Charity Chatter

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.

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". 

 

Beware the Blogger

Mea Culpa

Lately, I'm troubled by the growing trend of consultants who use their blogs criticize and critique the work of others, with little or no knowledge of the results or organization they are critiquing.  I am equally guilty of this.  Recently, however, a number of circumstances have given me pause to think about my responsibility as a professional who blogs.

All too often we criticize the work of others with little or no information about the results achieved by the initiative we're critiquing. I have criticized on-line surveys and the "Good Goes" campaign.  While I did write to both parties after I published my blogs, I didn't contact the organizations beforehand to understand their goals, challenges and ultimately - their results. 

Several prominent bloggers do this and each time I'm left to wonder... OK - you didn't like it, but what were the results? If it achieved or surpassed its goals - then who cares what you, me or anyone else thinks?

Walking the Talk

A few weeks ago, someone contacted me on Twitter and wanted me to help them talk about their foundation.  I almost re-tweeted their message... and then I realized, I know nothing about this organization or that country.  I had to decline representing them, because I could not verify that they were a legitimate charitable foundation.  They may well be completely legitimate, but I know nothing of South Africa and I believe I have a responsibility to do some sort of due diligence when I speak publicly on an issue or for an organization.

One well known blogger who frequently criticizes large agency campaigns challenged others to show him their success, rather than choosing to look into their results himself.   I don't think that's right.  It seems to me that it behooves bloggers who represent a profession, to do their homework and at a minimum, contact these organizations and understand what REALLY worked, didn't work and why they made the decisions they did.

Results

When all is said and done - our work is about results. We all have opinions. We don't all have informed opinions and even fewer of us have opinions based directly on the results of the item about which we are writing.

If you're reading a blog and you see opinion based criticisms - be sure to ask... "but what were the results".  If they can't answer, then go ask someone who can... because the only opinion that matters, is the one that is informed by results.

It's time for non profit bloggers to step it up and do a little work. We owe our charities the best we have to offer. We owe it to our readers and our charities, to at least attempt to do a little investigation into the results of an initiative before we jump to critique it.

My Pledge to You

From this point on - I will always attempt to contact the charity or organization I am writing about, before I offer my opinion on their work. I hope more bloggers will adopt the same policy and we can elevate the dialogue and learning potential bloggers offer us.

Redefining Community & Communitarians

According to The Seven Faces of Philanthropy,by Russ Prince & Karen Maru File, Communitarians are the largest segment of major gift donors. This is a group that, I think, requires a review to accommodate a  broader sense of community. 

"Communitarian's believe their good fortune is intertwined with their community, their philanthropy is directed toward community needs.  For Communitarians, doing good works in and for the places they live only makes sense."

What about a gift to SOFII?  It's clearly not local to me, but SOFII is part of (what I perceive to be) my community. It is highly effective. I benefit from SOFII's good works, and I certainly hope to enjoy a strong, long term relationship with SOFII?  I even received public recognition (for my very modest gift) from SOFII recently. This meets almost all of the Communitarian criteria, but it's not "where I live". Uh oh... I feel lost!

"Toto, I've a Feeling We're Not In Kansas Anymore."

I live in a beautiful and friendly area in Toronto.  But I don't feel a special connection with any organizations here.  I've never felt like a "community member" based on where I live. However, I do feel like I belong to a number of communities.  I identify with communities based on my interests, hobbies, shared values and a variety of other things. People in my communities, live all over the world. I've met some of them in person, but many I've never met.  There are many people, charities, and businesses that I care about, support, and consider part of my community.  They don't have to be local, to be an important part of my community. 

We're a community charity. We don't need social media.

Hey - you... Mr./Ms. "Community Charity"?  While you are visiting a few hundred people at the backyard BBQ in your neighbourhood or city, don't dismiss connecting with thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of potential new community members who would also love to know you.  Community isn't about where you live for everyone.  It's about who you know, identify with, care about, laugh with and communicate with regularly.   Your ability to impact a community, may not necessarily be something measured within the boundaries of a location or region.

Welcome!

There's a world full of community members out there, and they won't all live in the small geographic area that you typically call a community.   As communications evolve and the internet gives us the ability to connect and "commune" with people anywhere in the world, so too, has our perception of community.   Certainly some people will continue to define their community in terms of geography, but don't assume that's true for everyone, all the time. 

Put out a welcome mat and see who else might like to become a part of your community.

Question: If our sense of community is changing, is that all that changes? Is the Communitarian, simply redefining "where they live", but remaining otherwise unchanged? Or is this a new hybrid, with some other unique motivations and characteristics?

What is "Awareness" For?

A Goal or a Vehicle?

In the nonprofit world, public awareness is considered to be an important function of the charity.  I think it is important - but not in and of itself.  I don't view "awareness" as a goal.  I view awareness as a vehicle to help achieve a goal.

I am aware of many things, but that awareness makes no difference in my life or anyone else's.  I am aware of the horrific wars in the Congo that have resulted in more than 6 million deaths.  But I haven't done anything about it.  I am aware that the Burrowing Owl is endangered.  But I don't do anything about that either. 

Many, many organizations have done an outstanding job of making me aware.  But precious few have inspired me to do anything about the things they made me aware of. What is the point of being aware, if it results in nothing more than awareness?

Clearly, public awareness serves many important purposes, but only if it results in some sort of action (or prevents an action).  Here are some examples that come to mind:

• Prevention, protection, safety, services: Helping people prevent an illness or an accident, dietary information to make you healthy, exercise promotion etc. There are lots of great things people can do, or avoid doing to make their lives or someone else's life better.
• Advocacy, Social change: Pretty self explanatory... organizations often benefit from public awareness that causes governments to make changes or causes people to change the way they think about an issue or a cause and therefore make someone's life better. (i.e. discrimination, abuse etc.)
• Raising funds & attracting volunteers: People can't give or help if they don't know about you, and care about you (a lot!).  A higher profile can also help to attract corporate support, if the awareness campaign can offer significant quantifiable measurements to prove to the sponsor that it has value.

These are all useful and important functions of "awareness".  However, I often hear people touting the importance of awareness as if the goal begins and ends at making people aware. 

But, but... We still raised awareness! 

So if we remove the outcomes I've itemized above - what is the point of awareness?  If people don't "do" (or stop doing) something with their new-found awareness, why does it matter that they are aware?  Why do people often say things like "Yes, but it also spread awareness", as if that awareness has value when the act they were hoping to inspire didn't occur and nobody can point to something that resulted from that awareness?

Is there some kind of intrinsic value to the fact that I know about the Congo and the Burrowing Owl and do nothing about it?  If so, I'd love to know what that value is, because I am at a loss to identify it.

Cheap & Easy Cause Marketing

I  love this corporate partnership initiative between the United Way and Rogers.   It's so smart and so simple, that I'm a bit surprised I don't see more companies doing this.  Am I missing something?

Sometime before the holidays, Rogers sent me an email offering some sort of customer reward gift.  I don't remember what the gift was.  In fact, I only vaguely remember getting the email.  I was only reminded of this, because I just received a little thank you email with a link to a website with nice music.  When I clicked on the link that said "click here for your special message", a new window popped open with music and a personalized, thank you message appeared. I took a screen shot to share here:

If I recall, I received a customer appreciation email that asked me to play an online game, where I picked a gift box on the screen, to determine which customer gift I would receive.  After I played, it gave me the option of receiving the gift or donating the value of the gift to the United Way.  The item was pretty insignificant (or I just didn't like it), so I opted to donate it.  Either way, it's a win for Rogers.  If you want the gift, you keep it and you're a happy customer.  If you don't want it, you donate and you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself, the company and the charity who is benefiting from your donation.  

Every single charity in the country should be able to find a company willing to do this with them, and here's why:

• Basically, this is a "no cost" effort.  Find a company that already offers some sort of customer appreciation give-away and ask if they'll include an option to donate the item to your charity.
• The company looks great! They're no longer "a company".  They're people. They care about you and the things you care about. 
• Both the company and the charity get measurable results from this.  They will know how many people took advantage of the donation option.  If enough people choose to donate, it creates an excellent opportunity for future partnership opportunities and data that you can use when approaching other companies (assuming your corporate partner will allow it).
• You don't need a large company to make this work.  As a sales rep, I used to send gift baskets to accounts over a certain size.  I bet, that if I had polled them, many of them would've requested a donation to a cause, instead of the basket. (In fact, one client held a draw for the basket I sent them and donated the money to a charity!)
• It's a win, win, win, win! The company looks good. The cause benefits. They can measure results and the customers are the ones who are donating.  The company is just redirecting money it already planned to spend - and looking like a hero in the process.

Now - if I were Rogers, I would've offered a choice of charities, but hey, nobody's perfect!

So... get out there and start asking your corporate friends if they have any customer appreciation programs and see if they'll include a donation option in the future.  Show them how amazing they'll look and how they will be able to measure its impact... and go raise some money.

And don't forget to keep the partnership alive with a nice thank you letter at the end... it's a nice touch and once again, people will feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, the company and your charity!

(Although, I do wonder if they should've sent the thank you earlier?  Is February too late to thank me for something that happened in November or December? Given that I'd forgotten, I think not. But maybe you think otherwise?)

Of Fanbois and Fanatics

Sports teams have long had "fanatics" - as have celebrities and other well known characters.  In my gaming days we referred to them as "fanbois". These days, as I watch human behaviours on social networks, I see no shortage of those same characteristics for companies, bloggers, popular Twitter personalities and more.

Today Apple launched its iPad.  I see a larger, iTouch with very minor improvements. I certainly don't see anything impressive, innovative or magical.  I don't see my life being made any more convenient than it is today.  I will still need my laptop and a blackberry or iPhone.  It's a cool toy - that will undoubtedly be useful to people who don't need all the functionality of a laptop.

The iPad is all the rage for some fanbois and fanatics.  I keep hearing things like "this is the future of mobile".  From my perspective, it's nothing I can't get in an iPhone... and an iPhone is also a phone!  Lets face it, this is something most people don't need.  However, the beauty of having fanatics and fanbois is that you can do anything and they will love it... and they will give you their money.  Fans are also fabulous because they passionately support you.  In difficult times, they will stick with you and talk about your good work.  They are your champions.  On the other hand, if you're the unfortunate person who happens to upset the fans... you'd better pull out your virtual armor.  You could be seriously, (albeit virtually) subjected to some very unpleasant comments.

Apple is just one example.  A few others that I've witnessed in recent days involve a Vanity Fair article which referred to some female twitter personalities using unflattering language, the issues surrounding Wyclef Jean's charity, Yele Haiti and another incident where a fundraiser made some well reasoned critcisms of a popular blogger whose fundraising efforts had been lackluster.  In at least two of these cases, there were some very difficult days for the parties involved. 

In the worst situations, this can reach unthinkable proportions on the internet.  Blog comments will fly by at a frenzied pace, Twitter hash-tags will light up, facebook wall comments will scroll by the hundreds (or thousands) and if you're on the receiving end of the fan fury, you may find yourself up against what feels like an unstoppable force.  Do not think that this won't reach the traditional media or your donors. It can and your phone lines and email inbox will be next.  I don't say this to discourage people from communicating online, but rather to understand the potential pitfalls and to be prepared should they occur.

As with all things internet, be cautious of what you say.  Always have a communications plan to deal with a potential Twitter-storm or other potential social media unrest.  Don't disregard those early signs of discontent online.  It's far better to acknowledge it and address it, than it is to ignore it.

Apple has done a remarkable job of cultivating an impressive following of fanatics. Steve Jobs is not trying to be all things to all people.  He's built a remarkable community and he makes products for that community.  As a result, that community sticks with him and each time he creates something, that dedicated group of fans will buy it - whatever it is.  Go Steve!

What has your charity done to build a fan-base of dedicated, loyal supporters who will donate every time you ask, and who will stick with you through difficult days and challenging times?  There is value to be found in those people - when cultivated well and managed appropriately. 

Social Media Power Words?

Words YOU Should Use

Those of us who have taken marketing, PR and/or advertising courses, will recall the term "power words". We've seen how using the correct words and phrases can sell products, get people elected and change perceptions.

Dan Zarrella has done a great job of looking at what words, phrases, punctuation and parts of speech will get you "retweeted".  We'll get a look at the full report tomorrow.  For today, check out Dan Macsai's summary: 9 most effective ways to get retweeted. 

Big surprises for me?

1. The utter distaste we seem to have for TinyURL's
2. Help - seems to work well here, which is contrary to what we're told is effective in direct response.
3. Higher Reading Levels & more punctuation = more RT's. Again contrary to our DM teaching, which would tell us to be as simplistic as possible.

Not so surprising for me are the words that continue to resonate... You, Please, How To, Free etc.

How will you 'retweet' this story, based on this article?

Twitter: Reality TV meets Documentary?

Ken Burnett Made Me Think - Damnit!

Recently, Ken Burnett wrote a blog prompting us to think more about what we write on Twitter.  I thought his provocative blog overlooked some key points, so being the shy, unassuming kind of person I am, I wrote to him to share my thoughts. Ken posted an excellent summary of our exchange here.

I highly recommend you read both of the above links.  It gave me much pause for thought, not only about my personal and professional use of Twitter, but also about human behaviour, media and the recent trends we're seeing around the world.

I Like Gibberish!

I really do.  I enjoy seeing inside people's lives.  And lets be honest here... so does much of the world! Take a look at Reality TV. Whether it's Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, The Bachelor/Bachelorette and the list goes on and on. People are watching this stuff in droves. Twitter lacks the drama (for the most part) that is often provided on Reality TV, but it's real and people can connect and peek into each others lives in some way. I wonder if the same thing that drives the masses to watch that kind of TV, is also behind Twitter behaviour?

I Am NOT Just a Gibberish Junkie... Honest!

While I will admit to watching The Bachelorette and Gene Simmons Family Jewels, I'm also a huge fan of keeping informed by reading & watching various news sources, as well as a variety of trade magazines, books, blogs etc.  Twitter, in its own way lets me have access to both of these - great content and lglorious gibberish.  But what's the right balance?  Reality TV is a guilty pleasure. It's something you whisper quietly to people you trust not to judge you when you say... "I like that show". Unless of course you say so in your blog!

How Much Should I Tweet?

According to several sources that  I've looked up on the web, the optimal number of tweets per day is about 10 - 20 tweets. Here's one link.  MrTweet tells me that I tweet an average of 15 per day.  So I'm optimal right?  Well... no.  For some I tweet too much.  Is that good or bad? I guess it depends on who it bothers and who enjoys it. And is it the quantity or the quality?  For some the conversational and sometimes inane tweets I share are "gibberish".  For others they are fun, friendly and allow them to get to know me better.  It really depends on what your followers are looking for.  If you have a lot of followers with different expectations and goals, then it becomes increasingly difficult to please everyone.

What's A Twitterer To Do?

I don't know. I could make multiple accounts.  Currently I tweet from @laurie_pringle and @alscanada.  Many of the folks who follow me on ALS Canada, also follow me on my personal account.  Should I create yet another just for friends and buddies who might enjoy the more gibberish stuff I post?   I don't think so.  I really do believe that eliminating that aspect of the twitter experience makes twitter dull and lifeless.  Not to mention, managing 3 accounts isn't something I want to do right now, at least not for the sole purpose of separating out personal tweets.

My Current Thinking

So here's my current, but subject to change, thinking.  I'm going to give a moments pause to my tweets before I post them.  I'll ask myself the following:

• How much have I tweeted today?
• Is this better sent via Direct Message?
• Is it likely to be fun, interesting, helpful, or even minimally notable to anyone?
• What do the people who follow me care about and expect from me?

Some of these are hard to answer and it may or may not change the way I tweet, but at least I'm thinking. I still believe we're getting too caught up in some old "best practices" that aren't helpful or applicable to social media. It's really easy to ignore a tweet that I don't care about and I'd rather have more to ignore, if it means I enjoy more great fun and great content. However, some of those best practices are bloody good and even helpful to our goals and efforts in social media, whether they be personal or professional.

Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear!

My father bought me a sign for my desk that said that when I was 10.  That goes to show you how our character traits are established long before we hit adulthood :)

So I'm going take a lesson from my Dad - about 30 years later. And I'm going to think a bit more, before I tweet. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, changes in my twitter experience and if change occurs, how it impacts my twitter experience and the experience of those who follow me and ALS Canada.

Have a tremendous Tuesday!

P.S. I should also add a big thanks to Ken Burnett.  I was a bit hesitant to email him (but far too stubborn not to) due to his notoriety. He is fun and very gracious. Not quite the ominous figure I thought I might find.  Thank you Ken!

Summer of Social Good: How good is it?

In my last blog, I promised to discuss my thoughts on Mashable's Summer of Social Good. I may be stirring up a hornets nest, but it's OK, I have an EpiPen!

 

On June 20th's Mark Phillips from Blue Frog, wrote a blog on Mashable's Summer of Social Good. I agree, in large part with Mark's comments. However, I think there's something more missing that Mark didn't address.

 

Where's the passion?

 

Where's the connection?

 

Where's the beef?

 

Summer of Social Good has some of the most well connected social media personalities, combined with some of the largest and most well known charities in the world and the results are lackluster at best. here's what I think is missing, in addition to Mark's excellent suggestions:

 

Passion!

 

I don't get the sense that any one at Mashable really cares about these causes. I don't see any real passion for any of the causes. Perhaps I'm wrong? Perhaps because there are 4 different charities, with no real connection to social media or technology, it's just not obvious? 

 

Consistency 

 

There's no consistency in the message. Again, with 4 different causes, it's difficult to create consistency. We do have a social media for social good message - but none of these charities have an obvious connection to that topic, so it seems disjointed and lacks any real impact.  What do these organizations have to do with Mashable? Why should we care? Why does Mashable care? What is the uniting factor here? 

 

Connection

 

As I understand it, these charities were chosen for their broad appeal to Mashable's readers, followers and fans. They are familiar brands and causes. Everyone knows them and understands them. Familiarity isn't enough. It certainly doesn't mean people will give. It's easy for people on the web to point to a familiar charity and cause and say "yep that's important, I care about that", but that doesn't necessarily translate into action.

 

Inspiration

 

People give when they're inspired. They are most often inspired by someone who is passionate about a cause and who has a genuine desire to share their passion. There's no obvious passion, consistency or connection between these causes and Mashable. People don't appear to be feeling inspired. Why does this matter to Mashable? How is it relevant to them? Why do they personally care? Why are they so inspired by their charity partners that they want to inspire us? 

 

My Vision:

 

Rather than just critique, I'd like to suggest what I think might be a potentially outstanding alternative for the Summer of Social Good campaign. (full disclosure - I work for the ALS Society of Canada)

• Pick 1 cause - ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's Disease)
• Pick 4 or 5 ALS charities in different countries. (social media is global, make the initiative global)
• Coordinate and integrate the messaging, goals, tasks and strategy amongst all the participating charities and the Mashable team.

What does ALS have to do with social media?

People living with ALS become paralyzed and die with 2 - 5 years. There's no cure. In a very short time, they lose the ability to use their arms, legs, to speak... and ultimately to breathe.  Today, there are many assistive technologies that allow people with ALS to continue to communicate using computers.  For many people with ALS, technology and social media is a critically important social outlet.

This provides an incredible direct link that people who use social media can understand and connect with.  They use social media every single day for their own socializing. They're passionate about it. They understand social media relationships. It's a topic that fits with Mashable's content and passions.

People with ALS would be delighted to get involved and communicate on facebook, twitter and other platforms. Just as we get to know each other and make "friends" through our social network activities, people following the Summer of Social Good campaign would have a direct connection to the people that are asking them to help find a cure.

Relationships would be built. Connections would be made and people would experience their ability to make a difference through social media. What a concept!

ALS organizations struggle for media coverage. It's not "sexy".  I know that our organization would gladly provide support and work with all partners to ensure an integrated campaign that inspires, educates, informs and raises funds.

This is the basic formula that Mashable needs to create a meaningful movement: Passion, consistency, connection, and inspiration.

You can't fake these key ingredients, but when you have them, you can inspire the world... and thus far, the Summer of Social Good is uninspired and just doesn't feel like it fits. If Mashable can embrace a cause that has these key ingredients and then adds Mark Phillips' excellent ideas, they'll have an enormously successful Summer of Social Good.