Archive for the ‘“happy donors”’ Category

“Transformational Giving” in fundraising

Friday, March 25th, 2011

John  Dick’s A Small Change blog recently carried a post on “transformational giving” that I’d like to share and applaud.   Read that and see what you get out of it.   Looking at it again today I see potential for varying understandings of what’s going on both in the parable and the discussion.

To me, cultivation should “help the donor better understand their own reasons for giving and connect them to how they can be fulfilled and make a real difference.”    Most cultivation errs in being “built around how can we get them to better understand what we do in such a way that they will want to give more money.”   In today revisit, I could see a reader taking that as Dick’s point … or the reverse …or saw that he used the reverse to make the point above.

I fear that many organizations do indeed oversell themselves in cultivation.   They spend too much ink and energy talking about what they do, rationalizing a gift, though giving is not a rationale process at all.

My giving is an emotional decision that is rationalized by emotions.  Insofar as your reports and stories of your challenges and successes all evoke emotional responses within me, they play an important role in shaping my relationship with your organization.

But the value is in the affirmation of my emotional resonance with your mission.  Not in the affirmation of an intellectual decision that I’m getting “good value” for my gift.

I’m giving not because of your “dollar need” but because of my need to help you with your mission.

Disasters demonstrate this, I think.   After the tsunami in Japan, my wife wanted to send money to Red Cross.  She’s not a “Red Cross donor” … not on their mail file.   She just had an emotional need to help disaster victims and Red Cross came to mind as a channel.

Her gift fed her as much as it did the Red Cross.

Need for “preferred first name” in email

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010

Because of credit card donations, I’m on record with many nonprofit organizations with my full first name: Daniel.

Essential for that purpose, but I generally go by “Dan” and I’ve been momentarily puzzled by a couple of emails recently like “Daniel to the rescue” and another I can’t recall now that I thought was a biblical reference, i.e., to the Book of Daniel.

The optimum database has a field for “preferred first name” for just this reason.

Fundraising communications are very often to the degree that they simulate personal correspondence.

I always argue that fundraising letters are not written communication, but instead oral.  They should “sound” like someone talking, not writing.    When you read a letter aloud, you’ll hear every false note, every phrase that brings credibility into question.

Emails are not a substitute for letters, but instead for voice mail.   (Disregard emails that look like brochures of course, which can pretty much always be beaten in response by emails that appear to be plain text, though sometimes with a “give now” button above the fold, upper right.)

So … if you want to be personal, you’d better start off with a salutation that sounds like it’s from someone who knows you.  Dear Preferred First Name.

Name drop-ins in email subject lines have a bit of danger in any case.  They ebb and flow in effectiveness, winning for a while, then losing for a while to the same line without the drop-in.

A false-sounding, actually impersonal name drop-in really risks the farm.  Your subject line can loudly scream “I don’t really know you … this isn’t actually personal!” with a formal rather than preferred first name.

Food for thought.   As an aside: my favorite name drop-in subject line is “CDBaby loves Dan” from CDBaby, of course, a web purveyor of largely self-produced music.  A lot of great music not incidentally.

How to create a very Unhappy Donor

Saturday, June 12th, 2010

UPDATE 15 June 2010:  Ocean Conservancy resolved this with an apology (accepted) and offer to refund donations debited (declined).   Further thoughts in the next post.

I’ve donated to Ocean Conservancy off and on for quite some time.  $50 or so a pop.

When not in a giving mindset, I delete their emails without reading.  Until a week ago, when I opened one that seemed like an acknowledgment.  Oh oh …

With my last $50 gift, I inadvertently enrolled myself in a monthly giving program.  The email was acknowledging the most recent $50 debit being applied to my credit card.

Ok, my fault.  I gave spontaneously and quickly (as almost all gifts are made) and just didn’t read copy that explained I was becoming a monthly supporter.

Ocean Conservancy is a solid group, so I figured I could “unenroll” in this pretty easily.

Wrong.

I went to their website, entered User Name and Password to get to my account info, saw that I was indeed a monthly supporter, BUT …

… I had no way to stop the payments!

A “help” pop-up explained how to stop monthly debits, but the info did not correspond to the options on the web site.  There simply is no “stop” button, as described.

This looks like a Convio donor site.  They are generally very good.  But this site had a serious disconnect.

So I sent an email to membership@oceanconservancy.org, the likely candidate for action.

After two days, no response.  So I called the membership support 800# given on the web site.

“Due to unusually heavy call volume” they rolled me into voice mail, after asking me to leave a detail message, which I did.   Their promise:  a prompt call-back.

Two days later, no call, so I called again, got the same “due to unusually heavy call volume” recording, left another message, with address, UN/PW, and the problem.

Still no response to my message … 4 days after first message, 2 days after second.

Still no response to my email after a WEEK.

So I “replied” to the acknowledgment, an email to webmaster@oceanconservancy.org.   No answer to that yet either.

I don’t begrudge them the several charges/donations.  But I would be a fool to continue to support an organization with a dead-end web site and poor member services.

I’ll post a follow-up.  If anything happens.

Use of premiums in fundraising

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

Over the last six months I “bought” four beautiful, quite large plush animals from the Sierra Club

Well, I discovered that the Sierra Club had what looked like the handsomest premiums that they send to people who “Sponsor a Wild Place” with a donation of $50, $75, $100, etc. 

I first sponsored Adirondack National Park with a $75 donation to receive a wonderplush plush American eagle that’s about 10″ tall, then went on to sponsor the Grand Canyon and Acadia National Parks and the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

I’ve supported the Sierra Club with donations for decades, off and on, relatively small gifts, but happily sent off a couple hundred bucks for what’s become a collection of whimsical wildlife.

Is this fair?  I’m ok with it and hope the Sierra Club is, too.  They’re getting enough to more than offset costs.  They’re getting attention from my friends, who admire these plush animals.  And they’re to some small degree locking me in as a donor, though I continue to send checks pretty far and wide.  If anything, I risk messing up their fundraising by self-identifying as being more “generous” than I appear to be, since I gave for their gift. 

Are premiums worth it for a nonprofit?

About five years ago I heard representatives of two national groups present long-term value comparisons of mail fundraising with and without use of premiums.

They did a random list split, one half received acquisition and appeals using premiums, including personalized address labels and notepads, tote bags, etc. The other “mission-oriented” file (selected randomly) received acquisition and appeals with no premiums of any kind.

One program tracked over three years. The other was pushing five years. Both had the same statistically sound outcome: premium programs provided a greater overall yield of funding.

Both organizations suffered the same conventional-wisdom downsides of premium use:

– Acquisition costs were higher.

– Renewal costs were higher.

– Premium-program donors had higher attrition than “mission” donors.

BUT … both organizations considered the premium programs the winners of these tests simply brought in SUCH BIGGER NUMBERS OF DONORS that they generated more funding despite these drawbacks.

I’m pretty sure these were the Wilderness Society and the American Lung Association. I believe this was at the DMAW Expo Conference in 2005. (I admit some chance of error in recollection. If you can confirm or correct let me know with a comment.

The first step to maximize donor lifetime value?

Saturday, March 20th, 2010

Here’s your #1 best action when you want to have the best donor cultivation … the best donor retention … the greatest bequest giving … the best lifetime donor value …

Acquire the right donors!!!

Duh?  No, really.

For smaller organizations, many donor files are cluttered with event attenders, inquiries, volunteers, friend-get-a-friend donors, etc.

Your best-potential donor is acquired via direct response — someone who got on board as the consequence of your invitation to give.

These people will respond to direct mail and email appeals.  They proved this.  At least once.

These donors were brought on board by your mission.  They weren’t just being polite to a friend or someone standing at a booth.

If you’re doing things right, they also responded to an EMOTIONAL appeal.

Not stats about your challenge, your mission, or your accomplishments.

They responded to an appeal to their heart — a specific example of your effectiveness wrapped in strong emotion-driven storytelling.

Donors who emotionally engaged with your organization’s mission and responded to your request for funds.   They’ll keep on giving, as long as you continue to engage them emotionally.   For a LONG time.  Some even longer:  in their wills.

Accommodating “designated use of funds” in fundraising

Thursday, 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.

Emotion and Reasoning in fundraising

Wednesday, 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.

Fundraising as Jedi persuasion

Saturday, 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

Friday, 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

Saturday, 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.