$2.5 Million And Counting?

May 30, 2008

To close out a week featuring online social networks, here’s a Washington Post report on the fundraising results from Causes, the personal donating application on Facebook and MySpace.

Launched a year ago, Causes has generated $2.5 million in donations to about 20,000 nonprofits. There are 60,000 users of the application daily on Facebook; 25,000 on MySpace … 12 million registered users overall. That’s about 21 cents a user. Is something wrong with my math?

Small Tiny potatoes at this point. Will it grow?

Once donors find a particular cause to support, will they begin to give more directly? I’m just not convinced that applications like Causes will serve as more than gateways or introductions for initial giving. I can’t imagine a recipient charity not trying to build a direct relationship with the donor. And if they reach out with any skill, the charity should be able to offer a relationship far more compelling than the original Causes connection.

There might be terrific applications and success stories on social network fundraising in the future, but I don’t think they will include Causes or the "mainstream" social nets. Rather, I think the successes will come from individual nonprofits figuring out how to use social networking tools to build and empower their own online communities.

Agree? Disagree?

Tom

Thanks to Philanthropy Today for the pointer.

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, new media, online fundraising, social networking | Leave a Comment 

More Social Networking

May 29, 2008

Sorry, but I’m on a social networking roll this week.

Some interesting articles and sites to ponder as you chart a course for your nonprofit …

Is there a future in setting up your own proprietary social network … indeed, will the prospects of Facebook and MySpace fade as folks head to more niche sites as they follow their main passions, hobbies, causes, localities? Read what blogger Catharine Taylor, a digital media and advertising veteran, has to say.

While you’re at it, check out the Social Media Insider blog. It’s aimed at commercial players, but still lots of relevance.

If you’re a subscriber, Ad Age offers nine profiles of consumers using social media and where they are.

Here’s a white paper from RepNation Media and mr.youth (an agency) on Consumer 2.0: Five Rules to Engaging a New Breed of Consumer. Though not specifically on social media, this paper offers insights as to why social sites and networks will be so powerful at influencing consumers (donors) in the future.

  • My favorite rule: Niche is the new norm.
  • My favorite factoid: 14-24 year olds have on average 53 people they consider to be online friends, and all are considered real friends despite not having met many in person … a decade ago, that number would have been 5-10 and they would all be face-to-face. Think about that in terms of grassroots fundraising or cause proselytizing.
  • My favorite observation: "As consumers increasingly gravitate to more efficient means of communication, they will expect the same from those trying to communicate with them." Case in point … my 14-year-old daughter refuses to accept calls from her parents on her cell phone … it’s text or forget it!

Speaking of teens … It’s been around 8-9 months now, have you looked at Think MTV, the music channel’s social activism and community site? You might want to, if your concerns include discrimination, environment, politics, substance abuse, faith, health, education, human rights, relationships & sex, war & peace, poverty or crime. Whew!

Time to take my Geritol!

Tom

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, innovation, new media, online advocacy, online fundraising, social networking | 1 Comment 

Understanding the “Millenials”

May 28, 2008

Yesterday we wrote about the impact online social media will have on the pursuit of public interest goals.

And we noted that for most nonprofits, most of whose constituencies still tilt toward Boomers and older (at least in terms of active donors), this new media wave is still out there on the horizon line. Right now the wave is surfed mainly by under-30s.

But it’s not too early to learn about these "kids" and how they use media.

Allison Fine has written a terrific paper for the Case Foundation that should be the first stop in your educational process.

She characterizes this age cohort — the Millennials (age 15-29) — as "Social Citizens" (though she notes that not all Millennials are Social Citizens, and vice versa) and describes them thusly:

"Millennials are hands-on ‘experience seekers’ who don’t trust the reporting of others. They want to experience change, to touch and feel it, and they want a menu of options for acting now and seeing results in real time for real people."

How well can your nonprofit deliver against that expectation?!

Further:

"For young people, digital connectedness is as natural to their way of being as telephones and rock music were to their parents. More than 20 million teenagers use the Internet daily. Eighty percent of teens have mobile phones. Three-quarters of them read news online, and more than half have accounts on social networking sites."

Allison’s reference to "digital connectedness" as "natural to their way of being" nails it for me. The relation of under-30s to media is so different — than that of even the most wired of us Boomers and elders — that we can scarcely do more than look on and try feebly to anticipate some of the consequences!

Allison’s paper is an enormous help. Allison, you deserve a raise!

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under You Deserve a Raise, new media, social networking | 1 Comment 

Social Media For Social Good

May 27, 2008

Joe Marchese, president of socialvibe, has written this great overview of the contribution social media are beginning to make in the cause world.

He observes:

"Because of social media, not only can people in need, be they class room teachers or farmers in the third world, publish their stories and have them read, but these platforms actually make it possible for people to band together to make a difference. Finally, social media completes the loop by allowing the teachers, students or farmer s to actually thank those that made the difference. Talk about value in connecting people.

Can social media make charitable giving market efficient? With, less bureaucracy, more transparency into the actual effect of your dollars, it would seem that improving the efficiency of charitable giving is not only possible, but likely.

But monetary donations are only part of the story. Just as important is the ability for charities to spread their message. Whereas before non-profits counted on the donation of media from major media companies, now non-profits need only look to their supporters. People are media in social media."

But read the full article … it cites a variety of sites and examples you should look at if your nonprofit is dipping its toes into the social media world.

Just one caution. As our latest DonorTrends survey and other sources indicate, the current donor base for most nonprofits — Boomers and older — have not yet embraced social media in the numbers or intensity of the under-30s. So keep in mind two things: 1) different strokes for different folks; 2) from a pure fundraising dollars perspective, social media are tomorrow, not today.

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, new media, online advocacy, online fundraising, social networking | Leave a Comment 

Improving Your “Store Experience”

May 23, 2008

I just came across this study conducted by the IBM Institute for Business Value of customer "Advocates" in the retail setting.

For this consumer study, "Advocates" were defined as meeting three criteria:

  • they recommend their retailer to their friends and family;
  • they would increase their purchase amount if their retailer offered products found at other stores; and,
  • they would stay with their retailer even if another retailer offered a competitive product.

Now, wouldn’t we all like donors who met those critieria?!

As you would expect, customers who are Advocates (as opposed to Apathetics or Antagonists) are far and away the most valuable in profitability terms.

In the retail setting, the factors that induce customers to become Advocates are, in order of importance:

  • Store experience — the critical tangibles and intangibles that make it pleasant, enjoyable and easy to shop, triggering a variety of positive emotions along the way (this factor is by far the most important, and is also the strongest determinant of customer Antagonists!)
  • Convenience
  • Assortment
  • Quality
  • Customer service (personally, I’m surprised this didn’t rank higher)
  • Multichannel
  • Product availability

Importantly, the study notes that simply "meeting expectations" (e.g., with respect to attractive pricing) does not guarantee Advocates; it is the price of entry. 78% of all customers say their primary retailer meets their expectations, but across all retailers studied, the average percentage of customer Advocates was by comparison only 21% … and the highest was Wegmans at 53%. Other leaders by segment were Nordstrom (large-format apparel, 28%), Costco pharmacies (pharmacies, 27%), Barnesandnoble.com (online retailers, 27%), and The Children’s Place (mall-based specialty, 22%).

Can we apply the "Store Experience" concept to nonprofits and their donors?

Certainly it should apply pretty readily to "bricks & mortar" nonprofits — museums, theaters, hospitals, schools and others with a physical embodiment that donors can experience (or, in many cases, such as service agencies, observe).

It gets a lot harder for nonprofits dealing in intangibles, like policy advocacy, or remote impacts, like international disaster relief or medical research. In those cases, progress and results can be reported … and maybe even visually depicted. But the donor has little "experience" of the organization itself other than in the sense of customer experience (do they thank me for my contribution, correct my address, take me off their telemarketing list?).

This is one of the reasons I’m such a fan of online video. This medium does at least permit the donor to virtually "experience" their nonprofit’s leaders and "see" programs in action. And certainly a nonprofit’s website creates a virtual world that can communicate a personality or ambiance, and be more welcoming and enjoyable to use (or not).

Any other ideas out there as to how a nonprofit can enhance its "Store Experience?"

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, Hot Research, branding, donor retention | Leave a Comment 

Bringing A Dead Brand Back To Life

May 22, 2008

I’ll say it flat out … this, from the New York Times magazine, is one of the most fascinating marketing articles I’ve ever read.

It’s about a company that buys "dead" brands … the intellectual property left from products no longer made, like Brim coffee, SalonSelectives shampoos, Nuprin, and Underalls … and brings them back to market in new incarnations. As the founder says: “There’s no retail presence, no product, no distribution, no trucks, no plants. Nothing. All that exists is memory. We’re taking consumers’ memories and starting entire businesses.”

Often these are brands that died, not because consumers rejected them, but because they were taken over and retired by even larger brands owned by conglomerates … so Brim is replaced by the new parent’s larger Maxwell House. But the fond consumer memories of Brim survive.

The key point is that such brands are nothing more than memories … and often inaccurate ones at that. Still, their essence lingers in the mind of consumers, and can often be re-attached to more contemporary versions of the original product … or even to completely new products that the "old" brand never encompassed. So, for example, the venerable Stanley tool brand can be attached to ladders, a product Stanley itself has never actually made.

Says the author: "The brand equity has value on its own, but it can be grafted onto something newer and, perhaps, more innovative."

I’ve had a lot of fun thinking about how this might apply to "dormant" nonprofit brands.

Brands like Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the ACLU, the National Organization for Women. Which of these possesses enough remnant equity to be re-invented, resuscitated? To have a second life? How would their original essence — that so many found so compelling — be reintroduced and used to win new advocates?

As one academic cited in the article observed … with "deceased" brands that get a second life, it wasn’t their fault that they died in the first place. His point … the consumer didn’t abandon the brand; the brand abandoned or was withdrawn from its consumers.

What do you think? Can a "dormant" or "deceased" nonprofit brand be resuscitated? Or does it only get one chance?

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Uncategorized, branding | 7 Comments 

“Did I Fly All The Way Here For This?!”

May 21, 2008

Seth Godin, in his usual effortless way, raises a point that’s so obvious, but still makes you think.

Talking about rising fuel and other "transaction" costs of air travel, he observes that if you’re going to get on a plane these days and travel to a distant conference or sales meeting, it had better be one hell of a meeting!

I’d add mere driving to a meeting!

The harder it is to get there, the higher the expectations. We can all see where this leads in terms of traveling to make a fundraising pitch or to see the brass at headquarters … if it’s really worth doing at all, these days it had better be spectacular in terms of preparation, presentation, and potential results!

But it got me to thinking … where else have expectations been drastically raised? And become commensurately more difficult to meet?

Well, what about getting a major donor to part with a significant contribution? Or fighting through the clutter and competition to get a mere $25 via direct mail or online?

What do you think? Is it getting harder to raise a dollar? If you think so, why is that?

More competitors for the dollar? More skepticism amongst donors? Higher demands for "proof" of effectiveness? A less generous donor pool (for what reasons)? Despair over the intractability of major problems?

Is it getting harder?

Tom

 

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, fundraising | 1 Comment 

The Future Of Online Campaigning

May 20, 2008

We don’t frequently pitch conferences and panel discussions, but here’s one sponsored by Convio that features some folks who we think really know what they’re talking about.

It’s at the National Press Club in Washington this week (May 21 at 9:30am EDT), and available via webcast.

Title: How the Internet Is Changing Philanthropy, Advocacy and Politics.

Panelists from Facebook, Rock the Vote, Echo Ditto, the campaign world, American Cancer Society … quite a spectrum.

I’m hoping it will be archived for you late readers of this post!

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under online advocacy, online fundraising | 2 Comments 

Test Your Donation Landing Pages

May 19, 2008

Guest Agitator Nick Allen of Donordigital shares some online research generated with Amnesty International.

The project tried to isolate variables that significantly improved the fundraising conversion effectiveness of website "donate" pages.

Here’s Nick’s summary of key findings:

  • Bigger donate buttons helped convert more donors;
  • Vividly colored donation buttons had varying levels of impact on donation page conversion;
  • Removing unnecessary fields from personal information forms significantly increased conversion;
  • Polite header copy yielded better conversion than a more forceful call-to-action.

And here is the full research report.

Our takeaway … we’ve barely in the infancy of isolating the technique and tactical variables that might positively influence online fundraising results on a consistent basis. As Nick’s full report describes, even the same technique — e.g., using bright red "Submit" buttons — produced opposite results in different configurations of the tested pages.

Our advice … read all the online testing data you can get your hands on.

Then design your own tests, starting with attempting to validate in your unique context the most consistent results reported elsewhere. Move from there to testing variables that might be more uniquely relevant for your situation. Always be very clear about the marketing hypothesis you are testing.

And test, test, test!

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Hot Research, online fundraising | Leave a Comment 

Donors Need Emergency Help - II

May 16, 2008

Yesterday we wrote about the difficulty, during natural disaster calamities, for donors to assess which relief charities might put their donation to work most effectively.

From Matthew Sherrington, now at EveryChild in London (and formerly at Greenpeace USA) here is a very informative description of the way disaster relief fundraising is coordinated in the UK. Does anyone think this might work in the US?

Dear Agitator,

There’s a bit of a disconnect between your wanting donors to humanitarian disasters to give from the heart and “leave the brain out of it”, and your proposed solution of country-by-country reviews for donors to consult. Seems like too much work to me, for both someone to compile, and for donors to plough through. However, your point about wanting to ensure donations are used most effectively is of course spot-on.

An alternative solution to your problem is the set-up here in the UK – the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), www.dec.org.uk which is a consortium of thirteen humanitarian agencies. When a disaster is deemed massive enough by the committee members, (which unfortunately also means one getting massive media attention), the DEC kicks in as a coordinated appeal, supported by endorsed air-time appeals by broadcasters including the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7390971.stm

Member agencies don’t (indeed, can’t) advertise for funds because the DEC takes that on. Rules stipulate that the member organizations’ own appeal income is pooled for the period of the joint appeal. And monies raised are allocated to members according to their ability to operate and spend it on the ground in response to that emergency. The DEC-funded response is collectively evaluated too. That’s about the sum of it – you could check the exact procedures with the DEC directly.

But the concerned general public knows where to go, hopefully with confidence that money will be spent appropriately through the most effective organizations on the ground. Inter-agency competition is put to one side for the period of the joint appeal, in the interests of maximizing response to the emergency first. In return, the DEC doesn’t subsequently market to donors itself.

You can check out the current Burma appeal, and a record of past appeals, including the £390 million (about $800 million) raised for the 2004 Asia Tsunami.

www.dec.org.uk/

If you check out the sites of consortium members, you should see their home page appeals are all identified with the DEC appeal. For example:

www.oxfam.org.uk

www.savethechildren.org.uk

www.worldvision.org.uk

I’m not sure anything similar exists in the US.

Best wishes,

Matthew
Director of Fundraising & Marketing
EveryChild
matthew.sherrington@everychild.org.uk

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, accountability, fundraising | 1 Comment 

Next Page »