Charity Chatter

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. 

Monetizing Twitter: STFU Stoopid!

I'm beginning to feel like my blog on this topic is becoming as repetitive as The Agitator's many sarcastic blogs on the Direct Mail is Dead topic. Perhaps if I say this 10 different ways, someone will hear it. Then again maybe not... but what the hell, I'm going to keep trying.

Twitter is NOT Direct Response

Let me repeat this. Twitter is NOT Direct Response! Don't treat it like direct response. It's not your cash cow. It's not your space to raise big dollars. There will be SOME charities who are well suited to running a good twitter campaign on Twitter and raise some direct dollars.  However, most charities won't be able to log on to their twitter account, ask for money and receive it. It doesn't work that way.

Look at Mashable's Summer of Social Good. These guys are some of the foremost experts on social media. Thus far, they've raise just over $8000.00 to be split between 4 charities. These are large well known charities, partnering with some of the most well connected social media personalities around. It's not doing well. And there's a good reason for that - which I'll discuss in a later blog.

Do you want to be monetized?

Lets look at this more closely shall we? Would you send out a Direct Mail to your donors and ask them how we can monetize them? Charity and not for profit professionals are posting on Twitter and social networking sites all over the place asking how to monetize their supporters. Guess whose seeing that? Your supporters!

Do you approach your major donors, corporate sponsors, volunteers or any other constituency and ask them how you can monetize them? NO - you'd alienate them immediately! 

Nobody wants to be "monetized" as an individual. How many conferences, courses, seminars etc. have you attended that review the motivations for giving? Have any of them said - people are dying to be monetized?  NO!

Engage, Inspire, & Empower Champions!

Twitter and social media is the place where your supporters hang out. It's a social space, like a local pub, a community gathering place or anywhere else that people congregate to laugh, talk, share stories, information and otherwise be.... social!

Do you remember Herb Tarlek, the corny, cheesy, sales guy everyone hated on WKRP in Cincinnati?  When you wander into social media spaces and ask about monetizing your supporters you become Herb.

People can smell a Herb Tarlek 10 miles away. Do NOT become a Herb! The corporate world moved away from the Herb Tarlek approach decades ago.  And the charitable and not for profit world appears to moving close to it.

Stop it - now! Stop talking about "monetizing social media" on social media. Your donors are there. Your clients are there. Your supporters, champions and friends are there. How much respect are you showing for these people when you refer to them in these terms?

Personally, I'm not giving to any charity who asks me for money without getting to know me. And they can all get to know me on social media. It doesn't take much. Send me some information, retweet something I've said, laugh at a funny link i've posted. COMMUNICATE WITH ME. 

STFU About Monetizing People

Just so I am clear.  People aren't cash cows. Nobody likes to be considered solely as a dollar figure.

See this guy to the left? Charities are looking more like greedy Mr. Burns than charities. When you talk about monetizing Twitter (or any other social media) you're talking about monetizing PEOPLE!

We're supposed to care about our supporters. We have missions that usually include spreading awareness about our cause and raising funds to help us achieve our mission. If we share information, listen to people. communicate WITH them, EARN their respect, admiration, and trust, they will be inspired to act and become champions. It's not a short term "ask and receive" proposition.  If you really want to monetize people - get out of the charitable sector and become one of those multilevel marketing folks.

Waiting it out

Do you expect an acquisition mailing to be immediately profitable? Do you expect a newly launched Major Gift program to be immediately profitable? Do you launch any kind of business or charitable venture (except perhaps an event, which I would argue is often not at all profitable) to be immediately profitable? NO! Anything we do that is worth doing tends require initial investment, hard work, effort, relationship building and much more before it produces results. 

If you're sitting back and waiting for someone to create a magic "monetization" template, you will miss the boat forever. The organizations who succeed at this aren't doing it over night. They've jumped in and invested and learned how it fits and works for them. They invested in people.

Back To Basics: Love Your People!

If you love your people and you treat them like the good people they are... If you take genuine pleasure in communicating with them on social networks - you're ahead of the game. There are many things you can do to maximize your IMPACT on social networks. Many ways to inspire, engage and empower champions and emerging champions - but before that happens, you have to respect them and love them.

Step one in demonstrating your genuine appreciation for people - is to stop talking about them in terms of monetization.  Have I said this often enough yet?

I'll share more steps later - but lets see how many of you can observe step one for awhile, before we go further.

So in short - today's lesson is:

1. Social media isn't a thing - it is people.
2. People are nice and want to be inspired and help.
3. People don't want to be monetized and get really pissed when you talk that way about them.
4. If you view people as "monetization" you suck and your charity will suffer.
5. If you love people, respect people and treat them like people - you rock and your charity will thrive.

Thank you and have a great day!

Wow Me - Fast!

How long is your blog post? Your you-tube video? Your Newsletter?

How much time do you need to get your message across? Hopefully it's less than the commercial break on TV.  Or your message and the way you've presented it, is so powerful and engaging that I'm willing to ignore the TV to absorb your communication.

It occured to me tonight as I watched a NFP you-tube video that I have completely integrated my evening TV time and my evening internet time.  My laptop is on the coffee table (or on my lap if I'm reclined) and the TV is on. 

There aren't many shows that I'm engrossed in, but there are a few that grab my attention. I'm embarrassed to say which ones they are - so  I won't!  My point here is that, while I think I'm pretty special and unique, there are probably millions of other people doing exactly what I'm doing.

If you post a you-tube video on social media or send an email, Eblast or some other digital communication it better be good enough to distract me from a favourite TV show - OR - it should be brief enough that I can watch/read/listen to it, in its entirety during the commercial break.  If I pause your video or go back to the TV, I may or may not return and/or I may or may not get the full impact of your message.

Ideally, it's both great and fits within the commercial time.  

And on that note... I'm going to return to my regularly scheduled programming. Have a great night!

Dinosaurs & Dodo's: Will you exist in 5 years?

I wrote this blog last night and saved it for editing today. Today, Marnie Grona at Imagine Canada, tweeted the following video. It puts it all in perspective for me.  I am very concerned that charities who do not remain fluid, diverse and capable of adapting to new technologies and demands of the world, will ultimately disappear.  Watch the video, read the blog. What do you think will happen to charities who say: "we don't have time to talk to people" - or - "our donors don't use the internet"? Will you and your organization survive these "exponential times"?

Direct Response - creating unrelatistic expectations?

I think that direct mail and direct response have created very dangerous perceptions and behaviours within the charitable sector.  We seem to think that we need only ask people to give us money and they will. Send a letter, knock on a door, make a phone solicitation and "poof" money magically appears. Hooray! How easy was that?

Unfortunately, that's not working quite as well these days, but we keep doing it. We look at a new initiatives and expect DM style, immediate payoffs, but "the times they are a-changin" (anyone hear Bob Dylan in their head?).  Socio-economic conditions change. Technologies change. People change. They want to be involved, consulted, engaged, inspired and talked with (not to or at).  Many charities don't seem to be doing this well - if at all.

People give to People

We hear this time and time again and yet, it seems we don't actually HEAR it.  This was also the mantra of our sales team in my corporate life: "People buy from people".  When times got tough, we'd cut support staff, we'd cut IT, we'd cut everywhere - but we'd maintain sales people and in some cases, even grow the sales team!

You can not treat social media, planned giving, major gifts, events and most areas of fundraising like a nameless, faceless cash cow. You have to talk with people. You have to build relationships.  You have to earn the right to ask for their support! This was also a big part of our corporate sales process - it was our last check before asking: "Have I earned the right to ask for their business".

You would never, ever, approach a total stranger in a bar, or at a sporting event and ask them to marry you right away.  (Denny Young said that and I've stolen it) OK maybe if you had a few drinks you might - but even drunk you'd be shocked if they got up and started walking to the chapel.

These websites and online platforms are places where people socialize. They aren't there to give you money.  They don't know you. They didn't even invite you. They are there to socialize, learn, share, laugh and do the things we do in social spaces and at parties etc. Why don't we measure the success of these things the same way we would a planned or major gift cultivation?

Do what it takes & make the time to talk to people

If you are so over extended in delivering your charitable programs, research, and/or services that you can't talk to people - cut them, now!

I know, I've just said a horrible thing - but lets put it another way.  If you're not talking to people today, you may not exist tomorrow. Nobody will benefit from your good works if you don't exist. Better to cut back today, and cultivate for sustainable growth tomorrow than to put all your fundraising resources into grabbing all the low hanging fruit you can until the well runs dry and your organization is dehydrated into extinction.

I've heard way too many people say "I don't have time to have conversations" or "I don't have time to learn all this new stuff".  Make time - or hire someone who can do it.  Do what it takes and find a way to do it.  You're not doing your organization or the people who depend on your organization any favours by doing otherwise.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater...

I'm not suggesting you stop your direct response.  I have enormous respect for the amount of research, effort and data driven results that have made direct response programs successful.  However, if that's all your doing and you're not spending time visiting people in person, creating an online presence that allows your organization to chat with people, building relationships and preparing for the future - then to quote Donald trump, you're fired. (or at least you should be)

It's a competitive market. A very small Canadian population is being asked to support a large and growing number of charities. Do not expect other initiatives to perform the same way as your DM efforts do. They're not the same and direct mail is becoming increasingly less effective as the generations shift and new technologies emerge.  As the current generation of happy, direct mail donors disappears, how will you replace them? If you're not talking to people and expanding your organizations personal relationships - how will you know where to find new supporters?  How will you know what those potential donors think, want, care about... and how they want to give?

Dinosaurs and Dodo's

Dinosaurs & Dodo birds are incredible creatures.  I am fascinated by them... but they don't exist anymore! I think it would be a damn shame if good charities, doing great work, ceased to exist because they based their fundraising expectations on tired old ideas destined to end up in a museum alongside dinosaurs. 

Make hard decisions today. You may have to cut some services. You may have to help fewer people (for now). But in the long run, you will not only be here, you'll be doing more things for more people.  And you will probably have a lot more fun getting there. People are nice.  Especially, when you show a genuine interest in them. Try it! I promise you'll like it - and you'll be around in 5 years to enjoy it.

Your Social Media Personality

I have found all the social networks very easy to adapt to.  I'm comfortable with them.  In fact, I downright enjoy them.  As I pondered my comfort and enthusiasm with these various information sharing, personality exposing online places, I realized why I am so comfortable with them. I spent years playing MMORPG's.

What the... is an MMORPG?

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplay Game.  The most well known of these types of games today is World of Warcraft.  I played that when it first came out for about a year.  Before that was Star Wars (which I didn't like much), Asheron's Call (both I and II), with a little dabbling in Dark Ages of Camelot.  This was what I did for fun - throughout much of my 30's.

These games require large amounts of people to build "guilds" (aka teams) who work together, compete against each other, kill big scary creatures, other players and manage personal and guild economic ventures.  You have to work hard and be good at something and build relationships in order to align yourself with other good players and succeed in the games. You do all of this online, in real time.

It struck me that this is very much like online networking and social media.  You have to give to get. You have to provide value. And along the way - you have fun with people.  If you aren't good at something; if you aren't capable of leading and/or following, people won't take you along for the various adventures.  If you're not a pleasant, fun and/or interesting person - people don't want to be around you and again, people won't bring you along for the good adventures.

A good gamer is smart, strategic, spontaneous, adaptable, creative, cooperative, competetive and willing to take risks and invest time in building relationships. Those are the same characteristics that I see in people and organizations who are doing well online.

Personality Counts

The organizations that succeed in social networking will have a good strategy and great execution, but they'll do more than that.  They will have an online personality.  The people that manage their online efforts will be capable of projecting their personality through little typed words on a computer screen.  They'll give value to the people who read those words - and they'll be fun, pleasant and interesting.

So if you're looking for someone to help with your social media and online efforts - maybe you should consider looking in some unconventional places. 

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.

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.

Picture Perfect

The very innovative John Lepp recently wrote about stock photo's, in his blog: The Naked Idea.

John makes some excellent points about transparency and trust in his blog.  Using genuine photo's is certainly ideal, however, for many organizations it is simply not an option. 

Perhaps you're organization deals with sensitive issues like spousal abuse, or perhaps your resources simply don't allow for a professional photographer. There are any number of legitimate reasons that an organization can not use a professional photograph or obtain a photograph that is specific to their marketing device.

John mentions an inexpensive stock photo service called, istockphoto.  As John notes, this extremely popular service is relatively inexpensive and as a result there is some potential that your donors will see photographs you've used in other places.

Free Photo Alternatives

I have recently worked on some projects for smaller organizations who required photographs and did not have adequate photographic resources within their organization.  I enjoy taking photo's.  I'm not all that good, but I enjoy it.  I keep my photo's on a website called "Flickr".   Flickr is full of fabulous amateur (and some professional) photographers.  Many of these fine folks apply a "creative commons license" to their photographs, allowing people to use their photographs for non-commercial purposes.  Flickr allows users to search the site for photo's that have creative commons licenses. 

On my recent projects I've run searches for photo's specific to my needs.  It could be a location, situation etc. etc.  I've found some tremendous resources.  Using the Flickr site, I emailed the photographers and asked permission to use their photo's for the charity I represented.  Each time, the photographer was delighted to provide use of the photo (with appropriate attribution) at no cost. 

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS!

• It's important to note that different creative commons licenses have different restrictions.  Be sure you email the photographer and ask for permission - even if they have the most generous creative commons license.  It's just polite.
• If the subject of the photo is a person or several people, be sure to inquire about who those people are and their contact information... and obtain their permission!  Individuals may have consented to have their photograph on Flickr, but that doesn't mean they will want their likeness associated with your charity.
• Allow a couple weeks for a response.  Although many Flickr users log on daily, some do so infrequently and it may take some time for a response.
• Be specific about how you will use the photo.  If you want to use it in several items or for a long period of time - be sure to inform the photographer of your intent and get their specific permission in writing.
• Finally - THANK them.. and offer to send them a copy (or link if it's online) of the product so they can see how their generosity has helped you.

I have never had anyone say no to my request for use of their photo and I've found some incredibly stunning and relevant photo's.  Who knows - if you find someone local, they may well volunteer to take some specific photo's for you!

Toronto Animal Welfare Donor Trends

"The survey says"...

My recent survey of 3 Toronto area, Animal Welfare charities is complete - along with the accompanying analysis.   The survey was sent to approximately 785 individuals and a link to the survey was placed on the websites of the participating charities.  Based on the 444 completed survey responess, we are able to assess a confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of 3.51. 

Comparison data for this report is based on 2 different studies:

• The Canadian Survey of Giving Volunteering and Participation ~ Imagine Canada & Stats Can
• "Boomers! Negotiating the Generational Divide in Fundraising & Advocacy" ~ Cravers, Matthew, Smith and Company (CMS), in cooperation with The PrimeGroup. (2005)

The full research document is available by clicking here and the full survey summary data can be found by clicking here.

Key Demographics Observations

• More than 61% of respondents are age 40 or under, while 34% are 41 years of age or more.  This is most unusual in a world where charitable sector supporters are often categorized as “older”.
• 72% of respondents have received a higher education diploma, undergraduate degree or post graduate degree.
• 16% of respondents report an annual household income of $96,000.00 a year or more.  This is remarkably high, given that the average annual income for individuals in Ontario is $40,000.00. (Statistics Canada, 2005)
• 48% of respondents are married or common-law, while 45% of respondents are single, divorced or widowed.
• 95% of respondents use the internet daily or several times a day.
• Only 54% of respondents have made a charitable donation using the internet.
• Only 12% of respondents indicated that religion or spirituality, highly or somewhat influenced their desire to donate to an animal welfare charity.
• 89% indicated that knowing specifically how their donations will be used is highly or somewhat influential in their decision to donate to an animal welfare charity.

Interests & Motivations

Compared to the CGSVP, respondents in the animal welfare survey were far more likely to respond to mail, television and radio advertisements, attend events and even telephone solicitations. 

This is particularly interesting, given that 83% of survey respondents indicated that they somewhat or strongly disliked being contacted by charities via telephone.

Another very distinctive difference between survey respondents and CSGVP findings is the role of religion in Canadian giving.  The CGSVP indicates that 45% of all donations are made to religious organizations.  Not a single respondent indicated making a gift to a religious organization and only 12% indicated that religion and/or spirituality is somewhat or highly influential in making a gift to an animal welfare charity. 

Additionally, the CGSVP indicates that 14% of all Canadian donations are directed to Health related charities, while respondents to the animal welfare survey show that more than 46% of participants donate to this sector.

When asked which factors would be most influential in making future donations to an animal welfare charity, 3 factors stood out as most influential:

• Strong belief in the charity's mission and goals.
• Knowing how their donation will be used.
• Perceived need of the organization.

Factors such as religion, tax receipts and convenience are among the least influential.

The Data

Please feel free to use this data in whole or in part with appropriate attribution.  Again, as stated above, you can download the full survey summary by clicking here.  The full comparative report is available by clicking here.  If you are interested in obtaining raw data from the survey (with identifying and organizational data removed), please contact me directly by clicking here.  Alternatively, you can find my contact information by clicking on the "About" link at the top of this page and viewing my resume.

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.