Nonprofit Video Contest

March 31, 2007

We were ranting about using videos for online fundraising yesterday, then lo and behold we found Lucy Bernholz at Philanthropy 2173 pointing us to a contest for nonprofit videos designed to mobilize people for social change.

The contest is here at NTEN, the Nonprofit Technology Network, and you can vote by texting or online by April 5th.

Links to lots of inspiring and empowering videos on the NTEN contest page.

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under Pushing the Creative Envelope, online activism, online fundraising, online video | Leave a Comment 

Watch My Lips

March 30, 2007

DoubleClick, a leading service provider in the digital/online advertising world, has just published an analysis of response patterns to 301 online ad campaigns running June to September 2006.

The bottomline is hugely important for marketers of causes and candidates:

Video ads generate at least twice the response (as measured by click throughs) as standard image (JPG or GIF) ads.

In fact, when all forms of interaction with video ads are included, about 8% of all video ad impressions delivered in the study generated some interaction (2.7 billion video and image ad impressions were studied).

Actual click-through rates range from 0.4% to 0.74% for video ads, as compared to 0.1% to 0.2% for image ads.

[Who's watching online video? Nearly 123 million people in the U.S. in January '07 (70% of the total U.S. internet audience), according to comScore. And they watched an average of 151 minutes of online video during the month.]

The “bad” news is that online videos are short, short, short. According to DoubleClick, the typical :30 second online video is actually viewed an average of 19 seconds, while :15 second videos are viewed an average of 10 seconds.

Not a lot of time for meaningful dialogue in the first instance! But remember, a key purpose of the online video is to trigger the click-through … from there your cause or candidate can “take the floor” with a more substantial presentation.

The Agitator has been monitoring the e-mail communications of all the Presidential candidates for the past two months. So far, we've been surprised at how little video messaging we've received, especially in the context of fundraising.

The typical use of video has been to recycle video footage of candidate appearances on mainstream TV (e.g. Biden on Leno, McCain on Letterman) or to present recycled or live key campaign speeches and appearances (e.g., all the Dems posted their performances before the DNC Winter Meeting, McCain and others holding online town hall meetings, announcing their candidacies, etc.).

Only recently have we encountered video-driven fundraising appeals (e.g., pitch for Hillary by Bill, John Edwards capitalizing on Ann Coulter's bigoted comments to the American Conservative Union).

Just for starters, it seems to us that a simple no-brainer would be to use a video thank-you and upsell to a monthly contribution, directly from the candidate, as the standard default communication after each one-time online donation.

Cause fundraisers should do the same, using the signer of the e-appeal as their video messenger.*

Direct mail fundraisers get fired if they don't exploit the “acknowledgement” process!

After the March “close-out” of candidates' 1st QTR campaign fundraising reports, we'll have more to report on our ongoing “content analysis” of their e-mail communications.

Roger & Tom

*In a survey of 450 US and Canadian charities to be published on their website in May, the Assn of Fundraising Professionals finds that nearly 88% of groups that raise funds online say their donations increased in 2006; in 2005, only 55% of groups that solicited online raised more than in 2004.

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

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

March 29, 2007

Recently Todd Cohen of Philanthropy Journal took to task American Idol for perceived shortcomings in its planned awareness and fundraising initiative, “Idol Gives Back,” scheduled for April 24-25.

Idol says it wants to focus the attention of its 26-28 million weekly viewers on the impact of extreme poverty on children and young people in Africa and America. It has enlisted sponsors like Coca-Cola, AT&T and Ford as contributors to the effort.

Not good enough for Todd.

As he sees it, there's too much detail lacking in the plans as revealed so far. E.g., exactly how much will these companies actually contribute (apparently, their gifts will be matches of viewer donations), how much will Idol and broadcaster Fox be contributing, and how much is the entire effort projected to yield. And his efforts to get more details have not satisfied him. (Idol/Fox more or less says: We'll tell you when it's over.)

So Todd concludes: “There you have it: Maximizing hype, minimizing substance.”

But then says:

“American Idol … surely will generate huge bucks and a lot of attention for the cause of helping impoverished children. As multi-media entertainment guru Martha Stewart would say, that's a good thing.”

The Agitator says: THAT'S A GREAT THING. THANK YOU AMERICAN IDOL.

Todd does make a series of suggestions about how Idol could do even more. That's cool.

But why expect American Idol to morph into the next UNICEF? We should accept and respect them for what they are … a terrifically successful entertainment franchise with a bit of conscience (and maybe some enlightened self-interest).

As more and more companies delve into cause marketing, some will be clumsy, some will be self-serving, some will make brilliant contributions … in terms of both fundraising and awareness building.

The more companies that bring their resources to the party the better. Nonprofits should be affirmatively pursuing and shaping cause marketing relationships, not carping at the companies who are so inclined.

If nonprofits are smart about it, over time, the standards will improve. Effectiveness will increase. It will become harder, even impossible, for companies to fake it. And social benefits will accrue.

So let's not be prematurely chilling. Without clear evidence to the contrary, let's assume their impulses are honorable. And let's not punish them for trying.

Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, cause marketing, fundraising | Leave a Comment 

Wanna Make Millions $$$?

March 28, 2007

Other than response to disasters and political campaigns, situations where new donors tend to find you, most online fundraising success has come from mining existing house e-lists.

But one of these days, one of The Agitator's readers is going to figure out how to successfully prospect for new donors online.

When you do, you'll have two options: 1) lead your nonprofit to dizzying heights of fundraising success; or 2) start your own consulting firm and make millions.

In either case, you'll deserve a raise!

We'll bet that the winning formula will involve learning how to intercept well-targeted prospects as they use search engines. The online equivalent of picking the right mailing lists.

Commercial marketers are getting more and more sophisticated at online targeting, exploiting the digital trail that net users leave as they course through the web. It's called “behavioral marketing” and involves combining old-fashioned demographic data-appending to websites with actual browsing patterns of individual users.

This combination of relevant demographics and actual behavior permits marketers to zero in more precisely on ripe prospects, often with a cost advantage because more obscure — and less expensive — niche websites can be targeted for online ads.

Here's a good article from Behavioral Insider (talk about niche!) that gives a flavor of how the process works.

Roger & Tom

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

Business Is Bad … And Good

March 27, 2007

Yesterday we posted on some of the political findings in Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007, just released by the Pew Research Center.

Today we'll look at Americans' attitudes about corporations and business. As cause marketers and fundraisers, the bottomline for us in this data is that harnessing the power of corporations to reach and motivate people is a strategy that nonprofits must consider as one of the arrows in their quiver.

The public doesn't believe that corporations always operate in the public interest; but nor do they reflect a knee-jerk anti-corporatism. They observe that corporations can be forces for good or ill … and they seem to make judgments case by case as they watch the public behavior of individual companies.

But again, this is a very substantial piece of “must read” research. Herewe can only tease you with some of the topline findings …

  • Fully 72% of Americans agree that “the strength of this country today is mostly based on the success of American business” … an opinion — shared across major demographic groups and political affiliations — that has changed very little over the past 20 years. Interestingly, those under age 30 agree the most, at 82%.
  • And 57% agree that “government regulation of business usually does more harm than good” … an opinion shared across political lines.

That's the good news for business. But reflecting its intrinsic wariness, the public also has some critical views …

  • 65% agree that “business corporations make too much profit” … ranging from 54% of Republicans to 68% of Independents and 70% of Dems.
  • Only 38% agree that “business corporations generally strike a fair balance between profits and the public interest” … Dems and Independents are much more critical in this regard.
  • And 76% believe too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few big companies … again, Dems are more likely to have this opinion.
  • When it comes to overall ratings of corporations, 57% of the public express a favorable opinion. Generally, younger people, those with more education, and Republicans have the most favorable opinions.

Pew asked respondents to rate 23 specific companies. Seven received favorability ratings of 90% or more — Johnson & Johnson (at #1), Google, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft, Home Depot, Dell Computer, and Apple Computer (based on respondents able to give a rating).

Bringing up the rear were ExxonMobil and Halliburton, with 53% and 45% favorability ratings, respectively. Halliburton is also the least known of the companies … unfortunately for Halliburton, to know them is to dislike them. Why is The Agitator not surprised?!

Roger & Tom

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

Anonymity Sucks - II

March 27, 2007

A few days ago I vented on the subject of anonymity on the web. I was particularly focusing on anonymity as a political shield, and in situations where unidentified pundits purport to offer expert advice, evaluations (be they of products or charities), and the like. I'm agin it.

And I'm going to claim ethical, respect-the-customer, permission marketing evangelist Seth Godin as an ally. Here's what he has to say, broadening the context.

Tom

P.S. Please read the Comments on my original post for other points of view.

I am sympathetic to the whistleblowing scenario. But even here intentions matter, IMHO. There's a big difference between spiteful employees using privileged inside information to conduct a personal jihad against a company or nonprofit, and genuine attempts to seek reform or redress where malfeasance is at issue. Eventually true whistleblowers realize they'll need to step forward … we do live in a system where the accused get to see their accusers.

Posted by admin | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, Seth Godin, communications | Leave a Comment 

Americans’ Confidence Wanes

March 26, 2007

We spent the weekend immersed in the Pew Research Center's just released Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007. Fascinating stuff. We hardly know where to begin.

If your nonprofit is engaged in mobilizing supporters around any cause or agenda whatsoever, there's relevant data in this report for you. It's “must read.”

Bottomline for Pew:

Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.

Today The Agitator will just stick to some fundamental attitudes Americans have toward government. Here are some teasers:

  • Only 57% say they have a good deal of confidence in the wisdom of the American people when it comes to making political decisions … down seven points over the last decade and twenty points down since 1964 (Johnson vs Goldwater, that was a tough call!).
  • Fully 62% agree that “when something is run by the government, it is usually wasteful and inefficient” … this is the highest level of cynicism in a decade … only among those under age 30 does a majority believe otherwise (Ah, youthful idealism!).
  • Only 45% agree that “the government is really run for the benefit of all the people” … most cynical about this are, surprise, Democrats.
  • Only 34% agree that “most elected officials care about what people like me think” … this is on a par with a 20-year low of 33% in 1994.
  • And 48% agree that “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” … Independents are most skeptical on this one.

Note that the figures above are averages for the total population. Read the study to get the full picture on where attitudinal differences are even sharper (or not) by partisan affiliation, generation, income, race, class and so on.

Tomorrow we'll look at Pew's findings re public attitudes toward corporate America and business regulation. Guess which two US corporations scored lowest in favorability?

Roger & Tom

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

Just Write The Check, Please!

March 23, 2007

There … we've said it.

We're reacting to a bunch of things …

  • A recent article in the New York Times, “Write a Check? The New Philanthropist Goes Further,” which opens:

Many wealthy Americans are no longer content to bequeath their money to favorite causes in their wills. Instead, they are creating a strategic plan for charitable gifts, to be carried out in their lifetime.

  • Donor activists like those at the blog GiveWell, where, with all the transparency and accountability afforded by remaining anonymous(!), donors evaluate and rate their charity prospects.
  • Donor advocates like Jeff Brooks at the Donor Power Blog (a blog we greatly admire), who admonishes us that the show belongs to the donors, not the causes or charities.

Hey Jeff, we like donors, honor them too.

But enough already. We respectfully disagree that the world's problems will be solved more readily if only donors are more empowered.

The best contribution many — arguably most — donors can make is to just write the check already (or tick the online donation box)!

Where's the evidence that donors as a class are smarter, more strategic, better informed, more persistent, more attentive, more inspired, more dedicated, more creative or more experienced than the poor blokes begging for their money?

Some might be. By the same token, anyone who's been around awhile has seen both major donors and big foundations make compliant grantees do foolish things. And how much due diligence goes into the typical $25 check to bring about world peace?

We say, give donors tons of respect. They don't have to give anyone a dime. But out of concern, moral commitment, guilt, fear, aspiration, ego gratification, whatever … they do.

What the recipients of their generosity owe them is gratitude, truthfulness and the best possible stewardship of their gift. As much information about the cause, its strategies and progress, and its financial integrity as the donor cares to absorb. And opportunities for further participation in ways that truly advance the cause (as opposed to make-work).

Beyond that, things can start to get unbalanced fast. Giving respect, and a voice, to donors doesn't mean that nonprofit leaders should abdicate leadership.

The smartest donors we've been around place their bet, their confidence, on smart nonprofit leaders and their visions and capabilities … and then let them get on with the job. Which isn't to say that these donors passively ignore performance and results … far from it.

The cause is (and should be) bigger, more enduring, than any donor. The cause comes first, not the donor. Cause organizations exist to advance agendas, not service donors. If that premise is reversed by over-attention and concern for the whimsy and caprice of “the donor” then the mission of the organization is likely lost.

Donors, informed or otherwise, can pick and choose amongst a myriad of causes and agendas and strategies. Some strategies will naturally offer a more robust role to donors as participants; others less so. Donors embrace the strategy (or move on); with rare exception, the strategy isn't molded to the donor.

To whom or what, then, is the “cause” and its leadership accountable? Because the real issue is accountability, not servitude.

With an open-ended series of posts under the headline, Measuring Up, The Agitator plans to explore the thorny issue of nonprofit accountability in depth in the weeks to come. We hope to engage and provoke you in the process.

Stay tuned for Measuring Up.

Roger and Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, Measuring Up, accountability, major donors, nonprofit management | Leave a Comment 

Anonymity Sucks

March 22, 2007

Yes, anonymity sucks.

Whether in the context of …

  • Posting a “Big Sister” Hillary video.
  • Writing an blog “evaluating” charities.
  • Making a “Comment” on someone's website or blog.
  • Sneaking a contribution to a political candidate.
  • Faking “grassroots support” for a legislative goal.
  • Hiding behind an e-mail nom de plume.

Anonymity used to attack or manipulate springs from cowardice and/or malice.

It is the antithesis of integrity.

It is the enemy of authentic discourse.

Whatever merit the message might hold.

Tom

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

MarketingSherpa

March 21, 2007

A recent post by Nancy Schwartz at Getting Attention reminded The Agitator just how valuable MarketingSherpa is.

Gail was touting Marketing Wisdom for 2007, their annual compilation of best marketing lessons. All sorts of marketers submit items about something they learned in the previous year, and the editors at MarketingSherpa pick out and publish the best … this year 110 tips in categories like email marketing, social networking, podcasting, blogging, websites, as well as traditional marketing and advertising.

We just saw their 39 picks for best email marketing in the previous year — best opt-in campaigns, e-newsletters for marketing purposes, direct sale and lead generation offers, e-welcomes, automated series, best tests, and more … all with informative write-ups and RESULTS.

Indeed, what we like most about MarketingSherpa is reliable data, data, data. Tons of marketing stats and benchmark data you can use for planning, presentations, etc. Over 700 case studies. Over 2100 creative samples. All kinds of marketing.

MarketingSherpa is not an agency pitching business. They're a “research firm specializing in tracking what works in all aspects of marketing (and what does not).” Anyone can submit material, but MarketingSherpa writes its own case studies and reports in-house after reviewing results information and interviewing the principals involved.

Some material is available for free, including a free e-newsletter with 237,000 readers.

But accessing most of their research requires an annual subscription in the $400 range. They offer a free trial period, group memberships, and promise to refund your fee on a pro-rated basis if you decide to cancel your subscription at any time.

We can't think of a better radar for nonprofit marketers wanting a steady source of fresh market-tested ideas.

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under email marketing, research | Leave a Comment 

Next Page »