There’s an underlying phenomenon here that’s highly relevant, I think, to nonprofit fundraising.

Pew reports that more than half of adult cell phone owners used their cell phones while they were in a store to seek help with their purchase decision:

• 38% of cell owners used their phone to call a friend while they were in a store for advice about a purchase they were considering making;
• 24% of cell owners used their phone to look up reviews of a product online while they were in a store; and,
• 25% of adult cell owners used their phones to look up the price of a product online while they were in a store, to see if they could get a better price somewhere else.

What’s really going on here? Consumers are looking for reassurance … and they’re looking for it from the source they trust most — other consumers who are friends or who have written reviews based on their own experience. And they’re looking for comparison information, specifically with respect to price … seeking value for money.

In short, they’re realizing … “I don’t need to be on my own making this decision. Advice is just  a few taps away.” They are being trained to consult with others because it’s so easy and immediate.

So, now they’re home, having purchased a new iPhone or iPad, and your prospect mailing shows up. What might they do?

I wouldn’t necessarily say that they’ll pick up the phone and ask a friend … “Should I give to Worldvision or Save the Children?” Although indeed some might inquire of a friend if they support either. Or they might recall reassuringly that a friend has ‘liked’ one of the organizations on their Facebook page.

What I do think many (most even?) will do is go online for some form of validation. They’ll go to the organization’s website and poke around.

And, given the consumer shopping experience described above, where peer referrals are hugely important, what should they readily find?

I would suggest — above all — TESTIMONIALS!

Testimonials both from very satisfied beneficiaries of the organization’s work and from real donors who appreciate the organization’s accomplishments. Testimonials in a variety of formats, from short quotes to short videos.

Secondarily, but definitely not with the same weight as the testimonials, strong ratings from the charity raters (or some other straightforward reassurance/evidence about financial accountability and transparency). Price comparison isn’t really a relevant concept in the fundraising setting. But reassurance about money being properly managed and delivering big bang for the buck clearly is.

Few offers (or solicitations) are considered in isolation anymore. The best thing you can do to address that reality is make sure your online presence is your prospect’s reassuring friend.

Tom

The purchase of Convio is the most recent acquisition Blackbaud has made to expand and solidify its position at the top of the nonprofit software and CRM market. It is also its largest acquisition to date. Previous deals, such as Blackbaud’s 2007 purchase of Target Analytics for $60 million and its 2008 purchase of Kintera for $46 million, were significantly smaller.

A similar pattern of acquisition – and market concern about the acquisition – emerged last year in the higher education space when Datatel, a company that provides software and online management services to colleges and universities acquired SunGard, its major competitor.

The most consistent expression of concern among Tweets and emails I reviewed is the fear that when a single company controls so much software and online applications, the nonprofit is at the company’s mercy in terms of new features, bug fixes, service and price.

Historically, there’s some basis for concern. Consolidation within a market indeed often decreases innovation and increases price. And in the world of online fundraising, in a few short years we’ve gone from Kintera/Convio/Blackbaud, then to Convio/Blackbaud and yesterday to just Blackbaud.

In higher ed, the SunGard/Datatel merger impacts the entire institution, because it’s not just about fundraising, it’s also about managing the operation of the universities and colleges themselves. Right now their customers are wondering, is it going to be Datatel’s campus management and SunGard’s fundraising systems … or what? Similarly, Convio and Blackbaud customers are wondering if it’s going to be Raiser’s Edge, eCRM, Common Ground, Luminate … or what?

Stop worrying. Why? Because thanks to technology and the cloud there is a fast growing number of alternatives.

Even assuming that Blackbaud or Datatel behave like Big Bad Monopolists – an assumption I’m not even remotely willing to make – the fact is that there are more and more enterprises focused on effectively meeting nonprofit needs.

In fact, we are beginning to enjoy the benefits of an app economy where we are free to choose best of breed, instead of best of vendor, solutions. Beyond the magic of Apple’s App Store you need only do a cursory search in the Salesforce’s AppExchange to see the hundreds of nonprofit apps available … many free or nearly so.

Between today and the App Economy of tomorrow there are also plenty of alternatives available right now! Take for example online CRMs and donor database systems. Viable alternatives now range from the inexpensive online donor management systems like DonorTools ($30 a month), to the highly sophisticated new cloud-based system Affinaquest ($99 per month for up to 10 users) designed and built by Jeff Shy, the creator of Sage Millenium.

You can quickly get an idea of all the alternatives available to you and your organization by downloading the free report on donor databases prepared by nTEN, the Nonprofit Technology Network.

And the same holds for email, donation and constituent engagement platforms. Plenty of alternatives like Stay Classy, CauseVox, and Constant Contact.

My first point in all this is that I don’t believe for a second there’s anything sinister or particularly foreboding about the acquisition of Convio by Blackbaud. Both companies have done much for our world, and both companies fully realize in the new cloud-based, app-driven world of tomorrow their very survival is at stake. Time to man the oars and move into the future together. Smart thinking as far as I’m concerned.

My second point is that given the wealth of existing and emerging alternatives, you have nothing to fear from the consolidation of major fundraising vendors except fear of change or the inertia that blocks exploration of the many alternatives.

Roger

P.S.  Here is a link to yesterday’s video of Marc Chardon, Blackbaud’s CEO, explaining the acquisition and why he believes it will help customers.

P.P.S.  For all the evangelists at Blackbaud and Convio, but especially for Vinay Bhagat, Convio’s Founder and Chief Strategy Officer, my thanks for the ground you’ve broken.

What struck me was that 76% of the Haiti text givers said their text contributions are “usually a spur-of-the-moment decision”, whereas 45% say that about their online contributions. The surprise is not that text giving is quintessentially impulse giving … to me it’s that such a large percentage, 50%, say that they “usually do  lot of research before donating” online. I would have expected online donations to also be more spontaneous.

This report has tons of valuable information …

• Haiti was the door-opener to text giving for fully 74% of donors who gave via that channel.
• However, nearly all of the 73% of Haiti text donors in this survey who belong to a group or organization, have made a monetary contribution to their group(s) in the past. In other words, most are established donors trying a new channel.
• Many of the Haiti text donors have given again via texting (56% to one of three specified disasters, and 29% to other causes).
• Mobile givers are more racially and ethnically diverse than the overall population of charitable givers. Whites comprise three-quarters (75%) of all charitable givers, but make up two-thirds (63%) of this sample of Haiti donors and just half (51%) of all text donors.
• 43% of text donors encouraged others to give, but 75% who did so encouraged others by talking face-to-face.
• After making their Haiti contribution, six in ten say they haven’t followed the ongoing reconstruction efforts (43% “not too closely” and 15% “not at all”). Here today, gone tomorrow.

There’s just too much in this ‘must read’ report to summarize here, including an interesting profile of text givers versus other givers, and a look at how text givers prefer to communicate with groups in which they are involved (surprises here).

Well done, Pew!

Tom

They expand upon ten resolutions for 2012:

1. I will put fundraising first.
2. I will stop treating my donors like ATMs.
3. I will not engage in crappy communication. [My favorite. Includes this parody of Dr Seuss: "I will not read it on a plane, in a car or on a train. I will not read it here or there. I will not read it anywhere! I will not read bad copy!"]
4. I will whip my website into shape.
5. I will enable and maximize online giving.
6. I will get my email on.
7. I will use social media wisely.
8. I will investigate my portable potential.
9. I will modularize my mission. [Interesting discussion here about breaking down your organization's broad needs into more concrete and compelling bite-size giving opportunities.]
10. I will connect with people & organizations that can help me succeed.

Some good links provided if you want to delve more deeply into the rationale for their various recommendations.

Thanks to Charles Langley for the pointer.

Tom

P.S. Keep those responses to our 2012 Agitator reader survey coming in. Takes only five minutes. The better we know you, the more relevant we can make our content.

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

I expected Mark to be making a point about building relationships. Your year-end giving isn’t simply a response to some clever tactics dreamed up in October and executed from mid-November on. Those tactics are simply tapping into a (hopefully deep) reservoir of donor interest and commitment that your organization should have been nurturing for months.

However, Mark focused on something more narrow … sharpening your online giving strategy.

To be sure, heaps of donations have passed digitally into nonprofit coffers over the past 3-4 weeks.

By now, you’ve probably counted it … compared it to your projections (resulting in high-fives or gulps) … and even compared it to last year’s results (which, as Mark points out — citing Blackbaud — were up 34.5% in 2010 over 2009 for the sector … a high benchmark to beat).

I hope your next step will be to identify exactly what worked and what didn’t with your year-end online campaign. What is there to learn … and fix? Especially with regard to your conversion effectiveness at every step along the online giving process — from initial response (e.g., email subject lines and use of URLs in mail packages) to close (e.g. capture rate of your landing pages).

While the largest chunk of online giving still occurs at year-end, you’ll be leaving a lot of money on the table during the year, starting with your first online appeal of 2012, if you don’t attend to these learnings right now.

Mark is right about that.

But all the ‘fixes’ are just that … tightening the nuts and bolts. Don’t forget that the fixes still ultimately rest on the bedrock of donor commitment, which some nonprofits enjoy far more than others (as we’ve reported here).

Tom

But whether you’re new or a relative ‘old-timer’ with respect to social media, here from The Nonprofit Quarterly is an intelligent article that will help you think through what you’re doing — Four Reasons NOT to Use Social Media … and Why to Use It Anyway, by Christine Durand and Kristen Cici.

Their four reasons not to use …

1. It’s a fad — it’s going away soon anyway
2. What’s the ROI? I can’t see that it’s worth it
3. People will say bad things about us
4. Our supporters don’t use social media

Christine and Kristen examine the ‘truth’ behind each of these concerns, but then deliver the case — and sound advice — for doing it right. Hint: very explicit goals and metrics to measure progress against them are critical.

Nice job guys.

Tom

P.S. Thanks to Debra Richmond for the heads-up.

So we thought it fitting to give the last word of the year to an Agitator Commentator.

We picked this recent comment from Steve MacLaughlin at Blackbaud, who talks about the imperative for nonprofit fundraisers to embrace multi-channel fundraising. Use of multiple communication channels reflects the real world of donors … if not yet the real world of some nonprofits!

The bottom line: Different strokes for different folks (donors) is not just some ideal … it’s vital to fundraising success. And the chief obstacles to capturing its fundraising benefits are operational and data silos within organizations.

Here’s what Steve has to say:

“Is it channel conflict or cognitive dissonance? It is sometimes very hard to tell.

There is way too much philosophical debate on which channel should get the credit for the gift. This is mostly fueled by organizational silos or incentives that nonprofits have put in place.

Here’s the reality: Donors are multichannel. They receive messages across multiple channels and they give across multiple channels. They don’t care about your org chart or who gets credit for the donation.

The problem is that many nonprofits are still organized around single channels each doing their own thing, with their own strategies, their own data, their own donors, and their own systems. That’s broken and really costly.

Ultimately, you want to use the right number of channels to drive the right people to take the right action using the most effective and satisfying giving mechanism as possible.

If that means a direct mail piece and a check, then great! If that means a phone call and an online donation, then fantastic. If that if a tweet, an email, a QR code, a website, and a donation for, then so be it.

And if you’re looking at donor behavior across channels, then you will begin to see some trends in what channel mix works best for different types of donors. Oh yeah, did I mention that donors don’t all respond the same way to the same channels? One size fits all approaches are as doomed as single channel tactics.

Statistically speaking, online donors are much more likely to switch to become offline donors. About 32% of online donors will become offline donors compared to only about 3% of offline donors switching channels. Your results may very. Always be testing.

No one channel should get all the credit or all the blame. You succeed or fail based on how well you do these things together.”

Amen.

Happy New Year!

Roger and Tom

P.S. And here’s our New Year’s Resolution … Resolved: No Silos!

As we head for 2011’s fundraising finish line The Atlas of Giving on Friday reported that overall giving this year will finish 7.4% ahead of last year.

Key takeaways from the Atlas of Giving November report:

• In terms of sectors, ‘Education’ was the biggest gainer (up 9.3%) and ‘Religion’ posted the greatest decline (but still 6.5% greater than 2010). All other sectors remained posted gains in the 7% range.

• Corporate and foundation giving up 6.2% and 6.1% are forecast to account for the least growth, while individual giving will increase 7.7% and bequests +7.4%.

• There are some signs of weakening. Giving in November (+0.4%)  and the December forecast (+0.2%) are worrisome portends for 2012.

• We’ll know more when The Atlas of Giving releases its 2012 Forecast in mid-January.

Much like the CIA once monitored the wheat harvest in the old Soviet Union, Ethan Boldt over at DirectMarketingIQ reports the top 5 fundraising direct mail trends in 2011.

Using the remarkable database of direct mail contained in the Who’s Mailing What Archive  that includes 14 different types of fundraising mail, ranging from social action, through international relief, culture, health, politics, religion, sports, animal welfare and wildlife, Ethan summarizes the key trends as follows:

• Controls showed a slight uptick in 2011. This year 45% of all fundraising mail was with a control package (by his definition a package that appeared in the Archive for at least 1 year); that’s an increase of 1.8%.  This means that 55% of all packages were ‘new’—a hopeful sign that there’s considerable testing going on. [Or, asks Tom cynically, does this merely reflect desperation?!]

• Personalization and Variable Data Printing Hit Record Levels.  Today, according to Ethan, 60.3% of all fundraising mail is personalized either by copy or imagery—the highest point since the Archive began.  And, it increased by a full 8% over 2010, the previous record high.

• Surprising Increase in Larger Formats. Ethan examined all direct mail in the Archive and reports that the usage of envelopes smaller than 6″ x 9″s stayed constant over the past two years. “The only change was an increase in larger-sized formats (bigger than 6″ x 9″s), by 9 percent, with larger formats taking up a quarter of the mailstream with a big contribution from the fundraising industry.”

• The Self-Mailer is (probably) Out! In 2010 self-mailers accounted for only 4% of fundraising mail, but that represented a 12 percent increase over 2009. Bad economy? Bad thinking? Whatever the reason Ethan reports that the use of self-mailers declined by 21% in 2011, a trend also reflected in the commercial sector.

• Mailings with Premiums showed a 14% increase. In the commercial sector the use of premiums increased by 7% in 2011. Is the fact that premium use doubled in the fundraising sector significant? We’ll explore premiums in future Agitator posts, but the reality is that today 1 in 5 mail pieces contain a premium. [Again, Tom asks, a sign of pure desperation? He'd be more comfortable if he thought fundraisers were serious about measuring and evaluating the lifetime value of these premium responders.]

Your ‘premium’ for tomorrow?  Agitator posts that rang our readers’ chimes in 2011.

Meanwhile, what giving or technical trends caught your attention in 2011?

Roger

One was a short blog post by Jeff Brooks, Why it’s hard to raise funds online. Citing Smart Insights Digital Marketing blog, Jeff says it takes:

• 3 seconds to get their attention with your subject line and the from line
• 5 seconds, once they’ve opened your message, to draw them in.
• 7 seconds to get them involved, on the way to taking action

Jeff’s comment: ” If you thought the mailbox was a cutthroat place, it’s nothing like the inbox.”

What Jeff is talking about I would indeed term online fundraising. You initiate the pitch online and you close the contribution online. That’s the real deal.

On the other hand, I saw these survey results reported in the Chronicle of Philanthropy saying that ‘online giving’ was higher than most expect amongst older donors, with 51% of recent donors age 60 and over in this survey saying they had made ‘online donations’.

I wonder what was actually being said by these donors … Did they respond to an appeal delivered (one way or the other) digitally? Or did they merely use the convenience of going online to complete a giving transaction initiated via some other channel … most likely direct mail? I suspect what’s being reported as ‘online fundraising’ is more of the latter, and this I consider ‘online fund capture’, not online fundraising.

If you think this is just a semantic difference, I urge you to go back and read my recent post, Are Online Fundraisers Stealing Credit?

I note that the Chron item also reported that a quarter of donors said that at least once they had started to make a gift online but not finished the process. That’s leaving a lot of money on the table, however you regard the lost transaction!

If your direct mail team delivers 100 prospective donors to your website, but 25 fail to complete the online transaction, I hope the accountability for that disappointing performance is being placed on the right shoulders! Or should I say silo?

Tom