Follow some of these accounts of how Komen is responding (or should):

From Holly Hall at the Chronicle of Philanthropy

From the Washington Post

From social media commentator Erik Sass

From blogger Kivi Leroux Miller, a play-by-play

I’m sure there will be more. This affair will become a classic  in the annals of nonprofit crisis management, in part because it’s the first such major meltdown to occur in the social media era. Forgive me for being clinical, but focus on what Komen did wrong (from a communications perspective) and what PPFA did right (from a communications and fundraising perspective).

What if a crisis of confidence and trust in your organization arose? How prepared would you be to acknowledge the facts, respond with alacrity and truthfulness, describe and implement with full transparency the needed changes, and get back to the mission of communicating the positive work of your organization to your donors, other key constituencies and the media?

Tom

P.S. Don’t forget the webinar Roger is moderating this week that will present a new approach and tool for pre-testing packages, developed by DonorVoice. Register here FREE for your seat at the February 9^th  (11:30 EST) Direct Mail Testing Webinar.

There’s an underlying phenomenon here that’s highly relevant, I think, to nonprofit fundraising.

Pew reports that more than half of adult cell phone owners used their cell phones while they were in a store to seek help with their purchase decision:

• 38% of cell owners used their phone to call a friend while they were in a store for advice about a purchase they were considering making;
• 24% of cell owners used their phone to look up reviews of a product online while they were in a store; and,
• 25% of adult cell owners used their phones to look up the price of a product online while they were in a store, to see if they could get a better price somewhere else.

What’s really going on here? Consumers are looking for reassurance … and they’re looking for it from the source they trust most — other consumers who are friends or who have written reviews based on their own experience. And they’re looking for comparison information, specifically with respect to price … seeking value for money.

In short, they’re realizing … “I don’t need to be on my own making this decision. Advice is just  a few taps away.” They are being trained to consult with others because it’s so easy and immediate.

So, now they’re home, having purchased a new iPhone or iPad, and your prospect mailing shows up. What might they do?

I wouldn’t necessarily say that they’ll pick up the phone and ask a friend … “Should I give to Worldvision or Save the Children?” Although indeed some might inquire of a friend if they support either. Or they might recall reassuringly that a friend has ‘liked’ one of the organizations on their Facebook page.

What I do think many (most even?) will do is go online for some form of validation. They’ll go to the organization’s website and poke around.

And, given the consumer shopping experience described above, where peer referrals are hugely important, what should they readily find?

I would suggest — above all — TESTIMONIALS!

Testimonials both from very satisfied beneficiaries of the organization’s work and from real donors who appreciate the organization’s accomplishments. Testimonials in a variety of formats, from short quotes to short videos.

Secondarily, but definitely not with the same weight as the testimonials, strong ratings from the charity raters (or some other straightforward reassurance/evidence about financial accountability and transparency). Price comparison isn’t really a relevant concept in the fundraising setting. But reassurance about money being properly managed and delivering big bang for the buck clearly is.

Few offers (or solicitations) are considered in isolation anymore. The best thing you can do to address that reality is make sure your online presence is your prospect’s reassuring friend.

Tom

I’m serious.  Here’s why.

Moneyball, the 2003 iconoclastic bestseller by Michael Lewis  — now  a very popular and acclaimed movie starring Brad Pitt — is an entertaining and effective study in successful and counterproductive behaviors. I recommend it as ‘must reading’ or ‘must viewing’ for all fundraisers, development committees, boards and executive directors.

“It’s the biography of an idea,” says Moneyball author Michael Lewis. It deals not only with wins and losses, but also with the quest of a man who wanted to revolutionize a sport; someone who, in Lewis’ words was willing “to rethink baseball: how it is managed, how it is played, and who is best suited to play it, and why.”

That man was Billy Beane (charmingly played by Brad Pitt) the provocative general manager of the Oakland A’s with unconventional ideas about what a team with limited resources could do to compete with wealthy powerhouses like the New York Yankees. Billy takes on the system by challenging the fundamental tenets of the game. He looks outside the conventions of baseball with its cherished dependence on the intuition of scouts and hires a brainy young number-crunching Harvard-educated economist to help him figure out a better way.

Together they tackle conventional wisdom with a willingness to reexamine everything. Armed with computer-driven statistical analysis long ignored by the baseball establishment, they go after players overlooked and dismissed by the business-as-usual baseball world for being too odd, too old, too injured or too much trouble, but all of whom have key skills that are universally undervalued.

As they forge forward, their new methods and roster of misfits rile the old guard, the media, the fans. Using ‘sabermetrics’ (data analytics) the Oakland A’s found the good players they could afford, while successfully challenging many tenets of baseball’s hallowed conventional wisdom.

And just as in every other specialized field of human endeavor the detractors, the old-guard and the high priest experts argued that this focus on numbers dehumanized the game and ignored the intangibles that only ’trained scouts’ could see.

Although data analytics is an element in the story, that’s not really what Moneyball is about. More broadly it’s a real-life story of innovating to succeed, or as Billy Beane puts it in the movie, “Adapt or die.” Beane the entrepreneur innovating out of necessity.

And so it is in today’s world of nonprofit fundraising, communications and management. More than ever survival depends on innovation, the willingness to challenge old assumptions and, to no small degree, the ability to discover and use better measurements, benchmarks and other metrics that are based on more than myth and convention. Metrics that help us more strategically, accurately and competitively steer a course into a successful future.

It’s more than coincidence that Moneyball begins with a quote from Yankees star Mickey Mantle:  “It’s unbelievable how much you don’t know about the game you’ve been playing all your life.”

Ain’t that the truth. And for this reason over the next few posts in our “Flat Earth Fundraising” series, and with your help and suggestions, I want to focus on challenging some of the conventional wisdom and  fundamental tenants in our craft, while also introducing  you to some innovative approaches that might help us all change the game for the better.

What sacred cows would you like to challenge?

Roger

P.S. Interested in innovation? Then try the webinar I’m moderating that will present a new approach and tool for pre-testing packages, developed by DonorVoice. Seats in the February 9^th  (11:30 EST) Direct Mail Testing Webinar are going fast. Agitator Readers can register here FREE.

Agitator friend Caity Craver thought this wasn’t a bad list for nonprofit fundraisers to think about.

1. In all things, look for money first. Listen to people with money, respond to people with money, justify your actions around money.
2. Embrace the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Aspire to run systems you don’t understand.
3. Compromise over the important issues, but dig in and fight forever over trivia.
4. Along those lines: focus obsessively on the short run. Even though you are virtually assured of re-election, define the long term as “before the next election.”
5. Take months off from your day job (with pay) to actively campaign for a better job.
6. Blame the system, the other side and your predecessors for the fact that you are not taking brave, independent action.
7. Avoid developing independent thought and analysis. Focus on parroting the work of lobbyists and the party line.
8. When given the choice between being on television or doing hard work, pick television.
   When a difficult problem shows up, duck.
9. Try mightily to outlast passionate resistance by quietly ignoring it and waiting for it to go away.

My favorite is #3.

What do you think?

Tom

And thinking about #6 — taking brave independent action — for you direct response fundraisers, perhaps nothing requires more courage than setting out to ‘beat the control’. Roger’s moderating a webinar that will present a new approach and tool for pre-testing packages, developed by DonorVoice. Seats in the February 9^th Direct Mail Testing Webinar are going fast. Agitator Readers can register here FREE.

But whether you’re new or a relative ‘old-timer’ with respect to social media, here from The Nonprofit Quarterly is an intelligent article that will help you think through what you’re doing — Four Reasons NOT to Use Social Media … and Why to Use It Anyway, by Christine Durand and Kristen Cici.

Their four reasons not to use …

1. It’s a fad — it’s going away soon anyway
2. What’s the ROI? I can’t see that it’s worth it
3. People will say bad things about us
4. Our supporters don’t use social media

Christine and Kristen examine the ‘truth’ behind each of these concerns, but then deliver the case — and sound advice — for doing it right. Hint: very explicit goals and metrics to measure progress against them are critical.

Nice job guys.

Tom

P.S. Thanks to Debra Richmond for the heads-up.

The overwhelming conclusion of psychological studies is that giving is motivated by a variety of non-rational needs and impulses and that, indeed, thinking or rationalizing gets in the way of giving.

Ironically, the same day, Beth’s Blog cited a study, Money for Good II, suggesting that sharing information about results and financial transparency would attract more donors.

Says Beth: “The study points out that nonprofits can increase their fundraising and improve operations through an intentional focus on measurement – that helps them determine impact, effectiveness, and efficiency.  After financial information, individual donors want information about how nonprofits are getting their results.”

Precisely the kind of information that yesterday’s researchers claim will diminish giving.

Now the Money for Good study was conducted by GuideStar, whose business is providing charity performance info. That’s OK. And donors will always say in a survey that of course they think deeply and carefully about their giving choices. No one admits to being victims of their emotions!

I do often argue that some donors — especially educated Boomers — will look more than others for more evidence that a charity is in fact effective at producing results.

But even so, I’m sticking with the psychologists. Emotion rules giving. Emotion brings donors to the point of giving. If any ‘analysis’ and ‘thinking’ occurs, it can break either way … it can get in the way, or it can help the donor make a ‘reasoned’ choice amongst alternatives.

So absolutely, talk about results. But I’d argue that the whole point of talking about results is still to elicit an emotional response … not trigger some sort of ROI analysis. Keep that in mind as you present your results. How, for example?

Don’t present a laundry list of 10 things you’ve accomplished this past year.

Do tell stories about the people your donor helped, the crisis she averted, the enjoyment he enabled.

Let’s hear more from you on this. In making your fundraising case, what’s the balance between heart and mind?

Tom

The bottomline won’t come as a surprise to experienced fundraisers. As the article summarizes:

“… giving is driven by emotional motives, rooted in deep impulses, cognitive biases, and even our own selfish needs. (Charity research isn’t necessarily flattering to donors.) And when we think too analytically about giving, we can deflate our initial generous instinct.”

To which I would add: So don’t make your prospective donor engage too rationally! Even offering too many giving choices can get in the way. And we all know how a too-complicated online giving process can yield mostly incompetions and ‘shopping cart’ abandonment.

Another observation regarding the ‘warm glow’ from giving:

“One dominant strain of thought among charity researchers is that our donations aren’t chiefly driven by concern for others, or a principled sense of altruism — that instead, it’s largely a way for us to indulge the desire to feel virtuous and happy about our role in the world.”

The article describes a number of research experiments where providing more information to people — from further facts about the problem being addressed to information about efficient management of overhead costs — actually diminished their giving.

What do you think? When donors start thinking, do they stop feeling … and giving?

I urge you to read the Globe article. Then, if you haven’t already done so, go back and read Roger’s post from last Monday. There he talks about a particular feeling you can cultivate amongst your donors to increase their giving.

Tom

P.S. Thanks to the Chronicle of Philanthropy for the heads-up.

Godin says:

If you’re traveling over the Thanksgiving weekend, take it with you and ponder it.

Mark is responding to a study claiming that 12 million Boomers want to start their own nonprofit or socially oriented business over the next decade. Noting that over one million nonprofit groups already exist in the US, Mark commends the commitment and spirit of these Boomers, but argues:

“Such a multiplicity of organizations would move America further away from developing coherent analyses of public problems. And it would lead the country to define and treat social concerns as fragmented individual or local matters. That would make it profoundly more difficult to mount any significant effort to advance the broad-based change needed in our social, political, and economic institutions.”

Mark is actually making two points.

One is ‘enough already’! There are plenty of effective groups out there already … get behind them.

His second point, however, is to zero in on the systemic, structural failures that are creating many of our social problems in the first place. These failures must be attacked and corrected by policy advocacy and political action. Otherwise, we’re doomed to expend huge resources endlessly applying bandages while the injuries relentlessly compound … the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff syndrome.

Citing Wall Street and other financial abuses, Mark argues:

“…instead of simply trying to relieve the suffering of the ever-growing number of Americans hurt by the failures of our economic, social, and political systems, we need to deal with the continuing causes of our problems—those systems themselves and the people who inappropriately profit from their undemocratic malfunctioning …

It is these dynamics that must be changed if the decline of the middle class and the growth of poverty are to be reversed. And multiples of new nonprofits or socially oriented businesses would not begin to challenge that reality or stave off growing human need.”

Amen!

However, while I agree heartily with both of Mark’s points, it does not follow that existing nonprofits — whether advocacy groups or charities — deserve an automatic ‘free pass’ when confronted by new, ‘upstart’ organizations that aim to tackle the same problems.

One would think that today’s Boomer, with limitless information at hand, might readily find an existing nonprofit that was super-effective at its mission and deserving of support.

If he or she cannot, and instead launches something new, whose fault is that? Maybe the Boomer was superficial in researching or has a super ego. But maybe he/she looked carefully and concluded that existing groups just weren’t cutting the mustard … after decades of effort. Or maybe groups that are effective aren’t doing such a hot job of communicating their progress and accomplishments. If the tree falls and no one hears, was there a sound?

So while you’re tucking it in over the holidays, give some thought to how you’ll respond to the Boomer who knocks on your door, but suspects you’re outmoded, ineffectual, past your ‘use by’ date. Or worse, to the Boomer who hasn’t even heard of you.

Tom

P.S. Mark … great piece. You deserve a raise!

The reason your 401(k) is turning into a 101(k) is because politicians don’t understand numbers. Numbers that reflect the reality of too much bank leverage … too much spending … too little revenue. This has nothing to do with ideology. It’s just math.

‘Innumerate’ is the term for folks who simply don’t understand, or more probably, refuse to understand or be bothered by math. For them ‘arithmetic’ is a four-syllable word.

And that’s one of the main reasons why not only nations are going bust, but the bottom lines of nonprofit organization after organization are falling short. No longer does the ‘old math’ of acquiring cheap donors and simply replacing lost donors with more cheap new donors apply.

Ask most fundraisers what are the payback periods for their acquisition programs … or their retention rates … or heaven forbid, the Lifetime Value of  new donors. You might as well be asking a cow to review Mozart’s 41^st Symphony.

‘Acquisition’ and ‘Retention’ are acknowledged as the two major problems in direct response fundraising. They’re not two problems; simply the same problem on two sides of a coin. In brief: if you don’t hold on to new donors, then the cost of acquiring them in the first place grows higher and higher.

87% of the fundraisers I know can read. Less than 30% can count. We have to change this or the profession is doomed.

I’m glad I had an old-fashioned liberal arts education because, sometimes against my will, I was forced to appreciate the beauty of literature, history, language and yes, mathematics.

For years I blithely enjoyed my exalted status as a winning copywriter, smiling down on the analysts. But I came to realize that it was my job not only to motivate, but to count. As in, count the results and make sure they made economic sense beyond the tinsel tone of gold medals.

I  sure don’t want to turn back the clock and wish the good old days will return, ‘cause they won’t. For the life of me, I wish I had a ready solution. Something simple like requiring fundraisers to pass a math test, or requiring Excel operators to pass a thinking test. Or CEOs a creative test. But, I don’t.

What I do know is that too many nonprofit fundraisers, CEOs, communications managers and boards are like the politicians of Europe and the U.S.  As the economies drop into the gloom they simply refuse to read, heed and truly understand the numbers.

If acquisition and retention suck, believe me the numbers will show you what to do about it. My Dickinson College liberal arts education taught me how to not only write copy, but to measure its results and change accordingly.

Change is hard. Not only in the political circles of Greece and Italy and in Washington, D.C. You and I see it every day: copywriters who cling to ‘creativity’ while ignoring the arithmetic realities of costs and returns … development directors who blame it all on the consultants … consultants who hold the development directors in contempt.

Agitator editors who blame it on everyone.

Ironically, the degradation is occuring at the same time that a whole new generation of techniques, models and other math-based analytic tools have been developed. They have the potential to save us from ourselves.

But like the politicians of nations in decline, we ignore them.

Thoughts? Please.

Roger