My nonprofit fundraising and communications experience has been grounded primarily in the world of advocacy organizations, as opposed to mainstream charities focused on health research, education and the like. And more narrowly still, advocacy of the center-liberal persuasion.
For groups like that, prospecting for donors historically meant tracking the news coverage (for controversy) and targeting the folks who faithfully followed the news … particularly through certain news vehicles. Show me an individual, anywhere in the US, who listened to NPR, or watched PBS (e.g., MacNeil-Lehrer, Frontline) or CNN, or subscribed to the NY Times, and you’d be looking at a regular donor to probably ten or more cause groups.
This was a large well-defined universe of donors who shared a worldview (which included a need, even duty, to make a difference), were well-educated (and well-read, not necessarily the same thing), and had sufficient disposable income to give generously.
Ah, the good old days!
So I was saddened a bit to stumble across this article from New York magazine, Don’t Cry for CNN, about the demise of that network. As the article says, it’s easy to forget that CNN was once revolutionary. “In an era when news flows like water—available everywhere, all the time, instantly—a network devoted to providing headlines topped with a touch of analysis no longer seems quite so useful. What was very urgent in 1980 or on 9/11 no longer seems crucial when we’re drowning in news … CNN took two generations to go from vanguard to rearguard.”
I wonder how many people reading this actually saw Peter Arnett reporting live on CNN the US aerial bombing of Baghdad … one of CNN’s classics?
Today, finding the donor who might be the perfect clone of my, say, 1985 ideal progressive donor is a much more difficult task. There might be as many out there (I’m not sure of that), but they certainly don’t swim in such big schools, feeding off a small handful of news (i.e., information) sources.
Take me, for instance. My one remaining “iconic” news source is the NY Times, which I read online. After that, I have dozens of sources, virtually all online. If you knew a particular issue interest of mine, probably your best bet for targeting me would be an online source (media or otherwise) narrowly dedicated to that issue, or, buying the search term(s) I’m likely to be using. I’m a lot more difficult to target today than I would have been twenty, even ten, years ago.
I’d be curious as to how difficult you see yourself being to “target” as a fundraising prospect for a cause or charitable need you believe in … particularly one whose scope is beyond local.
Would you be easy to find, or hard? Some fundraiser is out there looking for you … what advice or clues would you give them as to where to look?
Tom
This article was posted in: charities, communications, direct marketing, Don't Miss these Posts, fundraising, issue fundraising, media usage, nonprofit management, nonprofits.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Tom,
I’m in full agreement with the basic premise of your post today.
Our backgrounds differ in that mine is rooted primarily in what you call the more “mainstream” nonprofit organizations focused on health care, medicine, education, religion, historic preservation and the arts.
Because of my career-long, professional involvement with public relations, media relations, news dissemination and publicity (as much as with philanthropy), I probably have a different history and different habits in terms of the news sources I’ve sought out and fed from over the years. I tend not to have any “iconic” favorites where news sources are concerned, so it might always have been difficult for anyone to “track” me down from my footprints in media outlets (whether printed in the “old days” or online today).
In my view, it has become difficult to track down potential donors in these ways, because, for one thing, buying newspaper or magazine subscription lists just does not make sense anymore. Back in the day, one could buy an excellent, direct-response prospect list from subscription sources, particularly for the kind of advocacy-focused organizations that are your favored fare.
One clue as to how it’s all changing and how it might evolve is found in something I read recently about efforts to develop a method by which an individual might be “tracked” and identified for online postings (where and about what) and online “affiliations” (memberships in Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.).
Back to your original question. I guess I would be very hard to find these days — by anyone “selling” something, fund raiser or otherwise. With the exception of my local newspaper and a couple of general-interest magazines, I no longer have many print subscriptions. I read online! My giving habits always have been and continue to be very widespread in terms of the types of charities in which I have a personal interest and investment (once again, not usually on the advocacy side).
Look for me online! Look for me via any of the available prospect-targeting services out there today. This aspect of fund raising has become much more challenging!
Hi Tom,
What I’ve been thinking about since first reading your post, is how drastically fragmented our news sources are today. That these donors are out there, but as you touched on, their information is scattered throughout the web.
These prospects are likely aggregating information on their own, either just by casually browsing their bookmarks, or with a reader. So, I see the best potential method for gathering them back into a single group would be to aggregate and produce content for them. If Environmental charity A can become the go-to place for relevant news, it presents an amazing opportunity to collect donor information.
This is not the “easy” solution though. I am looking forward to hearing suggestions that others may have.
Brock
One of the best publications for alternative views on hot subjects is a magazine called Utne. You should check it out