Charity Chatter

Obama & Fundraising: Lets get real!

I'm going to be contrarian (big surprise!) and push back a little here. 

Recently I've seen a couple blogs and website editorials discussing internet fundraising and advocacy and suggesting that fundraisers learn from the Obama campaign.  I think people need to stop looking at Obama's online campaign and holding it up as the standard by which charities should base their own online efforts.

Crazy Confluence of Events

I don't dispute the amazing work that people did on Obama's online advocacy and fundraising efforts, but lets look at it in context shall we?  A number of factors fed into the success of his campaign.  Issues and situations that were unique to the time and place.  Issues that aren't likely to ever occur for the vast majority of charities. 

1. This was politics! Politics more than almost anything will bring out the passion in people. I've never seen anything that arouses people's passion, anger, willingness to take a stand and need to voice their opinion more than politics.  How many charities do you know that deal with topics that have the ability to inflame and inspire people simply by stating a position?
2. This was American politics! The two party system and basic political environment in the USA is more heated and more passionate than most western cultures. The entire culture (at times) seems to be positioned in an "us vs. them" perspective.  (this is my opinion - but i'm good with that)
3. People were angry... very angry - and not just in the USA.  Even most Republicans were salivating at the notion of getting rid of the sitting President. 
4. 9/11, Afghanistan, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Torture, Media like Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Colbert, Jon Stewart, etc.  You couldn't have created this confluence of events if the USA were a bacteria in petrie dish in a controlled laboratory.
5. They had a lot of money.  Yes some of it came from their online efforts - but even before that happened, they spent a lot of money on people, infrastructure, planning & execution before the online money started rolling in
6. Oprah! (Honestly, do you think that didn't have a large impact?)

I don't doubt that charities can learn a few things from the Obama campaign, but lets put it in perspective.  Had the American environment not been as enraged, passionate and literally starving for change; had this happened in Canada where you have multiple parties; had they not poured vast amounts of money and had tremendous resources at their disposal - they could have used all their best practices and had a very different outcome.

Learn from others, but DO based on you!

Too often we look at what others are doing that works and we try to mimic it - without asking whether it's even relevant to the organization we represent. 

The organizations and people who succeed in their online, social networking, web 2.0 (insert whatever name applies here), are going to be the ones who try new things, who fearlessly charge forward and recognize that they are going to stumble or fall flat on their face a couple/few times.  They will test and try and fumble and even fail... but they'll figure it out, find their niche and do it well.

They may learn something from Obama, but they'll learn something from all kinds of people and organizations. Mostly, they'll learn from testing, retesting and being ready to learn it all over again when they wake up tomorrow and the "next big thing" has hit like a twitterstorm.

So please - if you're going to quote Obama or attend a session from one of the Obama experts, be realistic.  It is ridiculously unlikely that your organization is going to enjoy the kind of "stranger than fiction" confluence of events that set the stage for Obama's success.

Think big, think for yourself, and be prepared to suck sometimes.

Online Impulse "Buys"

I'm a voracious consumer of all manner of fundraising, marketing and sales research.  I'm a premium member of The Agitator.  I read Marketing Profs, Seth's Blog and several other great resources regularly. (and I read books too!)

I value all the work these individuals do and the research they share - but... there's something I'm not seeing.  And I wonder if it's because I'm not looking in the right places or if people simply don't want to talk about it?

Are we asking the right questions?

In all the fundraising surveys and research papers I've read about online trends, patterns etc., studies refer to very specific motivations and triggers for giving (and buying).  They discuss any number of factors that influence why someone donates or doesn't.  We're seeing even more of this as we try to understand social networking, Web 2.0 and online fundraising. 

Now these are important and I think it's great that we're asking these questions and focusing on these areas.  But I have to wonder... How often do these survey's include an option that says something like "I have no clue why I made my last online donation - it just felt good".  Or perhaps "It was an impulse decision based on nothing other than emotion". I realize that often people won't say that they made an impulsive decision based on emotion - but shouldn't we at least ask?  I'd love to know the answer! Wouldn't you?  Is anyone asking that question?  If so, please point me in the direction of those answers.

Merchandising & Impulse Buys

We all buy things "just because".  We all get a craving, a temptation, a feel good, feel sad, feel... something moment that makes us act.  I believe (based on nothing more than my instinct and gut feeling) that a good portion of online giving is just that - an impulse buy.  I don't know if it's true, because I've never seen anyone really study it.  And i'm not sure if the people who respond to surveys would admit it.

I wrote about an impulse donation in this blog.  It was for Pets for the Environment in the USA.  To this day it remains the most FUN donation I've ever made.  Now I like pets and I care about the environment, but typically when I'm donating logically, I donate locally and to organizations I know and trust (and who can give me a tax receipt).  I donate to Annex Cat Rescue for my pet donations.  I donate to The Conservation Foundation and the Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation also.  I also, of course, donate to the ALS Society of Canada, amongst others.

Those are my thoughtful donations.  But I have donated many times on a whim - just because the mood struck me.  Something that charity did was fun, emotional, sad etc.  They did something to "move me" at that time.  Some I've donated to again.  Others were "one-off's".  They "merchandised" themselves in a way that made me want to donate right then and there.  I didn't look for their mission/vision.  I didn't look to see how they spend the money. I didn't "think" at all.  I just responded impulsively, because I "felt like it".

Is something wrong with a one-off?

If a charity is good, those one time donations can become more.  And even if they don't - why not appeal to impulse?  Why not try to understand what motivates the impulse donation?  Is it too difficult?  Will people simply not admit to it or share what specifically drove them to make those impulse donations?  Maybe they don't know? 

I don't know what the answers are.  But I'd love to find out.  I think that one-time donations and impulse contributions are great.  I think they're a great first step in a future relationship and even if they're not, it is one more donation that a charity didn't have.  If 1 million people decided to give $10 just once, that'd be 10 million dollars they didn't have.  I think that's a good thing.

Can we "merchandise" ourselves better for the impulse donation?

I think we can.  Look at all that stuff by the cashier when you check out at any retail store.  Those are typical impulse items.  They are placed and displayed to appeal to that last minute impulse.  They'll brand and market so you choose their product over a competitors, but they combine their brand loyalty efforts with an appeal to impulse purchasing.

Is there something charities can learn here?  I think so.  I think the online world (and perhaps the direct response world in general) is more impulse than most of us want to admit - and I think the charities that embrace that, will all do a lot better.

I'm not suggesting we stop cultivating relationships and building loyalty. That's just silly. However, I don't think we should ignore impulse donors - both for that one time donation and for the potential to build longer term relationships with those impulse donors. 

So - how do we merchandise ourselves better for the impulse donor?  First, we need to identify those impulse donors and get some honest insight into what triggers their impulses.  Show me that info - and I'll be a very happy fundraiser.

Friday Challenge!

I challenge everyone to make an impulsive donation today.  Heck do anything impulsive and just think about it for awhile.  What triggered your impulse act?  How? Why? Who? What? Just do it!  Let yourself be impulsive and take note of what drove that impulse.  Maybe you'll discover something wonderful.  And if you need a kickstart - visit http://www.als.ca. Watch the PSA and be impulsive and click the Donate Now button. Go on... you know ya wanna!

TGIF!

Twitter: It's called "social" media for a reason.

Today Kimberley MacKenzie blogged about Twitter.  I started to respond via comments and realized, it was much too long for a blog comment - so my response became a blog.

To Tweet or not to Tweet?

I enjoy twitter.  My "social/personal" twitter is where I'm going to yammer about stupid stuff, like I'm on hold for 50 minutes. It's where I learn that my friend Lori in Vancouver is getting a cat. It's where I got the link to the new Star Trek trailer.  It's just fun.  And if it's on your blackberry(as it is mine), it's much less time intensive than facebook.

It's a great way to check on stuff in 2 seconds.  Kimberley says it's the modern day water cooler.  Maybe so - except, I have twitter on my phone and can use it while I'm at a stop light, at an event, or exercising along the lakeshore.

The water cooler requires me to stop what I'm doing, be in one place and speak with who ever happens to be there.  Twitter - lets me scan in 2 seconds many "tweets" and see what's happening and determine what, if anything, I want to spend more time on.  I like that.

Tools of the Tweet

This week, I discovered Tweetdeck.  If I'm at my computer, Tweetdeck can run in the background and I can see if someone responds to me, I can do a search of key terms and save it and I can see get a great overview of many things going on - again in 2 seconds.  

I use Twitterberry on my blackberry.  It lets me tweet from my phone.  I can upload pictures of what I'm doing.  We made use of this earlier this week while attending the "First Reading" for Tuesdays with Morrie. Examples can be found here and here.

There are others - but those are the two I use currently.

Why should I care that you did something inane?

Well - lets look at why it matters... Recently a couple companies (Dominos and Amazon) have been deluged by youtube and twitter chat about them that caused some serious PR problems.  This great article which I found via someone elses tweet, highlights how twitter can have a negative impact on your business and what you should do if your organization ends up being the subject of a "twitterstorm".

Twitter is word of mouth advertising.  I launched a "Tweet to Win" contest this week using our alscanada twitter account.  We're giving away free tickets to Tuesdays with Morrie to anyone who tweets about the play.  So instead of waiting for people to tweet about us - I'm encouraging them to do it!  I'm helping to guide what they say and rewarding them for saying.  It's fun!

Personality vs. Professionalism

I saw a great tweet today that was "retweeted" (shown as RT by tweeple) by serenevistas from its original author designriffs.   It said: "Social media isn't as much about setting up a shop front as it is setting up a personality and reputation."

That sums it up nicely for me.  People and/or Tweeple can tweet all day about fundraising if they want - but the reality is, the people who only tweet professional stuff, I ignore and in some cases, I stop following them. The exceptions to this rule are the news organizations.  I follow them for news - but it's nice when they tweet some funny news too!

It's called Social media for a reason!

There's a lot of stuff I don't care about - but I have the ability to ignore it in a fraction of a second and I like that.

So while many people won't care that I sat on hold with ticketmaster for 50 minutes (and finally gave up), some of my friends are amused.  It's OK that you may not be interested in the new Star Trek trailer, or in taking part in the ALS Canada, Tweet to Win contest. 

The great thing about twitter is that it takes you .02 seconds to decide what you want and don't want and if you are constantly barraged with stuff you don't want from someone - don't follow them.  That said, if your tweets are always professional and never (or rarely) social - you may find that your list of followers is very low and both your social and professional experience will be less impactful and enjoyable. 

I am an active "unfollower" of people who aren't social in their use of social media.  But that's just me and I rather enjoy being both amused and informed.  And to be fair - I am very easily amused...

And on that note...

I'm off to go play on twitter while I eat lunch and get ready to exercise on the lakeshore - where I will probably tweet about what I'm doing - just because it's fun.

First or Best?

In the latter years of my publishing career, I was responsible for technology/media products.   The publisher I worked for was never first with their technology products.  Their products were never the market leader.

But We're Better!

The products we produced were (in our opinion) better than our competitors.  Our development teams spent more time adding functionality, testing, and providing more stable technology.  Did that matter?  Not as much as we thought it would.

People are creatures of habit.  When they find something that's interesting and interactive - and they get used to it, they don't like to change.  Even if you create something that gives them everything they ask for, the very "newness" of it will be perceived (by most people) as hard work.  They have to invest time in something new - and they might not like it better.  So why leave something they enjoy and are comfortable with? 

Web 2.0, Charities & Fundraising

We see many white papers, consultants and experts telling us that social networking and to a lesser degree, email direct response are not providing great fundraising results for most organizations.  If we measure these things strictly by immediate donations made from specific solicitations, this is true.  However, is that how we should measure these initiatives? 

How long did it take to build a high performing direct mail list or build a major gifts and/or planned giving program from nothing?  In most cases many years.  Perhaps because of the nature of the internet, we expect the returns to be as immediate as a google search?  But that's foolish.  The reality is - with any technology you need to cultivate your audience and it will be much easier to do that if you're speaking to that audience before someone else is.

Be First. Become the Best!

It is absolutely critical that organizations spend time planning a marketing and communications strategy that is effective and incorporates online/media initatives into an integrated approach and uses best practices.  However... don't seek perfection and don't delay using communication tools while you wait for perfection.  In fact, your strategy and plan will probably be better after you've spent a little time trying new things.

If you wait for someone else to show you the way, chances are your audience will already be listening to and engaging with the people who were first. You will have a very difficult time redirecting those individuals to your organization - regardless of how great and impactful your strategy, site, tools etc. are.  It's ok to be imperfect as long as you're flexible enough to try new and different things and to pay attention to what people want and what they respond to. 

Yes You Can!

If you're the first to lead a horse to water, he's far more likely to drink than if you're the 2nd, 3rd, or 1000th, person to lead the horse to water.   Internet and technology audiences are changing at a remarkable rate.  As the fine folks at The Agitator noted recently, the number of USA Facebook users over 35 has doubled in the last 60 days (at the time of their post).  Sixty days!  Imagine a demographic doubling in 2 months?  Seems fast right?  Well it is and it isn't.  The change happened quickly, but Facebook has been around for a long, time.

How likely do you think these new users will be to join a new and different site that does what Facebook does, but better?  My experience, says that winning individuals over from a 'competitor' will be a hardfought battle and will require your offering to be absolutely extraordinary and for the incumbent to be performing very badly or to have become so stale that it's just no fun at all. 

Facebook is a much different place than it was 1 or 2 years ago.  They've taken the time to build an audience.  They've cultivated and stewarded their audience.  They've engaged people and over time created a place that is now attracting new audiences.  That demographic shift occured over 2 months, but it took years to build and cultivate. 

Build It & They Will Come

So while you may not see direct and immediate revenue results from your online efforts, don't give up.  Don't wait for someone else to show you how to do it right.  Start today, make a plan and revisit that plan based on realistic goals and best practices - and understand that you will need to redefine as you go.

Experiment, explore, experience and engage with people.  Eventually, you will build an audience and be successful.  If you're talking to people first - chances are they'll ignore other people who try to talk to them later.

If you think you're constituents aren't online yet - now is exactly the time to start talking to them, because they will be online eventually. Be first and you'll be waiting for them when they arrive!  And is it possible that there are people that could be your constituents that you haven't reached because you weren't talking to them to begin with?

Being first is never easy and sometimes it fails... but if you're flexible, strategic and willing to learn from those 'failures', you'll figure it out and you will ultimately find the voice that people want to hear and will respond to.

Leap & The Net Will Appear!

It's far easier to become the best, if you're willing to risk being first. 

Many consultants & experts will tell you not to invest too much time in these low ROI activities - and with limited resources, you do have to be cautious.  But you also have to look to the future.  How will your future resources be impacted if you aren't there when your constituents show up?  And they will show up - and if you're not there, someone else will be.