Fundraising for short term memory

February 27th, 2010

Google the word “famously, short term memory holds only about 7 chunks of information, and these fade from your brain in about 20 seconds.”

I came across line this in an article on web usability, googled to for a source, got lots of hits, but my own short term interest couldn’t keep me going long enough to find why this is so “famous.”  Just is.  Like Paris Hilton.

Anyway, the article from Jason Nielsen’s Alert Box is worth your attention (as is the Alertbox).  Good tips for the web the importance of quick response time, leaving breadcrumbs so people can tell where they’ve been and how to get back, etc.

This famous truth also applies to many mail and email fundraising dynamics:

If someone sets aside your mail or scrolls past your email, you chances of being remembered and gaining a gift are close to nil.  Watch your carrier teasers and subject lines.

If your communication is chock full of “what we’re doing” information about your organization, you’ll lose attention and readership.  Keep copy focused.  It’s far easier to keep JUST ONE THING in the mind.  And heart.

Might argue against multiple inserts in mail.   TMI.

Also surely points to the downside of brochure-style graphic emails.  (Besides x’d out images and weak call to action.)

All supporting the famous KISS approach to communication.  Since neither you nor your donors are stupid, this acronym stands for

“Keep it simple and straightforward”

or, in any medium: “Keep it simple and sequential”.

Accommodating “designated use of funds” in fundraising

February 11th, 2010

When donors give money for a designated use, that’s how the funds must be used.

This is not an area with any real flexibility.   An organization that gets “creative” in its interpretation of the donor’s intent when designating use, they cross a hard ethical line.

(One out: If the organization wants to use the money for another purpose, this can be negotiated with donor, not practical for small-gift programs raising money my mail, phone, online, or, these days, texting. )

So how do we best handle designation?

For starters, when writing a fundraising appeal for an organization, we realize that it will work best when it has focus.  We need to focus on individuals, those who benefit from our service.  Ideally ONE individual, so we can tell a good story.

But at the same time, we want to raise money for the mission, not for that individual … or even for a specific program serving an individual typical of those we serve.

So the letter leads with focus, then broadens to mission.   The call to action is to serve individuals LIKE the example PLUS all who benefit from our mission.

And on the reply form, we’re careful to have the donor affirm “I’m giving $XX to support your efforts to protect (program target) and to advance all of your great work in (full mission).

We take great care in all this because:

– We want to tell donors how their money will be used.

– We want full transparency of use of funds.  YET …

– We also want to tell a good story, because that’s what engages people and raises funds.

Right now, some organizations have a problem born in their success in raising money in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.

They can’t effectively spend more on Haiti relief.  Channels are blocked, they’ve done what they can do best in their particular mission, or for other reasons directing funds to Haiti is simply not THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF FUNDS GIVEN THEIR MISSION.

But they have great need for their mission in other countries.

They really can’t divert this money.  The “designated use” was implicit in the fundraising.  So they must hang onto these dollars, raise NEW dollars to meet their current non-Haiti program needs.

Not much can be done to address this when raising money for emergency relief.  Red Cross couldn’t put disclaimers in their text campaign.

Some organizations can’t raise too much money for Haiti, becaue they’ll still be there years into the future, implementing their mission long after some of the core emergency relief groups have moved on.   Partners in Health.  Save the Children.  Many others I’m sure.

But organizations making appeals to the current donors could (and most did) shade their appeal to explain that donations would be used for this and ALL their mission efforts.

Spending on programs vs administration

January 30th, 2010

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.

Emotion and Reasoning in fundraising

January 20th, 2010

I recently picked up Tom Ahern’s new book, Seeing through a Donor’s Eyes,  and highly recommend it to all in fundraising.   Subtitle: How to Make a Persuasive CASE for Everything from your Annual Drive to your Planned Giving Program to your Capital Campaign.  Yep, there’s good stuff for all such endeavors.

One snippet I really like, just for the phrasing, on the supposed “battle for dominance” between emotion and reasoning, Tom’s bite re fundraising appeals:

“The well-informed thinking now knows that emotions initiate the decision, and the reasoning area of your brain struggles to keep up with a ‘Yes, dear.”

Well said.

One way to help

January 16th, 2010

Stand With Haiti

Can you adapt the Haiti text donation success?

January 16th, 2010

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.

Fundraising as Jedi persuasion

January 9th, 2010

In the final chapter, Luke Skywalker turns to Darth Vader and says, “I know there’s still good in you.  There’s good in you, I can sense it”.

Was this enough to turn Darth back to the Light Side of the Force?

Maybe not, but it demonstrates one effective aspect of persuasion, which is using labeling — assigning a trait to a person then making a request consistent with that trait.

Nonprofits already use this in fundraising appeals.  Anytime we say things like “Thanks to donations from our most dedicated Members.”   Or “I’m writing today to that handful of solid supporter who I know I can rely upon for …”

This is surely a dynamic behind high-donor clubs.  In these, I’ll identify you as a Member of the President’s Circle, honoring you, providing you with insider info, in many ways label you as someone who participates deeply in our mission and supports us accordingly.

Take this approach with that Pareto top 20% of your donors who provide 80% of your support, and many will accept the label and act accordingly … by being an even more reliable and generous financial supporter of your cause.

Even in appeals going to a broader housefile, I often work in wording that characterizes donors as “among the most dedicated.”

We can certainly label them as “generous” no matter what their previous giving.   It was indeed generous.  All charitable giving qualifies.  And by giving donors that label you affirm and encourage further generous actions.

This approach is adapted for fundraising from a chapter in Robert Cialdini’s “Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive”.  Check it out.

Thank You + tax receipt + premium = More gifts

December 18th, 2009

Maybe late for this year, but …

When asking for an end-of-year donation, pump up response by promising…

When I send my Thank You Note (a preview of your appreciation), I’ll enclose…

… your receipt for tax purposes (drawing yet more attention on the tax-deductibility of the donation plus adding urgency by EOD December 31), PLUS …

… an EXTRA Gift of Appreciation, your XXPremiumXX.   Here you can add an extra incentive for immediate action.  Nothing big.  No plush ocelots.  A bumper sticker, bookmark, or notepad … something that fits in the #10 envelope you’re using with your acknowledgement program.

Gotta give you a lift.

Use the idea right now with that end-of-year email donation reminder.

Fundraising: Asking for a little can go a long way

December 12th, 2009

Robert Cialdini’s book Persuasion: The Psychology of Persuasion is a must read for all who market or raise money by any means.

His recent Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive is also chock full o’ great tips, mostly for commercial endeavors, but good material for nonprofits, too.  One example:

Cialdini famously backs his recos with research.  In one case, he tested whether you might get more people to donate, and more donations, when you inform potential donors that even an extremely small sum would help the cause.

Research assistants went door to door asking for donations for the American Cancer Society.

Some simply asked people: “Would you be willing to help by giving a donation?”

The test group added the phrase: “…even a penny would help”.

The “even-a-penny” group gave at twice the level of the base ask, 50% vs. 28.6%.

But whoa, you might say … they must have made smaller gifts!

Nope.  In this study, for every hundred people asked, they collected $72 in the “even-a-penny” group, compared to $44 in the standard group.

I use this in fundraising copy fairly frequently, probably should more.

For volunteer recruitment, “Just an hour of your time” has also been pretty well established, anecdotally if not scientifically.

Usability confirmation and caution

December 10th, 2009

Here’s an excellent commentary on website usability testing written by Robert Hoekman Jr in the alistapart blog for web designers.

A lot is cautionary.  Good important stuff, most of which won’t apply to the small organization engaged in do-it-yourself usability testing on nonprofit (or other) websites. 

I’ve engaged in several usability sessions for such groups and never saw any risk of the issues Hoekman mentions.  But they’re still well worth reading, because they do point to bear traps out there in the usability testing world, situations where you can easily generate highly unreliable results that can mislead your web development.

The article highlights three key benefits that in simplest forms justify every small-scale usability testing effort:

1)  Usability testing has high shock value.   Everyone goes into testing fully confident that everything is just peachy, intuitive, easy, etc.   A couple of rounds of testing shows the glaring problems that those who developed the site were too close to see.

2) Usability establishes trust with stakeholders.  Hey, just doing usability testing elevates your standing in the eyes of boards etc who don’t know much about the web and often doubt your knowledge.

3) Usability testing is, as Hoekman frames it, part of the “triangulation process” that includes org goals, user goals, other metrics, etc, to gain a more complete picture of what you’re doing on the web, and how good a job you’re doing from multiple vantages.

The article also includes a number of tools to identify trouble spots, like “5-second tests” (which I’ve seen work remarkably well) and tests involving click stats.

Check it out.