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.

So I’m recommending you read Getting Attention’s Nancy Schwartz’s excellent analysis of the Komen vs. Planned Parenthood debacle from the perspective of what makes for effective (and ineffective communications) and smart fundraising (on Planned Parenthood’s part) in response to threat.

Tom

P.S. Stuff ‘em Planned Parenthood!

He’s talking about a sin I know I’ve committed in the past.

He warns that as a marketer you can become so focused on differentiating your offering from your competitors that you forget the need to address your prospect’s first option … which is to do nothing.

So, don’t forget. First things first … why does your cause need help in the first place … right now, today? Never take for granted that your potential donor has already crossed that bridge.

And one critical place to check whether you’re making the mistake is in your renewal series.

Tom

Their conclusion is signaled in the title: The Effects of the Recession on Brand Loyalty and ‘Buy Down’ Behavior: 2011 Update. (registration required to download study)

What they find is that since 2008 consumers have steadily been trending down on the the following shopping option: “I buy the brand I want most”.

The percentage indicating this as their shopping behavior has dropped from 54% in 2008 to 43% in 2011. More people choose “buy less expensive brands to save money” or “sometimes buy a different brand if it is on sale”.

Thus the term ‘buy down’.

I’m wondering … what’s the equivalent to shopping ‘buy down’ when it comes to donating money?

Arguably there’s not much relevance in the nonprofit to a concept of a cheaper brand — a ‘cheaper’ enviro group or a ‘bargain’ child sponsor agency doesn’t seem to be pertinent.

I would point to three ‘buy down’ effects in giving …

First is giving to fewer organizations — so if you’re a ‘survivor’ group that makes the cut, you’d say loyalty was the reason; if your group doesn’t make the cut, you’d probably say ‘loyalty is down’ in the nonprofit space!

Second is smaller average gifts, rather than outright abandonment, which definitely has been an observed pattern.

Third might be a preference to give locally, rather than to national or international groups. More of a ‘circle the wagons’ and ‘take care of our own’ mentality sets in as resources diminish. And local results are often much easier to see … a high priority for financially stressed donors.

Whichever of these recession effects is more likely for your organization, it seems very unlikely that ‘buy down’ behavior isn’t happening throughout the nonprofit sector.

Personally, I think I might prefer to work with a high profile local cause or charity if I were seeking a fundraising job today. Refer to yesterday’s Agitator post on the Humane Society for Southwest Washington!

Tom

The campaign actually sought to enlist volunteers to help with Diakonie’s various social service programs. [I hope I'm reasonably accurate ... my German isn't what it used to be!]

Here’s the video that presented the campaign to the IFC audience. Check out the ‘promo girls’!

And here’s the Help the Oma website.

Applause!

Now before I’m criticized for applauding creativity for its own sake (i.e., absent any grounding in the brand or in actual outcomes), let me point out that:

1. This campaign easily surpassed its goal, and delivered exceptional media exposure for the group as a bonus.

2. It’s better to approach your work with the zeal and commitment that says — I want this campaign to be a knock-out! — than to coast mindlessly through ‘same old, same old’.

When was your last knock-out campaign? Overdue?

Tom

P.S. Thanks to Jann Schultz at Operation Smile for the heads-up.

In response, along comes Kathy Swayze with a comment saying what few fundraisers dare to say: “Your ‘quality of the product matters’ resonates. But how many fundraisers are stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig because the mission, focus and actions of their organization are muddled?”

“Lipstick on a pig”!

If you find yourself in this predicament, here are your options:

1. Remember that fundraisers are marketers, and the best marketers sit at the table where the product is defined and shaped. Calling the question … banging heads. Are you one of those? Marketing is not just about communications.

2. If you’re really convinced that the mission and focus of your organization (or client) is fatally muddled, move on. If you’re wrong, someone else can do a better job and the organization deserves them. If you’re right, don’t waste your time … life’s too short.

3. Compromise your organization (or client), its donors, and yourself — put the lipstick on.

Your choice.

Tom

And while it’s great that nonprofits might be riding this wave to build ‘fan’ bases of one kind or another, the real challenge is to harness these fans, and the technology they’re getting comfortable with, to reach even more people.

That is, converting fans into ambassadors.

Commercial marketers face the same challenge, and talk about it a lot on marketing blogs. Here’s a recent example, which offers several steps for creating brand ambassadors:

1. Rate your fans — the article identifies tools available for identifying your most active word-of-mouth advocates.

2. Give them something to do — and keep it relevant and meaningful to your mission.

3. Use exclusivity — deepen the connection by providing exclusive opportunities.

4. Pamper your advocates — in language and style, make them feel special.

5. Go up a lifestyle level — here the commercial challenge is about how to get customers to feel passionate about, say, a tile cleaner product! [Answer: leverage their passion about being germ-free.] Nonprofits should have less of a problem … they’re based upon a ‘mission’ to begin with. But while your donors might be passionate about getting to the moon, why should they ride on your spaceship?!

Not bad advice from the commercial sector.

Tom

Today we have even more social net data from Nielsen.

Like Pew, Nielsen notes some especially strong growth amongst older demographics, in this case pointing out that internet users over age 55 are driving the growth of social networking through mobile devices. 40% of all social media users access these nets via their mobile phone (37%) or IPad (3%) .

Nielsen reports that social nets and blogs now account for 23% of the time Americans spend online. The core demographic — female, age 18-49, educated.

While the research didn’t ask specifically about charitable giving, the report does note that 70% of active online adult social networkers shop online, 12 percent more likely than the average adult Internet user.

I would hypothesize a similar ‘consumer’ pattern with respect to online giving. Evidence: Social netters are 26% more likely to give their opinion on politics and current events. And without giving stat details, Nielsen says that offline, active adult social networkers are more likely than the average adult Internet user to be found at political rallies … tweeting, no doubt!

Finally, 53% follow a brand on a social net … it could be yours!

Tom

P.S. The report indicates usage of all the major social net sites, and includes some limited international data as well.

Seth Godin has been promoting End Malaria the past couple of days, and here explains the case for that fundraising initiative using a book premium.

He says the book is better than a tote bag.

Now, I’m not a fan of premiums, period. Yes, I know they can lift response (not always), but they’re prone to generating low value, low loyalty tippers. So analysis of lifetime value usually indicates a rather poor return compared to non-premium responders.

But today I’m simply taking issue with the ‘book is better’ claim. I’m not at all sure a book (full of business and work habit tips) is better than a tote bag or a refrigerator magnet or any other premium that at least directly reinforces the cause/nonprofit’s brand and helps in some small (and ideally, frequent) way to keep it top of mind.

Plus, there’s more chance of the biz book overshadowing the cause, making the ‘donation’ even more incidental, than there is the tote bag doing so.

The first step toward improving lousy donor retention rates is to recruit more committed donors. Premiums — of any kind — blur the picture. But, if forced, I’d opt for the premium that might reinforce — and signal clearly to others — my donor’s commitment to my cause.

What do you think … tote bag (or a some other badge of the tribe) or biz book? Or no premium … simply offering the donor the peace of mind of doing good?

Tom

But redemption might be possible.

As reported on MediaPost, here’s an ad from WWF that I think is pretty good. I felt its impact. As did my 17-year-old daughter. The two of us represent a pretty broad audience to connect with effectively … at least age-wise, if not psychographically.

However, despite its superb images and editing, I can still find a classic shortcoming in this ad. One that happens in 99% of nonprofit TV ads. The call-to-action and contact info flashes by in two seconds at best. Creatives never want to deflect attention from their creative genius! Even when the result is less response for the client.

What do you think?

Tom