Harris Interactive just released its list of top corporate brand reputations for 2009. [They first ask consumers an open-ended question re companies they've heard about and think stand out as having "best" reputations. After compiling all those "nominations" they then ask an extensive battery of questions about the 60 "most visible" companies.]

Top 10 in Overall Reputation

1. Berkshire Hathaway
2. Johnson & Johnson
3. Google
4. 3M
5. SC Johnson
6. Intel
7. Microsoft
8. Coca-Cola
9. amazon.com
10. General Mills

Top 5 in Social Responsibility

1. Johnson & Johnson
2. Microsoft
3. SC Johnson
4. Lowe’s
5. Whole Foods Market

Top 5 in Emotional Appeal

1. Johnson & Johnson
2. amazon.com
3. SC Johnson
4. Berkshire Hathaway
5. General Mills

The second study, done by some Princeton University researchers, probes at what motivates people to trust and remain loyal to a brand.

Here’s their finding, as reported by Marketing Daily:

“Together, perceptions of warmth and competence were found to account for 46% of the variance in consumers’ intent to purchase and 50% of loyalty toward brands. However, a particularly key finding … was that two of the factors that go into determining overall perceptions of warmth are especially predictive of brand loyalty: ‘is honest and trustworthy’ and ‘acts in my best interest’.”

Sounds simple enough … your nonprofit can deliver on “warm”, right?

Tom

To ease your re-entry, today’s post presents no mental heavy lifting. Just some fun stats.

Harris Interactive recently polled Americans on which they would most want to be — richer, thinner, smarter or younger?

The largest group “wish” was … drum roll … richer, at 43%. That’s Americans for you! Then thinner at 21%, smarter at 14%, and younger at 12%.

I was disqualified from the survey for insisting that I wanted to be all of these.

Here’s more detail …

Actually, maybe there is a nonprofit insight here.

Which would you like your organization to be?

• Richer – speaks for itself!
• Thinner – as in “lean & mean”, producing more bang for the buck
• Smarter – in all it does
• Younger – as in “the glory days” when anything and everything was possible!

Tick one!

Tom

As reported on Marketing Daily, “Golden Givers” are super-affluent women age 45 and under. How does Amex define “super-affluent”? You need to charge at least $7,000 per month on your card for at least 12 months!

Is there any reader of The Agitator out there who qualifies? If so, can I be your houseboy? I’ll pay my own relocation expenses.

Now there’s a kernel of relevance for fundraisers here.

This group is called “Golden Givers” because Amex discovered that their charitable giving was the most notable thing about their spending. Super-affluent women 45 and under actually spent 4% more even during the recession, with 23% growth during the recovery (for Amex, from 4Q 2009). These women increased their card-based charitable donations 4% during the recession, compared with 12% in recovery.

I can picture all of you (or your consultants) calling Amex now, asking to rent the “Golden Givers” list.

Good luck!

Tom

P.S. Another tip … These gals love to spend online!

The Ad Age article itself provides good context, but is made even more valuable by some of the resources it links to. For example, it cites a recently published “yellow” paper from AlmaDDB, written by Isaac Mizrahi and Howard Konig, The New State of America: What the 2010 Census will reveal about the evolution of the United States of America.

The big story of course is the emergence of Hispanics and their cultural and economic impact. Some of the factoids:

• 62% of Hispanics are under the age of 34.
• 33% of Hispanics will be under the age of 18.
• In Texas, California, New Mexico, Hawaii and the District of Columbia, the white portion of the population is already a minority (representing less than 50%).
• At the DMA, level there will be 19 markets where the minority is the majority. In 15 of them, the dominant minority is Hispanic; in two markets the dominant minority is Black, and in Hawaii, of course, it’s the Asian/Pacific Islander.
• By 2020, minorities are expected to account for 40% of the country.

Says Mizrahi: “The most important thing is the internal discussion of what are the possible consequences of this demographic shift. We can’t look at the past. … We need to write the future. … So experimentation, control programs and pilots are the best options for marketers … Few people realize that Hispanics are influencing the general market more than vice-versa. They are trendsetting.”

The Ad Age article sparked a lively set of Comments worth perusing as well.

Something to think about after you get your next mail package or email appeal out the door!

Tom

In a recent blog post, Ken is responding to a donor who suggests otherwise.

Says Ken:

“…as a profession we are truly crap at saying thank you and welcome properly and at reassuring donors that their gifts have been safely received and wisely applied. Is this something to be proud of?  We wonder why we can’t keep our supporters, why, as Adrian Sargeant says, ‘Building donor loyalty is the biggest challenge facing our sector today.’ There’s little enough pleasure in being a donor. Perhaps we get the loyal donors we deserve.”

Amen, I say.

If you want to know how Ken really feels and why, his entire article is worth a read.

Tom

In her latest article, she comments on some issues that drive commercial marketers nuts, and probably a lot of nonprofit marketers and fundraisers as well.

She says: “…there are at least four areas that may drive you completely nuts if you don’t commit to getting them right. The infrastructure, mechanics and data utilization imperative of a cross-channel, digitally oriented world are very demanding. Today, we see several areas of continued strife, if not mania, inside even the strongest marketing organizations…”

Her four areas?

Consumer segmentation: “We all inherently know it’s not enough to rely on consumer demographics alone. Even layering in lifestyle points and anecdotal attitudinal information does not lead you to the holy grail of consumer intelligence, i.e., understanding who your best, most productive and profitable customers are. And then understanding how to create segmentation that allows you to strategically attract, retain and earn their loyalty and ongoing business.”

Testing: “This is one of those areas that doesn’t have to be complicated. It just means slowing down enough to confirm the testing construct and agree on what shall be tested. I think it gets complicated out of fear or lack of sureness on the best way forward.”

Landing pages: “The savvy marketer knows that the best landing pages deliver on brand, promise, relevancy and a swift path to conversation. Data and site analytics often reveal the need for tuning or overhaul to service any of those requirements. And such change is not always easy to negotiate in a pool of cross-department interests that may not be as aligned as they should be when it comes to the site.”

Cross-media and custom metrics: “In today’s converged media world, establishing metrics is not as simple as rattling them off based on your marketing objectives. If you are crossing traditional and digital lines, you are dealing with measures that are not necessarily portable.”

Kendall suggests how to deal with these challenges. I guess we can take some solace in the fact that commercial marketers with much bigger budgets than most of us are still grappling with the same issues as we “poor folk” in the nonprofit sector!

Tom

As of May 2010, 47% of American internet users age 50-64 use social nets like Facebook, LinkedIn or MySpace, and 26% of those age 65+ do so.

These age groups are much slower to try Twitter or other services to update friends on their activities — 11% of those age 50-64 and 5% of those age 65+.

Seniors are especially inclined to use social tools to re-connect with acquaintances from the past and to engage in health-related blogs and online exchanges.

These two older age cohorts are the fasting growing in terms of social net usage, but keep in mind that the base for these cohorts is lower to begin with, whereas social net use is already well-established in younger groups.

That said, the expanding use of social nets by Seniors is a distinct plus for nonprofits, steadily improving the “payout” from investing in these tools for relationship-building.

Tom

If your nonprofit is in the habit of actually listening to your donors (or the beneficiaries of your organization), chances are one of them did … or could, if given the opportunity.

Probably every fundraiser has used testimonials at one time or another … in direct mail letters, brochures, on websites, print ads, TV commercials. They are the most elemental form of letting someone else speak for you, from firsthand experience and with genuine emotion and special credibility.

But of course, the modern tools of the internet have catapulted to an entirely new level the ability of your donors to express themselves on your behalf … indeed, whether you like it or not. Social media tools in particular, often conjoined with “home-made” video, have spawned an entire volunteer industry of “user-generated” content.

And often these “out of your control” creative efforts are far more compelling than anything your in-house team or fundraising and communications consultants come up with.

Aline Reed, creative director of Bluefrog London, explores this theme in a terrific article — What kind of advert would your supporters make, for you? — just posted at SOFII. The article has several direct links to excellent examples that illustrate her point — unleash the creative potential of your donors and followers. Ever hear the Greenpeace “Mister Splashy Pants” story? Check it out in Aline’s article.

Aline, congratulations on a very robust and provocative presentation. You deserve a raise!

Tom

We now have a backlog of appeals that some of you have courageously offered up, and we’ll start to publish them.

Here’s the first “victim.”

From Michael Mitchell, Director for Annual Giving at Oklahoma Christian University, here is what Michael calls their “most effective email from the last year.” The “Welcome Kit Appeal” was “targeted to our alumni with any kind of connection to our international studies program and to anyone who had given to this fund or a similar area on campus in the past. Fortunately, as a university, we have a lot of data on our people. ”

The subject line of the email was: Because life doesn’t fit in a suitcase. And the “Sender” was: If they were just previous donors, the address was “advancement@oc.edu” and if they were alumni the address was “alumni@oc.edu”.

Welcome Kit Appeal. What advice do you have for Michael?

Tom

Top 4 Secrets to Building Instant Trust Online

Now somehow this just doesn’t work for me.

Isn’t “instant” trust impossible? Are we dealing with the ultimate oxymoron here?

Then compounding my suspicion, I’m promised “secrets” to build trust … another disconnect.

Finally, why are they only sharing four secrets … I dunno … I’m starting to not trust these guys.

Now, as a fundraiser, surely I would want to earn the trust of my potential donors, and keep the trust of the ones I have. Indeed, without some degree of initial trust, I would have no donors.

So I’m in a quandary here. Do I ignore all these bad signals and assume that, nevertheless, these people have something useful to tell me about online marketing mechanics? “Appearance and design, outside authorities, transactional assurances, and social proof” and such.

Or do I look for advice elsewhere?

Tom

P.S. In case I haven’t scared you off, and you’re still desperate for trust, you can register here.