really are getting better!

That's not the stupid part.

The stupid part is the abstract and unclear way they make the point.

In each case (the one shown here is one of three similar pieces), the scene is one of squalor. Poverty, right? But all of them lack visible and relatable human beings. The top (and probably only) reason anybody is willing take action against poverty.

Probably every fundraiser who is held responsible to -- you know -- raise funds -- knows this central truth: You don't move people to give to challenging them with a massive "issue" like poverty. You do it by showing a human-sized problem and a donor-sized solution. You challenge them to help someone in need ... not fight (or "halve" poverty in general.

And the part about this that's really troubling, is the ad characterizes our long and not-yet-finished fight against poverty as a "story" -- as if it's a fluffy entertainment from the out parents' era.

Please: It's not a story. It's real.

And telling the truth is the best way to get people on board.

So if you're actually serious about fighting poverty for real, and you want others to join you in the fight, you're going to have to get concrete and straightforward. Fast.

Abstractions that stand for reality, and visual puns that push reality farther away don't move people to action.

To Oxfam's credit (I think), I've found no evidence that they are guilty for this mess. It's a "gift" from an ad agency that wants to win an award -- which they might well achieve, as the judges are just as clueless about what it takes to meaningfully fight the world's problems as the ad agency is.

Thanks to Osocio for the tip.

More Stupid Nonprofit Ads.