Posts tagged ‘marketing’

January 20, 2017

Now is the Time to Grow Up and Show Up!

Recently, pollster Frank Luntz, Founder of Luntz Global, said, “Grow up and show up.”

While the phrase has been used in a political context, it certainly applies to the philanthropic world as well.

Luntz was speaking about the nearly 70 (at the time) members of Congress who have decided to boycott the Presidential Inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. He suggested that by failing to show up, these members of Congress are breaking with tradition, exacerbating an already divisive atmosphere, and failing to represent the portion of their constituencies who voted for Trump.

Luntz is not the first to use the line “Grow up and show up.” While I don’t know the origin of the phrase, I do know that liberals have used it as well. For example, a number of liberals used the phrase to encourage people to go to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton.

I find it interesting that both sides of the political spectrum have embraced “Grow up and show up.” Ah, common ground! So, what does this mean for fundraising professionals?:

1.  Sometimes, we need to work with people (e.g., staff, board members, prospects, donors, etc.) we don’t particularly like or agree with. To me, grow up means we need to have the maturity and professionalism to separate our personal selves from our professional selves. We need to do what is best for our organizations and the entire nonprofit sector.

2.  We need to take action. To me, show up means it’s not enough to feel one way or the other; it’s not enough to pay lip-service to an issue or cause; it’s not enough to sign a petition; it’s not enough to participate in a protest. We need to back up our words with substantive action.

Let me share a personal example with you:

Years ago, the CARE Act was under consideration by Congress. The Act bundled a variety of charitable giving incentives including the IRA Charitable Rollover. At the time, I served as a Board Member, and eventually Chair of the Board, of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Political Action Committee.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) with Michael J. Rosen at CARE Act rally.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) with Michael J. Rosen at CARE Act rally.

The lead sponsor of the CARE Act was Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), He didn’t just lend his name to the Act or pay lip-service to it. He passionately believed in helping the nonprofit sector and, therefore, he actively worked for passage of the bill and partnered with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) as lead sponsors.

At the time, Santorum was not popular among a large group of AFP members. As a conservative, he was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. I was contacted by a number of angry AFP members who did not want the AFP PAC to contribute Santorum’s re-election campaign and who did not want me working with him for passage of the CARE Act.

Despite the objections of some AFP members, the AFP PAC contributed to the Santorum campaign. The AFP PAC also contributed to Lieberman’s campaign although some AFP members objected to that as well. The AFP PAC exists to promote philanthropy, period. In the Senate, Santorum was the most supportive of the nonprofit sector. The contribution was appropriate.

I also continued to work closely with Santorum on advocacy efforts to secure passage of the CARE Act. It was the right thing to do for the nonprofit sector.

January 13, 2017

The Best #Fundraising Blogs You Should be Reading

Every year, new authors enter the blog-o-sphere. It’s a challenge to keep track of all of the blogs for nonprofit managers and fundraising professionals. It’s even more difficult to determine which blogs are worth dr-seuss-reading-quote-by-linda-jordan-via-flickrvisiting regularly.

If you’re like most folks working in the nonprofit sector, you don’t have a lot of spare time to devote to professional development. You must attend endless meetings, generate reports, cultivate prospects and donors, and raise even more money than you did last year. Ugh!

So, let me help you by sharing two new lists with links to some of the best blogs for you:

100+ Fundraising Blogs You Should Be Reading in 2017” by Kristen Hay, Marketing Coordinator at Bloomerang

50 Must-Read Fundraising Blogs You Should Be Reading” by Anuj Agarwal, Founder of Feedspot.com

As I read the lists, two things struck me:

1.  There are a number of worthwhile blogs with which I was previously unfamiliar. I make an ongoing effort to keep up with the wealth of material in the marketplace, but it’s a challenge. I’m grateful that Bloomerang and Feedspot have pointed me in the direction of blogs worth exploring.

2.  I discovered that my blog made it on to both lists. I’m honored to be included alongside many nonprofit professionals I have long respected. I thank you and all of my readers for inspiring me to blog and helping me receive the recognition I have been given over the years.

To find four great lists of blog sites from last year, along with other valuable resources, checkout my post: “You Don’t Want to Miss These Worthwhile Items from 2016.”

Reading great blogs delivers several benefits:

January 10, 2017

Here is One Word You Should Stop Using

Would you like to be a better writer?

Would you like to be a more effective public speaker?

Would you like to engage donors in conversations that are more meaningful?

I have some good news for you. Being a more successful communicator is easier than you think. Here is just one simple thing you can do immediately:

Stop using the word “very.”

A few weeks ago, Greta Vaitkeviciute, Advertising Manager at Altechna, shared the following terrific graphic on LinkedIn:

words-to-use-instead-of-very-via-greta-vaitkeviciute

Reviewing the graphic reminded me of a conversation I had with my editor when I was writing my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing.

I confess that I was a frequent user of the word very. My editor called me on my lazy writing habit, and pointed out that very is a modifier that does not truly enhance the text. She went on to strike virtually all uses of the word from my draft manuscript. With some effort, I began to make the necessary edits. Soon, dropping very became second nature, much to the relief of my editor. I still included very in my book a number of times for tone and style. However, I used the modifier far less than I would have otherwise. As a result, my writing was much stronger, and I was able to communicate more effectively with my readers.

December 29, 2016

You Don’t Want to Miss These Worthwhile Items from 2016

As the frenzied year-end fundraising and holiday season draws to a close, we have an opportunity to catch our breath this week. Like me, you’ve probably found that, between work and family, a 24-hour day just isn’t long enough to accomplish everything we want to do. We need a break every so often.

im-drowning-in-data-by-quinn-dombrowski-via-flickrWhen trying to stay on top of the latest fundraising and nonprofit marketing news and ideas, I know it’s time consuming just to sift through the wealth of articles, blog posts, and books that are published each year. It’s easy to drown in all the information. That means it’s also easy to overlook useful information.

With this blog post, I aim to save you some time and link you to some valuable material by listing some of my most popular posts of 2016, showing you where you can find other excellent bloggers, and by telling you where you can find books recommended by readers who are fundraising professionals and nonprofit managers.

Here is a list of my top ten most read posts published in 2016:

  1. Stop Showering All of Your Donors with Love!
  2. Stop Making Stupid Email and Direct Mail Mistakes
  3. Do You Know that “Planned Giving” is Bad for #Fundraising?
  4. Avoid a Big Mistake: Stop Asking for Bequest Gifts!
  5. Donors Say: Enough about You. Let’s Talk about Me!
  6. How Can Nana Murphy Make You a Better #Fundraising Professional?
  7. How to Avoid a Disastrous Political Debate with Donors
  8. 6 Great #Fundraising Tips from a 6-Year-Old Boy
  9. Do You Know How to Take Criticism?
  10. Stop Pretending that You Work for Stanford!

Here’s a list of five of my older posts that remained popular this year:

I invite you to read any posts that might interest you by clicking on the title above. If you’ve read them all, thank you for being a committed reader.

You might also be interested in reading about my guest blog posts on the Bloomerang site:

Recently, I was interviewed twice for the MarketWatch site. You can find links to the articles as well as my elaboration on my comments here:

December 9, 2016

#GivingTuesday Hits and Misses

I’m not a fan of #GivingTuesday. Don’t get me wrong, though. I do like the idea of it. Promoting philanthropy at a time of year that has become associated with extreme consumerism is a nice concept.

While I have no quarrel with the idea of #GivingTuesday, I do have several problems with the reality of it, including:

It does not inspire much philanthropy. During #GivingTuesday 2016, early reports show that charities raised $168 million … WORLDWIDE. Last year, nonprofit organizations raised $117 million. Assuming all of that money was given in the USA, which was not the case, it would have accounted for just 0.03 percent of overall philanthropy!

We do not know whether #GivingTuesday inspires new and increased giving. While people contributed on #GivingTuesday, we simply do not know whether they would have given those gifts anyway. We also do not know if #GivingTuesday simply shifts when people give.

Well-resourced charities may be siphoning support away from smaller nonprofits. With larger marketing budgets, staff sizes, and brand awareness, it’s entirely possible that big organizations benefit from #GivingTuesday at the expense of smaller ones.

#GivingTuesday growth appears to be slowing. NonprofitPro reports that this year’s growth rate is the lowest in the five-year history of the campaign.

While I recognize that some charities have benefitted from their #GivingTuesday campaigns, I still fail to see how it is a benefit to the nonprofit sector as a whole. (You can read my more detailed critiques of #GivingTuesday by entering that term in my blog’s search box to the right.)

Furthermore, I find that many individual charities do themselves more harm than good by rushing to embrace #GivingTuesday while failing to invest time and money to enhance the fundamental fundraising skills of staff.

Consider the #GivingTuesday appeal initiated by Inis Nua Theatre Company. This small theatre company in Philadelphia produces excellent contemporary, provocative plays from Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales.

Jessica Simkins, General Manager of Inis Nua, told me that the company normally does a year-end fundraising campaign. This year, staff chose to use #GivingTuesday to frame this year’s appeal. Rather than implementing an entirely new appeal for #GivingTuesday as many nonprofits have done, Inis Nua chose to leverage the hype around #GivingTuesday, such as it is, to see if it could boost its year-end fundraising campaign.

Despite my general feelings about #GivingTuesday, I actually like this application of the concept. I consider it a Hit. I also like that they included a challenge grant.

Unfortunately, the appeal letter itself is a big Miss. Here’s the direct mail appeal my wife received:

gt-inis-nua-mail-appeal

The major issue I have with the mailing is that it is very organizational-focused. The author uses the words I, my, our, ourselves, us, we a total of 30 times in a one-page letter. On the other hand, the writer uses the words audiences, donors, patrons, supporters, you and your only eight times.

The letter is a self-congratulatory missive from the Founder and Artistic Director. Donors are never given any credit for helping to make possible Inis Nua’s impressive accomplishments. There are other problems with the appeal, but the organization-centric approach is a giant problem. Piggy-backing on #GivingTuesday won’t offset Inis Nua’s neglect of fundraising fundamentals.

By contrast, my wife received a donor-centered email from Lantern Theater Company that also referenced #GivingTuesday. Lantern Theater is also a small nonprofit in Philadelphia that produces classic and modern plays. Unlike Inis Nua, Lantern’s mission statement actually mentions audiences, audience members, and community. You’ll see the audience/community focus represented in Lantern’s email appeal:

November 30, 2016

Want More Donors and More Money?

Would you like to find more donors?

Would you like to have more donors renew and upgrade their support?

Would you like to raise more money for your nonprofit organization?

If so, avoid de-motivating people by making them think their support is insignificant, unnecessary, and unwanted.

Donors want to feel their contributions are making a difference. If they do not feel that is the case, they’ll take their support elsewhere. Consider the following representative comment voiced in a focus group hosted by researchers Dr. Adrian Sargeant and Dr. Jen Shang:

[W]e feel this strong sense of wanting to make a difference.”

Yet, despite this simple truth, many charities regularly alienate prospects and donors. Although the alienation is almost always unintentional, it remains a very real problem. Reflect on the following representative comment heard in a focus group study conducted by The George Washington University:

When you see bequests given to universities they are substantial. You really feel embarrassed that you don’t have that money.”

So, what are nonprofit organizations doing that is embarrassing and alienating donors? Well, many things. For now, I’ll focus on just one action that underscores the point raised by the GW alumnus.

money-in-hands-by-401k-2012-via-flickrMany organizations celebrate the support of mega-philanthropists. They profile these individuals in institutional publications; they recognize them on donor walls; they thank them at public events. While all of this is perfectly appropriate, a problem arises when an organization recognizes mega-donors to the exclusion of all other supporters.

When people see that only mega-donors are celebrated, they can begin to think that their support is unnecessary and not genuinely appreciated. This is true for annual giving, planned giving, capital campaign giving, and other types of campaigns.

If you want a diverse group of supporters, be sure to celebrate a diverse group of supporters. When people see people like themselves supporting your organization, research shows they’ll be more likely to support as well. When I speak of cultivating a diverse group of supporters, I mean in every sense of the term: gender, race, religion, age, philanthropic means, etc.

That’s an idea that the folks at the Arizona State University School of Nursing and Health Innovation understand. As I shared in my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing:

November 15, 2016

Will the Election be Good or Bad for #Fundraising?

[Publisher’s Note: This is not a political or partisan post. Instead, this post will explore the affects the recent presidential election is likely to have on fundraising and philanthropy in the short-term and beyond. As always, civil and on-topic comments are encouraged, whether or not you agree with the points covered in the post. However, overtly political or partisan comments will not be published nor will the rants of internet trolls.]

 

Donald J. Trump appears to have secured enough electoral votes to become the USA’s 45th president. His election will become official when the Electoral College votes on Dec. 19, 2016.

After a bruising, though not unprecedented, election cycle, the nation remains deeply divided and emotionally raw. What does this mean for fundraising and philanthropy?

Impact of Election Donations on Charitable Giving:

At the 2016 Association of Fundraising Professionals International Fundraising Conference, research from Blackbaud was presented that looked at the impact of political giving on charitable donations in the 2012 election cycle.

Chuck Longfield, Senior Vice President and Chief Scientist at Blackbaud, observes:

Fundraisers have long debated whether or not political fundraising affects charitable giving and, for decades, important fundraising decisions in election years have been based largely on the conventional belief of a fixed giving pie. The study’s overall assertion is that political giving during the 2012 election did not, in fact, suppress charitable giving. Donors to political campaigns continued their support of charitable causes.”

According to the study, donors who gave to federal political campaigns in 2012 gave 0.9 percent more to charitable organizations in 2012 compared to 2011. By contrast, donors who did not give to political campaigns reduced their giving to charities in 2012 by 2.1 percent. These data findings held true across all sub-sectors as well as the demographic segments of age range, household income, and head of household gender.

The research only provides us with a snapshot. It is not predictive. More research will need to be done to identify whether or not the results will be consistent over multiple election cycles. However, based on the analysis of the 2012 campaign cycle, we certainly have room to be cautiously optimistic about 2016.

Year-End Giving:

If history is an indicator, the 2016 election will have little or no impact on overall year-end philanthropy, according to Patrick Rooney, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

voting-by-becky-mccray-via-flickrAt times, elections have had an effect on the giving of some individuals. For example, in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected, some major donors feared that he would secure a 28 percent cap on tax deductions.

Out of fear that the cost of giving would, in effect, be going up in 2009, some of these individuals front-loaded their 2009 philanthropic support to 2008 year-end. Nevertheless, the impact on overall giving was modest.

While Trump has promised major tax reform, it’s doubtful that donors will expect significant changes to the tax code to be enacted and go into effect in 2017. Therefore, it’s equally doubtful that major donors will shift 2017 giving into 2016.

Given that the 2016 election was unusual in many ways, it is certainly possible that year-end giving will deviate from the historical norm. For example, the stock market reached a record level following the election. If stock values continue to grow, we could see an increase in year-end gifts of appreciated securities. However, regarding overall philanthropy, I think the smart bet is on history.

Giving to Individual Charities:

It is very likely that certain individual charities will see an uptick in donations as a result of the election outcome.

Many years ago, Richard Viguerie, a pioneer of conservative direct response fundraising and Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said that people would rather fight against something than for something. We’ve seen it before; we’re seeing it now.

For example, when Obama was elected, the National Rifle Association received significantly more contributions as some feared that the new president would impose more stringent gun control measures.

Now, Kari Paul, of MarketWatch, reports:

November 11, 2016

How Long Should Your #Fundraising Appeal Be?

When I was in middle school, it was common for my English teacher to give us an essay assignment. Every time she did, one student would always ask, “How long do you want it to be?” The teacher provided great direction that has guided my writing ever since:

Make it as long as it has to be. If you have something to say, say it. When you’ve said it, stop writing.”

Sometimes, you’ll need to write a lengthy appeal while at other times, a shorter appeal might be more effective.

Mal Warwick, the direct mail guru, once told me about a survey of men and women designed to explore what type of appeals they might prefer. Men said they prefer short appeals while women said they prefer longer ones. The interesting thing is that when follow-up appeals were sent, men and women responded at similar rates. Even more interesting is that both men and women were more likely to respond to the longer appeals.

kerouac-scrollThe idea that people don’t read anymore is a myth.

If the appeal comes from an organization someone cares about, he will take the time to read provided that your copy is compelling and relevant to the reader.

Don’t be afraid of the number of words you are using. Use as many as you need to move your readers.

This general insight also holds true in the business-to-consumer and business-to-business worlds making it something of a universal truth. Writing in Target MarketingBob Bly says:

So when clients tell me they don’t like long copy, I ask, ‘For whom are you writing? Casual readers? Or serious buyers looking to spend their money on what you are selling?’”

Bly observes that longer copy generally generates greater response rates in both b-to-c and b-to-b marketing. Fundraising is no different.

Bly also reports that longer blog posts are better from an SEO perspective, according to research from Orbit Media. Research by HubSpot finds that longer blog posts (over 2,500 words) are more likely to be shared on social media. Site SEO Analysis shows wordier web pages (500 words at minimum, but over 2,000 is better) rank higher in search engines. Eccolo Media reports that longer whitepapers (six to eight pages) are more likely to be read than those that are shorter.

There are certainly times when using fewer words is the way to go. For example, if you’re writing copy for a postcard mailing, you’ll have very limited real estate with which to work. You’ll need to be brief. However, when you have space, it will generally be better for you to write longer rather than shorter.

Following best-practice can often be the wise move. However, that’s not always the case. If your list is large enough and you have the resources, you should test various appeal lengths to see what works best for your organization and its various audiences.

If you test, more often than not, you’ll find that longer copy will generate a better result. Just be sure to keep these 10 tips in mind:

November 8, 2016

Are You Forgetting Something as Year-End Approaches?

It’s that time of year once again. #GivingTuesday and December 31 are fast approaching. All charities are looking for year-end donations. However, are you forgetting something important?

If you want to maximize year-end giving, you must seek planned gifts. Remember, not all planned gifts are deferred gifts; many are current contributions. Here are some types of planned gifts you should be asking for, even if you don’t have a formal planned giving program:

Gifts of appreciated stock or property (i.e.: real estate, art, collectibles, etc.):

By making a donation using appreciated stock or personal property, a donor can avoid capital gains tax and receive a charitable gift deduction. Because over half of Americans own stock (Gallup) and because the stock markets are at or near record highs, now is a great time for donors to contribute appreciated securities. Likewise, real estate values have generally seen significant rebounds since the Great Recession, meaning real estate gifts are an excellent option for some donors.

Gifts from a Donor Advised Fund:

Many donors have established a Donor Advised Fund. In 2014, there were over 238,000 Donor Advised Funds (National Philanthropic Trust, Donor Advised Fund Market Report 2015). DAFs “account for more than three percent of all charitable giving in the United States.”

pot-of-goldIf you’d like to learn more about how DAFs work, you can download the free FAQ sheet from DAF Direct by clicking here.

If you know that a donor has established a DAF, ask him to designate your charity for a grant. In your newsletter, include a story about a supporter who has given through her DAF. On your website, include a Donor Advised Fund widget to make it easy for your donors to designate a gift to your charity.

To see how International Planned Parenthood Federation / Western Hemisphere uses the DAF Direct widget, click here. To see how the UNICEF United States Fund has deployed the widget, click here. For information about how to get the Donor Advised Fund widget for your organization’s website, click here.

Gifts from an IRA Rollover:

November 4, 2016

It’s Not Just What They Say, but How They Say It

To raise more money, listen carefully to your prospects and donors. They’ll give you vital insights about their philanthropic interests and ability to give.

Furthermore, they’ll give you clues about how to most effectively present to them.

Tom Hopkins, the sales guru and author of Low Profile Selling, suggests that by adapting your presentation style according to prospect preference, you’ll be far more successful.

Let me explain.

If you’re visiting with a prospect to make the case for support of a particular initiative, he may say, “I see what you mean.” That could be a clue that the prospect prefers to relate to information visually.

fennec-fox-ears-by-caninest-via-flickrSo, you would be wise to adapt your presentation to be more visual. For example, you could share a printed copy of the case for support. Or, you could show the prospect a brief video that illustrates what you’re saying. Another way to engage such a prospect is to ask her to imagine. For example, if you work for an animal shelter, you might ask, “Can you imagine how happy you’ll make dozens of puppies and kittens with your support?”

Alternatively, your prospect might say, “I hear what you’re saying.” That could indicate that she prefers getting information by listening.

%d bloggers like this: