This article from The Guardian reports that 10% of prime time TV ads have been developed using neuromarketing techniques … reading the brain’s reactions to creative stimulus in real time.

So, I’m wondering … who will be first in the nonprofit sector to don the EEG headset?

My predictions …

1. It will happen.

2. The first will be a major health-related charity (because they have the money to experiment) or maybe even more likely, a child sponsor agency (because they have the money and they already use direct response TV to prospect for high lifetime value donors).

3. If this tool is akin presently to the mainframe of the ’60s and ’70s, soon there will be the iPad version … with one in every development office!

Other predictions?

Tom

Denny’s checklist is 58 items long, so it’s pretty comprehensive. For example, here’s #2: Does your copy contain some or all of the 13 most powerful and evocative words in the English language? [Denny's checklist tells you what they are!]

Many of the items seem so, well, DUH!

But as Atul Gawande establishes beyond doubt in his book, that’s exactly why we need checklists!  Says Gawande:

"In a complex environment, experts are up against two main difficulties. The first is the fallibility of human memory and attention, especially when it comes to mundane, routine matters that are easily overlooked under the strain of more pressing events."

You might want to print out a hard copy of Denny’s checklist!

Tom

I thought it was very well put together …

1. It used video (you know I like that!).

2. It’s style and tone was totally consistent with the Grist brand — used humor nicely.

3. Most importantly, the offer was clear and strong, including a match designed to encourage a substantial gift (monthly commitment of $10, or $120+ one-time gift would be matched).

4. The donation capture was straightforward, with a landing page that totally reinforced the appeal and offer.

5. Info for check writers was clearly displayed, again with a touch of humor.

6. A "quick action" prize drawing and additional premiums to support monthly gifts were offered.

Here’s what you see if you click to donate.

Well done, Grist. You deserve a raise! Or will a contribution do?

Tom

P.S. I’m convinced the video I saw last week is different from the one presented today. If that’s true, it suggests Grist smartly was testing alternative video pitches, and by today has selected the "winner." If that’s true, Grist … you get a double raise!

Here are my observations.

First, a piece of advertising needs to be assessed against its objectives. If the objective here was branding, I’d rate the ad A+.

Whether you already know MSF or have never heard of it, this ad provides a very clear and emotive picture of human tragedy and the role MSF plays in trying to alleviate it. I expect you would be proud of MSF if already a donor, and probably indelibly imprinted if you had not been previously aware. I think you would know from this ad that MSF tries to treat suffering humans in outrageous situations. Nothing else needs to be said.

The ad is being presented in movie theaters, and is probably generating at least as much after-movie discussion as the movies that follow it! [To say nothing of the online discussion.] That’s a branding victory.

If the objective was fundraising, I wouldn’t be so sure this was an ideal approach. Obviously no "direct response" is presumed (it’s being viewed in a movie theater after all). But more importantly, from a fundraising perspective,  I believe the ad crosses the line of being a bit too overpowering … to the point where it might freeze people instead of motivating them to act.

From work with a past client, Christian Children’s Fund (now, ChildFund International), I appreciate the "tension" between presenting a compelling  and motivating case, including uncomfortable images, versus numbing the prospective donor with a sense of overwhelming hopelessness. Hence the focus of charities like this on helping one child … not saving nations or continents. It’s a proven approach that works.

Note that the MSF ad focuses on helping one child, not ending genocide.

I might regard it differently if I were told the ad was appearing in media specifically targeting a younger audience (by which I mean to say — sorry younger folks — more impulsive, not offended or discomfited by jolting images, and less disposed to "analyze" the what’s and wherefore’s of how MSF will deploy their dollars).

So, back to objectives.

If it’s branding, I’d say very effective. And if they offended some viewers, that’s both understandable and an acceptable price to pay to deliver a strong message.

If they were looking to raise money directly, I’d be surprised that they took this approach.

Tom

It’s sponsored by Resource Alliance, who stages the International Fundraising Congress (IFC). Traditionally the competition has featured direct response TV commercials. This is the first time it is open to online videos, which should (I hope) increase the breadth of entries cosiderably.

Deadline for entries is 25 September. Entries must be uploaded to YouTube. The winner will be selected "live" at the IFC in late October.

Full details here.

Good luck!

Tom

• An impressive 79% of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video;
• That translates to nearly 152 million U.S. Internet users watching an average of 111 videos per viewer;
• The average online video viewer watched 385 minutes of video, or 6.4 hours in the month;
• 107.1 million viewers watched 6.8 billion videos on YouTube.com (63.5 videos per viewer; other video sites in top 3 include MySpace and Hulu); and,
• The duration of the average online video was 3.5 minutes.

With four-of-five netizens watching online video, that means your donors almost assuredly are. Are they watching any from you?

comScore notes that the average length of videos watched is increasing. Consumers are getting comfortable with the channel. That means you have 2-3 minutes to tell your story in a compelling fashion in the second highest impact medium yet invented (next to face-to-face recommendation by a trusted friend).

Are you up to the challenge?

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

1. Video is Bigger Than Search: 12 billion videos are watched per month vs. 10.5 billion searches conducted.
2. Video Consumption is Quickly Moving Online: 19% of total video consumption is now online, versus 11% a year ago.
3. Most Users Consume Video: 80% of Internet users watch video, moving to 88% by 2012.
4. Consumption is High Across All Demos: 76% of children and 44% of seniors watched online video.
5. Video Is Fastest Growing Ad Category: Video advertising will growth 45% this year vs. 37% for social media.
6. TV Scale is Accessible Online: Many vendors now represent unique and volume numbers that are larger than prime-time TV.
7. Video is Highest Performing Unit Online: Pre-roll video outperforms all traditional display units on brand lift, brand recall and lift in purchase intent.

Not a disinterested party, to be sure. But still … Bottomline: the scale and usage is there … whatever reach and demographic you might want to target.

BrightRoll’s CEO, Tod Sacerdoti, has a blog you might want to check out. Clients like National Geographic and Liberty Mutual. Naturally, lots of BrightRoll pitching on Tod’s blog, but informative nonetheless … especially if you want to get into the weeds a bit.

Tom