happydonors

I attended a session given by Sean Triner of Pareto Fundraising a few years ago, where he asked people to name the charity they held in highest regard.  After listening to a few answers, he in turn asked:  How much of their revenue goes to programs vs. administration?

Nobody knew.  This classic standard of rating nonprofit organizations wasn’t used by anyone in a room full of professional fundraisers.

While some people demand this test and adhere to it, most give from their hearts.  And I’ll argue that the heart is the better judge.

For starters, the percentage of revenue an organization spends on administration is not a reliable indicator of quality.  In holding themselves to this standard, some groups don’t spend ENOUGH on fundraising, limiting their mission overall.  Others can understaff, hurting efficiency and programs, as those who deliver help can’t give personal enough attention … or they rein in salaries, leading to underqualified staff, or cut corners leaving service delivery short on resources.

A bigger issue is that this program/administration ratio is easily (and commonly?) misrepresented just in the fact that some efforts can be identified as “educational” (thus program related) and at the same time “fundraising” (administrative).   Nothing wrong with this, in my eye, but it does cast some shadow on the entire standard.

So what?  Well, if you use this standard, you’re probably helping worthy groups.  But if you don’t, I wouldn’t go digging for program/administration stats.  I might take a look at the organization’s books, though.  An audit.  Or just look at their annual report with a careful eye, not so much on the numbers as the transparency of their financial dealings.

What’s clear is likely clean.

In a word, “no” … or at least not yet.

In the wake of the Haiti earthquake disaster the Mobile Giving Foundation mobilized cell carriers to set up quick text messaging channels and allow donations of $10 by texting the word HAITI to certain numbers.

The Red Cross got instant publicity — text HAITI to 90999 to make a $10 donation.

Less publicized, but highly successful — text YELE to 501501 to donate $5 to the Yele Haiti Foundation, Wyclef Jean’s effort.

Text HAITI to 20222 to donate $10 to the Clinton Foundation International Rescue Committee.

Text HAITI to 85944 to donate $10 to the International Medical Corps.

Similar efforts in years past raised $400,000 after Katrina and $200,000 after the Indian Ocean tsunami.  (The latter is what inspired the launch of the Mobile Giving Foundation.  Read a journalist’s report on them here.)

Donations just mentioned are surely under-reported, but Haiti Relief has far exceeded all prior efforts, gaining about $7 million for relief in the first 36 hours, and money continues to pour in as I write.

Text donations are in your future, but not until some changes are made in transactions via the text messaging channel — reforms the remove barriers that Mobile Giving Foundation got moved aside for this effort.

To put things in perspective, all organizations, in total, didn’t reach $4 million in 2009.

Consider the barriers:

– The mobile phone service providers usually charge about 30% of the transaction amount in processing fees to have the gift charged to the donors’ phone bills.   Ouch.

– The carriers don’t actually deliver the money to the nonprofit for 60 days.  That’s a minimum.  I’ve heard 4-6 months from some groups.

To make the Haiti drives happen, Mobile Giving Foundation quickly got AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile to waive their processing fee.  Smaller carriers joined in.

(Visa, MasterCard, and American Express also waived their usual transaction fee cut for donations to Haiti relief, facilitating online giving.   Not much attention has been given to this, though it increases net revenue from online giving by 3-5%.)

If these usurious fees hadn’t been waived, the fundraising would not have been ethically acceptable to donors or the organizations themselves.  No go.

But the delivery-of-funds delay is still in place.  Think of all these millions as more like “pledges” than “gifts” when it comes to service delivery.  The Red Cross has been working with the what funds they had on hand before the earthquake, which is why they were running out of everything even as millions were coming in via text.

But the cost and time barriers are still up  for your organization’s efforts.  Carriers outside the US don’t ding nonprofits like this.  But in the States, telecom still holds uncommon powers.

Things will change.  The US will catch up with the rest of the world.  So text donations are probably in your future.

For now, you might want to start collecting donor opt-ins to allow  you to send appeals via text.  That’s a step toward incorporating this powerful channel.

I’ve seen results of several tests proving that using Courier in fundraising letters lifts response.  Old news now, I hope.

For a decade now, I’ve seen 14′ Courier lift response repeatedly on fundraising letters, too.  BIG HORSEY LOOKS WEIRD 14′ COURIER.

First time was a decade ago, for an association protecting retirement benefits.  Ok.  Makes sense.  They have weak eyesight.

For the last couple of years, 14′ repeatedly wins with less obvious audiences, not necessarily 80+ years of age.

Makes sense though.  We use simple language NOT because our readers are simple-minded, but because it’s EASIER TO READ.  Bright folks just read it even faster.

And I’ll speculate that 14′ is real easy for those with weak eyesight and simply EASIER TO READ for those who don’t need correction just yet.

The reminder comes in a letter from World Wildlife Fund (who I feel like I’m single-handedly supporting with my adoptions/acquisition of plush animals.)

The package was for Legacy Gifts, nicely from Legacy Gifts identified right above the name on the envelope corner card.

I usually argue that brochures hurt fundraising mail response.  That said, this had a good continuous theme of “help save life on Earth” demonstrated with a full-color legacy giving brochure, with a big headline “Giving to WWF Through a Will or Other Estate Plan” — it’s great that they’re very clear what this is about.  I’m not kidding with that point.

Finally, my point:  The brochure was entirely in HUGE FONTS.  At least 14′.  Some 16′ or bigger.

Very odd to my overly sensitive sensibilities, most of the copy is in huge Times Roman, lapsing to huge sans serif font moving into types of bequest info and suggested bequest language.   No reason to shift fonts apparent to me.

So the brochure was right in so many ways.  Straightforward.  To the point.  And all BIG FONTS.

But I must wonder why the letter was in a 12′ serif font.  Not Times Roman.  Palatino?  I dunno, but nowhere near big enough to be consistent with the brochure nor to sell the proposition.

The letter opens with a lot of romance about the Amazon.  Good stuff usually, but with everything else so straightforward, why not get to the point.   The “3rd Paragraph Rule” applies.   (After writing your draft, look at the third paragraph.  That’s often where the letter really gets traction and should be the opening.)

P.S.  Also, odd to my direct marketer’s eye:  No P.S.