| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||
| FREE GIFTS with minimum donation — order by December 15. | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
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?
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
Use Social Media to Recruit, Retrain, & Recognize Volunteers
Social media tools have tremendous potential for building community around a project among participating volunteers. Once you get volunteers to your project the first time, online community building can help keep them coming back.
Using Social Media for Volunteer Recruitment
Start a Facebook fanpage and invite volunteers to “like” it. Set up your project as a calendar event on Facebook and invite your volunteers to sign up – and to invite their friends as well. Remember to send a personal message to each volunteer that signs up through Facebook to introduce yourself, confirm their attendance and let them know you’re counting on them showing up.
Create a Twitter account for the project and ask volunteers to “follow” the account. Use Twitter to share #volunteer opportunities. (Using the #volunteer hashtag in the text of your tweet will launch your tweet into Twitter’s volunteer conversation.) You can also share last-minute project updates like changes in driving directions through Twitter. During the project, upload and tweet photos for those who couldn’t join that day to show them what they’re missing.
Create a video that makes a compelling case about why the project is important and asks people to get involved. Share the video through the project’s Facebook page and share it via Twitter.
Using Social Media for Volunteer Retention
Creating a blog can be a great way to build community around your volunteer project. A blog post is a great format for storytelling and can be a place for you to share stories such as: sharing the founding story of the agency or neighborhood partner; sharing stories of the kind of impact you’re having because the project exists; or recognizing a stellar volunteer by telling his or her story.
Invite your volunteers to contribute stories to your blog or to post stories on their own blogs – ask them to reflect on their participation, the difference it makes and why it matters.
(If you don’t have the time to maintain a traditional blog, consider using a microblogging platform like Tumblr where you and all your volunteers can share anything from photos, to stories, to short updates.)
Post project photos to the project’s Facebook page for your volunteers to enjoy and share. Invite volunteers to post their own – on your Facebook page or theirs.
Engage volunteers between volunteer projects by holding a photo or video contest. Ask volunteers to post their best photo or video footage of the project on your Flickr group page or on your YouTube channel and ask your community of volunteers to vote for the best one.
Crowdsource ways to improve the project by asking volunteers connected to your project’s Facebook page to share their input and ideas. For example, each week after the project, consider posting questions on the project’s Facebook page like:
- What went well at this week’s project?
- What do you think could have been improved / what would you suggest we do differently?
- What ideas do you have for…?”
Experiment with what kinds of content engages your volunteers most. Do they want to engage online with content that is mostly positive and celebratory or would they rather grapple with ways to address the root causes of your community’s social challenges?
Using Social Media for Volunteer Recognition
Tell a phenomenal volunteer’s story through a blog post.
Enter your project on Foursquare and encourage your volunteers to “check in” when they attend. Offer some kind of small reward to the volunteer who is the reigning “Mayor” of your project.
Interview your nonprofit partner or a beneficiary of the service project about why it matters to them and share the video with your volunteers online as a thank you message.
Post statistics about the impact your volunteers are making on your Facebook page.
Write a note of thanks on a volunteer’s Facebook wall.
Invite volunteers to help support your social media efforts. Volunteers can manage all of the ideas listed here – and more – as part of their volunteer commitment to your organization.
These are just a few of our starter ideas. What ideas do you have?
Today's post is by Jessica Kirkwood, VP of Interactive Strategy at Points of Light Institute and HandsOn Network. It first appeared on VolunteerSpot’s Summer of Service blog series and has also appeared on the HandsOn blog.
Communicate to Your Audience
The difference between talking and communicating:
If you do nothing else as a communicator, do this one thing: Look at yourself (your message, your website, your appeal, your case, etc.) through the eyes of your audience. It will prompt you to make changes that allow you to better connect with those you want to influence and inspire.
Every time I fear I’ve said this too many times, or that it’s too obvious, I review a website or lead a workshop and see the problems that stem from failing to step out of our own perspectives. This week alone, I reviewed a dozen websites for a Network for Good webinar and the top mistake was the sites were focused on the organizations, not the visitors to their pages. And I gave a speech to a group of partners who often struggled to communicate - for the same reason. They were operating from their own mindsets rather than exploring their partners’ perspectives.
Remember: Communications is not about what you say, it’s about what people hear.
Your message is no match for the mental machinations of your audience’s mind.
If you don’t get what makes that mind tick, you’re not communicating. You’re just talking.
Post by Katya Andresen
Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog
If you do nothing else as a communicator, do this one thing: Look at yourself (your message, your website, your appeal, your case, etc.) through the eyes of your audience. It will prompt you to make changes that allow you to better connect with those you want to influence and inspire.
Every time I fear I’ve said this too many times, or that it’s too obvious, I review a website or lead a workshop and see the problems that stem from failing to step out of our own perspectives. This week alone, I reviewed a dozen websites for a Network for Good webinar and the top mistake was the sites were focused on the organizations, not the visitors to their pages. And I gave a speech to a group of partners who often struggled to communicate - for the same reason. They were operating from their own mindsets rather than exploring their partners’ perspectives.
Remember: Communications is not about what you say, it’s about what people hear.
Your message is no match for the mental machinations of your audience’s mind.
If you don’t get what makes that mind tick, you’re not communicating. You’re just talking.
Post by Katya Andresen
Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Movember
A month late on this one, but I wanted to make sure I got in a post about Movember, a new and exciting fundraising effort for prostate cancer... led by men (not something you see everyday - gotta love it)!
Mustache Movement by Daryn Sung-Lee
Read more here
Founded in 2004, Movember was started by Australian men who were inspired by women’s efforts to combat breast cancer. Movember has since exploded in popularity. With mustache-growing contests and fundraisers for charities, causes, and research relating to men’s health, the movement has currently raised over $174 million globally, and has spawned an ever-growing army of mustache-wielding “Mo Bros”. Movember acknowledges that men’s health issues, such as prostate cancer, are rarely discussed by men. Their mission, which is to spread awareness and education, and promote survivorship and fund research, is successfully uniting men from around the world like never before and paving the way for a more informed, healthy male population.
If you or anyone you know would like to join the ranks of this elite group of hairy philanthropists, visit www.movember.com to sign up.
The rules are simple: The contest begins Movember 1st clean shaven and for the next 30 days, grow, preen, trim, wax, and twist to your heart’s content.
Men, or Mo Bros, and women, or Mo Sistas, are encouraged to gain sponsors for their Movember quests. This could take the form of a mustache growing contest fundraiser, or a simple, friendly bet with a group of friends on who can grow the best mo, with the prize money going to one of the many men’s health organizations Movember is associated with, such as the Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Foundation. This calling is for true warriors only, so next Movember rub your upper lip regularly, and give the razor a rest.
Mustache Movement by Daryn Sung-Lee
Read more here
52x52
I like to draw attention to fundraisers that catch my eyes.
This time of year, the fundraising campaigns are out full force. Rightfully so, December is the highest giving month of them all.
But what about the other 11 months of the year?
Check out this new campaign that strives to get donors to donate year round... not just at the end of the year.
http://52x52.org/
This time of year, the fundraising campaigns are out full force. Rightfully so, December is the highest giving month of them all.
But what about the other 11 months of the year?
Check out this new campaign that strives to get donors to donate year round... not just at the end of the year.
http://52x52.org/
Sunday, December 4, 2011
How to appeal to all 6 types of donors
This week, Hope Consulting and GuideStar released the second part of the Money for Good research.
In their research, they have identified six common types of donor motivation:
 What do all of these have in common? Two things: Emotion and impact. If nothing else, remember this: Speak to the heart and show how you make a difference. You’ll appeal to just about everyone. Katya's Non-Profit Marketing Blog By: Katya Andresen |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)