Showing posts with label Giving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Giving. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
How to reduce donor attrition in three minutes
By: Katya Andresen
Here’s the bad news.
As if we needed more bad news about our ability to retain donors… The Chronicle of Philanthropy shares that donors aren’t just annoyed by our lack of follow-up—they are really, really annoyed. (Read here.)
More than 20 percent of donors say they were never even thanked!
So the obvious remedy is to thank donors, tell them what their gift accomplished and report on your progress in your mission.
What’s the best way to do that? Here’s the three-minute trick.
Pell & Bales sent me this hot tip - which reinforces what Chuck Longfield told me last week.
Read their step-by-step, three minute solution here, but the headline is:
-Pick up phone
-Call donor
-Talk about donor and what donor did that was amazing for real people:
-Don’t ask them for more money - just say thanks again
Pell & Bales say that three-minute call drastically reduces attrition (see below). And their findings are in line with those of Chuck, who says taking the time to phone supporters and thank them for their gift lifts their giving by 40 percent.
Want to have amazing results this holiday? Pick up the phone and say thanks. Do a couple of calls a day. It feels good, and it does good.*
*Thanks to Charlie Hulme of Pell & Bales for the tip!
More than 20 percent of donors say they were never even thanked!
So the obvious remedy is to thank donors, tell them what their gift accomplished and report on your progress in your mission.
What’s the best way to do that? Here’s the three-minute trick.
Pell & Bales sent me this hot tip - which reinforces what Chuck Longfield told me last week.
Read their step-by-step, three minute solution here, but the headline is:
-Pick up phone
-Call donor
-Talk about donor and what donor did that was amazing for real people:
-Don’t ask them for more money - just say thanks again
Pell & Bales say that three-minute call drastically reduces attrition (see below). And their findings are in line with those of Chuck, who says taking the time to phone supporters and thank them for their gift lifts their giving by 40 percent.
Want to have amazing results this holiday? Pick up the phone and say thanks. Do a couple of calls a day. It feels good, and it does good.*
*Thanks to Charlie Hulme of Pell & Bales for the tip!
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wealthy Donors Give More When They Volunteer
By: Joanne Frtiz, About.com Guide
The Bank of America survey of the wealthiest donors was released recently and painted a post-recession picture of how these sought-after donors handle their charitable donations.
The survey (conducted by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy) covered donors with incomes of more than $200,000 or a net worth of more that $1-million. It revealed that 89% of affluent donors volunteered in 2011, which was an increase of 10 points from 2009. More than half of those donors volunteered for more than 100 hours.
We know that volunteering in general is positively correlated with charitable giving. In this study, people who volunteered for more than 100 hours gave, on average, $78,000 to charity. For those who spent fewer hours volunteering, the average came to less than $39,000. On the other hand, donors in this study who did not volunteer at all gave an average of $49,742 to their charities.
The message for nonprofits? Don't hesitate to involve high net worth donors. Get them moving and donations are likely to be higher. That may be because volunteers gain first hand knowledge of the good that a charity actually does.
There is much more in the Bank of America's survey. Here are some of the high points:
- Ninety-five percent of the wealthiest households gave to charity in 2011, and their donations, as percentage of household income, held steady at about 9%, compared to 2009. However, the average dollar amount donated by this group of donors did decline by 7%, compared to 2009.
- Wealthy donors favor religious institutions for their donations and then education.
- Support for general operations (overhead) is up among the wealthy...60% of these donors said that their largest gifts were unrestricted, up from 55% in 2009. More than 80% said they expect charities to spend an "appropriate" amount of their donations on administration and fundraising.
- Wealthy donors reported being disappointed and giving up on certain charities more often in 2011. Twenty percent said they stopped giving to five or more groups, up from 13% in 2009.
- Wealthy donors reported that they have more faith in individuals to solve social problems than other entities. Nonprofit groups come in second. Only 30% said they were strongly confident that nonprofits could meet domestic and global problems; 75% said they had almost no confidence in Congress to do so.
- Half of the affluent donors surveyed said whether or not they received a federal tax deduction did not matter, that they would give the same amount even if they got no deduction.
- The wealthy donors in this survey expect charities to use sound business practices (75%); 74% expect to receive a thank you; and more than a third said they had stopped giving to at least one charity because of over solicitation. They also want to know how their gifts are being used, and how they promote a charity's mission.
Compare this survey's results to those that Forbes found recently through a similar survey and its summit of billionaires.
Sources:
Average Gift by the Wealthy Has Declined Since 2009, Chronicle of Philanthropy.
2012 Bank of America Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy Finds Donors Firmly Committed to and Highly Engaged With Nonprofits, Bank of America press release.
The 2012 Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy (PDF), The Center on Philanthropy.
Average Gift by the Wealthy Has Declined Since 2009, Chronicle of Philanthropy.
2012 Bank of America Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy Finds Donors Firmly Committed to and Highly Engaged With Nonprofits, Bank of America press release.
The 2012 Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy (PDF), The Center on Philanthropy.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Offer a Choice in Charity?
Article by: Katya Andresen, Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog
In the last of this week’s three-part series on research into consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing, I want to focus on the increasing number of cause-related marketing campaigns that are designed to let consumers actively choose which charities a company supports. Does choice in charity make campaigns more effective? Do consumers like being in the social good driver’s seat? And when can consumer choice hurt or help a company?
In the last of this week’s three-part series on research into consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing, I want to focus on the increasing number of cause-related marketing campaigns that are designed to let consumers actively choose which charities a company supports. Does choice in charity make campaigns more effective? Do consumers like being in the social good driver’s seat? And when can consumer choice hurt or help a company?
A new series of studies by Stefanie Rosen Robinson, Caglar Irmak and Satish Jayachandran of North Carolina State tackles those very questions. And the findings, just published in the Journal of Marketing and covered by Cause Marketing Forum, include some interesting answers:
1. Consumer choice has a big positive impact on consumer donations.
In a field experiment that took place at a roller rink, popular sour chews were sold and adults were asked to pay whatever price they wished for the candy. Half were told the skating rink was contributing proceeds of the candy money to a set of causes, with the rink deciding how much money would go where. The other half were told they could choose which charity benefited from their purchase. The four causes were chosen based on earlier research showing what types of organizations the parents would be inclined to care about moderately. On average parents (and they were all parents – their kids were there skating) paid far more for the candy—$2.17—when they were able to choose from four causes. They paid an average of only $0.72 when the roller rink determined how the money would be divvied up.
2. When the company chooses among charities, the fact there is more than one cause doesn’t matter much to the consumer.
In a lab study, university students were asked to choose if they were more inclined to buy a calculator from a company that “is giving a percentage of the proceeds from the sales of the calculator back to the community.” Participants got three versions of how that worked – that they got to choose from among four charities benefiting, that the company chose among four charities benefiting, or that the company supported just one charity. In all cases 5% of the sales were donated. Interestingly, people were more likely to buy the calculator when they got to choose the charity. The interest level in buying the product when the company chose among charities or supported one charity was negligible. In an interview with Cause Marketing Forum, study author Stefanie Robinson said this was her most surprising finding. Whether a company donates to many charities vs. one charity may not matter.
3. Not all consumers are the same.
Another study covered in the paper found that some people are more collectivist, especially in Asian cultures, while others are more individualistic. Collectivist people tend to put community needs above personal ones. While you might think individualistic people are more inclined to like choice in charity, that wasn’t true in the research. The most individualistic people don’t care as much about choice in giving. Collectivists definitely do, though, because the choice makes them feel they have a greater role in helping and that involvement fulfills their caring about community. Choice in charity is therefore more likely to influence their purchase decisions positively.
4. If there’s a strong fit between company and cause, choice matters less.
In a lab study, university students were told about a notebook for sale that benefited charity. In this study, several variables were studied: consumer vs. company choosing among four charities – as well as a set of charities with a close fit to the product (four educational causes) vs. less of a fit (four environmental causes). The researchers looked at how the variables influenced people’s intent to purchase the notebook. Interestingly, when there was a strong fit between the company and cause, the consumer being able to choose the charities mattered less. The students said they were less likely to purchase when it was up to them to choose than when the decision was left to the company. Apparently, when there wasn’t a strong fit, study participants felt the company had a weaker CSR strategy and therefore wanted to influence the charity chosen.
5. If the social good goal is far off, choice matters less.
In most of the fundraising research I have reviewed, it’s clear that donors are more motivated to give when a campaign is close to its goal – and discouraged from giving if the goal seems far off or not achievable. Turns out the same may be true with cause-marketing campaigns. Consumers who were told that a campaign was only 20% to its goal were less likely to make a purchase when asked to decide which charity should be the beneficiary. When they were told a campaign was 80% to its goal and they could choose the charity, they were more likely to purchase because they felt their behavior would have an important effect on the campaign.
1. Consumer choice has a big positive impact on consumer donations.
In a field experiment that took place at a roller rink, popular sour chews were sold and adults were asked to pay whatever price they wished for the candy. Half were told the skating rink was contributing proceeds of the candy money to a set of causes, with the rink deciding how much money would go where. The other half were told they could choose which charity benefited from their purchase. The four causes were chosen based on earlier research showing what types of organizations the parents would be inclined to care about moderately. On average parents (and they were all parents – their kids were there skating) paid far more for the candy—$2.17—when they were able to choose from four causes. They paid an average of only $0.72 when the roller rink determined how the money would be divvied up.
2. When the company chooses among charities, the fact there is more than one cause doesn’t matter much to the consumer.
In a lab study, university students were asked to choose if they were more inclined to buy a calculator from a company that “is giving a percentage of the proceeds from the sales of the calculator back to the community.” Participants got three versions of how that worked – that they got to choose from among four charities benefiting, that the company chose among four charities benefiting, or that the company supported just one charity. In all cases 5% of the sales were donated. Interestingly, people were more likely to buy the calculator when they got to choose the charity. The interest level in buying the product when the company chose among charities or supported one charity was negligible. In an interview with Cause Marketing Forum, study author Stefanie Robinson said this was her most surprising finding. Whether a company donates to many charities vs. one charity may not matter.
3. Not all consumers are the same.
Another study covered in the paper found that some people are more collectivist, especially in Asian cultures, while others are more individualistic. Collectivist people tend to put community needs above personal ones. While you might think individualistic people are more inclined to like choice in charity, that wasn’t true in the research. The most individualistic people don’t care as much about choice in giving. Collectivists definitely do, though, because the choice makes them feel they have a greater role in helping and that involvement fulfills their caring about community. Choice in charity is therefore more likely to influence their purchase decisions positively.
4. If there’s a strong fit between company and cause, choice matters less.
In a lab study, university students were told about a notebook for sale that benefited charity. In this study, several variables were studied: consumer vs. company choosing among four charities – as well as a set of charities with a close fit to the product (four educational causes) vs. less of a fit (four environmental causes). The researchers looked at how the variables influenced people’s intent to purchase the notebook. Interestingly, when there was a strong fit between the company and cause, the consumer being able to choose the charities mattered less. The students said they were less likely to purchase when it was up to them to choose than when the decision was left to the company. Apparently, when there wasn’t a strong fit, study participants felt the company had a weaker CSR strategy and therefore wanted to influence the charity chosen.
5. If the social good goal is far off, choice matters less.
In most of the fundraising research I have reviewed, it’s clear that donors are more motivated to give when a campaign is close to its goal – and discouraged from giving if the goal seems far off or not achievable. Turns out the same may be true with cause-marketing campaigns. Consumers who were told that a campaign was only 20% to its goal were less likely to make a purchase when asked to decide which charity should be the beneficiary. When they were told a campaign was 80% to its goal and they could choose the charity, they were more likely to purchase because they felt their behavior would have an important effect on the campaign.
5 Ways to Increase Revenue
Article by: Alison Finkel, Event360
Here are some aspects to consider when developing a program to support top fundraisers:
With fall events in full swing, it’s likely that you’re looking for quick and actionable ways to boost revenue. Here are five proven ideas to give an extra boost to your fundraising results this season. These ideas don’t require a strategic shift or a lot of development time. But, they each offer great potential for deeper investment from the participants and donors who are already interacting with your event!
These tips are presented in order from the fastest and easiest to implement to the ones that may take a little more investment and integration on the part of your team. Good luck and have a great event season!
These tips are presented in order from the fastest and easiest to implement to the ones that may take a little more investment and integration on the part of your team. Good luck and have a great event season!
1. Bump up the suggested donation giving levels on your donation form
Take a look at most event websites and you’ll find the same pre-set suggested donation levels on every page. Usually in $25 increments, this is the default language provided by most event databases.
Take a look at most event websites and you’ll find the same pre-set suggested donation levels on every page. Usually in $25 increments, this is the default language provided by most event databases.
Event 360 worked with several organizations to see if we could increase average gift size per donor by simply bumping up the suggested donation amounts at each level. In other words, could an organization pick up an extra $5 or $10 per donor by simply changing the preset values on the donation form from $25 to $30 or from $50 to $60?
The answer is YES. In our test, we found that by changing the preset amount from $25 to $35, the percentage of donors choosing $25 fell 10%, but the percentage of donors choosing $35 increased 13%. So, 10% of event donors suddenly gave 10% more just by making this small change!
A word of caution, though: don’t get greedy! Changing preset levels from $50 to $60 gave a bump to average donation size. However, changing preset levels from $50 to $75 had a negative impact. In that test, the use of the $30 donation level increased by 33%!
There is also some question about whether listing suggested levels from high to low or low to high is best. Our tests have revealed that low to high generates better average giving. More important than the order of the suggested levels is having the ‘other amount’ box at the top of the section.
Finally, the use of case statements on the donation page did not show consistent results. A case statement connects the donation to the organization’s mission. An example of this could be “$100 funds the installation of a new toilet in three homes.” If you’re considering case statements, think about how closely they connect to your organization’s mission. If there’s a strong and direct tie in, you may want to include them. However, if it’s a stretch to make a fit, it’s better to leave them out!
2. Sweeten the Deal
Is there an opportunity to reconnect with your event donors for an incremental donation this season? The Susan G. Komen 3-Day offers the opportunity for donors to send a personal note and a custom chocolate to the participant they’re supporting in exchange for an additional donation.
Is there an opportunity to reconnect with your event donors for an incremental donation this season? The Susan G. Komen 3-Day offers the opportunity for donors to send a personal note and a custom chocolate to the participant they’re supporting in exchange for an additional donation.
The ‘ask’ with this program is extremely unique; the 3-Day isn’t asking for an additional donation to that participant’s fundraising account. Instead, they offer a highly personal and one-of-a-kind opportunity to connect with a loved one or teammate while they’re on the event.
3. Ask Participants to Top Off Their Registration Fee
What percentage of your event participants visit the website exactly once when they register? Chances are, it’s somewhere between 75% and 90%. Make the most of this interaction because it’s the only chance you’ll have to connect with them, not just as a registrant but as a fundraiser!
What percentage of your event participants visit the website exactly once when they register? Chances are, it’s somewhere between 75% and 90%. Make the most of this interaction because it’s the only chance you’ll have to connect with them, not just as a registrant but as a fundraiser!
Include a section on the registration form that provides the opportunity for the participant to make an additional donation when they register. But, like the pre-set donation levels, you can’t just throw in a generic box on the registration page and expect results. Be sure to include two important pieces of information:
- Make a strong and relevant ask: Why should this registrant also be a donor?
- Provide a suggested and relevant amount to give: What is the right amount based on the ask you just provided?
When Event 360 tested this with one of our clients, they saw great results! The percentage of registrants making a self-donation increased by 12% and the average (mean) donation increased by 5%. In addition, people who make a self-donation at registration are great targets for additional engagement and communications about fundraising.
4. Identify Existing Fundraisers with the Potential to Raise More
Turning registrants into fundraisers is the most difficult challenge for event fundraisers. Your participants who are fundraising have already cleared this hurdle. By raising funds for your organization, they’re demonstrating a connection to your mission and the desire to do more than just participate. Is your event doing all it can to promote fundraising among this dedicated group of participants? By segmenting your database and putting together corresponding communications and tools for each segment, you can get more from your fundraising program.
4. Identify Existing Fundraisers with the Potential to Raise More
Turning registrants into fundraisers is the most difficult challenge for event fundraisers. Your participants who are fundraising have already cleared this hurdle. By raising funds for your organization, they’re demonstrating a connection to your mission and the desire to do more than just participate. Is your event doing all it can to promote fundraising among this dedicated group of participants? By segmenting your database and putting together corresponding communications and tools for each segment, you can get more from your fundraising program.
Here are some places to look for key fundraisers among your registrants:
- Repeat participants, particularly those who have participated three or more times.
- Team captains
- Key affinity (grantee, survivor or co-survivor, etc.)
- Anyone who has raised at least $1
- Anyone who has logged in to their online tool center/participant page
- Anyone who gave a self-donation at registration
On one project Event 360 consulted on, just by targeting specific communications and tools to anyone who was sending fundraising emails from their participant account, giving increased 17% in that segment.
Remember that putting together a segmented communication plan goes hand in hand with providing tools, tips and recognition that match each segment. Your organization needs to deliver both in order to maximize fundraising potential.
5. Treat Top Fundraisers Like Top Donors
Most organizations have a fairly robust stewardship program for major gifts and top fundraisers. But, surprisingly, those same organizations don’t carry those programs over from their traditional development activities into their event activities. Just like donors, among event participants, the top 20% of performers are raising at least 80% of the funds.
Most organizations have a fairly robust stewardship program for major gifts and top fundraisers. But, surprisingly, those same organizations don’t carry those programs over from their traditional development activities into their event activities. Just like donors, among event participants, the top 20% of performers are raising at least 80% of the funds.
By setting up a clear engagement and recognition strategy for top fundraisers, your event could see fundraising improvement within this existing group of participants. One project we worked on increased total fundraising revenue by 6% even though registration only increased by 1%. They did this by focusing on providing better tools, recognition and stewardship to their top fundraising group. As a result, 50% of the incremental donations collected on this project came from those participants. This resulted in an increase of nearly $270,000 for the program.
Here are some aspects to consider when developing a program to support top fundraisers:
- Set clear and simple recognition tiers for high fundraising
- Consider what kinds of perks or recognition is a good fit with the program you’re managing
- Increase awareness of top-performer programs
- Increase access to tools and support for this participant group all year round, particularly pre-season. Note that this could include additional investment in staff resources for this group or program.
How Are You Saying Thank You?
Article by: Ted Fickes
"Thank You" in Turkish.
Photo by Michael Silberman.
A simple thank you can go a long way towards making your day better, but that nicety can also translate into positive results in fundraising and mobilisation work.
Maybe we send a form letter. Or maybe we figure “they gave us time or money so they care and will stick around (or give again, make calls, come to the next action, etc.).”
Admit it, you’ve done this (or had it done to you). And you knew it didn’t feel right. But can you prove that a heartfelt thank you helps?
Maybe we send a form letter. Or maybe we figure “they gave us time or money so they care and will stick around (or give again, make calls, come to the next action, etc.).”
Admit it, you’ve done this (or had it done to you). And you knew it didn’t feel right. But can you prove that a heartfelt thank you helps?
International Rescue Committee tests personal thank you calls and letters
We recently caught up with Alia McKee of Sea Change Strategies who shared with us a story about saying thanks in simple but powerful ways that (this is the good part) was tested and had a positive impact on fundraising and engagement.
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) works, in part, to resettle refugees around the world. In the second half of 2010, the IRC tested thank you calls to donors that gave $100 to $149. They divided donors into three groups:
- The first, the control group, received no call.
- The second was called and thanked by a staff member.
- The third group was called by a refugee with whom the IRC worked to resettle.
By mid-2011, thank you calls made within six weeks of the donation had the greatest impact on increased giving. Those receiving calls from refugees increased donations 16%. Staff calls increased donations 5%.
sent after being thanked by a refugee helped by the IRC.
A letter from an International Rescue Committee donor sent after being thanked by a refugee helped by the IRC.
Simply put, a personal thanks made the donor feel appreciated and more likely to give again and give more when they did give. In some cases, refugees have sent handwritten notes to donors when they couldn’t reach them by phone. Many donors have written back to refugees to let them know they appreciated hearing from them.
But we can’t write notes to everyone, can we?
It’s not likely that you’ll send handwritten notes to every donor. The IRC focused on those giving $100 to $149, a segment that typically gets little personal attention from organizations and can be hard to upgrade or keep at that level.
But there are ways to improve your thank you process. You can, for example, get creative with personalized fields in email thank you notes — and be sure to make them relevant to current events and the source of the donation.
We also heard a story from Rachel Weidinger at Upwell about giving thanks. Rachel told us about how Upwell wanted to acknowledge people that shared their content on social networks. Interns tracked down business contact information for these people and they were sent notes of thanks. This personal touch has been powerful as Upwell works to build a powerful group of advocates for oceans.
Fundraising is about relationships — as are mobilisation and organizing. Trust created through a relationship gives one confidence to act out, speak out, and take on leadership or other roles in a campaign. It may all start with a simple thank you.
We want to know: Maybe you’re at Greenpeace working with volunteers or at another organization running a social media campaign. Or maybe something totally different. How are you saying thanks? What would you like to test? Who needs more acknowledgment, and how can we get it done? Let us know in the comments area.
When Stewardship Becomes Collections
I recently had an interesting – and thought-provoking, and ultimately disappointing – set of interactions with a large nonprofit. The name of the specific institution is not important for the story, but suffice it to say that it has played an important role in my life and I’ve always felt proud to support it.
Several years ago, after a lot of conversation and reflection, my wife and I decided to commit to what was, at least for us, a fairly major gift to the group. The gift would require a bit of sacrifice and planning, and reflected our commitment to the organization for the long-term. Note that when I call the gift “major,” I use “major” in the sense that I think it should be, but is seldom, used in the nonprofit space – that is, the gift was major to us as the donors. Alas, it soon became apparent that the gift wasn’t really all that important to the institution.
We made the pledge online. A few days later, we got a call from the group. “Oh,” I thought to myself, “that’s nice – they must be calling to thank us.” I was pretty surprised when the voice on the phone said, “I need to get you to sign your gift commitment paper.” A ha. (Message: We’re a big institution. We don’t trust you.)
The thank-you call never came, although we did get a form letter a month or two later. I noticed that our credit card, however, was charged right away. (Message: Your money means a lot. Your support is secondary.)
About six months later, we got the requisite annual report in the mail. Wow, was it big and thick and glossy! I read the letter from the President, thumbed through the first few pages, and then looked for our name. And looked. And looked. There we were, way in the back of the book. At least I think it was there – the type was pretty small. (Message: You were right! That gift didn’t matter much to us at all.)
The last straw came when I got a solicitation email several weeks ago. The solicitation email didn’t ask us to renew to meet a mission goal, or offer examples of what they did with the first gift, or enumerate their need, or outline aspirations for the year ahead. The solicitation email said, “Our fiscal year is about to end.” (Message: You’re right, your donations are just revenue to us.) I was pretty floored. I can’t remember seeing a donor communication that was less donor-centric.
So we made a difficult decision and decided not to renew our pledge. Not because we needed more recognition or thanks -- that’s not why we donated in the first place. But because, it is clear to us that, at least in our community, there are a large number of smaller organizations who need and will appreciate our donation a lot more than this one does. I wrote to the institution to explain our decision, and invited them to contact us, but predictably we never heard from anyone. (Message: You made the right decision.)
What’s the lesson? Maybe the lesson is that my wife and I are selfish and need a lot of care and feeding. Could be. But I’d venture to guess that your nonprofit’s donor base is full of people just like us. We don’t want to be at the center of your world -- but we do want to know that you’re trying to change the world, and that our part plays a role.
In terms of specific advice, you probably already know this, but I’ll say it anyway: Thank your donors; speak to them in their language instead of yours; communicate in segments so that messages are as tailored as possible; and most of all, talk about impact instead of need. It really does matter, and I’m writing that not as a fundraiser, but more importantly, as a donor.
Article by: Jeff Shuck, Event360
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Helping Your Participants Overcome Fear of Donor Fatigue
Article by Meghan Dankovich, Event360 Blog
Donor fatigue. If you're an event fundraising professional, chances are you've come across this problem a time or two (or a thousand). I have some suggestions on how to deal with it.
The fact is, donor fatigue is a legitimate concern for participants — especially those who have been doing your event for awhile. Some participants may feel uncomfortable asking a supporter to give for the sixth year running. Others may be squeamish about approaching someone who is unemployed or underemployed and perhaps struggling financially.
How should you handle participants with worries like these?
First of all, teach them how to "ace the ask," as I covered in a March blog post, "Preparing Your Participants This Event Season." Among the tips I shared then:
In order to get a donation, you first have to ask.
While it's an understandable fear, you can't be afraid of rejection.
When making an ask, be clear about your connection to the cause and why you support the organization.
Never assume you know whether someone will give or how much he/she will give.
To the above points, I'd add this: Be gently persistent. When someone says "No," "You caught me too late" or "I already gave somewhere else," reframe the ask and try again. For instance, a logical follow-up might be, "Would you consider giving up Starbucks for the week? That's $25 right there."
The fact is, there are all sorts of ways to deal with objections. Educate yourself on how — and then share what you know with participants who seem overly concerned about donor fatigue.
Sitting It Out This Year
A personal story about donor fatigue: I had done one fundraising event a few years in a row before deciding to sit out this year. Much to my surprise, many of my past supporters were disappointed.
What I learned — and what you should share with participants — is that long-time supporters come to anticipate an event each year. They value the cause and respect the participant's commitment, so they look out for the ask and even budget for it.
In my case, the cause means a lot to my supporters. In years past, I walked the event wearing a hat covered with the names of those who lost their battle with the disease. Many times, I've gotten requests for a photo of the hat.
I plan to wear that same hat in next year's event.
So when participants say they don't want to go back to their donor base this year, remind them that many supporters really will want to give again. Donor fatigue, as it turns out, isn't as scary as its reputation implies.
Donor fatigue. If you're an event fundraising professional, chances are you've come across this problem a time or two (or a thousand). I have some suggestions on how to deal with it.
The fact is, donor fatigue is a legitimate concern for participants — especially those who have been doing your event for awhile. Some participants may feel uncomfortable asking a supporter to give for the sixth year running. Others may be squeamish about approaching someone who is unemployed or underemployed and perhaps struggling financially.
How should you handle participants with worries like these?
First of all, teach them how to "ace the ask," as I covered in a March blog post, "Preparing Your Participants This Event Season." Among the tips I shared then:
In order to get a donation, you first have to ask.
While it's an understandable fear, you can't be afraid of rejection.
When making an ask, be clear about your connection to the cause and why you support the organization.
Never assume you know whether someone will give or how much he/she will give.
To the above points, I'd add this: Be gently persistent. When someone says "No," "You caught me too late" or "I already gave somewhere else," reframe the ask and try again. For instance, a logical follow-up might be, "Would you consider giving up Starbucks for the week? That's $25 right there."
The fact is, there are all sorts of ways to deal with objections. Educate yourself on how — and then share what you know with participants who seem overly concerned about donor fatigue.
Sitting It Out This Year
A personal story about donor fatigue: I had done one fundraising event a few years in a row before deciding to sit out this year. Much to my surprise, many of my past supporters were disappointed.
What I learned — and what you should share with participants — is that long-time supporters come to anticipate an event each year. They value the cause and respect the participant's commitment, so they look out for the ask and even budget for it.
In my case, the cause means a lot to my supporters. In years past, I walked the event wearing a hat covered with the names of those who lost their battle with the disease. Many times, I've gotten requests for a photo of the hat.
I plan to wear that same hat in next year's event.
So when participants say they don't want to go back to their donor base this year, remind them that many supporters really will want to give again. Donor fatigue, as it turns out, isn't as scary as its reputation implies.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Which Americans are most generous?
The Chronicle of Philanthropy yesterday published loads of data on giving patterns among American donors. You can search for your specific community giving here. The research is based on tax returns from people claiming charitable deductions. Among the most interesting findings:
1. The rich aren’t richly generous. Says the Chronicle, “Middle-class Americans give a far bigger share of their discretionary income to charities than the rich. Households that earn $50,000 to $75,000 give an average of 7.6 percent of their discretionary income to charity, compared with an average of 4.2 percent for people who make $100,000 or more. In the Washington metropolitan area, for example, low- and middle-income communities like Suitland, Md., and Capitol Heights, Md., donate a much bigger share of discretionary income than do wealthier communities like Bethesda, Md., and McLean, Va.”
2. You need to know the stories to care. Rich people who live around rich people are less generous than rich people who live in more economically diverse communities. If you don’t see or hear about poverty, you aren’t as likely to act to remedy it. This is why it’s so critical to submerge people in the experience of those less fortunate through storytelling, events and other efforts. They have to know and feel to care.
3. Tax incentives matter. Special tax benefits for giving appear to encourage more giving.
4. Religion prompts more giving - much of it via churches. Says the Chronicle, “Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states—Utah and Idaho—have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.”
5. Utah is the most generous state; New Hampshire, the least. While Utah is over 10 percent, New Hampshire reported charitable contributions that totaled only 2.5 percent of discretionary income.
Post by Katya Andresen
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The five words that made women give 20% more
By: Katya Andresen
The philanthropic psychologist Jen Shang has a new fundraising study out with the public radio station WFIU in Bloomington, and it shows that five words tied to moral qualities prompt higher giving levels.
Here’s how the study worked. During the station’s pledge drive, the people answering phones thanked people for calling and randomly picked two of five words associated with moral identity to describe the caller: caring, friendly, kind, compassionate and helpful. For example: People said, “Thanks for calling and becoming a kind and caring WFIU donor” right before they asked the amount the caller wanted to give. Female donors gave significantly more—21% more—when they heard those adjectives. Interestingly, with male donors, it made no difference.
I think most best practices are not gender specific, like telling a compelling story, making your cause relatable or appealing to emotion. But moral identity is apparently another matter.
According to Shang, most charities find their donors are two-thirds female, so the implications are the technique could increasing the gift sizes of two-thirds of donors. She is now testing this effect in direct mail, and she said in a Chronicle of Philanthropy interview that she believes she will obtain the same result.
The researchers also surveyed donors and found the more that women give, the smaller the gap between their ideal and actual moral identity. In other words, donating money helps them achieve their moral ideals, said Shang. Doing good feels good.
Shang believes the results of this study are reliable and transferable to other causes, so this may be worth testing in your nonprofit’s marketing and fundraising outreach.
Here’s how the study worked. During the station’s pledge drive, the people answering phones thanked people for calling and randomly picked two of five words associated with moral identity to describe the caller: caring, friendly, kind, compassionate and helpful. For example: People said, “Thanks for calling and becoming a kind and caring WFIU donor” right before they asked the amount the caller wanted to give. Female donors gave significantly more—21% more—when they heard those adjectives. Interestingly, with male donors, it made no difference.
I think most best practices are not gender specific, like telling a compelling story, making your cause relatable or appealing to emotion. But moral identity is apparently another matter.
According to Shang, most charities find their donors are two-thirds female, so the implications are the technique could increasing the gift sizes of two-thirds of donors. She is now testing this effect in direct mail, and she said in a Chronicle of Philanthropy interview that she believes she will obtain the same result.
The researchers also surveyed donors and found the more that women give, the smaller the gap between their ideal and actual moral identity. In other words, donating money helps them achieve their moral ideals, said Shang. Doing good feels good.
Shang believes the results of this study are reliable and transferable to other causes, so this may be worth testing in your nonprofit’s marketing and fundraising outreach.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Life Before and After
Another great piece from Operation Smile. The way this organization uses videos to get their mission across is so crucial in their line of work. After all, not all of their donors will be able to attend one of their mission trips. In order for Operation Smile to show their supporters all the great work they do, they have to craft pieces like this one. I wish more organizations regardless if they are working in the US or abroad would put together little videos/powerpoints to share with their stakeholders. This organization gets it.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Where and Why People Donate
Such great data to share with your fellow fundraisers! I can't get enough of these infographics. Thanks to YourCause for putting this one together on the Top 5 of Where and Why People Donate their Time and Money.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
How Americans Feel Going into the Holidays
The American Red Cross put this infographic together to demonstrate how Americans feel going into the giving season. Some really interesting stats, I particularly find the differences in gender giving very interesting as well as the percentage of Americans who consider giving to the less fortunate part of their holiday tradition.
Challenge: Consider giving a donation to a nonprofit in someone's honor instead of getting them another pair of socks this holiday season. Still want to give them something to open? Nowdays, many nonprofits have little merchandise stores where you can by apparel, water bottles, posters and more. Two examples include the American Cancer Society's Giftshop and LiveStrong's Store.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Gifts for Donations?
What do you think about offering gifts for a donation? Operation Smile (one of my favorite nonprofits) is now offering gifts with minimum donations. What do you think? Smart idea or just taking $$ away from the mission?
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||
| FREE GIFTS with minimum donation — order by December 15. | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Don't Let "Donation Matching" Affect Your Giving
We know that donors love donation matching.* We know that if we could offer donation matching on gifts to our top charities this giving season, our money moved would rise. And we know that we could offer donation matching if we thought it was the right thing to do: there are donors planning six-figure gifts to our top charities this year who would almost certainly be willing to structure their gifts as “matches” if we asked. (It might not be possible to “match” all of our money moved, but we could almost certainly provide “matching” for a short period, which would motivate people to give during that period and would also provide us with some data on the impact of matching on our audience.)
But we’ve decided not to do this because we would feel dishonest. We’d be advertising that you can “double your gift,” but the truth would be that we just restructured a gift from a six-figure donor that was going to happen anyway. We’ve discussed whether we might be able to provide “true” donation matching - finding a donor who would give to our top charities only on condition that others did - but not surprisingly, everyone we could think of who would be open to making a large gift to our top charities would be open to this whether or not we could match them up with smaller donors. Ultimately, the only match we can offer is illusory matching.
I don’t deny that non-illusory matching may exist in some other circumstances. A couple possibilities:
Regarding coordination matching - I would guess it’s relatively common for a funder to say privately, for example, “I’ll give $100,000 if you can raise the remaining needed $900,000.” But there are a couple of problems when it comes to advertising this situation as a “match.” First, saying “every $9 you give will be matched with $1 from a major donor” wouldn’t be very psychologically compelling - matches rarely go below the 1:1 threshold. Second, even if the funder were providing enough for a 1:1 match, it still wouldn’t be quite true that each $1 was matched with another $1: the match would occur only in the case that the total amount needed was raised. So while “coordination matching” is a possibility, we would guess that it rarely explains the “each $1 you give will be matched by $1″ campaigns commonly used in fundraising.
Influence matching is something I think impact-maximizing donors ought to be concerned about. In the short run, influence matching makes it true that your $1 donation results in $2 donated to the charity in question. But it also means that you’ve let the matching funder influence your giving - perhaps pulling you away from the most impactful charity (in your judgment) to a less impactful one - just by the way they structured their gift. By giving, you are rewarding this behavior by the matching funder, and you may be encouraging them to take future unconditional gifts and turn them into conditional gifts, because of the ability to sway other donors.
Perhaps, rather than giving your $1 to the charity the matching funder is pushing, you should fight back by structuring your own influence matching - making a conditional commitment to the highest-impact charity you can find, in order to pull other dollars in toward it.
For the average donation match, it’s unclear to what extent the match represents illusory matching vs. coordination matching vs. influence matching. My guess is that coordination matching is by far the least common (since it requires such a specific set of circumstances to hold) and that illusory matching is the norm (since this is generally the easiest to offer, and since donors don’t tend to distinguish between the different types when they decide where and how much to give).
Corporate matching programs sometimes match only gifts to specific charities; in this case I think it’s best to think of them as “influence matching.” If the company offered matching to any charity (as some companies do) and/or simply made gifts to the charities of its choice, it would no longer be pushing its employees to support specific charities. If you are employed at a company offering matching only on specific charities, I recommend pushing for a change in policy (to unconditional gifts to charities and/or unconditional matching for employees, as other companies do) rather than perpetuating a dynamic where your company’s corporate philanthropy team decides where you give.
In general, I advise donors seeking to maximize their impact to simply support the most impactful charity possible, and not to factor in the presence or absence of donation matching either way. If you support a less impactful charity due to the presence of a match, you may be having more total impact, but you also may be having substantially less (in the case of illusory matching) and/or contributing a dynamic that leads to less effective giving broadly (a risk both for influence matching and illusory matching).
*“Donation matching” refers to when a large funder offers to give $X to a particular charity for every $Y other people give - for example, “For every $1 you give to this charity, a large funder will contribute another $1, doubling your impact!” For more, see the 2007 study on donation matching by Dean Karlan.
Give Well Blog: Why You Shouldn't Let Donation Matching Affect Your Giving
By: Holden
I don’t deny that non-illusory matching may exist in some other circumstances. A couple possibilities:
- Coordination matching. A charity needs to raise a specific amount for a specific purpose. A large funder (the “matcher”) is happy to contribute part of the amount needed as long as the specific purpose is achieved; therefore, the matcher makes the gift conditional on other gifts.
- Influence matching. The matcher wishes both to support a particular charity and to encourage others to give to that charity. Therefore, the matcher makes a legitimate commitment to give only if others do, in an attempt to influence their giving.
Regarding coordination matching - I would guess it’s relatively common for a funder to say privately, for example, “I’ll give $100,000 if you can raise the remaining needed $900,000.” But there are a couple of problems when it comes to advertising this situation as a “match.” First, saying “every $9 you give will be matched with $1 from a major donor” wouldn’t be very psychologically compelling - matches rarely go below the 1:1 threshold. Second, even if the funder were providing enough for a 1:1 match, it still wouldn’t be quite true that each $1 was matched with another $1: the match would occur only in the case that the total amount needed was raised. So while “coordination matching” is a possibility, we would guess that it rarely explains the “each $1 you give will be matched by $1″ campaigns commonly used in fundraising.
Influence matching is something I think impact-maximizing donors ought to be concerned about. In the short run, influence matching makes it true that your $1 donation results in $2 donated to the charity in question. But it also means that you’ve let the matching funder influence your giving - perhaps pulling you away from the most impactful charity (in your judgment) to a less impactful one - just by the way they structured their gift. By giving, you are rewarding this behavior by the matching funder, and you may be encouraging them to take future unconditional gifts and turn them into conditional gifts, because of the ability to sway other donors.
Perhaps, rather than giving your $1 to the charity the matching funder is pushing, you should fight back by structuring your own influence matching - making a conditional commitment to the highest-impact charity you can find, in order to pull other dollars in toward it.
For the average donation match, it’s unclear to what extent the match represents illusory matching vs. coordination matching vs. influence matching. My guess is that coordination matching is by far the least common (since it requires such a specific set of circumstances to hold) and that illusory matching is the norm (since this is generally the easiest to offer, and since donors don’t tend to distinguish between the different types when they decide where and how much to give).
Corporate matching programs sometimes match only gifts to specific charities; in this case I think it’s best to think of them as “influence matching.” If the company offered matching to any charity (as some companies do) and/or simply made gifts to the charities of its choice, it would no longer be pushing its employees to support specific charities. If you are employed at a company offering matching only on specific charities, I recommend pushing for a change in policy (to unconditional gifts to charities and/or unconditional matching for employees, as other companies do) rather than perpetuating a dynamic where your company’s corporate philanthropy team decides where you give.
In general, I advise donors seeking to maximize their impact to simply support the most impactful charity possible, and not to factor in the presence or absence of donation matching either way. If you support a less impactful charity due to the presence of a match, you may be having more total impact, but you also may be having substantially less (in the case of illusory matching) and/or contributing a dynamic that leads to less effective giving broadly (a risk both for influence matching and illusory matching).
*“Donation matching” refers to when a large funder offers to give $X to a particular charity for every $Y other people give - for example, “For every $1 you give to this charity, a large funder will contribute another $1, doubling your impact!” For more, see the 2007 study on donation matching by Dean Karlan.
Give Well Blog: Why You Shouldn't Let Donation Matching Affect Your Giving
By: Holden
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)