Nolo’s Fundraising Tips for Busy Nonprofits

Just a few months back, when I posted a new article on Nolo's website called, "Fundraising (or Friendraising) Through Social Networks," the prevailing sentiment seemed to be that no one knew how spending your time to establish a presence for your nonprofit within the social networking world was going to make any money -- but felt that they should probably do so anyway. After all, with 350 million users then on Facebook -- which number has since gone up to 500 million -- being left out of the conversation seemed like a bad idea.

Now, more and more reasons to join up with this, as well as other social networking sites, seem to be emerging. For example, JPMorgan Chase just announced 200 charities that will each receive a portion of a $5 million grant -- chosen solely based on votes by Facebook users.

In another example, Beth Kanter, author of The Networked Nonprofit, offered in her blog today a couple of anecdotes about nonprofits that have parlayed their social networking contacts into new foundation grants and board members. 

I suspect more stories are yet to come. In the meantime, getting started is one of the easier things you'll ever have face in the realm of new technology -- with the added benefit that you'll get to see all your friends' baby pictures. 

I recently received a forwarded email from someone I respect, encouraging me to attend an event at, he said, a "great organization."

Here are key portions of the original email. I've changed the organization's acronyms, but only from other acronyms -- collections of letters that gave me no clue as to what the organization was called, much less what it did:

"Please help us get the word out to your Bay Area friends, relations, and colleagues that ABCD will hold an informal gathering in Oakland on [date] at the [location]. . . . ABCD movement leaders will offer an overview and update on our movement's exciting new initiative:  the EFGHI Leadership Institute.

Huh? I kept reading, just to see whether I'd get more information about the organization's mission and why I should support it. Nope: Just descriptions of plans to construct various buildings, and instructions on where I could give online.

If I'd already known about the organization, the email would, I assume, have made sense. But even then, I wonder, would I have been moved to give? How about a little reminder of why their mission and projects are important to me? What's more, the email's writers clearly didn't give even half a thought to the prospect that their well-meaning supporters would forward the email to others. They should have! 

Usually I try to applaud fundraisers who are doing a great job, rather than point a finger at those who don't quite get it. It's tough being a fundraiser, and many come to the task with no training other than goodwill.

But more and more, the field of fundraising is full of high-quality, easily accessed information about how to do things right. And in some cases, those working at established organizations with good access to mentoring and training should know better by now! So why am I seeing misguided practices like the following?

1) Just got an email with the subject line, "Larger Donors We Need Matching Funds." Huh. Is this addressed to me? Just how large do I have to be to be considered a "larger donor?" Is it measured by weight or volume? (Yes, I know what they mean, but do the rest of the email recipients?) And if I already knew I was a "larger donor," would I appreciate being taken for granted in this manner, as if my history of large donations were just a tap to be turned on as needed? I doubt it. There's nothing about this subject line that makes me want to open the email.

2) Passing by a table near the front of my local Safeway recently, I noticed a stack of used books for sale, in support of a local charity. Good idea! But rotten execution. I've never seen a pile of books more in need of some culling. There was a guidebook to Seattle schools from the year 2001 -- and we're in Oakland. There were other reference books just old enough to be useless, but not old enough to be antiques. And the overall look of the books was cheap, cheap, cheap. At least they didn't have to worry about shoplifting. But, as is typical, I didn't want to paw through the pile any further in hopes of treasure. At a certain point -- and I say this with due reverence for books -- a few of them simply need to be recycled, just like with an old newspaper. Sales of used goods to the public are most successful when people can see a good proportion of quality among the junk.

3) I got yet another appeal letter from a certain national organization, despite having requested, several months ago in writing, that it stop sending me appeal letters. As I explained to them, I'd like to continue subscribing to their lovely magazine, but was annoyed by the fact that I could never tell from the letters whether my subscription was about to run out or whether this was just another appeal for money. The language of the letters seemed intentionally vague. Too bad, because I might have considered their side-appeals but for this annoyance factor. In any case, I called them and have supposedly been removed from the appeal-letter list. We'll see -- they haven't shown much efficiency around my separate requests to change my address (started off okay, then reverted to the old one!?).

Ok, that's all for now. Will presumably get back to acknowledging all the great work done by hard-working, creative, and committed fundraisers next week.   

My previous post, called "Videos: Hot New Communication Tool, or Waste of Time?" mentioned journalists' observations that the videos that draw people in the most are those that manage to incorporate humor.

As if in response, the Pew Research Center just reported a study showing that 50% of adult Internet users watched humorous or comedy videos during the year studied (2007); more than watched any other category of video. Educational videos came in 2nd, at 38%.

So, if your organization can combine humor with education, you should be able to get some serious viewership!

As part of every nonprofit's efforts to connect and communicate with members and donors via every media possible, I've heard a lot of buzz about videos of late. Michael Stein, for example, who writes the blog Internet Strategy for the Nonprofit Sector, has described videos as "a great way to showcase your organization's mission and work," and "a growing trend in nonprofit communications." You can check out various tips for using video effectively on his blog. 

But then, wearing my other hat as a real estate writer/editor, I attended a NAREE conference recently during which top journalists from around the United States described their growing frustration with video: It takes away from their other responsibilities; even if you have spare time, filming, editing, and preparing the video takes up a heck of a lot of it; and in the end, very few readers click to watch.

(In one of those classic moments where you can't tell whether you're part of a representative majority or just hanging around with fellow Luddite outliers, I and other audience members leaned to each other with comments like, "Yeah, I never click videos either, they take too much time for too little substance.")

So, what gives? Is creating videos a worthy use of time for nonprofits but not for real estate writers? I doubt it. It's not as though the audience is completely different -- people who buy or sell homes also give to charity.

 Is this perhaps a situation that fits my in-laws' favorite maxim of, "If you're not going to do something well, don't do it at all?" This might be closer to the truth, given that anyone who's online is exposed to new video offerings, both serious and humorous, every few minutes. The novelty is wearing off, though I did laugh at the "4 Laughing Babies" one. Presumably the journalists I was hearing from weren't doing too badly at their video-making efforts, but they'd probably be among the first to say that being a good writer doesn't automatically make someone a good videographer.

Perhaps the most telling nugget of information came from Lauren Beale of the Los Angeles Times, who noted that, among the reporters she works with, the ones whose videos attract a significant audience are the ones who have natural camera appeal and know how to use humor. (No wonder I clicked on those laughing babies!) Everyone is looking for a watchable persona, and the lift and stimulation that humor provides.

But not everyone can do humor. And those who can't shouldn't necessarily try. We've all groaned at the efforts of someone who, trying to lighten up a speech or talk, opens it with a bad joke. Besides, we're talking now about creating videos that represent the work of charitable organizations, which isn't necessarily thigh-slapping material.

Is the inevitable conclusion, then, that unless you've got a natural comedian on your staff who can magically make oil spills and hungry people funny, give up on the video and retreat to the familiar territory of writing newsletter articles? I wouldn't go that far.

Let's think about the mental zone entered by someone who is able to create humor. It usually means the person isn't just cranking out content, but has let the topic enter his or her consciousness in a deeper way, to bring forth a unique personal perspective. What's more, the person cares enough about the audience to want to share the information with them in a way that's genuinely engaging.

That's something anyone making video can aspire to. To me, the takeaway lesson is, don't create videos indiscriminately. Create them if and when you've got a staff person -- or maybe a young intern -- who's really inspired about presenting the content. It will help to have some visual material that you feel like people just hafta see -- the very kind that you'd email a friend. If you make just a few compelling videos, you'll ultimately get a lot more eyeballs on them than with a slew of mediocre ones. (Uh oh, I guess my in-laws have the last word on this one after all.)  

According to a survey in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the American Cancer Society (ACS) was number one among nonprofits doing online fundraising last year. It raised $114 million online, an impressive 13% share of its total contributions.

What is the ACS doing right? I don't have the behind-the-scenes info, but looking at its website, I can make a few, hopefully educated guesses. Notice, for example:

• The home page contains interesting, substantive content. Studies have shown that people rate substantive content number one in importance when evaluating a nonprofit's website. The ACS offers a host of topic links, like, "Learn About Cancer," "Support Programs and Services," and "Cancer Facts & Figures."
  
• The home page also leads people quickly to donation opportunities. Readers can click to "Join the Fight Against Cancer," "Get Involved," and "Donate Now," not to mention on a special headline inviting people to participate in the Relay For Life.
• When you click the "Donate" link (under "Join the Fight"), you're given an introductory reminder of the good that your gift does, plus various options for how to donate. And in case you remain unconvinced, there's another link called "Learn How Your Donations Help." This provides even more detail on ACS's research, advocacy, service, and other programs supported by donations.
  
• The payment page is simple to fill out, provides logos with assurances about the security of the information you'll be transmitting, and actually has an 800 number that people can call for help! That last bit probably isn't realistic for most smaller nonprofits, but at least put your organization's phone number up, with information on when to call if need be, and who to ask for.

Well done, I say. And have a look at my free article for more information on "Using Your Nonprofit's Website to Help Fundraise. "

Signing on to other nonprofits'  Facebook pages is one of the best ways to find out what works and what doesn't in this new medium of connecting with supporters and prospective donors.

I've been doing a lot of signing up as a fan lately (for this very purpose), and am noticing a pattern. There are the nonprofits that lecture -- and there are those that also listen. It's the ones that listen that make me feel more drawn in.

The lecture-style FB postings definitely have a place. As is traditional on Facebook and other online forms of communication, they may direct us to interesting videos, alert us to important news or other events plus ways to take action, and generally keep us in touch with their unique area of expertise.

But with so much info being circulated in the online world, this can start to feel like just more of the same. Let's face it, everyone's fascination with themselves, and where they fit into this grand network, comes out on Facebook -- why else would we all take quizzes about which Wizard of Oz character we are, and so forth?

That's why I'm impressed by nonprofits that ask their fans to weigh in on something -- like the National Hospice Foundation, which reaches out to fans with questions like:

 "just heard a lovely story about a hospice team going 'above and beyond' to help a patient have one last phone call with her mother who lived many time zones away and did not have a phone in her home. Can you share stories of extraordinary effort in your hospice experience?"

Check their page out at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Hospice-Foundation/143161142317

In my last post on text-message-based fundraising, I and the rest of the world were impressed by the American Red Cross having raised $9 million for Haitian relief efforts via mobile phone text messaging. That number has since gone up to $26 million -- even harder to ignore.

If there were any lingering doubts that this type of fundraising has caught the popular imagination, one need look no farther than the 2010 Oscars ceremony, at which the good folks accepting the award for best documentary, "The Cove," flashed a sign saying, "Text Dolphin to 44144." (You had to be watching closely, since the powers-that-be quickly moved the cameras in another direction -- with the predictable result that the moment is getting more media coverage and video linkings than it would have otherwise.)

But what's the bottom line -- has mobile text messaging (or "SMS") become, overnight, the hottest fundraising strategy around? The fees for nonprofit users are apparently trending downward as more providers enter the market, such as the Mobile Giving Foundation.

Nevertheless, a recent report called the "2010 Nonprofit Text Messaging Benchmarks" report concludes that, while text messaging can be an effective part of a communications mix with existing supporters that also includes email, the Web, and direct mail, it's main role for the moment will be to reinforce other messages and provide an immediate engagement opportunity in urgent situations.

In other words, if you're not responding to a widely known-about crisis like the Haiti earthquake, don't start counting your millions just yet. But start collecting your supporters' mobile phone numbers, just in case. 

If you're feeling the Twitter void from Miley Cyrus having deleted her account, here's something new to keep you busy: tweets from Bill Gates!

Which raises the question, is someone at your nonprofit keeping the world up on your activities via Twitter yet? It's one of the fastest and easiest methods of reaching out to people.

Of course, one has to wonder whether Gates writes his own entries or delegates this to his PR team -- he is, after all, reputed to be a pretty busy guy. But if you don't have your own PR team to handle such things, just bear in mind that there's something to be said for the personal touch, with messages that come from your heart, as your nonprofit confronts its challenges, in real time.

Have I not ranted about this yet? Or maybe I have, but I'm still continually surprised at how often nonprofits compose a nice email and then put no thought into giving it a subject line that will make people want to open it.

Just like with mailed fundraising appeals, email readers are looking for an excuse to ignore the message. We're all swamped with email even if we receive nothing but spam! A  less than compelling subject line provides the perfect excuse to zap your email into cyber-eternity.

The worst entry lines I've seen are simply inexplicable -- using mysterious or nonsubtsantive words like, "signs" or simply the organization's acronym. Others title their emails like distress telegrams: "Donations down," or "Help, need more money." It takes a pretty committed donor to not run from that one.

A better approach? As with all types of fundraising, it's to keep people's eyes on the goal; with intriguing subject lines like, "New program close to launch," or "We did it!" Then you can share the hopeful part of your news or plans -- but explain what funding or other help you need to complete or continue similar efforts. You don't have to believe me -- divide your donors into two groups and give it a try.