The organization has created a high quality video platform that food banks around the country can easily customize and add to their own websites. The videos themselves are aimed at building awareness about local hunger and feature celebs like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

The Feeding America widgets allow people to click to ‘Get Involved’ by entering their Zip codes to find a local food bank and events calendar, as well as submit contact information to receive email updates and share via Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Blogger, and other platforms. Local food banks can input their events for Hunger Action Month.

A good model to look at for coordinated national fundraising and communications projects and events if you are a nonprofit with lots of local affiliates who will play a role.

Tom
P.S. Here’s a sample.

Here’s what MTV says:

“What Act is really about is you. Seriously. Every campaign we’ve launched and change we’ve made is because you watched, listened, chatted, blogged, tweeted, posted and acted on things that matter. So this blog is meant to recognize you for all that.

We might post about your school, or your community, or even you, or someone like you. We’re not sure who’ll make it on Act yet. We just know it’s gonna be epic when they do. And hopefully it’ll inspire more people to do some good along the way.

Of course Act will recap the latest news and events, and tie it all in with music, celebs and a few unexpected perks. But first, we need your feedback. You can start by answering a few questions for us: What organizations, school clubs, or campus leaders should we profile? What cause do you think needs the most action right now? Which celebrity do-gooder are you most inspired by?

We’ll be updating the site with new stuff daily, so make sure to check in on us often. See you soon.”

Sounds like an invitation at least some Agitator readers should be taking up!

Tom

A few days ago I asked for advice on how to make a nonprofit sexy (since this is advice experts give us on marketing to Boomers). Maybe this isn’t a bad example from the American Jewish World Service!

Tom

Plenty of interesting findings to chew over here regarding giving plans for the coming year, attributes of nonprofits that donors find most important, most trusted sources of communications, most highly regarded charities, issues of most importance, and more.

Two items in particular struck me.

First, in light of some recent posts re Boomer giving (and some evidence that this is the “gloomiest” generation), I note that donors aged 50+ are the least likely to increase their giving in the coming year (only 21% say they will give more, compared to 36% for the entire sample). I must confess I’m getting “gloomier” about Boomer giving, but then I’m a Boomer so maybe this is just a negative feedback loop or something!

Second, the survey asked folks what communications channels they most trusted. I was stunned to see that information “directly from organizations through reports, mail, etc” (with 5% choosing as “most credible”) was only one point from the bottom of the list, ranking below advertising … and only one point above social networks and celebrity spokespersons.

OK, “organization’s website” gets 13%, but these are donors talking about the kind of organizations they contribute to, right? And they are given the same credibility as celebrity spokespeople? WOW! I must say, that response surprises, disappoints and mystifies me. Are nonprofit communicators that bad?

I can’t wait to hear what our friend and frequent communications commentator Nancy Schwartz has to say about that!

Tom

The first reports on a survey conducted for Forbes on the most memorable fictional brand spokespeople (often spokescreatures!). Survey participants were asked to rank 800 characters on 36 characteristics, including sincerity, likability and coolness. For the Forbes list, they ranked the characters by their appeal–whether people like the characters or not. Watch their cute little slideshow.

Top three are: M&Ms characters, Pillsbury Doughboy, and Tony the Tiger. The article dryly points out the advantage of a sportscreature … they can’t possibly embarrass the brand. Think Tony the Tiger vs Tiger Woods!

My top ten would have included the Michelin Man and Smoky the Bear!

In a similar vein, the second article features a list of the most "brilliant" marketing concepts or campaigns … ideas that "changed everything" according to Entrepreneur.com (as reported by MSNBC).

Top three on this list are: "A diamond is forever" (De Beers), "Does she … or doesn’t she?" (Clairol), and "Marlboro Man" (Philip Morris). Some interesting selections on this list. The article gives the back story on each. Did you know that until 1955 Marlboros were marketed as a premium filter tip cigarette for women?!

Fun browsing while you eat your lunch. Of course I’m assuming that as a dedicated fundraiser you eat at your desk!

If you want a serious question to ponder (and justify your browsing), how many truly memorable and durable nonprofit or public service advertising campaigns or spokespeople (or spokescreatures) can you recall?

I’ll chip in Smoky the Bear and "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" — both from the Ad Council. It’s tough to think of many, isn’t it?

What does this say about the amount of creative energy we put into marketing our causes?

Tom

Great idea! While enterprising students have been sending videos with their applications for some time at their own initiative, it appears Tufts is the first school to incorporate online videos into its "official" process.

Some videos have made their student-producers into minor stars. Here’s the most-viewed video so far. I wonder if this guarantees her admission! How could Tufts turn down the applicant with the most popular video?!

Does this have anything to do with fundraising?

The idea of these kids selling themselves via YouTube made me wonder …

Has any nonprofit linked a direct mail appeal with a supporting video appeal?

I.e., Have the signer of the mail appeal also deliver an online video appeal that drives home the key message and urgency of the mail piece. In my mind’s eye, not a slick video … just a straight-to-camera personal appeal.

I know lots of you have used online video incorporated into email campaigns, or to reinforce website "Donate" pages.

But here I’m curious about the synergy specifically between direct mail and YouTube.

For years, the prospecting control package for Planned Parenthood was signed by Katharine Hepburn. Can you imagine not clicking to the online video of her personally imploring you to donate?

Any examples?

Tom

Marketing maven Seth Godin seems to think Twitter has a short shelf life, citing this report from Nielsen Online that the churn rate on the service is 60% … as in, six-in-ten Twitter users in a given month fail to return the following month.

How much energy do you want to invest in a venue with a 40% retention rate?

On the other hand, here’s a Business Week piece on the "Ashton Kutcher Effect" — that is, there’s no question that celebrities, from Oprah Winfrey to Shaquille O’Neal can indeed drive traffic to social net sites, including Twitter. For celebs, Twitter, Facebook etc are the new fan magazines on steroids.

However, I suspect that both articles reflect reality … sure it’s cool to follow Oprah’s every move, for awhile. Then the novelty wears off and boredom sets in.

And then there’s the issue of following the daily sneezes of "normal" people … the kind most of us know. How long do you expect to follow the Tweets of your nonprofit’s executive director?!

And that’s the best case. If your presence on a social net site is your institution, I’ll wager you’re dead in the water. In these venues, people want to engage with other people … not brands and not organizations.

So if Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie is the spokesperson for your cause, maybe you can ride their Twitter-tails to a brief period of online stardom. Otherwise, don’t get your hopes up.

I’m with Godin on this one. As he says, stamps are underrated.

Tom

Apparently the movie has sparked a surge in donor interest in children’s and poverty issues in India, for groups like Railway Children, SOS Children’s Villages of India and others.

Great to see the response to this movie.

Tom

Perhaps you’ve seen these programs. I haven’t. But I will admit that decades ago in the late 50s I did enjoy The Millionaire — this fictional drama followed the lives of everyday people about to be given a million dollars, tax free, by the wealthy (but never seen) John Beresford Tipton, through his representative, Michael Anthony. Now, I must say, no pretense was made that this was the way philanthropy actually worked. I didn’t even know about "philanthropy" … I was about ten. I did nag my parents, unsuccessfully, to write to Tipton.

But I digress. I guess the theme has legs. And Ryann and Caity make some serious observations about whether pop philanthropy suits the spirit of the times.

First, Ryann writes …

Hi all,

Not sure if anyone else caught this, but Fox has a new reality show that is based on a UK show called Secret Millionaire. I watched it last night. I never watch reality tv. I liked this show. It’s cheesy, not well done, predictable, and unsustainable, but finally, philanthropy meets reality tv! The premise is that a millionaire (or a couple) who are millionaires go ‘undercover’ for a week, live on welfare in poor communities near-ish to their home. They talk to people all week, get to know the community, live hand to mouth, and at the end of the week, must give away at least $100,000 to anyone or people who the millionaire thinks is/are deserving.

There is no shortage of artificial cheesiness, but still, it was emotional. To see a Katrina survivor get some $ to rebuild, or the woman who spends her social security check on food to feed her makeshift homeless shelter get a fat check, to see the millionaires say that they were getting more out of this than the recipient, was touching.

I was wondering if this is related to the baby boomer need to be a part of the final destination of the donated money. That philosophy of ‘I’ll give, but take me there and show me what you do and who and how it has an impact.’ Or, is it just the next chapter in reality tv’s long and annoying story?

A few years ago, I noticed that the concept of ‘bearing witness’ was really starting to hit charities (especially int’l development and enviro, from what I saw). This seems like the next step, but also the inverse (see first, then give, as opposed to give first, then see).

Did anyone else see it? Does anyone think this sort of thing matters, in terms of public awareness? Or is it just where philanthropy and popular culture meet, even if it’s fleeting? I suppose it helps that all the people being helped are American, and since in these tough economic times people tend to give more to local organizations and human services.

Ryann

Here’s Caity’s response:

As the Reality Queen, of course I saw it. Once again Jason returned from work to find me crying my eyes out on the couch. All he had to do was look up at the TV and knew it was either Extreme Home MakeOver or another show just like Secret Millionaire – they all get me.

While I thought this was a good concept – surely some of the multi millionaires could afford to cough up more than $100K. They boast in the beginning that they can drop upwards of $5K on dinner alone – couldn’t they increase their average gift?

The other instance of philanthropy and reality tv was Oprah’s Big Give. What I liked about this premise was that ‘ordinary’ people had to perform extraordinary acts to help those in need. For example, one team raised over $250K to pay off a mortgage. All of the money was raised from small gifts in the community and a few large ones from community businesses.

This required the teams to become evangelists and engage those around them. That’s what the Secret Millionaire is missing – the engagement of more than the millionaires and the recipient.

Thanks for raising this – I’m glad to see that they’re running out of themes that embarrass and hurt people and are now forced to create shows that actually help people.

Caity

So what do Agitator readers think? Do these "reality" shows have any socially redeeming value? Do they foster false hope? (I never forgave my parents for not writing Tipton.) Do you think they make people more inclined to give? Or are most viewers, like me, really fantasizing about being the recipient?

And what happened to the good old days when you could be inspired to give by watching a Cousteau special, or Carl Sagan, or hell, even a Bob Geldoff concert?!

Tom

1. The pace of online giving has significantly increased – an estimated 31% in the past two years alone. In 24 months giving has moved from the hundreds of millions to well above a billion, no matter what source is doing the estimating.
2. Donors giving more than $100 per year are disproportionately online donors, and this propensity increases sharply as giving amounts increase. 82% of those giving more than $1000 a year to charities, causes or campaign give online.
3. In our current study we found intriguing racial and ethnic signals about online giving. For example 59% of Hispanic respondents are online donors; 92% of African-American respondents contributed online, topped by 92% of Asian-American respondents. NOTE: We will conduct additional inquires on racial and ethnic trends to confirm these findings. But if these early signals are correct the future of online giving is bright indeed because these groups will soon represent the majority of Americans.
4. The sharp growth in online giving has occurred across all age groups and non-profit categories. Despite a tendency of some to write Seniors out of the online fundraising equation the most impressive growth has occurred among older donors.
5. We found that the existence of a thriving interpersonal online fundraising network is hugely important for the future. With nearly 60% of donors born after 1964, with 25% of donors born between 1946 and 1964, and at least 25% of those born before 1946 visiting such sites, the platform is taking shape for a far more online distributed form of grassroots fundraising — the coming Web 3.0 of fundraising.

True, Postage and Telephone still dominate, but The Mouse is gaining.Have a great weekend.Roger