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.

 

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.

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.

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.