happydonors

Notes from a conference. True tales from prominent nonprofits:

1. 65% of deferred giving is in the form of bequests

2. 65% of bequests are from low-dollar mail donors

3. Most wills are written in January.

4. Experience of a few charities: Asking for bequest in the PS of appeal letters tends to start yielding bequests, but only after two to three years.

5. A good creative approach for planned giving: Tell a story of a bequest where “we couldn’t say Thank You” because the org wasn’t alerted to the bequest beforehand. Tell donors: “If you’ve remembered us in your will, please let us know so we can thank you now” and include profiles with photos of people writing you into their wills.

Notes from a conference: True tales of what worked for nonprofits in direct response fundraising:

1. An organization had volunteers test “no ask” Thank You phone calls to a group of donors. They got an average 3% increase in donations after the second gift … and a 42% increase after 14 months.

2. Customizing the ask string by list works. (Hope you know this)

3. Those who receive telemarketing calls and say “no” tend to have a higher response to subsequent mail than those not called.

4. The current control for MADD includes a live check for $2.50. (Cash and live checks are discussed in “What Works: Cash and Coin”)
5. Of Recency/Frequency/Money (RFM), recency is by far the most predictive of response. Frequency is #2. Monetary amount = #3

6. Chronic lapsers are very good candidates for monthly giving programs. (Example: those who give every 15 months. They make an annual gift then next year don’t renew until Renewal 5.)

7. Phone is the best way to get people onto monthly giving programs. I hear this a lot, from many groups.

8. We know that donor lists outperform compiled lists. Underlying this: Only behavioral data predicts behavior. From surveys, we get only attitudinal data, which has consistently proven inadequate in fundraising. (Perhaps because people over-report their generosity.) Compiled names / attitudinal data is effective in many consumer programs, but never as good as response.

9. An interesting test: Lapsed donors proved more responsive to local appeals, i.e., appeals based on an organization’s geographically state/local efforts.

I just received an email ask from Save the Children around Myanmar relief efforts. As usual, everything about this appeal was exceptional, clinching with a link at the bottom to a journal by someone on the ground, a website on BBC News.

Donors want to know how their gifts are used. Concrete results create credibility and open wallets. I don’t know what more Save the Children could do to gain credibility for their efforts or justification for that next gift.

If you haven’t yet, visit www.freerice.com.

This site was created by John Breen, a US computer programmer and anti-poverty activist. As you’ll see, it challenges visitors to select the definition of word, with increasing difficulty. When they’re right, 20 grains of rice is donated to the UN World Food Program by the advertisers you’ll see under the challenge. As simple gimmick? Yes, but within a few months the site was drawing 300,000 to 500,000 visitors every day who, as of last month, have helped generate enough rice to feed 700,000 people. The game is so popular there are over 500 FreeRice groups on Facebook, with tens of thousands of members.

The challenge is being adopted by schools worldwide, and a recent innovation allows teachers to scale by education level. A sound function was also just added to facilitate vocabulary building.

What an incredible way to leverage ad support to create donations and dramatically increase awareness of the cause and the organization.

Jerry Huntsinger’s trademark letter opening, famous to veteran mail fundraisers, was …

… a sentence fragment, ending in an ellipsis (”…”) which breaks to a block indented paragraph.

The reader is thus eased into the letter, then visually directed to KEEP READING by the ellipsis. I use (perhaps overuse) ellipses quite generously because they do such a marvelous job of inviting the reader to “read on” …

I can tell when a general advertising or amateur DM art director has had hands on mail packages. The carrier teaser ends in a period. Gah! A period tell you that you’ve reached the end. Stop reading. Don’t go on …

I end every carrier teaser with an ellipsis. No exception. And risk offending punctuation purists by often mixing things up. Why not be declarative AND invite continued reading!…

Headlines in space ads, heads and subheads in brochures, likewise suffer with periods. Never tell readers to stop! Use no ending punctuation or default to … Email subject line that end in ellipses all but demand continued reading. I use these in personal e-correspondence just because they grab.

In email fundraising I hold back, fearing they might seem gimmicky to donors. Never risk having a donor think you’re trying to trick them. But I’d still consider them on occasion …

Throughout snail mail letters, they’re the perfect ending to a Johnson Box (or overline or whatever you happen to call the material above the salutation). As noted, good letter openers. A great way to end the page and … Read the rest of this entry »

The last two happydonor posts reference articles that, at some point, wander into speculation about whether more funds might be raised for philanthropic purposed by shifting programs under the government’s wing and having donations essentially included in people’s taxes. 

Disclosure: I sit left of center on the political spectrum. I think that many things can be best accomplished by united citizens’ resources under government action. Highways and police come to mind. BUT … 

Before anyone shifts anything more to government management, I urge a long, hard stare around the world. (A perspective most Americans seem largely indifferent to, sad to say.) 

At the International Fundraising Congress last year, one recurrent theme was “creating a culture of philanthropy” in many countries where little had existed before. The usual reasons: Read the rest of this entry »

“What Makes People Give” (New York Times, March 9, 2008) is an overview of some recent research and discussion among economists and sociologists about the title question. As a died-in-wool direct mail small donor fundraiser, it both puzzled me and gave me a slight headache.

A bit long, so much that I’m not sure I’d recommend it. And it’s mostly speculation by economists. The only “research” is what I call “testing” — do a random split of names, send each a different offer. The economists here seem to think they’ve discovered something us muddy-headed fundraisers really need — experimental evidence. But it’s what I and my clients and everyone else involved in mail fundraising have been doing for decades.

Their concrete findings: Read the rest of this entry »

Giving makes you feel good. No, really, it does.

I’ve heard for years that a generous act releases endorphins that give you a positive rush, but not seen solid documentation. Today I ran across an article that dodges endorphins but demonstrates the “Neuroeconomics of Public Good Decisions” … another angle at “doing good pays off in feeling good” in a concrete way.

A minimally scientific summary: “… supporting a good cause activates the same evolutionarily ancient areas in the brain that respond to basic rewards like sweets, nutrients, or positive social contacts.”

Activity in this “rewards” area could sort people into “egoists” or “altruists” … classed by whether their brain responded more to money for themselves or money for charity.

The rewards area lit up when people knew that their taxes were going to charity. But direct charitable giving produced a yet stronger reward jolt than taxation. A lesson perhaps for political theorists? Well, maybe, but the plot thickens…

Even altruists sometimes decide not to give, and people gave 10% less when they were free to give or not give than when taxes. This could make a case for some tax support for charitable causes. But maybe not. I see a can of worms I don’t want to open.

But it’s nice to know our brains get off on our charitable deeds.

On the face of it, we aspire to the impossible.

Our marketing proposition: give us your hard-earned money … and get nothing in return.

The good news: It works.

People share your goals and want to give you their money to help you achieve them.

When people are asked why they never gave to a cause before now, the answer is often “nobody asked.” You’ve heard that one, I’m sure.

When we think about fundraising as a marketing endeavor, let’s acknowledge that the desire people have to give you money isn’t all that different than their desire to buy something.

Any ask (or sales pitch) will work when people have some predisposition to give to your cause (or purchase your product). It’s all in the list.

You don’t want to try to sell skateboards to the AARP. You don’t want to ask NRA members to contribute to the Brady Campaign.

But when you deliver the right message to the audience with the right predisposition, you’ll get gifts (or sell skateboards). They actually like the proposition and are ready to buy into it.

I just had my 679th discussion with an organization about how often to communicate with donors. They, like most of the first 678, were afraid of mailing too often and/or sending too many emails.

Here’s a good reason to mail more: Your donors like you and believe in your cause. That’s why they give away their hard-earned money and expect nothing in return.

Many organizations I’ve worked with mail donors 13 times a year. (And email often, too.) This works because:

… Donors like to hear from you. Note: They may not like to be bluntly asked for money too often. But is there such a thing as being thanked too often? And don’t you always thank them before asking for money again? And they do like to be kept informed. That’s one way they participate in your mission.

… Donors don’t open all your mail. God bless them, they’re busy. They day Aunt Bee is coming to town or the bridge club is meeting or the cat died or they’re just distracted, they don’t open that envelope. When you mail to 1,000 donors and 80 send money, how many said “No!” to your appeal. Few. Maybe nobody. The other 920 just didn’t get around to reading your letter.

… When you don’t mail, others may beat you to the donor’s dollar. If you’re an environmental cause, for example, or animal welfare, your donor is being approached by dozens of other organizations with appeals not entirely dissimilar from your own. If Mrs. Jones just gave to another, she might not have anything left for you. And after reading 12 similar appeals, she’s getting a little hazy on just exactly who you are. Mailing more often increases the likelihood that your letter will be in her hand the day her heart is warm and wallet full.

So you can probably mail more often. If you’re mailing once a year, try twice. If quarterly go to bimonthly. Etc.

You do have one good reason not to mail more: return on investment.

As you increase frequency, you simply may not get enough gifts to offset the cost of mailing. Especially if your donor file is 20,000 or less.

One way to increase contacts and optimize return on investment is to make sure you’re gaining as many donations as you can via each contact.

Look at your newsletter. Do you have a clear call for contributions and an easy way to donate? Are you binding in a reply envelope with a reply form bangtail?

Are you mailing the newsletter in an envelope with a letter? If not, try this. Your letter can be personalized, with a perfed personalized reply form. I’ve seen cases where newsletters that used to lose money started to generate net revenue when sent in an envelope with a solid appeal letter.

And if you’re mailing your newsletter in an envelope at a loss, consider going to a self-mailer with a bound-in reply form and envelope. This works for many groups, too.

If you’re sending an electronic newsletter, do you have a clickable image in the upper right that lets donors easily make a gift?  If not, try this.  Seems to be the key way to drive gifts.

The “Answer to Everything” is that people DO want to give you money. They support your cause and want to help you win. So look at all your touch points and make sure your giving them every opportunity you can.

Back in the 1990s I wrote donor appeals for two organizations in which a real live dollar bill was enclosed with each letter. Only to the top tier of donors, of course. Closed-face, highly personal, with the dollar the first you see as you open the envelope. Donors were asked to return the dollar bill with their gift.