Is The Donor Always Right?

February 28, 2007

No! Donors can be wrong, abusive, over-demanding, distracting.

Sean Stannard-Stockton at Tactical Philanthropy has been presiding for a few weeks now over an important, well-articulated and stimulating “debate” amongst fellow bloggers on the issue of donor accountability … in this case, meaning accountability to donors. I commend him for persisting on the theme.

In a nutshell, Sean's view, shared by a number of commentators, is that “the customer is always right.” And with the Internet providing a ready platform for donors to broadcast their complaints, nonprofits had best “get over it” and learn to accommodate.

I've been tossin' and turnin' as I've read the posts on TP, trying to figure out where I stand. It's tough, because I've spent a big chunk of my checkered past advising corporate clients that, indeed, the customer is always right. And I honor donors.

But I respectfully disagree with Sean's absolute application of this principle to nonprofits and their donors. Why?

Corporations exist to satisfy their customers, from whom all profit derives. Products & services are a means to an end … extracting dollars from customers.

Nonprofits exist to serve their causes and clients. Of course donors help fuel their capability to do so, but still the donors are not the “ends” … and there's no need to treat each and every one like a prima donna when there are extenuating circumstances or other priorities to be considered.

What might be those other circumstances or priorities?

1. Donor demands for information or interaction that are wholly out of proportion to the value the donor is contributing.

ABSOLUTELY … nonprofits must be transparent, providing ample financial reporting and performance information in readily accessible form (i.e., online). A nonprofit with whom I'm quite familiar has donors giving anywhere from $25 to $10 million annually. Do they expend as much effort explaining their innards to each of these donors? Of course not. Do they respect each one, of course.

2. Serving the cause or client ranks first. Serving the donor comes second.

Particularly in small nonprofits, the priority of the one-armed-paperhanger is to pour his/her energy into the mission of the organization. And the “mission” cannot be fundraising, as important as fueling the engine is. If you're big enough to have a development office (and some are staffed in the hundreds), then of course, accountability to donors can become more robust. But when a $500 or $1,000 donor wants to backseat drive a $200,000 or $1 million nonprofit, more than consuming the resources they're putting in … no way.

3. The nonprofit and its mission and strategy came first, then the donor appeared.

What this means is: “to thine own self be true.” For better or worse, the nonprofit has chosen its goals, thought about its strategies and tactics, prioritized its use of resources. The donor either “buys” that approach or not. The donor can “shop” elsewhere. No enterprise — nonprofit or business — can be successful if it tries to be all things to all people.

Sure, the wise nonprofit leader listens and learns. But the donor isn't the “enforcer” of the nonprofit's core values or strategies; that role belongs to the nonprofit's board (and hopefully not merely because trustees might be donors).

4. Accountability is a two way street, being based upon mutual respect.

No enterprise, nonprofit or otherwise, needs to subject its employees to personal abuse, either verbal, online or otherwise. Period. Even customers recognize abusive customers … and often rise to the defense of the beleagured service rep or saleperson. Donors with bigger megaphones — be it a personal blog or a “donor site” like GiveWell — aren't necessarily smarter, more justified, better informed or more accurate. They're just louder. But a blog isn't a license, particularly when it operates behind anonymity.

Sure, these days all nonprofits must come to grips with the possibility of being publicly attacked or ridiculed over the Web, fairly or unfairly. However, by behaving honorably, faithfully and smartly pursuing their mission, and responsibly stewarding the resources they've been given, nonprofits should be meeting what most outsiders would agree is an appropriate standard. There's no need (beyond accurately and respectfully setting the record straight) to hyperventilate for the sake of every web-empowered loudmouth.

Perhaps this all sounds anti-donor. Believe me, I'm not. I usually counsel going the extra mile to satisfy the trust each donor has placed in the agency through whom they are hoping to accomplish good works.

But still, any good principle can become counter-productive if pursued in the extreme or without judgment. And “the donor is always right” is one of those principles.

Whatever your view, you'll find the debate hosted on Tactical Philanthropy stimulating. Give it a look.

Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, nonprofit management, philanthropy | Leave a Comment 

Who Do You Trust?

February 27, 2007

Where do you stand on this question …

Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people?

Pew Research recently used this and two related questions to compile an index of public trust.

Among all adults, Americans are closely divided. 45% believe most people are trustworthy, while 50% say you can't be too careful. What's remarkable to me, with institutional failure all around us, is that trust levels aren't even lower … 35% of all adults fall into Pew's “high social trust” category and 38% fall into the “low trust” category; the rest are in the middle.

The Pew survey unearthed these findings:

    • Groups who score higher on the social trust index include whites, college grads, professionals, over 50 years old, rural residents and those earning $50K+ per year.
    • Traits that have little or no correlation to social trust levels include gender, party affiliation, liberal vs conservative, and religious affiliation.
    • People who voted in the last presidential election were nearly twice as likely as people who didn't vote to have a high level of social trust (not surprising given the demographic attributes of high trusters).

Unfortunately, with only a handful of questions, the Pew study doesn't get at some intriguing issues, like …

    • Who (or what institutions) do we (or various segments of us) tend to trust or not trust?
    • What behaviors (like donating, political activism) correlate with high versus low trust?
    • Is high trust associated with hope or optimism?

For instance, I would assume that “low trusters” are very unlikely to open their wallets for causes and charities. And if they do, they're less likely to be loyal donors. I would assume they are more likely to be overall pessimists.

If you look again (above) at the demographics associated with higher trust, aren't you looking at the profile of a donor?

In fact, isn't donating (and fundraising) all about trust … and the related traits of hope and optimism?

Tom

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

Crisis Strikes

February 26, 2007

Hopefully most nonprofits will never face the sort of devastating public confidence breakdown that JetBlue has recently suffered in the commercial world.

Still, **** happens.

Someone up in the executive suite, down in accounting, or out in the field embezzles some money (e.g., the Red Cross). The media claims, fairly or otherwise, that services are not being delivered or funds are not being spent in the manner promised to donors and the public (e.g., Habitat for Humanity). Or internal dissension within an organization boils over into public view (e.g., ACLU).

How does an organization respond?

In our view …

1. With alacrity
2. From the top leadership
3. With humble firmness, not aggressiveness or defensiveness
4. With total candor and transparency
5. With all communications channels through which your constituency engages your organization.
6. With redress, not just words

And if the breakdown, mis-step or grievance is for real …

4. With explicit, decisive corrective measures
5. With genuine apology (and, where relevant, generous compensation).

Note that we don't use the term “crisis communications” … this term implies that an organization can “talk” or “explain” its way out of trouble. How you communicate can indeed be crucial to successful crisis management. But truly resolving the crisis requires facing up to and addressing the underlying problem that underlies the crisis. No amount of talk can remedy a failure to act. But the wrong kind of talk can certainly compound the injury.

Here is a potpourri of articles with advice on crisis management. All this free advice was offered specifically to JetBlue, but the principles are universally applicable.

Jet Blues - How NOT to Do Crisis Communications, from Nancy Schwartz at Getting Attention

Ten Steps to Recovery for 'Jet Black and Blue', from Jeanne Bliss of CustomerBLISS

Jet Blue's Blues, from Elaine Fogel of Solutions Marketing & Consulting

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, communications, nonprofit management | Leave a Comment 

Prez Campaigns Flock to New Media

February 24, 2007

Awhile back we urged nonprofit fundraisers and communicators to pay attention and learn from the online strategies of the presidential candidates.

According to an estimate cited in the Wall Street Journal, political spending on online ads and website development for the 2008 cycle might reach $80 million, up from $29 million in the 2004 cycle … that's a lot of spaghetti being thrown against the wall!

Now there's a single site, techPresident, orchestrated by Micah Sifry of Personal Democracy that makes this homework assignment simple for you. At techPresident you'll find daily facts and commentary on how the online campaigns are unfolding, what tools and tactics they're using, whose doing it well or poorly … the good, the bad and the ugly.

We're daily readers. And as much as we don't want to distract you from The Agitator, we feel obliged to urge you to monitor techPresident on a regular basis!

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under new media, online advocacy, online fundraising, politics | Leave a Comment 

Your Direct Mail Letter Is A Person

February 23, 2007

In yet another wonderful piece, “What Orson Welles Can Teach Us About Direct Marketing,” Denny Hatch talks almost wistfully about the intimate power of the (well-crafted) direct mail letter.

He quotes at length from freelancer Malcolm Decker. Here's a passage for every direct mail fundraiser to remember …

“The Direct Mail Letter
With the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and the National Do Not Call Registry, once again direct mail is riding high—the workhorse of direct marketing.

And the linchpin of direct mail is the letter, that emotional and intimate message from one writer to one reader that talks benefits, benefits, benefits.

In the words of freelancer Malcolm Decker:

The letter is itself is the pen-and-ink embodiment of a salesperson who is speaking personally and directly to the prospect on a one-to-one basis.
The letter is the most powerful and persuasive selling force in direct marketing, once the product, price and offer are set. The writer creates the salesman, usually from whole cloth, and you must be certain that this sales representative is truly representative of your product or service as well as of your company.

The letter is likely to be the only “person” your market will ever meet—at least on the front end of the sale—do don’t make him highbrow if your market is lowbrow and vice versa.

Make sure he speaks your prospect’s language. If he’s a Tiffany salesman, he writes in one style; if he’s a grapefruit or pecan farmer or a beef grower, he writes differently. (‘cause he talks diffrunt.) I develop as clear a profile of my prospect as the available research offers and then try to match it up with someone I know and “put him in a chair” across from me. Then I write to him more or less conversationally.

The salesperson in the letter is doing the job he obviously loves and is good at. He knows the product inside and out and is totally confident in and at ease with its values and benefits—even its inconsequential shortcomings—and wants to get his prospect in on a good thing. Here is someone with a sense of rhythm, timing, dramatic effect and possibly even humor—getting attention … piquing curiosity … holding interest … engaging rationally … anticipating and assuaging doubts … and ultimate winning the confidence (and the signature on the order) of the prospect.

The great direct marketers of old knew that they were not writing to dots and blips, but rather to a warm, breathing, feeling person.”

But to get the full flavor of what Denny is getting at, including how Orson Welles fits in, be sure to read the whole piece.

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under Denny Hatch, Pushing the Creative Envelope, copywriting, direct marketing | Leave a Comment 

Warning: YouTube Could Bite You

February 22, 2007

More and more nonprofits are experimenting with online video, often simply by encouraging supporters to produce home-made testimonials or “why I'm concerned” videos.

If your strategy is to place “best” or suitable videos on your own website after staff review, then of course editorial “compatibility” isn't an issue.

But at the same time, this approach doesn't fully capture the liberating “express yourself” ethos — to say nothing of outreach capacity — of the most popular social networking sites like YouTube and MySpace. You can probably tap a deeper vein (assuming it's there to be tapped) if you encourage members, activists and other sympaticos to show their support by posting videos directly on those mega-traffic sites.

Yes, there are risks. You must yield control. The “do's and don'ts” of associating your brand with “consumer-generated” video are very well explored in this post by Mark Naples writing for iMedia Connection. Mark illustrates each of the following admonitions with easy-to-view links to pertinent YouTube videos …

1. Do understand that it is a dialogue.

2. Don't forget proper content alignment.

3. Do really engage the viewer.

4. Don't ever think you can relax.

5. Do entice the viewer.

6. Don't forget restraint.

While Mark is coming at this from the perspective of corporate brands who might be setting themselves up for customer-generated spoofs and worse, his advice is well worth the attention of would-be nonprofit online video impresarios.

Roger & Tom

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

Old Codgers Online

February 21, 2007

Meet Jim Hannah, age 72, and Don Deitch, age 75. Both spend a lot of time online doing sophisticated stuff. According to Larry Dobrow writing in The Magazine of Online Media, Marketing & Advertising (OMMA), these guys shatter the stereotype of “seniors” being web adverse. Yet online marketers are still writing off the oldsters.

Dobrow's article is worth reading if you're inclined to dismiss your pre-Boomer constituency (you know, the ones who donate all that money) when it comes to online engagement.

Our takeaway from the piece is that you might need to be satisfied with using the online medium with this older segment for communications, service and education, as opposed to fundraising. The reason: only 14% of 65-plus men feel “somewhat” or “very” comfortable using a credit card to shop on the internet (no figures given for women), compared with 35% of the US population as a whole. This reluctance to charge online is very likely to curb online donating.

But as the article points out, following behind this oldest segment are nearly 36 million Web users between ages 50 and 64 years, who are even more comfortable with the online medium.

Our advice: don't let the youngsters plotting your nonprofit's online presence get away with design features, gimmicks and tactics that only appeal to fellow youngsters! The online audience is far more multi-generational these days.

Roger & Tom

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

LCV and Defenders “Exchange” E-mail Lists?

February 19, 2007

The coal for the furnace of direct mail fundraising has been list rentals and exchanges. A somewhat incestuous process where Sierra Club rents from NRDC who rents from Environmental Defense who rents from Sierra Club and around and around. Always with the assumption (desperate hope?) that someone, somewhere must be adding new names/donors into the hopper.

With online fundraising surging ahead, especially in response to e-mail solicitations, is it only a matter of time before some version of a list rental/exchange marketplace develops?

Of course the anti-spam online world prizes the personal privacy and “do not disturb” ethos … invading someone's e-mailbox uninvited is tantamount to driving a car through their front door.

So, after they've asked their existing mail donors to fork over their e-mail addresses for the gazillionth time, where's a poor nonprofit supposed to get fresh e-mail addresses suitable for e-prospecting?

One interesting approach showed up in my e-mail inbox the other day. As you'll see, “exchange” means something more convoluted in the e-world.

I received an e-mail from Gene Karpinski at the League of Conservation Voters (on whose e-list I'm happy to park) “sharing” with me “an important message” from his friend Rodger Schlickeisen of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund regarding the urgent need to protect polar bears.

When I clicked on Rodger's imbedded message, I was whisked to the Defenders site, where the typical e-mail action alert awaited me. The form included a pre-checked box authorizing Defenders to send me future messages (meaning I had to notice it and opt out to escape the clutches of Defenders). Though the Defenders navigation bar included a “Support Us” link, they wisely didn't try to push me to contribute, being content on the first pass to capture my e-mail address as a kindred spirit.

A nice approach. A nice arrangement. Convoluted substitute for plain-old list exchange, but necessarily so given the e-world ethos.

Questions:

1. Did I actually give permission to LCV effectively to give Defenders a shot at me? Probably, in the loose sense that somewhere, sometime I must have invited LCV to e-mail me on issues they deem pertinent. [What if Gene's buddy Ellen over at Emily's List, straying a bit beyond the environment, asked Gene to send me a “cover note” on her PAC's behalf?]

2. Will I hear from Defenders again, even though I deliberately opted-out of receiving future messages from them. Time will tell! Here's my guess (and it's ONLY a guess): I think I'll get another message from them specifically on this polar bear campaign. They'll figure: after all, he did clearly indicate sympathy with our polar bear campaign; he will be mildly offended, at most, if we give him follow-up just on that. It's worth taking a chance.

3. What was the deal? Probably they said to each other: “I'll give you access to X thousand of our e-names, and you'll reciprocate, and we'll see what happens.” Maybe they even have a “bonus” clause of some kind where terms are adjusted by the extent to which either a) folks responded at all, and/or b) respondents to the solicitation actually give permission to Defenders to re-contact them. Maybe it turns out that, in terms of delivering opt-ins, two Defenders names are worth only one LCV name.

4. Finally, did it work?! Gene and Rodger, please tell us! Our readers want to know.

5. Have any of our readers tried such creative approaches to e-list “exchange?”

In any event, I'll bet some Defenders supporters are about to get an e-mail from Rodger, introducing a message from his friend, Gene!

And so the e-world turns.

Tom
P.S. Have no doubt, this is an approach I would test if I were in their shoes. The Agitator has other ideas for generating fresh e-prospects. Stay tuned.

P.P.S. Whooops! As I finish this post, I've already received another message on the Arctic Refuge directly from Defenders … an action alert masquerading as a “Thank you” for my polar bear support. I'm in their clutches!

Posted by admin | Filed Under Pushing the Creative Envelope, email marketing, online advocacy, online fundraising | Leave a Comment 

A Cause To Die For

February 18, 2007

The Agitator regularly scans the search engines to bring our readers the absolutely hottest trends and news in fundraising and nonprofit marketing.

So we regularly filter out the important, but regular, stuff (notice we're not giving you links for these) …

    • Family launches fundraising benefit for burgled blind man
    • Cambridge University nears billion pound fundraising goal for 800th anniversary
    • Santa Clarita (CA) pizzeria raises most $$ among Domino's franchisees for St. Jude's Childrens' Research Hospital
    • John McCain stops in Cincinnati to raise campaign funds …

So that we can feature the truly remarkable. Like this fundraising cause that simply knocked our shoes and socks off …

Zimbabwe: Fundraising for President's Birthday Begins

It seems that Z$300,000,000 must be raised from the citizenry — and fast — to pay for the upcoming birthday celebration of Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's president, potentate, dictator, chief expropriator. Now that's a mere US$1,200,000.

We at The Agitator are certainly giving. We're keen on getting the inside track on a 2.5 million hectare game reserve. We figure a $100 donation should cinch it.

The fundraising campaign is directed by Cde (Commander?) Emmanuel Fundira, who as of February 12 reported raising only Z$87 million. The celebration is scheduled for February 24, and we don't think President Mugabe's the kind of guy to re-schedule or skimp on the birthday cake.

Now you might think your job as a fundraiser is stressful, but we don't think your life is on the line. We suspect that Mr. Fundira has quite few “donor perks” to abet his work. Still, marketing Mugabe must be a challenge … would you want to be in Fundira's shoes if he comes up short?!

On the other hand, if you're looking to re-locate, we'd be happy to pass your name along should Mr. Fundira's fundraising position “become vacant.”

Interestingly, our deeper probing of the situation discloses that Mr. Fundira and the Finance Minister were hauled into court in 2004 (”clad in designer suits”) charged with “externalising large sums of foreign currency” (to Las Vegas in Fundira's case). No kidding. Look, we believe in criminal rehab, but we think we know where the birthday bash money will go!

No wonder fundraising gets a bad name.

Now we ask you, if you're reading The Agitator regularly, what other source do you need?!

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

Try A Webinar

February 17, 2007

Fundraising and marketing tips and training are proliferating in the form of online seminars called “webinars.” Many are offered by leading consulting firms and publishers.

Some are free; some have fees. Some are full streamed video; others combine a phone conference with an online Powerpoint presentation. All offer some form of interaction, usually real-time questions via a chat window.

We've tried a few, and found that quality — technical, presentation skill and substantive content — varies widely. But by and large, you can learn something useful at the convenience of your desk.

Here are a few upcoming webinars that have caught The Agitator's attention.

  • From MarketingProfs, a webinar on February 22 on getting attention and building loyalty for e-newsletters (these folks come from the commercial marketing arena, but usually their observations and lessons are relevant for nonprofit marketers).
  • From the Target Marketing Group, a webinar on February 28 on e-mail segmentation strategies to improve ROI.
  • From Philanthropy Journal, a webinar on March 1 on planned giving.
  • A steady diet of webinars is also offered by the Forum for Fundraising.

Try one and let us know what you think. It pays to pre-register and check out the set-up steps.

The Agitator is thinking about offering some webinars, and we'd welcome your ideas on topics.

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, email marketing, online publishing, planned giving | Leave a Comment 

Next Page »