philanthropy – Page 34 – The Healthy Non-Profit

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!

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

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.

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!

Non-profit organizations turn, turn, turn . . .

August 24, 2012 erik Board development, organizational development, Planning

Today, I am focusing on a post that John wrote that was inspired by a baby crib mobile. He uses the mobile as an analogy for organizational change and equilibrium. Throughout his post he references both major and minor changes in the corporate landscape and talks about how those cultures balance and re-balance.

As I dwell on this post, I think about a number of non-profits who I’ve had the honor of working with throughout the years:

There is the organization who employed one of the most talented fundraising professionals I ever knew, and they decided not to re-hire the position after his departure. Needless to say, their resource development efforts are struggling.
There is the agency whose most influential and engaging board volunteer resigned due to “burn out,” and they decided to not find ways to keep him engaged. Needless to say, he faded away and isn’t even a donor anymore.
There is an executive director who freaked out after the economic crash in 2008, decided to lay off his grant writer and assumed on all of those responsibilities in addition to his regular responsibilities. Needless to say, someone is feeling overwhelmed and burned out.

I think the baby crib mobile is such a great analogy for what non-profits deal with on a daily basis. In fact, I think it is even more appropriate for non-profit organizations than for-profit corporations. Why? Simply look at how much juggling the average organization does because of significantly limited resources. Consider how much more important a board of directors is to the functioning of a non-profit organization compared to a for-profit corporation. So, when one talented employee or influential board volunteer leaves, then everything feels off off-kilter and the struggle for equilibrium feels like a roller coaster ride.

Looking at a non-profit through this mobile lens, I see a chaotic, whirling dance of people that’s bobbing and dipping and threatening to crash and burn.

The difference between a non-profit organization crashing and burning versus re-balancing to find a new equilibrium is huge and highly dependent on their approach to managing change. To some extent, I also believe that organizational cultures that embrace planning at their core and actually implement and adhere to those plans (e.g. succession plan) during times of change are the most successful at re-balancing in a graceful manner.

Those organizations, who don’t have very much capacity and make poor decisions during tumultuous times, end up in crisis. Sure, balance is ultimately achieved, but at what price?

The bad news for these types of non-profits is that change is a constant in our world, and their baby crib mobile probably looks like the tangled and dysfunctional one that hung above my crib (because you know that I was the kid who could never leave anything well enough alone). 🙂

Looking back at the three examples that I described at the beginning of this post, I see a common thread . . . LEADERSHIP. I am talking about both board leadership as well as executive leadership. There is no doubt in my mind that the key to successfully keeping your organization from getting tangled and unbalanced is talented, engaged and committed leaders.

And isn’t that just the perfect cherry on top of the sundae when you look back of all of this week’s blog posts? Again, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Dani Robbins, for guest posting all week-long on board development and executive leadership. I am very happy that she will be contributing a board development post to DonorDreams blog every month.

After reading John’s blog post, I can’t get this song out of my head. So, I thought it would be appropriate to end this post with it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvf20Y6eoM]

How chaotic is your organizational mobile? Do you have a story about how your agency managed “change” really well? Please scroll down and share it with the rest of us in the comment section.

Here’s to your health!

I’m a non-profit board volunteer

August 22, 2012 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

Dani Robbins is the Founder & Principal Strategist at Non Profit Evolution located in Columbus, Ohio. I’ve invited my good friend and fellow nonprofit consultant to blog this week about board development related topics. She also agreed to join the DonorDreams team and contribute a board development post every month. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com. I hope you enjoy the genius musings of my friend for the next few days . . .

I’m presenting a workshop this summer called the “10 Dysfunctions of a Board”. As you might imagine, one of the top ten is what I have begun to think of as the “I’m a Volunteer” syndrome.

Perhaps you’ve had some version of this conversation with a member of your board. It sounds like this:

“Dani, I don’t have time for this; I’m a volunteer!”

And they are, but they are also a board member who agreed to do the work of the board. Now, agree may be a fuzzy verb to use because it’s possible they didn’t agree at all. It’s possible, all they were told is:

“We only need an hour a month of your time.”

If that’s the case (and it often is) shame on whoever told them that. Boards represent the community as the stewards of an organization. It is very difficult to steward anything well in one hour a month.

You will get the Board you build.

Now, this blog is not intended to knock the millions of dedicated and committed volunteers across this city and the county that serve their local non-profits with distinction. I applaud you, and I am grateful for your commitment! Thank you for your service to our community!

This blog post is not intended to knock anyone. I aspire to lay out a path of development, so that organizations can have the right people in leadership seats.

How do you do that? The best way I know to do that is to front-load it. Front-load is my 2012 word of the year. It means to be clear about things up front, so there is no confusion.

Front-loading board prospect appointments look like this:

“Thank you for your interest in serving on the Board of Directors.
We are delighted to have this opportunity to meet with you.
Our Board meets on the 1st Tuesday of the month at 8:30 am. Are you available at that time?
We anticipate Board service will take approximately 5 hours per month, (1.5 hours at the board meeting, 1.5 hours at a committee meeting, 2 hours working with the committee or the CEO to accomplish the work for the committee), but that could go up significantly should there be something of consequence to discuss or address.
Board members are expected to attend 75% of Board meetings, serve on at least one committee, attend agency events, act as an ambassador in the community, introduce us to your circle of influence, give a “significant to you” financial gift, and help us to secure an additional gifts from your circle of influence and, as appropriate, your company.
Is this something to which you can commit?”

If they say yes, Great! Though we’re still not finished.

Their candidacy still needs to be vetted by the Board Development committee. If they are recommended, nominated and approved, then they also need to be oriented. I like to orient board members after their election yet before their first meeting. That way, they can still opt out once they understand the full scope of the expectations and the role of the Board.

After their orientation, individual board volunteers, and the boards upon which they serve, should be evaluated annually. This can be as simple as taking your board expectations document and turning it into a 1-5 self rating form. It can also be as complicated as tracking all gifts, training, participation and meeting attendance and asking the Board Development or Executive Committee to evaluate each member individually.

The important thing is that you are intentional about your needs and clear about your expectations. If you are, then people will rise to the occasion, or they will defer because they can’t. Both will work toward your goals of building a strong board of directors that understands their role and works collectively to serve the agency and the community.

As always, I welcome your comments, and your experience.

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!

What’s in your mailbox? Part 1

August 14, 2012 erik Fundraising

I oftentimes get asked about direct mail as a fundraising vehicle by non-profit friends. My typical response is that direct mail is both an art and a science. I point them to experts like Mal Warwick and Tom Ahern, but they are always surprised when I point them to their own mailbox.

I have always said that 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). It is with this in mind that I’ve decided to focus this week’s blog posts on my personal mailbox.

As you can imagine, I get a lot of fundraising appeals — local non-profits, national charities, advocacy groups, and politicians. Today, we’re taking a closer look at my new BFF — Michelle Obama — who can’t seem to stop sending me mail.

Let’s open one of the three letters that my household recently received and see what we have:

It is a three page letter written on double-sided paper that looks like Michelle’s personal stationary (which it obviously isn’t).

I read the salutation first. “Dear Mr. Anderson”. I immediately frown and think to myself “why is she calling ‘mister’ when I am younger than her .” Nevertheless, I trudge on and keep reading.

I read the first paragraph. It is two sentences long and doesn’t capture my attention. It says something about doctor bills and mortgages and blah blah blah.

So, I start skimming and notice that she uses my name a lot throughout the body of letter. Here are a few examples:

“Erik, I’m writing to ask you to . . .”
“Erik, that is why he is challenging us to think . . .”
“Erik, that is what’s at stake in 2012.”
“And Erik, we’re also counting on you to . . .”

I also notice that there is a lot of emotion and values language laced throughout the letter. The following are just a few of the words and phrases that catch my attention as I skim:

persevere
struggles
fundamental American promise
my brother’s keeper
sustained by the relationships we build

Phew . . . that was a lot of skimming. In approximately three to five seconds, as I worked my way from the salutation to the signature, I was able to pick out those key words and phrases. I now see that Michelle (or should I say “Mrs. Obama” since we obviously have a formal relationship) has signed the letter.

Yes, it was a machine signature, but it isn’t a script font. It really looks like a signature. Thank goodness for autopen machine technology because nothing kills a nice, warm, emotional letter like a script font signature.

Just when I’m done and ready to shred the letter, Ron Popeil screams out from the bottom of the letter, “But wait, there’s more!”

That’s right. There is a postscript, and I find myself reading the whole thing. It contains two short paragraphs, and the sentences are super short. The verbiage is very emotional, and it is hard not get drawn in. Here is exactly what it said:

P.S. I’m not going to kid you. This journey is going to be long. And it’s going to be hard. But the truth is, that’s how change always happens in this country. We know in our hearts that if we keep fighting the good fight, doing what we know is right, then we eventually get there. Because we always do.

As Barack has said many times, “Ordinary people can do extraordinary things. That’s what our campaign is all about. Now the obstacles are even taller and the stakes are even higher — which is exactly why Barack and I need you more than ever. Thank you.

Sigh … the hook is set, and I turn back to page one. I start reading and stop skimming.

While there is a lot more to learn about direct mail (and we will talk about some of it over the next few days), we did learn the following valuable lessons from reading just one professionally written direct mail fundraising appeal:

Many people skim direct mail.
The first thing people read and pass judgement on is the salutation (isn’t that right, Mrs. Obama?)
People will pick-up key words and phrases as they quickly work their way from salutation to signature.
Good letters appear are very personal, emotional and focused on action and engagement. They are written in a first person voice, and passive voice language is avoided.
A signature (even if scanned) is always better than a script font, but a real signature is the icing on the cake for any personal letter.
The postscript can be the key to the entire letter. Everyone seems to read it, and a good one sucks the reader back in and can send them back to the beginning.

Tune in again tomorrow and we’ll do something similar with another piece of mail. In the meantime, I encourage you to go to your mailbox and go through this same exercise. In no time, you will feel much better about what you’re trying to do with your non-profit organization’s direct mail program.

How do you read junk mail . . . errrr, I mean . . . direct mail? Does your agency have a direct mail program? What does it look like? What have been your successes? What are your challenges? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and questions.

Here’s to your health!