However, from a specifically fundraising perspective, take a look at these predictions from Vinay Bhagat, Convio’s driving force. His observations are based on more empirical data than most fundraisers see, so they might be more grounded than most.

Vinay comments on the …

• Increasing influence of online and new media channels (no surprise there)
• An expanding role for peer-to-peer enagagement (i.e., word-of-mouth referrals and guidance)
• Increasing donor fatigue (caused by communications/information overload)
• Demand for donor control of the relationship (donors are being ‘trained’ by the commercial sector)
• Increasing significance of integrated marketing (AMEN!)

Wise, informed observations. But check out the full version … or watch Vinay’s video.

Tom

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

Godin says:

Do they consider your nonprofit irrelevant or ineffectual? Or don’t they even notice you exist?

Assuming such prospects do knock at your door, how will your nonprofit respond? Suppose someone shows up with a really new and challenging proposition. Then what?

Seth Godin wrote a post the other day suggesting that your organizational culture would pre-determine the outcome.

He says: “If your organization is both pessimistic and operationally focused, then every new idea is a threat. It represents more work, something that could go wrong, a chance for disaster. People work to protect against the downside, to insulate against the market, to be sure that they won’t get blamed for anything that challenges the system.”

In contrast, there’s the organization characterized by “optimistic enthusiasm”.

Godin says: “an organization filled with people who are rewarded for shaking things up and generating game-changing products and services just might discover that outcomes they are dreaming of are in fact what happen. The enthusiasm that comes from believing that this one might just resonate with the market is precisely the ingredient that’s required to make something resonate.”

Regarding that Boomer — which reception will your organization give?

In your nonprofit, are new ideas threats or opportunities?

Tom

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!

Here’s the latest research from Pew Internet Research, looking at Why Americans use social media.

So, why are you addicted?

It all boils down to friends and family. Two-thirds of Pew’s respondents say staying in touch with family and current friends is their ‘major reason’ for using social sites. 50% say ‘reconnecting with old friends you’ve lost touch with’ is a major reason.

After friends and family, a huge drop. Only 14% say connecting with others with shared interests or hobbies is a major reason (35% say ‘minor reason’). And 5% say ‘reading comments by celebrities, athletes or politicians’ is a major reason.

One interesting twist …

Older adults (50-64 years old) — i.e., donors — are the most likely to use social media to engage with others around interests and hobbies. That probably includes interaction around causes and politics.

But more fascinating is this survey research from Ipsos Mendelsohn on the social networking of Affluent Americans (household income $100,000 or more).

Affluent Millennials (18-28 years old) use Facebook 7.5 hours per week and Twitter for 8.3 hours. By comparison, Affluent Boomers (45-64) use Facebook 3.5 hours/wk and Twitter 2.8 hours, while Seniors (65+) drop to 2.3 hours and 1.3 hours respectively.

Here’s what got me … Among Affluents, 32% agree “I usually check e-mail or Facebook within 30 minutes of waking up in the morning”—a figure that rises to 50% among Affluent Millennials.

I’ll be that percentage rises to 90% amongst Agitator readers … affluent or otherwise!

Tom

In Blame The Boomers (Again) on the blog Engage:Boomers he takes on those who say the Boomers are to blame for America’s decline — e.g., the theory of NY Times columnist Tom Friedman.

Since we’ll all be trying to raise money from Boomers for the next few decades (the youngest Boomer is 47 years old), it’s useful to compare theories on what these rascals are all about.

Says Thornhill:

“… more than any other generation today, Boomers are waging an economic revolution that will slowly but steadily shift societal views of economic success from what’s happening on Wall Street back to what’s happening on our streets.

Signs of this change are already showing up in the personal finances of Boomers and how they are consuming goods and services.

For example, Boomers are now hoarding their nuts rather than displaying them for all to see. How? The old-fashioned way, by prioritizing their needs over their wants and living on a budget.”

He continues:

“We know it’s easy to blame Boomers for, well, everything. But maybe it’s the Boomer generation’s ultimate legacy to shape a new ethos for our society — responsible consumerism.

It seems the message of Depression-Era parents has finally taken root in the Boomer brain: save money and live within your means. Boomers account for only one in four Americans, but they are responsible for over two-thirds of consumer spending. If they consume in a more responsible manner, so too will others.”

If Thornhill is right, where does charitable giving fit into the Boomer mindset of ‘responsible consumerism’?

Less impulse giving? More demand for evidence of results and performance? More loyalty once they’ve found a charity that ‘works’?

What do you think?

Tom

I’m a Boomer and I love opening my snailmailbox. So, forgive me if you’ve seen this already, but I’m reproducing Jeff’s observation in full …

He notes that there are more Americans age 51 than any other age, and that the average age of Boomers is 54.

Argues Reilly: “Anyone reviewing sales data has to recognize that a giant number of customers (in almost any conceivable category) are in their 50s and 60s. Not just some of them, but most of them … In 2011, that undeniable fact is: most sales are going to consumers in midlife and older. And those consumers require a different marketing approach, demand different qualities in the products they buy, and value relationships with brands differently than their younger counterparts. They also have more money.”

In the face of this “undeniable” purchasing power, Reilly says marketers are finally waking up to the necessity of positioning their brands against the requirements of a more mature consumer.

This theme is pushed further in this NY Times article … In Shift, Ads Try to Entice Over-55 Set.

Hmmm. It seems to me that fundraisers — certainly direct response fundraisers — have always recognized that their appeals were most welcomed by older donors … folks older than Boomers. Boomers are simply now joining the ‘matures’ party and swelling its numbers.

So this should be nothing but good news for fundraisers … unless for some reason Boomers are carrying with them some attitudes or expectations that make them harder to ‘sell’ to. Here at The Agitator, we’ve tended to argue that Boomers are more demanding of demonstrated performance … Who gets results? And more of them?

By now, your nonprofit should have plenty of Boomer donors in your file. What’s your take on them … any different than the ‘Seniors’ who preceded them?

Tom

Is it just a speed bump?

Or is it the beginning of the end for this historic cadre that has driven the planet’s cultural, social and consumer trends since we climbed off our tricycles?

The Boomer Project’s keen analyst of all things Boomer, Matt Thornhill, offered some observations on the milestone. He notes that two recent major studies — one by the Pew Research Center, the other by AARP — arrive at opposite conclusions.

Pew telegraphs its findings in the headline of its report: “Boomers Approach 65 … Glumly.” As the study says: “Perched on the front stoop of old age, Baby Boomers are more downbeat than other age groups about the trajectory of their own lives and about the direction of the nation as a whole.” And: “Fully 80% say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today” … well beyond the dissatisfaction expressed by other generations. Here’s the Pew study.

Fundraisers, I leave it to you … good news or bad?! Donors want to change things, right?

[Parenthetically, this recent Harris Interactive survey reports that all Americans are gloomy ... at least over the economy and their personal financial situations.]

AARP on the other hand only surveyed individuals who will turn age 65 during 2011. AARP finds this group generally satisfied and optimistic. Seventy-eight percent say they are satisfied with the way things are going in their lives today. And 7 in 10 say they have achieved all or most of what they wanted out of life. Here’s the AARP report.

What does Thornhill make of the contradiction?

“…with a generation some 76 million large, there are countless variations. You can’t sum up generational attitudes in a word or a phrase. There are tens of millions of very happy and satisfied Boomers of all ages, and there are some soon-to-be-65 Boomers who are depressed and, well, glum. The only thing we can tell you with certainty is that Boomers are not old. Follow the logic: the median age is 56 and, according to Pew, the typical Boomer feels nine years younger (so age 47) and thinks “old age” starts at age 72 — some 25 years in the future!”

Methinks Boomer glumness will only get worse, unless they all read Erik Erikson on aging! Because Boomers are yet to begin processing psychologically that — despite the hype that 70 is the new 50 — certain things, not all good, are inevitable!

Fundraisers: Given contradictory survey data, to be on the safe side, you better raise that Boomer money while you can!

Tom