If you are doing everything right, the need for change is obviously less urgent. However, most of us are not doing everything right. So there is a big chance you can improve your fundraising.

And the only one stopping you is… well, eh… YOU!

How often did you say: “this is how we do things around here”? You might not have said it out loud, but I bet some of you were thinking it. And if you were not thinking it, I’m sure some of you did unconsciously.

The more of the following symptoms you recognize, the more you might be in very serious trouble…

1. You will not review historic data and you follow your own instincts rather than testing.
2. You will not meet up with fundraisers from other organizations.
3. You will not engage in staff retreats to dissect and rebuild your program, brick by brick.
4. You will not attend any conference, let alone listen to any other bright fundraiser.
5. You will not engage your board members in any high value donor event.
6. You will not hire great fundraisers, because you are afraid they’ll outsmart you in team meetings.
7. You will not test, but if you do, you will consider your test results will be mostly inconclusive.
8. You will not engage with donors.
9. You will not know the latest developments in traditional, social or new media.
10. You will not listen to or act on expert advice, in fact, you will feel criticized and will not discuss it any further.
11. You will not start a fight with your communications colleagues who are holding your donor newsletter hostage.
12. You will not have an analytical approach to evaluating your results, nor will you learn from best practice.
13. You will not try to persuade your boss to get more budget and staff to support your plans.
14. You will not be the one to blame when results are down, in fact, reasons for underperforming are all external.
15. You will not excite your colleagues, au contraire, your downward spiral will infect others.
16. You will not innovate, take a risk or simply re-think existing paradigms.
17. You will not do, read or understand market research, in which competitors are outperforming you.
18. You will not focus on the main KPIs that will drive your program towards more growth.
19. You will not be able to seriously self-reflect.
20. You will not have a long term vision or plan.

Unfortunately you will not be held accountable, hence the fact you are still in your role and doing your same ‘ol same ‘ol fundraising.

I am sorry. You will not raise enough funds for your cause.

If you recognize these symptoms you better do something about it. Right now. Today.

(WARNING: This list is not exhaustive! There are much more symptoms! Which one can you add to the list in the comments below?)

----------------

Author: Reinier Spruit.
Please comment here: 20 symptoms of fundraising trouble

Corporate funding is a hot potato within many NGO’s: lively debates filled with emotion. But how do you judge the (valid) sensitivities and define whether or not corporate support may harm your charity in any way? Extremely difficult! Nevertheless, a few thoughts (and questions):

I guess the basic rule is that funding may never compromise the charity’s mission and key principles. Here are some risks:

Safety risks for staff

Although not applicable for all charities, they are real for organizations working in dangerous contexts. MSF can only work in these contexts because we are independent, also financially. So we cannot accept funding from organizations with a political, military or religious agenda. But we also cannot afford to be linked to an organization that is in any way part of a conflict we are working in, or even part of wrongs in these areas.

Reputational risks

“If we associate ourselves with this company or if an incident occurs at this company, could this damage our public perception?”

These risks depend on various aspects like the incident, the nature of the relationship and the communication about it. But how real are these risks? I believe that negative impact on the charity remains fairly improbable, as one should:

1. know about the incident
2. link the company to the incident
3. feel negative about the company
4. know of the relationship between the company and the charity
5. link this negative perception of the company to their social activities, and in particular to the specific charity
6. feel negative about the charity
7. materialize this negative perception

Would it be fair to say that many charities are very good at finding causal links that are not really there?

Ethical dilemmas

Often linked with reputational risks are ethical dilemmas, like damaging the environment, corruption, child labour and greenwashing. Reasons to refuse support? And if so, when? And recently a Dutch charity stopped a funding relationship after finding out the corporate donor was involved in guarding prisons in Israel. The right decision?

And what about tax evasion of large multinationals, a current hot topic? Their letterbox companies and complex international tax constructions are 100% legal. But one can doubt that this is in the spirit of the law. So are these companies unethical? One can argue that these companies are just being smart, using legal possibilities and moreover do something good (read: support your charity) with parts of their profit.

Recipe for lively debates..

Conflict of interest

Funding should never undermine the charity’s objectives to achieve greater benefits through other means like negotiating or campaigning.

At MSF, we have created an entity that is committed to increase the availability of essential medicines in developing countries, and this objective is not always in line with the agendas of big pharmaceutical companies. So from time to time we do campaign against these companies. And to avoid (the perception of) a possible conflict of interest, we have decided not to accept funding from this industry at all.

But how rigid should a charity be here? A multi-million euro donation in times of a campaign against the company will surely be seen as an attempt to influence the charity’s standpoint. But how much impact would a €5k Christmas donation have?

How to mitigate these risks?

 Good research, right?

I guess good research should be the starting point of all significant funding relations, but this is not as simple as it sounds:

What are you supposed to research?

Should you research incidents, policies, …? For instance, in case of large production chains; I don’t think a company can be held accountable for problems at suppliers of suppliers of suppliers. In my opinion the production chain of some companies is so complex that you cannot expect that companies know exactly what happens in these chains. But you can and should expect that they are taking their responsibility to prevent problems as much as can fairly be expected and that they will do the right thing when they encounter a problem.

Again ingredients for a lively debate: what can fairly be expected and what is the right thing?

How are you going to research?

Many large companies have complex structures, which makes it hard to measure risks.

I would advise to involve a variety of relevant (critical campaigning) NGO’s, branch organizations and independent experts. There are also several CSR-indices you can take into account. Hiring of a specialized agency can also be considered.

Do note that continuous research is necessary, as performance of the company can change.

How to judge the outcome?

Another subjective aspect in the process: interpreting the information. One can look at hard figures such as scores on indices, but do they cover all your concerns? And how do you decide what is good enough? And what if different involved parties tell different stories (which is likely to happen)? Do you believe the critical campaigning NGO that says that there is still much to be done, or the branch organization that tells about how much have been done already? Both might have their own agenda, so how to decide who is right? And what if they are both right?

And to make it even more complex: perception of the general public is also a relevant aspect. After all, whether or not the criticism is justified, the truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Blacklisting sectors?

Many charities have certain sectors blacklisted, such as the weapon industry. But when is a company part of this industry? At MSF we say: when at least 10% of the annual revenues derive from blacklisted activities. But this still leaves enough room for debate. Clearly a producer of machine guns is a weapon company. But would a producer of 4WD’s that are used both by the military and civilians be part of the weapon industry if more than 10% of their revenues comes from the military? And is the producer of caterpillar tracks for tanks part of the weapon industry?

Is it actually ethical to refuse support?

Refusing support on reputational grounds can be justified as the harmed reputation might have much larger implications than the specific support.  But is it ethical to refuse funding solely on ethical grounds? Because you as a charity do not agree with the method of working of a company, you decide to refuse their funding, meaning less money for your social mission?

Conclusion and tips

It is extremely hard to find solid answers on all these questions, but I guess the important thing is to be able to defend your standpoint with a clear and credible story.

In addition, some tips for sensitive alliances:

• Check your current relationship with this company and the people behind it. Can you deepen/harm the relationship by accepting/refusing their support?
• Take into account the current support, but also the future potential.
• Try to establish an open and transparent relationship with the company, so that they are willing to provide you with information on their strategy/response on possible incidents/accusations. Transparency also works the other way around; you should explain your position, which the company should understand and appreciate.
• Make agreements with the company on communication
• Have a Q&A ready about why you have engaged in this relationship.
• Lastly, you could set up an ethical framework that you want the company to formally acknowledge.

I wish you all the best with your difficult decisions, but be aware that there is a fine line between careful & selective on one hand, and arrogant & ungrateful on the other.  Good luck!

----------------

Author: Gerbren Deves.
Please comment here: Hot potato!

No, not the communication team! They are all right. Besides that: we still need them for our donor magazine and to get our ‘donate-now-button’ on the website. What about the colleagues sitting on the other side of the corridor? No, neither the guys from the program! All though they have no clue about fundraising, they can provide us with concrete and tangible projects for our fundraising campaign.

The marketing team

You don’t have a clue? Let me help you with a tip-off: they love to have meetings with young, hip, good-looking guys and girls from the advertisement agencies. Now you got it: the marketing team!

All though it is fun to have them around in the office, you know that discussing a forecast set up in Excel can be hopeless. Let alone their somewhat derogatory remarks about fundraising. And did you watch the last television advertisement they produced? It is with beautiful images and a nice voice over, but without a call to action. So what do they expect from the audience? Last but not least: marketing launched a public campaign with a completely different topic with regards to the pitch we use for our direct dialogue programme. You see, Fundraising & Marketing are separate worlds. Let’s keep it that way!

Or not?

Customer journey mapping

Last week I enjoyed a great workshop about customer journey mapping (from a well known strategic marketing agency in the Netherlands). And of course we don’t have customers so lets replace ‘customers’ by ‘donors’. For those who haven’t heard about it yet: donor journey mapping is a great way to get a better understanding of your donors and gain greater donor insight. In short:

• Donor journey mapping helps to identify how donors are treated during each contact with your organisation that takes place. From orientation, encounter on the street, becoming a donor, seeing an advertisement on television, the first gift or fill in a form to change your personal information: every moment you can think of.

• It is a visual representation of the donor experience (just google ‘customer journey mapping’ and you will find lots of useful examples)

• It’s from the donors view (based on qualitative and quantitative data)

• It’s about the feeling donors have towards your organisation at every contact and interaction moment

• The feelings are categorized as: negative, indifference, positive.

• The visual representations show quickly gaps and opportunities to improve the donor experience

I know: this all sounds very much like marketing but hang in there!

Involved donors = less attrition

Research has made clear, that if you know to improve the donor journey by filling in the gaps or improving the interaction moments that generate negative emotions, the loyalty towards the organisation increases! Even better: if you enforce the positive moments with experiences that really fit with your mission and values the donor you can have real emotional impact. Or to say it in clear fundraising terms: involved donors = less attrition.

For example: to resign as a donor can be a nasty moment if you cannot find a contact number to call or a form which can be filled in. As a NPO you can improve this moment by removing the hurdles and making it a ‘indifferent moment’. Or you could even try to make it a positive moment with a ‘thank you for being our donor’ card (or even a movie).

So maybe those guys from marketing can be handy after all. They know how to get consumer insights, so they must be able to contribute in a positive way when working out this donor journey mapping. And if we do it together, we may be able to see if all the interaction moments from our organisation make sense according to our donors.

So guys, do like the chimpanzees and solve the loyalty problem together. Start with mapping this donor journey with your colleagues from communication and marketing. It’s a great way to get mutual understanding about the problem and solution. And maybe the marketing team isn’t that bad at all…

p.s. one more gossip: I used to be working in marketing…

----------------

Author: Hanneke Propitius.
Please comment here: If only we could be like Chimpanzees

Big hairy whát?
According to Wikipedia, a Big Hairy Audacious Goal is: ’a strategic business statement which is created to focus an organization on a single medium-long term organization-wide goal which is audacious, likely to be externally questionable, but not internally regarded as impossible.    A BHAG encourages companies to define visionary goals that are more strategic and emotionally compelling’. It should be Big, Cuddly, the Impact on society should be enormously and last but not least, it should be feasible. Good examples of inspiring BHAGs are: ‘To become the pulse of the planet’ (Twitter), ‘Connecting 5 billion people by 2015’ (Nokia Siemens), and my favorite: ‘A computer on every desk in every home’ (Microsoft).
To the clients, donors, prospects, the BHAG is clear, understandable, recognizable and inspiring. It engages them to help achieve the goal. To the organization, the BHAG gives strategic direction: where do you want to be at the end of your journey? Not in Q1, not this year, but in the future? It can change your strategic thinking, your fundraising activities.

Quiz-time!
If you ask me, BHAGs are above the mission and vision statement of organizations. To inspire donors, you should be able to paint a future where the problem you want to solve no longer exists. People want to be a part of the process of solving this problem. The ambition is clear, and people mobilize to reach this hairy goal. Your BHAG could or should be your organizations brand.

Not exactly knowing my own charities BHAG, I was wondering: do other non profit organizations use BHAG’s deliberately? In search for an answer to this question, I looked at the homepage of several non profits. See if you know which organization is linked to these goals.
‘Promoting child rights to end child poverty’
‘Everybody deserves a tomorrow’.
‘Reduce animal suffering caused by people’
‘To be dedicated to protect the human rights of people around the world’
‘To help disaster victims’
‘Stop Aids now’
’In 2025, 95 % cure-rate’

Inspire more, explain less
I noticed that some organizations explained a lot on their homepage, and a clear and inspiring BHAG was lacking. In ‘De marketing van idealen’, I read that the brand of an organization is not about explaining precisely and completely what kind of work the organization does. Your brand, your BHAG, your ideal situation of the future, is inspiring instead of explaining. And it’s recognizable to your (prospect)donors, they can relate to it because they want to achieve the same goal. What’s the BHAG of your organization? Do you know it by heart?

We lost contact
For those of you who lack a BHAG: you once had one, I’m sure. The BHAG was clear in the very beginning of the existence of the organization you work for. The people who founded the organization knew exactly what problems they wanted to solve. It all started with a clear vision of a better world in the future. Along the way, the founders have maybe died or got disconnected to the organization. New boards and new directors recreated the strategic direction and may have lost touch with the BHAG that was there in the beginning. And while wandering away from the original BHAG, donors have wandered away too. They could no longer relate to the organization. Although maybe the organizations core business did not change much, the show-window of the organization changed and the donors got confused and lost touch. How do your donor segments experience your brand and the work you do? It’s helpful to check where your organization stands.

Time-machine
Creating a BHAG starts with talking to the founder(s) of your organization. What was their ultimate goal? And years later, are you still on track or did you take another route? I asked the founder of the organization I work for what kind of big goal he had in mind, years and years ago. He told me his dream. This dream he has had for years now, and how much he enjoyed the steps that had already been taken to make his dream come true. But he was convinced that even bigger steps were possible. He was able to think even bigger than he did before, and he presented me the perfect BHAG for my organization. Probably without even ever have heard of a BHAG. On top of this, his wonderful story made me believe we are trying to achieve a realistic goal, a dream I want to help come true, day in day out. But I also realized that, while we were busy explaining to our donors what we do and how we do it, we might have forgotten to tell them why we do what we do. The founder of our organization was not afraid of thinking big, and bigger. He had a dream, and he knows that his dream of yesterday and today will become the reality in the future. The strategic direction of our organization is focused on how to get to that hairy audacious finish-line. Is yours?

----------------

Author: Elsbeth Takkenberg.
Please comment here: Back to the future for BHAGs

The Tech

After a comparative analysis of various tablet offerings on the market the iPad 2 came out as the best all round tablet for the following reasons:

-       Price (not the cheapest tablet but best value)

-       Battery Life (had to last a 6 hour shift)

-       Usability (quite user friendly from a front and back of house perspective)

-       Environment (unfortunately no tablet received top marks for kindness to the planet, but Apple was amongst the ‘least bad’)

The Interface

A very simple idea was used: the iPad would be used to present a PDF presentation. Embedded in the presentation were images, videos, text and links to web resources. Importantly each slide had a link that would take you instantly to the online supporter sign-up page. Each individual fundraiser had a unique url so their individual KPIs could be evaluated.

The Good

From the point of view of a street fundraiser there were some great things about having an iPad:

Internet Access

Now, whenever I got tricky questions I was able to find the answers pretty much instantly. Although it’s not a substitute for being well-informed it is a great resource – and can make new fundraisers feel a bit more secure.

Videos

This feature was great. I had previously seen canvassers use smartphones to share inspiring videos with the public but bigger is better when it comes to inspiring would-be-donors. The impact grows exponentially with the size of the screen. (A warning here: make sure you choose videos that give the canvasser a chance to shine. There is no point in simply showing a video of a talking head or with a narrator explain the visuals. Allow the canvasser to be the storyteller who just happens to have a great visual prop – don’t relegate them to simply being an iPad holder).

Welcome Journey

Because the iPad connects instantly (or in some cases within a few hours) to the membership database it can verify, debit and email the new donor within 24 hours. In some instances account information can be checked instantly and corrected right away. This is the area where the benefit of a connected device is most obvious. There are also wins because the direct data entry cuts out the needs for scanning forms or manual data entry.

The Neutral

Battery Life

I was planning to write that a 6 – 10 hour battery life was a feature to be included in the ‘good’ list above. Then I realized that the clipboard has an even better battery life! I have never used a clipboard that needed to be plugged in.

The Slideshow

I found it didn’t really make any difference whether I showed people stationary images on a screen or on a printed page. What matters most is the passion of the canvasser and how they communicate their message with feeling and authenticity. Screen or page makes no difference here.

The Bad

The Cost

Tablet devices are not cheap but when they are used to sign up hundreds of donors they have the potential to lower operating costs. Not everyone we meet on the street knows this and they sometimes find it hard to find believe that a fundraiser who carries a €400 piece of kit really needs their €10 per month. Make sure your fundraisers understand the cost benefit of using tablets and can communicate that message effortlessly. If they can’t they’re better off with clipboards (or finding a new job).

The Weather

Rain and tablets don’t mix so well. Since Germany is not known for it’s year round sunny weather we invested in a rain cover for the iPad. We used and liked the Otter Box (which also served as a protective shell in the event of accidental drops). There wasn’t so much we could do about the screen glare when standing in bright sunshine though – this made the presentation function pretty redundant. Also it’s a good idea to invest in some good quality touch screen gloves when the temperature drops.

The Verdict

It was fun to try something new and people reacted well to some of the videos. More than 95% of people were comfortable putting their personal information into a tablet (for the others we had some old paper forms) and they easily understood the cost and efficiency benefits of using expensive equipment when it was clearly explained to them. There was no discernible increase or decrease in KPIs relating to the number of donors recruited or in the amount they gave. The major benefits are felt in the back of house: increased efficiency in street to database, data quality control and faster debiting.

If you do decide to try using iPads or any other tablet devices please bear in mind that they are not a ‘silver bullet’ which will automatically guarantee better results. The single most important piece of equipment you have is a well-trained, highly motivated canvasser. A human – the most beautiful machine of them all.

----------------

Author: Jack Ryan.
Please comment here: The Low Down on Hi-Tech Face-to-Face

It’s true, no one says that anymore.  We’re online and using digital media so much now we don’t really even call it anything.  It’s just normal.  Or, as Peter Hinsenn puts it, ‘The New Normal‘.

For the many millions of digital consumers, digital media are just methods in the background as we go about our normal habits of accessing news and information, keeping in touch with our friends, sending day-to-day messages, shopping, buying our insurance, finding our way to our next meeting… the list goes on and on, and on.  We are choosing to use digital channels without even thinking about it.

So, since all of this is so normal, why are digital channels still so under utilised when it comes to fundraising?  And why isn’t digital fundraising making more of a contribution to the bottom line?  It’s not like the potential to generate income isn’t there – I mean, just look at Amazon, iTunes, eBay… the list goes on and on.

It’s because a lot of digital fundraising is rubbish

For some reason, when fundraising campaigns go digital, they often seem to forget all the things that made the old normal – they suddenly become bereft of many of the key ingredients that fundraising campaigns need to succeed – important things like a good, old fashioned case for support.

No, I’m not joking; I see all too many campaigns where it’s not made clear what giving any money would change.  No reason to give?  In a fundraising campaign?  Really??  Or the reason to give is in there somewhere, within a load of stages and steps, or drowned out by all sorts of digital gimmickry – like a bit of an afterthought.

Unsurprisingly, the results of campaigns like this are usually a bitter disappointment – often enough to put a charity off trying anything digital again.  And your potential donors?  You probably just lost them to a YouTube hole, where they wasted an hour looking at videos of cats instead.

Think fundraising first

It seems that the fundamentals of fundraising are all too easily sidelined by the bells and whistles of digital.  It’s as though someone misinterpreted ‘digital first’ to mean that you should consider the digital platforms and tools first and the fundraising later.  Too often, it looks like everyone got carried away with the other bits and the fundraising bit ended up being forgotten altogether.

This useful post on 21^st Century journalism explains why it’s intended meaning is exactly the opposite.  If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, this excerpt sums it up nicely:

“Digital first” demands a platform-free mindset; “digital first” is not “web only”… A platform-free operation requires an all-inclusive approach in content production. When planning a reporting project, we need to consider all forms of content: video, audio, article, photo, interactive features (data/map), etc. Get all these contents [sic] equally well-produced, then push them through appropriate platforms.

Translating this into developing a fundraising campaign means:

1. Developing the core fundraising proposition
2. Then bringing together all of the supporting elements you would do for any fundraising campaign (regardless of which media)
3. Then looking at how this works through all the channels you are considering using to engage with the target audience or audiences you have identified for your campaign

Content is critical

Point two on the list above is the content bit.  No matter what media your campaign uses, you need content to make the case for support effectively.

It seems like a really obvious point, but I see a lot of digital fundraising that is so flimsy in terms of content that it fails to create any meaningful engagement – or action.

A direct mail campaign wouldn’t work without any content – no one would dream of sending an empty envelope out.  So, why are there so many digital fundraising campaigns that are the equivalent of an empty envelope?  There are so many different digital options available to get our messages across – there really is no excuse – and not doing this will lose potential donors.

As Peter Hinsenn puts it in his book, The New Normal:

Consumers will have zero tolerance for digital failure… The effect on companies will be tremendous. They were just getting used to coping with a 24 hour economy, and now they will have to cope with the ‘experience economy’: customers will demand interaction with providers of services and products on their conditions. They will expect the digital user experience to be easy and interesting. Every interaction with a customer must be viewed as a ‘make or break’ moment for the relationship with the customer.

… or donor.

So don’t be a digital dummy

Here’s a quick digital fundraising checklist to help avoid some common pitfalls:

• Digital first does not mean put the cart before the horse – or, in fundraising terms, to put the channel or platform before the audience or before some of the core fundamentals of good fundraising.
  Your starting point should not be, ‘how do we fundraise using Twitter?’, but, ‘what are the best channels to engage with our target audience?’
• Digital channels and tools are in our lives because they add value – they meet a need or need, they make life easier, they make a problem less problematic, they make something more fun or engaging.
  So, ask yourself, how does using this digital channel add value, how does it better help us to meet the objectives of this campaign, how does it help us engage with our audience, how will it help to uplift response, how will our intended audience benefit from it being used or incorporated in this campaign?
• Digital media are used by normal people in normal situations.  They are not otherworldly.  Or the preserve of the young or the hip.  So don’t fall into the trap of thinking you’re a digital dummy and let doing digital make you forget everything you already knew about fundraising and marketing.  Digital is normal now, remember?
  So, apply real-world thinking and don’t let digital jargon make you slip into thinking digital fundraising is anything other than fundraising with more tools in your toolbox.  The point of a toolbox is that it’s full of a wide range of different tools – all of them good for doing a different job.  Part of your job is to choose the right tool, or tools, for your campaign.
• Don’t fall into the trap of thinking ‘if you build it, they will come’.  This is not Field of Dreams – it’s real life, where building a microsite and forgetting your marketing plan will mean no one will know it’s there, and no one will give.
  You need a marketing plan for a digital or an integrated campaign just the same as you do for any campaign.  Even if you are planning to rely on earned media or your campaign is to an existing audience, you have to put the right steps in place to ensure your campaign gets eyeballed by enough people to give it the opportunity to succeed.  Leaving this to chance or relying on your campaign ‘going viral’ is a risky strategy and the odds aren’t good that it will succeed.
• Don’t – I repeat, don’t – forget the fundraising proposition, or the other elements that you know you need to make a fundraising campaign work.  Please.  Without these components your campaign might raise awareness, but it won’t raise funds or attract new donors.  If your objective is to generate income, ‘storytelling’ is not enough, however much you hear otherwise.
  You must ask, and ask directly, making the case for support strongly – just as you always have done – regardless of medium.
• Do ask yourself, “Why should anyone care about this?”, “Is this interesting?”, “Will this campaign keep visitors on the page, reading, watching, engaging and – critically – giving?”, and, “What kind of experience is it delivering – inspiring, motivating, emotional, compelling…?”

Remember, there are plenty of cat videos just a click away…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlTO1jP_BY

----------------

Author: Rachel Beer.
Please comment here: Digital is the ‘New Normal’, so why is digital fundraising still so rubbish?

Yeah, right.  Are you rolling your eyes or wiping them because you believe in the list but have no hope of getting there?

I’d like to tackle the number one reason I believe too many of us don’t have the boards our missions deserve and offer strategies for doing it right.

Speed dating is the culprit and road block to a great board!

“I know we have some vacancies to fill and I have just the right guy for us,” reports a board member on the nominating committee.

“Great, tell us about him,” says the chair of the committee.

“Smart, good guy.  We need more folks with financial acumen and he’s the CFO of major company we’d love to have a relationship with.”

“Do you think he’d say yes?”

“Not sure but I’m willing to give it a try.”

The committee chair looks around the room at her fellow board members.  “What do you think?”

“If George says this guy is good, then I say go for it.”

Nods all around.

Yikes!

Maybe your process for building and engaging a great board is a bit more thoughtful and more questions are asked.  Who does he know? What are her other commitments? Why might he want to serve on our board?  George answers them and is given the go ahead.

Instead, the questions should be about the attributes you are seeking.  Is he generous, does she have impeccable integrity, care deeply about our mission, is he already engaged with our vision and work?  Who else on the board knows her?  Is he a philanthropic investor in our organization?

Just as we shouldn’t meet someone once or twice and then ask her for transformational gift to our organization (because the chances for an inspired, joyful, generous yes are slim), so we shouldn’t treat prospective board members that way and expect good results.  Here is a process that makes sense. Taking time up front pays off and results in a great board. Try it.  Demand it. Work it.

Think about the amazing board you’ll have when you take your time rather than speed through the process.  Instead of 100% of the board giving a nominal amount or a few good donors on the board and the rest on the sidelines, you’ll have a board made up of people who already know and love your mission, vision and work, who are generous givers and connectors to others.

Be ambitious for your mission and don’t settle for the wrong people.

Too late?  You already have a board of 15 who are not enthusiastically giving and helping philanthropically?  A wise CEO, Arthur Levine, told me it is easier to bring on the right people than try to kick off the wrong people. Try the rule of three.  Check out this 3 minute video and then go and find three champions who can change everything.

If you would like a set of strategic questions you can ask in a stimulating conversation to uncover generosity, integrity, will, grit, empathy, and the other critical characteristics your mission deserves contact me at Karen@theosbornegroup.com and I’ll send them to you.

----------------

Author: Karen Osborne.
Please comment here: Speed Dating Is Not the Path to a Great Board

I wonder if, like me, you sometimes feel this modern world is going just too fast? Perhaps, as I am, you’re increasingly coming to doubt that the many technological advances of our times are actually making our lives easier and better, like they promised they would? By any chance, does your daily email mountain also seem to you ever harder to climb and less interesting to boot, as mine does? Or does it trouble you, as it does me, that while you can now be reached by telephone pretty much wherever you happen to be, this additional intrusion hasn’t really made you more effective, more efficient and, more importantly, happier, as it should have done?

If any of the above doubts apply, you’re not alone.

It seems there’s no escape, as yet. But a means may be coming. Fundraisers who feel particularly cursed by the go-faster society should read a book called In Praise of Slow by Carl Honoré (Orion Press 2004). Carl has set himself on a mission against the cult of speed.  He promotes what he claims is rapidly becoming a worldwide movement: the campaign for slow, which advocates among other things slow food, a better life/work balance, more green spaces, pedestrian-only zones, areas devoted to calm and tranquillity, and taking time to read proper bedtime stories to your kids. Carl thinks the trend towards calm will catch on – slowly (some years back the slow food campaign claimed 78,000 members in 50 countries).

Fundraisers could find advantage in the progress paradox
But is the rush of modern life a reality or just an illusion, a media-fuelled misunderstanding? The truth is we really don’t need more time. Modern men and women enjoy more leisure time these days than ever before, yet somehow we imagine the opposite. Something in our modern lives appears to compel us to cram in as much experience and consumption as possible, in the misguided notion that this is how we will add meaning and fulfilment to our increasingly empty lives.

Does this possible misconception, perhaps, present just the kind of opportunity that today’s fundraisers should be grabbing eagerly with both hands?

Fundraisers as much as anyone operate in a fast-changing business and social environment. Some of the consequences of this are surprising and will open up opportunities hitherto not even guessed at for those who would fundraise. Massive upheavals that we are already starting to see may lead to as yet undreamed-of chances for the nonprofit sector. But like all opportunities we have to spot them in time and exploit them to the full.

The progress paradox, I submit, is one of these.

Progress might not be making our species happier. These days our society’s unease may not be coming as it traditionally has, from endemic poverty, from our people having to go without, so much as from our prosperity, our being increasingly able to go ‘with’. General affluence, it appears, does not automatically arrive in the company of general contentment. It’s in the most affluent of societies that one finds the longest queues outside the psychiatrists’ doors. Affluent people in a rush are most likely to head that queue. But the risk to these time-poor rich people comes not from fundraisers, in fact quite the reverse. Fundraisers might be just the people to solve the biggest of their perceived problems.

According to Robert Samuelson writing in Newsweek, as living standards improve people don’t necessarily feel the benefits. Although folk like us now averagely start work later in life, are retiring earlier (well, some still are) and in reality have oodles more time than our ancestors, we persist in feeling time poor. Obesity is as large a health risk for the affluent as going hungry is for the poor and, like poverty in the developing world, it’s growing in our society. Instead of more money making us happier, griping apparently rises with income.

It’s a world turned, apparently, on its head.

It seems more and more people find that with increasing affluence comes a decreasing sense of fulfilment. Maybe as we cease to need to worry about basic survival, other issues of purpose and fulfilment crowd in on us.

Look! We offer meaning…
Could this be an opportunity for the likes of us, for fundraisers? I think so; it could be a great one. Given the colourful character of our causes and the urgent nature of the needs we meet, who could offer fulfilment and meaning in life for those without it, better than fundraisers? Perhaps in this new progress paradigm, nonprofits can expand their role. If fulfilment is moving up people’s hierarchies of basic needs, where better could they turn to find what’s lacking in their life, than the nonprofit sector? If significant sections of society face a problem that stems from their growing affluence, maybe we’re just the folk to relieve them of it. And if time too is in short supply then we can make everything very easy for them as well as appealing and interesting. If the meaning of life is becoming increasingly incomprehensible, cannot fundraisers and the causes they work for help many people find the answers they seek?

Think about it. What could be more appropriate for affluent people in a hurry than fundraisers, who can make it easy for people to find useful, worthwhile and interesting homes for their excess money without any pressure, fuss, hassle, or onerous time commitment? We could soon build for ourselves a reputation as the people to turn to when the pressures of modern affluence become too much to bear. This might be a better role for the fundraiser than that which he or she currently enjoys ­­– a role as provider of fulfilment for busy people on the move.

Postscript – on doing without

As I explained at the outset of this piece I’m a little disillusioned with the so-called technological advances of recent years. But the wonder of modern gadgetry and gimmickry is how good you feel when you do without them. This reminds me of the story of the rabbi and the poor man who lived in one small room with his wife and three children.

‘I can’t stand it!’ wailed the man. ‘What can I do?’ The rabbi told him to get a dog. The dog barked at the children and messed up the floor. Then the rabbi suggested he get some hens. The dog chased the hens, which frightened the baby. ‘Get a goat’ insisted the rabbi. And so on, until the rabbi added a horse and the whole thing became completely impossible. ‘Now, get rid of them all,’ said the rabbi, ‘and tell me how you feel.’ ‘It‘s wonderful!’ cried the man in gratitude. ‘There’s just me and the wife and the children, and we have the whole room to ourselves.’

Possibly the gadget we really need is the one that we can programme to get rid of all the others.

All progress may indeed be in the hands of unreasonable people, but it seems to me that the rest of us should reserve a healthy scepticism for all changes and, supposed, advances. To underline this point let me end with a quote from a perhaps unlikely source, which at first glance appears to contradict my opening remarks.

Advances – what advances? The number of hours women devote to housework has not changed since 1930, despite all the vacuum cleaners, washer/dryers, trash compactors, garbage disposals, wash-and-wear fabrics. Why does it still take as long to clean the house as it did in 1930?

 

It’s because there haven’t been any advances. Yet 30,000 years ago when men were doing cave paintings at Lascaux, they worked just 20 hours a week and the rest of the time they could play, or sleep, or do whatever they wanted.

Ian Malcolm, the mathematician in Michael Crichton’s
Jurassic Park

Evidence perhaps that in reality we have made no progress whatsoever. But I suspect that 30,000 years ago, while the men had all that time to play, sleep, or whatever, the women still had to spend just as long doing the housework. Plus ça change.

—————————————–

This blog post is part of a series where Ken Burnett takes us back into his own blog archive to share his best timeless posts. These gems are hand-picked by Ken himself.

----------------

Author: Ken Burnett.
Please comment here: Fundraiser, are you too busy to change the world?

I was one of millions charmed and moved by his photos of Earth from space, and the accompanying captions: wry, poignant, poetic and incurably curious. Like many of you, my jaw slackened when I saw his rendition of Bowie’s Space Oddity (oh, just google it).

And through all of this, I found myself marvelling that this man was actually being allowed to be his unfiltered, quirky, human self – unfettered from the shackles of key messages, brand police, and impenetrable organisational jargon.

What I mean is, NO ONE STOPPED HIM.

How many of our organisations, and their leaders, and their message frameworks, and their self-paralysing fears would have stopped him from communicating with such freshness, vigour, and humanity?  Far too many, I suspect.

So why was he so good:

• He shared his enthusiasm – a childish sense of wonder and exploration.
• He engaged – with individuals and groups around the world.
• He used his own voice – and his ears.
• He took risks – I mean, really, the Bowie thing? He actually did that!
• Oh, and he gained himself that platform thanks to years and years of dedicated hard work in pursuit of his dream.

We can’t all be like him. We wouldn’t all want to be. But it’s worth looking at your cause, and asking yourself two questions:

1. Who is your Commander Hadfield? Who within your organisation is possessed with a passion for what you do, and has an ability to communicate it in a simple, accessible, human and inspiring way?
2. Why the heck are you not liberating them to inspire the hell out of potential supporters?

OK, I’m off to record a cover version of Heroes…

----------------

Author: Derek Humphries.
Please comment here: Time for your Fundraising Oddity

And while I suspect that most came to the session “Turning Likes into Cash” to hear the closely held secret to raising donors via social media (spoiler: there isn’t one), I would like to think that most participants left with at least one practical idea that they didn’t have before the session.

What we did, specifically, was identify the stages that a supporter or prospect undergoes between moment of first contact and the point at which she becomes a committed donor; and then discussed how we can move each constituent from one stage to the next.

This exercise is one that you could do yourself, or in your fundraising, communications or campaign team. It works as follows:

Step 1: Print out this handy worksheet (or make one yourself)

If you do, you will note that it is adapted from a concept by Bill Toliver of The Matale Line (which I used with his permission. Thanks, Bill!) The guy is brilliant, as those of you who heard him at IFC already know.

On the matrix you will see each of the following questions:

• What is the source of the prospect?
• What is his mindset currently?
• What will you ask him to move him to the next stage of involvement?
• How will you ask him?
• What is the desired outcome?

Step 2: Make a list of your main sources of donor prospects

And then… and here’s where you really have to start thinking… map them to the most appropriate current level of engagement.

Different leads will of course begin at different levels of involvement, so use the stages at the top to determine where the starting point is. A few examples:

Unaware:

• Donors to similar organisations are likely to be sympathetic to your cause but unaware of what your organisation does or even that it exists.
• Mothers will newborns may be unaware of the problem of infant mortality (if that is your issue), but likely good prospects to approach to help fund a mobile birthing clinic in an underdeveloped country.

It goes without saying, of course, that all leads must have a connection to the work of the organisation, if not the organisation itself. Otherwise your message – no matter how compelling – will fall on deaf ears.

Aware/passive interest:

• Social media ‘likers’
• Email subscribers

Why are these passive? Simply because it takes very little initiative to click “like” and not much more to sign-up for email updates. Although these individuals probably see some of your content, you haven’t yet motivated them to do anything. Which brings us to the next stage:

Active interest (ACTION):

• Petition signers
• Volunteers

Yeah! Here’s where it all starts to happen.

Of course, these are merely examples. Only you will know, based on your knowledge of your supporters, what degree of involvement each has demonstrated. But it really doesn’t matter which box you choose to begin. What is important is that you start thinking about the next step in the engagement chain.

Step 3: Identify the likely mindset of each source of supporter or prospect

This step really challenges us as fundraisers to think from the donor’s perspective! Some examples could be:

“There are so many problems in the world. Why even bother?”

“I believe in this and I want to show my support.”

Step 4: Determine what and how you will ask the lead in order to move him or her to the next stage

These can range from very simple actions, such as sharing a photo on Facebook, to personally calling someone and inviting her to an event. This is the essential step that needs to be taken in order to move the individual to the next level of engagement.

Step 5: Follow these tips to maximize your results

• Communicate your case (the need and how you help to meet it) clearly across all channels.
• Social media is all about interaction. Use it to answer the questions and concerns of your supporters and share the discussion with others.
• Make it easy and attractive to donate (through every engagement channel: even Facebook, petitions, etc.).
• It’s all about the supporter, not about the organisation. Consider every idea from the donor’s perspective, not your own.
• Be memorable and inspiring!

Step 6: Repeat steps 1-5 until all every prospect is a committed donor!

Of course participants of the workshop also wanted to know what kind of results they could expect. A few examples from different organisations are therefore included in the full presentation, free for downloading here.

----------------

Author: Sarah Clifton.
Please comment here: A DIY workshop for lead conversion: Do try this at home!