My Stupidly Simple Explanation of Branding

Tweet

-->

Branding is complicated. It’s time consuming. It can be damn expensive. So, selling your boss or your board on the idea of engaging in a branding project can be a monumental task.

But here’s what makes it even harder. Most people don’t know what a brand is. In part that’s because marketers create a whole language around branding that is totally unintelligible. It’s also a result of the way words get re-purposed and often misused – particularly in social media.

So, as a way of helping organizations, schools and businesses understand why branding is really important and with deference to the many, many marketing experts and authorities who know way more than me, I offer the following rather simple explanation of branding.

Have you ever had a conversation with a significant other that goes something like this?

“Do you love me?”

“Yes, I love you.”

“Why? Tell me why you love me.”

For most people that results in a big gulp and a desperate stalling tactic like, “What do you mean?”

But if you were able to provide an honest answer to that question, it would be complex and multi-layered. It would involve the way someone looks, thinks and acts, particularly when those acts are directed at you.  The answer would be revealed in your experience with that person or perhaps in what others have told you about him. It would also be based on how you imagine your loved one would react in certain circumstances – perhaps as a spouse or a parent.

Now, imagine you want to replicate that relationship many times over. Let’s say you want more people to love you, or those who already love you to love you more. You are going to need an accurate and effective answer to “Why do you love me?” – one that reflects the many ways in which many different people can love you.

And guess what? The answer to that question is your brand. So, based on all that, here’s my definition of a brand.

A brand is an expressive representation of the complex relationship that customers and other stakeholders have with an organization.

It's a simple concept but I think that some of the words need explaning.

Expressive – Brands have to appeal to the head and the heart – and even more, they have to motivate, inspire and incite action. You want people to be excited about telling other people about you.

Representation – It can be words, photos, videos, graphics, events, and yes even a logo. A brand can be communicated in a myriad of ways.

Relationship – If it isn’t already obvious, just like relationships are two-way streets so is your brand. You can’t unilaterally decide what your brand is. In branding, perception is truly reality.

Customers – Many organizations don’t traditionally think about constituents as customers but the reality is that people have choices about whether they affiliate with your organization. For example, parents at independent schools pay a small fortune in tuition and deserve to be treated like customers. Fundraising organizations would also be wise to look at donors from a customer centric perspective.

Stakeholders – I know this one of those words that gets used too often but the point is that many people other than customers have important relationships with your business or organization. Think about previous buyers, suppliers, employees and alumni. All of those people have something to say about the nature of your brand.

By the way, I know the “love” thing is going to be a bit much for some people. If it makes you feel more comfortable you can substitute “respect” or “admire” for “love” and ask, “Why do you respect me?” I would argue however that the most passionate (and therefore successful) ambassadors for your organization are going to be those that can say, “Let me tell you why I love XYZ school.”

At a branding workshop for independent schools that I led early this year, the person opening the session said, “This morning we’re going to talk about the big, bad ‘B’ word.” One of the reasons that branding is a pain in the butt is that people don’t know what it is. Hopefully, my simple (some might say naïve or mushy) explanation is a step in the right direction.

What do you think?

Is a lack of understanding getting in the way of branding projects at your organization?

What definitions of branding have helped you?

How are you advancing branding projects in your organization?

Big data for not-so-big organizations

Tweet

Read any business, marketing or management publication these days and you're almost certain to find an article about Big Data. The natural conclusion is that big data is for big organizations. That could be because just the term "big data" will leave those responsible for smaller organizations either terror-stricken or in a boredom induced coma. But concluding that not-so-big organizations have nothing to learn from the lessons of big data is a big mistake.

First, let's deal with this big name, "big data." While its true that there are companies that are combing terabytes of data to develop the algorithm that will predict the buying patterns of consumers in Wichita, those organizations represent the vast minority. Don't be intimidated by references to big data. Rather, consider how increased use of data can help you make better decisions.

Quoted in a CNN Money post, Sheryl Pattek, a principal at Forrester Research said, "It's not really a question of big data as much as it's a question of the right data. It's about turning data into insights that you can act on to drive business."

In other words, when it comes to data, size doesn't matter. However the value of data is irrefutable. As a recent report from Teradata concludes, "The evidence is proving that companies that act quickly based on data-driven decisions are succeeding over their peers."

This is particularly the case with marketing efforts. As the same report says, "data-driven marketing bridges the gap between what you do and what customers want."

So, where to begin? What data should you be sure to be assembling and how can you use it?

Contact information. This may sound ridiculously obvious but an e-marketer report on big data (ironically titled, Using Big Data Still a Challenge for Marketers) concluded that contact data was the most important for marketing success. Do you have an email address, or better yet, the most current email address for every customer or constituent? Do you have a program in place that makes it easy and encourages people to update their contact info? Once you've dealt with those questions, shift the analysis to prospective customers or donors and ensure that you have complete information for them. For example, do you have a first and last name to go with every prospect email address? Without that info, you eliminate the possibility of email personalization and the chances of converting that prospect into a buyer become slim.

The e-marketer report also presented the most valuable data that execs said was unavailable to them. Those data categories are essential to organizations. These are some of them and what you can do about them.

Web behavior. You better have Google Analytics running on your site. If not, stop reading this post and immediately contact the person responsible for your site. There is a ton of information that Google Analytics makes available to you that in turn will give you insight into the behavior of visitors to your site. Some examples: Where are they coming from? Is it from searches in a browser and if so what are the keywords that are delivering them? Alternatively, is there an external link that is responsible for referrals? What pages are people looking at on your site? Are they the ones that are important to purchases or donations? Should you re-jig content to increase conversions? The list of questions and resultant actions is endless. Google even provides a bevy of success stories that you can learn from.

Demographics. Hopefully you have lots of information about the people you engage with - whether as prospects or buyers. This includes age, income, location, maybe even marital status, number of children and other data that might be uniquely important to your organization. For example an independent school may want to know what schools siblings attend or attended. You should be able to construct the profile or profiles of your archetypical buyers. Then the question becomes where do you find more just like them.

Purchase (or donation) history. If you can track not only what people have committed to but the path they took getting there, you have powerful information. Combine this with demographic data and you could build powerful personas that you you can use to target marketing and messaging. For example if you discover that people with a particular combination of demographic markers are more likely to buy (donate/apply) when presented with certain information, you can target that segment and get them that information sooner or exclusively.

You can see that the same big data that C-level execs are looking at can benefit any organization - even those that aren't so big. The CNN post referenced above said that big data "seems to mean everything and nothing at the same time." That may be true but there is no denying that, as I said in a previous post, the discipline of data is the foundation for marketing innovation. No matter how large your organization don't dismiss the big ideas behind big data.

What do you think? 
How are using the premise of big data to further the success of your organization? What did I miss? What advice do you have?

Corporate success is built on nonprofit wisdom

Tweet

How many times have you heard a blustering layperson exclaim, “We need to run this organization more like a business!” If you work or are involved in the nonprofit sector, odds are you’ve heard that more times than you’d care to remember.

The truth is that nonprofits can benefit from adopting best business practice and many progressive organizations have added to their success by doing so.

But here’s another truth. The most successful and talked-about companies today have built that success on nonprofit wisdom. Moreover, today’s leading business advice echoes principles that are pillars of the nonprofit world.

Before you write off the notion of businesses learning from nonprofits as heresy or insanity, consider these two examples.

Mission
Mission is at the core of every nonprofit. It defines them. It is why they exist. It is why people donate to them and volunteer their time for them. While, as Elaine Fogel points out, they don't always do a great job of articulating them, missions are the driving force of every nonprofit.

Many businesses talk about mission, but it is most often a poorly disguised way of saying we’re in business to make money. However, it is those businesses that have identified a more sophisticated calling that are experiencing greater success. They in fact have identified a mission – a deeper reason for their company to exist. When that mission resonates with consumers, profits soar.

Simon Sinek, author and speaker, delivered a must-see TED talk called "How great leaders inspire action.” In it he asks questions like “Why is Apple more innovative than all their competition?” His ultimate answer is that those corporations that have mastered an understanding of why they do what they do, are most successful. He is quick to point out that making a profit is not an answer to why. Rather it is an outcome. For Sinek, "why" is your “purpose, cause or belief.” And furthermore he says, “people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.” If that’s not the triumph of mission, what is?

Carol Cone, a CSR and cause marketing pioneer and now vice president with pr giant Edelman has declared this the decade of Purpose. In her terms, Purpose  is “an organization's reason for being beyond just making profits. Purpose expresses their values in action through a variety of strategies and programs engaging stakeholders to create positive social change and organizational growth.” And what does that Purpose do? “It creates differentiation; fuels product innovation, growth and sales; builds trust and protects reputation and engagement; and it inspires employees, customers and consumers.” If Purpose is mission, then mission is at the core of business success.

Community
Every nonprofit – even the really small ones – has a community that is an essential component in its decision-making and its success. In fact, the relationship between nonprofits and community is axiomatic.

Successful businesses have discovered the power of community. On the strength of the online world they are building and engaging communities that become powerful ambassadors for their products and services. Examples abound in the world of consumer products (think Dove, Nike, and 1000’s of others). Even in the B2B world, success is being built on community as is attested to by this list of the 71 best B2B online communities.

In a monumental piece for HBR, Henry Mintzberg, posits that an important way of rebuilding companies in the wake of the recent financial crisis is creating community. In this sense, he is referring to creating internal communities, where decision-making is decentralized and employees sees themselves as citizens or members of a collective. The key is the organic nature of community – the sense of belonging, caring and ownership. This aspect of community is clearly borrowed from the committee structure that is a plank in the nonprofit platform.

Some would say that community is not only essential to the success of the product; it is a feature of the product itself. This piece from Social Fresh astutely declares that “When you have a community, you get something more.  Now, by being a customer, you’re not just getting the features of that product, but you are now a part of something.  You have a group of people where you can ask questions, get help, give help and build real relationships.” Community is a reason to buy, to commit. This may be news to progressive companies but nonprofits have always understood that community is a criterion for involvement.

There are tons of other examples of how nonprofits have demonstrated organizational superiority over businesses. Perhaps one day, we’ll hear the story of the corporate director who said, it’s time we start running this company like a nonprofit.”

What do you think?

Nonprofits don’t care about marketing

Tweet

Well, maybe not all of them but the results of Nancy Schwartz’s latest Nonprofit Messages Survey sure are depressing – especially for those of us who are trying to service the marketing needs of organizations without becoming a nonprofit ourselves.

The results are mind-boggling. Here are some of the highlights with what seem to be the unavoidable questions that are provoked:

84% of organizations characterize their marketing messages as difficult to remember.
So, why are they using them? Is it just me or do others find it unbelievable that organizations admit to such ineptitude?

76% of organizations feel that their messages connect with target audiences only somewhat or not at all.
Is it possible that this many organizations would admit that they are relatively unable to communicate with stakeholders?

When asked what is “the single greatest barrier to developing more effective messages” 28% said it was a low priority or that they were too busy with other tasks.
Let me make sure I got that right. For almost one in three organizations, communicating effectively is a low priority?

In response to the same question, an additional 27% of organizations said they don’t know the process or lack expertise in developing appropriate messages.
But if you already are prepared to admit that your marketing messages are difficult to remember or don’t connect, don’t you think that you might find out something about how to change them? The online world is overflowing with free marketing advice for nonprofits. For a tiny investment there are resources that are imminently affordable (look at fundcoaches.com for example). There are tomes of books that have been written about nonprofit marketing. Ignorance is not an excuse.

What’s more astounding is that these are people that bothered to take the survey in the first place. And they could only have found about the survey if they were subscribed to Nancy’s Getting Attention blog or had enough interest in marketing to begin with.

The seemingly inescapable conclusion is that while many (most?) nonprofits know that marketing and communications are vital to the success of any organization, they are just not doing enough about it – by their own admission.

All of this seems to be living proof of a point made by Dan Pallotta in an insightful but controversial blog post. In it, he said,

 “I see people who wear the debilitating lack of resources in their organization like a badge of honor, despite the fact that the deficiency undermines their ability to impact the community problem they are working on. I see people moving from one nonprofit to another, from one cause to another, seemingly more addicted to "the struggle" than passionate about solving any particular social ill.”

In 2012, it’s time for all nonprofits, regardless of size, to abandon the nobility of the struggle that Dan refers to and develop or acquire the expertise to at least be competent in the ways in which they communicate. We’re not talking about viral videos or award winning campaigns. The bar set by the survey is unbelievably low. We’re talking about connecting with target audiences or creating messages that can be remembered. Nonprofits should be able to figure out a way to do that.

Either that or they just don’t care.

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.

 

The nightmare of classroom websites and what to do about them

Tweet

Note to Readers: We could use everyone’s insight and wisdom on this issue. Even if you are not involved with the world of independent schools, please read on and comment with your best advice.

Classroom websites and e-newsletters represent an enormous challenge for marketers of independent schools and are a potential source of communications horror stories.

Often times I draw on my experience in the business world as a source of solutions for situations encountered in independent schools. But this is a communications phenomenon for which I can’t think of a business parallel.

Here’s the situation. Stronger home-classroom partnerships clearly lead to better learning outcomes. For that reason, teacher-parent communication is regarded as a pillar of educational success. That communication takes many forms including parent teacher conferences, individual meetings with parents, written communication and of late, classroom e-newsletters and websites.

The point is this. Teachers may not be fully aware of the school’s mission, vision and philosophy (MVP). They may not be able to articulate the brand. As a result, there is great potential for teachers communicating something that is at odds with the schools policy or persona. Misaligned messaging and broken branding lurk every time the publish button is pushed.

We know that web-based communication can be shared at lightning speed and passed on with germ-like ease. So, an e-communications misstep by a teacher is not likely going to be kept quiet and could cause embarrassment and confusion to an entire school community.

In the business world this is akin to a company allowing every customer service rep or salesperson to have their own website with which they communicate with their customers and for which they independently create the content. That’s a disaster waiting to happen and to my knowledge would not be tolerated in any corporate organization.

But the demand for classroom websites and e-newsletters increases daily. Parents love the communication. So solutions must be found. In that spirit I offer some practical advice.

Overall Measures

1. Ensure that teachers are brand and MVP aware and can articulate what distinguishes the school
2. Provide teachers with clear communications guidelines that include sample statements and nomenclature they should be using in describing the school.
3. Because administrators are the front line supervisors, ensure they are fully fluent with the brand
4. Create tight templates for websites and e-newsletters to ensure consistency in messaging and even aesthetics.
5. Every classroom website or e-newsletter should have a link to the main school website

Specific guidelines for teachers

1. Ensure that content has been proofread carefully and is grammatically correct. Nothing has the potential for more embarrassment.
2. Address parents in a customer-centric manner that respects the realities of choice and tuition.
3. Amplify the classroom-home partnership by clearly telling parents how they can help their children with specific projects
4. Avoid pedagogical jargon (I call this edu-speak) and use simple language     
5. Assume that students will be reading and don’t say anything you wouldn’t want them to know
6. Find a balance in communication that conveys personal concern and involvement but on the other hand is not too informal or friendly
7. Be positive. Criticism has tremendous potential to be misunderstood

This is an issue that’s not going away. So it would be great to share ideas and solutions. And I said in my introduction, it would be interesting to hear how those from the business world would approach this. Please comment.

Maybe together we can turn this potential nightmare into a communications dream.

“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.

Truths and jests

Tweet

Are nonprofits and fundraising organizations prepared to laugh at themselves?

Hats of to John Suart for helping us find out. His Non Profit Humour blog is hilarious and there’s a lot of truth in his jesting.

Recent posts include one that reveals both sides of the media release game. Others deal with unrealistic expectations of social media efforts and question their effectiveness.

There is often a sad side to humour. After I finished chuckling at these, I was struck by how genuinely they describe the situation many nonprofits are in. With restricted marketing budgets and too few resources, nonprofits do often find themselves flailing – and hoping. From the outside it’s easy to see that what they need is a realistic and informed plan. From the inside, marketing is often subject to unrealistic expectations. It seems that every stakeholder thinks that he or she is an expert in marketing and knows exactly what the organization should be doing. (Well, at the very least they know what is being done wrong.) The end result can be marketing efforts that are neither pretty nor effective.

The blog also takes on the large organization that so often takes itself far too seriously.

It seems to me it’s also the humorous side to Dan Pallotta’s HBR blog about thinking outside the box. Dan's point is that to think outside the box, you have to be able to confront what’s inside the box. John Stuart demonstrates that humour is a great way to do that.

So, let’s be prepared to laugh at ourselves and in the process become better nonprofit marketers.

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

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.

Walking the Mission Talk

Tweet

Is your organization’s mission something you talk about or something you do? I think that was the essence of a recent brilliant blog post by Harvard Business Review blogger and author Dan Pallotta. And I believe the answer to the question is fundamental to the success of your fundraising marketing program.

Through a number of examples and quotes, Dan establishes that organizations must not only have a mission; they have to be on a mission. Organizations much have a deep sense of purpose. While Dan’s post is great guidance for those setting organizational priorities, there is a clear (but unspoken) message for those involved in fundraising.

Commenters to the blog post pointed out the undeniable necessity of mission statements. But any of us that have had to craft a mission statement know that the related negotiation, compromise and intense wordsmithing can lead to that which is meaningless to anyone outside of the innermost circle of the organization. The cartoon above from Tom Fishburne and Marketoonist.com makes the point perfectly. What’s worse is that sometimes fundraising asks and associated collateral get gummed up by these mission-based mantras. We end up talking about what we stand for and not what we do.

Donors on the other hand are increasingly concerned about what results will be achieved with the funds they provide. To be successful, solicitations must speak to those concerns. While this may sound ridiculously obvious, I challenge you to review the copy on your website and in your last direct mail campaign and see whether it meets the “on a mission” test. Does it convey a clear purpose? Do you explicitly and unequivocally tell donors what you will do with their money? Even better, is there a way that you can be accountable to your donors? Is there an objective measure of whether funds raised are achieving the intended goals? Is all of this stated simply and directly? My guess is that the answer to every question will not be yes.

I understand that presenting what an organization does in the absence of what it stands for can be equally ineffective. There clearly has to be some balance. In addition, the reality is that marketing material also has to satisfy the needs (and sometimes demands) of those on the inside of the organization.

It's a fine line but Dan’s thoughts clearly provide a great rubric from which to evaluate our marketing material and to decide whether it walks the talk.

Maybe the Taggies are no Biggy

Tweet

Nancy Schwartz, one of the best known bloggers, speakers and consultants in the not for profit world has just released the results of the 2011 Nonprofit Tagline Awards – or Taggies as she and her marketing material refer to them. This year she’s even created a slick video to announce the winners.

Remarkably, over 1700 organizations submitted a total of 2700 taglines for consideration and over 6000 votes were cast to choose the winners. That’s pretty incredible considering that the prize for winning is nothing more than being recognized.

Nancy deserves a lot of credit for coming up with the idea three years ago and developing it into something that 1700 organizations know about and want to participate in. And, through the contest, Nancy is making nonprofits devote at least some attention to their marketing efforts – which is a very good thing.

I think the contest raises some troubling questions.

The video proclaims the tagline to be a “vital marketing tool” and that a “smart tagline is a powerful tool for connecting with your base.” Not only am I not buying it, I think it sends the wrong message to nonprofits. The vital marketing tool is the strategic plan from which a tagline emanates. A well-crafted and implemented plan with a lousy tagline will have better results than the converse any day. Amongst the tools that a nonprofit can use to connect with its base, a tagline is probably one of the least effective.

The awards are distributed without knowing anything about how well they represent the mission, goals or stakeholders of an organization. The winner in the Fundraising category – Oregon Zoo’s “Bring Back the Roar” is smart but is it anything more than that? How did it fit into a broader plan? How did it relate to the target market? How did it contribute to results? On top of that a visit to the Zoo’s website shows no vestige of the tagline. So, while it may have been an award winner it clearly wasn’t a keeper (no pun intended).

The video also declares that a tagline will allow you to “build your brand in 8 words or less.” Brands are not built on 8 word taglines. They are built on thoughtfully considering and developing the relationship that your stakeholders have with your organization. There are many successful brands that – believe it or not – have no tagline. In the for profit world, companies like Apple and Starbucks come to mind. Here in Toronto, York University has just completed a $200M campaign marking the 50th anniversary of the institution. While the “York to the Power of 50” campaign name (is that a tagline?) is creative, I suspect the campaign would have been equally successful with a different – and less creative – name.

Too many organizations already want to skip the strategic steps that will lead to effective marketing. They just want the good-looking logo, the pithy headline and maybe now the award-winning tagline. Ultimately, I worry that the Taggies celebrate the end while ignoring the means.