No Online Endorsement … No Sale

November 30, 2006

Consider this observation by communications consultant and blogger Dave Evans:

Ordinary consumers are continuing to integrate technology into their everyday lives. As they do, a natural reliance on a network of friends and other consumers develops … It's only a matter of time before most purchases with any sort of decision analysis are made largely based on what is learned online, with the majority of this taking place in highly-focused, not mass, social networks. Savvy marketers are heading there now.

Every time new stats come out, more and more consumers report that they do more and more of their pre-purchase research online. Until now, this sort of online research has meant: 1) look at shopping websites that compare products, 2) look at the seller's website, 3) ask Mom or cousin Earnie via email.

Now, with social networking sites blossoming, many serving as the nucleus of rather focused communities of interest, Dave is saying that online “word-of-mouth” referrals are fast becoming the ultimate trusted driver of most purchase decisions. If you don't hear about it or get a thumbs-up online from someone you trust, you ain't gonna buy it.

Will this apply to folks considering a donation? At The Agitator, we think so … starting with the top and most considered contributions and working its way down.

The better “Donate” pages on most websites already include one or another “Good Housekeeping” seal of approval, aiming to establish a modicum of “stewardship credibility” … “we're real, not a scam.”

But this is still a far cry from actually establishing that your nonprofit can actually achieve some progress against its goals. This sort of “performance credibility” has traditionally come from third-party testimonials, orchestrated or spontaneous, and/or the sort of confirmation provided by media coverage.

All of the above is manageable to some degree.

Now (or soon), however, your prospective donor can easily go online and find his or her way to a blog or community site where your organization will be exposed stark naked, warts and all, perhaps by a disgruntled (or hopefully, dazzled) donor, vendor, service recipient, self-appointed watchdog, or former employee.

This sort of spontaneous word-of-mouth is far less manageable. Perhaps the best a nonprofit can do is operate as if everyone with whom it comes into contact has a megaphone to the world … because nowadays they do. And people pay attention. Maybe not with any day-to-day regularity, but definitely when you call the question by asking for their contribution or support.

All of marketing — and especially direct marketing, like direct mail fundraising — is about removing reasons for your prospect to say “NO!” or even “Later,” while facilitating an immediate “YES.”

We've all seen how the online medium can facilitate a fundraising “YES.” We're about to see what some will regard as the “dark side” — just how pervasively online communities might wield derogatory power over nonprofits' brand reputations and marketing overtures.

BTW, for those interested, this whole discussion falls within the rubric of “consumer-controlled marketing,” which is perhaps the dominant trend in marketing today. Here's a typical article on the trend from the commercial world, All Brand Power to the Consumer, courtesy of branding maven Martin Lindstrom. His advice:

    • You can't be on top of every piece of brand communications … it's inevitable that your audience will take over.
    • Tomorrow's brands must have opinions … if you want to be ignored, be squeakly clean and non-controversial.
    • Participate in “instant branding” … be prepared to react immediately to events that create opportunities to define/project your brand … the days of two-year branding campaigns are over.

PS: Have you taken our “Transparency vs. Privacy” survey? Just click on the survey box at the top right column of the blog.

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, online fundraising, social networking | Leave a Comment 

No Money Please, We’re British

November 29, 2006

About the only joy of living on airplanes is that I get to Europe frequently and can then tune in to all the channels of the BBC.

One of my favorite programs (programmes) on the “Beeb” as the Brits call it, is “Hard Talk.” The sometimes puckish, often downright aggressive talking heads, always preppy and well-groomed, well-suited interviewers take on everyone and everything.

Last night

Stephan Sakur, “Hard Talk”'s smooth interviewer with the impressive credentials of 15 years as a BBC foreign correspondent, and a tight-jawed style that would make every American wannabe Anglophile jealous of his style, took on Dr. Salvatore LaSpada the head of a British organization called the Institute of Philanthropy. Dr. LaSpada is an American ex-pat –and a very smooth one at that—proselytizing mega-giving and offering advice to mega-donors.

As a former associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation, with lots of experience from other philanthropic ventures , he does know something about mega giving and mega wealth.

Setting aside my personal prejudice against folks who are too slick and too smooth and far too glib, the fact is that Dr. LaSpada turned out to not only overcome my prejudice against well-coifed, bearded, smooth talkers. He was was eloquent in terms of defining and defending the role of the private/independent sector.

Defending and helping to define the future role of private philanthropy in fundamentally socialist countries (meaning the state/national government predominently pays and the public doesn’t feel much responsibility) in the UK and the Continent ain’t easy for any American. The values of the “old” vs. “new” country are remarkably different. And George W. Bush sure ain't helping us bridge that gap!

What LaSpada did so well is to define why American philanthropy is what it is and why the values behind it may well be exportable.

Read on below for key takeaways….

Continue reading “No Money Please, We're British”

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, charities, fundraising, philanthropy | Leave a Comment 

Secret Riches and Why You’re Missin’ Em

November 28, 2006

David Love, Executive Director of The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, who also happens to be an old friend, great fundraiser, wonderful cause hell-raiser, and reader of The Agitator wrote the other day noting, “I remain obsessed with social justice and green groups getting legacies. Ripping them out of the hands of universities and hospitals. Is that of interest to The Agitator?”

Attached to David's message was a story from the Toronto Globe & Mail headlined “Teacher kept her riches secret, then left charity $4.3 million.” The story details the generosity of Roberta Langtry, who lived plainly and shied away from the limelight and left the largest legacy gift ever given to the Nature Conservancy of Canada.
The story of Roberta Langtry is a microcosm of the larger world of legacy giving of which all too many fundraisers are woefully ignorant. She was single. Her wealth hidden. And her true potential unknown. As the the vice-president of the Conservancy noted upon learning of the gift: “We weren't entirely sure it was true, or not.”
What is true is that far to many non-profits still view the “Planned Giving” process as the province of specialists familiar with the intracacies of taxes and complex giving instruments like charitable lead trusts, pooled income funds, etc. And as David Love noted in his message, historically it has been the colleges, universities, and medical centers that benefitted.
No more. The reality of legacy giving is that 95% percent of all 'planned gifts' come in the form of bequests by a simple will…averaging about $35,000. And, more and more these legacy gifts are being given to environmental, human rights, civil liberties, animal welfare and women's rights groups.
And…these gifts are coming as a result of the largely inadvertent result of direct mail and small gift donor programs.

That's why another Canadian, Mike Johnston of HJC New Media, and a group of us from Craver, Mathews, Smith, Grenzebach Glier & Associates, Direct Advantage Marketing and The Share Group have formed a joint venture called The Legacy Giving Group This innovative approach at orchestrating a virtual symphony of legacy marketing skills aims to put planned giving into the mainstream of fundraising, marketing and communications where it belongs.

I note this not out of a pure desire to flog this important new venture, but to emphasize that without more attention to the marketing aspects of planned giving
– with a dramatically increased focus on the mass of small gift donors instead of the “known” major gift potential — non-profits are missing out big time.
The fact is that virtually every non-profit — advocacy organization, animal rights organizations, environmental groups, cultural groups, you name it — has an amazing and largely untapped source of secret riches.

The key is in aggressively reaching out by marrying proven direct response techiques with data mining and scoring. I realize this is a contrarian approach to what has been the historic norm in approaching planned giving. So, attached you'll find a white paper, The Legacy Group Approach, by Mike Johnston and me on why we think it's so important.

In fact, the figures below lead me to conclude that if you're not considering a more expansive and ongoing legacy giving effort, then You Oughta Be Fired!

Continue reading “Secret Riches and Why You're Missin' Em”

Posted by admin | Filed Under You Oughta Be Fired, major donors, planned giving | Leave a Comment 

Tell All …and Send Your Secret Bedroom Photos

November 27, 2006

Here at The Agitator find ourselves immersed in a real and very heated debate. Tom says that, in the interest of “transparency” and “accountability” anyone's contributions should be public and readily available online. Roger says, “it's no one's damn business and this sort of mindset is a real and present danger to civil liberties.”

Of course there are two sides to the issue of transparency. On the one hand, the public deserves to know who's behind this or that movement. Conversely, don't donors –especially donors who are supporting controversial and ultra-unpopular causes — deserve the protection of privacy?

In our lifetimes (Tom's is considerably shorter than Roger's) there are both pros and cons on this point. On the one hand all of us really want to know just who's behind a particular movement or issue. Example: When the tobacco industry sets up a front group called “Americans for Clean Air,” don't we deserve to know they're pouring millions into this pro-smoking initiative?

On the other hand, when “America Free” advocates the non-violent overthrow of the US government, don't we want to protect the donors from being called before some modern day version of the House Un-American Activities Committee?

In our see-all-tell-all-you-tube-democracy there's certainly much to recommend transparency and the listing of who's supporting what.

Paradoxically, history clearly demonstrates that this sort of information can have a very, very chilling effect on the support for controversial movements and political activity. Remember Senator Joseph McCarthy?

At any rate our current internal debate was sparked by a post in Don't Tell The Donor which raised the question, among others, of 'donor poaching' should all this information be made available.

Tom went for the “sunlight is the best disinfectant” line. Stuffy old Roger stuck to his guns of “it's none of your damned business. and especially not when we make this online, easy-to-find information readily available to the government.”

What do you think? Take the Privacy Survey on The Agitator's Home Page. We'll report the results in two weeks.

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post | Leave a Comment 

Give Thanks For Nonprofits At Thanksgiving

November 23, 2006

A recent report on MSNBC notes that America's 1.4 million nonprofits (as registered with the IRS in 2004) account for 5.2% of the nation's economic output and 8.3% of its wages and salaries.

That's a significant contribution indeed to the nation's economic well-being, but it pales in importance to the enormous good work charities, cause groups and other nonprofits accomplish on behalf of making a better world.

For that we should all be thankful. In fact, we should be equally thankful for the doers and the funders, be those funders mega-donors like Buffett, Gates and Turner or one of the millions of mainstream donors whose $25 and $50 gifts comprise the bulk of philanthropy in America. Or be those funders “traditional” grantmakers or the latest round of “philanthropreneurs.”

At the same time, there's much for nonprofits to be reflecting upon these days in terms of how they can become even more effective in meeting their goals.

The same MSNBC report cites a Harris poll from the summer in which only 10% of respondents strongly agreed that charities spent their donated funds in an “honest and ethical” manner. Clearly, for all charities, accountability and integrity — building trust — in the most fundamental sense must be paramount.

And everybody these days seems more focused, properly we believe, on delivering measurable results and progress. Recognizing that difficult issues surround how to measure progress in many nonprofit pursuits, our community still needs to accept and respond to the reality that Americans are trained to expect forward movement and visible results … in fact, this expectation is in our blood. Unfortunately, at the same time, we all seem to be more and more impatient.

So as you digest your Thanksgiving leftovers these next few days, here are a few articles you should also chew over. They all deal one way or the other with the state of philanthropy in America as 2006 ends. Good food for thought.

First, three good overviews from Stephanie Strom in the NY Times (requires subscription), Kathleen Day in the Washington Post and Jane Lampman in the Christian Science Monitor. As well as the aforementioned MSNBC report.

Then a nice series of thought pieces prepared in conjunction with the recent philanthropy confab hosted by Slate.com and Bill Clinton, from Henry Blodget on venture philanthropy, Sebastian Mallaby on the “threshold test for philanthropists,” and David Nasaw with a rather contrarian view.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, charities, fundraising, philanthropy | Leave a Comment 

Youth & Politics - Treasury of Data

November 22, 2006

Agitator confesses to being asleep at the switch back in October when The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE, funded by Pew and Carnegie) released its massive study on the civic and political engagement of youth (ages 15-25).

CIRCLE's 2006 National Civic and Political Health Survey is a massive treasury of data looking at 19 core measures of involvement (in categories of civic activity, electoral participation, and “political voice” — making views known), as well as attitudes toward government, levels of political knowledge, partisanship, and views on elections and politics. All of the study materials, including the full analysis, survey toplines and a good Powerpoint presentation are available at CIRCLE's website.

Some highlights:

    • 24% of young people have raised money for a cause or charity
    • 35% have tried to persuade others in an election
    • 36% have volunteered and 30% have boycotted a product or company
    • 17% are “electoral specialists” (meaning at least two activities in the category), 12% are “civic specialists”, 13% are “dual activists” (two activities or more in two categories)
    • 7% qualify as “hyper-engaged” participating in 10 or more of the 19 categories — this group tends to be urban, Democratic, and from college-educated homes (Agitator thinks these are the kids of your donors!)
    • African-American (electoral) and Asian-American (civic) youth are the most engaged
    • Youth segment is 47% Dems, 28% Reps, and 24% Indies
    • 63% believe government should do more to solve problems, but a plurality (47%) say government is “almost always wasteful and inefficient”

This report and its supporting materials provide huge insight into the civic and political behavior and mindset of today's 15-25 year old population. Check it out.

Significant numbers of these “kids” are fundraising now, volunteering now, advocating now, using their buying power to send a message … NOW!

Separately, CIRCLE estimates that 10 million youth under 30 years old voted in the 2006 midterm, representing 13% of all midterm voters. This represented a 24% turnout, up 2 million from 20% in 2002 midterm.

Posted by admin | Filed Under Hot Research, politics | Leave a Comment 

Simple But Ignored

November 21, 2006

From Deb Levin at Refinery comes some very simple, straightforward but largely ignored advice on website user expectations and how to meet them.

Just one teaser here:

How many of you have a nonprofit website that includes — anywhere on it — a genuine donor or member testimonial?

Anybody? Anywhere?

Point us to yours and you'll get an official Agitator raise! You get a bonus if your testimonial is on a “Donate” page.

Posted by admin | Filed Under You Deserve a Raise, online fundraising | Leave a Comment 

Who’s Watching Online Videos?

November 20, 2006

A couple of days ago we reported on some intriguing testing of online videos by Marketing Experiments. Their test videos, reaching over 700,000 views over three months, re-confirmed the viral power of entertaining videos on sites like YouTube and Google Video.

But who's actually watching these videos? And is it an audience that's relevant to nonprofit fundraisers and cause advocates.

This Forbes piece answers at least the first question with its very title: Old People Like Web Video!

Forbes cites research from several prominent online researchers indicating that netizens ages 35 to 64 make up anywhere from 48% to 65% of You Tube's audience. Boomers (ages 42 to 60) represent the heart of this age cohort of course.

Other data in the article indicates that viewers are quite responsive to what they see in online videos: 31% said they checked out a sponsoring company's website, 14% went to a store to check out the product, and another 14% requested more information.

If direct marketing provides any significant portion of your nonprofit's income and you're NOT plotting your online video testing yet, just turn off your computer now … you oughta be fired!

Posted by admin | Filed Under You Oughta Be Fired, online fundraising, online video, social networking | Leave a Comment 

Homo Broadbandicus

November 19, 2006

Actually, according to market research firm Media-Screen (as reported by Clickz Network), among the 57 million Americans with broadband access, five distinct sub-species of broadband users have been identified.

Which are you?

    • Content King: values entertainment
    • Social Clicker: values communications
    • Fast Tracker: values news and information
    • Everyday Pro: values online personal productivity tools
    • Online Insider: values every aspect of the web with equal enthusiasm

You'll have to read the article to fill out the profiles.

Reminder: Sunday Nov 19th is the last day you can complete Agitator's Staying Ahead of the Curve survey. Just click the survey box at top right column on the blog to get started.

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, demographic trends, research | Leave a Comment 

Ten Trends Transforming Marketing Measurements

November 18, 2006

Max Kalehoff is my man. He's VP of Marketing at Nielsen BuzzMetrics, a firm specializing in measuring consumer-generated media (you know, like blogs and YouTube videos). Never met Max, but find him a constant source of superb insight into how to measure and analyze consumer behavior. Our previous posts on consumer engagement and “happy losers” were inspired by him.

For our readers who aspire to really understand their members, donors and activists, Max's thoughts on Ten Trends Transforming Marketing Measurements is “must read.”

Bottomline: as consumers become more digitally-engaged and more empowered in terms of their own ability to “send a message,” marketers must enter a new era of listening. There's more to hear and observe … yet at the same time consumers are more elusive and marketers are in less control of the message.

Here's a shorthand summary of the trends, but you'll need to read the piece.

1. Digital network adoption

2. Attention erosion

3. Speed of measurement

4. Democratization of data & analytics

5. Observation measurements

6. Unstructured data

7. Beyond demographics

8. Customer-centered measurements & planning

9. Data integration comes of age

10.Reevaluating relationships with whom and what we measure

Reminder: Sunday Nov 19th is the last day you can complete Agitator's Staying Ahead of the Curve survey. Just click the survey box at top right column on the blog to get started.

Posted by admin | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, marketing metrics, new media | Leave a Comment 

Next Page »