Amplify Fundraising

Fundraising + Communications Strategy

Amplify articles

Gen Y is the most giving generation, and the average Australian donor has one testicle

Research can be misleading. Small sample sizes, non-representative participants, poorly designed questions and biased analysis – when combined with misconceptions and anchored opinions about fundraising, it can be confusing at best, and undermine effective strategy at worst.

Poorly conducted, analysed and communicated research could result in board directors saying things like: “How do we get more Millennials on the database?” and “Younger Australians are more generous than older people.”

The wider sector might assume research is designed properly and presented in the right context. But as fundraisers, it’s our responsibility to ensure research insights are considered carefully and applied with common sense.

Misleading observations and incorrect assumptions can lead to dangerous results in the wrong hands.

Case study:
Australian Giving 2019: “State of the nation: a new report into our giving behaviours reveals that Australia’s youth are our most giving generation.”
The conclusions from this report were shared widely by publishers including ProBono Australia and Fundraising & Philanthropy in March this year. But before you adjust your fundraising strategy to focus on Generations Y and Z, the research must be considered with a critical lens.

Too often, younger donors are cited as a significant opportunity – the silver bullet – that will turn around declining giving trends. Technology is seen as a solution to activating younger people. Worryingly, budgets are sometimes shifted from a proven fundraising strategy to activity that aims to acquire people aged between 18 and 35.

Let’s take a closer look at the report – how the data was compiled, the broader context, and what it all means for Australian fundraising and philanthropy.

1.) HOW WAS THE STUDY PRODUCED?
The Australian Giving 2019 report used YouGov market research to conduct an online survey. The concern is au.YouGov.com might attract a specific audience type that the research methodology can’t account for. Specifically, individuals motivated by prize-led or incentive websites and internet-engaged seniors.

Two examples of how the data might misrepresent Australians:

We know that older Australians are less likely to engage online, so it’s likely that older people responding to this online survey are not representative of older Australians. This means they are less likely to be charity donors.

The incentive model of the au.yougov.com platform might attract a higher proportion of people from specific segments – perhaps lower socio-economic, more people who are unemployed or more students. There could be a higher proportion of people from these segments and their responses could be misleading.

To be sure these biases are not at play, questionnaires across multiple channels could support a more representative survey audience.

2.) WHAT PEOPLE SAY THEY DO, AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO, ARE NOT THE SAME THING
The research findings are based on declarative survey data not behavioural data. The key challenge with declarative survey data (survey or interview data) is the likelihood for the results to be impacted by response bias.

Response bias refers to the influence of multiple sources of information when an individual responds to a question. People don’t respond passively, rather they introduce their own perceptions and emotions to help shape their answers – usually subconsciously. Respondents might want to be considered generous or charitable, and their level of self-awareness and desire to be perceived a certain way might differ across generations and influence the outcome.

Researchers need to be aware of response bias. It should be considered in the approach, and more detail about the research methodology might have been included alongside the study.

3.) IS THE STUDY MADE TO LOOK MORE EXCITING THAN IT REALLY IS?
“Gen Y emerge as Australia’s most generous givers” is claimed in article headlines.

The finding – younger responders are more likely to have donated in the past 12 months than older generations – does not infer more generosity among young Australians. To use the word ‘generous’ ignores value, frequency and type of gift.

“Generosity is a subjective term and it’s misleading to suggest the research offers insight into a specific age group’s generosity. There is simply no evidence in the research and no basis to make this claim.”

4.) I THOUGHT OLDER PEOPLE GAVE MORE TO CHARITY?
The study contradicts other research that says older people are more likely to donate financially and more likely to convert at higher rates online than younger donors. If we take this study’s findings at face value, we will ignore research and analysis that suggests the opposite – that Baby Boomers and Builders give more frequently, and give at higher values and in more ways than Generation Y.

Without acknowledgement of the broader sector findings, the study lacks credibility.

5.) WHY ARE MILLENNIALS DONATING? WHAT TRENDS MIGHT BE INFLUENCING THEIR PHILANTHROPY?
Charitable giving among Generation Y is growing according to transactional research by Roy Morgan and Pareto Fundraising. But the interesting part is why.

Having an understanding of the generational trends, the fundraising tactics and the channels employed will give research like this more context and help decision makers use the findings more effectively. Presenting these findings in isolation could lead to misconceptions about the opportunity.

Increasing sophistication of Australian charities and superior digital technology is driving more giving among younger Australians – who are increasingly social, digital, mobile, and educated. But these trends also make it more challenging (and expensive) to recruit and retain young people.

Fundraising peer-to-peer events
At the same time, technology is making it easier for donors to give to their peers, support community events and fundraise for a cause of their choice. The growth of these activities has led to significant numbers of new donors. But this growth is coming too quickly to be manageable. Charities successful at recruiting Generation Y and Z through peer-to-peer and community events haven’t yet learned how to retain those new donors.

Consequently, these activities are often unprofitable and usually less successful than fundraising that is focused on older donors – who have more time, more disposable income and can be targeted through traditional, less expensive channels.

6.) CHECKLIST TO HELP FUNDRAISERS EVALUATE RESEARCH
– Does the research draw from multiple sources, or does it rely on a single study to make assertions?
– Was the research based on quantitative data or self-reported responses? Was response bias considered in the research methodology
– What channels were used in the study? Does the channel make a difference and potentially introduce unwanted variables?
– Are their broader environmental, societal, political or economic trends that might be contributing to the research findings? What fundraising and philanthropy trends are happening in the background and are these acknowledged in the report?

If you take a close, critical look at the research that comes across your desk, and take the time to read the report in full before you make any decisions, you should be able to avoid acting on misleading information.

1 – Australian Giving 2019, good2give.ngo/wp-content/ uploads/2019/03/CAF-Australia-Giving-Report-2019. pdf, good2give, March 2019

2 – Summary Understanding Digital Behaviours Report, beconnected.esafety.gov.au, Australian Government, March 2018

3 – Gen Y emerge as Australia’s most generous givers, probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2019/03/ gen-y-emerge-australias-generous-givers/, ProBono Australia, March 2019

4 – Australian Community Trends Report, mccrindle.com. au/insights/blog/australian-community-trends-report/, McCrindle, 2017

5 – The Next Generation of Australian and New Zealander Giving, institute.blackbaud.com/wp-content/ uploads/2018/08/10013_NextGenerationOfGiving_2018_Australia_Final.pdf, Blackbaud, August 2018

6 – Pareto Benchmarking 2019, fpmagazine.com.au/ top-five-digital-trends-from-pareto-benchmarking-2019-367109/, Pareto Fundraising, May 2019

7 – Generation Z, 2qean3b1jjd1s87812ool5ji-wpengine. netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ GenZGenAlpha.pdf, McCrindle, 2019

Checklist to help fundraisers evaluate research

• Does the research draw from multiple sources, or does it rely on a single study to make assertions?
• Was the research based on quantitative data or self-reported responses? Was response bias considered in the research methodology?
• What channels were used in the study? Does the channel make a difference and potentially introduce unwanted variables?
• Are there broader environmental, societal, political or economic trends that might be contributing to the research findings? What fundraising and philanthropy trends are happening in the background and are these acknowledged in the report?

#GivingTuesday: Why aren’t Aussies and Kiwis getting on board?

Global Trends in Giving: What Australian + New Zealand charities need to know (and the opportunity for GivingTuesday campaigns)

Insight 18) Only 1% of donors in Australia & Oceania gave on #GivingTuesday 2017, the lowest of any region. They also are the least likely to give through Facebook (7%). With more awareness, both #GivingTuesday and Facebook Fundraising Tools could provide significant new funding for charitable organisations in Australia & Oceania.

Charities looking for the next big movement in fundraising might consider a GivingTuesday strategy. Though it clearly isn’t a silver-bullet, given the international success of GivingTuesday, coupled with the trend in Australia + New Zealand towards mass fundraising events and social giving (see Insight 19 below) there is a clear opportunity to better engage single givers with a November 27th campaign.

#GivingTuesday began in 2012 and has raised hundreds of millions for various charities each November. And each year, it continues to grow. The reason donors aren’t getting on board in in Oz and NZ is probably because so few charities are encouraging it:

Based on Amplify’s own research, only one of the Top 40 Australian charities has referred to GivingTuesday in their emails to their donors

Facebook engagement with donors in Oceania continues to grow, but the Global Trends metric of 7% suggests there is more opportunity compared with the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, Insight 19 (below) could suggest donors are more interested in peer-to-peer giving and event fundraising and engaging younger audiences. Though, as we know the proportion of income from these sources is significantly lower, we need to be aware of the limitations of this study.

Insight 19) At 75%, donors in Australia & Oceania attend fundraising events more than any other region, and at 21%, they are also the most likely to create peer-to-peer fundraising campaigns to benefit organisations. It’s also worth noting that, at 60%, donors in Australia & Oceania are most likely to be small donors.

About the Global Trends in Giving Study

6,057 donors completed the 2018 Global Trends in Giving Survey and based on their responses, the donor community worldwide is made up of primarily women (65%) who have a liberal ideology (53%), characterise themselves as religious (72%), and give between ($101-$1,000 USD) annually (43%). These donors are most likely to support the causes of children and youth (15%), health and wellness (11%), and animals and wildlife (11%).

Other insights from the 2018 Global Trends in Giving Survey that are relevant for Australians and New Zealand fundraisers:

Giving trends 2018: nptechforgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-GivingReport-Australia-1.pdf

Great Expectations + Poor First Impressions

While much has been written about effective supporter engagement and donor care, fewer words have described how new donors should be welcomed and engaged in the first weeks and months following their initial action. Fewer words still explore how charities can make the best first impression on new donors who give unsolicited donations. What do donors experience when they make an unprompted donation to charity? How well do non-profits acknowledge and appreciate an unexpected gift?

This study maps the journey of a new, unsolicited donor who made a $25 gift over the phone to Australia’s biggest fundraising charities. Our donor’s experience is an accurate depiction of what most donors will see, hear

or feel when they give to charity, and her first impression provides critical insights and valuable lessons for fundraisers.

THE RESEARCH

The top 40 charities based on 2017 fundraising income* were selected to receive a $25 donation. Each call was made to the donation phone number during business hours in early February this year.

Top 40 Charities by fundraising revenue
Top 40 Fundraising Charities in Australia – by fundraising income, individual giving, bequests and corporate gifts.

THE FIRST IMPRESSION: MAKING THE GIFT

Most charities were very appreciative of our call. The process was mainly warm, positive and pain-free. Though there were some exceptions:

  • 4 charities sent the donor to voicemail
  • 3 charities put her on hold
  • 2 calls were disconnected
  • 4 fundraisers from Australia’s biggest charities were outright rude and couldn’t get our donor off the phone fast enough

Being made to wait on hold, to leave a voicemail message or to call back later is unacceptable. It’s clear that some organisations lack sufficient systems to quickly and efficiently process a caller’s donation. Some fundraising teams – 3 of the 40 surveyed – were unable to record the information in the database while the donor was on the phone. They had to pause the call and find a paper donation form which was manually completed – presumably with quill and ink.

Fundraising teams in 58% of charities are unable to receive phone calls directly from donors. Instead, the donation phone number, as listed on the website, sends the donor to an automated answering system or to the organisation’s main line. Given the significant investment in donor acquisition, the emphasis on retention and the vast sums spent on marketing automation, CRMs and IT systems, surely Australia’s top charities can do more to improve the giving experience and engagement of unsolicited donors?

HOW DO CHARITIES MAKE A GREAT FIRST IMPRESSION?

  • 13 charities invited the donor to nominate where she wanted her gift directed
  • 9 charities asked about the donor’s contact preferences
  • 6 charities asked about the donor’s motivations for giving
  • 6 calls left the donor feeling valued and passionate about the cause

Our donor received beautiful responses from some organisations. The best fundraisers were genuinely appreciative: they asked what prompted the donor to give; they volunteered information about activity near the donor’s home city; and one individual from Camp Quality told our donor that “the gift had made her day”.

Some donors will never speak to a fundraiser at your organisation, but the opportunity for them to do so – at the point when they make their very first action of support for your cause – is incredibly valuable. Charities that ensure the experience of giving a gift is seamless, rewarding, and utterly awe-inspiring, will have a good chance to build a long-lasting relationship with their new supporters.

THE SECOND IMPRESSION: THANK YOU + RECEIPT

It’s generally accepted best practice to send a gift receipt and thank you letter within 48 to 72 hours. In this research, only one in five charities lived up to that expectation: 10 charities responded within a week; 14 charities took around two weeks; and one receipt was received 77 days after the gift. Perhaps surprisingly, no charities issued a receipt by email and mail, which should be relatively easy to do.

Most alarming is the fact that seven charities have not issued a receipt or thank you more than five months after the initial gift. Of those seven, five have sent out donor appeals and donor care, while two charities have not sent a single communication by any channel. They did take our money though (we checked with the bank).

Days between gift and receipt

THE THIRD IMPRESSION: WELCOMING NEW DONORS

Some 24 charities fulfilled the gift receipt by mail. Of those, eight sent a dedicated thank you welcome pack. We received some fantastic welcome packs. Standout examples include Fred Hollows, Vision Australia, Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.

  • 3 packs included engagement items: magnets; glasses to simulate impaired vision; and band-aids
  • 2 charities surveyed our donor as part of the thank you letter or welcome pack
  • 3 packs included a privacy policy
  • 1 charity invited the new donor to an event
Number of communications February to June 2018

THE FOURTH IMPRESSION: THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF ENGAGEMENT

Many organisations included in the research have fantastic stewardship and engagement journeys for new supporters from acquisition activity. But our donor was not included in some of these. In fact, we estimate that about one in five charities are missing unsolicited donors from their engagement strategy entirely.

UNICEF was the only organisation that had a clear tactic to engage phone donors, specifically asking via email if our donor “would prefer to make a gift over the phone”.

  • 31 of the 40 organisations sent a combination of email and mail donor care and appeals between February and June
  • 4 organisations did not engage our donor in the 5 months since sending a gift receipt
  • 3 charities sent emails only – no mail, no autumn or tax appeal, no phone or SMS
  • 3 organisations included our donor in a March regular giving conversion phone campaign

THE OVERALL IMPRESSION

Every call to your charity should be treated as critically important. And each donor should be made to feel like they have personally contributed to your organisation’s success and the progress of its mission. Your donors deserve an immediate emotional gratification when they call to make a gift.

Don’t miss out on what could be the only opportunity you ever have to speak to that individual.

Notes: 
  • *Where multiple federated charities fall into the top 40 by fundraising income, only the largest state branch is included.
  • The selection excludes education institutions and organisations that report their main charitable purpose as “advancing religion” Source: ACNC Charity Income Reporting 2017

My Ungratifying Experience: giving $25 to 40 charities

Ungratified donors: When we make a gift to charity, we should be made to feel special.

The experience of giving to charity should be uplifting. Every donor should be made to feel special. Unfortunately, that’s often not what happens…

When I started as the Campaign Manager at Amplify Fundraising, I was really keen to learn more about Australian charities and the amazing work they do. Shortly after starting, Paul and I spoke about doing some charity research – a mystery shopping activity – where we would donate $25 to 40 charities and learn how they treat me as a new donor. These charities were the top 40 by fundraising revenue (based on a 2017 ACNC report).

The primary purpose was to record my journey; what would I experience as a new donor? What mail, emails and phone calls would I receive? What tactics and marketing techniques would be used and what potential improvements would we identify across the donor journey?

My first week of giving was a real eye-opener, and it prompted me to write about my experience.

The day I started making donations was an emotional one. I had just dropped my little ones at day-care and school and the tears were streaming. When I arrived home with their tear stained faces imprinted in my memory, I remember feeling, ‘at least I now get to do something incredibly rewarding – donate to people in need!’

I was expecting the fundraisers on the other end of the phone to lift my spirits with their gratitude. Instead what I heard in my first call was a voicemail!  I tried this particular charity an hour later. Voicemail again. On my third attempt the person had to put me on hold to get a paper donation form. Not a great start to what I thought was going to be a gratifying experience.

It was difficult to donate to 25% of charities – I either went to voicemail, the line disconnected, or the donation phone number was incorrect on the website.

The worst call I experienced, however, wasn’t the disconnected tone or the voicemail. It wasn’t even the charity that kept me on hold for four minutes, it was the lady who couldn’t get me off the phone fast enough. She read her script. She processed my gift. She didn’t even ask for my address. Her manner was impatient, dismissive and cold, and it was as though whatever she was doing at that point in time, was more important than the cause she was receiving donations for. My $25 didn’t seem important. I couldn’t help but feel incredibly sorry for all of the disadvantaged people that were relying on that money.

My positive, enthusiastic bubble for donating had popped and I started to question whether my expectation for a little gratitude was too high. I wouldn’t want to donate to that particular charity again and I felt discouraged to make further phone calls to any organisation.

I picked myself up from the disappointment and continued calling. Fortunately, a couple of telephone calls later I spoke to a lady who was appreciative, warm and genuine. She was enthusiastic about the cause she was helping to raise money for, and she made me feel amazing for making a donation.

After all, isn’t this why we choose be donors in the first place? We want to feel that we are helping others and making a difference. I wanted to feel that my hard-earned money was going to a charity that was genuinely passionate about its mission and they appreciated every dollar donated.

I was frustrated by the number of recipients who sounded like they were reading from a script – it felt so impersonal and ingenuous. A warm greeting by someone who understands their cause and is extremely passionate about the charity they work for, would make a huge first impression on me. It’s not just about saying the words ‘thank you’, it’s about the fundraiser truly believing that my gift is important. If they felt this way with every gift they received, donors would immediately sense this through their tone – their true appreciation would be brought to life.

Donating is such an incredible act of generosity. All donors are amazing and should leave the phone call feeling that way – after all, they are putting others first and trying to make the world a better place.

Hunting Your Regular Giving Monster – No Silver Bullet Required

Regular giving success is about strategy, effort, time and patience. While some fundraisers and board directors seek a silver bullet to overcome growth challenges, the charities most likely to find success are travelling tried and tested ground and relying more on hard work to drive growth. It may sound less attractive and it might not inspire excitement and enthusiasm in the boardroom but, in reality, great fundraising success rarely comes from silver bullets.

Before you reach for your revolver, consider the following recommendations that will help you tame an elusive werewolf.

HOW EFFECTIVE IS YOUR PROGRAM AND HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO THE MARKET?

It’s critical to understand how well your regular giving is currently performing. What metrics are important? What has worked in the past and which activities performed poorly? How many new donors and what level of investment is required to grow or stand still? Which acquisition channels deliver the best return on investment over time and how might investment in those same channels  perform  today?

(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: Before you invest in acquisition, make sure you understand the success of past activity. Transactional and longitudinal analysis must be part of your long-term planning

and review process. An analytical review should be undertaken each year – across all your programs – as part of your overarching fundraising and communications strategy. Such a review will inform investment decisions, channel selection, business processes and, ultimately, your approach to revenue growth and delivering organisational goals.

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT FUNDRAISERS ON YOUR TEAM?

A good regular giving program will be managed by an experienced professional fundraiser – and those are hard to come by. Before you spend money on your regular giving program, ensure you have the right team to take it forward.

(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: Consult independent advisors to review your fundraisers’ capabilities and capacity. Managing a regular giving program is a specialist skill and having the wrong team – or hiring the wrong candidate – could be a very costly mistake. Your regular giving fundraiser/s will be responsible for delivering a multi-year business strategy and it might be many months and years before a weakness in their expertise is identified, by which time much damage may have already been done. Your team should have experience across multiple fundraising disciplines and good relationships with third party suppliers including face-to-face, phone and analytics agencies.

DOES YOUR PROGRAM HAVE EFFECTIVE BUSINESS PROCESSES IN PLACE?

Are gifts processed and banked properly? Are declines and cancellations managed? Do you have a best practice upgrade, reactivation and conversion strategy for your program?

Unfortunately, most charities could be doing a better job of processing and managing gifts. It’s not uncommon to discover that successful programs are actually haemorrhaging donations due to poor processes.

(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: Invest in a comprehensive review of regular giving practices and business processes before you plan to grow your program. Business analysts who specialise in regular giving can significantly increase income, improve backend processes, reduce lost payments, identify opportunities to improve and automate systems, and help train fundraisers to manage your program more effectively.

WHAT DOES YOUR STEWARDSHIP AND RETENTION PROGRAM LOOK LIKE?

There is no value in recruiting more donors if you’re not looking after the people who already give to you. While in the past consultants would advise charities not to spend money contacting regular givers and face- to-face recruits, this is no longer the prevailing advice.

(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: An integral part of a successful program is a strong stewardship – or donor care – strategy. Your communications calendar should include thanking, engagement

and activation activity as part of a holistic, multi-channel fundraising and communications strategy that will help retain and cultivate more valuable relationships with your monthly givers.

IS YOUR MONTHLY GIVING AUDIENCE SEGMENTED?

Regular givers form a broad audience that requires further segmentation. A good communications strategy segments regular givers on behaviour, commitment, source channel, recency and value.

(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: As part of your program, review and analyse data, develop a better understanding of who your regular givers are and identify opportunities to segment and personalise communications to them. Consider breaking down your regular givers by: active vs  inactive; recency of first transaction; recency of other gift types; gift value; source channel and solicitation (eg face-to-face, two-step, online, direct mail, phone conversion); commitment level; and proximity to the cause.

UNDERSTANDING YOUR REGULAR GIVING POTENTIAL

Monthly givers have provided reliable income for many charities since the early 2000s. But those earliest regular giving charities didn’t seek quick wins or easy solutions. They saw regular giving as a potential growth area that needed a robust testing strategy and well-developed measures of success. They understood the need to manage internal expectations and that success would take many months and years.

Great regular giving programs are constantly being analysed and reviewed, comprehensive processes are in place and they are run by dedicated, analytical fundraisers with many years of experience. There is no innovation that can replace hard work, and getting the basics right will cost far less money and involve fewer risks than searching for a mythical silver bullet.

It’s NOT About Your Tax Receipt

I haven’t purposely singled out the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre – this email I received today is one of many over the past few days that specifically references Tax-time as the reason to give.

I have a theory – and it would be great to hear yours: It’s not about a tax deduction, it’s about the cause.

If you are wealthy enough that a tax deduction makes an actual difference to your finances each year, chances are you don’t need to be reminded about it. Your accountant will do that for you.

If you are not wealthy enough for philanthropy to make a significant to your taxable income, then you probably care more about cancer, preventable blindness or three-legged puppies.

Of course, many people are concerned about reducing their taxable when they probably shouldn’t be; we all know of supporters who will phone at 9am on Monday July 3rd to chase their receipt for a $2 donation. But given this is such a small proportion of your organisation’s total tax-time giving value, and assuming that people have greater motivations to support you during the other 360 days of the year – shouldn’t we appeal to people’s compassion and sense of charity first and their self motivations second?

Why isn’t my $10 good enough?

When charities employ 3rd Party suppliers such as Phone and Face to Face agencies to recruit monthly givers it’s important that a minimum gift level is considered.

At a cost of between $350 and $500 per new regular giver, it would take between 3 and 5 years to get a return on that investment if a supporter donated $10 per month.

But what if the regular gift is solicited with an email and link to a landing page?

I argue that if the supporter is driven to a landing page by online media, the minimum gift should be lower.

There was no 3rd party agency or digital media campaign in my recruitment and I would be a very cost effective supporter at $10 per month.

Are we insulting donors with these tactics?

If it is necessary to push supporters to a minimum gift level, it should be explained on the donation form.

It would also be a good idea to change the tax deductibility statement to say: “Your monthly donations will be tax deductible.”

The email was GREAT and it moved me to donate. But I’ve decided to make a one-off gift this time.

How Do Your ‘Best Regards’​ And Fruit Platters Compare?

You check into your hotel. The reception in the lobby is wonderful. You feel special, appreciated and somehow – important to them.

A high room – overlooking the ocean. A handwritten, personal note from the General Manager himself! Wow. A FRUIT PLATTER!!

After dismissing the sweating cheese as owing to humidity in the room, ignoring the stale cashew as normal for an un-roasted nut, and devouring the dates and dried apricots; you notice that the strawberry is green on the bits that should all be red. That’s when it all falls apart…

The crackers are stale, the strawberry is rotten, the cheese is sweating and the handwritten note is pre-printed.

And the reason I decided to share this is not an instinctive desire to notice, and then rant about things that are wrong with the world. I realised that it’s an important lesson for fundraisers.

Set + Forget = Donor – Care.

In fact, set and forget Donor Care and your programme will eventually be minus Donors.

How to Keep Donor Care caring .

Some Suggestions – Please contribute to this short list:

  • Segmentation. If you could give all your supporters all of your love, you would. Since you can’t personally thank every individual who donates to you, you must compromise. Segment your audience and give the most important people the most loving stewardship.
  • Plan + Process Design. If you suddenly receive a large gift, or a Bequest out of the blue, make sure you know how your organisation is going to respond. If your programme is established, Plan for the phases along the supporter’s journey.
  • Make sure the supporter is at the heart of everything you do. If your programme automates responses across the board, you are essentially treating people like numbers.
  • FINALLY: Don’t let your fundraisers and staff to leave a thank you gift sitting in a hotel room for days on end next to a pre-printed thank you card from your manager!

I’d love to hear stories of appreciation and neglect from the charity sector. Share your tales of love and woe…

When the caller can’t remember which cause they are fundraising for…

I wish I had recorded the conversation. It went something like this:

Caller: Hello, how are you today?

Me: Fine thank you.

Caller: Thank you for helping [a Heart Research charity]. You bought tickets a few months ago and your support is appreciated.

I’m calling today about another draw – you could buy the same number of tickets that you bought last time for $30. You’ll be helping to fight cancer and I hope that I can give you luck with the winning numbers.

Me: I’m sorry – which charity are you calling for?

Caller: It’s [a Heart Research charity].

Me: Oh – you said cancer just now.

Caller: Did I? Yes that’s right. They are all doing it. Heart Foundation [a Heart Research Charity], Cancer, [some others that I was too dumbfounded to hear].

I’m half questioning whether I’m making too much of this – “was the caller’s mistake really that bad?”.

YES! Agencies are targeting non-raffle donors and damaging your relationships, impacting their future giving and behaving like we (and you, the supporter) don’t care. I’m not against raffle fundraising – it’s great. But why are charities allowing their supporters to be treated like this?

Do you want your supporters to be shat on from a great height? Follow these 9 steps to make sure your raffle fundraising treats your donors like faecal matter:

  1. Make sure your Board directors don’t ask too many questions. Don’t let someone with legal expertise review your supplier agreements or practice due diligence.
  2. Sign-up to a campaign with a Raffle specialist agency without a clear strategy or objective. Stick to simple goals like ‘grow the database’ or ‘raise more money’.
  3. Listen to your agency’s advice when they suggest your active, frequent, recent and mid-value supporters be included in the calling volumes.
  4. Don’t do any caller training.
  5. Don’t listen to call recordings.
  6. Prioritise raffle income over other potential ways to engage lapsed supporters – regardless of demographics or giving behaviour.
  7. Make sure you don’t review the results of the non-raffle playing segments. Ignore key facts such as gift value, age and anecdotal complaints that might help you target potential raffle players more effectively.
  8. Tell your phone agency that you are very happy for them to call your data alongside the data of all the other charities on their roster.
  9. And most importantly – don’t worry about following steps to make sure your supporters and potential donors are treated with respect and common decency. It’s okay to contact donors and assume they only want to win a prize and that the cause is irrelevant.

Are Australian Charities treating their Donors like Slime?

I’m worried. To be perfectly honest, I’m scared. What is going on is far worse than I ever imagined.

As fundraisers, we often have to defend our profession in the face of public derision and skepticism; we are challenged to explain practices which can seem counter-intuitive and to some people, unethical. As fundraisers we know this is not the case. Great fundraising has the power to change lives and influence real impact – in a way that government funding, Foundations and Corporate sponsorship are unable to.

I Love Fundraising because it is limited only by the potential you can see, your engagement and relationships with people of means and influence, and your ability to communicate that Vision.

We have enough difficulty explaining the BEST practices of the most effective charities. HOW ON EARTH WILL WE EXPLAIN WHY WE WORK WITH AGENCIES THAT ALLOW DEPRAVED BEHAVIOUR LIKE THIS?

Consider the clothing retailer that is discovered to have abuse within its supply chain.

Whether or not such abuse exists outside the knowledge or control of a company’s checks and ethics processes, the retailer is still to blame. If charities employ agencies without exhaustive due-diligence, what does that mean for the causes that we stand for?

I’m bored. I’m the chairman of the board.

How Iggy Pop can Help Non-profit Boards and Staff Build Effective Partnerships.

Iggy may never have stepped foot inside a boardroom before he wrote track four of his 1979 album, New Values and his portrayal of the chairman who couldn’t get any satisfaction might be somewhat distorted by an excited imagination (not to mention mind-enhancing substances). Yet his tale of the ‘Bored Chairman-of-the-board’ is more than just a play on words.

Iggy Pop probably has no idea what it feels like to be the chairman of a board. Likewise, the chairman of the board probably has no understanding of what it’s like to be the office cleaner, or the charity volunteer or Iggy Pop.

“Since each person’s reality is constrained by the conditions that surround him, this means that the likelihood of each ever being able to see things from the other’s perspective is fairly low.” (Smith, 1980)

As individuals in not-for-profit organisations, we are seldom given, or we rarely make the opportunities to experience what it’s like on the opposite side of the table. In many cases, a board director is unable to comprehend the challenges that the non-profit’s staff and executive team contend with everyday. Likewise, the staff member is unlikely to know what if feels like to be a board director.

Within this complex dynamic, the board directors and executive team members have a responsibility to the organisation to form a strong partnership. How might the inevitable challenges be negotiated?

Consider the following suggestions to help directors and staff build effective partnerships across the board table:

1.    Balance the meeting agenda.

  • As stakeholders, both the CEO and board can influence the items that are included on the meeting agenda. Board meetings shouldn’t be limited to governance and operational oversight actions. Make sure each agenda has interesting content and time for discussion and debate. Perhaps invite a guest speaker to inspire passion and excitement about relevant topics.
  • An engaging meeting ensures that you keep the interest and encourage participation of those attending, as well as reduce meeting apologies and retain members for longer tenures.

2.    Plan strategy and creative thinking sessions away from the office.

  • The board and executive team have responsibilities to develop, implement and adjust strategic plans. Taking time away from the office to immerse the board and team in collaborative planning will help stakeholders embrace their responsibilities and the process will nurture relationships across the imaginary divide.

3.    Swap roles for a day. Literally.

  • Plan a board meeting during office hours. Invite the CEO and executive team to spend several hours in the boardroom and to perform the functions of the board without the directors being present.
  • Meanwhile, the board directors should tackle a list of things-to-do left by the executive team. Focus on tasks that will stretch the board and take them outside their comfort zones:
  • Answer phone calls and speak to supporters
  • Write a press release
  • Open donations and record data in the CRM
  • Write a thank you letter
  • Manage major giver portfolios, do research & make follow-up calls
  • Produce the monthly finance report for the board
  • Write reports and results presentations
  • Manage social media responses and make changes to the website

Whether you are on a board or part of an executive team, your organisation can profit immensely from a supportive and nurturing culture, engagement and relationship building activities, and each person’s dedication to their chosen cause, and humility to walk a few miles in someone else’s shoes.

A final note:

“If you want to transform your dysfunctional garage band into a legendary board-CEO team headed for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, make a commitment to “come together right now” to create the close-knit, trusting band your non-profit’s mission needs and deserves.” (Lockwood Herman and Gloeckner, 2016)

Are THE FUNDRAISERS in your Organisation Trying to Lose Their Jobs?

They should be.

Charities should be working to make themselves irrelevant. Not-for-profits exist to meet a need and to solve a problem. And the objective of a great fundraiser should be to inspire the public, foundations, governments and philanthropists to help them achieve that goal.

Why don’t more charities speak about ending the problems they exist to solve?Why are so many vision statements un-Visionary?

In this post I want to celebrate the organisations with Great visions and campaign objectives.

This list is not exhaustive and there are many more fantastic examples from around the world. Here are some of the ones I’ve found recently.

In no specific order: 

Save the Children, UK. Save the Children has its mission in its name, but they felt they could do better with this campaign. 

Launch Housing, Australia. Launch Housing in Melbourne is unapologetic about its mission.

The Fred Hollows Foundation, Australia & New Zealand. Fred Hollows is very clear and direct about its aims.

unicef, International. Absolute adjectives like ‘Every’, ‘All’, ‘End’, ‘Cure’, ‘Beat’ etc – are engaging.

 

IGN, International. The Iodine Global Network is tasked with ‘sustainable elimination’ of iodine deficiency.

 

 

 

 

Feeding America, USA. Putting the donor in the statement of their vision makes this message powerful.

 

Alzheimer’s Research UK.

 

ChildFund, Australia.

 

 

Salvation Army, Canada. Clear and well articulated goal: End poverty in Canada.

NSPCC, UK. One of the most effective not-for-profit campaigns ever.

 

Make Poverty History campaign – Action Against Poverty, International.

Shelter, UK.

Cancer Research UK. The use of the word ‘will’ sets this statement apart from other cancer research organisations.

Animals Australia. 

 

 

 

Cystic Fibrosis, UK. 50th birthday no party campaign.

 

 

 

Help the Aged, UK. Now known as Age UK, Help the Aged produced powerful campaign messages to motivate people to help end something that most people don’t even know about.

Why does the Public think their Favourite Charities can be run on a shoe-string?

It’s a rhetorical question. The answer is posted on the websites of Australia’s largest charities, on the FAQ pages, celebrated in Annual Reports and supporter Welcome Packs and repeated by Board directors and CEOs.

I’ve shared this Infographic of Infographics before and it’s almost 12 months old. I hope that by re-positing it I can encourage broader conversation. Please join the discussion.

There are Two Core Points which should be debated:

ONE: Most NFPs acknowledge the need to educate the Public & influence perception of the cost of fundraising. YET, the largest charities in Australia continue to pretend it’s an important measure of effectiveness.

TWO: Large NFPs will always experience a lower cost of fundraising for many reasons:

  • Well-known charities enjoy greater public awareness and therefore need to spend less on communicating what they do and why they do it, not to mention brand and awareness and supporter acquisition

  • Charities with valuable brands are favoured by Corporates & Foundations because they represent a greater opportunity

  • Popular charities attract more-qualified staff and volunteers (see this incredible example of mis-information from St Vincent de Paul) 

  • They are front of mind when individuals amend their Wills, when solicitors advise on bequests or are considered by Funeral Directors as in memoriam beneficiaries

  • Many benefit from their partners overseas, by utilising research and existing communications and strategy materials – reducing the requirement for consultancies with prohibitively high fixed costs.

There are many other reasons a large non-profit can express its administration and fundraising expenditure in a more positive light than a small organisation.

Which of Australia’s largest organisations will change the conversation?

When we next discuss public perception as a sector, will the most effective fundraising organisations review their own communication practices?

How will sector leaders support their peers to disregard ambiguous, misleading metrics in favour for measuring & communicating Outcomes, Impacts, and real Change?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Somebody please tell me that I’m mistaken

Is this email prejudiced and disrespectful? 

Have I made a mistake? Or does this image imply that young people are on the streets drinking liquor out of brown paper bags?

Great content & Integrated comms (silos silos silos)

One of the most important breakthroughs an organisation can make is to break down traditional communication silos and start speaking to supporters as people who have something in common – with your cause & with each other.

My POST from a few months ago spoke about the benefits of great content that cycles through different objectives & through which fundraising, advocacy, campaigns, brand marketing and communications teams all have a stake.

IWDA produces great examples. I receive many emails which cycle through different objectives – donation requests, advocacy, raising awareness, asking me to share posts etc. Each of their communications treats the entire audience as if they have one thing in common: They care about women’s human rights.

If you know nothing about your prospective audience. If there are 1,000s of people on your database with no transaction history, no demographic, geographic or even source information, you DO know one thing about them:

From digital leads to Facebook and Twitter followers, event attendees & peer-to-peer donors; petition signers, volunteers, cancelled regular givers, lapsed cash, website & newsletters, supporters, patients…

They all have one thing in common.

Continue to provide them with opportunities to engage with the things they care about and in time, some of them actually will.

Amplify articles + insights direct to your inbox