Archive for ‘Current Events’

November 14, 2014

One Word is Costing Your Fundraising Effort a Fortune

If you’re like most nonprofit development professionals, you’re doing it. You’re using one particular word in your fundraising effort that is costing your nonprofit organization a fortune.

I have the research that proves it.

If you talk with prospects about and ask them for a “bequest” commitment, you’re leaving enormous sums of money on the table. That’s the conclusion of recently released data shared by Russell James, JD, PhD, CFP, a leading philanthropy researcher based at Texas Tech University.

wordsthatwork3-01James will be sharing his research-based insights during a free webinar hosted by MarketSmart, on Wednesday, November 19 at 1:00 PM (EST). Words That Work: The Phrases That Encourage Planned Giving will explore the words and phrases that inspire donors to give and give more. Conversely, James also will look at the words and phrases that development professionals traditionally use that are actually counter-productive, such as the word bequest.

Consider this: A 2014 survey of 1,418 individuals found that 23 percent of respondents were “interested now” in “making a gift to charity in my will.” By contrast, only 12 percent were “interested now” in “making a bequest gift to charity.”

In other words, talking about bequest giving cuts your chance of getting a bequest commitment nearly in half! For greater results, it’s better to use simple, approachable language. As James suggests, when communicating with donor prospects, it’s a good idea to imagine you’re talking with your grandmother.

Not only do the individual word choices we make have a massive impact on the money we raise, how we use simple phrases can likewise make a huge difference.

James recently reported that 3,000 actual testators in the UK, not simply survey takers, were randomly placed into one of three groups when speaking with an estate planner:

  1. No reference to charity.
  2. Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will?
  3. Many of our customers like to leave money to charity in their will. Are there any causes you’re passionate about?

When the estate planner did not raise the subject of charitable giving, five percent of testators initiated the inclusion of at least one charity. In the second group, which was asked about including a charity, 10.4 percent agreed to do so. Clearly, asking has a significant, positive impact. However, members of the third group, which heard that others were including charities in their will, were even more likely to make a commitment. Now, here’s one of the key findings: Among those in the third group, 15.4 percent included at least one charity in their estate plan.

The commercial sector refers to the simple phrasing used with the third group as the bandwagon effect or social-norm effect. People are more likely to take action if they know others are already doing so. As the research demonstrates, this principle holds true when encouraging people to include a charity in their estate plan.

Interestingly, the positive impact does not stop at just the percentage of folks willing to make a charitable plan.

November 7, 2014

What Do You Want?

-

“Back to life, back to reality

Back to the here and now yeah

Show me how, decide what you want from me

Tell me maybe I could be there for you

However do you want me,

However do you need me.”

– “Back to Life” performed by Soul II Soul

-

Last month, I wrote about how I cheated death. Now, I’m happy to report that I am re-engaging in professional life:

  • I’m resuming my consulting practice.
  • I’m accepting speaking opportunities.
  • I’ll be teaching graduate students once again at Drexel University.
  • I’m resuming regular blog postings.

As I officially resurrect my blog, I want to take the opportunity to discover how I can be of better service to you. After all, in a very real sense, this blog is really more yours than mine. If I’m not addressing your wants, your needs, there’s really no point to this site. So, help me help you. Please take a few moments to answer the following seven survey questions:

October 27, 2014

Pew Charitable Trusts Encourages Voting

The Pew Charitable Trusts, along with Google and election officials nationwide, have developed The Voting Information Project to encourage people to vote on US Election Day, November 4, 2014. Together, they’re offering cutting-edge tools that give voters access to the customized information they need to cast a ballot on or before Election Day.

Vote by Theresa Thompson via FlickrThe Voting Information Project is offering free apps and tools that provide polling place locations and ballot information for the 2014 election across a range of technology platforms. The project provides official election information to voters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and voters can find answers to common questions such as “Where is my polling location?” and “What’s on my ballot?” through the convenience of their phone or by searching the web.

For more information, use the Voter Information Tool:

September 5, 2014

Cheating Death

Recently, Death came knocking on my door. I did not answer; it seemed like the smart thing to do. It worked.

Now, I have completed treatment for my abdominal cancer (Pseudomyxoma Peritonei, often referred to as PMP). I’m in remission, and my oncologic surgeon expects me to live a reasonably healthy, full life.Death by thom via Flickr

Despite the miraculous treatment outcome, I’m still a long way from normal. My recovery continues as I focus on healing, regaining strength, and putting on weight. While I concentrate on a return to good health, I will gradually re-engage in professional life between now and the end of the year.

I wish my progress were much quicker. However, as I look back over my shoulder, I realize that I’ve been on an extraordinary journey over the past seven months. Here’s a brief recap of what has happened:

February 2014 — Leading up to my routine physical, I knew it would be more than routine. My abdomen had become inexplicably distended despite having shed some extra weight. In addition, I had a persistent cough for more than a month.

At my February physical, my doctor poked around and, with a concerned look on his face, told me he wanted me to have an abdominal CT Scan. While inconclusive, the CT Scan showed growths and fluid build-up. More tests and visits to specialists immediately followed as part of the diagnostic process.

March 2014 – By the end of March, my lead cancer specialist gave me my diagnosis and prognosis. He informed me that I had PMP, a rare cancer with fewer than 1,000 diagnosed cases worldwide each year. The doctor believed that I likely had the slow-growing appendiceal form of PMP, and that I probably had it for about ten years. Without treatment, my life expectancy would be about two years. Unfortunately, given the severity of my case, treatment would likely only give me a five-year life expectancy.

Treatment for my form of PMP involves surgery and HIPEC, a heated chemo infusion at the time of surgery. The Philadelphia PMP expert held out little hope that treatment would be able to remove all of the disease. However, he did recommend that we get a second opinion from Dr. David Bartlett at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Bartlett and his team are among the world’s most experienced at treating and researching PMP. So, based on our own investigation and the recommendations of multiple doctors, we made an appointment with Dr. Bartlett.

June 10, 2014

Progress Report

“Look! It’s moving. It’s alive. It’s alive. It’s alive, it’s moving, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, IT’S ALIVE!”

– Henry Frankenstein from Frankenstein (1931)

 

It’s been over two months since I first reported to you that I was diagnosed with an extremely rare form of slowly progressing abdominal cancer: Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP). So, I thought it was about time I provided you with a progress report.

The bottom-line is that I’m very much alive and doing better each week.

Here’s what’s been going on:

My wife and I traveled to Pittsburgh, PA so that I could undergo surgery on May 2, 2014 with Dr. David Bartlett at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Bartlett is one of the world’s leading PMP surgeons and researchers. His surgical team and the nursing staff are experienced and fantastic.

Frankenstein (1931)

Frankenstein (1931)

My surgery was massive. I was on the table for nearly 14 hours. Approximately 30 pounds of mucin and several organs were removed. In addition, cancer growths were scraped off of other organs. Finally, I was treated with HIPEC, a heated chemo infusion. After approximately three weeks in the hospital, I was released and headed back to Philadelphia a few days later.

The fantastic news is that the expert surgical team reports they were able to extract the cancer and that they consider the surgery a “complete” success. In a few weeks, I’ll return to Pittsburgh for an anticipated follow-up surgery that will keep me in the hospital for about four days. After that, I’ll be completely done with treatment.

While my treatment will conclude shortly, I will continue to undergo frequent diagnostic testing. While successful as a treatment, the surgery is not a cure. Although I am now classified as being in “remission,” the cancer is expected to return someday. Fortunately, Dr. Bartlett believes this will not happen for many years. When it does, we’ll catch it early so that it can be beaten back with a far less aggressive treatment and, perhaps, with a breakthrough therapy.

April 4, 2014

Delivering (My Own) Bad News

I don’t want to mislead you. So, let me be clear from the start. This post is less about how to deliver bad news and more about, well, me sharing some bad news with you. Nevertheless, in keeping with the spirit of this blog site, I will include some relevant tips at the end.

First, I want to share some terrible, personal news with you.

As you may know from some of my previous posts, the past couple of years have been a challenging time given my wife’s fight with Ovarian Cancer. Now that she continues to be in remission, we were looking forward to a happy, relatively normal 2014. Unfortunately, that’s not to be the case.

I have been diagnosed with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP), a slowly progressing abdominal cancer. PMP is rare. Medical professionals diagnose fewer than 1000 cases per year worldwide, according to some researchers.

Frowny Face by khaybe via FlickrAt this point, I have no pain and very little discomfort. My only significant symptoms are a distended abdomen, an annoying cough from the pressure on my diaphragm, and weight loss beyond what I was shooting for. However, left unchecked, my condition would soon change for the worse. Therefore, in the coming weeks, I will undergo surgical treatment. This will require a lengthy hospital stay and recovery period.

Unfortunately, there is no cure or even remission for PMP. Treatment will beat it back. Then, I have to hope it comes back very slowly.

Now, and for at least the next few months, I need to focus 100 percent of my energy on regaining as much of my health as possible. So, I’ll be taking an indefinite leave-of-absence from my blog, professional life, and most social media activity. I look forward to re-engaging as soon as I am able.

Meantime, here are some things that you might consider doing, in no particular order:

February 28, 2014

Warning: US Volunteerism at a Decade Low!

The rate of volunteerism in America fell to the lowest level in a decade, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics report Volunteering in the United States — 2013.  This appears part of a downward trend.

Nonprofit organizations should find this trend alarming for a number of reasons, including:

Volunteers provide an essential labor pool. Approximately 62.6 million (25.4 percent) Americans volunteered at least once between September 2012 and September 2013.

The median volunteer spent 50 hours on volunteer activities during the study period. These significant volunteer hours mean that volunteers are a valuable part of the nonprofit labor force. Declining volunteerism rates mean charities will either have to limit services, discontinue certain activities, or pay for employees to perform the tasks formerly handled by volunteers.

Volunteers serve as ambassadors. Individuals who volunteer usually act as ambassadors for the organization. They obviously have a high-degree of interest in the organization, which is why they volunteer with it.

Through volunteer experiences, provided they are good ones, the volunteers will become more engaged with the organization and more passionate about its work. They will speak of the organization with family and friends. When they do, it will be in a positive, passionate tone. This word-of-mouth promotion will help your organization to attract additional volunteer and donor support.

Volunteers are more likely to donate. The more engaged an individual is with his community, the more likely he is to volunteer and contribute money to nonprofit organizations. The more points of connection there are between an individual and a particular nonprofit organization, the more likely that individual is to give, give often, and give generously to that organization, as I point out in my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing.

Volunteerism is an important point of connection. This phenomenon is explained, in part, by the Social Capital Theory popularized by Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone.

Volunteers are more likely to make planned gifts. Consider what researcher Russell James, JD, PhD, CFP reports in his book, American Charitable Bequest Demographics (1992-2012):

Among those with [estate] planning documents, those who both volunteer and give ($500+) are dramatically more likely to plan a charitable estate gift than those who only volunteer or only give ($500+). Those who only volunteer, plan charitable estate gifts at approximately the same rate as those who only give.”

Graph from American Charitable Bequest Demographics (1992-2012) by Russell James.

Graph from American Charitable Bequest Demographics (1992-2012) by Russell James.

Furthermore, those who only volunteer or only donate ($500+) are more than twice as likely to make a legacy gift than those who do neither.

For a free electronic copy of James’ book, subscribe to this blog site in the right-hand column. You’ll receive an email confirmation of your subscription that will contain a link to the book.

Clearly, the steady decline in volunteerism represents a serious problem for the nonprofit sector.

So, why is volunteerism on the decline? Unfortunately, the reasons for the decline are unclear. However, the report contains some clues.

February 23, 2014

Honoring Donor Intent: When it Works, When it Doesn’t

Donor-centered fundraising is smart fundraising. Part of being donor centric involves always honoring the donor’s intent.

The Association of Fundraising Professionals’ Code of Ethical Principles states:

[Fundraising professionals] recognize their responsibility to ensure that needed resources are vigorously and ethically sought and that the intent of the donor is honestly fulfilled.”

Honoring donor intent is essential for at least two reasons:

  1. It’s the right thing to do.
  2. It’s a fundamental way to earn and deserve trust. Without trust, fundraising would be virtually impossible.

To honor donor intent, you must first ensure that the contribution is received according to the donor’s specifications. This is particularly important for planned gifts when the donor is no longer around to make sure everything goes according to plan. The charity becomes the voice of the donor.

The next part of honoring donor intent requires that the organization use the gift for the purpose specified by the donor.

Unfortunately, honoring donor intent is not always an easy thing to do. Sometimes, it works the right way while other times it morphs into something ugly.

Let’s look at two examples.

The Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation learned of the passing of an elderly woman in the community. I first shared her story in my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. A member of the all-volunteer organization’s board knew the woman and knew the Foundation was in her will.

The woman’s attorney produced a copy of the will which included a nearly $1 million bequest for the Foundation and nearly nothing for her two estranged children. However, the children produced another version of the will where the charitable provision was whited-out, literally.

The attorney for the children approached the Foundation to negotiate a settlement agreement. The Foundation, under the advice of legal counsel, held firm and asked that the matter proceed to court as soon as possible.

The attorney for the children initiated a series of delaying tactics hoping that the Foundation would eventually negotiate rather than have the matter drag out. Under the advice of legal counsel, the Foundation held firm.

About one year later, surprisingly quickly given the circumstances, the court upheld the clean version of the will, and the Foundation received the full bequest.

In the Foundation’s case, the donor’s interest was in alignment with the charity’s. The Foundation was right to defend the donor’s wishes. By defending the donor’s interest, the Foundation ultimately benefited. More importantly, young people in the community will benefit for years to come as the Foundation provides scholarships that would not otherwise be possible to award.

Sadly, there are times when protecting the interests of the donor cross a line. In those cases, the organization goes from being donor centric to being self-centered, even greedy. This might be the case with the University of Texas.

Warhol's Farrah Fawcett portrait on exhibit at the UT Blanton Museum.

Warhol’s Farrah Fawcett portrait on exhibit at the UT Blanton Museum.

The University received a bequest from Farrah Fawcett. The Seventies icon left “all” her artwork to the University where she had studied art prior to the successful launch of her acting career. The collection included at least one portrait of Fawcett by famed artist Andy Warhol.

However, the Fawcett story is complicated. Warhol actually did two, almost identical pieces. According to Ryan O’Neal, the actor and on-again-off-again boyfriend of Fawcett, Warhol gave one portrait to Fawcett and the other to him.

February 12, 2014

Special Report: Winner of Book Contest Named

[Publisher's Note: "Special Reports" are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. "Special Reports" are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including "Special Reports," please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

 

We have a winner!

As 2013 drew to a close, Michael Rosen Says… announced a chance for readers to win a free copy of Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. To enter the book drawing, readers needed to share the title of a favorite book they recently read about fundraising, philanthropy, or civil society.

You can read the original post and discover what books have been recommended by clicking here.

You can find other reader recommended books by visiting The Nonprofit Bookstore (powered by Amazon).

Donor-Centered Planned Gift MarketingThe winner of the contest is Pete Stroble, President of the British Transportation Museum (Ohio). Pete’s name was randomly selected by guest judge Tracy Malloy-Curtis, Director of Philanthropic Planning at the International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region. I thank Pete for his book recommendation and Tracy for selecting our winner.

For writing Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, I won the AFP/Skystone Partners Prize for Research in Fundraising and Philanthropy. The best-selling book is listed on the official CFRE International Resource Reading List. The average reader review on Amazon is 5-stars. You can find the book by clicking here.

February 10, 2014

Special Report: Mark Zuckerberg & Wife Lead List of Top Philanthropists

[Publisher's Note: "Special Reports" are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. "Special Reports" are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including "Special Reports," please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

 

With a gift of $992.2 million of Facebook stock to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, find themselves at the top of The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s list of largest philanthropists in 2013.

Mark Zuckerberg by Andrew Feinberg via FlickrZuckerberg, at age 29, is the youngest philanthropist ever to top The Chronicle’s annual list of largest donors.

George Mitchell, with a bequest gift of approximately $750 million to the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, ranked second on the 2013 list.

In total, the top donors of 2013 contributed $7.7 billion plus $2.9 billion in pledges. The numbers and ranking are based on publicly available information.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 736 other followers

%d bloggers like this: