Pardon the Interruption?

Americans, More and More, Say "NO!"
Study Creates a TV Guide for Millennials & Beyond

Once upon a time, back when gas was cheap, Rock 'n Roll was new, and the sun was always shining, there were only three television stations to choose from. It was called " Broadcast TV." Everyone watched. And everyone watched the same things. Hour by hour, day by day, everyone had the same three sitcoms, dramas, or game shows to choose from.

Back then, TV was beamed from a big antenna at the broadcasting station (forget webcasting for a moment - that's still decades in the future). A small wire antenna on your house received the television signal, and you settled for whatever quality of reception you had, even if the picture was scrambled and tumbling in static.

Back then (and until very recently, really) television was the perfect medium for what is known as "interruptive advertising." Commercial breaks of 60 seconds or two minutes were not only tolerated, they were expected. "A word from our sponsors" was the price we paid for being able to watch TV for free.

Artifacts of this era are the highly anticipated annual Super Bowl commercials. The advertisers understand that you don't have to watch the commercials. Heck, you've got TiVO.

Hence, the level of creativity and budget invested in the advertisements is enormous.

From a non-profit's point of view, of course, the notion of a Super Bowl ad is absurd. In fact, the fiscal responsibility non-profits must show puts most advertising out of reach.

Even when using Public Service Announcements, return on investment must be calculated, in terms of eyes viewing your message. The financial and human resources you've invested in production and distribution must be reconciled with annual budget.

In any case, any discussion about television advertising may be pointless. A new research study by SAY Media, IPG Media Lab, TRU and comScore has revealed how media consumption trends and behavior are changing.

The research indicates "56 million 'Off The Grid' consumers are slipping past advertisers." These "Off the Griders" are removing themselves more and more from live broadcasting, through DVR, DVD, and online content. Consequently, these consumers are also removing themselves from television advertising.

Following is a snapshot of some of the findings, published by TRU, a pioneer in youth market research (Click here to see the full press release):

• Online consumers are increasingly more difficult to reach through live television, because one third of the adult, online population in the United States - according to comScore, nearly 56 million people and growing - are "Off the Grid" of live TV.
• The ease of skipping commercials presents the opportunity to decide whether it is easier to avoid interruptive ads or tolerate them.
• KEY FOR NON-PROFITS: The "Off the Grid" population is educated, digitally focused, connected, engaged and influential.
• Within the Off the Grid segment, consumers can be further categorized into the sub-groups of On-Demanders and Opt Out:
• 20 percent of online consumers fall into the On Demander segment. All watch less live TV than they did one year ago. On Demanders access video through a variety of devices that allows them to time and location shift to meet their busy schedule.
• They own an average of 5.4 devices for watching video, including TVs and computers; almost half subscribe to Netflix; 40 percent own video-enabled mobile devices like smartphones or iPads.
• Time and device shifting allows this group to consume 30 hours of video each week - compared to the Internet average of 25 hours per week.
• This group (which is educated, digitally focused, connected, engaged and influential) is the most turned off by intrusive, repetitive advertising.
• 13 percent of online consumers have completely Opted Out of live television and get their content by streaming across devices, through their DVR or on DVD.
• 90 percent does own a TV.
• This group skews younger, with 30 percent falling into the 18-24 demographic.
• Opt Outs consume 21 hours of video content in a typical week - half of which is online.

This study vividly illustrates the character of the Millennial segment everyone wants to reach. It also reflects the nature of Gen Xer's and many Baby Boomers. The "educated, digitally focused, connected, engaged and influential" of each of these generations is likely to figure large in the On Demander segment, as well as the Opt Out.

So, how does a non-profit use this information to its advantage? Is the captive audience represented by print media suddenly looking better again? Are online banner ads more attractive? How about "product placement" of your cause, within the content of a popular drama or sitcom?

I'd like to hear about how your organization is using "new" and "traditional" media, to communicate your message. Email me at RGondella@CauseWare.Net.

Cause Marketing Gets Hotter!

EMarketer and The Chronicle of Philanthropy are reporting new research done by Cone Inc., indicating that cause marketing is not only gaining ground, it is a force to be reckoned with. According to Cone, "forty-one percent of Americans say they have purchased a product in the past year because it was associated with a social or environmental cause (41%), a two-fold increase since Cone first began measuring in 1993 (20%)."

If your organization has been working to develop strategy on how to attract millennials, you should know that Cone's research shows "millennials (18-24 years old) ... shop with an eye toward the greater good. Ninety-four percent find cause marketing acceptable (vs. 88% average) and more than half (53%) have bought a product benefiting a cause this year (vs. 41% average)." Millennials wield about $200 billion in annual purchasing power.

And, the news gets better. Across the full spectrum of demographics, "A full 83 percent of consumers want more of the products, services and retailers they use to benefit causes."

So, what does this mean to a charity or nonprofit? It's not just charities and nonprofits that want to link with millennials, women, and other strategic demographics. Retailers, manufacturers, the service industries, and others ALL want a piece of the "hot" demographics. So what brand characteristics does your organization have that would allow you to partner with a retailer or manufacturer?

The benefits can be significant:

• A new revenue (or gifts-in-kind) stream from the corporation.
• A robust public education campaign, raising awareness of your organization and the need addressed.
• Additional revenue from consumers who want to support your organization through purchases.

A few whiteboard ideas...
First of all, you don't have to be big. It may seem that national charities with well-known brands have an easier sell for cause marketing. But there are factors in brand management that make cause marketing problematic at all levels.?Here are three hypothetical scenarios from which a case for a cause marketing relationship could be made:

• Local provider of Pre-K care and education in a town dominated by a multi-shift manufacturing plant.
• Regional cancer research and prevention organization, as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month approaches.
• City-wide housing provider, when new home sales are good - or bad.

Each of these scenarios offers an opportunity for cause marketing. The manufacturing plant might want to donate a room at the Pre-K facility, in exchange for displaying your logo in the plant or on their products. Or they may want to bring your organization into the plant, as a service provider. The manufacturer knows this can lead to greater employee satisfaction, which improves employee morale and production. And, as the word spreads, the community will be inclined to support the product - and your organization.

The regional cancer research organization should think about partnering with a regional convenience store chain, or speak with the regional manager of a national chain. Hang cut-out pink ribbons in the store for a donation, or sell car magnet pink ribbons, with all proceeds benefiting the charity. The retailer knows that a hungry, thirsty family driving back from the soccer game, the family is more likely to stop at the convenience store that is involved in the community.

Organizations providing housing and shelter know the power of local builders. And the builders know the benefit of having their company name associated with a good cause. Whether they donate materials, time and labor, or a complete building will depend upon how housing sales are doing. Builders understand, though, that marketing when the economy is down is crucial to creating a rebound in sales when the market turns around. 

And there are few less expensive ways to market in a community than volunteering or donating unused materials.

Still, making a cause marketing pitch can be a delicate operation. The discussion calls for diplomacy and timing. If you'd like help making the case, CauseWare.Net can help. Contact Rick Gondella by email at RGondella@CauseWare.Net, or by phone at 571-209-7772.

Social Networking Sites: Promoting FaceBook and Twitter Pages Via Your Website

Recently, I have been following a discussion on LinkedIn titled “Company Website vs. Social Networking Sites: What do you think of companies promoting their FaceBook and Twitter pages vs. their company websites?”

It’s an interesting discussion. A comment that I particularly liked came from a fellow named George Harben. George is CEO at the Clarksville, Tennessee-area company Harben and Associates, which is an economic development consulting firm specializing in research, project management, and marketing.

Here’s what George had to say on the topic:

[Companies promoting their Facebook and Twitter pages vs. their company websites] makes a lot of sense. Social networks and websites are both important components to a company's promotions efforts. Websites are like a company library. You can find historical and current data on a company. An example would be past annual reports, press releases and financial data. Social networks are more like conversations. A post can be handled immediately. One unique attribute of a social network is the ability to customize the network site to group. I have noticed Ford Motors has several network sites. Examples are Mustangs, trucks, green, etc.

 And, here is my comment:

The coordinated efforts mentioned above do make a lot of sense. The corporate website as the "library," supported by the "periodicals" of the Facebook pages is a particularly good insight, I think.

However, the aligned social media component cries out for an "affinity" aspect -- the Mustang fan page, in Ford's case, is a great opportunity to develop an interactive relationship with many good customers, simultaneously. And, those "good customers" can supply much of the content.

And, a company like Toyota ia presented with the opportunity to mitigate the bad press of the recall.

The "affinity factor" is key, though. It seems to me that Facebook presence for Proctor & Gamble or Walmart might be more just an online advertising circular, unless it was tied to some particular community outreach (which, by the way, both entities are very good at.)

Which brings me to my own area of expertise: Charities and other non-profits can benefit greatly from Facebook and LinkedIn. The problem non-profits have is setting aside the resources, both material and human, to create and execute a well-planned strategy...which is where CauseWare enters the conversation.

My opinion is that charities and non-profits should use Facebook and Twitter as extensively as is practicable – but only as a “friend-raising” tool. Neither Facebook nor Twitter have been proven to be effective fund-raising tools, yet.

Companies can use Facebook and Twitter, too – beyond the affinity groups of Mustang owners and fan groups. Companies should use Facebook as a moderated channel to allow employees to express thoughts, feelings, and opinions about the corporate social responsibility, about needs within their own communities, and about how the company is doing in the public eye, generally. A company that can do this fearlessly can benefit immensely. This sort of open – but refereed – discussion can tell a company a lot about itself, even as it learns about employee and community needs.

Recurring Gifts: A Recession-Resistant Plan B?

With workplace giving season approaching, I think it's a good idea to keep in mind all kinds of recurring gifts -- not just those given by payroll deduction. Allowing donors to give a little at a time over a longer period can mean a more robust revenue stream for charities.

With this in mind, Here is a re-post of an article I wrote in June.

In 2008, Americans gave about $307 billion to charities. As usual, the largest component of charitable contributions was individual giving, estimated at $229.28 billion, or 75 percent of the total. Though this is a decrease of 6.3 percent (adjusted for inflation) compared with 2007, it's still a healthy number, don't you think?

According to Giving USA Foundation, giving in 2008 was 2.2% of gross domestic product (GDP), which was almost as high of as a percentage as 2007 (2.3%). Giving USA publishes a report each year on charitable giving. The report is researched and written by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

All of the numbers aren't in for 2009, but, barring some catastrophic additional plunge in the economy, any way you slice it, giving in America remains strong.

Of course, those numbers vary drastically from charity to charity. The affect of losing a major donor here and there can be devastating, particularly for medium and small charities.

So, in a shaky economy what do you do with major donors? Or any loyal donor, for that matter?

The first thing I would suggest is that you treat them with grace and dignity. After all, it was almost certainly not premeditated on their part that they cannot afford to write the big check.

Recently, I was speaking with a friend who is Director of Development for a fairly large health non-profit. "I want to convert my major donors into recurring donors," he told me.

It makes sense.

For the sake of argument, let's start with a round number -- say $20,000. In a recession it might not be practical to expect an annual gift of $20 K from a donor, even if that donor has a long history of writing the same check every year.

Additionally, let's say your donor is a bit embarrassed at not being able to support you at the same level as in the past. So, instead, the donor, head down, trying not to be noticed, slips off into the shadows, and you lose connection.

We all know the old saying about acquiring donors being far more expensive than keeping them. So here's a strategy:

Give your donor a graceful and dignified exit path that keeps them in touch and on the donor rolls. Be proactive: before check time comes, propose that the donor consider pledging three to four donations over the course of the year. So, an annual gift of $20,000 becomes four recurring gifts of $5,000. And, if the donor's finances don't pan out as hoped, well... one missed donation of $5,000 is a lot better than missing the whole thing. The donor is allowed a graceful way out of the financial obligation, stays on the donor rolls, and you still have funding at almost the same level.

I'm interested in recurring gifts. Workplace giving, recurring credit card gifts, large pledges. These methods of giving allow the charity many more opportunities to connect and communicate with donors. And that's a good thing.

The Importance of Workplace Giving

In 2006, I co-authored a book for America’s Charities that, among other things, traced the evolution of workplace giving in America. A great deal of research went into the book, chronicling our nation’s instinctive reaction to need in our communities.

The earliest documented reference I could find that resembled present-day workplace giving occurred in 1820, in Lowell, Massachusetts. There, a number of women mill workers held “hat passing” sessions on the shop floor, to support local charities.

The greatest similarity between those hat passing sessions with today’s workplace giving campaigns is the absence of restrictions placed on the funds raised. Presumably, when the women distributed the dollars, they did not specify that the funds could not go to overhead, like heating fuel or rent. The money raised was not earmarked for this program or that catastrophe. They were, by and large, contributions that the charity could use for whatever was needed.

That is the greatest benefit to charities of workplace giving. To the greatest extent, dollars raised through workplace giving are unrestricted. The charity can use this flow of revenue to keep the lights on, to keep good staff on-board, to make sure their doors remain open. Not so, the big disaster relief appeals. Dollars raised for disaster relief had better be spent on that disaster, or the charity will be faced with disappointed donors.

There are a number of other benefits of workplace giving campaigns, too. Here’s what the American Heart Association has to say about workplace giving:

The Workplace Giving Campaign is a unique workplace giving program designed to empower your employees by offering them a choice in the nonprofits they can support. Employees want to be able to choose what charities they will support and are more satisfied with a workplace campaign that gives them this option. Such campaigns achieve greater participation, satisfaction and overall contributions. Giving also allows your company to brand the campaign as your own.

This is a mixed blessing, however. On the one hand, the company is encouraged conduct a campaign. On the other hand, the company is also encouraged to present a broad range of charities, reflecting the desires and needs of the employees. That means that your charity is, to some extent, “part of the pack.”

Now is the time to begin differentiating your charity, positioning your charity for your best exposure in this year’s workplace giving campaigns.

Here are some tips:

• Look to see how you can leverage your existing relationships with employers and donors. Are there employers you know who might make your charity the “Featured Charity” of a workplace giving?
• There may be charities that are delivering services similar to those provided by your organization. What are the primary differentiators (i.e., age group targeted, region with the greatest impact, etc.)?
• At a secondary level, what does your organization offer that similar organizations do not (educational materials, volunteer opportunities, community awareness outreach)?
• How can your volunteer opportunities be re-purposed to bring new workplace donors on-board?
• Look hard at being a leader in workplace giving. If you begin, or deepen a relationship with an employer, the opportunities are increased for your organization to be a driving force in the campaign. And there are special benefits that accrue from being at the planning table – benefits that are not always measurable. Some data that I’ve seen indicate that organizations who have presence in the planning process of a campaign garner significantly greater marketshare.

Here are some bullets, again from the American Heart Association, for talking about the benefits of a workplace giving campaign:

Employee Benefits:

• Increased morale.  Providing choices enhances employee morale, commitment and retention.
• Satisfaction.  Allowing employees to choose increases their satisfaction and participation in company giving.
• Involvement.  Including employees is a powerful way to link their own and your company's interests.
• Ease.  Making payroll deductions to support charities that employees care about is simple.

Company Benefits:

• Demonstrated commitment.  Company-branded campaigns demonstrate to employees and customers that community leadership is a company priority.
• Increased giving.  Case after case shows that when employees are given options, participation rates increase.
• Improved morale.  When donors can make a difference to a cause they care about, everyone wins.
• Greater efficiency.  A giving campaign allows for a payroll deduction program.  That's easy for your employees and allows more money to go to the nonprofits and less to campaign administration.

Charity Benefits:

• Education.  Participating nonprofits can more effectively deliver workplace education and assistance to your employees.
• Lowest fundraising cost.  Company-owned campaigns let more money go to the organizations and less to administer the campaign.

CHARITIES: Workplace Giving Season is Upon Us… Are You Ready?

Workplace giving is an important source of unrestricted funds for nonprofits – dollars not earmarked for special projects or programs, but that can be used to keep the lights on, keep good staff on board, or fund new programs and initiatives.

Labor Day marks the traditional kick-off of workplace giving in America. The Combined Federal Campaign [CFC] is getting under way, various campaigns in the private sector are gearing up, and many state, local, and municipal government campaigns are going full speed ahead.

What do you need to do to be ready?

• This is the one time of year that you MUST put something on the front page of your website -- even if it’s just a link to a subordinate page – to let donors know they can support you through workplace giving. Something along the lines of “You can support YourCharity through the CFC and other workplace giving programs. Click for more information.”
• Arm yourself with “success stories.” Potential donors want to know about more than the need. They want to know that there is a solution.
• Do you have a mailing planned? By now, you should have a list of all of your workplace giving donors from last year, who requested an acknowledgement of their gift. This is a good time of year to get a postcard out to them, thanking them again, and reminding them to support you this year.
• Perfect your elevator speech – you should be able to describe the benefit to the community of your organization in less than 30 seconds.
• Be prepared – or have someone on staff prepared – to go to workplace giving campaign events to speak about your organization.  Campaign coordinators have a lot on their plate. You can help them make the giving program engaging and fun by being available to give a presentation.

Get ready, get set...

Modern Medicine is an Amazing Thing

So. Modern medicine is an amazing thing. Friday, July 23, 2010, my wife, Pamela, had an invasive procedure to relieve pressure on her brain stem.

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:30 a.m., Pamela sent a text message saying she might be coming home.

Anyway you cut it (pardon the pun), the possibility of being home two days after a four hour brain surgery is mind boggling.

But, even if they kept her another 24 hours, the progress she's made is astounding. Once again, I cannot overstate the care, compassion, and commitment shown by the staff at Johns Hopkins. Their connection with Pamela has been amazing. In a nutshell, if you're thinking about having brain surgery, if you're considering having the ol' noggin opened up for some dusting and cleaning, I'd recommend Johns Hopkins in a heartbeat.

Of course, this rapid recovery is testimony to the prayers and support of all who know and love Pamela. A single prayer or good thought has a genuine impact in the physical world. The multitude of prayers, good thoughts, and positive energy flow from all whose lives Pamela's has touched had significant impact. Prayer works. 

After we're done here, let's move on to world peace!

Pamela has said told me that she is grateful for this outpouring from her friends and family. I will add that I, too, am grateful. It has been profoundly moving to witness the wave of love that has flowed through our lives over the past several days. Thank you. 

Keep the prayers coming, because Pamela has about six weeks recovery ahead of her. Pamela, as you all know, is a force of nature. So, say a prayer for me too -- to help me keep her in bed and off her feet for a while. It'll be a formidable task... I'll need all the prayers I can get ;-}

Amen.

And now for something completely different...

iLoveMountains.org has put in place an interesting friend-raising widget... It's called "Blogger's Challenge." The idea is to engage bloggers in their cause -- ending mountaintop removal mining and the resulting valley fill-in.

At iLoveMountains.org, bloggers are encouraged to sign up to spread the word. Signing up gets the blogger a "badge" for their blog site (see mine, to the right of this column.) On the badge, there is the opportunity for blog readers or other bloggers to sign up. And, the blogger's impact is measured in immediate terms, displaying how many others the blogger has brought on board, and even supplying a "personal page," graphically describing the circle of influence.

It's a great friend raising idea, particularly for hot-topic issues like environmental activism. By engaging bloggers, the distance to "going viral" is shortened. And, after the friend raising goal is accomplished, the distance to fund raising is also shortened considerably.

I confess to being a certified tree-hugging environmentalist, so the sell to me was simple. I came across the opportunity quite by accident, but was hooked immediately. Now, I have one more differentiator out on my page -- and one that will also help track visits to my site.

It's different. It's separated from actual fund raising. But it could lead to significant awareness raising, and, ultimately, fund raising.

If you represent a charity, what ideas like "Blogger's Challenge" do you use?

Donor Responsibility and the Myth of Run-Over Shoes and Shiny Pants

"When you tell someone you work for a non-profit," a former boss of mine said, "they expect you to have run-over shoes and shiny pants."

The notion is that folks who work for charities must, by nature, be living on the fringes of poverty themselves. 

But that is counter-intuitive. Non-profits should be run by dedicated, bright-to-brilliant, entrepreneurially-thinking leaders, who can implement cost-effective, impactful programs.

The downside: These people are not cheap to come by.

The upside: Their dedication will allow them to work for a somewhat smaller salary than their peers in the private sector, and their intelligence and entrepreneurial spirit set them apart as people who can "do more with less," who can create new strategies that are not bank busters, and who spawn and develop loyalty among subordinate staff.

I am always taken aback when I talk to folks outside the non-profit arena about Administrative and Fund Raising [AFR] costs and other overhead charities must bear. The passing grade for the Federal Government for participating in the giant Combined Federal Campaign used to be 25%. [The Feds have now lifted that regulation.] The Better Business Bureau (aka Give.Org) uses a higher rate of 35% AFR.

These stringent guidelines mean that 65% to 75% spent on programs is an acceptable amount.

Which is why I am astounded when I speak to (potential) charitable donors who expect percentages in the high 90's to go to programs.

Why? We don't expect workers in the private sector to work like Bob Cratchit, squinting by candle light, sitting at rickety desks, and pleading for another scupper of coal for the fire to keep the ink from freezing.

Non-profits need to keep the lights on. They need to attract and hire the best and the brightest, so the services the charities provide are fiscally and programmatically sound. Sweat shops do not attract dedicated, smart employees.

What a donor should look for in a charity is transparency. If you don't lthe AFR seems high, ask why. There are many, many reasons why the AFR could be out of whack, including the economy.

But don't write a charity off just because administrative expenses don't, at first blush, meet your expectations.

Conversely, don't presume that a charity with low administrative expenses is efficient. They may be spending 99.9% on ineffective programs. And if the programs are ineffective, so are the charities.

So, at the end of the day, there's only one way to be sure your contribution is used well: Do the legwork. Find out how a charity allocates its resources. That's the donor's responsibility.

Corporate Citizenship: It’s Just Good Business

ConeInc.Com is among my favorite websites. It should be among yours, too. Cone is one of the most respected cause marketing groups in business. Some say they invented cause-related marketing, back when Carol Cone was at the helm.

Carol has left the company to pursue other interests, but Cone remains a hugely valuable resource for data and findings on American attitudes towards corporate citizenship. Drilling through their website, from the home page to Corporate Responsibility, to the link for “Shared Responsibility,” you’ll find an informative PDF titled “Who’s Responsible?”

Here’s the summary:

Amid the stats and the stories, companies are realizing checkbook philanthropy and checkbox responsibility will not suffice. Dated approaches to addressing social and environmental issues are too formulaic, too reactive and won’t turn the tide on corporate trust. Companies must proactively deal with critical business issues while engaging with and addressing escalating expectations of key stakeholders. Companies are changing the way they approach burgeoning social and environmental challenges because today, it’s difficult to assert where a company’s responsibility begins, where it ends and who is ultimately accountable for solving the issues we collectively face.

And here’s a screenshot of a chart from the document:

The data points are undeniable.  The American public expects good citizenship from corporate America. Over a broad range of topics, the trend of opinion is overwhelming. 

And, the source is trustworthy. According to the site, “The 2010 Cone Shared Responsibility Study presents the findings of an online survey conducted April 8-9, 2010 by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) among a representative U.S. sample of 1,045 adults comprising 507 men and 538 women 18 years of age and older. The margin of error associated with a sample of this size is ± 3%.”

So, for businesses, what’s next? It’s clear that corporate resources devoted to identifying, tracking, and mapping these sorts of data would not be wasted. Customers, employees, and the public in general are important stakeholders in corporations. Paying attention to public opinion is not Pollyannaism. It’s not “playing to the polls,” as they say in politics.

No, it’s just good business.

Go to ConeInc.Com for more insights like these.

Marketing is MOST important when the economy is down.

It’s not counter-intuitive – it’s true: When the phone stops ringing, it’s time to ratchet up the outreach a notch.

CauseWare can help.

The mission of CauseWare is three-fold: Serving charities, educating donors, and helping employers with charitable programs.

When working with charities, CauseWare focuses on small to medium sized organizations that do not have the budget or staff to plan and execute excellent communication and marketing strategies. Simply put, the mission at that level is to “Bring the tools of corporate marketing to America’s charities.”

It’s a sad fact of American life that a very few charities have the resources to attract and keep donors, or to forge relationships with corporations, for workplace giving, or for cause related marketing.

CauseWare aims to change that.

CauseWare is positioned as a low-cost solution for medium-sized charities. At CauseWare, our career-long commitment has been to bring affordable solutions to charities and non-profits.

There are many low-cost and no-cost channels available to make and strengthen the bond between charities, donors, volunteers, and corporations. Charities only need help in identifying the best, learning how to use them and developing strategies that are efficient and effective.

Please feel free to direct others to my blog at CauseWare.BlogSpot.Com. There’s a lot of free advice here – some of it pretty good, if I do say so myself. Soon, I’ll also have services, mission, etc., posted at CauseWare.Net.

Crunching Numbers

In May, the Chronicle of Philanthropy released "Fund Raising 2010: How Big Charities Are Faring in the First Quarter". According to the data, giving to some charities was down 20%, 40% -- as much as 85%.

On the other hand some charities were up by 200% to over 500%.

What gives? Why the broad difference?

Well, from the 30,000 foot view, it looks like the big gains were made by charities delivering international relief. The earthquake in Haiti might figure large in why some charities increased donations so much over a year's time.

Haitian relief was immediate, and very public. And aid remains much needed. Port-au-Prince remains "stuck in limbo," according to a May 29 article in the New York Times. 

But what does your organization -- or your favorite charity -- do that provides immediate and much needed services or programs? While perhaps not as public or dramatic as a catastrophic earthquake or flooding, hundreds of thousands of American charities deliver, on a daily basis food to the unfed, shelter to the homeless, educational opportunities to the underserved, companionship to the unwanted -- the list goes on and on.

It's an unfortunate fact that charities and other non-profits in America share something in common with American business. That is the need for marketing.

What makes your organization stand out? What is the immediate need you address? What are your success stories? What is the picture of need?

These questions (and more) are what you need to be discussing. Answers to the questions will lead to differentiators, which, in turn, help define your brand.

Want some help? Shoot me an email at RGondella@CauseWare.Net.

Katya's Non-Profit Marketing Blog

Check out this great post on nonprofit marketing Queen of the Rodeo, Katya Andresen's blog: Katya's Non-Profit Marketing Blog.

The title is "Four insights on giving from a philanthropist who is a psychologist." It's a very insightful, quick read on the power of words in fundraising.

Connecting the Dots

To tweet or not to tweet: That is the question.

As I wrote in a recent post, my opinion is that Twitter is a great tool for “friendraising,” for developing relationships with "a younger, more educated demographic" that may eventually yield donors. Even with only 7% of Americans using Twitter, those that do use it are a potential resource – now, as volunteers, and later, perhaps, as financial supporters.

So, I was surprised (to put it mildly) as I reviewed some additional research at philanthropy.com and found that 42% of charities use Twitter as a top tool for online fundraising. That means that in America, 500,000 charities, give or take, are using Twitter to reach the same 22 million people.

Just 44 individuals for each charity using Twitter.

Obviously, some charities are going to do better at fundraising with Twitter. But the reasons are going to be wildly dissimilar – a big news event about the cause, an issue that hits that “younger, more educated” demographic smack between the eyes, a catastrophe somewhere in the world. Whatever the case, Twitter, it seems, is currently a pretty narrow band to really have impact on a charity’s bottom line.

The question is not whether Twitter is an effective social media tool. It is. And it will likely get better. As I’ve said, better to be there with a strongly managed message strategy than to not be there at all. But the messaging needs to be strongly managed, or you risk a dissipation of your brand.

So, Twitter is a good idea for messaging and friendraising. But, is it the right tool for fundraising? A pattern emerges, as you dig deeper into the research and connect the dots. 

The Chronicle of Philanthropy vs. Fenton Communications: Who’s Right?

Last week, Fenton Communications released The 2010 Fenton Forecast: Leadership and Effectiveness Among Nonprofits (see blog post below, "Words to live by: Fiscal Responsibility, Content, and Credibility.") The Fenton report painted a somewhat gloomy picture of giving in 2010, drawing the conclusion that giving would be slightly down or flat.

On May 16, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published the article "Donations in 2010’s First Quarter Show Healthy Signs for Charities." This article tells us "Giving grew by a median of 11 percent in the first three months of 2010, compared with 2009."

Who's right? And how can you know for sure?

Having a look at the basis of each study is a good place to start. The Fenton Forecast credentials are good: 

The nationally representative online study, conducted in March 2010, surveyed 1,000 adults aged 18 and older who had donated $20 or more to a nonprofit organization in the past year. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. 

My only point of contention with that source is that it was conducted online. How respondents were driven to the survey may skew the results. Then again, maybe not. Based on the information given, it's hard to tell.

The Chronicle's source is different:

The Chronicle’s quarterly survey of giving offers a bellwether of how donations to all charities are doing because it is based on the donation rates to charities that appear on the Philanthropy 400, The Chronicle’s annual tally of the American organizations that raise the most from private sources. 

Four of the organizations that provided numbers were among the top 25 recipients of donations last year: Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund (No. 3), World Vision (No 11), Catholic Charities USA (No 13) and Nature Conservancy (No. 14).

I guess what this means is that if your charity is in the top 400, out of the more than 1.2 million non-profits in America, your prospects are pretty good for 2010 and beyond. On the other hand, if your organization is one of the other 1.19+ million, the situation could be a bit dicey.

No matter the case, my advice would be the same: "Hunt where the ducks are." Look at where your organization's contributions are coming from. Look geographically and look demographically. Do some research on why that location or group has a more natural affinity with your organization. Take the extra time to split a couple of hairs. With minimal effort, you can probably mine good data from the space between two slices of demographic that are otherwise identical, except in their level of support.

Why assess by geography and demographics? These give you hard targets that have self-identified.

From those points of strength work to spread the circle. Go to your established donors -- not with another ask, but with a request that they help spread the message of your mission. Host an event, if it's a geographically sound tactic. Engage a circle of your supporters in a city or region.

Or, make it an online event, if you're working a demographically-based angle.

In any case, if you're important enough for your donors to care about, surely you're important enough for their friends to care about.

In the end whatever the current state of giving is, it is infinitely more important to you to maintain and expand your donor base than to argue over who is right.

Tweeting for Dollars?

There's an interesting blog post on Chronicle of Philanthropy, about the use of Twitter as a tool for fundraising. Interesting isn't always a good thing. There's an old saying, "May you live in interesting times." It's not an ancient version of "have a good day." It was meant as a curse.

In this case, the curse may be the amount of time and resources organizations spend thinking, researching, and generally ruminating on the value of social media. If you're wondering about the value of Twitter in fundraising or in spreading the message and mission of your organization, you should read the post.

Central to the article is the following:

...the number of people who use Twitter at least once a month is leveling off.

The numbers show that only about 7 percent of the U.S. population uses the social-networking site at least once a month.

And that has fund-raising experts like The Agitator's Tom Belford advising charities to ignore the medium. 

The post raises questions, more than it gives answers, and there are a number of comments. Here's my comment on the topic:

Younger and more educated readers [using Twitter] is great. Study after study indicate that this demographic is more likely to donate time (volunteer) than donate money. If an org is most interested in getting volunteers on board, Twitter seems like a good solution.

The same goes for "friendraising." As the old marketing saw goes "Get'em young, keep 'em long" -- the idea being that eventually they will tire of volunteering and start giving dollars.

Spreading the word is great, too. But spreading to whom? Spreading the word to other members of the same demographic might bring more volunteers, more future givers. But are the 45-54 demographic and the 55-64 demographic getting the message? Are the "younger and more educated" being followed on Twitter by these prime givers? From a fundraising perspective, it's a valid question.

We've seen a ballooning of the use of social media. Every .org is eager to get on board with every form of social media. But keeping the organization's brand straight across multiple platforms is near impossible. Likewise messaging strategy.

But, if you're after volunteers, and the idea is friendraising rather than fund raising, get someone on staff to tweet regularly, with a strictly monitored message strategy.

But there's another old saw: "Don't put all of your eggs in one basket."

What do you think?

Words to live by: Fiscal Responsibility, Content, and Credibility

On May 19, Fenton Communications released The 2010 Fenton Forecast: Leadership and Effectiveness Among Nonprofits.

On the surface, Fenton's findings are not great news for non-profits:

Despite signs that some sectors of the economy are slowly recovering, the outlook for nonprofit organizations is still grim. According to recent results from the 2010 Fenton Forecast: Leadership and Effectiveness Among Nonprofits, nearly two-thirds of survey respondents report they plan to either reduce their giving or keep it the same as last year.  This is on top of already reduced giving levels for 2008 and 2009.

All hope, however, is not lost. There is a very nice takeaway embedded in the study. The report states "Most Americans Agree: Nonprofits Do a Very Good Job." 80% of the survey group believe non-profits are doing an "excellent" or "good" job of serving the public good.

So, here, in brief, is a To Do List, drawn from the report:

• Prove your fiscal responsibility
• Be a "Credible Source"
• Be Transparent -- Americans rank how the organization manages its money higher than any other leadership quality.
• Cozy up to traditional media (newspapers, television, etc.) -- "Traditional news media outlets rank as the most credible sources of information about issues people care about."
• And last, to win the Golden Ring, figure out these evil twins: "People in our survey rank Facebook as the most popular way to voice their opinion on topics they care about" yet "Social networking sites rank at the bottom for credibility. Even so, respondents rank Facebook as among the most popular ways they prefer to share opinions on issues that matter to them."

There is s a great deal of information contained in the full report, which certainly, I have oversimplified, to a great extent. You can download the full report by clicking here.

So download the report, and REMEMBER: This can be an opportunity. Giving will rebound, and soon. In the meantime, set aside some of your resources to differentiate your organization from others. Determine to set yourself apart from the copycats. Make your mission clear, if there are other non-profits delivering services and programs that seem like they might be the same as yours, but aren't really.

And, if you'd like more information about how you can make your organization stand out without breaking the bank, drop me an email at RGondella@Causeware.Net

IRS Cuts Small Charities Some Slack

Interal Revenue Service Commissioner Doug Shulman says "the IRS will do what it can to help [small charities] avoid losing their tax-exempt status."

He was speaking of the perhaps 300,000 charities with annual revenues under $25,000 which failed to make a special filing of Form 990N (e-postcard) by midnight, May 17. Many of the charities may be defunct; however many may just be small charities that were unaware of the new filing, and the deadline.

Calling these organizations "vital to communities across the United States," Schulman said "I understand their concerns about possibly losing their tax-exempt status."

The IRS will be issuing additional guidance in the near future, but, Schulman said "I urge these organizations to go ahead and file — even though the May 17 deadline has passed."

For the full text of the IRS Commissioner's statement, click here.

The Cost of Innovation

Apparently, charities are an innovative group. An article in the current Chronicle of Philanthropy says “A willingness to innovate, experiment, and evaluate is widespread in the nonprofit world…”

Perhaps it grows out of a need to manage multiple projects and programs, combined with the dedication and determination of the typically small staffs of non-profits. I think so.

When I was with America’s Charities, we developed an online payroll deduction giving system, called Pledge1st. I was a project manager on technology and product development, though my official title was Vice President of Communications, Marketing and Media Relations.

When we were developing Pledge1st, America’s Charities had about 28 employees, give or take, nationwide. We were all doing double duty, in the effort to deliver the best possible customer service to our member charities, donors, and the employers where we administered workplace giving campaigns, as we created this new technology.

Pledge1st remains, today, as one of the three leading providers of online workplace giving systems. And America’s Charities always got the highest marks for customer service.

I wonder if, in the current economic climate, charities can be as willing to be innovative. That same Chronicle article goes on to say “…what’s missing is the money to spread innovative ideas that succeed.”

Pledge1st cost a significant amount to develop. But, in return, it offered significant innovation for workplace giving, developing, in turn, a greater unrestricted revenue stream for America’s Charities member organizations. That unrestricted revenue stream allowed charities to keep the lights on, keep good staff, and administer programs.

Innovation is important – maybe more so in times of economic downturn. Charities can’t afford to lose their edge, or their desire to go to the edge. We need to explore new, cost-effective ways to bring innovation to charitable work and to charitable fundraising.

So, here’s a question: What areas of fundraising would benefit most from new ideas?

Small Charities May Have Suffered Setback

As of midnight, Monday, May 17, many charities with annual revenue below $25,000 may have lost their tax-exempt status.

An IRS news release states:

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 mandates that all non-profit organizations, other than churches and church related organizations, must file an information form with the IRS.  This requirement has been in effect since the beginning of 2007, which made 2009 the third consecutive year under the new law. Any organization that fails to file for three consecutive years automatically loses its federal tax-exempt status.

Clicking through the IRS Web site, it seems that the deadline might be somewhat “elastic,” as the electronic form states “During this peak filing time (May 16 through May 18), it might take up to 48 hours to receive your e-filing receipt.”

So, if your organization raises less than $25,000 annually, and you have not filed in the past three years, get to IRS Web site and file the e-Postcard right away. Make sure you don’t put your tax-exempt status at risk.

Definitions and such...

Everyone probably has their own definition of success. For some, maybe it's money. Others, power.

But, for "states of being," definitions are pretty much just constructs, aren't they? I mean, my definition of success has to be based on my expectations of what success might feel like. So, when I achieve that goal I've set myself -- material, spiritual, physical -- am I happy? Do I feel successful?

Tonight, my kids told me they love me. So did my wife. That felt like an unqualified success to me...

Success is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. How do you define success?