Archive for June, 2009

What might work: “Fan Us on Facebook”

Friday, June 26th, 2009

fanus

This invitation hit my email inbox some weeks ago, and I was struck by how easy the Post had made it to put them on my Facebook wall.   Next thought:  Why aren’t nonprofits doing this.  A lot.

Subsequent chats with tech friends say that creating such invitations is actually pretty easy (for those who know how, that is.  Not for me.)   But so far, only a handful of the technically adept have been offering this.  And, this in this friend’s judgment, at exorbitant fees.

I would not expect this to generate a lot of revenue.  But it would be a great way to seal a relationship with a “fan” donor … someone so attuned to your mission that she wants frequent contact.

You’d have to create some content, of course.   Better than the usual “just went to the market, got a 6 of Pabst” Facebook fare.   But it needn’t be extraordinarily rich content.  Nor all that frequent.  The Post posts (as it were) every couple of days.  And that’s too much for me.

Find someone to set you up.  Have a staffer post some news.  Could be a cost-effective way to seal and/or cultivate relationships.

The Post had my email @dress because I’d registered for their site, making this close enough to permission based, I think.

Incidentally,the Post didn’t check to see if I had a Facebook page before sending. (I know this because my Facebook is under a different email @dress.) I was on their email distribution as a subscriber.  Also because I’d registered on the site.  So they just broadcast to their email distribution. If recipients weren’t on Facebook, no relevance, no foul.

Posted in "happy donors", email/internet | No Comments »

What works: “I” and “we” …

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

… when used appropriately, that is.

Many Direct Marketing 101 courses preach that the letter is all about “you” and that use of the word “I” will hurt your effort.

The first part is true.  Readers are interested in themselves and their concerns, not in you and yours.  BUT …

Ideally, direct marketing is face-to-face persuasion by other means.  You need both faces for it to be a dialogue … and, I’ll argue, to be persuasive in many contexts.

Talk about the reader.  Position everything as it relates to the readers.  But have a voice… an “I”.

If you support the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, you know Sarah and Jim Brady.  They each have a distinct voice.   Likewise, NRA members know Wayne LaPierre.

“I” am asking for your support.  Of our shared mission.  Which brings us to “we”.

Those 101 classes also rail at “we” … the royal “we” … the voice of a corporation … and rightly so.

But particularly in fundraising we have the magic “we” – you the reader and I the writer … a “we” joined in a shared mission.  And use of “we” when referencing an organization saves excessive iteration of the name.  And “we” do share in the mission.

Posted in Creating for causes, Mail fundraising | No Comments »

More on the Nielson report

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

TheAgitator.com — the best advice/commentary blog for nonprofits out there — recently commented on the Nielson Norman report I just cited.  Blackbaud’s Steve McLauglin posted some comments on this including “Some good nuggets in the report include:
- Fixing a process with even minor usability problems might increase donations by 10%.  ((Happydonors is NOT surprised by this randon-sounding stat.  Probably a lowball.  Minor usability glitches => major transaction problems.))
-The most frequently mentioned turnoffs was a lack of or unclear description of an organization’s mission, goals, objectives, or work.
- Confirmation pages are critical on both e-commerce and donation sites. However, non-profit and charity sites must include a confirmation page as part of the donation process, which should include a receipt for tax purposes. Additionally, a receipt should be emailed to the address provided during the donation process.
- On the confirmation page, thank users for their donation. It doesn’t need to be elaborate, but a simple recognition is appreciated. Also, it’s nice to reiterate how the money will be used.

Enough ripping off The Agitator.  As noted, every time I do the most primitive usability testing, it points out big opportunities to clarify messaging on web sites.  Try it!   And it sounds like this Nielsen Report might well be worth the investment.

Posted in email/internet | No Comments »

Nielsen usability report worth your read …

Friday, June 19th, 2009

I took a two-day content usability course from Nielsen Norman about a year ago, a good investment if only in its inspiring me to DO usability testing for clients and friends.  The instructor swore that they’d never done a usability audit that didn’t reveal big failings wholly unknown to the site’s owners and builders.   My experience has done nothing but extend that run yet further.

Anyway, Nielsen just released a significant study on usability of nonprofit websites.   They want to sell you a report off this teaser site.  And the teaser info might well inspire you to buy it.

They tested across a good variety of types of nonprofit organizations, listed on the site above.   More than half failed to explain their “missions, goals, objectives and work” on the home page.   (I wonder why the redundancy in those terms, but …)

Only 4% revealed how they use donors’ money.   Not that surprising given the “branding” and board direction on many home pages.

Nielsen reports that “Amazingly, on 17% of the sites users couldn’t find where to make a donation.”

I’m not amazed at that stat.  More like a sign of improvement.  Especially since some of the groups are not all that reliant on small-gift donors.   And I know that quite a few of these orgs are GREAT at leading people to give online.

Read the teaser.  Buy the report if you like.  But if nothing else, let this inspire you to do your own usability testing.   Steve Krug’s book Don’t Make Me Think provides a good introduction.

Posted in email/internet | No Comments »

Where philanthropic money comes from

Saturday, June 6th, 2009

The last stats I have are for 2007:

Total giving in the USA: $295 billion

From corporations: $12,720,000 — 4.3%

From foundations: $36,500,000 — 12.4%

That leaves 83% from individual giving.

Of that, $22,910,000 was given in bequests, or another 7.8% of total giving.

The remaining $222,870,000 came from individual donors, in small gifts made directly to organizations.

Some big chunk of that is given directly to local faith organizations (churches etc.)  My focus is on the rest … small-donor fundraising via mail, phone, and online.

These stats are often lost on development offices, who doggedly pursue grants from government and business.

Not all acknowledge that corporate philanthropy has to carefully dance on the border with their fiduciary responsibility to stockholders.

All today’s musings are actually leading up to a wonderment:

How has this distribution changed since last October?

State and local government funds are drying up.  Corporations are tightening belts, some going out of business.

That leaves individual donors.   Are you doing your best to reach them?

Posted in Mail fundraising, email/internet | 2 Comments »

What works: Getting a second gift

Friday, June 5th, 2009

Anyone who’s tracking donor giving patterns and lifetime value will attest that the strongest predictor of continuing support is a second gift.    Since about half of first-time donors never give again.  Getting that second gift from a donor may be more important to your organization than recruiting that person to begin with.

You have a window of only about three months to get that second gift.  As time passes, the likelihood of getting a second gift diminishes.  So get to it!

Now one of those somewhat counter-intuitive dynamics:

The lifetime value is just as strong for a donors who is agressively marketing into a second gift and the donor who self-initiated a second gift or sent a gift after a soft ask in their first Thank You.

Common sense suggests that a donor who gives a second time soon is doing so because they’re naturally predisposed to your mission, hence ready to give repeatedly purely out of chartiable feelings toward you cause.   Fine.

But the donor who sends a second gift after receiving a Welcome Kit with a survey that drives response — or a special “second-gift appeal” designed solely for this purpose — has as good a lifetime value as the donor with some natural allegiance to  your cause.

Bottom line:  Don’t rely on some inherent dedication to your cause.  Aggresively market to a second gift.

The time donors are MOST LIKELY to give is right after they gave for the first time.  Take advantage of this.    Organizations that rely on annual mailings leave money at the table by not following up.  Ditto groups who depend on dues, but don’t send appeal for fear of being “pushy” with their supporters.

It’s a mistake to “give donors a break” after they join.  This is actually the best time to convert them to long-term donors by asking for a second gift.  Ask harder in that Thank You.  And make sure your Welcome Kit is actionable with a strong call to take that action.

Posted in Mail fundraising | No Comments »