How To Raise Funds Online

June 30, 2008

For months, we’ve been urging readers to track the online fundraising exploits of presidential candidates, where new ground has been broken almost weekly … especially by Barack Obama.

The Obama campaign is to online fundraising what George McGovern was to direct mail fundraising in 1972 … the trailblazer. Though the Obama folks might not like the comparison, given the electoral fate of George, running against what’s his name.

Here’s the latest example of why the Obama campaign has done so well at online fundraising. It features a video briefing by campaign manager David Plouffe, backed by slides, explaining how the campaign expects to contest the election in all states … a strategy made possible — he emphasizes over and over — only because of the terrific grassroots donating and organizing achievement so far by the supporters watching the video … who now need to do just a bit more.

It’s a terrific execution of historically proven fundraising technique in a new medium.

Check it out. Can you imagine your CEO delivering such an appeal? Why not?

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, email marketing, fundraising, online activism, online fundraising | 4 Comments 

Boomer Gloom Affecting Fundraising?

June 27, 2008

Have The Agitator and DonorTrends discovered the Fundraising Rosetta Stone … demystifing the real reason behind falling acquision and retention rates and other recent fundraising plagues? We think so.

In reporting our 2005 DonorTrends survey three years ago, we noted that Boomers had climbed to the top of the donor heap, surpassing Seniors (born before 1946) and Post-Boomers (born after 1964) in average annual contributions. In 2005, Boomers on average contributed $1361 over a 12 month period; Seniors — the traditional bedrock of giving — donated $1138, while the younger generations brought up the rear with $791.

Might this be the beginning of a "Golden Age" of Boomer giving we asked. Well, as it turns out … not quite.

In our recently completed and soon-to-be-released 2008 DonorTrends Survey, Boomers fell to the bottom of the heap — Seniors reclaimed first place, averaging $1542 in donations in the past 12 months, Newbies (our term for the Post-Boomers) jumped up to $1205 in donations (a percentage increase of 52%!), and Boomers fell to $1081.

What happened to the Boomers?

A new "must read" report by Pew Research, called The Gloomiest Generation, suggests the answer.

As it turns out, compared to both their predecessors and their successor generation, Boomers actually have the least optimistic view of both their current and future economic situation, even though in real terms they are the most prosperous. For example, Boomers give their overall quality of life a lower rating than other generations; they are more likely to worry that their incomes won’t keep up with inflation; they believe more than others that it is harder to get ahead now than it was 10 years ago; they are less likely to say their standard of living exceeds the one their parents had when their parents were the age Boomers are now; and not surprisingly then … Boomers are more anxious than other Americans that they will have to cut household spending in the coming year because money is tight.

This adds up to a pretty gloomy head trip! Might it cause a more conservative approach to donating — even a retrenchment? In our opinion…Absolutely.

Pew suggests a few possible reasons for Boomer gloom.They note that substantial percentages of Boomers are in a "sandwich" phase of life — many are financially supporting their parents, their own children in the home, as well as adult children outside the home — at the very time they are beginning to contemplate retirement and living on fixed incomes. Also, Pew finds seven-in-ten Boomers dissatisfied with the direction in which the country is going, a worse assessment than other generations. The DonorTrends 2008 Survey, to be reported fully soon, probes Boomers’ issue attitudes in detail and finds the same concerns.

But taking their gloom into account, and noting the fall-off in their average giving, we still need to remind ourselves that Boomers numerically dominate the donor universe … so target them we must!

Fundraising Implications Today and Tomorrow. Make no mistake. When the largest and most wealthy generation of donors is in a near-Prozac stage and scared to death of their financial future in a society they perceive is going to the dogs, it’s not good news for fundraisers.

Acquisition suffers because they’re reluctant to make new commitments. Retention suffers because the generally skeptical nature of Boomer generation is turbo charged by fear of the future … and perhaps the perception that the world’s problems are getting solved after all, despite Boomers’ original idealism. In short, they’re skittish, disappointed, and they bail far more quickly than either the Seniors or the Newbies. Is it any wonder acquisition and retention rates for many organizations hit the downward skids at the same time the Boomer generation succeeded the blindly-loyal Seniors as the majority of America’s donors?

And rising gas prices, food prices, and health care costs merely exacerbate the giving malaise.

In short, fasten your fundraising seat belts! This is about more than a temporary economic downturn.

Roger and Tom

P.S. In the DonorTrends 2008 Survey on Generational Giving, available shortly, we’ll set forth actionable recommendations on how to survive and thrive in this sea of depression afflicting America’s largest group of donors. Meanwhile, download the Pew report and stay tuned to The Agitator. Roger & Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Boomers, Don't Miss these Posts, DonorTrends, Hot Research, demographic trends, fundraising | 4 Comments 

Database Marketing Reality Check

June 26, 2008

Nick Rongione of Kintera recently wrote this article in Fundraising Success extolling the virtues of truly integrating — and then actually using — all the data your organization captures, or could capture, about your supporters.

His point: the more complete behavioral profile you can build of each supporter, the better you can target and customize your communications (of whatever kind … fundraising, action alerts, programmatic updates) to them, and therefore — given the greater relevance of the communication to that individual — the more likely they will respond as desired.

Sounds terrific in theory. But is it only theory?

Is the picture Nick paints Nirvana … beyond the resources and marketing sophistication of 99.9% of nonprofits (believe me, the biggest corporate marketers struggle with this). Even if you were determined to capture the data, would you subequently choke on it?

Alternatively, have nonprofit marketers found that less ambitious uses of data on individual supporters yields plenty of additional response, whereas going the "last mile" toward microtargeting just doesn’t yield sufficient incremental bang for the buck?

How many organizations, for example, peg a renewal ask to the individual donor’s previous year’s giving history? How many recite that history back to the donor, as a way of showing recognition? That’s a pretty straightforward — and evidence indicates, rewarding — use of individual donor data. But even this fairly elementary example assumes that donor data from all channels has been collated into individual donors profiles to drive the asks … and even the choice of re-solicitation channel(s).

Nick wants you to go even further … he wants that renewal notice, for example, to also thank the donor for responding to eleven action alerts, riding in the bike-a-thon, and placing your organization’s fundraising widget on his/her favorite social network page.

I’d really like to know … how many of you are proceeding down that path? And if you are, what are you reaping as the incremental benefits?

Is fully integrated database marketing a consultant’s fantasy? Or does it actually happen somewhere in real life?!

Tom

 

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, database marketing, direct marketing, marketing metrics | Leave a Comment 

Is Cause Marketing Right For You?

June 25, 2008

Most of us, when we think of cause marketing, probably think it’s relevant to only the biggest and "safest" nonprofit brands, like Habitat for Humanity or Bono’s RED.

But here’s down-to-earth advice from Selfish Giving blogger Joe Waters, for whom cause marketing is only part of his day job. He says that, if you set realistic expectations, cause marketing can be a worthy component of many nonprofits’ fundraising and communications toolkits.

He’s right.

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under cause marketing | Leave a Comment 

Want 50% Lift In Email Conversions?

June 24, 2008

Then read this excellent case study provided by Marketing Sherpa. But you must read by June 24 unless you’re a subscriber.

In this example, a travel destination raised its conversion rates on marketing emails by 50% by embedding a brief video that automatically played when the email was opened.

If you missed the deadline, here’s the bottomline: Test everything in advance.

They tested:

  • The video content itself (what was most compelling?)
  • The optimal video length (from the perspective of being accepted by the filters of the major email clients)
  • Email subject lines (putting the word "video" in the subject line performed best.

I wonder how many online marketers in the nonprofit space are this meticulous?

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Hot Research, email marketing, online fundraising, online video | 1 Comment 

Celebrity Power

June 23, 2008

Of course not every nonprofit has access to a celebrity to help raise its profie … or fundraise.

But if you do, should you jump at the chance?

This article from the NY Times provides some excellent insights into the world of celebrity marketing. Does it work? You bet your Rihanna umbrella … your Patrick Demsey cologne … your Nicole Kidman perfume it does!

Here’s why.

First and foremost, sheer awareness … capturing attention:

“As consumers, we see over 3,156 images a day. We’re just not conscious of them,” says Marshal Cohen, from consumer research firm NPD Group. “Our subconscious records maybe 150, and only 30 or so reach our conscious behavior. If I have a celebrity as part of that message, I just accelerated the potential for my product to reach the conscious of the consumer.”

Second, emotional connecton trumps rationality:

Even savvy, skeptical consumers who understand that stars are paid to support a product may still rely on an endorsement and buy the brand anyway, says Robert Cialdini, a professor of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University.

“We’ve used our cognitive capacity to build a sophisticated informational and technological environment,” he says. But overloaded with information and stimulation, shoppers’ brains revert to a more primitive, raw association of celebrity and product, Mr. Cialdini explains.

So, should we all jump on the phone to Nicole Kidman’s agent? You wish!

Assuming you can access a celebrity, there are obvious issues of "fit" (Is there any actual compatibility between your nonprofit mission, your target audience and the celebrity, or relevance that connects the two "brands"?) and "durability" (What is the desired lifespan of this relationship and how might the affair turn sour?) that need to be assessed.

Is celebrity marketing limited to the "killer" brands of the nonprofit universe, like UNICEF and Amnesty International?

No, not at all.

Celebrities are defined by the pond in which they swim. If your nonprofit has a local or regional focus, there are still likely to be plenty of high profile personalities — outstanding athletes, media celebs, artists & performers — who just might help your nonprofit break through the clutter and help deliver your message.

And don’t forget … every star was born somewhere. It might just be your nonprofit’s hometown!

Happy celebrity hunting.

Tom

P.S. Don’t get your hopes up, Kidman was born in Australia. Rihanna in Barbados. But Patrick Dempsey … Lewiston, Maine!

 

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, branding, cause marketing, celebrities, communications, fundraising | 1 Comment 

Campaign 2008 And The Internet

June 19, 2008

If you are a fundraiser or communicator for an advocacy group, here’s another "must read" report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

As they summarize:

Fully 46% of all Americans have used the internet, email or cell phone text messaging to get news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize others.

Further, the proportion of Americans going online on a typical day at the tail end of the primary season to get political news or information has more than doubled since a comparable point in the 2004 race-from 8% of all adults in spring 2004 to 17% of all adults in spring 2008.

Pew’s recent poll found, among other things, that younger voters are among the most active and intense internet users. These online voters are more likely to support Obama.

Three online activities have become especially prominent as the presidential primary campaigns have progressed:

First, 35% of Americans say they have watched online political videos - a figure that nearly triples the reading the Pew Internet Project got in the 2004 race.

Second, 10% say they have used social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace to gather information or become involved. This is particularly popular with younger voters: Two-thirds of internet users under the age of 30 have a social networking profile, and half of these use social networking sites to get or share information about politics or the campaigns.

Third, 6% of Americans have made political contributions online, compared with 2% who did that during the entire 2004 campaign.

A significant number of voters are also using the internet to gain access to campaign events and primary documents. Some 39% of online Americans have used the internet to access "unfiltered" campaign materials, which includes video of candidate debates, speeches and announcements, as well as position papers and speech transcripts.

Get the full report here.

Where online politics goes, so follows online advocacy.

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Hot Research, issue fundraising, online advocacy, online fundraising, pew internet project, research | Leave a Comment 

Legendary TV Spot

June 18, 2008

Yesterday, Roger featured some "new media" created by the latest generation of hip political junkies.

Cool. But here’s a real TV legend … the "Daisy" commercial created in 1964 by media guru Tony Schwartz for the Johnson campaign.

For you youngsters, that’s Lyndon Johnson, who nuked Barry Goldwater. Many say this ad played a key role, even though it actually aired only once as a commercial, capturing the angst created by Goldwater’s rather strident anti-communist views.

Here’s the NY Times homage to Tony Schwartz, who died last weekend.

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Pushing the Creative Envelope, creativity | Leave a Comment 

Where Younger Voters Get Their Information

June 17, 2008

Last week, as the primary phase of the presidential campaigns ended and the run up to the November elections began in earnest, Ad Age and Digital Hollywood held their co-produced extravaganza Advertising 2.0 in New York City.

Among the panelists was Kristi Vandenbosch head of Tequila, the global marketing services network, who put together a video reel to emphasize the dramatic change in politics. Her message and the message of the video is that social media and user-generated content have fundamentally changed the political landscape. Where once the ‘brand" (read ‘candidate’) was controlled by campaigns, control has now shifted to the "consumer" (read ‘voter’).

Ms. Vandenbosch told Ad Age, "The pieces I collected in the video were examples from an informal poll I conducted asking people under 35 where they got their election information. Rather than traditional news outlets, they provided these as samples. They were more likely to trust commentary –even satirical commentary –from their peers than either news or — especially — the candidates’ advertising." I’m not sure the reason for the shift is that clear or simple, but judge for yourself.

You can watch the Ad Age video by clicking here.

Roger

Posted by rcraver | Filed Under General Post, advocacy, branding, communications, creativity, demographic trends, new media, online video | Leave a Comment 

Too Much Charity?

June 13, 2008

A recent edition of the Chronicle’s online Philanthropy Today got me scratching my head.

One piece, Mass Charities Urged to Merge and Pool Resources, reported that the Boston Foundation was urging the 36,000 nonprofits in Massachusetts to consider either merging or at least sharing resources with their like-minded compatriots. Their message … too many groups for too few — indeed, dwindling — resources. The number of nonprofits in Mass has almost doubled in recent years.

Another piece, Aid Groups Urged to Revamp Operations in Poor Countries, indicated that with tens of thousands of "unregulated" aid groups operating in the health field, they’ve become difficult for health officials in those countries to manage and deal with effectively. Each charity "does its own thing" and ometimes the charities even compete with local health authorities by hiring away the indigenous health professionals who are in short supply.

So, is the message here that there can be too much of a good thing?

Are all these groups, be they in Massachusetts or the developing world, equally competent and deserving? That of course would fly in the face of all human experience. Are some redundant to others? Of course. Are some mere ego trips for their leaders? Bingo again.

The problem is, there no "market" (or an extremely inefficient one at best) for weeding out the under-performers. Regular Agitator readers can probably detect me becoming more and more agitated on this point.

Note that I’m not pushing the "all nonprofits should be more business-like" line.

What I am pushing is "perform or die" … and figure out a way — your way — to establish that your nonprofit actually is performing … performing in the sense of achieving substantive goals, not just processing stuff.

Maybe there should be a "sunset" provision of some kind on IRS charitable status.

Here’s a crude approach that will doubtless offend many readers … you lose your charitable status if you can’t demonstrate at the end of every five years that you have more resources than at the beginning of the period. Sure, there are groups that might be clever enough to be raising more money even though they aren’t accomplishing much. But, heck, if their donors are too incapable of demanding to see and assess the case, well I guess they’re getting what they paid for, aren’t they?! Who else is supposed to make that judgment? And for those groups that are raising less, the "market" has spoken … it’s time to exit the playing field gracefully.

Of course I believe any sunset rule, formal or informal, should be more intelligently grounded. Maybe the guys at Give Well blog can come up with something.

But meantime, I just can’t believe Massachusetts or Africa would be worse off if half as many nonprofits (or even fewer) were expending the same level of resources in each region as today’s number of groups are. I think scale matters … a lot.

Would I shut the door on new charities? No. Especially if they succeed at putting old ones out of business!

As reported by the NY Times a few weeks ago, new group like Nothing But Nets springs from the pages of Sports Illustrated. A new movement is galvanized that in barely two years has bought and distributed 2,029,286 malaria-fighting nets, presumably representing over $20 million in contributions … introducing all sorts of new people, especially young people, to giving and social action, and forging powerful alliances with marketing machines like the NBA. Spectacular!

Have they forced an under-performer off the playing field. I don’t know. But I submit that if they did, it would be an added bonus!

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, accountability, charities, marketing metrics | 3 Comments 

Next Page »