erik – Page 50 – The Healthy Non-Profit

Do you know about the Non-Profit Blog Carnival?

February 27, 2013 erik Uncategorized

I’ll keep today’s post short by asking you one simple question: “Do you know about the Non-Profit Blog Carnival?” In a nutshell, it is a monthly collection of blog posts focused on a singular topic. Click here for a more in-depth explanation from Joanne Fritz at about.com.

This month Marc Pitman, The Fundraising Coach, is hosting the carnival and the question being asked and answered is: “How do you keep your donors engaged for a second gift?”

Click here to visit the carnival where you will find links to 16 different bloggers offering free advice on donor retention.

I am privileged to be hosting the Nonprofit Blog Carnival in May, but I haven’t developed a question or theme yet. So, I thought it would be kind of neat to ask DonorDreams readers to offer suggestions.

Please scroll down and use the comment box to offer a question or theme. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Government funding, charities and difficult questions

February 25, 2013 erik Fundraising

In my hometown of Elgin, Illinois, we are gearing up for city council elections. There is a Primary Election tomorrow (February 26, 2013) to narrow the field for a two-year vacancy on the council, and the general election is April 9, 2013 where voters will fill the two-year vacancy as well as four additional four-year seats. A total of five seats are up for grabs, and 22 different people have their hat in the ring.

You’re probably asking: “What does any of this have anything to do with non-profit organizations or fundraising?”

As you can imagine, a race with those many people gets cluttered. Who stands for what? What are the issues of the day? Why are people running? In an effort to bring some clarity, The Daily Herald newspaper identified a few issues, talked to the candidates about those issues, and wrote stories about what they found. One of those stories is about the Elgin Symphony Orchestra (ESO) and its quest to restore its city funding.

I look at this local story and see bigger implications for the entire non-profit community nationwide. Increased pressure on government budgets in the upcoming years will transform how and where governments allocate money to non-profit agencies.

Accountability and sustainability

If you clicked the Daily Herald link above or this article from The Courier-News, then you know that one of the objections some folks have to funding the ESO is that they ran budget deficits for a few years and burned through some of their endowment during the economic downturn. This raises sustainability questions because no donor (regardless of whether they are an individual, corporation, foundation or governmental agency) wants to fund something that isn’t sustainable.

In this instance, the issue is evolving into an accountability question: “how can grant deliverables be designed to hold the ESO board and staff accountable to creating and implementing a sustainable business plan?”

There also appears to be a community standard evolving out of this discussion where some council members don’t want to provide funding at levels that would be too high for an agency to easily replace if the city ever decided to pull its funding. Of course, this approach creates challenges because it is difficult to hold agencies to meaningful grant deliverables when the dollars at stake aren’t big enough to fund programming capable of generating community impact.

What does the future of government funding across the country hold? I suspect we’re on the path to:

fewer funding opportunities,
smaller allocations,
increased accountability,
greater demand for sustainability planning and increased organizational capacity, and
more transparency.

Who should get what?

It is a simple fact that government has less money to work with today than it did yesterday.

Ahhhhh. Do you remember the late-1990s and 2000s, when government appeared to have money and spread it around to a number of different charities? I know that some of my non-profit friends fondly look back and proclaim: “Those were the days.”

With an economic slowdown and mounting debt problem, resources are getting tighter, which potentially means increased conflict over the question of: “Who should get what?”

In the past, the City of Elgin used its Riverboat fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support non-profit agencies that aligned with the city’s strategic priorities and direction. Here are a few examples:

PADS of Elgin funding helped the city with its homeless population.
Elgin Chamber of Commerce helped the city with economic development.
Boys & Girls Club of Elgin helped the city address issues such as juvenile crime, gang activity, childhood obesity, and supplemental educational opportunities.
Elgin Symphony Orchestra was an investment in the arts as well as an economic engine that brought consumers downtown to spend their entertainment dollars.
Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) was aimed at economic development and an attempt to focus downtown merchants on revitalizing the central business district.

In this new world of government funding, we are already starting to see two things:

political candidates who are happy to turn these resource allocation issues into campaign issues (e.g. politicizing non-profit funding) and
non-profit agencies taking their case for support very public as they compete for public dollars.

Outsourcing versus insourcing

Back when the government funding gravy train was running strong, I noticed that the case for support for government funding of non-profit organizations involved the idea of “outsourcing” with the silent case for support being it costs non-profits less to provide these services because:

non-profit agencies pay their employees smaller wages,
non-profit employees have fewer fringe benefits than public sector employees,
there are fewer unions operating in the non-profit sector than there are in the government sector, and
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (e.g. keeping kids out of gangs is cheaper than funding the problems created by gangs and crime).

Outsourcing was a conservative solution to questions involving the appropriate role of government and the size of government.

Now that municipal budgets are shrinking and public sector layoffs are occurring, I predict that the idea of “insourcing” could become a trend. City recreation departments will try doing more with at-risk kids. Police departments will employ more social workers to deal with domestic violence. The planning department will hire economic development specialists.

This money will come in part from what is clawed-back from non-profit organizations.

If I am wrong on this hunch, then I suspect that money will be used to fund other city priorities like potholes, capital projects, and core city services. If this is the case, then we’re about to all pay a lot more money to address things associated with social problems.

Is your non-profit organization taking in a lot of government money to fund your mission? Are you worried about the direction things seem to be heading? What are you doing (if anything) to make adjustments?

Here’s to your health!

Bad cause related marketing is offensive

February 24, 2013 erik Fundraising

Have you ever been the victim of a bad cause related marketing promotion? If so, then perhaps you would agree with me that bad cause related marketing is offensive and even damaging to the non-profit industry. For this reason, the industry really needs to start policing itself and developing a set of commonly accepted best practices.

My story

On Saturday, I decided that I needed a new pair of glasses. So, I took a trip to the mall and walked into LensCrafters because it felt convenient. I saw the doctor. She poked around my eyes and dilated them. I picked out my frames and proceeded to check-out. During the process of ringing up the bill, we got to a point that sounded something like this:

Cashier: “Would you like to add $1.00 to your bill today to support a charity called OneSight?”
Me: “Ummmmmm, what is that?“
Cashier: “It is a charity that helps poor people around the world who suffer from bad eyesight.”
Me: “Can you tell me anything else about the charity?“
Cashier: “Ummmmmmm, no.”
Me: “Then no, I wouldn’t like to support that charity.”

My issue with this exchange

I understand that it is only one dollar, but as a donor don’t I deserve a better case for support than: “It is a charity that helps poor people around the world who suffer from bad eyesight.”?

Again, you’re probably thinking to yourself: “Come on, Erik. It is one dollar. You’re not going to get the song and dance that charities give you for larger ask amounts.”

Of course, you are right, but am I asking too much for something like:

A brochure sitting at the cash register that explains more about the charity.
In-store posters or displays explaining who this company’s charity of choice is and why it is their charity of choice?

Buyer beware!

So, I came home and decided to Google around to find a few answers about the charity I was asked to support at the LensCrafters cash register.

Here is what I found on the LensCrafters website:

“Twenty-five years ago, LensCrafters founded the OneSight organization with one purpose in mind: To provide better sight for all—everything from free eyecare to eyewear to important research that will change how people see tomorrow.”

Perhaps, I am being cynical, but isn’t LensCrafters asking its customers to fund its charitable work?

Back in the day, I remember corporate America feeling the need to re-invest part of its annual profits back into the communities from where those profits came or into a charitable mission about which they felt strongly. Again, I might be off-base here, but it feels like today some companies are keeping their profits and asking their customers to fund their charitable work and then turning around and asking for customer loyalty because of all their good works.

I did go to Guidestar and snoop around OneSight’s 990 forms, which as you know can be like deciphering hieroglyphs at times. From what I can tell, this organization raises very little money from more traditional resource development methods and gets most of its money from LensCrafters’ cause related marketing cash register program.

As a consumer, I believe I deserve a little transparency at the cash register if I am just being asked to essentially support a company’s charitable activities.

Is a brochure or display really asking too much?

Cause related marketing is here to stay

Cause related marketing is here to stay because it generates substantial revenue. It is an easy ask. After all, it is just one dollar, right? Come on. Isn’t it a small price for a concerned citizen and donor to pay so that they can feel good about doing something to feed a hungry person or give the gift of sight?

Call me old fashion, but this feels like lazy philanthropy, especially when companies can’t even be bothered to train their cashiers to answer a few questions or produce a brochure for distribution at the cash register.

If only there were best practices and some minimum standards that we could all agree upon.

Ummmm, wait! Perhaps, we have something . . .

My online friend, JoanneFritz, at about.com posted a great article titled “3 Cause-Related Marketing Trends That Matter to Nonprofits and Their Business Partners“. It is definitely worth taking a minute to click-through and read it.

Joanne ends her post with a call to action and includes a few good links for non-profit organizations that are searching for best practices.

Has your agency played around with any cause related marketing efforts? If so, what did you do? More importantly, what did you learn? Please share your thoughts in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Your donors know when you’re lying

February 22, 2013 erik Fundraising, organizational development

Welcome to O.D. Fridays at DonorDreams blog. Every Friday for the foreseeable future we will be looking at posts from John Greco’s blog called “johnponders ~ about life at work, mostly” and applying his organizational development messages to the non-profit community.

In a post titled “My Son Knows When I’m Lying,” John talks about one study that claims that people lie two or three times every 10 minutes. He uses that study to transition into talking about “microexpressions” and how our faces betray us all of the time.

John’s blog post got me thinking about how many non-profit organizations lie to their donors.

OK . . . I’m sure some of you think I’m being harsh, but I don’t necessarily mean big lies that come with legal complications. Here are a few examples floating through my head:

“Please join our board. It only involves coming to one meeting, once a month.”
“We do a great job at measuring our outcomes and impact, which is how we know your contribution makes a huge difference.”
“Yes, we’re going to miss our development director something fierce, but they left to pursue a once in lifetime opportunity.”
“We doing a great job weathering the economic downturn. We are on a good fiscal footing.”

Little white lies. We tell donors these things all the time. In fact, the list goes on and on (but I certainly hope it isn’t anywhere close to the two to three lies every 10 minutes that John referenced in his blog post). We do this for any number of reasons including:

We don’t want to worry or concern our donors.
We fear that if they knew the truth, they’d stop donating to us.
A wise person once said, “If you like sausage, you don’t want to know how it is made.” 😉

With all of this being said, John’s blog post also got me thinking that about how donors probably see right through all of it. If this is true, then it begs the questions:

What do white lies do to our organizational credibility?
Do our microexpressions betray us enough to have an impact on donor retention rates?
Is there a better way to steward donors where we can avoid little white lies and be more transparent all the while cultivating a deeper sense of donor engagement?

I ask lots of questions today and offer no tips, tricks or solutions; however, I don’t think there are easy answers that I can offer you. Regardless, I suspect many of you have thoughts on this subject. How are you working hard at being more transparent and honest with your donors? What strategies and tactics do to you use? Please scroll down and share a quick thought or idea in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Using SWOT for more than just strategic planning

February 21, 2013 erik organizational development, Planning

I’ve had SWOT on my mind a lot lately. For those of you who don’t know, this acronym is a planning term that stands for “Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats“. It is an exercise you go through during the assessment phase of whatever planning process you’re undertaking. If used correctly, it should provide you with a platform upon which to build your goals, objectives and action plans. Unfortunately, I see too many organizations “going through the motions” and under-utilizing this very powerful tool.

Not just for strategic planning

SWOT gets used a lot in strategic planning projects, but I see very few people employing this tool when working on a:

board development plan
marketing plan
resource development plan
individual giving campaign plan
program plan
facilities maintenance plan
capital improvement plan
business plan

Generally speaking, a SWOT analysis tells you what your organization has going for it and against it. From this perspective, wouldn’t you want to know this before rolling up your sleeves and undertaking any project?

Scrambling the letters

There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding about the letters in this acronym. In my experience, people get confused and only use this exercise to look internally at their own organization. In reality, the SWOT exercise is designed to look both internally and externally.

The “S” and “W” stand for “Strengths” and “Weaknesses”. At this point in the exercise, participants should be inwardly focused on the following questions (as it pertains to the project you’re thinking about undertaking):

What do we do well?
What don’t we do so well?

The “O” and the “T” stand for “Opportunities” and “Threats”. At this point in the exercise, participants should be externally focused on the following questions (as it pertains to the project you’re thinking about undertaking):

What’s happening or about to happen outside of our organization (or your department) that we can take advantage of to help make this project successful?
What’s happening or about to happen outside of our organization (or your department) that we should be concerned about because it could negatively impact the success of this project?

In my experience, too many people don’t want to use the “O” and “T” to look external. For whatever reason, they like to remain focused internally and they conflate strengths and opportunities as well as weaknesses and threats.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a project run aground because of external factors that weren’t given any serious consideration during the planning process.

You want an example? Here you go . . .

Non-profit ABC decides to plan and implement an annual campaign pledge drive. They put together their campaign plan and their focus is 100% internal (e.g. staffing, volunteers, materials, reporting, systems, etc). They launch the campaign and quickly find out that donors (aka an external audience) don’t support the campaign for any number of reasons (e.g. not enough cultivation, not enough stewardship, etc).

Not following through

One of the biggest mistakes I see when it comes to using a SWOT exercise is not following through and using the analysis. This happens when participants do the good work in assessing their internal strengths and weaknesses and the external opportunities and threats and then stop right there.

At the end of any good SWOT exercise, the following questions need to be asked as you pivot toward goal setting:

What strengths will help us implement this project?
Are there specific strengths we should build our plan around?
Which organizational weaknesses pose challenges to our plan?
Should we build things into the plan that help us fix our weaknesses?
If fixing our weaknesses isn’t realistic, are there things we should build into the plan to help us compensate for our weaknesses?
Are there external opportunities we need to take advantage of to help us achieve what we want to achieve (e.g. low hanging fruit)?
Are there external threats (e.g. icebergs in the water) that we should try to account for in the plan?

SWOT just for the sake of doing SWOT is meaningless. The information and insights you gain from this powerful exercise should be used as a springboard into goal setting conversations. These questions can act as a lens by which you look at your “vision” and brainstorm the goals for accomplishing your vision. You can do the same thing when pivoting toward development of objectives as well as when you finally pivot towards action planning. In each of these cases, SWOT acts as a lens by which you frame the next stage of the planning process and keep things real.

My simple suggestion is . . . get in the habit of using SWOT before tackling any large project and use this tool to its fullest extent. Doing so improves your planning process and increases the likelihood of future success.

Has you organization ever used SWOT for anything other than strategic planning? If so, how did it work for you? Please scroll down and share your experience in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Donor retention in two easy steps

February 20, 2013 erik Donor-centered fundraising, Fundraising

Last week I spent an hour on the phone with Jay Love, the founder and CEO of Bloomerang, which is the new online donor management and retention service. Jay is the same guy who brought eTapestry to the non-profit industry before selling it to Blackbaud a few years ago. It was during the product demonstration with Jay that I had the following thoughts:

Donor retention is a huge issue that is killing too many fundraising programs.
There are tons of tools and best practices available for those wanting to tackle this problem.
The root problem contributing to the donor retention epidemic is likely lack of resources and time for most non-profit organizations.
The solution doesn’t have to be complicated. In fact, simple solutions are probably the most sustainable.

Let’s take a few minutes to flesh out a few of these thoughts.

Donor turnover is an epidemic

Allyson Kapin at frogloop blog did a nice job of capturing this issue and included an awesome infographic from Bloomerang in her post titled “Strategies to Increase Nonprofit Donor Retention Rates“.

Non-profit donor retention rates currently stand at 41%.
The turnover rate is getting worse not better.
Our for-profit cousins do a substantially better job with customer retention. Their retention rate is 94%.
Non-profits seem to do better with retaining larger donors than smaller donors.

The problem is likely rooted in the non-profit sector’s short-term view when it comes to revenue generation. So, we over-invest in cultivating new donors and under-invest in stewarding existing donors. When we do invest in stewardship activities, it is focused on larger donors and not the base of our giving pyramid — smaller donors.

Best practices and tools

Penelope Burk tells us in her book Donor Centered Fundraising that donor retention is as simple as:

Thanking donors promptly. Being enthusiastic. Being personal.
Circle back around to donors and show them that you’re using their contribution in the manner that you told them you would when you originally solicited the contribution.
Circle back around again and tell donors what impact / outcome their charitable had with your clients and throughout the community.

Of course, the devil is in the details. I believe it is HOW you go about accomplishing these three simple principles where people get tied in knots and lose their way.

Consider this list of donor retention tools and communication opportunities:

There are countless donor management services and products (e.g. Blommerang, eTapestry, Results Plus, Raisers Edge, etc).
There are countless social media tools (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Constant Contact, etc).
There are paper newsletters and eNewsletters.
Annual reports
Impact reports
Annual meetings and town hall meetings
Mailings and phone calls
Personal visits

In fact, Penelope Burk spends a number of pages in her book talking about what the donors who she surveyed like and dislike.

Back to basics

If there is one thing I know about the vast majority of non-profit organization, it is that they are busy and overwhelmed. Looking at the donor retention statistics and the long list of remedies only adds more fuel to that fire.

So, it makes sense to simply.

If you’re a small non-profit organization and want to improve your donor retention rate, do the following two things:

Set aside one afternoon every month to call donors who made a contribution in the last four weeks. Get through as many as you can. Make sure you are enthusiastic about their gift and generally tell them how you plan on putting their gift to work. Ask them how they would like you to communicate with them in the future (e.g. newsletter, eNews, snail mail letters, etc), and make sure you follow-through on your promise.
Set aside enough time in your weekly schedule to sit down with one of your top individual donors every week. Share a cup of coffee or buy them lunch. It doesn’t matter. While you have a little bit of their time, casually share success stories. Tell them that those successes wouldn’t have been possible without their help and generosity. Do this once a week and you will meet with your Top 50 individual donors over the course of a calendar year.

I have worked in small non-profit organizations. Doing these two things is not unrealistic for an executive director or fundraising professional.

What is your agency doing to stem the rising tide of donor turnover? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Lessons to be learned from Applebee’s social media fiasco

February 18, 2013 erik Mondays with Marissa, technology

The news story might be a few weeks old, but the lessons to be learned from it are still valid. Let’s take a look at what non-profit organizations can learn from the Applebee’s Social Media Fiasco.

The story goes like this. A waitress waited on a table with a large party seated at it, and an 18% gratuity was automatically added to the bill. This is common practice when it comes to dining out at many restaurants. The patron, a pastor, wrote on the receipt, “I give God 10%, why should I give you 18%?” and scratched out the tip. The waitress’ friend found this insulting and comical. So, she took a photo and posted it to the social network, Reddit.

Her post, of course, received a lot of negative comments and took the internet by storm. As a result, the employee who posted the receipt to Reddit was fired.

The lesson comes in is how Applebee’s responded to the situation. Applebee’s decided to post the following on their Facebook page:

“We wish this situation hadn’t happened. Our Guests’ personal information – including their meal check – is private, and neither Applebee’s nor its franchisees have a right to share this information publicly. We value our Guests’ trust above all else. Our franchisee has apologized to the Guest and has taken disciplinary action with the Team Member for violating their Guest’s right to privacy.”

Nowhere in this post, did Applebee’s address the concerns of the public that had been commenting on the post. Nowhere did they address the voices of numerous other customers who were taking sides with the server who attended to the pastor’s table. This post just added fuel to a fire that was already raging.

Furthermore, in an attempt to respond to each individual comment on Facebook, Applebee’s copy and pasted the same message over and over again. This again, did not help the situation. It just continued to make things worse.

Things happen, but in this day and age it is naïve to think that things happen without anyone watching. This situation brings to light the need to:

have a person dedicated to watching what is said about your organization everywhere on the internet,
responding to things when they happen, and
realizing when a non-response is the best response.

People like to feel like they are being heard. While the message might be the same to each person who posts a comment, taking the time to individualize the message or change the wording a bit makes all the difference. Keep in mind, responding to everyone individually might not be the best move for your organization. Making one blanket, detailed statement that addresses the majority of concerns, might be all that is needed to stop bad word of mouth.

Non-profit agencies don’t always have the money or the time to have a person dedicated to being the social media eyes and ears of their organization. So, what can be done instead? At least set up a Google Alert that notifies you when your agency is mentioned on the internet. Then you can decide if a response is needed.

If you cannot afford to have a person dedicated to watching what is happening on the internet full time, someone in the PR department might be able to take on some social media responsibilities here and there. Remember, you do not have to be involved in all social media networks. Find the one that is right for you and control your message there. When things happen, think about your response in a strategic manner with your whole team before responding quickly just to respond.

It’s been said, that it’s not what happens that matters, it’s how you react to it. The same rings true in social media. When things happen, take into account how your response is going to be received and decide if it is needed at all.

Has your organization faced a social media fiasco? What did you learn? If you want to share your story, leave a comment below, we’d love to hear from you!

State of the Nonprofit Sector: Remainder of 2013

February 14, 2013 erik Uncategorized

Good morning, DonorDreams blog subscribers. I thought I’d give you a day off from my random non-profit and fundraising thoughts by offering you an awesome guest post by Ashley Halligan. She is a managing editor at Austin-based Software Advice and a very talented freelance features writer. Check out her book project on Facebook: facebook.com/contemporarypilgrim Enjoy!

State of the Nonprofit Sector: Remainder of 2013
By: Ashley Halligan

Six weeks into the new year and last year’s reports are coming to surface helping shape the expectations for the remainder of this year in the nonprofit sector.

With the beginning of President Obama’s second term, a recovering economy, and a fiscal cliff, nonprofits have – well – a lot to discuss and anticipate in 2013.

Several reports have been released in the past month that indicate 2012’s performance and trends, offering insight as to what to expect this year. Among those things are hiring trends, succession planning, adoption of mobile technology, social giving campaigns, and, most predictably, differing opinions on the impact of tax reform and proposals on the missions of nonprofits.

More Hiring & Succession Strategizing

The Improve Group and Nonprofit HR Solutions released a report that showed 44 percent of the nation’s nonprofits planned to create new positions this year. Positions in direct services in fundraising were at the forefront of organizations’ plans to hire.

According to the same study, 70 percent of nonprofits lacked a formal succession plan, though those who had implemented a strategy reported that it brought their organization peace of mind, developed talent, and retained staff. Experts expect focus in this area to become a primary area of focus this year.

Deploying More Technology & Social Giving Campaigns

Another main area experts and reports agree on is the increase of technology deployment in the nonprofit sector. In particular, a Blackbaud report shows that mobile technology will be significant this year with more than two-thirds of surveyed NPOs planning to utilize more mobile tech this year.

Additionally, more and more nonprofit technology companies are emerging giving organizations in this sector far more options, ranging from fully integrated suites to specialized programs for basic needs like fundraising or donor management.

This year a bigger emphasis is expected to be seen on social giving campaigns as well. The 2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report says to expect three things:

The monetization of Facebook
More usage of Google+
Increased fundraising efforts through Twitter

Some are Weary of Tax Uncertainties, Others See Promise

Tax promises and concerns, however, are still at the top of mind in the nonprofit sector. Till months pass and charitable giving trends can be analyzed, long-term impacts of the American Taxpayer Relief Act can’t be certain. Some think the act could positively impact giving by $3.3 billion, while others still fear proposed tax ceilings fearing a negative impact of the same amount.

This is a big year for nonprofits. A lot is yet to be determined. What is your take on the state of nonprofits for the remainder of 2013? Feel free to leave your comments below or reach out to us directly.

There are no magic pills in fundraising

February 13, 2013 erik Fundraising

Has something ever drifted into your email inbox with a subject line that you just could resist opening immediately? Well, it happened to me yesterday when an email arrived announcing that Future Fundraising Now blog just completed a post titled “How to plug along like a fundraising machine,” and like the cat, curiosity got the best of me and I clicked it open right then and there.

What I read was something so simple and yet so true. It stuck with me all evening and carried over to my first cup of coffee this morning. The secret to becoming a “fundraising machine” really is simple.

I encourage you to click over and read what Jeff Brooks has to say, but the gist of it is this simple:

Follow the process for whatever fundraising project you’re working on.
Don’t cut corners.
Practice perseverance.

Simple yet so right on target!

Some of you might be asking yourself, “What ‘process’ is he talking about?” So, the next two sections more closely examine two fundraising processes that oftentimes get their corners cut.

In-person solicitation of a donor

There is a process that successful fundraising volunteers and professionals follow when sitting down face-to-face with a donor to ask for a charitable contribution. It is rooted in best practices and centuries worth of learning the hard way.

It is what I was taught, and I simply call it the 12-step process for making a face-to-face ask.

Make your own gift
Think about the clients (don’t psych yourself out by thinking about the money)
Choose good prospects (aka no cold calls)
Call the prospect and set-up the meeting (and don’t accidentally ask for the gift on the phone)
Prepare for the meeting
Talk about the case for support (e.g. tell impactful stories that demonstrates ROI)
Share your commitment (e.g. tell the donor how and why you are involved)
Ask for the gift
Be quiet!
Answer questions
Set another call/meeting to follow-up (esp. if you didn’t get the pledge right then and there)
Express thanks for time and consideration

Ta-da . . . process. This is one example of what Jeff was talking about in his blog post. His point was that people who are fundraising machines embrace a process like this and execute. People who are less successful, cut corners and are simply not as successful.

Keeping fundraising volunteers engaged and focused

There is a process that successful fundraising professionals follow when trying to keep board members and fundraising volunteers focused and engaged in reaching a campaign goal. As with the process highlighted in the last section, it is rooted in best practices and lots of trial-and-error.

Think of the following concepts as less of a sequential process and more like nine different cogs in the same machine working together to achieve the goal of “volunteer engagement“.

Planning
Setting expectations
Training
Organization
Well run and important meetings
Accountability
Urgency
Recognition
Mission-focus

Ta-da . . . process. This is another example of what Jeff was talking about in his blog. Successful fundraising professionals do these things like a chef following a recipe. The end result is an engaged group of board and fundraising volunteers who achieve their campaign goals. Those people who ignore some of these concepts usually end up falling short of their campaign goal.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look more closely at a few examples:

What happens when meetings are run without a lot of direction (e.g. without an agenda) and things seem to drift and go on forever? In my experience, people stop coming to meetings. In other words, they disengage.
What happens when there is very little urgency to raise money (e.g. deadlines are fuzzy and there are no scheduled report meetings)? In my experience, people drag their feet and prioritize the campaign to the bottom of their task list. In other words, they disengage.
What happens when there is very little mission-focus and the campaign focuses on the theme of ‘we need some money to keep our doors open’? In my experience, people resort to quid pro quo solicitation techniques and start procrastinating. In other words, they disengage.

The bottom line

Do you have professional fundraisers, board members and fundraising volunteers who you see cutting corners or not adhering to “process”? If so, the question is simply this: “What are you going to do with them?” Because they will not produce for you in the way that you need.

Please scroll down and share your thoughts in the comment box below. Are you thinking re-training is the best strategy? What about termination or reassignment? Or is the problem YOU? If so, then what? What do you need to do differently to create the fundraising machine your agency so desperately needs?

Here’s to your health!

Start talking to donors about THE WHY and THE WHERE

February 12, 2013 erik Fundraising

On May 9, 2012, I blogged about something I thought was the next best thing since sliced bread. It was a post titled “FREE fundraising movies every Monday morning? Sign me up!” Not only did I write about this awesome service, but I took my own advice and signed up. I just love starting my week off with a short three-minute video nugget of fundraising goodness. So, when I opened yesterday’s Monday morning movie email and saw that the topic was “Articulating your vision to inspire others to give,” I knew it was going to be a great week.

One of the reasons I love these Monday morning fundraising videos is because they always make me stop and think. Yesterday’s video didn’t disappoint. It made me stop and think about my last few donor interactions. It even caused me to reflect back on the last time I was solicited by a charity. In this reflection exercise, here is what I found:

Sometimes my solicitation visits focus on big picture stuff like “mission.” These discussions focus on the question of WHY. They are 50,000 foot discussions, and some donors like to hear this message over and over again.
Sometimes my solicitation visits focus on big picture stuff like “vision.” These discussions focus on the question of WHERE (and a case can be made for WHY). They are also 50,000 foot discussions.
Sometimes my solicitation visits focus on the little picture stuff like “programming.” These discussions focus on the question of HOW (and a case can be made for WHAT). They are not 50,000 foot discussions. These conversations are in the trenches.
Sometimes, when I am having a good day and the donor is generous with their time, my solicitation visits are a combination of the last three bullet points.

The interesting thing I discovered when looking back is that each of those solicitation calls looked really different because each donor imposed their own set of constraints on the visit. One donor only had 15 minutes to give me; whereas, another donor is a real detail freak.

I’ve been known to say things like, “The golden rule in fundraising is ‘Know Thy Donor‘” or “Donors are like snowflakes because they’re all different“.

I am inclined to double down on these last two opinions after thinking about my last few solicitation visits. However, if you want to make a generalization about fundraising and donors, then this week’s Monday Fundraising Movie makes a great point. Many of us are getting so wrapped up in demonstrating ROI to our donors that our case for support drifts toward disproportionately talking about programming. This can limit our effectiveness because many donors give because they are inspired to do so, and many of the inspirational tools in our fundraising toolbox deal with our vision.

The next time you find yourself sitting down with a donor, try sticking to this simple script:

Tell them about the need in your community. Share a few statistics with them, but personalize it with a story about one of your clients.
Tell them about the vision your agency has for the future and how it impacts the need you just shared with them.
Tell them about how you know your agency is on the right path toward achieving this vision. Share a few outcomes/impact statistics with them, but personalize it with a story about one of your clients.
Of course, end all of this by asking for the donation or pledge.

If you practice, I bet you can do this in 15 minutes. I also suspect that you will become one very effective fundraiser.

Has your agency’s case for support started leaning more towards programming and operations in recent years? What have your last few solicitations looked and sounded like? What do you like to hear when getting solicited by other charities? Please scroll down and share your thoughts in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!