stewardship – Page 12 – The Healthy Non-Profit

Marketing does not equal resource development, usually

April 10, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising

A very good friend of mine from Ohio emailed me last week and said that her soap box topic for the month of March for any non-profit who would listen was: “marketing is not resource development“. Oddly enough, I too spent the month of March telling many people the exact same thing. So, this morning I decided to climb to the top of my online soap box and yell as loudly as possible that “Marketing does not equal resource development, usually“.

First, let me address the issue of why I used the word “usually”. Simply stated in two words . . . “Cause-related Marketing”.

For those of you who are still wrestling with what cause-related marketing is all about, I point you in Joanne Fritz’s direction. She has written a number blog posts on the subject including “Five Best Cause Marketing Programs For Local Nonprofits“. In this instance, cause-related marketing is a solicitation tool and can become a part of a non-profit organization’s comprehensive resource development plan.

So, what exactly is “resource development”?

Without looking up definitions in a Fundraising 101 textbook, I’ve always thought of resource development as a big machine with a number of cogs that work together. Those cogs have the following names:

Prospect identification
Prospect introduction
Prospect cultivation
Prospect solicitation
Donor stewardship

In recent months, I have come across a number of non-profit organizations (esp. board volunteers), who believe that their agency simply needs to invest in more marketing to solve their revenue problems. The implication is that there is a direct relationship between dollars coming in and the agency’s visibility.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not “hating” on marketing people today. In fact, I love the marketing profession and spent three years working as a newspaper journalist. I love my marketing friends; however, I really want them to stop telling my non-profit friends that they have the cure for their revenue ills.

Yes . . . yes . . . yes . . . It is true that better marketing will improve an agency’s visibility in the community, which can impact resource development activities like identification, cultivation, and stewardship. It is also true that in some instances like “cause-related marketing” that marketing becomes a solicitation tool. However, in the end, the reality is still:

Marketing ≠ Resource Development

Let me share a few examples of how marketing professionals and fundraising professions look at the same resource development issues and think differently:

Example #1: How to improve your existing annual campaign?

Marketing professional — give the donor something they really value (like a really nice premium gift). This will change the ROI calculation and result in more donors and increased dollars raised.

Fundraising professional — revise the agency’s case for support, provide better training and support to volunteer solicitors, recruit more solicitors to make more asks . . . these things collectively will allow for a higher quality solicitation as well as more solicitations all of which will result in increased dollars raised.

Do you see the difference in approach?

Example #2: How to engage more prospects?

Marketing professional — purchase advertising (or secure it for free using a public service announcement strategy) in local newspapers, radio and cable television. Tell people about your agency and those who are interested will opt-in using a telephone number, email or website address provided in the ad.

Fundraising professional — engage board members, volunteers, and existing donors in helping you identify their friends who share a common passion for your organization’s mission. Once those prospects are identified, ask those same volunteers and donors to invite their friends to participate in mission-focused activities like an open house, reception, event or cup of coffee with the executive director.

Do you see the different in approaches?

In the for-profit world, those corporations sell “things” (e.g. widgets), and those products are valued by consumers. So, when someone sees a marketing pitch around something they want, then it triggers this impulse to purchase. In my humble opinion, this is not the same dynamic at play when it comes to donors who make charitable contributions to non-profit organizations.

This is not to say that an impactful marketing program isn’t important because it surely is. However, I really want board volunteers to stop pinning their hopes of increased revenue solely on marketing efforts because:

“hope” is NOT a strategy, and
there is no substitute for board members and fundraising volunteers participating in a comprehensive resource development program.

I understand that sitting down and asking people for money can be scary, but it is the only thing in the universe that has ever worked. So, let’s stop “hoping” and looking for ways around it, and let’s start building a resource development machine that is supported by an effective marketing program.

So, do you disagree with me? I know there are tons of people out there who do. If so, please scroll down and share your thoughts using the comment box. Do you agree with me? If so, please scroll down and use the comment box to provide additional examples of how marketing professionals and fundraising professionals approach similar resource development questions from different angles.

We can all learn from each other. I am open-minded and willing to consider other viewpoints.

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

Saying “Thank You” in a Donor-Centered Manner

April 4, 2012 DonorDreams Donor-centered fundraising, Fundraising

Penelope Burk, CEO of Cygnus Applied Research, has done a lot of research into what it means to be donor-centered. She knows what motivates donors, and she know what troubles donors. If you haven’t purchased and read her book — “Donor Centered Fundraising” — then you don’t know what you’re missing. I’ve read her book a number of times and walk away from each experience learning something new.

On page 46 of Burk’s book, she reports the following about what her data says about prompt donor recognition:

“Prompt gift acknowledgement influences 44 percent of study donors’ future giving decisions. 38 percent of study donors receive a thank you letter within two weeks; 54 percent within a month; 8 percent within two months.”

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that it is one thing to “academically” understand this concept and a completely different thing to “emotionally” understand it.

Without getting into embarrassing details, I recently made a $1,000 contribution to a non-profit organization. Not only did I get the acknowledgement letter three weeks later, but the letter wasn’t personalized nor did it contain the right information.

Adding insult to injury, this non-profit organization sent me another solicitation within a week.

Truth-be-told . . . I still like this organization. Their mission is awesome and very necessary. I might even go to the event to which they just invited me. However, nothing they are doing can be considered “donor-centered”. The consequence, of course, will likely be falling donor loyalty rates.

So, what is the solution?

Make it a policy of your organization to produce a mail a gift acknowledgement letter within 24 hours of receiving a pledge or contribution of any size. After the board adopts a set of written fundraising policies, they need to hold the executive director accountable for implementation. Remember, that which gets measured, gets done!

All of this policy talk got me thinking about my experiences with organizations and their written resource development policies. In all honesty, I have not seen any written resource development policies recently. Sure, I’ve seen document destruction policies . . . whistleblower protection policies . . . financial controls policies . . . conflict of interest policies . . . BUT no written resource development policies.

As recent as last week, I’ve been asking everyone who will listen if they could send me a copy of their agency’s donor database policy and procedures manual. Yep, you guessed it. Everyone talked a great game, but I only received one sample (kinda).

Why is it that many of us take every other policy challenge that is thrown out way seriously, but seem to cut corners when it comes to resource development policies?

Rolling up our sleeves and engaging fundraising volunteers, board members, and donors in writing resource development policies provides us an opportunity to align our fundraising practices (e.g. gift acknowledgement letters) with donor-centered practices. In turn this activity might help improve our donor loyalty rates.

Click here for some stand alone policies pertaining to resource development.

When is the last time your organization reviewed and revised its fundraising policies? Where are those written policies captured (e.g. SOP manual? RD Plan? Stand along policy documents?) Who did you engage in revising your policies the last time you undertook this task? Please scroll down and use the comment box to answer some of these questions or weigh-in with your opinion.

Here’s to your health!

Should “We the People” be allowed to place failing non-profit agencies into financial receivership?

April 3, 2012 DonorDreams leadership

After dropping my partner off at O’Hare airport this morning, I drove back home listening to NPR’s “Morning Edition” when a story about the State of Michigan came on the radio. In a nutshell, Michigan has a law on the books that allows the state to “takeover” local municipalities who are failing and drowning in a sea of debt. This law gives the Governor the authority to appoint an “emergency manager” whose authority supersedes all elected officials in that community including the duly elected mayor and city council members. Of course, all of this is in the news because the City of Detroit is potentially the next target for takeover.

Many of you are probably wondering by now: “What does any of this have to do with non-profit organizations, donors, boards of directors and fundraising, which is what I typically write about every day?”

While listening to the pros and cons of this controversial law, I found my mind wandering back to non-profits and wondering “How would I feel about this if the story was about a failing non-profit agency instead of a failing local municipality?”

I think this is an interesting question. I even nibbled around the edges of this topic when I posted a blog titled: “Can a non-profit board contract out its management to a for-profit company?” back in September 2011.

Consider the following:

There are times when non-profit boards are ill-equipped to deal with financial crisis and end up making poor decisions in the board room that dig them deeper into debt.
Sometimes non-profit agencies hire executive directors who don’t possess the necessary skill sets to navigate the organization through such a financial crisis.
Non-profit organizations exist to provide services to people much like municipalities exist to provide services to citizens. So, a failure of the agency (as with the failure of a local government) impacts hundreds or thousands of people. Why should a failure of leadership on a few people’s part impact so many other innocent people who desperately rely upon the services provided (regardless of whether it is after-school programming or police/fire protection)?

I suspect that I have some people’s attention now. 😉 And some of you are now asking: “How could this Michigan law be adapted to a non-profit setting?” Well, what if the state passed a law that said any non-profit agency that runs a budget deficit for three years in a row must enter into a financial receivership arrangement with a third-party entity whose charge would be twofold: 1) restore liquidity and 2) minimize loss of services to clients.

Crazy idea? I am not sure. This is what the State of Michigan is doing with its failing municipalities. Why is this a good approach in Michigan and not a good approach for the non-profit sector?

Yes, I am being a bit of a “pot stirrer” today. But seriously . . . I think this is a topic worth talking about. Don’t you? After all, there are too many non-profit organizations who are on the verge of insolvency today, which means there are millions of American who rely on those services that could be adversely affected.

In the end, I suspect this boils down to a question about “freedom”. Right?

Do individuals have the right to fail in America even when that failure can adversely affect countless others? Or are we all our brother’s keeper and does it take a village to raise a child?

Hmmmmm . . . I hate it when NPR challenges my core beliefs like that. LOL Because before that story ran about Detroit, I would’ve told you that I didn’t think a Governor should be allowed to “takeover” a local municipality and override the will of the people when it comes to electing their neighbors to manage their community’s affairs.

After looking at multiple sides of the issue and applying it to other examples, I now think this issue is bigger and more complex than I originally thought.

What are your thoughts about whether or not failing non-profit organizations should be forced into financial receivership? Does your agency have the “right to fail” and end up affecting countless others who rely on you for service?

Please scroll down and use the comment box to weigh-in with your opinion.

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson

Owner, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC

eanderson847@gmail.com

http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847

http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847

http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Gift acknowledgement letters, quid pro quo and the IRS

March 27, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising

I cannot count the number of times that I’ve attended a non-profit organization’s special event fundraiser and walked away with a gift acknowledgement letter that was not compliant with “IRS Publication 1771, Charitable Contributions–Substantiation and Disclosure Requirements”.

Rather than use the language of accountants and tax professionals to explain, I’ll let the following hypothetically example speak for itself.

My first contribution to “Agency X” is the purchase of two dinner tickets for what I am hoping will be the best rubber chicken of my life. My out-of-pocket expenses to get in the room is $120.
When I show up, I am assaulted by happy volunteers selling 50-50 raffle tickets. My out-of-pocket expenses to get these intensely happy people who are blocking my path to the bar is $20.
With a nice glass of wine in my hand, I am finally able to mingle with old friends, but I end distracted by all of the shiny objects in the silent auction. <<Sigh>> At the end of the evening, I discover that “Agency X” is deeper into my wallet for another $250 in out-of-pocket expenses.
The final blow came many glasses of wine into the evening during the live auction (ahhhh, of course it is always the booze and the live auction that sinks most donors). Those Opening Day Chicago Cubs tickets had my name written all of them and only cost $1,000.

So, the next morning usually comes with a hangover and regret (even though “Agency X” is an amazing charity and you’re always happy to have supported their awesome mission). A few days later in the mail comes a gift acknowledgement letter. It tells me how wonderful I am and contains some nice “return on investment” and stewardship verbiage. Ahhhh, gotta love that warm fuzzy feeling.

You’re probably wondering “What’s wrong with all that?”

Well, the gift acknowledgement letter thanked me for my charitable contribution of $1,390.

Sure, if you do the math $120 + $20 + $250 + $1,000 does add up to $1,390, but this was not size of my “charitable contribution” according to the Internal Revenue Service, and now I need to take time out of my busy day to chase down the executive director or fundraising professional at “Agency X” for a correct letter. To help clarify the math, here is exactly what the IRS has to say on the subject:

“A donor may only take a contribution deduction to the extent that his/her contribution exceeds the fair market value of the goods or services the donor receives in return for the contribution; therefore, donors need to know the value of the goods or services.”

Let’s circle back and do the math one more time:

The event tickets cost $120, but the food I received in exchange for the ticket purchase was valued at $20 per plate. So, $120 minus $40 means that the charitable contribution only amounted to $80.
The $20 in raffle tickets got me four chances at a cash prize. The “value” I received for those chances was twenty bucks. So, $20 minus $20 means that I didn’t make a charitable contribution in the eyes of the IRS.
The silent auction was a huge benefit to me because I got some amazing bargains. Woo Hoo! Move over Wal-Mart! So, I might have spent $250, but the items I won totaled $500 in value. So, $250 minus $500 means that I didn’t make a charitable contribution in the eyes of the IRS.
And last but certainly not least, there was the booze fueled live auction. The bad news . . . it was $1,000. The good news . . . I finally got something to write off on my taxes. Opening Day tickets to see another woeful season of the Chicago Cubs are valued at $500 (of course, White Sox fans would argue that they are worth nothing). So, $1,000 minus $500 means that I can deduct $500 from my taxes next year.

The IRS tells us that it is legitimate to acknowledge my overall gift of $1,390 as long as somewhere (usually at the bottom of the letter in a footnote) there is language that explains that the fair market value of the items I purchased was $810 and only $580 of my $1,390 contribution is tax-deductible.

In my experience as a donor, this rarely happens and I end up wasting my time chasing after a new gift acknowledgement letter. The harm to “Agency X” is twofold:

It is counterproductive to annoy the donor. This is not good stewardship and doesn’t help “Agency X” in its efforts to secure the next contribution from me.
It can result in fines to “Agency X” if the IRS ever found out.

What is the potential penalty? Here is what the code says:

“A penalty is imposed on charities that do not meet the written disclosure requirement. The penalty is $10 per contribution, not to exceed $5,000 per fundraising event or mailing.”

If you want to learn more, Joanne Fritz at about.com does a nice job explaining it. You can also click here to get it directly from the IRS.

Note: “Agency X” does not exist. I am not calling out any one particular non-profit organization in my philanthropy portfolio. The aforementioned examples are a “compilation” of things I’ve purchased over the last 10 years. Please don’t add me to you special event mailing list. 🙂

Please scroll down and use the comment box below to share the “boilerplate language” that your agency uses at the bottom of its special event gift acknowledgement letters. Please trust me that 30 seconds of your time will benefit countless smaller non-profit agencies. If I had a nickel for every time I was asked for sample boilerplate language, I’d be rich! We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Does your non-profit cell phone policy and apps violate clients’ privacy?

March 19, 2012 DonorDreams Mondays with Marissa, technology

Apps. There’s a ton of them. Need to track your most recent run? There’s an app for that. Want to keep track of your expenses? There’s an app for that. Need to go to the bathroom in the middle of the a movie and don’t want to miss out on any of the action? There’s an app for that.

We all know there are plenty of smart phone apps out there, but do we really understand what they do once they are downloaded onto your phone?

This past week, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Yelp and fourteen other social media sites were listed in a lawsuit for distributing “privacy-invading” applications. According to a PC World article, these applications are accused of collecting user address book data and storing it on their servers without the user knowing.

This issue is at the top of many minds in the technology field as just last month, the popular social network Path issued a public apology after it was discovered the company used address book data to notify users when their friends had joined the network.

So what does this mean for your non-profit agency? Well, not much if your agency doesn’t allow staff members to use data based applications on their phones. I am guessing though, that nowadays that is a rarity.

When I read stories like this, I often think of non-profit organizations that deal with HIPAA on a daily basis. Many of the employees may have access to company smart phones that allow employees to check in on email while away from the office. Or what if the agency doesn’t supply cell phones and staff members use their personal cell phones to update the organization’s Facebook page?

Phones are so smart these days that . . .

information from the email the staff person replied to,
the new Facebook friend that was just confirmed, and
the phone call that was just made

might be added to the phone’s address book and sent to third-party servers without the user even being aware.

In the case of the HIPAA abiding non-profit (and even those who wish to protect board member and donor information), there could be a violation without anyone’s knowledge.

Even if your agency doesn’t need to protect the identity of their clients, do you really want address book information being shared without your knowledge? These days, with security breaches more rampant, you can’t take privacy seriously enough.

So what can we do?

Decide if your organization really needs to use cell phones. Yes, it is nice for staff members, but is it necessary? Can you get by without them? A radical idea, but it just might be the right one.

If you decide that cell phones are needed, consider providing them only for “necessary staff” instead of allowing staff to use their personal phones. I know this costs money, however; it ensures more control over the use of the phone on behalf of the agency.

Also, consider what type of phone is needed. Does the user really need all of the bells and whistles of an iPhone or can she be as productive with an older generation Android device?

In addition, regardless if phones are being provided by the agency or not; a clear and strict technology policy must be in place and understood by all employees.

If staff members are provided smart phones, what applications can they use? If it is decided that apps can be downloaded to agency phones, then make sure the person overseeing the policy reads up on the privacy policies of the allowed apps. Most of them can be found online in either the iTunes App Store or Google Play Store. Keep in mind that these policies can change.

Audit your agency’s technology. If your organization currently allows staff members to use their personal phones, there is not much you can do other than make them aware of the issue of apps and how they can compromise your clients’ privacy. However, on phones provided by your agency, see if any of these applications are already downloaded and check out their settings to see if any sharing options can be turned off. When in doubt, hard reset the phone and start all over.

I will be the first to admit that managing the technology of business is not easy. And these privacy concerns do not make it any easier. However, until applications stop sharing information, taking the time to address these issues now could mean avoiding a sticky legal situations later.

I’d love to hear how your organization manages cell phone usage for staff members. Do privacy issues concern you? Let’s continue this discussion in the comment section below!

Planning can be scary so don’t do it alone . . . invite your donors to help!

March 13, 2012 DonorDreams Donor-centered fundraising, nonprofit, organizational development, Planning

There are those of us who like to make plans in the dark and by ourselves. I suspect some people like to do it that way because the act of planning is revolutionary and involves tackling the scary monster that most people recognize as “CHANGE“.

And doesn’t change involve “death”?

Ahhhh, I bet that got your attention. I suspect many of you are scratching your head over that logical leap, but is it really that big of a leap? Consider the following quote from Anatole France that I found online at BrainyQuote:

“All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another.”

So, if planning equals change and change equals death, then through mathematical transitive properties . . . planning also equals death.

I know some of you are there with me on this ethereal point and others of you are still shaking your head. Regardless, let’s all agree that planning equals change, and both planning and change are scary propositions for some people. Keeping this in mind, let’s circle back to the question begging to be asked:

Who should you invite to the planning table?

While some people are very cautious and want to control the process and outcomes, I don’t subscribe to that paradigm. I am a firm believer that those people who are involved in planning are the people who you most need to roll up their sleeves once the planning process concludes.

So, if you like to be the Lone Ranger and have time to single-handedly implement (and fund) your nonprofit organization’s strategic plan (or marketing plan or resource development plan or any other kind of plan), then I encourage you to lock yourself in a closet and start writing that plan. However, if you want others to roll up their sleeves and open their wallets, then the answer to this question is that you need to find ways to involve all stakeholders including: board, staff, clients, volunteers, community supporters, donors, collaborative partners, etc.

This does not mean throwing caution to the wind and working in total transparency for the entire world to watch, worry and fret over. After all, there are times when revolutionary ideas are aired and debated during the planning process. For example, imagine how uncomfortable it might be for an organization to examine the merits of totally changing its mission in front of an audience of donors who have fallen in love with and funded the current mission.

Does this mean donors should be cut out of the planning process? Nope! However, getting the right donors involved does require great thought and care. Asking a trusted donor and friend of the agency to serve on the planning committee means creating ground rules and setting expectations upfront.

Does this mean donors should be ignored until the plan is ready to be unveiled? Definitely NOT! While focus groups and surveys are great ways to secure donors’ feelings and opinions during the planning process assessment phase, it needs to be done thoughtfully. Asking donors to share their thoughts means giving consideration to what they actually have to say regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Are there risks? Yes, of course, there are, but you can do this!

Don’t take my word for it. I found this great Do-It-Yourself resource guide on strategic planning for those of you who prefer a more traditional planning model. Click here to read more about “Step One: Who Should Be Involved?”

If you didn’t like the first quote about change from Anatole France, then try this BrainyQuote from Robert Gallagher on for size:

“Change is inevitable – except from a vending machine.”

What have been your experieneces with involving donors in strategic planning (or any planning for that matter)? Did you experience difficulties? If so, how did you handle it? If you haven’t included donors in any of your planning processes, then what is holding you back and what needs to happen to help you feel better about doing so?

Here’s to your health!

Cookies, honor and Rush Limbaugh

March 8, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising

I trust that most of you are up-to-speed on the controversy swirling around Rush Limbaugh and his recent comments about feminism, contraception, and prostitution. If not, I encourage you to Google it because I won’t waste another inch of space talking about it here on this blog. However, I will spend a little time this morning talking about what every non-profit organization in America needs to walk away from this news story learning.

Last night I was watching some “opinion-based programming” on one of those alleged cable news stations. When the Rush Limbaugh story aired, I started looking for the remote control to change the channel, but I changed my mind when I saw a graphic showing all of the sponsors who recently pulled their support over this controversy and one of those sponsors was the Girl Scouts.

I must admit that my first reaction was “WTF” . . . why were the Girl Scouts paying Rush Limbaugh to air cookie commercials? My second reaction was “I need to re-think my support of this organization”.

Your brand is important, and it represents something. In the case of the Girl Scouts, this is what their brand represents to me:

empowering young girls to believe they can do anything they put their minds to doing,
positive self-image and self-esteem,
feminism,
equality,
non-discrimination.

In my community, the Girls Scouts were one of the first youth development agencies to develop a nondiscrimination policy banning discrimination against kids and adult leaders based on their sexual orientation. Nationally, the Girls Scouts took the word “God” out of their pledge and made it optional for kids to say because they didn’t want to discriminate against girls who didn’t believe in God.

It was these issues that helped me form the aforementioned conclusions about the Girl Scout brand.

In a matter of just a few minutes last night, one news story called everything I believed about them into question.

The lessons that every non-profit organization needs to take away from this example is:

Your brand is important and it defines you.
Each of your donors holds a mental image of what you stand for in their mind.
When a donor sees something that doesn’t match up with their image of you, it can have devastating effects.
Everything you do provides an opportunity for the community and your donors to see your brand at work.

In the case fo the Girl Scouts, they made a mistake. They purchased radio ads and didn’t realize that some of their ads would air during “opinion-based programming” like The Rush Limbaugh Show. Ooooops!

However, your brand is also at risk every time you take your clients out in public. I once talked to a donor who saw his favorite charity at a Chicago Cubs game. As you can imagine, some of that non-profit’s clients were misbehaving and the donor openly questioned whether or not his contribution was having any impact.

Your brand is also at risk if your facilities or vehicles are poorly maintained. Both of these things are a direct reflection on who you are and what you stand for. Driving clients around town in a van or bus that doesn’t look safe tells donors that you either don’t value safety or don’t allocate their contributions wisely.

We all make mistakes, and the Girl Scout council in Portland, Oregon made a mistake that landed their national brand in a national news story. It can happen to you, and it can happen even if you are very careful. The best suggestion I have to offer is to make sure your agency operates with a written crisis management plan. If you are looking for a good resource to guide your efforts, the Colorado Nonprofit Association offers a nice white paper and template that you can access by clicking here.

Has your agency ever found itself in a similar situation as the Girl Scouts? If so, how did you handle it? Do you have a crisis management plan in place? If so, what does it look like and how often does the board of directors review it? Please use the comment box below to share your experiences and thoughts.

Here’s to your health!

What do you do when your donor has “Gone Fishing”?

March 7, 2012 DonorDreams Donor-centered fundraising, Fundraising

About a week ago, I ran out to California to visit an old and very dear friend. His name is Denny, and we met two decades ago while running Boy Scouts camps.

As I have done on a number of previous vacations including this one, I’ve continued to blog. However, today is my last day in California. It is a travel day, and I am not feeling especially well. So, when I opened this window this morning, I decided to “mail it in” for the first time ever and just post something that says “Gone Fishing”.

As I started to do exactly that, a thought rocketed through my head:

What do you do when your donor has “Gone Fishing”?

When you run a donor-centered fundraising program based on deep and meaningful relationships, it isn’t uncommon to know when your key supporters leave town.

So, if you consider yourself a truly donor-centered fundraiser, what do you do when your donor comes home? Here are a few ideas from a sick, road weary traveler:

Send them a card or an email that just says “welcome home” and “we missed you”.
Pick-up the phone, welcome them home, and ask how things went.
Invite them out for a cup of coffee and ask them to share the highlights of their trip.
Investigate the possibility of incorporating them into your programming (e.g. ask them to share pictures from the vacation via slide show with your clients, etc)
Invite them out for coffee and update them on what occurred while they were gone.

If this sounds a bit unusual to you, then please ask yourself what you’d do when a friend or family member comes back from an out-of-town trip. Wouldn’t you call them? Wouldn’t you totally want to see the pictures?

Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences. Now, if you’d please excuse me, I took a shot of NyQuil, and I’m going to go take a nap as I wait for my airplane.

Here’s to your health!

Asking donors for advice? Buckle up!

March 6, 2012 DonorDreams Donor-centered fundraising, Fundraising

I have a number of different bloggers who I really enjoy reading. One of those “favs” is Gail Perry who writes “Fired-Up Fundraising”. Last week, I received an email notice from Gail announcing that she published a blog post titled: “5 Insanely Successful Ideas for Getting in the Door to See Your Prospect“.

I just love her advice, and I suggest you click over and read her tips, too. While there isn’t anything there that you haven’t practiced, it really is great to see all of this written in one place.

However, Gail’s second tip — “Advice visit” — stopped me in my tracks.

The gist of this tip is:

Pick-up the phone
Ask the donor if you can have some time because you’d like to secure some “advice”
Set the appointment

I totally agree with Gail that this is a great way to get some “face time” with your donors. There is nothing more flattering than getting asked your opinion. Right?

So, where is the catch?

In my experience, I’ve found that asking for a donor’s opinion goes beyond just asking their opinion. It includes acting upon that advice or being able to explain why that advice was not acted upon.

Don’t believe me?

Imagine a situation where you ask a donor to help evaluate a special event. They offer some advice that just doesn’t align with your vision for the event, and you decided to ignore the suggestion. However, the donor is very excited about being asked their opinion and can’t seem let go of it.

What do you do?

This might cause some fundraising professionals to take a pass on asking donors for advice; however, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Here are a few suggestions for those of you wanting to engage donors by using the “Ask Advice” tactic:

Be genuine at all times.
If the advice isn’t what you expect, share your thoughts in a respectful manner.
If the ideas shared are complicated or seemingly unrealistic, ask them to help you explore their suggestions. You might be surprised. Or the donor might just learn more about your agency.
Always circle back with the donor and share with them what happened (or didn’t happen) as a result of their advice.
If their advice isn’t used, be able to explain why not.

Do you remember the last time your opinion was asked for and it wasn’t used? If so, I suggest you keep that memory close to your heart before employing this donor engagement tactic. It will serve as a great compass that should keep you on the path to success.

Have you ever found yourself in this situation? How did you handle it? Please use the comment box below and share your experiences. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Five things nonprofits should know about Facebook’s Timeline layout

March 5, 2012 DonorDreams Mondays with Marissa, technology

Facebook. What started out as a way for college students to find out more about their friends, has turned into one of the most powerful social media sites ever.

This week, Facebook introduced some new tools for managing your agency’s Facebook page. Let’s take a look at 5 things you need to know about “Timeline for Pages“:

1. Choose a powerful Cover Image. The new Timeline layout allows organizations to highlight their mission through a captivating photo at the top of the page. You will still have a profile photo that will be seen elsewhere on the site, but now the cover photo is a way to feature your latest event or mission in action. You can even create cover photos that supporters can download and use as their own cover photo on their personal Facebook page.

2. Tell Your Story. Facebook allows you to now fill in important dates in the history of your organization by using the new “milestones” update. This is a great way to expand your “about” section and bring it into the Timeline. Consider sharing when your organization was founded, when it reached a great fundraising goal, when your agency won an award, etc. Another approach might be to share important milestones in the history of your mission. For example, if there was important legislation passed that the impacted your organization, this could be noted on your timeline.

3. Messages. Facebook users can now message you directly. The person does not need to “like” your page to be able to communicate with you behind the Facebook timeline. This is important to note because it is yet another place for a staff member to check regularly.

4. Goodbye landing pages. In the past, users used to be able to set up a static page that would welcome users to their page. This page would disappear if the user “liked” the page giving further access to content. With the new timeline layout, this is no longer possible. Facebook is turning the focus to direct contact with users, so content needs to be engaging in order to entice a first time visitor to your page.

5. Pinning is not just for pinterest. With each story you post onto your timeline, you have the option to highlight it “above the fold” on your page. Click the pencil icon that appears when you hover over the top right-hand corner of a story. Doing so brings up a box where you can choose to pin your story to the top. This is different from highlighting a story which stretches the story across the entire page.

These are just a few of the changes that will occur with your agency’s Facebook page once the conversion over to “Timeline” is complete. As of March 30th, all Facebook pages will be transitioned to timeline. If you want to preview how your page will look after the conversation, click the notice at the top of your Facebook page when you log in. You can preview the page until March 30th or until you publish it to the public.

Along with the layout changes, Facebook is making changes to the marketing side of your agency’s page as well. You can read up on those changes in this TechCrunch Article.

The new Timeline feature changes the focus of yoru Facebook page to sharing stories. How are you planning to tell the story of your non-profit organization using Facebook’s new tools? Let’s brainstorm in the comments below!