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?