12 Tips For Successful E-Campaigns

January 31, 2008

Thanks to Margaret Battistelli at FundRaising Success for publishing these twelve best practices for e-efforts.

They're proffered by Tom Gaffny, EVP for fundraising at Epsilon. As part of his homework, Tom made online contributions to 145 nonprofits and tracked their subsequent actions.

Here's the stunner: 49 groups (one-third) never even acknowledged the gift. For the sake of the stunningly incompetent fundraisiers involved, their careers and families, I hope Tom never releases the names of those organizations!

No question, there are at least 49 folks in those groups who oughta be fired!

Now, for those who believe in acknowledging gifts, here are Tom's recommended best practices:

1. Be relevant. Be local.

2. Highlight video on your website.

3. Engage constituents (quizzes, games, video, etc)

4. Leverage techniques that work in the mail (matching gifts, headlines, Post-its, etc)

5. Send information in bite-sized chunks.

6. Work at channel integration.

7. Personalize your organization.

8. Be visual.

9. Say thank you in different ways.

10.Ask “friends” to get the word out.

11.Be timely. Be there.

12.Highlight your partners.

Tom

Relevance Is The Word

January 30, 2008

Relevance. Relevance. Relevance!

Relevance, that is, to your prospect … not just to you or your nonprofit.

Now matter how truly needy, important and urgent your cause is, your donor gives because the act of giving satisfies a need of his or hers.

Finding what makes your need converge with their need is what establishing relevance is all about. And it's at the root of successful fundraising, from direct response appeals to major gift solicitation. Indeed, it's at the root of all successful selling. Period.

Jeff Brooks at DonorPowerBlog never misses the bulls-eye when he writes about fundraising copywriting.

In case you missed his most recent item on successful fundraising copy, Seven steps to a relevant fundraising offer, here it is.

Tom

Blogs And Your Earned Media Strategy

January 29, 2008

From Online Marketing Blog, here is an important discussion of two studies on journalists and their use of blogs for news ideas and sources.

Some factoids:

  • Nearly 70% of all reporters check a blog list on a regular basis;
  • Almost half of reporters say they are “lurkers”;
  • Over three-quarters see blogs as helpful in giving them story ideas, spins, and insight into the tone of an issue.

Do you think having a “Media Section” on your nonprofit's website will get the job done these days? Not a chance … too passive.

Of course, reporters have heard of googling. But more and more, they expect the new stuff to come to them via RSS and email feeds.

Tom

I Like Walmart

January 25, 2008

And I'm not the least bit ashamed.

This week, Lee Scott, CEO of Walmart, delivered a speech to his store managers called The Company of the Future. I urge you to read it.

In the speech, Scott sets forth a series of pro-social goals for the corporate behemoth. He says in effect, that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. He illustrates that there's nothing but upside to using Walmart's market power to advance environmental, health care and other social improvements. And he ties those aspirations to the values and self-regard of Walmart's employees.

Ironically, the same day Bill Gates was giving a speech to a much more rarified audience in Davos, sounding a similar theme of “creative capitalism” and noting that the market could deliver far more resources to “doing good” than governments and charities. Cool.

But somehow, I think Scott's speech will produce more results than Bill's, because Scott is actually imbedding a responsible worldview in the fabric of his company and its rank-and-file. Gates is still leveraging his private wealth.

I write of all this because so many nonprofits are struggling with the issue of how they should relate these days to the corporate world. Should they bash corporate excess or harness market forces. Should they advance their missions via the powerful machinery of corporate PR and advertising?

To me, these are “no-brainers.”

The ultimate head-in-the-sand position would be to adopt an anti-corporate stance as a matter of principle. Sure, there are plenty of corporate bad actors … and outright villainous ones. Sometimes we should just sue the bastards!

But that's not a valid reason for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The power of the marketplace to effect change is stupendous … and undeniable. As just one example, soon or later — and I believe sooner — billions of dollars will be made by inventors and entrepreneurs working on alternative energy sources. And in so doing, they will have more positive and direct impact on our environment than any constellation of environmental groups.

Al Gore thinks he might urge students to lay down in front of bulldozers to stop contruction of coal-fired power plants. That's cool.

Meantime, over the last two years, with aggressive low pricing, Walmart sold 145,000,000 low-energy light bulbs, enough to offset the need for three such plants (while saving customers $4 billion over the life of the bulbs).

Do I want to see Walmart wade into these issues. You bet I do … warts and all (for any human enterprise bigger than say, two people — from the Red Cross to Walmart — will have warts). I have no problem with win/win situations.

Do I want to see nonprofits collaborate with the Walmarts of the world? Absolutely!

Corporate and market power is a reality. It behooves nonprofits to do everything they can to channel and harness that power. Public opinion polling by both nonprofit and corporate sponsors delivers a consistent message … the public is expressing higher and higher expectations that corporations must behave in a pro-social manner. Nonprofits must, forgive the expression, capitalize upon those expectations.

Do nonprofits need to proceed with caution? Absolutely.

They need to be very explicit about their goals in any corporate relationship, and totally convinced that the purposes of each party, though not necessarily exactly the same, are clearly aligned. Genuine, substantial program advancement must be at the core of the relationship. And of course, they must be satisifed with the core integrity of their partners.

So right on, Lee Scott! Today you get an Agitator raise … on the condition that you donate it to charity.

Tom

Do You Lie And Cheat?

January 24, 2008

Researchers say “Yes.” Almost everybody does. The only real questions are how much and under what circumstances.

Here's a curious piece of research on the matter from the Harvard Business Review, courtesy of the blog Trust Matters.

When did you last lie or cheat? 'Fess up now!

Tom

Trust And Transparency

January 23, 2008

Regular Agitator readers know the high value we place on trust as the essential core attribute of any brand, including your nonprofit.

And the doorway to trust is transparency. For wherever a donor, a customer, a constituent sees or senses a veil or a curtain, their visceral reaction is suspicion, distrust.

If you doubt the importance of trust, just reflect on the recent self-destruction of GiveWell, the folks who were advocating transparency — indeed nakedness — in foundation decision-making and evaluation. Whether they can regain trust and be viable remains to be seen.

From a different perspective, here is a piece from a consultant and blogger who specializes in “trust,” on the transparency of John McCain, at least as that author sees it, and the benefits of this trait to his candidacy.

To be sure, McCain is not the favorite cup of tea for many (most?) Agitator readers, but it's hard to deny his unique accessibility and straightforwardness.

And it's impossible to deny that trust isn't at the bottom of successful selling, whether you're selling a cause, a candidate, or a product.

Tom

Fundraising Widget Case Study

January 22, 2008

Here's a great viral marketing case study on how a poll widget was used to substantially boost online fundraising response.

The group is Music for Relief, formed in association with band Linkin Park to raise money for victims of various natural disasters. In this case, the focus was victims of California wildfires.

BUT, the case study is only available via MarketingSherpa through January 24th.

Tom

Does Your Online Monthly Giving Measure Up?

January 21, 2008

I've been mulling over some research on online monthly giving reported last month by M+R Strategic Services.

Their findings are based on a survey of nearly 70 organizations plus analysis of the hard data from eight large high-profile nonprofits.

Some interesting data here against which to benchmark your own online monthly giving program …

  • Average monthly gift of $28 for international aid groups (driven I assume by child sponsor groups).
  • Average monthly gift of $16 for other organizations.
  • Retention averages 70% in the first year, dropping to 52% in the second year.

What was most striking to me was the degree to which programs differ on key aspects like timing (when donors are first approached for monthly giving) and cultivation (how donors are acknowledged and communicated with once they've become monthly donors).

For example, only 41% (a surprisingly low figure to me) send their first monthly sustainer invite out within eight weeks of the donor first coming on board; about 30% attempt to acquire monthly donors within six weeks of the one-time donor's first gift.

More than half of respondent groups conduct appeals for monthly giving only “infrequently” or not at all. Compared to quarterly or annual campaigns at 16% each, and monthly campaigns at 14%.

Patterns are equally diverse on sending acknowledgements and on whether cultivation copy or additional money appeals are included.

Most direct response fundraising agencies have a “testing bible” of one sort or another. Based on what I've seen, for example, I'd be quite surprised if consultants didn't advise against letting too much grass grow under the feet of new donors before soliciting them for monthly giving.

So I'm a bit surprised that there isn't more of a concensus around “best practices” when it comes to such a lucrative fundraising approach for most nonprofits.

To the degree that these programs seem to be all over the place, I'd like to believe that organizations were acting on the basis of relevant testing.

But that might be too much to hope for, given how “slack” the reported programs seem to operate and given how frequently online giving programs lack supervision from seasoned direct marketers.

Any consultants want to weigh in on this?

Tom

A Raise To The March Of Dimes

January 18, 2008

The March of Dimes has changed the name of Walk America, one of the grande dames of fundraising events, to March for Babies as part of an effort to re-position the organization to the public.

As Stephanie Strom reports in the NYTimes, there's more than a name change happening here. Check out the related new website.

The Agitator just loves it when big, old nonprofits take risks (Walk America is a $100 million+ fundraising institution, after all), refresh their brands and adapt to new expectations and opportunities.

Dr. Jennifer Howse, president of March of Dimes, you deserve a raise.

Roger & Tom

The Power Of Multimedia Storytelling

January 17, 2008

Here, from the New York Times, is a very powerful way to tell a story … combining images, voiceover, music.

The NYT uses it for news coverage, in this case featuring Doctors Without Borders.

But I think you'll readily see how the approach could be used in a nonprofit fundraising or activist engagement context … or simply to deliver a message with more impact.

Warning: the example here includes photos of victims of bullets and bombs.

Tom

P.S. Thanks to Ellen Church at Craver, Mathews, Smith for the pointer.

Next Page »