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.

Thank You, Sir - May I have another?

I was speaking my American friend Greg recently about fundraising.  I had been looking at the donation pages for US political candidates and knowing that he's a politically active fellow, I was certain he could answer a couple questions I had regarding the odd amount options on their pages.

We never did get around to all my questions, because he was quite disgusted over an email he received from the Obama campaign.  He had previously donated to the Obama Campaign and had received a "Thank You" email following the Iowa Caucus win.  His initial response to the email was quite positive.  He was highly impressed with the "personal" email thanking him for his contribution and outlining how his support had contributed to the Iowa success. He was genuinely pleased to receive the email.   

More, More, MORE.... but really - Thanks!

His positive emotions and support soon changed, when he discovered the "donate/contribute now" button at the bottom of the email.  He regards this approach as a "cheap and manipulative tactic.  For Greg, it diminished the sincerity and appreciation expressed in the email.  Needless to say, he did not click on that donate now link.

Interestingly, this follows an interesting comment I received from another well known Canadian Fundraising expert, David Love - Executive Director for the TRCA Conservation Foundation.  I recently worked on a Crisis Marketing Plan using TRCA as the basis for the plan.  David was kind enough to read the 40+ page document and provide feedback. 

One of the recommendations within my report was to ensure that all TRCA Conservation Foundation newsletters include "an ask".  David responded that this may not be an appopriate course of action and recommended that I pick up a copy of Penelope Burk's book: "Donor Centered Fundraising" (formerly Thanks! A Guide to Donor Centered Fundraising)

As I talked with my American friend, I relayed to him some of the response statistics for thank-you letter/email donation requests.  He asked me "how deep do people track this?".  My response was a very eloquent: "Huh?"  He then proceeded to ask a very interesting question....

What do we really know?

How many years/cycles do we track these numbers?  We may well get high response rates and high dollars as an immediate response to a direct darketing thank you communication - but how many people do we lose and what types of donors are they?  If we raise 100K as a direct response to a thank-you appeal, but we lose 300K because a number of higher contributors become disillusioned with our organization and never contribute again - we have clearly done harm to our organization.

Another factor to consider is the human propensity to "say one thing and do another".  We know that people claim to dislike negative political advertisements and shock advertising.  However, we also know that human behaviour and donation patterns indicate that people do respond to these kinds of appeals. 

It's interesting to note that although my American friend did not hit click the "Donate Now" button on the Obama thank-you email, he did donate to the Obama Campaign again, after the New Hampshire loss.  So in spite of his frustration with the campaigns decision to combine a thank-you with an appeal for more contributions... he wasn't unhappy enough to stop providing financial support to the campaign.

Do As I Say - Ignore What I Do!

It would be interesting to research this further and determine what statistics are available in the charitable sector regarding the long-term donation results of individuals who receive thank-you appeals.  I have ordered Burk's book and look forward to reading it - however, the book description appears to indicate that her research is based on donor feedback.  While donor feedback and their expressed wishes are a priority concern for all fundraisers and their organizations, we must also be mindful of how people act and respond.  I know that a number of organizations work hard to keep statistics on response rates and various other related statistics.  But how well are organizations tracking long-term (2, 3, 5+ years) actions of direct marketing donors?  I'd be most interested in hearing from anyone who has access to long-term data in this area. 

The WILL to Live!

Imagine your father or grandfather having an accident that resulted in the need to amputate their leg or arm.  What an awful thing!

Now imagine that one of your relatives suggests that nobody will want him anymore because he's old and will be a burden.  So they recommend that he be killed.  WHAT?  Never!  We don't do that.  We're civilized folk; an enlightened society.  We care for the old, the weak, the frail, the meek!  Or do we? 

I suspect a good many people would argue that we do not care for the less fortunate, very well at all.  I tend to agree.  I'd say we do a horrible job of caring for the less fortunate of the world - be they people or animals.  We could probably include the environment in that category as well.

We've domesticated many animals for our use and/or pleasure.  Almost 50% of us own a cat or dog.  Many people are good to their companion animals and love them like a family member.  Others are... not so good.  A story in the Western Star makes my heart hurt:

A pair of city men saw the male tabby cat dragging itself and a fox or mink trap along the Trans-Canada Highway on Monday. They removed the trap, gave it to the RCMP in Deer Lake, and transported the injured animal to the Bay of Islands SPCA.

On Tuesday, a veterinarian appointment verified Evelyn Hancock’s (SPCA shelter manager) suspicions that the cat had suffered serious injuries and it wouldn’t be a responsible use of their resources to save the animal. 

“In consultation with the vet, it was decided we would put him down because of his age and physical condition,” a distraught Hancock told The Western Star. “The cat turned out to be very malnourished and is an older cat.

Translation:  Some poor cat was horribly injured because his owners didn't take care to keep him safe.  Because people in that area are allowed to set traps near populated areas where pets AND children might be hurt; and because this little fellow was older (note that they don't say how old) and had been abandoned for so long that he was malnourished - they didn't want to spend the bucks to help him.  Afterall, nobody would want an older, 3-legged pet. 

The cat with no name served no purpose.  So they killed him.  As the woman from the SPCA notes, 3 legged animals can do quite well!  It's remarkable how quickly they learn to do get around, play, and have a wonderful life.  I've known a few people who have had animals with less than 4 legs or who are blind or deaf.  They were all well loved animals in their families and if you told those families that their old pet needed to die - they'd be devastated.

I understand that the SPCA's of the world try to balance out fiscal responsibility with wise decisions.  I, like most other pet owners, know how tragic it is when you must make the choice to euthanize your pet because it is ill and suffering and there is no chance for recovery.  However, that doesn't appear to be the case here.  It appears to me that someone did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that he could recover, but it'd be too hard to find a family for him... so lets just end his life now.

This is why "no-kill Rescue" organizations like Annex Cat Rescue are so important.  The volunteers who work for these organizations are remarkable.  They save the aged, the physically challenged, the malnourished and sometimes ill-tempered cats of the world, and they patiently and diligently invest their time, energy and money in these cats until they recover their health.  Eventually... some wonderful person falls in love with the cat, adopts them and they live happily, ever, after. 

Sadly the little male tabby won't have that happy ending.  The poor old-boy wasn't even given a name.  A cat with the will to live so strong that in a malnourished state, he managed to survive and pull himself to a place where he'd be rescued... and people didn't think it was worthwhile to save him?  Seems to me that that the cat certainly thought it was worth it.  Apparently we humans knew better.

Since nobody named him in the article.. I've decided to name him Will.  Not William - or Bill.  No - that male tabby had WILL... and now, posthumously.. he IS Will. (at least in my little world)

So - take a quiet moment to think of old Will this holiday season... and if you're so inclined, make a donation to one of your local no-kill organizations.  And if you're not sure where to find one?  You can just click right here!

Kevin Donovan: Singing Sweetly

A couple quick notes about Mr. Donovan.

After posting my blog, Mr. Donovan and I exchanged a couple emails.  The first thing I'd like to note is a correction.  Mr. Donovan is an investigative reporter for The Star, however, he was not the writer of each of those stories.  Mr. Donovan did state that he fully supports the work of the writer of those stories, Mr. David Bruser.

He Seemed Like Such a Nice Man!

Mr. Donovan was very kind and polite in his emails to me.  I didn't request his permission to share the contents of the emails, so I'll keep to generalizations about the exchange.  Mr. Donovan pointed out that The Star writes many positive stories about charities.  I revisited the website and using The Stars' search engine, I found precious few of those positive stories. If this is incorrect, they need to invest in a better seach engine. 

Still, my comments weren't about The Star.  My comments were about Mr. Donovans' charity investigations and the stories that result from those investigations.  I do not object to his investigations - nor do I object to writing fair stories about those investigations.  On the contrary, I think it's incredibly important that charities conduct themselves in an honest, reliable and transparent manner - and that the public is informed when they fail to do so.  I think the work Mr. Donovan does is very important!

BAD, AWFUL, HORRID, good, nice, helpful 

My concern is that there is precious little positive to balance out the negative as he portrays it.  With over 82,000 charities in Canada, it's not surprising that you will find some instances of poor practices and a very few who abuse or scam people.  It's imperative that these organizations be uncovered and corrected - and if appropriate, closed down.  However, out of those 82,000 charities so very many are doing good things, great things... remarkable things!  We hear precious little about those organizations.

People who work in marketing, sales and/or the media, know that negative sells.  Negativity is the "easy route".  In sales the mantra was: "People will move away from pain more quickly and easily than they will move toward pleasure".  Our goal was ALWAYS identify their pain... then show them how we could provide pleasure by removing that pain and voila' - sale closed! This is why politicians rely so heavily on negative ads.  They work! Not only do they work in the short-term, people also tend to remember negative stories and ads for a very long time.  It takes a lot more work and skill to sell positive, good news stories.  It's a far greater challenge.  Personally - I thrive on challenge.  Do you Mr. Donovan? 

If Mr. Donovan took the passion, drive and talent he has and applied it with the same degree of zeal that he puts into his negative stories... could he sell positive?  I think he could.  He may have to do more revisions and choose his words more carefully to fully maximize the storys' impact, but he could do it.  It is important that he continues to investigate and expose the few bad apples that exist.  But he can choose to sing more than one tune.

Sing Out Loud.. Sing Out Strong!

I believe Mr. Donovan sincerely wants to make the charitable sector better.  I believe he genuinely wants people to have faith in charities.  However, his approach needs to be refined.  Nobody benefits if his current approach results in people becoming so distrustful of charities that they cease contributing to all charities. 

So Mr. Donovan - sing loud and sing proud.  Be the canary in the coal mine!  But please, sing sweetly now and then.  Sing praises that inspire, motivate and compel people to act.  You have the power to educate, inform, and involve people across the country!  Not only do your stories have the ability to help the charitable sector improve their policies and practices - your stories.. YOU.. have the power to help make the world a better place.

It may be a little harder, Mr. Donovan.  But I promise you - it's worth the extra effort. 

Kevin Donovan: Canary or Vulture?

For those who don't know, Kevin Donovan is an investigative reporter for the Toronto Star.  For more than a year now, Mr. Donovan has published a variety of scathing articles about the practices and policies of a variety of Canadian charities.  The headlines for his stories are predictably provocative and very well positioned to take advantage of our propensity to respond to negativity:

• Heart-stroke charity builds huge war chest
• Charitable empire has high costs
• Charity's ploy "horrifying"

And the list goes on and on.  Mr. Donovan asks some very good questions of the charities he investigates.  Everyone should ask good questions of the charities they support.  It is unquestionably important that charities act ethically and fulfill their mandate in a transparent manner.  Mark Blumberg, a partner with the lawfirm of Blumberg Segal LLP, discusses Donovans' articles on his lawfirms website.  He makes a number of excellent points regarding the concerns raised by Mr. Donovan and the instances of abuse that are found within the charitable sector.  Mr. Blumberg suggests that perhaps Donovan is "just a canary in a coal mine".  I have difficulties with this analogy.

The canary in the coal mine

As any good coal miner can tell you, the song of a canary is representative of safety.  It's a welcome song.  It is happy and upbeat... it's tone and tempo are positive.  The song of the canary represents life, clean air and another day of prosperty for miners.  Donovans' song, on the other hand, is all too frequently, doom and gloom.  This isn't the song of a canary.  This is the opportunistic screech of a vulture.  The shrill warnings and selective fact finding and writing in Donovans's articles are not aimed to motivate thoughtful planned giving.  These articles aren't written to assist people with identifying the thousands of wonderful charities across Canada who work tirelessly to achieve their good works while maintaining unquestionable ethics.  Instead, it appears that these are articles aimed to heighten emotions, increase advertising values for his newspaper and raise Mr. Donovans' profile as a journalist.

Publishing or Politics?

When I look at Mr. Donovans' published stories and their accompanying headlines, I'm reminded of political campaign ads.  All too often within the world of politics we see half-truths, facts left out, and emphasis on emotionally driven subjects that are known to capture the ever decreasing attention span of the public.  Donovans' "news publishing" tactics are no different.  He (or his editors) have spent more than a year highlighting negative stories.  I found only 2 examples of positive stories and one of those was in response to an earlier negative story.  This is not the song of a canary.  Whatever Mr. Donovans' personal intent, the outcome of his opportunistic screech, may well be the death knell for many small charities.  It's important to remember that the real victims of Donovans' political style articles aren't the nameless, faceless charities he investigates - they are little charities, the volunteer run charities.. they are the people, pets, and animals, who will suffer, go hungry, freeze and possibly die this winter. 

As Mr. Blumberg works through the issues and concerns in his web-site article, he asks: "why some of the reputable charities seem to feel the need to defend the "sector".  Well Mr. Blumberg - if the canary in the coal mine won't help keep you safe - who will?

Clearly it's absolutely necessary to weed-out wrong doers in the charitable sector.  Nobody is opposed to investigations which work towards ensuring that charities achieve their goals and manage their organizations in an ethical and respectful manner.  However, lets not take a page from political campaign strategies and frighten the world into believing that most charities are mismanaging funds or scamming people out of their hard-earned money.  Lets present some balance. 

I'd dearly love to refer to Mr. Donovan as the canary in the coal mine.  However, until he starts singing just a few more positive songs and encouraging people to give to responsible charities, and promoting more responsible charities (not just the large ones)... he remains to me no better than an opportunistic, screeching vulture; picking away at whatever he can find for his own means and ends.

Perhaps in the new year, Mr. Donovan will grow some prettier feathers and give me cause to change my thoughts....

Did you find this blog to be a little "one-sided", "over the top", or "unbalanced"?  Was it oozing in negativity?  Well gee, I wonder where I got that technique from?