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.

Data That's Relevant to the Majority

Tweet

There’s a ton of fundraising-effectiveness research available these days but is it relevant to the realities of the majority of organizations?

There’s been lots of buzz in the past week about a new study on email fundraising released by M+R Strategic and NTEN. What’s attracting attention is the study’s conclusion that organizations with smaller email lists are getting better results than those with larger lists. In fact in some data categories, the small list results are almost double those of the large lists. These are interesting findings but here’s what I was thinking.

The definition of a small list according to the study is under 100,000. But 100,000 is an astronomical number of email addresses. For most organizations, having 5,000 - 10,000 email addresses would be a stretch. So, let’s resist the inclination to be intimidated and see how the numbers play out if you are only sending let’s say 5,000 emails.

Based on the study’s findings for small list campaigns, you can on average expect:

• Open rate - 19.8% which means that 990 people will open your email
• Click through rate - 4.1%. OK, now 205 people will use any link in your email to visit your site
• Response Rate - .25%. That means that 12 people will make a gift
• Given the average gift amount of $100.65, your campaign will gross $1207.80
• And if you can do this – as small list organizations are – 2.3 times per month, or let’s say even 25 times per year, that’s $30,195

Admittedly there are lots of assumptions in these numbers including that 5000 is even a large enough sample to generate average results. But it does raise questions. What are the costs associated with an ongoing email campaign including the acquisition and maintenance of lists, the development of regular email content and monitoring results? If that takes an additional staff person, your email campaign just became a losing proposition. Or, does the value of first-time or monthly donors mitigate the cost? What’s the longer-term value of having almost 1,000 people visit your site? If you can double the number of emails and reach over $60,000 in gross revenue, does the campaign become worthwhile?

I don’t have all the answers. Every organization will have to come to its own conclusion but it seems to me that for most, it’s not a slam-dunk. An informed decision can only be made on a careful consideration of the numbers. The good news is that the digital world can provide all the data necessary.

Make it work:

• When considering an email campaign, do your diligence and use available research to project results.
• Don’t forget that there is a qualitative aspect to email campaigns. Effective writing and compelling design will always be more successful.
• Remember that the effectiveness of the donation landing page is also a key component. Make sure that once they get there, prospective donors are encouraged to give.
• Think long term and consider how you can increase the size of your email list and the cumulative effect of increased site traffic.

Social Media – Two views from the other world

Tweet

Two recent blog posts from outside the not for profit world provide some great perspective on social media.

If you're looking for reasons to jump (or maybe just dip your toe) into the world of social media, John Jantsch in his Duct Tape Marketing blog offers five very practical ways that small businesses can make use of social media. They can all be perfectly applied to the fundraising arena. Some of them are obvious like following up with prospects or staying top of mind with customers (read donors). Others may require a bit more creativity in applying to the fundraising enterprise but are no less valid. His last point on staying in touch with potential partners will (or should) be increasingly important to fundraisers as financial pressures and the proliferation of causes create the need for finding synergies with other organizations.

To manage the expectations of some within your organization regarding social media and for some strategic thought, read Seth Godin's blog on "the endless search for wow." Although it was written more as social commentary, its practical implications are hard to miss. With online fundraising success stories abounding and endless reports of videos gone viral, there is increasing pressure to appeal to and attract the widest possible audience to your social media efforts. But Seth makes the point that the quest for the "wow factor" may be unrealistic and impractical. Your social media (or web) efforts are better focused on your current donors and stakeholders and what you know to be your target market.

Other than the specific benefit that comes from each of these posts, I see two overriding principles:

• Strategy is the key to marketing success. You have to first determine desired objectives before launching a social media effort. What specifically do you want to accomplish and how is that integrated with other marketing efforts? Perhaps most importantly, how will you measure the success of your social media campaign?

• Learn from outside your world. You can't afford to not pay attention to the best thought and practice emerging from the business world. Expand the list of articles, blogs, magazines that you read. If nothing else they will open your horizon of thought and likely lead to inspiration.

Viral Video

Tweet

What makes a video go viral?

Clients often suggest that we post a video from their organization on YouTube and then wait for the thousands of people that will watch it. Not so simple. Consider this information from viralmanager.com:

In the first month on YouTube:

• 70% of videos get at least 20 views
• 50% of videos get at least 100 views
• Fewer than 20% of videos get more than 500 views
• Fewer than 10% of videos get more than 1,500 views
• 3% of videos get more than 25,000 views
• Around 1% of videos get more than 500,000 views

Most organizations have more than 1500 contacts on e-newsletter or mailing lists but yet fewer than 10% of videos posted on YouTube will be seen by that many people. (Granted these numbers are for the first month but I think its fair to assume a video will garner maximum buzz in the first month).

For an organizational video to be something people are prepared to pass on to others it must have value in one of three ways:

• It is entertaining - funny, zany, outstanding performances, unexpected outcomes
• It is informative - essential information, not available from other sources, applicable to a broad range of people
• It touches the heart - emotional, authentic, inspiring

I'm not sure that there's a formula for creating video that will go viral but here's a great example. I haven't even been able to verify the story that was part of the email that accompanied the YouTube link. Supposedly, the person who created this video works for a medical supply company in Portland and the deal was that if this video received over a million hits (as of today its at 2,750,877), the company would make a huge (but unspecified) donation to the hospital involved and offer free mammography to the community. Regardless, you'll see that its spirit and authenticity give it both emotional and entertainment appeal. And I can almost guarantee you that you'll pass this on to at least one other person. Perhaps there's something we can all learn from this.

Content Trumps Design

Tweet

When it comes to any e-communication, content trumps design every time. As a lover of design and someone who has earned his living providing design services, it pains me to have come to that conclusion but I believe it is undeniable.

I am talking about the full gamut of e-communication from websites to e-newsletters to social networking applications. In every case, if the content isn't valuable - if it doesn't inform, entertain, inspire, or somehow engage the reader/visitor/follower, design - even good design - cannot save it.

Proof of this abounds. Many of us still receive text based e-newsletters that we read every time because the content is valuable. The most watched You Tube items are often shaky, amateur video. Blogs, almost by definition, succeed or fail on the basis of their content. And, there is little room for design in a 140 word Tweet. Even as it relates to websites, where good design is probably most important, content is king. People look at sites quickly, scanning for the essential information. What's this organization (cause) all about? What do they do? Am I interested? You've probably noticed that Flash introductions are being used much less often and that the trend is to cleaner, less complicated layouts. In the extreme I would contend that a badly designed website with great content will get more traffic and achieve more than the converse.

To be clear, content is not just narrative copy. It includes video, images, testimonials, links and perhaps even embedded applications.

All of this is not to say that design is unimportant. Perhaps, it just better defines the role of design in these applications which is to make it easier and more likely for the reader to absorb the content. Good web and other e-design puts the content on a pedestal.

What are the practical implications? When developing an e-application whether its the website, a Facebook page, a YouTube channel or a blog, before you call in the design team, think about content first. In particular:

• Does it make the organizational MVP (Mission, Values, Philosophy) clear? Even better, does it provide a sense of direction or movement? Does it make the aspirational inspirational?

• Is it organized intuitively so that it's easy for the reader to see what's available and navigate easily.

• Finally, does it guide the visitor where you want him or her to go? That could mean making a donation, providing information, adding their name to a petition or printing a document. Make sure the content is driving the goals you have established for your e-application.

If you recognize the true superiority of content over design and apportion resources accordingly, there is no doubt you will make your fundraising marketing work better.

Empathy Still Rules

Tweet

The fundraising marketing world is awash in data. And much of it is very valuable. There are fascinating studies on on-line giving and behaviour. You can find the latest trends on shrinking email open and click through rates. Direct mail specialists will give you the most up-to-date analysis of response rates for various types of mailings.

In addition, smart marketers are doing their own research by polling and/or running focus groups with their organizational donors and constituents. Alternatively they are using studies conducted by similar organizations or the results of omnibus studies conducted by leading research organizations.

But at the end of the day, empathy still rules. I define empathy as the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes - to think like they think, to see what they see and ultimately to feel what they feel. The data can point you in the right direction, but to really connect with the donor or prospective donor, you have to know what’s in their head and more importantly their heart.

So, how can you gain this empathetic insight? Part of the answer is to always keep it top of mind. When I look at data, I am always thinking, “what does this tell me about my target group? What are the messages that would emanate from this data? What does it tell me about how people might react?”

Another obvious (but often overlooked) ingredient is just listening - and better yet eavesdropping. You need to know what people are talking about but accept the reality that when donors talk to a representative of an organization, they are likely more guarded about what they say. It may be frowned upon socially, but standing within earshot of a group of people and just listening can be very fruitful. And, the conversation doesn’t have to be about your organization or philanthropy. Some of my most inspired ideas have come from listening to what people are saying about seemingly banal topics. I heard one communications analyst say that the one of his most important tools was knowing what was being talked about on Oprah. Clearly, monitoring social media (blogs, facebook pages) is also a critical part of eavesdropping.

But finally I have to say that the ability to be empathetic may not be accessible to everyone. I actually believe its what distinguishes marketers who are able to get results. In the same way you may be prepared to pay for research, you may ultimately have to hire the talent that will allow you to make that research really work for your campaign or organization. It’s probably the best investment you can make.

The Right 1000 Words

Tweet

OK, we’ve all heard it. A picture is worth a 1000 words. But are they the right 1000 words? Choosing the right photos to appear on your web site, e-newsletters, and in print collateral is critically important. People form an irrevocable first impression based on visual elements. Even when working with a design firm, it’s likely you will have to supply photos. So, how can you pick that photo that’s going to be the difference between an online donation or just another website visit? Here are some tips:

• Content - We’ll talk about photographic and technical considerations later but first, you have to ensure that the content of the photo fits your strategy. Do the people or situation in the photo reflect the way in which you want prospective donors to perceive your organization? This can involve elements like ethnicity, dress, grooming, activity and facial expression. Look at potential photos in great detail and critically. Solicit opinions. Ask people what the photo makes them think or feel. Better yet, would it influence their decision to give? If you’re not getting the right answers, keep looking.

• Composition - Close ups of faces will have the greatest visual impact. Faces convey character and communicate. Consider the amount of space you’re setting aside for the photo. How many people can be accommodated in the space so that you can still clearly see their faces? For sure, less is better. Large group shots are visually meaningless. You may want to think that it will demonstrate the breadth or diversity of the organization. But the person viewing it isn’t likely to get it and will probably be bored. Photos of lectures and seminars in progress have the same problem. You’re better off with a photo of one smiling lecture participant because it will capture the reader’s attention and make it more likely that the ask or the article will get read.

• Photo Quality - There’s a host of technical/photographic issues to consider. Is the space being allowed for the photo vertical or horizontal and can it work in that space? Is the photo in focus? Does the photo have enough resolution? This is more of an issue for print applications but you should always take digital photos at the camera’s highest resolution setting to avoid situations where you have a great photo that just can’t be printed. Is the photo too dark or too light? Don’t assume your designer can fix this. There’s a limit to the miracles that can be worked in Photoshop.

It may sound like a lot of work but there’s no question that the right photos - and the right 1000 word - can lead to fundraising success.