Tag: nonprofit

A fundraising lesson in persistence and much more

Fundraising

university1I graduated from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign with my graduate degree in Urban Planning in 1994. In the summer immediately following graduation, I received my first fundraising appeal from the university. So, this story started almost 20 years ago, and it ended last night in an Applebee’s restaurant in Roswell, NM. In my opinion, there are lots and lots of little lessons throughout this story that every fundraiser should internalize.
I graduated at the height of the Chief Illiniwek controversy. For those of you who don’t know the story, it is akin to what the Washington Redskins are currently going through. It is simply a question of whether or not a sports team mascot can be a racist and insensitive symbol.
I came down on the side of the argument that “racial stereotypes dehumanize people“.
So, when my first fundraising letter came in the mail, I responded with a letter asking the university to stop soliciting me until the board of trustees addressed the Chief Illiniwek issue.
Believe it or not, the letters stopped.
university2Almost 13 years later, The Chief danced his last dance at a football or basketball game.
I couldn’t believe it when the fundraising letters started arriving in my mailbox again. Wow … 13 years later. I kinda thought they would’ve forgotten about me.
Not only did the letters start coming, but it felt like I got something every few months.
And then the phone calls started coming.
And then the email started coming.
I almost caved at first. After all, I kind of felt obligated to give to a fundraising solicitation that was 13 years in the making. Yet, I held off on making my first contribution. Our charitable giving budget was big back then and we had lots of charities we liked to support.
I decided that my alma mater would have to earn it just like the other charities did.
On September 17th of this year, I blogged about the Urban & Regional Planning Department at the University of Illinois and their 100th anniversary. I used their event to talk about how your agency should use anniversaries to engage donors as well as do some fundraising.
In that post, I shared some of the activities and communication strategies being employed by the university. I openly wondered if I would attend the big weekend celebration or make a contribution.
Fast forwarding to last night . . .
I am on the road for business and find myself in Roswell, NM. Across the street from my Holiday Inn Express is an Applebee’s restaurant, which is where I found myself for dinner eating alone and reading a white paper on monthly giving campaign best practices. (LOL . . . isn’t my life glamorous?)
While I’m on the road, I forward my home phone to my cell phone because I hate weeding through tons of voicemail upon returning from the road.
In the middle of my wedge salad, my phone rings. I didn’t recognize the number, but I answered it anyway. Of course, it was a student from the university asking if I would like to make a contribution to contribute to a scholarship fund as a tribute to the Urban Planning Department’s 100th anniversary.
Six years of countless mail . . . a steady stream of email . . . and diligent phone calls from students . . . and it finally happened last night.
She asked me specifically for $300. I declined, but countered with my first $100 contribution to the University of Illinois. It is perhaps the hardest earned $100 contribution any non-profit organization has ever received.
Why last night? I have no idea. The spirit moved me? The ambiance of Applebee’s set the stage? The case for support language included support of a scholarship fund and had a tribute angle? Who knows!
I think this story is ripe with lessons for fundraising professions. Here are just a few

  • Persistence is an important element for a successful fundraising program
  • Donor databases (when used appropriately) are powerful tools
  • Multi-channel communication is the wave of the future (e.g. mail, email, phone, etc)
  • The case for support is important
  • What your agency does on the front line impacts donor perceptions (e.g. Chief Illiniwek impacted my charitable giving; whereas, bad press or not offering certain programs may impact your donors’ appetite for giving)

For the record, I am excited to now see how the university stewards its donors. Stay tuned!  😉
Are there other lessons that you see from this story. Please use the comment box below to share. We can all learn from each other.
Here’s to your health! (And congrats to the university for a job well done)
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

When is the last time your non-profit turned down funding?

Fundraising

Forks and Funding Streams

By Dani Robbins
Re-published with permission from nonprofit evolution blog
forkI once heard a local Executive Director say that fundraising in a non-profit was like a new restaurant looking for investors by asking people to pay for forks. That’s exactly right! It’s illogical, yet it’s exactly right.
Nonprofits raise money through a myriad of sources, often one part of a program, project or piece of equipment a time. Then once a year, or more often, we submit reports on the use of those funds.
Grants, which used to fund general operating, are now far more often restricted to the priorities areas of the funding institution. Major donors fund in a similar way, with fewer restrictions usually, but still often to support a specific program or project and for a specific purpose.
It’s how it’s done, both on the side of the giving, and also on the side of the asking.
Granting intuitions – which for the purpose of this post includes corporate, community and family foundations as well as government awards – fund portions (and occasionally all) of projects, programs and staff; some fund only supplies, capital expenses or materials.
restrictionDonors and funding institutions absolutely and unequivocally have the right to support whatever they want in whatever method they choose.
It’s the nonprofit leader’s role to decline to accept funding that doesn’t meet their mission or make sense for their agency. The caveat to all this, of course, is that those restrictions are not just that one foundation; they’re most foundations and other funding sources too.
Everyone funds like that and we all fundraise like that too — to support forks. Forks – or in the nonprofit world, programs, projects or things – are important, and so are utilities, rent, staff, and programming.
Please let me be clear. This post is not intended to insult or be in any way disrespectful of the many, many institutions and people who support local organizations. We are grateful to you!
This post is intended to question the efficacy of the status quo.
I am not naïve; I’ve been in this field for 20 years. I know that part of how we got here was a lack of accountability. There was a lot of good feeling and a minimal amount of impact. I know there are still nonprofits out there not tracking their programs, not measuring outcomes and spinning their wheels but not advancing their missions.
I also know there are many more non profits that are running good programs, measuring the impact of those programs and being excellent stewards of the community’s resources. They’re also spending a lot of time and energy to raise money and report on that money; time and energy that is taken away from programs.
When I ran the Boys & Girl Clubs of the Western Reserve, we wrote and usually received (and reported on) around 50 grants a year. We asked many more donors each year for financial support. We received money from the United Way, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the Ohio Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs. We hosted events and had an endowment.
A large portion of the money we received was restricted.
We tracked every restricted dollar to ensure we spent it the way the donor intended. We were transparent in our business practices and followed financial management  best practices.
That is good financial stewardship.
It’s also expensive and time-consuming. However, it is critically important and not free.
Someone has to track, coordinate and manage all the pots, and agencies can usually only change a percentage of such costs to the grant. It’s labor intensive. It’s expensive. It’s how it’s done. The current non-profit funding model works.
It’s not unacceptable, but it is illogical.
I can’t imagine anyone planned it to be like this. There is no version of a past that I will believe that has donors, foundation, corporate and government leaders sitting around table envisioning a funding system that this one.
By this system, I mean one program being supported by three different grants each paying for a different percentage of the program staff salaries (and a much smaller percentage of the program leadership’s salary) with yet another grant paying for materials and special event income making up the difference.
There’s got to be a better way.
The nonprofit service delivery system has been greatly improved through technology, professional and leadership development opportunities, improved tracking and a lens that is focused on impact. Income generating efforts have similarly evolved, with the introduction of social enterprise and expanded efforts to embrace major donors and mergers when appropriate.
It’s time to re-imagine the funding model.
What else is out there? How else can we ensure financial stewardship, maintain donor confidence and demonstrate our impact? What else can we do to ensure the nonprofits in our communities have the resources they need to impact their corner of the world?
Let’s come up with a new plan: I’d rather do that than raise money for forks any day of the week.
As always, I welcome your experience, insight and ideas.
dani sig

The overhead myth is still alive and well

Fundraising

overhead1It wasn’t even a year ago when the CEOs of BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Guidestar and Charity Navigator all signed a letter encouraging donors to stop looking at the concept of “overhead” to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of non-profit organizations. This letter was the culmination of many efforts and lots of voices including Dan Pallotta, who is the author of “Uncharitable”. Bloggers and non-profit professional everywhere heralded this as a campaign that will put an end to what is commonly referred to a “The Overhead Myth“.
Over the years, I have written a number of blogs on this subject including:

At the end of my June 27, 2013 post, I wrote the following:

“I personally don’t think anything is going to change as a result of this “overhead myth” campaign push.  I think donors are set in their ways. I believe Dan Pallotta was right about the Puritan influence on our culture. I don’t think “culture” and “values” and “habits” are easy to change. AND I think talk is cheap.”

As you can imagine, I was roundly criticized for being a “negative, glass-half-empty” kind of person. That’s OK . . . I have thick skin.
Besides, I knew I was right which always goes a long way when it comes to swallowing criticism.  😉
overhead2As they say, the proof is in the pudding which is what inspired today’s blog post. The pudding, of course, is an article that washed into my email inbox from LinkedIn on November 30, 2013. The author was John Wasik and the article was titled “Digging Into Non-Profit Finances: Four Things To Check“.

In his post, Wasik talked about illegitimate non-profit organizations and the lack of real oversight for our sector. He shared four tips with readers/donors on what they should look for before making a charitable contribution.
Yep . . . you guessed it. He points to the classic definition of “overhead“. Here is what he said:

“What percentage of the non-profit’s income went towards it mission? This is also a key red flag. This percentage is also known as ‘the overhead ratio,’ which tells you how much was spend on non-program expenses such as fundraising and administration. A fairly well-run non-profit will spend at least 80% on its mission.”

The truth of the matter is that this morning’s blog post isn’t really a victory lap or an “I told you so…” article. The reality is that I am annoyed at my fellow non-profit professionals.
Did we really think that an open letter to the world was going to suddenly change everything?
I certainly hope not!
As I said back in June, “I don’t think “culture” and “values” and “habits” are easy to change. AND I think talk is cheap.”
All of this leads me to wonder . . . what have you been doing on the front line to educate your donors and bring an end to “the overhead myth“?
Ohhhhhhhhh . . . you don’t know what to do about it? Well, here are a few suggestions to get your creative juices flowing:

  • Post the open letter from BBB, Guidestar and Charity Navigator to your website.
  • If your agency runs a blog aimed at a donor audience, then blog about it.
  • During your year-end stewardship meetings with your top donors, figure out a way to talk about it.
  • Organize a focus group of board members around reading Dan Pallotta’s book “Uncharitable” and talking about it.
  • Stop highlighting and reinforcing “the overhead myth” in your annual report documents with pie charts showing how much you spend on programming vs. administration vs. fundraising. STOP!

OK . . . I got the ball rolling for you. Please scroll the down and use the comment box below to share additional ideas with your fellow non-profit professionals.
Not only can we learn from each other, but we can also inspire each other to solve bigger problems together. Please take 30 seconds out of your busy day to share one idea. Please?
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

Does your agency use email effectively as a marketing tool?

technology

Keep your non-profit email marketing out of the Trash Can

By Rose Reinert
Guest blogger
rose1Does this sound familiar? You spend hours preparing your agency’s e-newsletter. After proofreading it and perfecting it, you click send and hope it survives the delete button.
Chapter three of “The Social Media Bible” by Lon Safko did not just hit home for me, but it provided some phenomenal insight on how to increase the likelihood that your e-news will make it past the Trash Can and make an impact.
E-mail is so common, sometimes its power as a marketing tool is overlooked as the new and flashy social media trends continue to emerge.
What are the benefits of utilizing e-mail for marketing?  Let’s take a look:

  • What other marketing medium allows you to reach 5,000 to 50,000 of your potential customers for (nearly) free or a very small cost?
  • What other marketing tool allows you to count how many impressions, responses, conversations, and pass- alongs your e-mail had?

Well, there you have it! This e-newsletter is important, can make a difference, and is trackable and affordable. Eureka!
But wait . . . there are tricks to the trade that you need to learn in order to maximize the effectiveness of your agency’s email strategy.
Content is King
wiifmThe most important question in all marketing is one we broached in last week’s blog — WIIFM — “What’s In It for Me?”
With e-mail you have to convert the WIIFM for your reader quickly, and I mean within seconds.
Many times, just with a glance of the subject line, you are asking your recipient to quickly calculate their investment in reading your message.
Think about your organization, and how you communicate with donors. Every time you ask them to open a piece of direct mail, look at an e-mail or visit your website, there is a transaction. It is not a one-time thing either, every time you have to convince them of their WIIFM.
This entire concept is presented by Safkow in this passage:

“Suppose for some reason, that you really wanted to read the newspaper advertisements today. Your eyes are scanning over the pages of many ads, one of which catches your eye. You decide to not turn the page, but to look at the heading for that ad. How long do you think you are willing to spend to determine if the WIIFM is worth your stopping to read further? A study showed that people are willing to invest or spend only 1.54 seconds of time to make that determination.”

Wow! As I read on, Safko unveiled some great information to help maximize my e-mail efforts.
Your subject line has to convince your recipient in roughly 1.5 seconds whether he should move on to the next stage of investment.
If they decide to continue reading, you now have a whopping 5 seconds! Although much more time than 1.5 seconds, it only allows a person to read about one sentence.
So, within the first seconds of reading your e-mail message, your reader must find WIIFM to remain engaged. If you successfully do this, you move into the third phase which is conversion.
Your reader is likely to read on and follow your call to action, or click-through to your website.
Always remember . . . your e-mail message should always be about building and strengthening a relationship with the reader.
Practice makes Perfect
segmentingAs you work to perfect your strategies, it is important to take some time to test it through what Safko calls segmenting.
Segmenting is no more than splitting your distribution list. Split the list into five and send the exact same body of the message, but with five different subject lines. When doing this, remember to:

  • Pay close attention to the nouns, verbs and adjectives you use.
  • Take your time and be deliberate.
  • Send it out and see if there was a difference in the open rates or click-through rates.

Next, test the first line, again taking care with how you craft it. See the results and keep doing what seems to work.
Finally, test some different times of the day in sending the e-mails.
Ultimately, after about a year, you will have perfected your delivery to maximize your efforts and engage your readers.
How have you worked to perfect your e-mail efforts? What challenges have you found? Success?
rose draft sig

Are your agency's employee performance plans full of pixie dust?

organizational development

Sprinkling the Pixie Dust

By John Greco
Originally published on March 25, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog

pixie2I was very new to the company.

I was in a meeting with the regional vice president and the regional staff.  The region was underperforming.  We were a few months into the new fiscal year, and we were already trending far short of our productivity target.  It was time to act, to get back on track.

And then I heard the action that I immediately knew had absolutely, positively no leverage.

“We’ll just have to raise everybody’s goal then!” the RVP spouted.

Huh? I thought I had misheard.  Raising a goal will help improve performance when performance is already short of the goal?

Inexplicable.

How can we make sense of this?  I only have one theory —the RVP and staff must believe that his management team and perhaps his associates are not putting forth their best effort.  Somehow raising the goal to increase the gap between actual and expected will kick everyone in gear, and boost performance.  It would be the increased dissonance that would provoke improved productivity.

I wouldn’t bet on it, would you?

What I think was really going on (I didn’t have this insight then) is that RVP and his staff didn’t have any idea how to improve performance.  They felt helpless; powerless.  But they did have the power to set the bar.  So they did what they could.

So, when on the national conference call he was asked about the disturbing early trend, he could confidently say:  “Yes, I’m on top of that; I’ve already taken action.”

pixie1Action without any leverage.  Might as well sprinkle a little pixie dust!

But, beyond the fact that there’s no way that action will prove effective,  there’s another consequence, a more insidious, more harmful, consequence.

This kind of leadership produces a loss of confidence; it produces a loss of hope by employees in the ability of their leaders to make decisions and take actions that make a difference.

So, if you’re with me, what started as a leader and his staff being helpless to correct underperformance led to an action that actually produced a helplessness in his people.

Less than zero leverage.  Not no effect; negative effect.

Absolutely, positively.

Pass the pixie dust please?john greco sig

Donors don't donate just because they have money

Fundraising, technology

Have you ever heard of the “dowsing“? No? Then what about “divining,” “doodlebugging” or “water witching“? Oh, come on . . . I am sure you have heard these terms, but you probably don’t recall. All of these words describe a process whereby someone uses a Y-shaped stick to locate groundwater. In fact, sometimes people use this process to locate gems, ores, metals, oil, and even graves. Don’t believe me . . . click here and read about it on Wikipedia.
If you want to see what water witching looks like, you can click on this YouTube video and check it out.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m-q-sRSsx0]
For the record, there is no scientific evidence that proves that water witching works.
I’ve been thinking about water witching a lot for the last few days after a conversation with a fellow fundraising professional. Here was the gist of that discussion:

  • waterwitch1Wow! We have lots of money in our community.
  • I need help identifying who has that money.
  • I need access to tools like WealthEngine and Target Analytics to identify who has money?
  • Once I get that prospect list of wealthy individuals put together, I will ask all of them for money and life will be good.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I think very highly of sophisticated tools like WealthEngine and Target Analytics. Very powerful stuff!
What I am bristling about this morning is the assertion that affluent people will give to you just because you’ve identified them and asked them to share their wealth with you.
I hate to be the party pooper here. But neither tech tools or a Y-shaped stick will ever take the place of good old fashion relationship building.
networkingHere is a recipe I suggest you consider when it comes to your prospect identification strategy:

  1. Use your network, your current donors’ network, and your board members’ circle of influence to identify other individuals and companies who like your agency’s mission.
  2. Sit down with those individuals and companies. Talk about your mission, vision, goals, programs, outcomes and impact. Tell them stories about your clients and the impact you’re having on their lives.
  3. Invite these prospects to tour your facility. Help them see you in action.
  4. Ask these prospects to get involved. Join a committee. Do some volunteering.
  5. Invite them to one of your special event fundraisers. And down the road engage them in your annual campaign pledge drive.
  6. After these people renew their contribution and support a few times, then you may want to invest in a donor screening or donor profiling project using WealthEngine or Target Analytics.

magic treeOh heck . . . if you don’t want to follow this simple, sound and proven advice, then hire me. I am happy to be your water witch. Just give me a moment to run out back and pick a fresh Y-shaped stick off of my magic fundraising tree.
How does your agency find new prospective donors? There are many different strategies. Please use the comment box below and share. 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

What have you done to increase individual giving?

Fundraising

Events, Grants and Individual Giving

By Dani Robbins
Re-published with permission from nonprofitevolution blog
eventI was having breakfast this week with a friend and fellow consultant and we were discussing resource development efforts, including events and grants. By now I’m sure you are well aware, I’m not a huge fan of organizations hosting multiple events. Events are expensive, labor intensive and don’t usually generate a lot of income.
I can hear you out there saying “No Dani, they’re fun!” And they are, at least some of them are.
One signature event a year is a wonderful way to engage new donors, connect with current donors and showcase your programs while raising significant money. Even signature events that don’t raise significant money may still be a good use of your resources. However, more than one signature event is too much.
More than one event (two, if you must) may be a sign that your leadership, board or executive, is reluctant to raise money in other ways.
Leadership that doesn’t want to embark on an annual appeal or a major donor campaign will often advocate more grants be written or additional events be introduced. Not only will more events not raise more money, more events will cannibalize your signature event and may yield less income for more work. Any process that doesn’t get you to your goal is a bad process.
“The Executive Director is the Chief Development Officer” of any non profit that seeks contributed income. (Erik Anderson Donor Dreams blog) Whether they want to or not; whether they’re good at it or not; whether they have a development director whose job it is or not, the Exec is still responsible for fund raising and one of the responsibilities of a governing board is to raise money. Neither is a role that can be abdicated.
Events are often 5% to 15% of an agency’s budget and generally net 50% of what they cost, sometimes less. Most attendees would be appalled to know that, but it’s true. It’s too high! I recommend events net 75% of what they cost. There are other, better, avenues to raise money.
grantsGrants, which are often 30% to 50% of an agency’s budget, more if they receive United Way funding, are one way. Yet, they too come with a cost. Most agencies get somewhere between 50% to 80% of the grants they submit. That means that the time spent on writing the 20% to 50% of the grants that don’t get funded is time lost. For the grants that are secured, there are reports to be written, dollars to be tracked, objectives to reach and programming to introduce. All of which is as it should be, and none of which is without cost.
As I mentioned in the Culture of Philanthropy or Fund Raising post, according to “Fund-Raising: Evaluating and Managing the Fund Development Process” (1999) individual giving offers the highest rate on return for the lowest cost (5% to 10%) to the organization. It is also the largest post of money given in this country and usually only reflective of the percentage special event income in most agencies’ budgets. In other words, 80% of the philanthropic dollars in this country are given by individuals yet 10% to 15% of most agencies budgets are received from individuals. Like the post says, “opportunity is knocking. Get the door!”
Your board, staff and major donors will be the foundation of any individual giving program and the program should be introduced in just that order: Board giving should come first with the Board setting and then meeting a giving goal. Staff should then be asked and then major donors. Individual giving is about one on one relationships that are cultivated — and later, stewarded — and require intentional asks for specific dollar amounts.
Once those asks are made, as mentioned in the Sustainability by Descending Order of Love post:

“If you have the time and the volunteers, consider asking your larger mid level donors and prospects in person. Those with the potential to become major donors should also be asked in person as should anyone who is committed to your organization.  While we follow the path of descending order of love in planning, we love all of our donors equally.  If someone would like to see you in person, even if it will be a small gift, go.  It is fun to thank someone in person and is worth keeping a committed donor engaged. When that is not practical, the next best thing is a phone bank or phone calls.”

There are a lot of ways to raise money and some will generate more money in less time than others. Nonprofit leaders are busy. Get the best bang for your buck and get on the individual giving path. It will be scary, and also worth it!
What have you done to increase individual giving?  As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience.  Please share your ideas or suggestions for blog topics and consider hitting the follow button to enter your email.
A rising tide raises all boats.
dani sig

Happy #GivingTuesday!

Fundraising, technology

givingtuesday2The turkey has been consumed (and so have the leftovers). Black Friday came and went with only a few bumps and bruises for Americans. Cyber Monday also came and went with consumer dollars flying all over the information super highway. Are you ready for one last hurdle? Today, is #GivingTuesday, which is the day that the non-profit sector is trying to establish in the minds of Americans as the day to make online charitable contributions of time and money to your favorite charities.
Two years ago, DonorDreams blog featured this ePhilanthropy inspired holiday in its “Mondays with Marissa” series with a post titled “Five ways your non-profit can participate in #GivingTuesday“. In 2013, we spotlighted this special day in a post titled “Is your non-profit ready for the homestretch of 2013?”
This holiday is so new that I almost forgot about it this morning until I opened my email inbox.
givingtuesday1
My first #GivingTuesday solicitation came from an organization named A Safe Haven. Their email highlights a “challenge” that ends tonight to instill a sense of urgency among its donors.
The second email solicitation this morning came from Mikva Challenge. This organization is promoting a link to a video featuring one of their members. The video highlights their client participating in a program they call Project Soapbox.
Out of curiosity, I went to Google this morning and did a search on #GivingTuesday. Believe it or not, there are three paid ads featured at the top of my screen for the following agencies:

My magic crystal ball broke a long time ago, and I normally have a hard time predicting the future. However, it looks like #GivingTuesday, which is only a few years old, is starting to take root.
Of course, none of my favorite local charities appear to be participating this year. As I soaked this thought in, it got me wondering:

  • Is your agency participating in #GivingTuesday this year? If so, what do your efforts look like?
  • What strategies are you using to attract online donors?
  • Did you participate last year? If so, what did you learn and what changes did you make between last year and this year?
  • If you decided not to participate this year, why not? What went into making that decision for you?
  • If you are looking at next year as your first foray into #GivingTuesday, what do you need to do in order to get your agency well positioned?
  • Are you doing other things online at the end of the year that don’t correlate to #GivingTuesday?

Please scroll down and use the comment box to share your thoughts and experiences.
Here’s to your health! (And Happy #GivingTuesday)
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

Are your non-profit agency's social media posts relevant?

Fundraising, technology

Use social media to talk about your agency’s needs in a relevant way

By Rose Reinert
Guest blogger
rose1Last week I began this blog series by providing an overview of “What is Social Media” from the book “The Social Media Bible” by Lon Safko. In chapter 2, Safko starts to unfold terminology, tools and tactics for utilizing various social media tools.  So the big question remains . . . “What is in it for my organization?”
Yes, we understand that Social Media is a strong tool. It is a free tool we could use to engage current and prospective donors, clients, and community members. But how impactful is it really?
Think about how many commercials, brochures, ads, and other marketing you see each day. Better yet, how many different marketing pieces and messages does your own organization have? How many other non-profit organizations have similar messaging as yours? When was the last time you were asked to make a donation to a very worthy non-profit when checking out at an area store?
We are undoubtedly overwhelmed with messages that ultimately turn into noise.
Safko challenges a transformation of engagement through the following excerpt of “Sales Manifesto” by James Burnes:

“We need to transform the way we touch our clients, and integrate ourselves into the very fabric of what they do every day. . . . We need to tell our story in a way that doesn’t just interrupt our clients, but engages them and gives them a reason to pass it along. . . . We’re going to build a culture where communicating, engaging and embracing the feedback, positive and negative, make us a better organization.”

How inspiring!
feedbackI read this and imagine my organization with engaged donors engaged in open communication, positive feedback, while building a better organization. Ahhhh, nirvana, but wait . . . did he say negative feedback, too?
Ahhh yes. There is always a catch.
The thought of having someone post a negative comment or negative feedback on your organization’s social media page can be scary. However, Safko challenges us to push through that initial reaction and think of it as an “opportunity” when he says:

“We need to take advantage of a new approach to selling where we are problem solvers and the “go to” team for our prospects whenever a project arises that we contribute to. Everyone sells [product]. We have to be bigger than our [product]. We have to solve our client’s pain points.”

Although this seems more relative to for-profit businesses, it proposes several opportunities.

  1. Every non-profit “has needs”.  One of my mentors — Fred Paulke, who is the Vice President of Organizational & Executive Development  Services for Boys & Girls Clubs of America for the Midwest region — taught me much of what I know about resource development. For example, when talking about building an effective case for support, he would emphatically talk about how every non-profit has needs and needs money. For every need you have, there are a dozen other organizations that could line up with similar worthy needs. He would argue, the key is to demonstrate how you are meeting needs in the community. So, my question to you is “How are you demonstrating this to your prospective and current supporters via social media?“
  2. Being relevant matters.  Last week, I talked about how social media is like entering a networking event. You first find a group of people and begin listening to the conversation and then provide relevant input. With this in mind, we need to ask ourselves how can you use social media tools to be strategic about being relevant? If you work for a youth service agency, design your posts around topics like childhood obesity or education. If your organization is a health organization post healthy recipes, address changes to health care or exercise tips.

Safko recommends you keep your page 85% informative and resourceful for “Like”-ers and 15% about your business. This sounds like a good rule of thumb to me!
What are some ways you engage your “Like”-ers on Facebook? What are some connections you have made through strategic posts that relate to your mission? What breakdown does your organization’s page reflect in regards to information and posts about your business?
Please use the comment box below to answer some of these questions.
rose draft sig

How is technology changing your non-profit organization?

organizational development, technology

The School Bus Won’t Wait

By John Greco
Originally published on May 21, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog

Pensive Businessman Using LaptopDavid was a tenured college professor.  While an expert in his field, he knew very little about computers; just enough in fact to get on a network and ask for help.  Fortunately, a more experienced user came to his aid, never failing to give just the right advice.

One morning, when a vexing problem was plaguing him, his expert advisor who had been on-line with him for over an hour, said, “I’ve got to go.”  David pleaded with him, “You can’t leave me, we’ve almost found the solution.”

Across the electronic world came the next sentence:  “You don’t understand, my school bus won’t wait for me.” 

David thought for a moment, his curiosity mounting, “How old are you?” he asked.

“I’m twelve,” was the response on his screen, “and I’ll talk to you later.”

Source:  Community Building:  Renewing Spirit and Learning, Edited by Kazimierz Gozdz, (c) 1995.

A few short years ago, we couldn’t have even imagined such a scenario.  In the past, proximity and commonality brought us together.  We had family and close friends; help came from familiar places.

Today, help can come from anywhere, from anyone, at any time, on anything.  Help can come from the most unlikely people.  And from the most unlikely places.

A twelve year old across the globe can help a college professor.

There is great potential in the invisible network of an electronic community, no?   Technology is enabling us to connect like never before, opening up possibilities like never before.

We can pretty clearly see the upside for problem solving and innovation, speed and progress, quality and quantity of work.

But just think of the possibilities for changing our attitudes; our prejudices and biases; of slowly dissolving bigotry, and discrimination; and racism, sexism, ageism …

Even the possibilities for relationships!  Today, my son can play an online, real-time game with like-minded people from all across the world, and in so doing, develop a friendship with a girl a thousand miles away that has real meaning.

Gives new meaning to “the girl next door” doesn’t it?  She can now be here, there, anywhere!

I can imagine a lot, but I can’t imagine what life will be like 100 years from now.  You and I will never know.  Even my mom’s upcoming fourth great-grandchild may not know.

I wonder who my mom’s fourth great-grandchild will have as friends and family?  It certainly does suggest a different slant on “extended family” …

And I wonder who will be helping my mom’s fourth great-grandchild when she is an aging professional seeking help with the emerging technology of that time?

Technology.  Adapting to change.  And possibility.

As I age, and as technology advances, it is likely I will start falling behind.  It is already happening.  I have a cell phone that I only use to make telephone calls.  :-)

And I already see that I’m not adapting fast enough to keep pace with the innovations.  The technology school bus isn’t waiting for me!

But, as I age, I hope I can keep seeing the possibility.  I will likely need help with this.  I hope I can stay open-minded and aware enough to know that my mom’s fourth great-grandchild’s help will only be a click or two away.

Here’s hoping she can help me before she needs to leave for school!
john greco sig