Charity Chatter

Laurie Pringle's invitation is awaiting your response

 




















 
















 













 










 










 
















 










 







Laurie Pringle would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond?








 












 














 








Laurie Pringle








 






Director Market Development at Independent Learning Centre - TVO








 




















 




Confirm you know Laurie






 





















 










 























 










You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe





If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.








 






© 2015, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA











 

Laurie Pringle's invitation is awaiting your response

 




















 
















 













 










 










 
















 










 







Laurie Pringle would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond?








 












 














 








Laurie Pringle








 






Director Market Development at Independent Learning Centre - TVO








 




















 




Confirm you know Laurie






 





















 










 























 










You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe





If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.








 






© 2015, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA











 

Artez Interaction 2011: Sessions to get excited about.

The Artez Interaction conference is almost upon us.  Last year I attended as a guest panellist and found it to be a very informative and fun day.

This year, there are a few sessions that fall into the "must see" category for me. Here are my top picks for the conference:

The Evolution of Canadian Charitable Giving, Steve Levy, President Ipsos Reid - East.

Why are Canadians Giving? How are they giving? Are they donating online? Using smartphones? Steve is compiling data from research conducted this summer and sharing it with fundraisers at the conference.  If you're trying to determine how to invest and plan in your future fundraising, this is the session that will help you do that based on current donor data.  More importantly, as you work with your executive and/or volunteer leadership, this session will give you the data you need to inspire your leadership to support your initiatives and the budget you require to pursue and/or grow those efforts.

 Young People Want to Give -- Attracting Younger Donors to Your Cause, Ted Kaiser, VP I.T., Kids Help Phone & Nicky Mezo, Head of Marketing, PayPal Canada. 

I've long been a fan of shopping and buying online. PayPal was the service I used the first time I conducted an online transaction.  I've been preaching the benefits of providing a PayPal option to charities for some time now.  It will be interesting to hear these two people share their knowledge.  You'll enjoy more current giving statistics, combined with the fundraising expertise of one of Canada's most highly regarded children's charity's.  

Everything you Wanted to Know About Ad Words & Metrics but Were Afraid to Google, Tony Singh & Matt Walton - Google Canada. 

Like the other 2 topics I'm highlighting today, this is ideal for any size charity. With Google's Ad Words grant program and a little strategic thinking, large and small charities will benefit from this session.  Investing just a little time understanding how to use Ad Words and measure those outcomes can reap real rewards for your charity.  

There are many other interesting sessions worth noting, but I wanted to highlight the ones I felt had the broadest areas of interest.  Head over to the Artez Interaction website to see the full list of sessions here: http://info.artez.com/artez-interaction/

So - if you can free up your day on September 29th, take a moment to register for the Artez conference.  Compared to other fundraising conferences, the $169.50 conference fee is one of the best professional development values you will find out there.  To register visit their website and be sure to find me and say hello if you happen to attend.  http://info.artez.com/artez-interaction/

Function Before Fashion: Design should work!

Whether it's online blog posts or working with designers and creative agencies, I see far too many people advocating design that looks pretty, but isn't based on the available data surrounding donor behaviour.

If you're looking for someone to help you design an on-line advertisement, a newsletter, a website, donation page, or any of your direct response work, make sure their suggestions are based on data and best practices that demonstrate results with some form of statistical proof of impact.

Just because a donation page looks pretty and works to process your donation, doesn't mean it's effective at increasing donations for your organization.  Just because a website looks wonderful and does cool stuff, doesn't mean it is helping people get information, or get involved with your organization.  

Free can be expensive!

If you're considering hiring a firm or independent consultant to help you with design, be sure to ask them for data to support their design decisions. If you want to ensure your donation page is converting more donations (or higher amounts), work with professionals who understand fundraising.  If someone is offering to do work in this area for you for free (or at minimal cost), consider how much you stand to lose if their design costs you thousands or hundreds of thousands in donations.   

With online and mobile giving growing at an enormous pace, you can't afford to be creating websites or other communications properties with people who can't tell you how donors behave and what they motivate them to respond.  

Always keep in mind what your trying to achieve.  Pretty and "cool" isn't good enough.  Results are your number one priority, make sure the people you work with deliver on them. 

That's Not Giving

Are charities diminishing the value (and meaning) of "giving"? 

This thought occurred to me as I read a post about "Social Impact Giving" on LinkedIn.  The premise behind this funding method, allows funders to "invest" in a social project and receive a profit back (usually from the government) - IF - the project is successful. The idea being that the government has benefitted from the social impact, therefore it's a bargain. If the project fails to achieve results, the funder gets nothing back and the government keeps its money.  It's an interesting model. 

It's important to note that I do not object to charitable revenue generation being tied to profit through models like this or through corporate partnerships.  Corporate sponsorships and cause marketing that promote a profit based organization or product are great opportunities that I'd like to see explored more often.  I think the charitable sector can get a smarter and more innovative by embracing more of these opportunities. However, these things are not "giving" and I think it's dangerous to label them as such.

Give and/or Get?

When I give a gift - I do so with no expectation of benefit back.  Whether it's a gift to a charity, or to a friend or relative, I do give because it makes me feel good to do so.  It's not an investment and I have no desire to make a profit for the act of giving. 

A recent study authored by Aradhna Krisha concluded that "consumers’ direct charitable giving to a charity is lower if they purchase on CM even  if the cause marketing purchase is costless to the consumer (unlike other forms of charitable giving)." [published and referenced on philanthropy.com]

All of this combines to prompt me to ask: Are we diminishing the value of giving and even training people not to give?

I am not attempting to promote "pure giving" (for lack of a better word) over social investing, corporate sponsorship or corporate social responsibility.  However, I would like to encourage everyone to think about the net overall impact these various funding options might have.

If the potential exists to diminish giving, by highlighting and promoting other forms of revenue generation, we need to be prepared for the long term consequences of this. 

I think it is going to be very important for charities to ensure that donors understand the difference in these forms of revenue.  It seems to me that step one in that process is to stop calling these things "giving".  There's no "gift" in Social Impact Giving, where a return on investment is received by the investor. There's no gift in buying yourself some chocolates and having the chocolate company make a donation. You simply made a socially conscious buying decision. 

Some will say that stewardship and recognition programs offer similar rewards and enticements to give and therefore they are the same as these other revenue streams. I disagree.  The most notable difference as I see it, is a lack of profit.  A person may enjoy their name on a building, or other benefits, but these don't exceed the amount given and they are rarely a major motivator in making the gift. 

So while, these corporate partnerships and investment vehicles are all good things - they are simply not "giving".  I believe the charitable sector would be wise to differentiate them from traditional giving and ensure that donors also clearly see that difference.  The future of giving may well depend on it.

E.D./CEO Term Limits?

I've not been writing much lately - mostly due to a busy schedule.  However, I recently read a comment on a blog about the firing of a Founder/E.D. The commenter stated that charities should have term limits for their staff leadership. I found it so provocative that I felt it was worth writing about.

I must admit that I see the wisdom in this.  Like anything in life, I don't think it's an absolute and I can look around the non-profit sector and see organizations that have thrived with long-term staff leaders who have served more than a decade. However, I see that as the exception - not the rule.

We impose term limits on board leadership. Why not also do so for staff leadership? 

How many of us can reinvent or reinvigorate ourselves and our organizations over decades?  In principal I like the idea of term limits for Executive Directors/CEO's.  However, what happens when an organization finds an exceptional leader who would be difficult to replace?  What about organizations who require such specialized skills that there are few people qualified to lead the organization?

It's a challenging question, but I'd love to hear what others think.  Is this something that organizations should consider? 

Corporate vs. Non Profit

As many of you know, I spent 13 years enjoying a wonderfully successful and happy career in the corporate sector.  My career transition was inspired by some changes in my personal life, which led to a desire to make a greater impact on the world around me.  It was not out of any malice or unhappiness with my work, or the companies I worked for.  

I learned a lot in those 13 years.  I learned to build new business and new markets from scratch. That meant dealing with sales and all the infrastructure that supports sales: pricing, inventory, forecasting,  credit/collections, customs, logistics, customer service, proposal writing, presenting, technical support, marketing, sales meetings.  The list goes on and on.  I learned how to make business happen and get things done, and those lessons continue to benefit me in my non profit work.

When  I transitioned to the non profit sector, I began a new learning experience.  Despite protests from all sides about how different it would be, it's not all that different.  

The 2 main differences in non profits are the board of directors and the challenge to hire great people.  However, the process of connecting with people, learning about them and ultimately inspiring them to buy/give -- is exactly the same.  And while the talent pool for non profits is small (largely because non profit people are paid about 40 - 50% of what I made in my corporate job), there are some wonderful, brilliant people working in this industry.

The Corporate View

There's a sense from people in the corporate world that non profit employees are lazy or incompetent... and that they lack accountability and drive.  I understand where that comes from - and there is a need for NFP's to do a better job of focusing on and measuring results.  However, that requires money, funding and expertise.

People don't want to donate to measuring impact - they want to donate to feeding a child. Boards of Directors are often hesitant to invest in developing those systems, because their priority is the immediate need/s of the client base (i.e. feeding kids, planting trees etc.) It's a conundrum for charities.  If you want charities to do a better job of measuring that success, join a board of directors and ensure the board invests funds into developing those systems.  

The Non Profit View

On the other side of this equation is the sense that corporations and corporate leaders are bad because they want to see recognition and results from their corporate social responsibility efforts. Nonsense! A partnership that generates a mutual benefit or gift that receives recognition, is no less generous or genuine than an anonymous gift.  Recently a non profit peer compared business leaders to sociopaths.  I find this notion incredibly offensive.  These people are your donors. They are generous people who are GIVING you their money. They deserve your gratitude and respect, not a bugrudging thank you muted by hubris and contempt.

The Reality

BOTH types of businesses (and yes charity - you are a business) need to generate revenues.  And lest you think that your purpose is somehow more important than a "for profit" business... think again.  Both change the world in different and important ways.  Both are made up of good people and people who are less good.  

It's time to come together to combine the best of both worlds and build something remarkable.  When you make something great for everyone - everyone benefits... and I don't know how that can be anything but good.

Charity? Ewww!

It's NOT Charity!

I am seeing this more and more from... of all places - charities!  The great folks at Feed The Children, have a whole video about it. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJjSYkGi1dk

The organization ACCION uses the URL: http://www.itsnotcharity.org/ 

Liberty Hill's tagline is "Change. Not Charity."

The word "charity" has always had negative connotations.  My grandparents were working poor people.  My grandfather was a proud man.  One day my grandfathers boss (the owner of a scrap iron facility) heard that my mother and uncles didn't have boots for winter, and he drove to their house with several pairs of boots for them. My grandfather initially refused to take them because he didn't accept charity.  The boss convinced him that it was a gift for his 15 years of service. Grumbling, he took the boots and my mom enjoyed dry, warm feet that winter.  We hear stuff like this all the time:

• "He's a charity case".  
• "I don't want your charity".

I've even met people who have received help from charities who are embarrassed to discuss it.  

Time for a change?

We can't change decades of negative thinking overnight.  But if we want to change the perception of charity, perhaps charities should stop piling on and further driving the word into the mud?

Or... maybe we should just accept that charity has negative connotations and start calling ourselves something else?  If even charities accept that the word "charity" is a bad thing and are attempting to brand themselves as "not charity"... then it's time to either change perceptions or change the word we use to describe what we do.

I realize this isn't the first time this topic has come up, but we don't seem to take the topic very seriously.  In Canada, we're seeing record declines in the number of people donating to charity.  In the face of serious and consistent declines in the numbers of charity donors... perhaps it's time for a serious discussion about whether or not the sector as a whole needs to drop the name "Charity". 

 

Lest We Forget

Charities aren't "all about donors".  They're not about the fundraiser's, the staff or even the founders. 

Charities are all about the mission and vision.

We talk often about donor-centric communications as if all the wants of every donor are reasonable and the sole focus of our communications.  That's not necessarily true.  

1. Not every person is a suitable donor for your cause/mission/charity.  If you're an animal shelter, a rescue donor may not want to give to you.  Or they may give to you but have unreasonable expectations based on that gift, that separate your organization from its mission.  
2. Our/Your #1 priority is to the cause.  (Sticking with the animal welfare organization example) If the veterinary healthcare workers involved in your organization determines the best interest of the animal is to be put down, but a group of donors disagree's - who should be given priority?  Well the veterinary experts - of course.
3. If you focus on the work and communicate that work in an compelling and inspiring way, you will find the right donors, to support your good works in a reasonable way.

Yes we need to have donor-centric communications, but we have to stay on mission and continue to work towards our vision.  And sometimes, that means that we have to ignore donors and just do what experts believe to be right and good.

We don't need to become politicians - saying what people want to hear for personal gain.  We need to make the world a better place and we need to identify the right donors who have an interest in our cause, and inspire them to join us as we work towards that goal.

Have a fabulous Friday!

Cat Training and Fundraising

This blog post was inspired by a comment I read on a NY Post article comparing the intelligence of dogs and cats.  The commenter noted (quite rightly, I think)  that comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. 

Who's The Boss?

It's often said that cats rule the house.  I think that's true.  When my cat, Guru, wants his nightly treat, he tells me.  If I ignore him, he starts knocking things off the coffee table.  I'm now making sure I leave nothing on the coffee table.  People think I'm a neat freak... but it's just me having a contest of wills with my cat.  My other cat, Flurry, knocks stuff off my bedside table in the morning, if I sleep too late.  She likes to be fed in the morning, you see. 

In spite of the many ways, my cats demonstrate their "ownership of me", I can get them to do just about anything.  Not because I tell them to do it and not because it makes them happy to please me. They do it because I know what they like, what they want and what they need.  And by understanding their motivations and desires (and fulfilling them), I can usually get them to cooperate with me.

This is what good fundraiser's do isn't it?  We engage volunteers. We learn about their desires, their hopes and their motivations for supporting our organizations, and we help them fulfill those things through their charitable volunteering and donations. 

And lets not forget that volunteer boards are "the boss" where charities are concerned.  

So if you're looking for a great fundraiser... find someone who's great with cats and hire them.