Blueprint Fundraising

I’m thinking about starting a whole category of postings on my fundraising pet peeves. I have so many! Here’s one: fundraising job postings that require the applicant to have a car or access to a car.

This is especially funnoying (a rather useful new word — a combination of “funny” and “annoying” from the Urban Dictionary) to me when the posting is for a job in a larger city. Fundraisers definitely need to get around — to meetings with donors and volunteers, special events and to run all sorts of errands. Some fundraisers are out of the office more than in.

But can’t we assume that people will figure out how to get around on their own? And if they are in a city, let’s hope it isn’t always by car. In most cities, public transit works very well. And so does walking, cycling and taking a taxi.

Nonprofits in the Lower Mainland are fortunate to have another option: car-sharing through The Company Car. It’s part of the Co-operative Auto Network and uses their fleet of 170+ vehicles. It allows businesses to join and provide their employees with access to cars — a perk for the employee, a nice environmental choice and all for a reasonable price.

And it is possible to look professional and ride your bike for work — witness Vancouver city councillor Peter Ladner!

It’s not easy to balance dark and light messages in fundraising appeals.

It’s obvious when a group goes too far into the darkness and simply turns the reader off (I’m thinking of animal cruelty mailings I’ve received that made me so uncomfortable that I threw the package away, even though I’m supportive of the cause). But it isn’t as obvious when a group goes too far into the realm of light/happy/hope and eliminates the motivation to give.

I think the United Way of Greater Toronto is going too far into the light in their recent re-branding, as graphic designer John Lepp notes in a posting on his blog the Naked Idea.

Compare the old campaign to the new. Which one gives you a real reason to donate? I have to think that they have a well-considered reason for this change in direction, but I don’t think it will help their fundraising. (Not that they really need help with fundraising — the United Way of Toronto raised $106.8 million last year putting them in second place among UWs in all of North America. Seattle came first.)

.

.

Greenpeace does such an amazing job in communicating the importance of their work. Here is a great video from Greenpeace UK (you can watch all their videos here on You Tube) in support of Forest Stewardship Council products. The story telling and metaphor are very effective.

How would you feel is your home was torn down around you? Sir David Attenborough, Ewan McGregor and Andy Serkis (who played Gollum in The Lord of the Rings) lend their talents to this illustration of how forest communities suffer as a result of illegal and destructive logging. Directed by Julien Temple.

I just wonder why they don’t have a website in the video to tell you more about how to buy FSC products or support Greenpeace.

Found via the Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group blog.

AFP Vancouver has launched a new awards program to honour local philanthropists. Nominating a donor is a wonderful way to show how much you appreciate them.

The two categories this year are “Outstanding Philanthropist” and “Outstanding Youth Philanthropist.” For more information on the categories and to download a nomination form visit AFP Vancouver’s website. The deadline for applications is fast approaching: June 15, 2007.

The awards will be presented at this year’s National Philanthropy Day on November 15th.

I haven’t forgotten about another post continuing on the topic of communicating with donors through RSS feeds… I will get on that soon.

I’m in Calgary right now at the AFP Western Fundraising Conference. So far, it’s been interesting. Highlights: a presentation on development audits, a storytelling session, and a donor panel with three Calgary philanthropists. The philanthropists had some advice:

• On the thorny question of whether boards should have to fundraise: Don’t continually pressure your board members to fundraise, some people just won’t/can’t do it and if you push too much you will alienate them. Just because they won’t fundraise doesn’t mean that they can’t be great board members and donors.
• On the next generation of philanthropists (i.e. 30 and 40 year olds): Don’t be disappointed by modest giving from these people. Be patient. They are probably in the midst of figuring out how much they need for their family and future, and may not be completely sure of how much they can give away. They are also aware that once they make a substantial gift, it is hard to go back to being anonymous or a smaller donor (because of the expectations that charities will put on them).

One of the speakers today talked about a clever advertising campaign by the Calgary Zoo that I hadn’t seen… awesome ads! The campaign has been very popular.

This comes to you via Donor Power Blog… Fantastic, creative advertising for multiple sclerosis research in Australia. Aside from making the connection between donations and finding a cure abundantly obvious, the display has proven to be a good fundraiser and is going to be used at MS events all over Australia. The dude in this booth is a volunteer and his wife suffers with MS. (Click to see a larger image.)

Some people are visual learners. If that’s you and you are wondering just how fundraising works, check this out. ONE/Northwest has created three detailed diagrams mapping out all the steps to:

• Soliciting a new major donor
• Renewing donors and following up on pledges
• Processing donations

I love flow charts and these are cool. They clarify some processes that can seem arcane to those who are new to fundraising. Depending on your exact role in a development effort, I could see posting the diagram on your bulletin board as a reminder of the right steps along the way to getting things done.

I became familiar with ONE/Northwest when I worked in the environmental sector (fundraising for Sierra Legal Defence Fund). They also have tons of other great technology and networking-related resources on their site, for nonprofits from all sectors.

If you are looking for inspiration on creating a good video to sell your organization’s work, have a look at this one.

The Vancouver-Burnaby branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association has built a very successful social enterprise called “The Cleaning Solution.” It’s a janitorial service run by and employing people with mental illness. It provides a supportive environment, where people can work and be proud of their contribution to society.

Watched a movie this weekend… Meet the Fockers. After being an idiot, Ben Stiller found himself outside the “Circle of Trust” of his fiancée’s family.

That’s where fundraising professionals are increasingly finding themselves when it comes to donors. Annoying fundraising techniques, aggressive soliciting and a great resistance to designated giving mean that donors don’t trust fundraising professionals (or the nonprofits they represent) the way they used to.

I had lunch the other day with someone who works at one of the big banks. They are in the business of helping clients make philanthropic plans and determine who to give to and through what means (of course one way is through the bank’s own foundation). The recent Canada Revenue Agency extension of tax savings for gifts of stock to private foundations is going to encourage giving in ways that can easily leave nonprofit organizations out of the relationship, except as the recipient of the cheque.

It is a tough trend for fundraisers and nonprofit managers who want to build personal and direct connections with donors and prospects. It is increasingly difficult to be part of your donors’ lives if all you do is follow old fundraising formulas.

AFP Vancouver has launched a new feature on their site — member stories. The first one is by Wanda Dekleva and provides an inside look at how Simon Fraser University increased the success of their employee giving campaign (especially helpful: matching gift commitment from the president and several influential internal champions). This photo is from an employee campaign event.

On a related note, SFU has a new brand. I’m always interested in re-branding efforts. SFU seems to have modernized its look and added a new tagline “Thinking of the World.” Thank goodness they ditched the school coat of arms!

Last night I facilitated a solicitation workshop for a client. Tips were shared, roles were played and there was lots of discussion about how to make a good case for the organization.

One of the crucial elements of preparing for an ask is to consider what you will say if the donor says no. You can’t just slink out of the room. It’s time for a little courage and more conversation.

Jerold Panas suggests that you ask four questions. They will give you clarity on why your prospect has said no and might even lead you to a yes in some other form.

You can read the full article here via Guidestar. In summary, you should ask the prospect:

1. Does something about the organization bother you?
2. Is this project not of interest to you?
3. Did I ask for too much?
4. Is the timing wrong for you?

The answers will help you understand whether there is potential for giving in spite of the “no.”

Wondering what this is in the picture?? It’s the HideAway, a human tea cozy, suitable for those times when your asks don’t go as planned.

Slate magazine publishes the annual Slate 60 — charting the largest donations made in the US each year. In 2006 you needed to pledge at least $30M to even make the list. For the first time in a decade of tracking uber-gifts, they have split out pledges from donations made. A wise distinction, considering the number of high profile pledges that have been revoked in the last few years.

As part of their philanthropy coverage, they have some ideas on how to make philanthropy part of the American success story:

• Stop using terms like “charity” and “gift” that bring to mind handouts and cheque-writing. Words such as nonprofit, investment and problem-solving are more accurate and inspiring.
• Supplement the public-adulation carrot with the peer-pressure stick. Cross reference a Slate 400 with the Forbes 400 to create a new list: America’s 100 Stingiest (those who are worth more than $1 billion who contribute the smallest percentage of their net worth each year). Update this list in real time, online, and post it everywhere that the billionaires’ friends, colleagues, and neighbors will see it every day.
• Re-brand the “estate tax” as the “un-American activities tax,” the “Scrooge tax,” or the “keeping America great by motivating your lazy-ass kids tax.”

Check out the article for the rest of their ideas.

If you need some inspiration on how to develop meaningful online relationships with supporters, check out this (very un-scientifically chosen) list of the 59 smartest nonprofits online.

According to the authors: “These charities were chosen for their excellence in online storytelling and collaboration with their donors. We didn’t play favorites to one cause over another, nor did we look at their fundraising goals or number of members. Instead, these organizations are winners because of their web 2.0 smarts and a willingness to engage their constituents far beyond asking them to dig into their pockets. These are organizations that give their volunteers and members a voice and get out of the way. They’re pros at mobilizing awareness online. They’re experimentors. Innovators. On a mission. They’re fearless.”

I’ve been poking around the sites and there is so much amazing stuff going on! It makes sense that some of the biggest international advocacy organizations are on the list — online is how they mobilize support now. Smaller and more local organizations need to do it too. But how did the Ferrets Unlimited Ferret Shelter of Ohio make it on the list?? They look like a wonderful group… perhaps I need to spend more time on their site.

“Goda Playin” photo courtesy of G0Da on Flickr.

As part of the Nonprofit Blog Exchange Virtual Event, I’m exploring Michelle Murrain’s blog Zen and the art of Nonprofit Technology. It’s not for technophobes and makes me think how little the organizations I work are truly engaged in new technology and all the opportunities it can bring.

I especially like her rant about the lack of solutions for nonprofits who need to manage data for more uses than just fundraising. There are lots of donor databases out there but many organizations have to run parallel databases and applications for other types of constituents and forms of engagement — causing headaches and duplication.

On the topic of choosing a donor database, NPower has a new resource — Getting the Most from Your Decision: Four Steps to Selecting Donor Management Software. There are a few tables toward the end which rate common software packages on budget, ease of use, customization and features.

AFP Vancouver is offering help for those seeking their CFRE (Certified Fund Raising Executive) credential this year. A 1.5 hour workshop will help applicants understand the process and find out how to prepare for the exam. The workshop will be offered before each of the four 2007 exam windows. It’s open to both members and non-members. Contact AFP Vancouver for the details.

Here are the important dates for 2007:

• Apply by January 10 for the March 9 – 31 exam window
• Apply by April 9 for the June 8 – 30 exam window
• Apply by June 24 for the Aug 24 – Sep 15 window
• Apply by October 8 for the Oct 26 – Nov 17 window

As I sent out various holiday messages at the end of 2006, I found emails to friends getting bounced back by zealous spam filters. Clever filters are making it more difficult to get legitimate messages out to groups of recipients — a hassle for fundraisers who want to keep in touch with donors and prospects via email.

You aren’t sending spam are you? Of course not. Neither am I. So here’s a nice list of tips for helping your emails make it through, via Guidestar. Some of the most common items that receive points from spam filters are:

• Images accompanied by little or no text
• Very long list of recipients
• Large or very long messages exceeding a recipient’s limit
• Attachments
• Colored backgrounds
• Large fonts
• Colored fonts
• Messages created with Microsoft FrontPage
• Punctuation in the subject line
• Words in ALL CAPS in the subject line
• Trigger words or phrases in the body or subject line, such as “click,” “free,” “guarantee,” “limited-time offer,” “urgent matter”

Christmas is a good time to count blessings and try to keep the pointless gluttonous consumption to a minimum.

Here’s some help putting it in perspective: the Global Rich List, where you key in your income and discover how you compare to the rest of the planet. It’s the perfect inspiration for extra holiday giving.

The site is by POKE and allows people to donate to CARE at the moment.

Over the last two weeks I’ve facilitated a few workshops where I mentioned various current events and then couldn’t remember the names of donors, institutions, and research studies to properly attribute what I was saying. Brain freeze!

So, for anyone reading who attended the Volunteer Vancouver fundraising planning workshop or either of the BCIT “Essentials of Fundraising” classes, here’s some of what I couldn’t remember as I rambled on…

• I mentioned research showing that people find it easier to give money that to give time (for volunteering, coming to events etc.). The research was conducted by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. You can read about that here.
• We talked about the ethical considerations of donors not fulfilling their pledges. The biggest story of late is that of Larry Ellison of Oracle, who pledged $115M to Harvard for a new medical institution, made it to #3 on the Forbes list of America’s biggest philanthropists, and now seems to have no intention of making good.
• We also talked about charities suing donors or their estates for unpaid pledges. You can read AFP’s take on this thorny predicament.
• The breakdown of revenue was from Cornerstones of Community: Highlights from the National Survey of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations (2003). Check out page 27, where you will see that 49% of revenue for Canadian nonprofits comes from government sources.

As if you need more evidence that focusing on the needs of your donor is more important than focusing on your own needs… Here’s a guy who enjoyed a rather advertising agency interesting internship experience.

Matthew Zimmerman, an undergrad at Cornell, spent his summer internship helping street beggars increase their daily revenue with creative new signs.

The concept behind the experiment: Marketing products through pricing or product features alone results in only one-time purchases. However, if a customer feels an emotional attachment to the product, there is a greater chance for repeat buying and loyalty.

…Speaking with a depth of knowledge he didn’t have before hitting the streets, Zimmerman explained that a typical panhandling sign describes the person’s situation or status—Vietnam vet, runaway, unemployed, unlucky one, or drug addict. After interviewing several New Yorkers, however, Zimmerman found that type of sign to be usually ineffective, because it fails to create an emotional tie with the potential giver or make the giver feel good about himself or herself for donating—key elements in getting people to dig into their pockets.

To strike a chord, Zimmerman created a simple poster out of a ripped box that read, “If you give once a month, please consider me next time.” He notes: “Part of the process was learning that it’s all about the consumers and how they benefit from the transaction. Instead of saying, ‘I’m homeless’ or ‘I need this,’ we basically said, ‘I know you feel good when you give, so can you give to me next time?’”

The results were dramatic: One individual he worked with earned her usual daily take of $30 in just three hours. You can read the whole story in Business Week Online.

The common wisdom is that if you want to raise big money, you need big names on your board of directors. You want people with their own personal wealth or connections to other wealthy and influential people. It may seem like a “duh” concept — of course a prestigious board will attract more money! But two researchers have tested that assumption.

Robert Herman and David Renz followed 44 US community-based human service organizations over a five-year period. Some of the organizations placed a priority on increasing the prestige of their board of directors; others did not. All were engaged in active fundraising and revenue-generating activities.

They found that as the organizations increased the prestige of their board, there was no corresponding increase in revenue. In fact, the opposite seemed to happen! The organizations without prestigious boards saw a greater increase in revenue.

At first I was surprised, but in thinking more about what I see with my clients, this makes sense to me. Many mid-sized nonprofits seek wealthy board members. The rationale is: we will find a wealthy person, they will lead our pathetic fundraising committee, invite all their friends to be part of our cause, and our fundraising woes will be over. Usually what happens is that the new board member doesn’t want to do the fundraising, is already fundraising for other causes, or doesn’t have the time. The organization would have been better off to develop some good staff-led fundraising programs.

Hospitals, universities, major arts organizations –- I think they really do benefit from prestigious boards and they have a board culture of philanthropy. But if you are a mid-sized or grassroots group, don’t assume that the same rules apply. Your fundraising plan should not be to find a board member to solve all your problems!