Fundraising – Page 42 – The Healthy Non-Profit

Online giving: Evolve or else?!?

December 14, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

Welcome to Wednesday of individual giving week where we’re looking at different individual giving strategies as a way to replace dwindling pools of government funding. We’re using characters from the movie “Finding Nemo” to look at various individual giving strategies. Monday’s post was all about “Crush the Turtle” and the thrill seeking mentality of special event fundraising. Yesterday’s post focused on direct mail. Today, we’re looking at ePhilanthropy through the eyes of “Dory” (the regal tang fish whose voice you recognize as Ellen DeGeneres):

“Give it up old man, you can’t fight evolution, I was built for speed!”

There is currently a debate raging in fundraising circles between traditionalists and futurists.

Futurists argue that giving trends all point to donors giving via your website, email, social media, text messaging, and e-video campaigns.

Traditionalists sound more like Jeff Brooks who said in his recent blog post titled “The case against innovation“:

“When you get bored with letters and change everything so it’s cool and innovative, you force people to spend energy and time figuring out your new conventions. That’s energy and time they don’t have, or don’t care to spend on such a stupid task. No matter how cool you’ve made it, you’ve put a wall around whatever you’re trying to communicate. You might think it’s a very low, easy-to-climb wall — but it’s still a wall, and that means fewer people are going to get your message.”

I personally find middle ground between these two camps:

Online giving increased by more than 30-percent in 2010 compared to 2009.
It is estimated that approximately 7-percent of all charitable giving was secured online in 2010.
Average size gift statistics for online giving is starting to look remarkably similar to direct mail data.
The trend arrow over the last decade is unmistakable.

(Note: A special thanks to Blackbaud and their analytics division for keeping an eye on these trends. You can find a Blackbaud widget that links to similar kinds of information at the bottom of my website.)

The reality is that it can be somewhat expensive for many non-profits to get into individual giving strategies involving technology. However, the good news is that they don’t need to live on the “bleeding edge of technology”. Agency can and should start to take small steps towards the future. For example, even small organizations can add a “donate now” button to their webpage, set-up a Facebook and Twitter account, and start experimenting with both listening to donors and nudging them toward online giving opportunities.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I recently read somewhere (I honestly can’t remember where or I would cite the source), that there is likely lots and lots of “cross pollution” between different individual giving strategies. Here are a few examples to illustrate this point:

A donor gets a letter in the mail and they are inclined to make a contribution. However, they see your agency’s website address embedded in the letter and go online to make that donation out of convenience.
A donor is solicited using a face-to-face solicitation strategy. They sign the pledge card. When the pledge reminder arrives, they go online to pay their pledge because it might be more convenient.
A donor receives an email (doesn’t matter if it is for solicitation or stewardship purposes). They then receive a visit by a fundraising volunteer who asks them to make a pledge. They sign the pledge card because it is convenient rather than dig through their cluttered email inbox for that donation link.

Everything is getting more and more interconnected. For this reason, I am all for investing a little time and money in ePhilanthropy because the decision isn’t about which tool to use with individuals. The decision involves which tools to use in concert with each other.

Don’t go crazy by focusing exclusively on lots and lots of new technology. Start small. And by all means, don’t use technology to replace your existing solicitation tools (e.g. mail, pledge cards, fundraising volunteers, etc).

Remember, the more tools you have in your toolbox to connect with individuals the more likely it will be that you are able to engage what is clearly the largest slice of the charitable giving pie chart — INDIVIDUAL DONORS.

What is your organization doing right now in the arena of ePhilanthropy? Website? Email? Text? Electronic video? Social media? Do you have a written ePhilanthropy plan in place that delineates which online tools you’re using and which tools are used for cultivation vs solicitation vs stewardship? Please take one minute to share using the comment box below a nugget about where you’re at because we can all learn from each other.

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

I like you so much that I don’t want to see you!

December 13, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

Welcome to Tuesday of individual giving week where we’re looking at different individual giving strategies as a way to replace dwindling pools of government funding. We’re using characters from the movie “Finding Nemo” to look at various individual giving strategies. Monday’s post was all about “Crush the Turtle” and the thrill seeking mentality of special event fundraising. Today, we’re looking at direct mail through the eyes of “Marlin” (the clown fish who was Nemo’s father), who said to “Dory” (the regal tang fish whose voice you recognize as Ellen DeGeneres):

“No, of course I like you. It’s because I like you, I don’t want to be with you. It’s a complicated… emotion.”

When I read this quote it made me think of those direct mail donors who love your organization’s mission so much that they can’t stand the thought of sitting down with you. I’m really not trying to be snarky here . . . there are countless numbers of people who appreciate what you do, want to make a contribution, but don’t want to sit down and chat over a pledge card. It is this reality that has made direct mail and targeted mail so successful for so very long.

Mal Warwick is one of the masters of direct mail. I encourage you to read his article where he does a great job of distilling everything down into 10 of the most important things that you need to know about a successful direct mail program:

It is a “process”
It is all about the long-term
It is about cost-effectiveness and not so much the cost
The list is super important
Making “the offer”
One of the keys is list segmenting
It is focused on an annual giving approach
Test it or you will feel your patience tested
Repeating yourself isn’t a sign of old age, it is the sign of intelligence and discipline
Record-keeping makes all the difference

Ugh! He is a genius. Click here to read more about what he is really saying.

After you’re dazzled by Mal Warwick’s intellect, you need to read what Tom Ahern has to say a week ago about anyone who likes to “dabble” in direct mail:

“Untrained staff and board cannot accurately judge professionally crafted direct mail. It’s impossible. Mailed appeals are a counter-intuitive enterprise, based on neuroscience, decades of testing, empiricism, and acquired skill sets of surprising depth and complexity.”

While Tom isn’t likely making many friends with this statement, he is right in the sense that direct mail is a science. It is sometimes a bizarro universe where up is down and down is up. I suggest you click here and read what else Tom has to say about non-experts who roll up their sleeves and try to run a direct mail program without expert help.

Look . . . here is the bottom line:

Direct mail donors account for something in the neighborhood of one-fifth of charitable contributions,
Direct mail is not cheap,
Direct mail requires expertise,
Direct mail is a great way to “acquire” new donors,
Direct mail is constantly evolving,
Direct mail requires time, and
Direct mail needs someone with an eye for details.

Not having direct mail and targeted mail in your annual fundraising plan is like a handyman going to work without a screwdriver in his toolbox.

So, what is your agency doing with the U.S. Postal Service? How often are your soliciting? How are you using mail to cultivate new prospects or steward existing donors? What metrics are you measuring to gauge success in the short-, mid-, and long-term? How do you move direct mail donors up your staircase of engagement? Many of you are using mailhouse services, but is anyone using technical writing consultants? If so, how has that worked for you?

Please use the comment box below because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Whoa! Special events and individual giving

December 12, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising, Planning

We ended the last week with a close-up look at what many non-profit organizations are doing to adjust to a restriction in government funding. Click here to read the post titled “Sir Isaac Newton was right about nonprofit organizations“. I ended Friday’s post with a promise that we would look at individual giving strategies from different angles this week. Today, we will look at special events as an individual giving strategy.

I thought it might be fun to look at individual giving through the eyes of those Disney characters from the movie “Finding Nemo”. Why this movie? Because this movie was all about a father who in his search for his lost son learned how to take risks and also discovered his son is capable of taking care of himself. In some ways, I think that individual giving for non-profit agencies kind of follows the same storyline.

Let’s take that scene in the movie where Marlin (the father clown fish) is talking to Crush (the turtle) about Marlin’s experience with jellyfish:

Crush: “Oh, I saw the whole thing, dude! First, you were like, whoa! And then we were like, WHOA! And then you were like, whoa.”

Marlin: “What are you talking about?”

Crush: “You, Mini-Man! Takin’ on the jellies. You got serious thrill issues, dude.”

LOL . . . I think special events are a little bit like this scene from “Finding Nemo”. They are fun. They are not for the faint-of-heart. Too many might actually be dangerous for your organization. However, they are something you probably need to do if you want to “find” donors.

As we talked about on Friday, there are many fundraising volunteers who are fearful about asking friends to make a direct charitable contribution. However, special events feel different from asking for direct contributions because there is a trade involved — you give me $50.00 and I giving you a ticket to a dinner. Quid pro quo.

Unfortunately, there are too many non-profit organizations who just kept adding more and more events to their resource development plan every time there was a shortfall in revenue. Now, they have an unbalanced resource development program, and much like a car with unbalanced tires this can be a recipe for danger.

I won’t go into a long diatribe about how special events aren’t a very efficient way to raise money from individuals. This is a well-worn path, and you can find countless blog posts from me on the subject. However, you may want to click here to read Charity Navigator’s study on special events and how they cost (direct + indirect costs) the average non-profit agency $1.33 to raise $1.00.

All that being said, every non-profit organization needs to have one or two well-run special events built into their annual resource development plan because:

They will bring in some money for your agency (if you factor out indirect costs like staff time),
They are a soft way for new prospective donors to learn more about your agency,
They are a fun way for your agency to engage new volunteers, and
They have a cultivation and stewardship effect for many prospects and donors especially if the event has a “mission-focus”.

However, please keep in mind that too much of a fun thing is never good for anyone. I recent had an opportunity to interview more than 40 donors. I asked the donor if they prefer to make a charitable contribution using an event vehicle or a direct solicitation from a friend armed with a pledge card. In EVERY interview, the donor came back and said without hesitation that they would prefer the friend and the pledge card.

Remember . . . events have their place. Keep them to a minimum, but do those few events very well. Keep the event mission-focused with an eye to introducing new prospects to your agency and demonstrating to existing donors that their contributions are making a difference. Most importantly, keep in mind that special events are only one of many solicitation strategies you will employ in your efforts to secure more individual giving to compensate for the receding tides of government funding.

How does your agency ensure its special event program doesn’t get out of hand? Do you evaluate every event? If so, what metrics do you use?

Here’s to your health!

Sir Isaac Newton was right about nonprofit organizations

December 9, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

We all learned as kids in school that Sir Isaac Newton stipulated in his Third Law of Motion that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thanks to Newton, I was not surprised earlier this week by anything I read in The State of Grantseeking Fall 2011 report conducted by GrantStation and PhilanTech. This excerpt kind of sums up the entire report:

“While nonprofits remain optimistic about their ability to raise funds and deliver services,” said Dahna Goldstein, Founder of PhilanTech, “many organizations – particularly smaller organizations – are applying for more grants but receiving smaller grants.”

Surely, none of you are surprised by this. Right? Anyone who thinks about it for a moment will see the following:

Government funds have dried up in “The New Norm” (aka this new economic paradigm that we’re living in).
Government debt levels mean that the “golden days of government funding” are probably over for a long time.
The difference between writing a government grant and a foundation grant is almost non-existent.
Non-profits are shifting their attention and efforts to foundation grant opportunities.
The pool of money available from foundations doesn’t magically expand because interest increases. So, you have more proposals chasing the same pool of funding and there are only two possible outcomes (unless the pool of funding expands):

you either get more rejected proposals, or
you get more funded proposals at smaller gift levels

While some people are asking questions like “how can we write better grant proposals and become more competitive,” I think these types of questions all miss the mark. I think the better question is:

“Why the heck aren’t non-profit organizations overhauling their resource development plans to better position themselves to secure more sustainable funding from individuals (e.g. people like you and me) rather than from institutions (e.g. corporations, foundations and government)?”

After all, when you look at the charitable giving statistics for the as long as they’ve been published, you clearly see that the vast sum of all charitable giving come from individuals. When I scratch my head and ponder this question, I can only come to a few disturbing conclusions:

Asking people for money is scary, and it is hard to get board members and volunteers to move beyond this paralyzing fear.
Many non-profit professionals (e.g. CEOs and fundraising staff) aren’t practicing the 9-keys of volunteer engagement and as a result there are many disengaged volunteers and board members sitting around our board room tables. So, mobilizing our “people resources” in the name of individual giving seems like a non-starter to many non-profit professionals.
It is always easier to travel the path of least resistance. This was what Robert Frost was saying in his famous poem “The Road Not Taken”. In other words, it is far easier to shift your efforts from writing proposals for government agencies to writing proposals for foundations.

Here is my word of caution to the entire non-profit sector . . . It is important to remember that foundations don’t give away magic money, and they don’t typically spend down their fund balance. Their year-to-year contributions are based upon their “investment income,” which usually means that when the stock market goes down so does the pool of available dollars from foundations.

I would draw a comparison to Isaac Newton’s first law of motion that most people have come to know as “what goes up must come down,” but I won’t because I just know there are argumentative investment professionals reading this blog who don’t think this law applies to the stock market. However, ask yourself this question: “Is it possible that the stock market in this ‘New Norm’ might experience adjustments and contractions if the economy doesn’t start dramatically improving soon?”

My point is simple . . . Read The State of Grantseeking Fall 2011 report . . . come to grips with the realities of “The New Norm” . . . engage your volunteers using the resource development planning process . . . and start asking tough questions around “What if?” and “How do we re-align our fundraising efforts, adjust to The New Norm and start asking individual donors for their support?”

There are many different individual giving models out there. Please tune in next week and we’ll talk about a few of those models.

Has your non-profit organization experienced some of the same things that the 900 respondents reflected in the grantseeker report? If so, what is it specifically? If not, what are you experiencing and what do you think accounts for your success against this industry trend?

Please use the comment box below to weigh-in.

Here’s to your health!

Lessons from an e-video that will make you cry

December 8, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

So, my good friend Marissa sent me this tweet a few days ago:

@eanderson847 Check out this video showing what can be done with just $1. Microphilanthropy at it’s finest. youtu.be/9DXL9vIUbWg

Please grab a tissue and click the link. The YouTube video is about 10-minutes long, but I promise you that it is well worth your investment in time.

As I watched the e-video, lots of different thoughts raced through my head including:

This video demonstrates the intense power of stewardship.
The producers remind us that while major gift donors are incredibly important to our non-profit agencies, we need to remember that charitable contributions that aren’t so major need to be treated as transformational. Why? Because they are!
The video’s point of view is that philanthropy, regardless of how small, is powerful. Not just for the person who receives it, but also for the person who gives it.
This video reminded me that there are differences between “fundraising” and “resource development” and “philanthropy”. In my mind, “fundraising” is the act of soliciting a donor for a charitable contribution. “Resource development” speaks to the overall process — prospect identification & evaluation, introduction, cultivation, solicitation, stewardship, and the continuous feedback loop moving forward. “Philanthropy” is the love of humanity and goes beyond just giving money and includes volunteerism, mentoring, emergency response, etc.
This video points to an often overlooked trend called “microphilanthropy” that all non-profit professionals need to be aware. We need to understand this trend first and then analyze what it means. Is this growing trend something that can affect non-profit resource development and donor trends? Sure it can! . . . How? . . . I’m not sure, but it warrants our attention and time. Click here to check out an interesting blog calling itself the “1DollarClub.org” to read more.
This video also smacked me across the face and was a reminder about another emerging trend — non-profits are using the internet, social media, and e-videos to steward donors in an increasingly digital world where more and more people just don’t have time for traditional stewardship activities and tactics. ePhilanthropy is here to stay and it is evolving every day!!!

Wow! Thank you, Marissa (by the way, she is the blogger at One World One Plate and I think everyone who loves food should go check out her work).

After viewing the e-video, did you have any thoughts that struck you like a lightning bolt? Is your non-profit organization using online videos as part of its resource development plans and efforts? If so, how? Please use the comment box below and share your revelation. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Goldilocks and the three board members: Part 2

December 6, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, resource development

Yesterday, my post titled “Goldilocks and the three board members” talked about a very cold bowl of porridge that involves non-profit boards who fail to evaluate their executive director every year. In doing so, they set their agency up for failure, liability and <gulp> perhaps even personal liability if the D & O Insurance carrier deems coverage null and void because the board failed to make a “good faith effort” to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities.

Today, I would like to talk about that VERY HOT bowl of porridge. This, of course, is when a board goes way overboard with the annual performance plan and year-end evaluation.

In this scenario, the board president thinks they “own” the organization and take their leadership position way too seriously. They decide that their time at the helm of the ship will go down in the history books as the “Golden Age” of your non-profit organization. They see the executive director as a “direct report” and use the performance plan and year-end evaluation processes to micro-manage OR change behavior of the person occupying the executive director’s chair OR drive the executive director screaming from the room (so either they or a friend of theirs can take over).

If this seems far-fetched, please trust me when I tell you I’ve seen it happen more often than I care to admit.

It is typically true in my experience that the board member who is being very aggressive usually has some very legitimate issues. However, their aggressive approach makes them look like an egomaniac or a big jerk. Sadly, those issues never get dealt with because the focus becomes personal rather than organizational. As a result, the organization and the clients it serves end up the big loser.

The interesting thing I’ve seen is how the other board members in the room deal with this individual. The group usually tries to “pacify” and give them total authority to do whatever they want with the executive director’s performance plan or year-end review.

This “accommodating move” by the board is meant to shut the instigator up, but it never seems to work out that way. The annual performance plan and year-end evaluation resemble something straight out of a carnival fun house with those weird mirrors. Annual performance objectives turn out unmeasurable and read something like this:

Improve staff morale
Be a leader in the community
Move all of our accreditation scores up one level

It looks and feels really muscular and accountable, but when you peel the layers of the onion back nothing makes any sense. How do you measure improved staff morale? Is it realistic to focus on all accreditation categories (even the ones you’re already doing well in)? What is a leader and how do you determine that?

Next thing you know everything feels subjective. Feelings get hurt. Emotions run high. And the board volunteers who thought they solved the problem by “brushing off” the loud squeaky wheel in the board room, find themselves in a much worse situation. It always turns into a trust issue between the board and their executive director. However, it sometimes turns into impending legal action involving things like: harassment, hostile work environment, or retaliation.

Trust me when I say the really hot dish of porridge is not the solution. Please tune in tomorrow, and we’ll talk about what a normal situation might look like.

Have you ever been involved in a situation where one board member is really “hot to trot” about the annual performance plan or year-end evaluation for the executive director? Have you ever seen it turn out OK? Do you have any examples of just “horrible” performance plan objectives that just didn’t make sense?

Please share . . . we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Goldilocks and the three board members: Part 1

December 5, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising

I suspect we all remember the story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears“. This porridge is too hot! This porridge is too cold! This porridge is just right! I’ve recently stumbled upon a very similar version of this story involving non-profit executive directors and board volunteers around the related concepts of annual performance plans and year-end evaluations. For the next three days, I thought it would be fun to look at each of the bowls of porridge and talk about the pros or cons.

Today’s bowl of porridge deals with when board volunteers shirk their fiduciary responsibilities and fail to evaluate their executive director.

I have run into a number of friends recently who confided in me that they haven’t been evaluated. In some cases, they haven’t been evaluated in a number of years. Of course, in many of these cases, it has become an issue because it is a tough time to be at the helm of a non-profit organization. As criticisms increase and board volunteers try to ratchet up accountability, up pops the ugly revelation:

“Ooooops, if things have been getting so bad, why haven’t you felt the need to evaluate me. We might have been able to make some course corrections if you had taken your fiduciary responsibilities seriously before we got to this point.”

The other side of this coin, of course, deals with the executive director’s annual performance plan (e.g. chart of work). In my experience, when executive directors aren’t getting evaluated, they typically don’t have a very well-defined performance plan with measurable metrics. This management tool is developed and handed to the executive director 12-months prior to their review. This way they know exactly what they need to do to succeed and how to proactively affect their year-end evaluation.

Again, in my experience, boards end up passing on the year-end evaluation because they didn’t do a good job of developing a performance plan, and now they don’t feel like there is anything concrete to measure their employee against. So, they end up taking a pass.

And the vicious circle continues until the non-profit organization skids into the ditch and fingers start getting pointed.

While it is easy to throw board members under the bus, I also want to hold my executive director friends accountable, too. Good non-profit professionals know how to support a board and keep them from falling down on the job. I’ve seen many non-profit CEOs pencil draft their own performance plans and year-end reviews and hold their board’s hand through these processes.

All of this also ties into fundraising and resource development. Rest assured that when fingers start getting pointed, donors ask tough questions and judgements get passed. Remember, the executive director is probably the face of your non-profit organization and many of your donors have likely fallen in love with this person.

I’ve seen it too many times. The organization fractures, accusations get made, donors ask tough questions, and everyone comes out looking bad. In the final analysis, public trust gets violated and donors put their checkbooks away until things get cleared up.

There is one cautionary word that I need to toss out there to board members about this very cold bowl of porridge. I know many of you think you don’t have any personal liability that comes with sitting on a non-profit board of directors because your agency purchased Directors and Officers Insurance. However, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that your D & O insurance company will not cover you in an employment related lawsuit if you failed to complete annual performance reviews of your executive director. It is foreseeable that the insurance company will say “there was a lack of a good faith effort” on the part of the board, and then you will be personally on the hook.

So, get off the couch and take that cold bowl of porridge to the microwave oven and warm it up before it is too late! For those of you who might be looking for a resource guide, click here for a great manual from The Enterprise Foundation. Tomorrow, we’re going to look at that next bowl of porridge which is way too hot. So please stay tuned.

Does your board of directors struggle with evaluating its executive director? If so, what strategies are you using to bridge this gap?

Please use the comment box below and share your thoughts. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Welcome to a new philanthropic era: The Age of Women Power!

December 2, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, Planning, volunteers

I used to jokingly say to various board members at my former agency that if our non-profit needed to get something done (e.g. organize a special event, put together a strategic plan, etc), then we should recruit a bunch of women to help us do it. I’d usually finish making my point by saying, if you want to talk an issue to death and get nothing done, then put a bunch of men in the room. (Note to readers: Whenever I said this it was always said “tongue in cheek” and I was kidding. Of course, I was only kidding slightly because I think there is some truth to it.)

I share this story today because my good friend, Boys & Girls Club of Oshkosh Development Coordinator Anne Lemke, sent me a fabulous email a few days ago about “What Women Want” which is whitepaper written by Katherine Swank from Target Analytics, a Blackbaud Company. After reading the paper, I just could resist sharing a few of the highlights with you today:

nearly half of the top wealth-holders in the United States are women,
women have increased their combined wealth by more than fifty percent in the last 10-years, and
women have a net worth of over $6 trillion.

Katherine does a masterful job of profiling what an affluent woman looks like. I suggest you read the whitepaper and burn that picture into your head because it is surprising. In fact, you probably know a number of women who fit the profile. Having this profile picture burned into your non-profit brain is important because as Katherine says so perfectly:

“Affluent women may also be identified by their willingness to both donate and volunteer at higher levels than their male counterparts. Women, on average, donate twice as much to charity and make three times the number of donations as men.”

So, some of you might be reading this post and thinking to yourself: “OK, I just need to start asking women for money and I’ll be fine.” If this is what you’re hearing me say, then please stop yourself! The reality is that women are different from men, and you’ll need to change your resource development strategies and tactics if you are going to appeal to this very powerful donor segment. Again, Katherine puts it best when she said:

“While I can’t claim to know what all women want in every situation, over twenty-five years in philanthropy has taught me that what women want is simple: to be asked their opinion and for their answers to be listened to and acted upon. They seek equality in the workplace, an ever-equal sharing of the ‘load’ from their male partners and counterparts, and to make the world a better place, both close to home and halfway around the world. Elementally, women want their lives to make a difference in the lives of others. To accomplish this through philanthropy makes women feel empowered.”

Translated into language men might understand better: “You need to cultivate, solicit and steward women different from.” Oh heck, who am I kidding . . . let me translate this even more clearly for my non-profit male friends out there: “Go hire and recruit some women to help you with this incredible important and transformational shift that your non-profit agency needs to make.”

I suspect this trend will change more than just your agency’s approach to resource development. It will also likely affect your board development, marketing, and volunteer recruitment & management efforts. Right?

Oh yeah . . . go download Katherine’s whitepaper and read it. Click here to get your copy. It really is a great read!

So, what are your thoughts? Are you already seeing this philanthropic trend in your community? How are you responding to it? Have you addressed it in your strategic plan or resource development plan? If so, how?

Please take a quick moment and share your thoughts using the comment box below. After all, we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Taking a page out of NPR’s playbook

November 29, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising, Planning

In my hometown of Elgin, Illinois, there have been a number of sleepless nights for non-profit organizations whose revenue model is heavily dependent on government funding. The economy and housing bubble caught up with the city, and now there are projected budget deficits. As you can imagine, non-profit funding is on the proposed chopping block. All of this is compounded by the fact that we live in Illinois, which by most accounts has one of the worst state budget problems in the country. So, state funding has also been on the retreat for years.

I’ve been saying for years to all of my non-profit friends who would listen: “the government funding gravy train is coming to a halt . . . get out and get out NOW.”

Usually this dramatic plea has been met with nods of agreement, then shoulder shrugs, and finally questions around “how to”.

Yesterday’s blog post about non-profit benchmarking titled “What Gets Measured Gets Done” got me thinking and wondering: has anyone ever done this before, and if so, do they have a roadmap that others can duplicate?

It didn’t take long for me to find an answer, and it was there in front of me all along. National Public Radio (NPR) was founded in 1970. It was heavily and almost exclusively government funding supported through much of the 1970s and 1980s. Today it receives less than 10-percent of its revenue from the federal government.

From what I can tell, it didn’t happen overnight but it seems to have occurred quickly after a funding crisis in 1983.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that NPR turned to individuals as a cornerstone to their strategy. After all, more than three-quarters of all charitable giving in America comes from individuals.

So, there you go . . . it is a roadmap! It might not be an easy road, but it has been done before, and it is possible to transform your revenue model. Here are just a few quick suggestions for those of you who are interested in taking the next few steps:

Tune into NPR and start listening. While tuning in for the programming can be fun and delightful, I especially recommend listening during the pledge drive. Bring your notepad and pencil because there are lots of notes to take. NPR does one of the best jobs I’ve seen with their pledge drive. They employ best practices effortlessly. We can all learn a lot if we just listen and watch.
Consider making a pledge. I made my first pledge to NPR in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment trial. After making that small contribution, the stewardship stuff and communications I received from them was amazing and almost felt like drinking out of a fire hose. They do a nice job with stewardship. It was the best $25 I’ve ever spent in my life, and it was cheaper than most trainings.
Go check-out their cyber presence. Review their website. Follow them on Twitter. Like them on Facebook. Subscribe to a few of their blogs. Then sit back and watch them masterfully use social media and the internet to cross promote content and communicate with their clients who are also their donors.

Obviously, NPR’s plan can’t be exactly duplicated for a number of reasons. However, it is a good place to start. Please note that the aforementioned bullet points can all be done today and only focus on listening, observing and fact gathering. This is, after all, the essence of benchmarking. There will be lots of action and work on the road ahead, but for now it is important to do your homework and engage your volunteers with both the benchmarking and planning efforts.

How does your agency plan on adjusting its revenue model? What is your strategy? Are you benchmarking yet, and if so who are you studying?

Please use the comment box below to answer these questions and share your thoughts with the rest of us. It only takes a minute and you feel good inside when you do so. Why do it . . . because we can all learn from each other!

Here’s to your health!

What gets measured gets done!

November 28, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising, Uncategorized

The turkey was no sooner packed away in its Tupperware containers and Americans were running out their front doors to cash-in on Black Friday sales and promotions. In fact, according to early projections, this Black Friday was a record-setting day with more cash finding its way into cash registers and more feet stampeding through the malls than ever before “on the same day”.

When I read this, the phrase that jumped out at me was: “over the same day last year”. It caught my attention because it was used in every article I read about this year’s Black Friday phenomenon. There was something that bothered me greatly about this phrase, and it wasn’t until my long drive home on Saturday and Sunday from my Thanksgiving travels that it finally dawned on me.

This phrase is powerful because it represents an industry’s commitment to measurement and benchmarking, and it isn’t a phrase that you hear many non-profit organizations using. Sure . . . you hear non-profit folks say things like “the campaign will exceed last year’s amount raised” or “event revenue is down compared to last year”. However, you almost never hear non-profit folks say things like:

Our agency’s philanthropic contributions are 6.1-percent higher than they were for the same period last year, which is perfectly in line with industry trends for non-profit’s our size.

While I am not sure why we don’t hear this more from our charity’s of choice, I am certain it isn’t because of a lack of information. I can confidently say this because at the bottom of my new website’s homepage I link to Blackbaud’s “Index of Charitable Giving”. This is one of the best things Blackbaud has ever done for the non-profit sector. The service is a broad-based fundraising index that reports total giving trends of 1,319 nonprofit organizations representing $2.3 billion in yearly giving on a monthly basis.

Here are just a few ideas that you might consider using this number to make your agency stronger:

Measure your fundraising performance against similar sized agencies. Share this comparative information with your resource development committee and use it to spark engaging conversations around “WHY”. You may be surprised where you end up.
Measure your fundraising performance against the same time period last year. Use this baseline data during your agency’s annual resource development planning efforts. It might spark engaging conversations and help make good adjustments to next year’s fundraising plan.
Use the benchmarking and baseline data during year-end reviews with agency staff who have resource development responsibilities (including non-profit CEOs). I guarantee board volunteers asking why the agency failed to keep pace with or greatly exceeded the industry’s pace during a year-end evaluation will spark engaging conversations.
Publish in your agency’s newsletters, website and impact reports how well your fundraising efforts did compared to other similar sized organizations compared to the same time last year. I guarantee that being transparent with this information will spark engaging conversations.

I can almost hear some folks saying that it doesn’t make sense to compare their agency with a national index because their community is so “unique” (kind of like a unicorn). To those of you whose minds are already there, I have two things to say:

Poppycock!
If you must have it your way, there is nothing stopping you from pulling a few non-profits in your “unique community” together and sharing data every quarter in the spirit of benchmarking and measurement.

It has been said by many different people over the centuries: “What gets measured, gets done!”

So, let me end by asking you: What are you measuring at your non-profit organization? Please use the comment box below to share what you’re measuring and how you are using that information. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!