Major gifts fundraising isn’t normal

Tweet

Those who have been involved in major gifts solicitations and have spent years trying to get inside the head and heart of a single donor in the hopes of securing that elusive impact gift will agree with the headline. Likewise, major givers who have endured countless presentations for projects in which they have no interest and asking for amounts that are patently absurd, may also agree. But that’s not the “not normal” I’m referring to.

I’ve been giving a lot of thought to Major Gifts lately. No, my Powerball number hasn’t come up but I am co-authoring a book based on interviews with many of Canada’s top philanthropists. I’ve been considering how I can use what I’ve learned to help fundraising organizations. The yardstick I often use in approaching challenges in nonprofit organizations is what’s the equivalent for-profit situation and what would the ideal business response be.

I was trying to think of a business that offers products or services that range in price from $10 to $10 million. I couldn’t come up with one. And yet, that’s exactly what a hospital or college foundation is doing. They are selling opportunities that range from two digits to those that often exceed seven digits. Even if your organization’s definition of major giving is 5 digits, that’s still an incredible spread. I suspect that if you proposed a business venture with those parameters to your local bank, you’d be given a lecture about how a $10 sale requires a very different approach than one that is worth tens of thousands or millions.

And yet fundraising organizations have no choice but to do that which would be scoffed upon in the business world – and that’s why I say that major gifts fundraising isn’t normal. So, what’s a fundraising organization to do?

Be honest about the challenge. The for-profit world understands that a large ticket item requires a very different sales approach and so should you. Major gifts fundraising is, in may ways, its own discipline. It requires distinct knowledge and dedicated resources. If you’re going to be successful at it, you have to make the investment in time and people.

Resist the temptation. News of a philanthropist’s record-setting gift to a local organization is like the lure of a lottery ticket. “If she can give that organization $1 million, then maybe she will give mine $100,000.” You likely know nothing about that donor’s interests and have no relationship with her, but that doesn’t stop many organizations from thinking that they are going to secure that donor’s support. The reality is it's not going to happen. So, save yourself the time and the heartache and mine your current donor base. Maybe, the rule of tens (for every ten donors at one level, there is one donor who has the ability to add a zero to their gift) will work for you.

Be true to your organization. I mean this in two ways. First, define a major gift according to your needs and resources. For some, that will be a four digit amount and that’s OK – especially if it’s within your reach. Second, concentrate on developing a powerhouse case for giving that is authentic and compelling. In the interviews we conducted with major givers, we found that the the most likely determinant of whether and how much a philanthropist would give is the confidence that their gift would make a difference as well as the passion of the cause and its prime mover. There were also many, many instances in which a philanthropist gave more than asked – because the case for giving was so strong. If you worry about building a strong case and even stronger relationships, you may find that major gifts opportunities are less contrived and more organic.

It’s not for everyone. Let me completely contradict myself (I do it often) and say there may be organizations that are simply not set up for any kind of major gifts programs. Maybe that’s ok – as long as you can build a funding model that works on the volume of smaller gifts.

Normal or not, the challenge of major gifts is extremely demanding. Developing a realistic strategy that makes sense for your organization will help you save your sanity.

What brand is your thank you?

Tweet

In a fit of fundraising heresy I posted this question on Linked In last week:

Does saying thank you really make a difference? Do you know of a research study that proves that thanking donors will lead to further or increased donations?

There was some method to my madness. I had just read the findings of a study conducted for AFP Canada by Ipsos Reid, entitled, “What Canadian Donors Want.” One of the conclusions reported was:

"Less than half agreed with the statement that not receiving a thank-­you message would decrease their likelihood of giving in the future (14% strongly agree, 31% somewhat). Fifty-­two percent disagreed with the statement (30% somewhat disagree, 22% strongly disagree)."

Stripping away the confusing double negatives, it tells us that 52% said that not receiving a thank you would not decrease the likelihood of giving in the future.  That seemed to fly in the face of fundraising fundamentals.

Being a proponent of data based decision-making, I decided to see if in fact there was research that could confirm the efficacy of thanking donors.

So, I contacted some industry experts and I posted my question. I received a number of interesting responses although none of them could point to studies that directly confirm that thanking donors will lead to improved results.

I was directed to research conducted by Penelope Burk that indicates donors say they will give again if they receive:

1. prompt, meaningful acknowledgment of their gifts
2. reassurance that their gifts will be directed as donors intend
3. meaningful results on their gifts at work, before they are asked for another contribution

But that speaks to intent and not actual results and in addition, the "prompt, meaningful response" was only one of three requirements.

There is interesting research at Donor Voice that shows that a significant number of donors feel that a gift should be acknowledged within two weeks. But that speaks to timeliness. Interestingly, 54% of donors said it didn’t matter how long a charity should take to say thank you. It occurs to me that’s pretty close to saying it doesn’t matter whether they say thank you at all.

Some seemed to feel that the answer to my question was immaterial. For example:

"Why would it matter? You are going to thank them because it's the right thing to do, anyway, so what difference does it make?"

Others responded more rhetorically and one of those responses unwittingly addressed what I believe is the core of the issue. Here’s what he said:

"Is there really a reason to consider not thanking a donor? If we found out it doesn't make a difference, how do we change our behavior?"

Well, maybe the AFP study has told us that it isn’t making a difference and that yes, we need to change our behaviour. I believe the research may indicate that donors have become cynical about “canned” thank you letters and emails. Perhaps they are saying that no thank you is better than a clearly automated thank you.

In commenting on the research that he presents at Donor Voice, Kevin Schulman says, “there are in fact a lot of donors who don’t care about the acknowledgment." He also speculates that there may be a segment of donors who are “annoyed by the constant stream of thank you’s” And then he addresses what I believe is the crux of the issue. He says, “… I’d further guess this is about … the way the acknowledgement is done.”

In the same way that organizations have to break away from the clutter to compete for donated dollars, they have to make sure that their acknowledgments also stand out. Thanking a donor just because it’s the right thing to do may be a wasted opportunity. If branding helps get the gift in the first place than the thank you ought to reflect that branding. The thank you is part of the brand experience and organizations should give a lot of thought to expressing gratitude in a way that is brand-consistent. This may include considerations like:

• the voice in which the thank you is written
• the design of the thank you
• content that accompanies the thank you
• the medium that is used for thank you
• who says thank you

I’d bet that organizations that give serious thought to the experience of being thanked see a great lift in gift frequency and amounts.

The last thing that organizations want is donors who say "no thanks" to being thanked.

I’d love to hear what others have to say on this and in particular would like to see some great examples of well branded thank you’s.

 

Both gift and sale are four letter words

Tweet

If organizations treated a gift more like a sale, they’d find out the two words have more in common than four letters.

There was a great post from The Agitator last week discussing the fact that fundraising organizations often concentrate on donor acquisition to the exclusion of donor retention. This, despite the fact that data clearly demonstrates that it is more likely to get an additional donation from a first time donor than a new donation from someone who has never given.

It made me think about how this issue is dealt with in the for-profit world.  In business terms, a donation is essentially a sale. And for enlightened companies the sale is the beginning of a process, not the end of one.

There’s an old sales adage that goes something like, “Sometimes the scariest thing that can happen is making the sale.” It may sound counter-intuitive but the point is that sometimes making the sale is easier than delivering the product. The principle is easy to understand in service industries or in cases where something is being custom made. But I would argue that’s its potentially true when any sale  – or donation – is made.

That’s because there’s an implied contract in every sale. Even when a finished product is at the centre of the exchange, there is an experience to be delivered. It could be the taste, the feel, the time saved, the utility gained or even the jealousy of others. Successful businesses worry about whether that experience is delivered. They understand that their brand is at the core of that contract. They know that the possibilities for future sales lie in meeting the expectations of current customers.

What’s the implied contract in a charitable gift? Answering that question will allow organizations to see the ways that they can increase donations from current donors and in fact attract new ones. The more practical question is what’s the potential donor experience that can emanate from making a gift and what can organizations do to make sure it is delivered? Here are some thoughts (potential experience in italics and action items below):

A personal sense of satisfaction.
Thank you notes, calls, videos that reinforce that feeling. Congratulate your donors for what they have done.

The ability to tell others about what I’ve done.
Recognize donors publicly. Use social media or other means to make it easy for donors to share what they have done.

The knowledge that I am helping people, supporting a cause or making a difference.
Regular communication that informs donors about the difference their gifts – in specific or in general – are making. Personal communication with a donor. Testimonials from those who have been helped.

The opportunity to find out more about an organization or a cause.
Develop a relationship. Inform donors about opportunities for further involvement – those of time and money.

The opportunity to do it all again.
If it was a rewarding experience the first time, odds are a donor will do it again. Don’t be afraid to ask. Often.

There are lots of other (and probably better) ways of defining the donor experience and figuring out how to deliver it. But recognizing that the donation – just like the sale – is just the beginning of the relationship is the key to growing your donor base and the quantum of giving to your organization.

So, what do you think? Is a donation really a sale in disguise? What does your organization do deliver on the contract that is made when someone makes a gift?

Fundraising and the 4 P’s of Marketing

Tweet

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about chewing gum or feeding the hungry; the principles of good marketing remain the same. But how you apply those principles to the fundraising arena will affect results.

One of the fundamentals of traditional marketing is the four P’s – Product, Place, Price and Promotion. In very simple terms - develop the right product for the right target; develop the location that will be most conducive to sales; price it effectively; promote it strategically and presto, you have marketing success. More importantly, the combination of how each of these is applied represents an opportunity to truly stand out from your competitors.

Applying the four P’s to the world of fundraising requires some consideration. Here’s my take.

Product – First you have to understand that the product you are marketing is not the cause, the institution or the organization for which funds are being raised.  The product is the impact fundraised dollars will have. The product is what the donor will feel when she or he makes a contribution. The product is the relationship that will ensue. If you are marketing a fundraising opportunity, you are selling a dream, a vision, a sense of satisfaction, and the ability for an individual to make a difference. There’s no question that the credibility and capacity of the organization are key ingredients in your ability to deliver that product. But your focus is the exchange with the donor and the unique opportunity that it can provide.

Place – You want to think about where the donor will be when making a giving decision. For new donors, that may be in their home or their office. Is it reading a letter or looking at something online? Put yourself in the shoes of a donor - in that place - and think about what would make you give. If you’re using an email or mobile campaign, you have to consider the possibility that prospective donors are on a subway, in their car or walking down the street. That’s going to take a quick and powerful pitch to promote action.  Another approach is to use images and video to transport the donor from wherever they are to where you need them to be.

Price – The way in which a product is priced makes a huge statement about that product. A $1000 a plate gala invitation makes a very different statement than a $5 point of sale opportunity. You want to make sure you have the right giving options for the right target. Think about who your donors are  – whether that’s for the whole organization or a particular campaign – and make sure the giving levels are aligned. This also means the array of options should be different online than it is for direct mail and even different for different segments. The most important consideration is what will your donor feel when he or she sees the giving level being requested.

Promotion – Your website, print collateral, letters and advertising have to take all that is unique in the points above and tell donors the stories that set you apart. Your material cannot not look or sound like the stuff from every other organization. Find the essence of what makes you different and transform it into something that is not only easily communicated but that is talkable – so that people can easily talk, tweet and email about it. This could be a great thank you video or a unique website design or an effective tagline. You can search the web and will find lots of examples. But remember your aim is not to copy what others have done but rather be inspired to find the means of effectively distinguishing your giving opportunity.

Whether you’re a marketing specialist, a fundraiser or a volunteer solicitor, using the four P’s effectively will improve results.

That’s my interpretation of how to apply the four P’s to fundraising but I’m sure others have different opinions. Please share yours by commenting below.

“No” is not the end of the conversation

Tweet

For salespeople, fundraisers and businesspeople, making sure that we learn something new from every interaction with a current or prospective buyer (or donor) can convert a “no” into future success.

This was brought to mind by a book that I am currently reading and an article I recently read - combined with a lesson learned early in my career.

The book is a classic. In fact, I’m almost embarrassed to say I am reading it for the first time. Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People is filled with timeless wisdom. Its insights are as relevant today as they were when it was published 76 years ago. They’re the kinds of things that will make you say, “Oh yeah, I know that” and then realize that you’re not putting them into action. Carnegie’s approach is all about putting the other person first with imperatives like “Become genuinely interested in other people” and, “Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.”

The article is from the current issue of Motivated magazine. In it, Stuart Knight argues that the key to realizing business and professional goals is what he calls “Powerful Conversations.” Meaningfully connecting with people, Knight argues, should be at the top of all of our to-do lists and is the ability that distinguishes the most successful people in any field. As he says, “Success … [is] not directly related to how many people you know, it has everything to do with the number of people who feel like you know them.”

So, how can we transform all of this great advice about conversations into something more results oriented? I was taught an invaluable lesson learned during my career in headhunting, which, by the way, is probably the world’s most challenging sales environment. In the course of any week, I would make at least 100 cold calls and more often than not, I didn’t get the answer I was looking for. But the owners of the agency drummed a very simple principle into our heads - even if you don't make a sale, learn something from every phone call. Discover something you didn’t know about the person the company or the industry. The point was to make every call worthwhile because you never knew when the information gained could be used to your advantage.

How can all of us involved in promoting our businesses, raising funds for a cause or selling a product, get greater value out of the thousands of solicitations we make every year – even when we get “no” for an answer? Easy. Just ask questions. The answers may produce leads, provide the basis for a future pitch or simply enhance our understanding. Here are some examples:

• What do you think are the prospects for your industry in the coming year?
• Who do you see as the leaders in the field? 
• Do you think your charitable giving will increase or decrease this year?
• What organizations are you volunteering for?
• What charitable organizations do you think are doing the best job?
• What are your company’s (or department’s) major goals for the year?
• What do you think was the most notable advance in your industry last year?

Admittedly, this all relates to the rather low-tech realm of phone or face to face contact. But I think the principles can be adapted to e-communication and in fact successful use of social media lies in maximizing the potential to learn something from every interaction.

For me the key is to not regard “no” as the end of the conversation but rather to use it as a point from which to build relationships and increase knowledge.

What do you think?

Quality v. Quantity in Philanthropy

Tweet

Does the size of a philanthropic gift determine its meaningfulness to the donor?

As part of our book project The Philanthropic Mind my writing partner and I recently conducted one of our interviews with Canada’s top philanthropists. In it a donor told us that his first meaningful gift and the one that may have given him the most pleasure was $200 to the university of which he was an alumnus. Not surprising. But what he told us about the rest of his giving history to the institution deserves attention. His most recent gift is quite significant – in the mid seven figures. However, he can recall little detail and nothing notable about all the gifts between the $200 gift thirty years ago and the multi-million dollar gift most recently.

Listen to his words in describing that first gift. “A couple of hundred bucks felt significant at the time. I was only making about $30,000 a year. It was my alma matter and I had a good time there and obviously universities need money. It wasn’t necessarily meaningful financially but it was meaningful spiritually.”

This is what he had to say about the intervening gifts. “Had I committed to other [gifts] before that of lesser amounts? Probably, but I don’t even remember any more. I might have agreed to a gift of $50,000, which at the time seemed significant but today I don’t even remember making the gift. I guess there had to be other gifts that preceded it [the multi-million dollar gift] because you just don’t one day donate that much money.”

What’s going on here? This is an intelligent and very successful businessman. Is it possible that he has forgotten the many intervening gifts? I don’t believe so but it appears he has forgotten their significance.

The reality is that he has been very generous to his alma mater. So what was lost by the forgotten significance? Who knows for sure. Perhaps he would have given more. Perhaps he would have been a stronger advocate for the institution, helping to solicit other gifts. Perhaps if he had spoken as “spiritually” about all his gifts, more people would have been motivated to give.

The message to today’s fundraisers and marketers is to try and make every gift as meaningful as that first $200. This donor had a strong sense of affinity, felt deep responsibility, perceived the need and was sure his gift was going to accomplish something. And he felt great – spiritual – for making it. What if every prospective donor felt that his gift could make that kind of difference – individually and organizationally? What if every supporter could feel that way every time she made a gift?

The lessons learned from listening to the top tier of philanthropists are profound. The number of zeroes in a gift amount won’t always make it more memorable to the donor. There are other, more significant considerations. It seems clear that when it comes to meaningful philanthropy – size doesn’t always matter.

Do your donor profiles deliver results?

Tweet

Good marketers – and particularly fundraising marketers are always looking for good stories. A really effective form of storytelling is the donor profile. It’s an opportunity to present the case for giving in a way that’s personal and compelling. It’s a great way to motivate some donors while allowing others to feel validated. And of course it’s an ideal way to cultivate the donor that’s being profiled.

The problem is that many donor profiles end up sounding cold, simply repeating the messages that are part of the case for giving. Many times they could have been written about any donor – almost according to a formula. “For many years (insert donor name here) have been proud to support ABC because they know that it is brightening the lives of those that it serves by...”

Here are some ways you can ensure that your donor profiles deliver results.

Insist on an interview
Don’t settle for the donor’s biography, articles about him or her and a giving record as the basis for your profile. You need to speak to the person directly. Donors are often busy so this will require some planning and lots of flexibility. But the opportunity to speak personally will make a huge difference.

Ask the right questions
The right questions will yield the material you need for a good profile. Clearly there are some questions that must be asked. “Why do you support ABC?” is an obvious example. I addition, try asking questions that are likely to elicit more emotional responses like, “Is there a personal or family experience that makes your support of ABC more meaningful?” Also, people tend to prepare for interviews and have responses ready for the expected questions. As a result they often sound cold and rigid. Ask the unexpected question like, “If you were fundraising for ABC, what would your appeal be?”

Get stories and anecdotes
A summary of the donor’s philosophy and personal case for giving will be dry and frankly boring. You want to know about the personal experiences that are behind the donor’s support. Ask them about their personal interaction with the organization or the constituents it serves. Perhaps there’s a story from their past that accounts for their giving. If the donor profile is itself a story, then it’s the stories within that story that will make it rich.

Write from – and to the heart
You cannot overestimate the degree to which giving decisions are made emotionally. So, if you are going to accurately convey the donor’s reasons for giving, you must know and be able to present the emotional basis for their support. On top of that, your profile won’t be an incentive to any other donor without words that come right from the heart.

Use their words, not yours
A good interview using the right questions should yield lots of great quotes and comments. Let those tell the story. Use just enough narrative to hold them together and add context. Readers want to know about the donor more than your perception of the donor.

Open and close with a theme.
In reviewing your notes or recording of the interview, look for a recurring theme that can be the basis of a headline, opening sentence and a powerful ending. Some times donors will make that theme explicit but other times you may have to review the interview a few times. Often times it’s the response to a very particular question will apply generally to the donor’s support.

One final suggestion - that may not always be possible. While many donors are listed individually, they often view their spouse as a partner in their charitable giving. Interviewing the donor and his or her spouse will add tremendous depth and perspective to an interview. You will almost definitely get different answers to questions from each spouse. If nothing else it will give you more material with which to make the profile more powerful.

Hopefully these ideas will help make your donor profiles more interesting and more effective – and ultimately make your fundraising more successful.

I’m sure there are many of you with other – and probably better suggestions. Please share them.

Image from digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The heart of fundraising success

Tweet

Sales is a transfer of emotion. That lesson was drummed into me early in my working life. If you want to make a sale, you’re going to have to make someone feel something and your job is to figure out the right emotion for the right person. It’s taken me a long time to accept the tyranny of that principle. I often want to believe that people buy/give for rational reasons – that they research, comparing objective criteria and make decisions on that basis. But that’s not reality and some recent online material as well as a research project in which I’m involved have made me think about the extent to which the heart rules the head when it comes to giving decisions.

A recent post from my Torontonian colleagues at Nyman Ink explored the concept of Emotional Branding, even citing a Wikipedia entry.

But isn’t all branding emotional? Seth Godin defines a brand as “the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another.” – or in fundraising terms to donate to one cause over another. How do you even begin to separate the emotional from the rational in that definition? And why bother?

Katya Andresen focused on analysis vs. emotion in a post earlier this week that presents data/studies that not surprisingly confirm that emotion trumps analysis – as I would say it does every time.

That led me to a really interesting post by consultant Tony Macklin and his “Grand Unified Theory of Donor Desire.” Tony says, "if you want to increase charitable giving, first, listen to a person’s story and hopes. He asserts that perspectives on effective philanthropy will always take a back seat to the “fundamental search for meaning and belonging.”

The last online piece is the Money for Good study recently released by Hope Consulting. Their research consists of over 4,00 interviews with individuals representing household incomes of more than $80K. These are the people that you might think are most rationally discerning about their giving. However, the study concludes, “Few donors do research before they give, and those that do look to the nonprofit itself to provide simple information about efficiency and effectiveness.” Moreover, they found that, ” While donors say they care about nonprofit performance, very few actively donate to the highest performing nonprofits.”

All of this is borne out by research in which I am involved based on interviews with Canada’s top philanthropists. One of the most often cited criteria in major gifts decisions is the passion of the person that is driving the organization or project. Hardly an empirical or rational measure. Even at the major gift level, emotion is the major determinant.

The implication for fundraisers and marketers is clear. If you want someone to give to your cause, you’re going to have to make her feel something – even at the highest levels. And while you can’t ignore the need for clear information and accountability, the more you pitch to the heart, the more successful you will be.

Reality trumps advice

Tweet

If you ever wonder whether fundraising theory and advice really work in practice, you’ll want to read this.

This is a story about my friend Ephraim who is a fundraiser on behalf of an educational institution overseas. He has been coming here twice a year for the past six years to raise money for the organization. His appeal has always been for the unrestricted funds that will allow the institution to continue to operate. Over the years he has enjoyed moderate success.

On his latest trip however Ephraim’s case for giving changed. A project had emerged. The organization needs $2 million over the next three months to take advantage of an opportunity that has arisen. With the money, they will be able to secure permanent housing for many of their students.

They began their fundraising efforts in their local community, aggressively reaching out to previous supporters, families of current students and alumni. They met with success. They also secured financing from local banks. By the time Ephraim came to Canada, 75% of the needed funds were in place.

At each appointment he described the project, its benefit to the organization and the time constraints. Then he talked about what they had already done to raise money and detailed the success they were having.

This has been his most successful fundraising trip ever. The response has been overwhelming with donors adding significantly to what they have given in the past and a number of new donors coming on board.

While there are many reasons for Ephraim’s success, I would point to three in particular. Not only do they account for the success of this appeal, they provide an action plan for the messaging in any campaign.

Purpose – donors knew exactly what the money was going to be used for. More importantly they understood the benefit to the organization. In turn, that meant there was a clear value proposition for donors. They knew exactly how they could make a difference.

Urgency – there was a definite time frame in which the money was needed and a reason for that window of opportunity. Donors understood that these were extraordinary circumstances and that the organization needed the money now.

Momentum – donors wanted to jump on the bandwagon. The efforts that had been taken locally built confidence and were inspiring. There’s something counter-intuitive at play here. You might think that the organization’s local success would lead donors to believe that they didn’t have to give. But the truth is that everyone loves a winner and demonstrating success is in fact motivational to donors.

It seems to me that any time you can authentically represent these three factors – purpose, urgency and momentum – in an appeal or a campaign, you will improve results.

But don’t take my word for it. Take Ephraim’s.

Is storytelling the whole story?

Tweet

Every “top ten” list in the fundraising arena talks about the importance of using storytelling but it would appear that using it well is another story. I recently read two online posts that demonstrate there’s a difference between good ideas and good execution.

In a recent post, M+R Strategic describes an amazing test they conducted to determine the effectiveness of storytelling in a direct mail ask. They created two random lists – each of 300,000 recipients – and mailed each list one of two versions of a direct mail letter. Version 1 was “written using a more general, institutional approach that outlined the organization's accomplishments and need.” And the second version was “written using a more personal theme based around the story of one young person diagnosed with the debilitating disease the organization is working to cure.”

Which one performed better? According to the experts, there would be no question. Version 2 with its storytelling approach should win hands-down. The reality? Version 1 – the boring organizational approach not only fared better; it raised four times the money of the storytelling letter.

In a similar test, Which Test Won (a great site to test your marketing intuition) reports on a split direct mail ask that was done for a hospital in Florida. One version of the letter briefly told the story of a patient that was successfully treated and included testimonial quotes from the patient. The second version talked about the advanced technology being used at the hospital, describing it in technical terms and advising the reader of the costs associated with acquiring equipment. To make it more interesting, both versions suggested specific donation amounts but the amounts in Version 1 (the storytelling one) were higher.

What would the experts say? No question – version 1 with its storytelling and higher suggested gifts. What really happened? Version 2 attracted a response rate that was over 40% higher and an average donation that was almost $60 higher.

So, what’s going on here?

It seems clear that just telling a story isn’t enough. Other factors must be considered. In fact the story in the Which Test Won storytelling letter isn’t particularly compelling. I actually found it a little confusing and the letter never really tells us what the money is needed for. In the end the suggested donation amounts seem unconnected to the rest of the letter. On top of that the non-story letter is easier to read and its layout is much better. Somehow there is a sense that my (smaller) suggested donation will make a difference. The M+R post doesn’t allow us to read or see the letters in question. So we don’t know if the story was well told or if the ask was compelling or the letter was laid out well.

Ultimately storytelling is a means to presenting a case for giving. It cannot be divorced from the strategy behind the campaign or the brand of the organization. The finesse of storytelling is to be moving and authentic while at the same time meeting marketing and messaging objectives. In addition, it must be incorporated into a letter that is well crafted and written with a target audience in mind. In the end, storytelling may be effective but doing it well is clearly not easy. And worse, if done poorly, it can have detrimental results.

End of story.

Does Less Choice Create More Success?

Tweet

Consumers want choices – lots of co choices, right? Maybe not. According to a recent blog by marketing/motivation guru Scott Ginsberg, that may not be true. Other than reassuring me that I’m not the only one who suffers a kind of paralysis when standing in front 50 different cold medicines at the pharmacy, it made me think about how this notion of less choice can be applied to fundraising marketing.

Scott’s blog references a study on choice saturation conducted at the University of Minnesota and offers this quote from one of the researchers. “While mulling over a few options may weigh heavily on your mind, finally choosing one may just plain wear you out.” The study’s conclusion was that the simple act of choosing caused mental fatigue.

There is something that intuitively rings true about these findings. Too many of us have had a moment in the cereal aisle or staring at the fast food menu or ordering coffee or roaming the aisles of our local video store. And what happens when it’s something we’re not committed to buying. Does “choice anxiety” actually get in the way of making a sale? Maybe less is more powerful when it comes to choices.

We offer prospective donors the option of annual funds, endowment funds, capital campaigns, planned giving (with all its options) and various individual projects to support. And while the notion of allowing donors to find the giving opportunity that is most meaningful remains sound, perhaps it's all a little overwhelming. We need to find a way to capitalize on the donor's interest while not driving them away with too many choices. Here’s a couple of ways that you may be able to bridge the gap:

• Create a simple, uncluttered landing page for the ‘Support” section of your website that presents a very compelling (which means very visual) and succinct case for giving and offers the donor only two choices. One is “I would like to support ABC organization. Please contact me.” The second is “click here to discover the many ways you can support ABC Organization.” The second option would take donors to the full “Support” section.

• Create a campaign that has only one available donation amount. Make it an amount that is accessible to a broad range of supporters and make the ask very simple. Yes, you may leave some money on the table but if through its simplicity, the campaign allows you to connect with new donors, it’s a success.

There are lots of other ways of using this approach but in keeping with the subject matter I certainly didn’t want to offer too many choices.

Maybe the “simple” mode is a way of zigging while everyone else zags and cutting through all the clutter that confronts donors.

A Hunch about Fundraising Success

Tweet

I have a hunch about why some fundraising organizations are faring better than others during the recession.

We have a client that has unfortunately been just about decimated. This is an organization that depends on fundraising for about 90% of its operating income and has lost 60-75% of that revenue. The result is not difficult to predict. Programs have been curtailed, staff has been laid off and the organization is being forced to accept new standards of success.

On the other hand, we have client organizations that are coping far better. Donations may be down from last year but they are maintaining sufficient revenue streams to be effective and in some cases, to even launch new initiatives.

So, what’s the difference? I'm sure detailed analysis would reveal several factors but here's my hunch. From the organizations that I am familiar with, the more broad based their fundraising was going into the recession, the better they are doing. Organizations that depended on a small number of large donors (like our client above) find themselves with no revenue and nowhere to turn. All they know how to do are large gifts but the lead time to cultivate new five or six figure donors makes it a futile response to the current situation. And where do you find the new prospects to cultivate?

Organizations with strong annual campaigns or some other form of broad based giving have a pool of revenue and more importantly, a pool of donors to cultivate. As those donors who have been harder hit step back, there are others that are in fact increasing their support. But it’s the base of small to mid size gifts that is allowing these organizations to sustain themselves.

A recently released study in the U.S. indicates that 2008 4th quarter fundraising revenue was down about 5% on average and the number of donors was down about 7%. While disappointing, the results are not catastrophic. The organizations whose results form the basis of the survey are for the most part ones with a large donor base and developed annual giving.

When working with fundraising organizations we always advocate for the establishment and/or development of annual giving. While this may seem to be so simple that it's trite, you'd be amazed at how many organizations resist. If my hunch is correct, the recession will provide another argument in favour of broad based giving.

By the way, if you know of any studies that can corroborate (or contradict for that matter) my hunch, I'd love know about them.

Target the Solicitor AND the Donor

Tweet

The best campaign brochures are developed with the solicitor in mind. Yes, yes, I know that campaign collateral must address the donor. But brochures that consider the solicitor as much as the donor will lead to more donations. Because as W. Clement Stone said, “Sales are contingent upon the attitude of the salesman -- not the attitude of the prospect.” So, let’s discuss the ways in which the brochure can influence the attitude of the solicitor.

A well-designed brochure creates immediate impact. It commands attention, makes a positive statement about the campaign, conveys thoughtfulness and credibility and demonstrates the organization’s commitment to its fundraising efforts. When solicitors walk into a meeting knowing they have a great brochure in their hand, they are absolutely more confident.

A well-written and presented brochure will allow the solicitor to walk the donor through the campaign, highlighting key points and images. That means that the solicitor doesn’t have to fumble with Powerpoint presentations and doesn’t have to remember a contrived script. It’s all in the brochure. Ultimately it means the solicitor can be relaxed and spend more time focusing on the donor. On top of that the strategically created brochure will anticipate the donor’s responses and actually guide the solicitor through the solicitation.

No two solicitors have the same style or personality – and that’s a good thing. It’s the uniqueness of the solicitor/prospect relationship that makes a solicitation powerful. The great brochure anchors the solicitation by always allowing the conversation to come back to the fundamental tenets of the case for support. So even tough there are many solicitors involved in the campaign, there can always be consistency to the solicitation. And when the conversation goes off on a tangent, the brochure is there to bring the discussion back home.

After the canvas, the prospective donor may have talk to other family members or advisors about the campaign. In a perfect situation, the donor is left with a feeling of warmth, sincerity and confidence from the solicitor and has all the key facts and statements in the brochure. It’s the best of both worlds.

A couple of last but not least points. Solicitors must be donors themselves. Every time they take a donor through the brochure they validate their own decision to have given. The better the brochure, the greater the sense of validation and the more positive the solicitor’s attitude. Finally, don’t think that all of this doesn’t apply to professional staff who are making solicitations. Their ability to make a quality solicitation will definitely be enhanced by a well-created brochure.

So the next time you’re working on a brochure and want to it to really contribute to the success of the campaign, start thinking about the solicitor.