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

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

Sadly, lots of folks pay lip service to the concept of donor commitment or loyalty, but few really grasp it, and even fewer in the nonprofit sector take any serious steps to do much about it.

The commercial sector long ago woke up to the economic importance of customer loyalty and commitment. A quick search of Amazon reveals more than 1000 books on ‘customer loyalty’ in the commercial world, but just 13 on ‘donor loyalty’ in the nonprofit space.

That’s why we welcome this month’s publication of a fascinating new book, 3D Philanthropy by Canadian fundraiser Fraser Green.

I’ve known and collaborated with Fraser over the years and he really understands the importance of commitment and how to build it. In fact, this book is really a donor commitment manual – full of practical tips and recipes to deepen donor connections and foster the loyalty that results.

Ken Burnett, who’s spent a long and distinguished career studying and preaching the importance of donor relationship management and commitment, says this about Fraser’s  unique book:

“Fundraisers, as Fraser Green rightly says, are better at understanding behaviours than motivations. This book sets out to rectify that, addressing the emotional and motivational dimensions of fundraising in more detail and better than any other I know. It contains more intimate pen-portraits of donors and more analysis not just of how they think and behave, but also of how they feel and why they respond as they do. It deserves a space on every fundraiser’s bookshelf.

“The author hopes this book will give you a new way to look at the good work you do and unlock some doors that you haven’t ventured through before. There’s a lot here for anyone serious about fundraising.”

And Tom Ahern, another of my heroes when it comes to understanding motvation and commitment, sums up Fraser’s insights:

“I’ve never seen a book like 3D Philanthropy. In this truly original work, Fraser takes you on a fascinating journey through the donor’s giving experience. You eavesdrop on the precise intellectual, emotional, and spiritual reasons behind the donor’s acts of philanthropy. This book will forever change your understanding of the donor’s mind — and your special role in helping donors reach their full philanthropic potential. If you’ve ever had second thoughts about your career in fundraising, read this book – and find your inspiration again.”

Building on a fascinating series of vignettes of individual donors, Fraser goes on to backup his theories with detailed survey research conducted by his fundraising firm, Goodworks with Canadian donors, then illustrates the importance of all this with easy-to-understand calculations of the value of donor loyalty and commitment.

The economics of fundraising is startlingly simple. Committed and loyal donors are the economic engine of any charity’s database. Donor loyalty must become the holy grail of fundraising. 3D Philanthropy is really a donor loyalty handbook. To understand ‘3D Philanthropy’ is to know how to build donor loyalty.

Fundraisers who do that right will be the ones who prosper.

Roger

P.S.  3D Philanthropy is available for $29 from Civil Sector Press. Fraser, until those royalties start piling up, you deserve a raise!

If you’re traveling over the Thanksgiving weekend, take it with you and ponder it.

Mark is responding to a study claiming that 12 million Boomers want to start their own nonprofit or socially oriented business over the next decade. Noting that over one million nonprofit groups already exist in the US, Mark commends the commitment and spirit of these Boomers, but argues:

“Such a multiplicity of organizations would move America further away from developing coherent analyses of public problems. And it would lead the country to define and treat social concerns as fragmented individual or local matters. That would make it profoundly more difficult to mount any significant effort to advance the broad-based change needed in our social, political, and economic institutions.”

Mark is actually making two points.

One is ‘enough already’! There are plenty of effective groups out there already … get behind them.

His second point, however, is to zero in on the systemic, structural failures that are creating many of our social problems in the first place. These failures must be attacked and corrected by policy advocacy and political action. Otherwise, we’re doomed to expend huge resources endlessly applying bandages while the injuries relentlessly compound … the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff syndrome.

Citing Wall Street and other financial abuses, Mark argues:

“…instead of simply trying to relieve the suffering of the ever-growing number of Americans hurt by the failures of our economic, social, and political systems, we need to deal with the continuing causes of our problems—those systems themselves and the people who inappropriately profit from their undemocratic malfunctioning …

It is these dynamics that must be changed if the decline of the middle class and the growth of poverty are to be reversed. And multiples of new nonprofits or socially oriented businesses would not begin to challenge that reality or stave off growing human need.”

Amen!

However, while I agree heartily with both of Mark’s points, it does not follow that existing nonprofits — whether advocacy groups or charities — deserve an automatic ‘free pass’ when confronted by new, ‘upstart’ organizations that aim to tackle the same problems.

One would think that today’s Boomer, with limitless information at hand, might readily find an existing nonprofit that was super-effective at its mission and deserving of support.

If he or she cannot, and instead launches something new, whose fault is that? Maybe the Boomer was superficial in researching or has a super ego. But maybe he/she looked carefully and concluded that existing groups just weren’t cutting the mustard … after decades of effort. Or maybe groups that are effective aren’t doing such a hot job of communicating their progress and accomplishments. If the tree falls and no one hears, was there a sound?

So while you’re tucking it in over the holidays, give some thought to how you’ll respond to the Boomer who knocks on your door, but suspects you’re outmoded, ineffectual, past your ‘use by’ date. Or worse, to the Boomer who hasn’t even heard of you.

Tom

P.S. Mark … great piece. You deserve a raise!

The year was 1970. Computers – big mainframes, not PC’s and The Cloud – had just begun to edge out the heavy, old metal Addressograph plates and the traditional shoeboxes filled with 3×5 index cards posing as donor records.

That year my friend Richard Viguerie, the right wing fundraiser and organizer of all things evil, and I began experimenting with the possibilities of actually using a donor’s past behavior to create what became known as the ‘ask string’. And since we didn’t compete for business – he represented those horrible right wingers, I focused on the more noble and progressive left – we compared notes.

Over dinner in a Japanese restaurant in Rosslyn, Virginia we agreed that the most effective ‘ask strings’ were 1.0 Highest Previous Gift (HPC), 1.5 HPC, 2.0 HPC and Other $_____. Medieval fundraising (the leech-equivalent) was born. To the detriment of almost everyone, generations of direct response fundraisers have followed it ever since.

Shame on us. And shame on the consultant priesthood for not challenging the theology.

In pursuit of atonement and expiation for my fundraising sins (Richard will have to seek his own), I repent that generations of direct response fundraisers have slavishly copied those ‘formulae’. For that I’m truly sorry.

Fast forward 45 years. It turns out the fundraising gospel we preached was quite faulty. It simply won’t get you into fundraising heaven anymore.

Why? Research. That’s why.

Despite the revulsion folks like my friend Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now harbor for meaningful research, there’s a whole body of behavioral science and solid academic research, not to mention live testing data, that should lead you to dispose of the leeches and turn to more modern fundraising medicine.

Kevin Schulman, my colleague at DonorVoice in a brilliant post on his blog summarizes the most appropriate and effective ways to calculate ‘asking amounts’.

• For Acquisition and Reinstatement – use the most recent contribution (MRC), not the highest, contribution [HPC]  Kevin explains why in his post.

• For Active Donors on Your File – average gift beats MRC and, in fact, MRC is actually detrimental. Again, Kevin explains why.

Kevin’s post also includes a fascinating academic paper on asking amounts produced by economists and statisticians at Ghent University.

Now that I’ve confessed and steered you toward a more ‘round Earth’ view of fundraising in this year-end period, when asking amounts and ask strings really matter, I can only encourage you to read Kevin’s post, with the white paper he’s attached.

And yes, please demand an explanation from your consultants and copywriters as to why they’re still using leeches.

Kevin, you deserve a raise.

Roger

Frankly, I’m exhausted from preparing this, but I really hope you’ll invest the  time to read the whole post. Believe me, it’s worth it if you care about the future of your organization.

Here’s why.

Blackbaud has just delivered a “must read” report on Growing Philanthropy in the U.S. Read and heed.

The report, a view of the future we all face, is a distillation of a ‘brainiacs’ session hosted by Blackbaud and moderated and summarized by Adrian Sargeant. They’ve addressed the fact that giving is flat and what to do about it.

You really have to read the whole thing, written by Adrian, a bright light in our universe. But, for the slothful who won’t take the time to read it all, here are the key takeaways:

• Redefine Relationships. Stop being selfish. Focus on giving for giving’s sake.

• Re-orient toward longer term measures of fundraising performance. Immediate measure of ‘success’ (response rates, immediate ROI, giving totals for the year) doom us. Look at long-term values.
  

• Enhance focus on retention and building supporter loyalty.  Listen up! With retention rates in the dumper too few nonprofits really understand that a 10% improvement in retention results in a 200% improvement in lifetime value.  Time to get real.

• Develop a more integrated approach to fundraising. It’s not the method, Stupid, it’s  the message. And the message must focus on the donor’s concerns, not yours.

• Break down organizational silos and encourage greater collaboration between teams. The authors are too kind to say it, but you should be ashamed of your territoriality.

• Give supporters greater control over the relationship. Ken Burnett, The Agitator, DonorVoice and scores more have been preaching this for years. This is the arena where you can quickly add the most value.

• Promote the development of shared back office facilities. Small organizations need to stop whining and get together and share in the development of good stuff in the back room.

• Tackle high turnover rates in the fundraising profession. Face it. It’s not the pay it’s the lack of respect from CEOs and board members that drives folks out of this trade. We have an identity crisis and have to deal with it.

• Educate all stakeholders about the necessity of a longer term and integrated approach. I know, I know, it’s like playing Mozart to a cow, but we have to do it. It’s a real challenge, but we must not allow Boards to be stupid about fundraising, stewardship and philanthropy.

• Empower the regulators to enforce 100 percent filing of Forms 990 to increase their utility. Hey, I know this seems picky, but the fact is that some organizations don’t file, some lie, some don’t.  Transparency is key to the future of philanthropy. Get with it.

• Blow the whistle on organizations claiming to have zero costs of fundraising. As long as watchdog organizations reward ‘zero’ costs, organizations will lie. It’s time to call out the phonies in the watchdog groups and blast the nonprofits that play this game. There simply ain’t no thing as ‘zero’ fundraising costs.

• Fund the development of a website in the U.S. to educate the public, boards, and other stakeholders. Philanthropy is a big business, a significant part of our GNP. Let’s make it as transparent as possible.

• Encourage nonprofits to develop complaints schemes. Anyone who knows anything about donor retention and commitment is familiar with the importance of feedback. (See http://thedonorvoice.com)  This report reminds us of the absolute necessity to provide multiple methods for donor feedback.

• Develop new and more appropriate measures of performance.  Efficiency and cost of fundraising sucks as a measurement of anything.  There are far more appropriate measures.

• Develop the self-regulation of fundraising. Ethics be damned.  There’s a whole host of scum bags out there. But, we can do something about them.

• Encourage the adoption of monthly giving. No shit! Serious Monthly Giving or Sustainer programs produce 600% – 800% more revenue. Get to it. Now!

• Improve the sector’s engagement with young people. This is a loser, from a fundraiser’s perspective. But the report does have some good suggestions. Check ‘em out.

• Encourage and promote best practices in social media.  Importance of social media isn’t $, it goes to building loyalty and commitment.

• Encourage asset-based giving. The Report claims that 93% of a person’s giving potential is realized with a bequest or other planned gift.  Get  at it!

• Develop expertise in broadening participation in giving. Pretty weak tea. Don’t spend much time on this unless you need a kumbaya moment.

• Improve the quality of bequest fundraising practice. Death is our friend. But, with at least 8% of our donors willing to make a bequest, this just has to be taken out of the incompetent (marketing-wise) hands of planned giving officers and placed in the hands of those capable of selling.

• Challenge the wealthy to plan their own philanthropy. Stop bitching. The rich are rich and they’re gonna do pretty much what they want. This section of the report seems to think that enlightened advisors to the rich will help. Not!

• Create a nonprofit mutual fund. Nothing new here given the prevalence of donor advised funds at virtually every fund manager like Fidelity or Vanguard. Not sure what new is recommended. Fuzzy at best.

• Leveraging companies to promote philanthropy. Not sure that this adds much to the body of knowledge re employer matching, cause related marketing, etc, but well to keep in mind for that afternoon you have nothing better to think about.

• Invest in fundraising research institute. Seems  a bit self-serving to me, but because we’re also in the donor research biz. I guess it can’t hurt.

• Redesign the system of professional development and certification for fundraisers. Important stuff here. Knowledge and understanding of donor behavior is key for the future, not the number of AFP merit badges.

• Encourage the development of academic qualifications in fundraising. Jesus! They want to put in a curriculum for fundraising. I couldn’t disagree more, but you may have other ideas. I would simply settle for the fact that more than 50% of all fundraisers understood math or even simple arithmetic..

• Appoint a “sales force’ for the fundraising body of knowledge.  Ignorance is bliss (as is the case for too many CEOs and fundraisers), but this recommendation to gather best practices and the knowledge within the trade is spot on.

• Call out institutions offering certificates purporting to be qualifications. “Hey Mom, I’m  now a certified fundraiser.” An interesting discussion on stopping faux degree or course offerings by some colleges and universities.

• Educate board members about the intricacies of fundraising.  Among all the barriers to successful fundraising and philanthropy, the ‘board’ is the mightiest barrier and pain in the ass. This report rightly targets the boards for education and improvement.

Thanks for reading all this.  And it’s just the summary. Do yourself, you CEO and Board, a big favor and download (and read) the full report.

Roger

P.S. By the way, Adrian Sargeant and Blackbaud, you both deserve a raise.

I called it an important innovation because fundraisers have largely sought guidance through the rear view mirror of past performance, as opposed to steering through the windshield of the present and future. After all, ‘til the Atlas of Giving came along, all we had to rely on were ‘old’ services like Giving USA and the various Blackbaud Charitable Indexes.

So, now that year-end is approaching, I decided to check back and see how their predictions panned out. Quite well, I’m happy to report. In April actual overall fundraising returns were ahead by 11%, but the Atlas forecast that the summer and fall results would decline and the year would finish just 3.8% ahead of 2010.

Today The Atlas of Giving released its monthly report of actual results through the end of September, their forecast through the end of 2011, and also their forecast for 2012. Here are their key findings:

• True to their forecast, giving slowed as the year progressed. The decline began in May and by September was 4.6% lower than the April peak.

• The decline in giving will continue through May of 2012 when an uptick occurs; The Atlas forecasts that overall giving in 2012 will finish 9% ahead of 2011.

• For 2011 the highest growth area is ‘bequests’ (up 7%), with the slowest growth in ‘human services’ (up 3.9%). The one decliner is ‘societal benefit organizations’ (down 1% compared to 2010).

• Despite the declines in the last 2 quarters, The Atlas forecasts that overall giving in  2010 will finish 6.1% higher than 2010. (Their April forecast was +3.8%).

Of particular importance to Agitator readers – and any fundraiser or CEO – is the Atlas’ attention to trends in various sectors of the nonprofit world and also its analysis of state-by-state trends.

There’s far too much valuable detail in today’s Atlas of Giving Report to summarize here. And every fundraiser will have their own take and can form their own guidance from this whopping, data-packed report of 62 pages.

Suffice to say some sectors are in for some good times in 2012. Others are in for trouble. And those organizations with concentrations of donors in one state or another will find both the actual report and the forecasts of giving by state fascinating and helpful.

Forewarned is forearmed. In looking at their website you’ll see that all these data and analyses are available in the Atlas’ “Pro Reports” for a full year for a piddling sum of $99 for 12 months of reports, PLUS they apparently also send you a monthly powerpoint so  you can show the Board not only what’s what, but what’s over the horizon. I only wish in the years I was a consultant I had had access to goodies like these.

Talk about innovation. Talk about non-Flat Earth Fundraising! Atlas, you deserve a raise.

Roger

While this guide specifically looks at online political advertising, any nonprofit looking to target and engage a constituency online will find it very useful.

As the guide says: “What makes video advertising unique is its ability to incorporate calls to action and enable supporters to easily respond. So, not only can campaigns target a persuasive message to voters, they can fulfill secondary goals like generating email signups, helping voters find polling places—and, yes—raising cash.”

In other words, the techniques and tools presented in this guide are applicable to just about any online call to action.

While the guide provides case studies and strategic/tactical advice from various consultants, perhaps most useful to nonprofits will be the basic ‘nuts and bolts’ information — costs, online advertising types, format standards, video ad networks and what they offer, and various ad technologies that can add interactive functionality to online video ads.

Kate Kaye, you deserve a raise.

Tom

But then, having renounced and abandoned our role as consultants, that’s not a problem we can deal with directly. On the other side of the coin, however, we no longer have to care whom we please or displease.

Consequently, inspired by North America’s celebration of Columbus Day yesterday, we think this is the perfectly appropriate time to introduce our forthcoming series titled “Flat Earth Fundraising.”

Our goal is NOT to pillory dumb practices on the part of consultants and nonprofits – that would be ‘negative’ and heaven only knows ‘negative’ doesn’t work in this world.

Rather, we want to celebrate innovation – the bold and courageous fundraising navigators who are pushing us all beyond the flat earth state of current practices.  Sure, there are dragons at the edge of the map and surely we will all fall off and be gobbled up by the new, new thinking.

With this series we intend to challenge the ‘flat earth’ nonsense of RFM and other outmoded fixtures and dogma. As well as the high-falutin, pompous pronouncements of so many consultants who really don’t know what they’re talking about … but make it sound so good.

One thing we need from you to do this really well – examples of fundraising innovation.

Please bring ‘em on and we’ll all have a ball. We haven’t been awarding many Agitator raises lately, and the money’s burning a hole in our pockets.

Roger and Tom

Using online survey data from 123 nonprofits, backed by 15 in-depth interviews, the Survey explores key success factors for organizations of all types and sizes that are already engaged in integrated, multi-channel marketing. The Study employs an interesting and helpful filter that focuses on the practices of Novice, Junior, Intermediate and Advanced practitioners.

Even better the Survey’s respondents had to meet the following criteria:

• The nonprofit for which the respondent works had to have raised more than $1 million per year via direct response channels;
• The respondent had to be a manager/supervisor or above;
• The respondent had to be the primary decision maker or involved in the decision making process.

The result: as highly disciplined and thorough a look at this important subject as I’ve ever seen. I urge you to download and study this report carefully.

From the issue of organizational silos, to inter-departmental communications and planning, to metrics and best practices, I guarantee you’ll find something in the Convio study that’ll surprise you, reinforce what you’re doing, and certainly challenge you to do more.

Here are some of the study’s findings I personally found of interest:

• There is a reasonable amount of integrated marketing already happening. Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised.

• Integrated, multi-channel marketing isn’t just something nice to do. Folks are increasingly aware that increased competition in the nonprofit sector mandates competence in this area because donors will flee from those who don’t get their act together.

• The degree of sophistication and the size of the nonprofit don’t correlate. More than 50% of the organizations raising more than $20 million a year online and offline fall into the Junior category and another 21% are Novices. Yet 56% of organizations raising $10 million a year or less are Advanced.

• Online marketing’s contribution to the fundraising mix may be a leading indicator of the organization’s effectiveness when it comes to integrated marketing sophistication. 48% of the Novices raise less than 5% of their direct response funds online, while 63% of the Advanced respondents are raising more than 15%.

• The real barriers to integration are: 1) lack of commitment on the part of an organization’s leaders to integration, and 2) low investment in the mechanics – business processes, measurement and software — needed to make it happen. No surprises here, but by all means send this report upstairs to the front office!

• Fewer than half the organizations surveyed measure lifetime value by channel and fewer than half track the migration of donors from one channel to another.

• As in virtually all fundraising, integrated or not, so much more needs to be done when it comes to understanding retention. Advanced organizations are doing pretty well (with the exception of tracking the effects of social media on retention). And while Novice, Junior and Intermediate sophisticates are tracking direct mail retention, they need to start focusing on the other channels as well.

The study’s author Vinay Bhagat, the Founder and Chief Strategy Office of Convio, and his team deserve a raise for this great piece of work!

What  do you think?

Roger