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.

What Rainie says, much of it related to the explosion of social media and mobile communications, applies to all messaging and communications, which makes these observations pertinent to fundraisers, and especially those in advocacy groups.

Some key thoughts:

• With hugely expanded networking capacities, there are many more — and new — civic actors, many operating independently.
• Four messaging opportunities — to traditional ‘paid media’ and ‘earned media’ now add ‘owned media’ (e.g., websites, customer service) and ‘shared media’ (e.g., social sites, YouTube) … all requiring communications strategies.
• Six stages of engagement — observing (Lurkers matter, he says), following, endorsing, contributing, owning, leading.
• Migration of authority away from organizations (like your nonprofit) to — traditional experts with new platforms (e.g., blogs), amateur experts who are avid contributors (some with tribes), new algorithmic authorities (e.g., Google, Bing).
• Different ‘attention zones’ — continuous partial attention to media streams, immersion in ‘deep dives’, info-snacking in free moments.
• All organizations under more scrutiny, where trust depends upon transparency — surveillance (powerful watch the ordinary), sousveillance (ordinary watch the powerful), coveillance (peers stalk peers).
• Age of big data is upon us, giving new power to analytics.

This is a powerpoint presentation, so you will need to fill in the blanks yourself. But it’s well worth the mental effort … a very stimulating presentation.

Lee Rainie, you deserve a raise!

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!

For the very practical …

12+ Tips for Creating Engaging Envelopes, courtesy of Direct Marketing IQ.

For social net addicts (one in every five minutes spent online involves social networking) …

Top 10 Need-to-Knows About Social Networking and Where It’s Headed, from comScore.

If politics and advocacy is your thing (not exactly a tip sheet, but plenty of illustrations of campaign use of digital media) …

Politics and Advocacy, courtesy of ClickZ Politics.

And finally, from Ad Age, if you’re looking for situations to avoid in the new year …

Marketing Muck-Ups: The Biggest Follies of 2011

Marketing’s Biggest Social-Media Blunders of 2011

Enjoy!

Tom

Today I notice this report from comScore saying that 183 million American internet users watched online video content in November for an average of 20.5 hours per viewer.  Within that, 7.2 billion video ads were viewed. Wow!

Then simultaneously, I received an email alerting me to VOA Chesapeake’s online video campaign for this year. It turns out that last year’s 15 day campaign raised $75,000 in one month. This year’s effort has been expanded to five weeks and will include a heavy dose of social media (here’s the Facebook link).

Here’s a description:

“Each week consists of two videos aired through social media and the organization’s website on “Make A Difference Monday” and “Watch it Wednesday,” where (Courtney) Shirley, a former NBC reporter and anchor, takes viewers behind-the-scenes  at the organization providing information and ways individuals can get involved. This year the campaign also features new videos sharing stories of those being helped. “Tell Us Tuesday” encourages social media engagement through current events and questions aimed at engaging the non-profit’s online audience. “Thank You Thursday” spotlights a story of thanks on the Courtney’s Quest blog, created and written by Shirley or other featured bloggers such as the non-profit’s CEO/President and clients. “Fund Friday” targets financial and in-kind donations by fundraising through social media.”

Once again I applaud this effort. It shows that a smaller nonprofit can be just as inventive as the big guys.

And there’s something else to note about the campaign as described. I think it’s going to provide plenty of opportunity for human connections to be made between VOA Chesapeake’s client-beneficiaries, their staffers, and their donors … even though it’s a digital campaign. That’s the contribution of video.

And that, in turn, reminded me of this blurb, from of all places Supermarket News, about the the craving consumers have for human interaction, citing this Harvard Business Review article, The Future of Retail? Look To Its Past. Says author Peter Merholz:

“In our increasingly connected world, people crave authentic human interaction, and the future of retail is going to look a lot more like it did in the more distant past (or still does in markets and bazaars), and a lot less like the bureaucratically-driven mass consumerism we grew to expect in the twentieth century.”

There’s no escaping “mass” fundraising, but campaigns like that of VOA Chesapeake show us how to bring a human dimension into our efforts … and online video has a huge role to play in that.

Courtney Shirley, you deserve a raise!

Tom Belford

Done by Epsilon, the Consumer Channel Preference Study (registration required) focuses particularly on consumer preferences with respect to direct mail and email. But it also looks at social media and mobile. (One disappointment … nothing on telemarketing.)

Some findings:

• 50% of U.S. consumers and 48% of Canadians said they pay more attention to postal mail than email;
• 60% of U.S. consumers and 64% of Canadians said they enjoy checking the mailbox for postal mail, highlighting an emotional connection;
• The least trustworthy channels are social media and blogs, achieving only 6% trust among U.S. consumers and 5% among Canadians.

And specifically, as between direct mail and email, 30% of consumers prefer receiving solicitations for donations in the mail, versus 9% via email.

The reasons for preferring direct mail are (in rank order):

• More private if sent through through the mail
• Already get too much email
• Would prefer not to have to print the info
• A lot of online info can’t be trusted

The reasons for preferring email are (in rank order):

• I can print the info to keep if I want
• Can choose which info I want sent to me
• Can read the info when it is convenient for me
• To save on paper
• Can more easily share the info with others

Epsilon makes this recommendation (among others):

“Use personally addressed direct mail to provide information as well as an emotional lift for consumers. Recognize that more targeted communications are becoming the norm for consumers as they are engaging media on terms they prefer. Every opportunity to express more knowledge of the consumer in the channels they prefer is essential to building a relationship and driving action.”

Amen.

Tom

Here’s the latest research from Pew Internet Research, looking at Why Americans use social media.

So, why are you addicted?

It all boils down to friends and family. Two-thirds of Pew’s respondents say staying in touch with family and current friends is their ‘major reason’ for using social sites. 50% say ‘reconnecting with old friends you’ve lost touch with’ is a major reason.

After friends and family, a huge drop. Only 14% say connecting with others with shared interests or hobbies is a major reason (35% say ‘minor reason’). And 5% say ‘reading comments by celebrities, athletes or politicians’ is a major reason.

One interesting twist …

Older adults (50-64 years old) — i.e., donors — are the most likely to use social media to engage with others around interests and hobbies. That probably includes interaction around causes and politics.

But more fascinating is this survey research from Ipsos Mendelsohn on the social networking of Affluent Americans (household income $100,000 or more).

Affluent Millennials (18-28 years old) use Facebook 7.5 hours per week and Twitter for 8.3 hours. By comparison, Affluent Boomers (45-64) use Facebook 3.5 hours/wk and Twitter 2.8 hours, while Seniors (65+) drop to 2.3 hours and 1.3 hours respectively.

Here’s what got me … Among Affluents, 32% agree “I usually check e-mail or Facebook within 30 minutes of waking up in the morning”—a figure that rises to 50% among Affluent Millennials.

I’ll be that percentage rises to 90% amongst Agitator readers … affluent or otherwise!

Tom

For a macroview, The Nonprofit Quarterly reported recently on a Craigconnect study of fifty top US charities using social media, grouped in these focus categories — Animal, Children, Cultural, Disaster Relief, Environment, Health, Veterans & Military, and Women.

All the charities compared are pretty big, and NPQ noted that all but one has a full or part-time dedicated staffer working on social media. But who knows what ‘part-time’ means. If I had fifty people on my fundraising staff, I guess I could let one fool around a bit on social media

[I'd love to know the first-year renewal rate of these orgs ... but I digress.]

For a much closer look at how a big-league nonprofit uses social media, check out this review by Beth Kanter of the Facebook efforts of the Humane Society of the US. These guys just hit the one million fans mark. And as this article describes, that doesn’t just happen.

Beth’s post asks “When is one million fans on Facebook worth more than a million bucks?”

My answer — Not yet! — is different then Beth’s. But I’m looking through the lens of fundraising; she’s looking at activism. And there I’ll concede, yes I’d like to have a million followers … recruited by my communications staff. [Then maybe they'd let my fundraising staff do a bit of testing on those fans!]

Tom

As reported by the Center for Media Research, a recent study from Exact Target indicates we shouldn’t hyper-ventilate over Likes. They’re actually pretty casual, especially when it comes to brands.

CMR cites these study conclusions:

• “Like” is deceptively simple and infinitely complex, with subtle variations in meaning that are highly dependent on context and the individual user
• “Like” is a form of self-expression, especially among younger consumers, with ties to the right brands to earn “cool points” among their peers
• Many consumers want some tangible benefit in exchange for their “Like.” This may be in the form of deals, discounts, or exclusive information.
• “Like” is ambiguous. From the consumer perspective, it’s often unclear what they’re committing to with their “Like.”
• “Like” is light-hearted. Brands shouldn’t read too much into a “Like.” It’s casual and fun-and users expect casual, fun posts in return.

This last point is perhaps the most important take-away, concludes the report. “As a public declaration of brand affinity, “Like” is relatively lightweight and not an endorsement.”

The study notes that only 42% of active Facebook users agree that marketers should interpret “Like” to mean they are a fan or advocate of the company. And CMR observes: “‘Like’ does not equate to permission for one-to-one marketing. Instead, it represents consent to receive broadcast marketing messages, while leaving the door open (or at least unlocked) for taking the relationship further.”

So fundraisers, don’t come on too strong to those who merely ‘Like’ you!

Tom

P.S. You can register and download the study here.