Fundraising – Page 30 – The Healthy Non-Profit

How many of your non-profit donors are “lurkers”?

September 5, 2012 erik Fundraising

A few days ago, while vacationing in Michigan for the Labor Day weekend, I started reading “The Social Media Bible” by Lon Safko. As the pages turned and I read about marketing within a social media framework (including tactics, tools and strategies), I can’t tell you how many “ah-ha” and “hmmmm” fundraising moments that I experienced. Yesterday, the book inspired me to post about the costs associated with bad word of mouth and how this should evolve into a “generative question” around which to organize your board meetings. Today, the book has me looking at your donors very differently.

In the very early pages of this book (page 29), the author describes the various “phases in the membership life cycle” for social media users:

Lurkers — These users view content, but don’t participate.
Novices — These users view content, and periodically provide content.
Insiders — These users are regularly providing content, commenting, etc.
Leaders –These users are veterans and everyone watches what they do.
Elders — These users have left the network for any number of reasons.

After reading this page, I found myself thinking about donor database segmentation practices (because the social media content provider pyramid graphic reminded me so much of a tradition range of gifts chart donor pyramid).

In a white paper written by Roy Wollen and Bonnie Massa, they talk about five ways to segment a donor database (including why to do it). They describe various donor groups as follows:

Low dollar donors, volunteers, constituents, past & present employees
Buyers (e.g. those people who attended an event, bought something from you, subscribed to something, etc)
Lapsed donors
High dollar donors
Members, benefactors, patrons
Institutional givers

In the end, we segment people into groups because we understand that different groups have different dynamics and needs. Once this revelation hits us, we understand that “one-size-fits-all” fundraising solicitation strategies don’t work. Sending a letter to an institutional giver might get you a handful of dollars, but it will fall short of what they can and will donate to your cause. For this reason, a major gifts strategy is probably the right tool.

Conversely, employing a major gifts strategy is overkill and too expensive for the legion of low dollar donors that reside in your donor database.

Once you realize how important segmentation is to the success of your resource development program, a flood of new questions come down the pike, such as:

How many database records exist in each segment?
What characteristics and needs exist for each group? (e.g. what makes them tick)
Which solicitation tools in my fundraising toolbox work best for each group?
What stewardship activities do I need to employ with each group to maximize the odds of moving them from one group to the another?
Are there things I can do to increase each groups “frequency” of donation and “size” of contribution?
What is the ROI (e.g. the cost of raise one dollar) for each group? If I shift my attention ratio around, will I raise more money?
What metrics should I be tracking?

Ahhhhh, yes. It suddenly becomes a brave new world and your fundraising perspective changes quite quickly. Perhaps, that resource development audit or donor database review takes a different shape or level of importance now? 😉

Does your non-profit organization segment its donors? How do you do it? Into what categories do you use? What metrics are you tracking and how? Has your approach changed as a result? How many social media “lurkers” exist on your agency’s various social media platforms, and how many “lurkers” exist in your donor database?

Please scroll down and share your answers and thoughts using the comment box below.

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

Good word of mouth or bad word of mouth?

September 4, 2012 erik Fundraising, technology

So, I managed to sneak away to Michigan for the long Labor Day weekend. During that time, I started reading “The Social Media Bible” by Lon Safko. As the pages turned and I read about marketing within a social media framework (including tactics, tools and strategies), I can’t tell you how many “ah-ha” and “hmmmm” fundraising moments that I experienced. Over the next few days, I will share a few of those moments with you and hope to spark some discussion.

In the very early pages of this book (page 6-7), the author shares a statistic that is probably very familiar:

“Studies have shown that: An angry customer will tell up to 20 other people about a bad experience. A satisfied customer shares good experiences with 9 to 12 people. . . With the use of social media like blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, those 20 people can quickly become 20,000 or even 200,000!”

The next few pages contain social media stories about scorned customers who used social media to exact justice. One scary example involves a musician, Dave Carroll, who had a bad experience with United Airlines and told the world by producing and posting a music video about it on YouTube. I’ve embedded the video below so that you can become one of the 12 MILLION people who have viewed it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo]

As I read this portion of the book and viewed the YouTube video, I realized this is one of the big reasons that your non-profit organization needs to get involved in social media. You need to know what people are saying about your brand, especially before it becomes a YouTube video that gets viewed by millions of people.

However, this first thought passed quickly, and a second thought came into focus:

Does your non-profit organization know whether its clients, volunteers and donors are having good experiences or bad experiences?

And I am not just asking this question within a social media context. This big picture question struck me as one of those “generative questions” with which your non-profit board of directors should be OBSESSED.

Do we know the answer to this question?
How do we know?
What data are we collecting?
What is the data saying?
How do we improve what the data is telling us?

Generative questions promote creative thinking and create new knowledge. Good board meetings and boardroom discussions should be centered around these types of questions.

This feedback from clients, volunteers and donors is gathered in a number of different ways from a number of different sources and places.

Are your board volunteers meeting with donors outside of the solicitation process?
How are you capturing that feedback from those stewardship meeting?
Are you using surveys or focus groups with your clients and volunteers?
Are you asking the right questions?
How do you aggregate that data and report it back to the board in a meaningful way?

Too often, our under-resourced non-profit organizations get focused on the very basics of just providing service to clients, recruiting volunteers and soliciting donors. We don’t take a step back to check-in with people to see if we’re doing a good job.

What is the harm of not doing so? Circle back and re-read the first few paragraphs of this blog post . . . high turnover rates and extremely bad word of mouth that can spread like wildfire.

In the end, this generative question gets to the root of everything and answers this question:

Are you on a sustainable path?

Let’s talk about this today. Please scroll down and take 60 seconds of your time this morning by asking a question or answering any of the previous or following questions.

Does your agency have a social media presence? How do you listen to social media conversations? Is someone specifically tasked with this job? How do you monitor what is being said on the street? Do you have an example of how you intercepted “bad word of mouth” and addressed it before it spread like wildfire? How did you do so?

Here’s to your health!

Labor Day 2012: An opportunity to steward your donors

September 3, 2012 erik Fundraising

Happy Labor Day 2012, everyone! Well, Marissa is camping and I am visiting an old, dear friend in Michigan. So, I dug back deep into the DonorDream archives and thought you might enjoy reading about how Labor Day can be a stewardship opportunity. Enjoy!

Labor Day can be a stewardship opportunity. In fact, non-profit organizations can turn most holidays into stewardship opportunities for their donors.

When I was a young executive director, I used to write a letter to the editor of our local newspaper on Labor Day thanking the community’s labor unions for all of their support. In that open letter to the public, I tried to remind people that those unions were part of our community’s fabric and did “good works” that oftentimes didn’t get any press. For example:

The local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chapter provided all of the volunteers and muscle necessary to run our duck race fundraiser.
The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Home (IUPAT) once marshalled their apprentice program to paint our facility for free.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the Laborers’ International Union, as well as other unions in town were all at one time or another outright donors to our annual campaign.

I chose Labor Day to write that letter to the editor, send letters of appreciation and make thank you phone calls because the stated purpose behind Labor Day is to celebrate “the economic and social contributions of workers”.

Many non-profit organizations struggle with stewarding their donors and instead become solicitation machines (which ironically burns out donors and creates a cycle of turnover). When I’ve talked to my non-profit friends and asked WHY, the most common answer I’ve heard is that time is a limited resource.

So, I encourage you to look at the myriad of holidays on your calendar and ask yourself this simple question: “How can this holiday be used to steward our agency’s donors?” I assure you that with a little effort, you will find the opportunities are limitless.

Does your non-profit organization have any fun and effective stewardship activities and best practices wrapped around holidays? If so, please use the comment box to share because we can all learn from each other.

Here is to your health! And oh yeah . . . Happy Labor Day!!!

Reaching for the stars? Do your homework first!

August 31, 2012 erik Fundraising, organizational development, Planning

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

Today, I am focusing on a post that John wrote that was inspired by the following quotation from Robert Browning:

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?”

He uses Browning’s words to springboard off into two significant issues that every non-profit organization confronts during strategic planning.

How lofty should the strategic goals be?
What capacity building efforts need to be undertaken to support the new vision and strategic goals?

If you’re a non-profit professional who dislikes strategic planning, I suspect that John’s blog post might speak to you. I also suspect it will give you a much-needed new perspective before heading into your next strategic planning initiative.

While it is tempting for me to use John’s post to get on a soapbox and pontificate about strategic planning, I will resist doing so and instead talk about annual campaign planning.

As many of you know, I spent the last six years working with countless non-profit organizations on planning, implementing and evaluating annual campaigns. During the planning process, there are a variety of decisions that must be made including how big is the fundraising goal.

My approach has always been to starts off conservatively:

Identify prospective donors
Evaluate capacity to give and propensity to give
Set a suggested ask amount based upon what the prospect is likely to give (factoring in who is asking, giving history to the agency, and state of the relationship between the organization and prospective donor)

After going through all of these gymnastics, we have a spreadsheet with names and ask amounts. It is at this point that I urge the planning committee to sum the column of ask amounts and then divide by two.

Why divide by two? First, not everyone is going to say ‘YES’ to your request for a contribution. Second, not everyone who agrees to contribute will agree to the give at the suggested ask amount. Third, we sometimes miss the mark when setting suggested ask amounts.

This approach flies in the face of Robert Browning’s quotation and John Greco’s blog post.

But wait . . . there’s more!

Looking around the planning table, the sight isn’t pretty. Campaign volunteers are usually a little upset. All of that work and the goal seems small. The executive director or fundraising professional is wringing their hands and they look nauseated.

It is at this point that I like to introduce the idea of “reaching for the stars”.

In my opinion, timing is everything. To introduce the idea of reaching for the stars, before everyone has a realistic view of organizational and campaign capacity, is irresponsible.

Truth be told, this is my favorite part of the annual campaign planning process. Campaign volunteers are chomping at the bit to talk about what needs to be done to increase the size of the campaign goal. The following are just a few of the questions that get asked and answered:

How many more prospects need to be identified and added to our prospect list?
How many more volunteer solicitors need to be recruited?
Does the case for support need to be strengthened?
Is there more cultivation or stewardship activities that should be done prior to the solicitation that would maximize the chances of getting what we need to reach our campaign goal?

These are engaging and powerful discussions that are tons of fun to facilitate!

Finally, these conversations always end with a robust discussion about how the new annual campaign stretch goal should be included in the agency’s budget. This is where it gets interesting.

Some folks are conservative and advocate for budgeting the original smaller goal. Others want to go for it and budget the whole amount.

Over the years, I’ve given lots of different sounding advice to a number of different organizations. However, the common thread has always been that you need to have “skin in the game”. If you don’t hold yourself accountable to reaching the stretch goal, then you’ll never reach it.

Human beings normally don’t accomplish things unless we absolutely have to do so. Behind every audacious vision has been an urgent and pressing need to do it. So, whatever you end up budgeting, it needs to feel like a bit of a stretch.

In conclusion, I encourage you to set an annual campaign goal that is a bit of a stretch, but whatever you do don’t just pull the number out of the air or apply a percentage increase over last year. Do the hard work around prospecting and evaluating propensity and capacity, then conservatively divide everything by a factor of two or three.

It is only at this point that everyone will be ready to reach for the stars and focus on those capacity building questions that are necessary for success!

How has your organization set its annual campaign goals? What has worked or not worked for you? Please share your thoughts in the comment section because we can all learn from each other.

If you aren’t laughing you’re probably crying

August 30, 2012 erik Fundraising

Non-profit work is not for the weak hearted. It is hard work and frustrating at times. I’ve personal seen too many executive directors and fundraising professionals reduced to a pool of tears. So, when about.com’s non-profit blogger, Joanne Fritz, wrote about a website dedicated to non-profit humor, I decided to go check it out.

The site is called Non-Profit Humour, and today’s post is titled “Charity tags major donors with GPS tracker to monitor behavior“. The basic premise behind this site is similar to The Onion. The stories are fake, but the satire hits very close to home.

I believe that humor is a powerful tool that every non-profit professional needs to have at their disposal. Not only does laughing prevent you from crying, but I think it puts things in perspective. I suspect this is why cable television shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are so popular.

If you haven’t had the opportunity to visit Non-Profit Humour, I encourage you to take a quick minute and click-through right now. If you’re stressed out and nearing the end of your rope, you might want to subscribe because laughing is a whole heck of a lot better than crying.

What coping mechanisms and tools do you use to keep things in perspective at your non-profit agency? Please scroll down and share your tips and tricks with other non-profit professionals who might be looking for relief. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Election 2012 can be called “The Year of the Donor”

August 29, 2012 erik Fundraising

I really try not to talk about politics on this blog platform because: 1) it is about non-profits, fundraising, and donors and 2) readers come from a variety of political persuasions and I don’t want to offend anyone. However, sometimes I see trends that I feel are important to share because there is a teachable moment or lesson to learn. Today, I’m going to dissect the 2012 Presidential election with regards to fundraising and donors. I think there are many interesting things happening that should give the average non-profit professional an opportunity for reflection and thought.

Gingrich demonstrated the power of major gifts

During the Republican primary season, it was well reported by most media outlets that the Gingrich campaign was able to sustain itself for longer than anticipated because of one very large donor — Sheldon Adelson. Fredreka Schouten illustrated this point in USA Today’s blog “On Politics” when Mr. Adelson and his wife each donated $5 million in January 2012.

A good friend of mine who works with Boys & Girls Clubs says that every non-profit organization needs a major gifts strategy even if they’re a small organization and it is just for one donor. Gingrich’s campaign certainly places an exclamation point on this piece of advice.

If your organization doesn’t have a major gifts strategy, I think Gail Perry at Fired Up Fundraising does a nice job talking about this issue as well as the trends she sees associated with major gift fundraising in 2012.

Donors are powerful and getting more influential every day

Recently, a Romney spokesperson said something that angered conservatives. I won’t go into the details because they aren’t relevant to my point; however, click on this YouTube video of MSNBC re-broadcasting Ann Coulter’s comments from Fox News and watch the first 20 seconds or so of the clip:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-JN5egDH-c&feature=related]

Did you catch that?

Ann didn’t ask people to call the Romney campaign to express their outrage. She didn’t suggest conservatives flex their muscles in the voting booth. Nope . . . she specifically asked that donors flex their muscles and “not give another dime unless . . .”

I’m not suggesting that non-profit agencies don’t understand how influential donors are; however, I do see a trend where donors are becoming more vocal when they see things that upset them.

For example, last year I blogged about a local donor in Elgin, Illinois who became very upset when his charity of choice started running deficits. He resigned from their board of directors. He pulled his financial support. He went to the newspaper, made a lot of noise, and suggested that other donors make noise and demand more accountability and change.

Is your non-profit prepared for a donor revolt?

Obama 2008 vs 2012

Team Obama certainly shouldn’t be crying poor because they have raised a lot of money; however, the following quotation caught my attention in an article by Julie Pace at boston.com:

In an email to supporters after the July numbers were announced, the Obama campaign said, ‘‘If we don’t step it up, we’re in trouble.’’

I’ve talked to a number of donors who wrote checks to the Obama campaign in 2008 and asked them to explain the perceived enthusiasm gap by some donors. I think it is fair to sum it up like this . . .

The first time a donor makes a contribution to your cause, they are investing in promises.
The second time a donor makes a contribution, they are investing in results.

According to many studies on the topic of donor loyalty, it is common for many donors not to renew their support. I’ve read studies that suggest the average turnover rate is in the neighborhood of 50 percent.

If this is the case for your agency, then I suggest you look at your program outcomes data and how you’re communicating that to your donors. You might also want to talk to those lapsed donors and ask them about their expectations after making their first contribution and what happened in the months leading up to the unsuccessful renewal solicitation.

You can bet that Team Obama has done this, which might be why we saw overt outreach efforts throughout the summer to specific special interest groups including women’s groups, Latino groups and LGBT groups.

Super PAC trend gives hope to United Way

Traditional political action committees (PAC) and the new Super PACs are playing a huge role in this year’s election. Paul Blumenthal wrote about it last week in his Huffington Post column.

I look at this trend and wonder why some individual donors aren’t just giving their money directly to the campaigns. Why give it to a “middle man”?

While I am sure there is a number of reasons to explain this trend, I wonder if one of those reasons is that bundling money together allows donors to speak with a louder voice and bigger stick.

Non-profit professionals should pay attention to this phenomenon because it might explain the increasing popularity of “giving circles“. It might also become what re-energizes donor enthusiasm for supporting their local United Way.

Are you paying attention to the 2012 election cycle from a fundraising perspective? If so, what are you seeing that might be relevant for non-profit and fundraising professionals? Do you sometimes take a step back and look at what’s happening around you and your agency? What do you see? Please use the comment box below and share those observations with your fellow non-profit professionals.

Here’s to your health!

Benchmarking: The non-profit sector requests your assistance!

August 28, 2012 erik Fundraising, organizational development, Planning

Last week a friend and non-profit consulting colleague of mine, Kirsten Bullock, sent an email asking me to encourage DonorDreams blog readers to participate in a study that “. . . is investigating charitable contributions, fundraising methods, donor retention, and how tactics have changed in these challenging financial times.”

This study is organized and run by Nonprofit Research Collaborative. If you are someone who is suspicious of things like this, then I encourage you to click the link that I just provided and check this organization out for yourself. However, if you don’t have a lot of time to scratch around the internet, take heart in the fact that this organization and the study are supported by:

Association of Fundraising Professionals
Giving USA
blackbaud
National Center for Charitable Statistics
Campbell Rinker

If you have 10 minutes, then please click this link and complete the questionnaire.

Still asking yourself . . . WHY?

If you are still reading, then I assume that you’re mulling things over and probably wondering why you should click that link. So, let me try to make the case in one simple word:

Benchmarking

According to our friends at Wikipedia, “benchmarking is the process of comparing one’s business processes and performance metrics to industry bests or best practices from other industries.”

Let’s be honest for a moment. Few people who work in the non-profit sector have time to collect data and crunch industry numbers. We’re under-resourced, and we’re usually thankful when our workday comes in under 12 hours.

So, when an organization like Nonprofit Research Collaborative takes up the cause and only asks for 10 minutes of your time, all of us should really support the cause.

Still not convinced? OK, let me try this another way . . .

At the end of the year, some of you will report to your board of directors that your donor loyalty rate is 64.8% . . . and they are going to ask if that is good or bad.
At the end of your annual campaign, some of you will report to your board of directors that of the 100 prospects and donors who received face-to-face solicitation visits by staff and volunteers 78 of them decided to make a pledge or contribute . . . and they are going to ask if that is good or bad.
At the end of the year, some of you will report to your board that your private sector fundraising efforts brought in 1% fewer dollars this year than last year . . . and they are going to ask if that is good or bad.

In order to answer your board’s questions, you need to provide context and that is what benchmarking is all about.

Every organization should commit itself to benchmarking activities. You should do it with your program outcomes. You should do it with your resource development program. You should do it with board development and so many other things that you do.

Not doing so essentially means that you’re collecting data for the sake of collecting data.

I assume that you don’t have the time to independently do benchmarking of the non-profit sector for comparison purposes. So, come on . . . what do you say? How about taking 10 minutes out of your crazy busy schedule, click this link, and complete this important survey.

Pretty please? 🙂

Has your organization ever completed a benchmarking project with another non-profit organization? Or how about with another company from a different sector? If so, please tell us about it in the comment box below. We’d love to know what motivated you and what you found out.

Here’s to your health!

Seinfeld, silver medals, and your employees

August 17, 2012 erik Fundraising, organizational development

Today, I am focusing on a post that John wrote a post inspired by a Jerry Seinfeld stand-up comedy piece about winning silver medals at the Olympics. He talks about a research study that shows that Olympic athletes who win a silver medal are significantly less happy than bronze medalists. John, of course, goes on to talk about expectations and performance in the workplace.

John’s post got me thinking about many of the jobs that I’ve held in various non-profit organizations.

While I loved all of those job and experiences, the general memories that stick with me are:

Good is good enough
Don’t worry about cutting that corner
It is understandable that the outcomes and impact data aren’t what we hoped because we’re making do with less

For those of you who know me personally, you know that I am a results-focused person who constantly strives for the gold. So, it might come as a surprise to you that in spite of all the glowing performance reviews I always felt like the silver medalist.

Now I already know that some of you are rolling your eyes and chalk my observation up to unrealistic expectations on my part. While some of that might be true, please stick with me because I think it is more than just that.

Dan Pallotta speaks to this issue a little bit in his new book “Uncharitable“. He points to the lack of resources in the non-profit sector and highlights what he believes is ineffectiveness in many instances and failure in others. For example . . .

With so many non-profits focused on raising money for cancer and AIDS research, why hasn’t it been cured?
With so many church food pantries and non-profit food banks, why is child hunger on the rise?
With so many after-school programs for kids, why are academic achievement test scores still so low?

Non-profit sector employees are a special breed. Most studies that I’ve read show that these individuals are more motivated by “mission” than by a paycheck. They want to save the world and they are passionate about what you are trying to do.

So, when we tell these people that “good is good enough” or “cutting corners is acceptable and understandable,” aren’t we contributing to our own demise and helping them feel like silver medalists?

Again, please don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that you put an expense line in your agency budget for party supplies to make everyone feel like a gold medalist. Of course, I do hope that you’re demonstrating your appreciation for what those people do for you from time to time.

What I am suggesting is that your agency will benefit greatly if you start rightsizing your expectations. While talking about your organization’s mission and vision is important, I encourage you to put it in the context of today.

For example, talk about working towards the elimination of hunger with the focus being on helping one more more kid put food in her belly today.

Perhaps, we can reduce employee turnover AND donor turnover if we adjust our expectations, place our outcomes and impact data in the right context, and stop telling our employees that “good is good enough”.

Do you know how many of your employees feel like silver medalists? If you do, then please share with us how you know. What do you do to make your employees feel like winners rather than a runner-up. Do you know your employee turnover rate or door loyalty numbers off the top of your head? Do you share those metrics with your board and set goals against those benchmarks?

Please scroll down and share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

What’s in your mailbox? Part 3

August 16, 2012 erik Fundraising

We started a conversation on Tuesday about direct mail and dissected a fundraising letter from Michelle Obama. Yesterday, we changed course by looking at a newsletter from my state senator. Today, we’re going to my mailbox and pulling out a few postcards that I recently received from a few different charities in my hometown.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been receiving more and more postcards from charitie,s and I have a theory about that.

As you know, the first rule in direct mail is not creating your letter or even developing the stuff that goes into the envelope. The very first thing you need to think about is designing the outer envelope in a way that entices people to open the letter.

This is where postcards are genius. There is nothing to open. The information that you want your supporters to read is readily visible.

Larkin Center

The first postcard in my stack of mail this morning is from a behavioral health non-profit organization in Elgin, Illinois called Larkin center.

One side of this small postcard has a four-color photograph of renowned pianist and composer Emily Bear. The few words on this side of the postcard simply inform me that she is playing a concert that will benefit Larkin Center.

When I flip the postcard over, there is also very little information; however, it is everything I might need if I want to learn more about this event or register:

Date/time of the event
Location of the event
Where can I purchase tickets (e.g. website, phone, fax, box office hours, etc)
Ticket pricing

This is short and sweet and to the point. Whoever designed this postcard understood that most people spend just a few seconds with each piece of mail.

Open Door Clinic

The second postcard in my stack of mail this morning is from an AIDS treatment non-profit organization in Elgin, Illinois called Open Door.

One side of this small postcard simply has my address, their return address, the non-profit permit indicia, a barcode for postal automation, and big words that say “SAVE THE DATE”.

When you flip the piece over, you see a four-color picture that divides the postcard into two parts. One side of the postcard sports a graphics for the Chicago AIDS Run & Walk. There is one simple sentence that says:

“Join Open Door Clinic’s AIDS Walk Team & help us reach our goal by joining our team or donating at http://bit.ly/JYRGr2”

The other side of the post card has a beautiful picture of chocolates and encourages readers to “save the date” for their All Things Chocolate special event fundraiser on April 20, 2013.

You read that right . . . this non-profit organization has the wherewithal to tell its donors to plan for something in the next calendar year. Wow! I guess someone prides themselves on being organized and well-planned. LOL

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign College of Fine & Applied Arts

The final postcard in my stack of mail this morning is from my college alma mater.

As some of you know, I graduated from the University of Illinois in 1992 with a BA in Urban Planning and in 1994 with a Masters in Urbana Planning. For the last 18 years, I have been trying to hide from those fundraising professionals. Regardless of where I move or how many times I’ve changed my phone number, they keep finding me.

It is impressive. And the postcard they sent me is equally impressive.

he message is simple and to the point . . . we want your email address. However, they go about asking for it in a very cleaver way. Here is how they asked:

“We are gathering current email address from our alumni to start a conversation about how your education shaped your professional and life experiences. Your experiences and ideas will assist us in shaping arts education for future students. To share your address with us, please visit: http://go.illinois.edu/FFAAlums”

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard my non-profit friends talk about how hard it is get more in-depth information (e.g. email addresses, birthdays, etc) out of donors, but it has been often. I just love the approach that my alma mater is taking.

So, what can we learn from these three postcards:

K.I.S.S. — the information you want your supporters to see must be simple and easily digestible in a few seconds.
Four-color — Reader surveys seem to indicate that people’s eyes are attracted and drawn into pictures and graphics that are vibrant and full color.
Postal automation — Using a mail house to certify your mailing lists allows them to add a barcode to address label. This saves the post office money, and in turn saves you money.
Not just for events — The most common use of postcards seems to be advertising an event or asking donors to save a date for an event. However, the University of Illinois example illustrates that we can be more creative with this direct mail tool if we put our minds to it.

Does your non-profit agency use postcards? If so, what for? Have you measured the effectiveness of this strategy (e.g. increased event attendance, etc)? If so, what did you find? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

What’s in your mailbox? Part 2

August 15, 2012 erik Donor-centered fundraising, Fundraising

We started a conversation yesterday about direct mail when I posted “What’s in your mailbox? Part 1“. We looked at a political fundraising piece that showed up in my mailbox from Michelle Obama and dissected it. Today, we’re going to my mailbox and pulling out a newsletter that I recently received from Michael Noland, who is my state senator.

As I said yesterday, I believe “the average American can become educated about what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to direct mail if they only pay attention to what is being sent to them, what they are opening (or not opening), and how and what they’re reading (or not reading).”

So, let’s open this newsletter and see what we’ve got.

The front page is actually quite simple. It contains a two paragraph letter from the senator explaining that the legislative session that just ended was busy. It essentially invites me to open the newsletter for an update on “what’s happened, the legislation he sponsored, and what he’s done to fight for me.”

Hmmm . . . the feel and tone of the letter makes this newsletter seem more like campaign literature. To be honest, I am hesitant to turn to page two; however, I will do so for you, my dear reader. 😉

This is a four page newsletter. So, when I turn the page I am looking at the middle of the newsletter — pages two and three. Here is what I am starting to notice:

Lots of pictures (four to be exact)
18 point font headlines and 14 point news copy
Headlines are in color

I suspect the senator is concerned about senior citizens not being able to read his newsletter, which is why everything is so big.

You’ve heard it a million times . . . a picture is worth a thousand words. All of the pictures are of the senator doing something. He is talking to a concerned older couple. He is delivering the commencement speech at Elgin Community College (ECC). Since most people won’t spend more than as few seconds with this mail piece, pictures become very important in conveying quick information. In this instance, the senator obviously is trying to send the message that he is working hard on your behalf.

In a previous life, when I ran a weekly newspaper, we learned from reader surveys that big pictures and headlines were the first thing to which people paid attention. If the picture or headline was interesting, then they would make the decision to read the article. It is obvious that this newsletter is designed with thatsame principle in mind.

I don’t believe people read much anymore, which is an ironic observation for a blogger like myself to make. What I do believe is that people skim, and I suspect the senator believes the same thing when I look at his newsletter copy.

There are seven mini-articles with topics ranging from public employee pension costs and healthcare to child welfare and veterans. Nothing is more than one paragraph in length. It is written in the first person and very action oriented with phrases like:

“I co-sponsored . . .”
“I fought . . .”
“I believe . . .”

To translate all of this into non-profit terms, the senator is demonstrating to the voting public the return on investment for your vote. This is simply the senator stewarding voters in much the same way you steward your donors. The only difference is that you want your donors to renew their financial support and the senator wants people to vote for him again.

Let’s turn the page and look at the back of the newsletter.

I am invited to stay informed and encouraged to routinely visit the senator’s webpage for updates, news and email access. There is a monstrously large QR code on the page that I can scan with my cell phone, and it will take me to his website instantly.

Here are a few best practices that we can take away from our dissection of the senator’s newsletter today:

Be mindful of font size, especially if your donors are older.
Use lots of pictures to communicate information quickly.
Use color and big headlines to make things pop off the page and generate interest in reading the newsletter copy.
People skim . . . so keep stgories short and snappy. Short sentences and very few paragraphs.
Cross-channel marketing . . . use the newsletter to drive people to your website where you can spend more time with them and go into more detail.

Personally speaking, I really dislike newsletters like this one. I believe that the typical slick/glossy, one color, four page newsletter is a thing of the past. I really liked the previous piece sent out by the senator. It was a one page bulletin that looked like what Penelope Burk describes in her book “Donor Centered Fundraising“.

If you are interested in learning more about what donor bulletins looks like and why they are more preferred by your donors, then I suggest that you go back and read the following three blog posts from last year:

If you want to see a copy of Senator Noland’s most recent newsletter so that you can compare it to what you read in these three donor-centered newsletter posts, then click here.

Does your non-profit organization use a newsletter to steward supporters and donors? Are you happy with it? What have you found in your experience works or doesn’t work? Please use the comment box below to share with your fellow non-profit professionals.

Here’s to your health!