Email Headache … And Solution

July 31, 2007

Just when you thought you had figured out how to create emails that look decent and get read, along comes partypooper MarketingSherpa!

They say:

“64% of key decisionmakers are viewing your carefully crafted email on their Blackberrys and other mobile devices … And, chances are, your email looks downright awful.”

Not surprisingly, their data indicate that mobile email users skew young and wealthy.

The good news is that MarketingSherpa has prepared this report, which is chock full of tips on how to optimize your email for mobile devices.

Step #1 … find a Blackberry and see for yourself what your emails look like!

The bad news … the report is available only till August 1 for non-subscribers to MarketingSherpa. Read it quick!

Some tips:

  • Get your compelling call to action in the first 15-25 characters of your subject line.
  • Mobile readers scan (versus read), so the first screen — 100 total characters or 20-25 words — really needs to sing.
  • Because a message opened on mobile will probably appear opened (and no longer bolded) on your readers' “home” computer, try to get them to flag your message for later attention.

Thanks to Ellen Church of Craver, Mathews, Smith for flagging The Agitator on this valuable report.

We urge our readers to check MarketingSherpa regularly for their empirically grounded marketing tactics and insights. They're worth a subscription.

Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under General Post, email marketing, online advocacy, online fundraising | Leave a Comment 

Is Your Nonprofit Headed For The Scrap Heap?

July 30, 2007

Todd Cohen at Philanthropy Journal has made it easy for The Agitator to furnish a Monday mind stretch this week.

Last week he published an outstanding report on Nonprofit Technology. Lots of examples, from nonprofits large and small, of how new communications technologies are being used by organizations and — increasingly and often independently — by their supporters. Plus keen observations from some of Agitator's favorite minds … Katrin Verclas of Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN), Mike Johnston of HJC New Media in Toronto, and Madeline Stanionis of Watershed.

Here's Todd's challenge:

“Nonprofits that simply plug new media into old ways of doing business may be bound for the scrap heap.

To survive and thrive, nonprofits must adapt to the engaged new-media world in which individuals with easy access to computers, mobile devices and wireless connectivity are transforming the way charitable dollars are raised and social causes are promoted.

The challenge for nonprofits is to wed tried-and-true principles of operating, fundraising and service-delivery with the emerging new-media culture that engages the collective power of individual voices, values and assets for the common good.”

Nothing we can add to that. Todd gets a raise for this excellent report.

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under You Deserve a Raise, new media, nonprofit management, online advocacy, online fundraising | Leave a Comment 

Top Five Things To Worry About

July 27, 2007

If your job is to market a nonprofit, raising funds or advocating issues, you probably worry from time to time about the fate of your cause or charity.

In case you don't, and need a prod, here's my “top five” list of things to worry about:

1. Does the “other” organization doing what you do, do it better?

2. Is your cost of acquiring new donors becoming unsustainable?

3. Is your online strategy and presence uninspiring?

4. Is your organization indistinguishable from others doing essentially the same thing?

5. Is the New York Times, or the major newspaper in your town, doing an “investigative” piece on your organization?

I feel your pain.

Tom

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

Why Did You Come To Work Today?

July 26, 2007

People devoted to raising funds for nonprofit causes and charities do rather important work.

Sometimes when we get down in the weeds we forget that.

Here's a reminder Ellen Church, prez of Craver, Mathews, Smith & Company recently sent to her staff.

Whether you work as fundraising professional for a nonprofit or for an agency servicing that universe, her exhortation applies …

“We build movements of people who want to end poverty housing, end animal abuse, end hunger, end the disparity of basic health care in the world, protect constitutional rights, etc. This is the way we motivate people - not just to write the check or click “give now” on the website - but to get involved and feel passionate about the organization and to believe that they are part of a solution.

We don't just produce mail or raise money through direct response - we build movements that change the world. The work we do each day is not to get the mail out - that is just the mechanics needed to get to the end result.

What we do each day is raise awareness for the most relevant and important causes the world faces - and create communications that motivate people to care about other people (or animals) and to do their part to ensure that everyone has the right to live with dignity - feed their children, live in decent housing, receive a vaccine that costs 3cents and can save their life.

When you are approving the blueline, creating the art, writing the copy or agonizing over strategy today, remember that is the means to the end result. The end result we all hope for is leaving the world a better place than we found it.”

Well said, Ellen.

Tom

Disclaimer: The Agitator is a godchild of CMS.

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

Is Your Homepage Dead?

July 25, 2007

Should you think of your nonprofit's homepage as the door to an apartment building, a book, a restaurant, or a first date?

Or is it increasingly irrelevant, given today's patterns of internet usage?

The issue: fewer and fewer visitors enter a website via its homepage (less than 50% and trending down according to some experts). How and where are they entering? What are the implications of this behavior? What should homepages attempt to accomplish these days?

iMedia Connection has assembled an excellent array of expert opinion in this stimulating piece on the “homepage dilemma.”

Originally, homepages represented guesses (hopefully, educated ones) about what your visitors might interested in. And 75% or more of your visitors entered via that front door. Many organizations handled the guesswork (and too many still do) by offering everything including the kitchen sink on that cluttered page. But now, because they have often used search engines, visitors arrive in many nooks and crannies. Your site analysis should tell you precisely where.

Yes, there are still lots of browsers out there, who still come to your homepage as a sort of virtual first date with your organization. So your homepage still must entice.

But bottomline: to keep up with visitor trends, you need to study which pages on your website are serving as the primary entry pages … and then treat each of those pages as if they are creating the first impression of your organization. And use those deeper entry points as clues about what your homepage visitors might really be looking for.

Tom

PS: If this topic is important to you from a fundraising or activist recruitment perspective, be sure to read our post Closing the Online Donation, which points to excellent resources on crafting effective landing pages for converting your offers.

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

Fair Pay At ASPCA?

July 24, 2007

Awhile back The Agitator awarded one of its “You deserve a raise” accolades to the marketing team at ASPCA for their creative use of online video.

A few days ago the New York Times ran this piece noting some criticism of ASPCA for what some regard as an insufficient allocation of budget to the group's Humane Law Enforcement arm. Apparently about 6% of the group's $58 million budget (or $3.6 million) goes to the team that responds to specific animal cruelty complaints, making it one of the largest programs of its kind in America.

Still, some, including an Agitator reader who “agitated” to us, believe that's insufficient. “Where does the money go?” he asked.

It's hard for outsiders, even the NYT, to penetrate the ins and outs of priority-setting in a nonprofit. In this case, some knowledgeable observers were cited as supportive of ASPCA; some others were critical; no one alleged malfeasance of any kind. The “debate” was all about priorities.

First, we have to say that complaining the ASPCA is not responding to enough of the animal abuse claims it receives strikes us a bit like attacking Worldvision because it isn't nurturing enough needy children in Africa. The sad reality is that demand exceeds supply in all kinds of situations where suffering is occurring.

And, we observe that the ASPCA clearly has a multi-pronged strategy for dealing with animal abuse, including financing an animal hospital, making grants to other animal welfare groups, increasing pet adoptions, lowering euthanasia rates, AND — that bugaboo of all nonprofit critics — spending money on marketing and communications (which received $6.5 million).

Now, The Agitator admits to being wildly biased, but in our experience, VERY few nonprofits spend too much on selling themselves and their agenda. In fact, the reverse is the case.

Of course, fundraising efficiencies need to be appropriate. But still, most groups — especially those whose business is to advocate and educate and persuade — spend too little doing precisely that.

In the case of the ASPCA, it appears that 11% of the budget is spent on communications. Assuming the money is spent efficiently and smartly, we'd have no trouble endorsing two or three times that amount! Why? Because, if strategically spent, it will generate even greater financial and public support going forward.

But there's more …

Continue reading “Fair Pay At ASPCA?”

Posted by admin | Filed Under You Deserve a Raise, communications, nonprofit management | Leave a Comment 

Wanted: For Job Of The Future

July 23, 2007

Environmental Defense is seeking candidates for the following position:

Brand Marketing Promotions Director

A lot of job openings pass by me, so why note this one … beyond the fact that Environmental Defense is my most recent alma mater?

Because branding is becoming a survival skill for nonprofits. And somebody needs to carry specific responsibility for it.

Because I'm personally familiar with the organization, I can attest that other, more senior people at Environmental Defense — execs and board members — think strategically about the brand vitality of the organization. But the creation of this position confirms that the organization is serious about operationalizing that thinking.

[Indeed, when I arrived there as chief marketer several years ago, one of my most senior colleagues routinely chastized me, fondly I think, if I even mentioned the term “branding”! Made her skin crawl.]

From a strategic perspective, nonprofits need to be able to define themselves sharply and memorably, hopefully in a manner that is true to their soul and strengths, AND that differentiates them from other like organizations. Then they must be systematic about both defending and projecting that brand.

Even the “grandest” of nonprofit brands can suffer body blows, some more deservedly than others, when critics or skeptics begin to peer into them — think of Habitat for Humanity, ACLU, Nature Conservancy, Smithsonian, American Red Cross in recent times.

A strong brand can survive its own lapses, even calamities … but only with mindful stewardship.

Defense aside, only a strong and strongly presented brand can even hope to compete for public attention and donor/activist support in today's environment where …

  • communications are so numerous in volume;
  • new communications channels, mostly decentralized and even personalized, are proliferating, making delivery of consistent messaging hugely difficult;
  • entrenched internal silos stymie vital communications and marketing integration within nonprofits;
  • generational communications styles and preferences differ so much, both within organizations and across their constituencies;
  • the culture, at least in America, prizes “new” above all, and old nonprofit brands must constantly re-earn their status; and,
  • the “barriers to entry” for new brands is lowered by the relative affordability, content depth and global reach of the online medium.

Add to all of this the stampeding of corporations toward social responsibility (because it's increasingly critical to the bottomline). As corporations seek to attach their brands to noble causes, generally through partnerships with nonprofits, the nonprofits face additional challenges and opportunities with regard to their own brand management.

So I hope Environmental Defense succeeds in finding a brilliant, sophisticated and creative candidate for its position … maybe even an Agitator reader!

And if your organization can't afford the “luxury” of a dedicated staffer for something as non-nonprofit sounding and other-worldly as “branding,” I urge you nonetheless to assign this responsibility explicitly to someone. Ideally someone as high in your hierarchy as possible, but not to someone who isn't passionate about the challenges involved in branding, and not to someone who won't commit the time to think about it and advocate for its needs.

Tom

P.S. If you type “webmaster” into The Agitator's search box, or go here, you'll find three posts on my other favorite position of the future for nonprofits … Chief Digital Officer. Give me my branding and digital czars, and I'll build you an organization with legs for the future.

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

Direct Mail vs. Online Acquisition - II

July 20, 2007

“Can't we all just get along?” asks Kim Cubine of direct response fundraising agency Adams Hussey.

She's commenting on yesterday's Agitator post, which referenced the “Great Debate” at recent Bridge Conference between direct mail and online donor fundraising.

Nothing like hard data to back up a point! Here's her full comment:

“Instead of debating which channel is the most effective we should be creating multiple giving opportunities for our clients.

Donor silos are set to fail. Donors are humans, we can market to them based on last behavior, but we also must remember that donors are fickle and might feel like answering their phone or openng their mail one day. So it is important to use an integrated, multiple means of communication.

Our research for one client demonstrates this specifically: In analyzing the behavior of First Time Online Donors from the current membership, it was facinating to and redeeming to prove this. Before making their First Online gift, 27 % gave to a prospect direct mail package. 17% to an direct mail or phone appeal appeal. And 21.6 % had made a renewal gift thru the mail or phone prior to making their FIRST online gift. We then analyzed subsequent gift behavior Post First Time online gift: 24% gave their next gift online donors and 48% gave their next gift either through direct mail or the phone. [Ed note: apparently balance made no further gifts.]

This analysis included 2 years worth of data and over 28,000 gifts.

So stop the food fight and gather at the common table - there is a big feast to enjoy.”

We agree 1000% with Kim's core point that donors, not fundraisers, will choose how donors will give. And the data is clear that donors will cross back and forth across channels to suit their own needs and preferences.

That said, we also stand by our observation yesterday that, so far, direct mail still outperforms online in most instances when it comes to new donor acquisition. Even when causes conduct exciting online issue campaigns that use petition-signing etc. to generate new e-names, those names convert to donors more efficiently through direct mail follow-up.

There are lots of reasons, however, why the trendline favors online acquisition in the years to come. That's why we've predicted online fundraising revenue will overtake direct mail within ten years.

Meantime, here's more hard data confirming the virtues of integrating your fundraising channels and tactics NOW! This White Paper from Convio based on the experience of SPCA of Texas should convince you. Bottomline from Convio: “Donors engaged through multiple communications channels have higher long-term value, retention and lifetime value.” Nuff said!

Integrate or get fired!

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under You Oughta Be Fired, direct marketing, nonprofit management, online fundraising | Leave a Comment 

Direct Mail vs. Online Acquisition

July 19, 2007

The recent Bridge Conference in Washington focused attention on the need for nonprofit fundraisers to integrate their direct mail and online channels.

Here's a good summary of key points from Karen Taggart at Care2, as published by FundRaising Success Advisor.

As we see it, for virtually all nonprofits, direct mail is still the acquisition king. These days, emergency relief is probably the only category where online can trump mail for soliciting new gifts. Obviously “speed to market” + “no need to explain” are the keys there.

And while online revenues from existing donors are steeply climbing, there's still not a lot of data being shared regarding the extent of cannibalization. For nonprofits who are successfully moving donors online, is their total revenue pie growing, or is online revenue growing at the expense of direct mail income?

As we've pointed out before, even if channel migration is occurring, the result should at least be more net income, given the lower costs of online solicitation and gift processing.

Roger & Tom

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

Is Your Nonprofit More Inspiring Than A Vacuum Cleaner?

July 18, 2007

Too many nonprofits treat their donors as just that … money givers.

They don't recognize that at least some donors (your “best customers” so to speak) are probably motivated and prepared to take the further step of affirmatively championing a cause or charity they're involved with.

Traditionally, we tend to wait for donors to cross some magic threshold — say, $500 or $1,000 — before we even consider that we might ask them to play a bigger role. But at that precise moment, other “considerations” often come into play that can thwart the process of escalating their role.

For one thing, at that magic threshold, “control” of the donor often passes from the “membership” (i.e., direct marketing) folks to the “development” folks. The latter tend to be rather “protective” of their donors, often passionately resisting putting any request to these individuals that doesn't end with the words … “give more.” Otherwise, “don't bother them.”

That's a shortsighted approach.

For one thing, we see over and over that increased giving correlates with increased participation and involvement. And one of the best ways to involve a donor is to enlist them as advocates or “missionaries” for the cause. Amidst your donor pool are emotional individuals who actually believe in your cause and feel they made an important and wise choice in supporting you. They would in fact feel that they were affirming their wise choice if they encouraged others to follow in their steps.

The fact is, with consumer products from bourbon to vacuum cleaners, the experience is that a core group of product users will become so passionate about the product that they will go out of their way to recommend it … and even improve and transform the product itself. This piece from Paul Gillin, author of The New Influencers: A Marketer's Guide to the New Social Media, nicely illustrates the point, including the wonderful example of Roomba robotic vacuum cleaners!

Your nonprofit, we hope, can inspire more passionate brand advocacy than a vacuum cleaner!

This of course requires providing donors with appropriate support and tools with which to proselytize. That makes more work for already hard-pressed membership or development staffs.

So that's why, historically, the effort wasn't even considered unless a donor was a “major” donor. Only major donors were assumed to have sufficient passion — and to have made a deeply considered commitment — to be potential candidates for a missionary role. Maybe that was practical thinking in the past.

But no longer.

Today, with the internet and the availability of user-friendly software tools for “customer (donor) relationship management,” some nonprofits are finding that: a) even “small” donors are perfectly willing to take a brand advocate role for the organization; and b) they can be efficiently supported in this role.

The presidential campaigns offer many good examples. Setting the pace is Obama, with thousands of small gift Obama supporters — “microbundlers” — using online tools to conduct their own fundraising and recruiting for the candidate.

For nonprofits, the online tools available from leading vendors like Convio and Kintera make it easy for nonprofit managers to set up “missionary” programs, and for donors to go about their proselytizing. On a smaller scale, easily installed online “widgets” can let your supporters promote your cause on their own websites, blogs and social networks. And of course the blossoming social networking sites themselves are tailor made for personal proselytizing.

We urge you to take a fresh look at your “brand advocates” program … or lack of one.

Don't let “membership versus development” issues get in the way. Don't assume that only your biggest donors have sufficient motivation to proselytize. And don't assume that “give more” is the only ask worth making.

Roger & Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, branding, major donors, nonprofit management, social networking | Leave a Comment 

Next Page »