The Good Steward

By Jen Price

During a recent #smNPchat on Twitter (chat for those working for or with smaller nonprofit organizations), the discussion covered strategies for fundraisers during the slower summer months.

Slow summer months?  WHAT?  Summer is my busiest season, though this is somewhat by choice.  I like to focus my larger scale efforts during times when not as many organizations are asking. Yes, I miss some of the vacationers.  We more than make up for it with the exposure we get and because very few nonprofits are asking or creating awareness during the summer in our community.

During the chat I mentioned that one of the things my staff does during the summer (our busy season) is shadow “program” staff at our organization.  I work in healthcare, so all it takes is getting fundraisers in the patient care areas, experiencing a day in the life of individuals battling complex medical problems to get them refocused and re-energized.

Our most successful shadowing experience this summer was unexpected.  It came not from a patient care area, but from a staffer spending two hours with a receptionist.  Seeing the integral part the receptionist plays in the overall success of our organization inspired a new sense of focus and belief that each and every staff member, regardless of their role, makes a difference in the lives of our patients.

Getting overwhelmed by work happens far too often in the nonprofit sector.  When work only consists of tasks on a to-do list, it loses passion and energy.  We are not going to be successful fundraising if we are asking for gifts without this passion or energy. Shadowing has become the perfect rejuvenator for my team.

With all of that said, here is my recommendation: Create a shadowing program. Allow your staff to spend two hours once a week for a month each summer and winter learning about different roles in your organization.  They will return ready to embrace their work with the passion it deserves.

Jen helps nonprofits advance their impact via fundraising, collaboration, and effective board and volunteer management.  She currently manages philanthropy operations for a healthcare organization.  Be sure to check out her website and follow her on Twitter!

Photo credit

Continue Reading

Really.  In a recent #fundchat Twitter chat, the topic of multi-channel marketing came up.  I mentioned that when I was at Dartmouth College, we did a “challenge” integrating messages from direct mail, phonathon, e-mails, volunteer managers, and anyone else who would talk about it.  It was HUGELY successful, totally exceeding our expectations, so Dan Blakemore asked me to elaborate a little bit — hence my first guest blog post.

Sylvia Racca, Executive Director of the Dartmouth College Fund, and I designed the challenge (but it was her idea).  I debated sharing the theme and messaging we used for the challenge in this blog post, but as I worked through it, I realized it would be way too long.  Anyone who is interested should feel free to contact me for more information.

The goal: The Dartmouth College Fund’s participation goal for fiscal year 2006 was 50 percent.  In February, we realized that we were behind the curve to hit 50%, especially in bringing lapsed donors back on board.   To reach this milestone, the Fund needed to increase the number of lapsed donors significantly in the months of April, May and June over previous years. To help achieve our goal, we created “The April Challenge.”  More specifically, our goal was to get 4,000 alumni to give in the month of April (note that the record at the time for April donors was less than 2,400).

The strategy: A “challenge.”  Find some leadership donors who offer to give X dollars per Y donors – no matter the size of the gift.

The plan: Four alumni challenged the Dartmouth College Fund to bring in gifts from 4,000 donors in April. At each 1,000 donor benchmark, each donor would give the Fund $25,000 (up to $100,000 each).

Because we were concerned that the challenge would only cause regular donors to give earlier in the year – in April and not June (which would get us to our challenge goal but not to 50 percent), we wanted to develop a segmentation strategy for lapsed donors.   We knew we needed to do well in these categories.   We set goals by solicitation strategy (direct mail, phone-a-thon and volunteer solicitation) and by giving segment (last year donors, one year lapsed, two year lapsed, three year lapsed, four year lapsed, five year plus lapsed and never givers), and used these goals to develop the marketing plan.  These goals were applied specifically to each channel as well, and closely monitored all month.

The marketing plan included a direct mail piece sent to 33,424 non-donors, inserts for pledge reminders distributed during April, customized scripts for the student phone-a-thon callers, five e-mail solicitations directing non-donors to our website to make an online gift, and communication with our volunteers.  A special webpage, which included a “thermometer” tracking progress towards the challenge goal, was created and promoted through the e-mails, student callers, and on the main webpage.

The results: The April Challenge final cash donor count for April 2006 was 6,031 donors.  The previous record for the month of April was 2,379 donors.

• In the end, we did well in all segments, including LYBUNTs, but it was recapturing lapsed donors that pushed us over the top.

• 1,199 alumni made a gift for the first time in several years and 370 were first-time donors.

• The student phone-a-thon brought in a total of 2,058 donors, 121 percent of our goal.

• Volunteer teams and direct mail donors equaled 3,973, 192 percent of our goal.

• The DCF online giving site saw tremendous activity during the month of April.  The number of online gifts increased with each e-mail solicitation sent.  The first e-mail solicitation sent on April 4 resulted in 92 gifts in one day, while the last e-mail sent on Friday, April 28 resulted in a total of 555 gifts from Friday – Sunday.

• Including the challengers, the April Challenge raised more than 3.8 million dollars.

The Dartmouth College Fund achieved its ultimate goal of 50 percent participation with a final result of 50.8 percent alumni participation. The success of the April Challenge enabled us to reach this milestone.

Most surprising thing: I was most surprised by the e-mail responses — keep in mind that we were e-mailing the SAME PEOPLE!  So the 260 donors on April 28^th were replying to their FIFTH e-mail solicitation.

Why I think The April Challenge was successful:

• It was metric-driven, with desired metrics informing the strategies.
• Clear and consistent messaging across all channels.
• The use of all channels – one direct mail piece and two e-mails would not have been enough.
• We provided feedback via callers, volunteers and in e-mails on a regular basis.
• There was a clear deadline.

Notice that I didn’t list the challenge funds as one of the factors that made the challenge successful.  While this is obviously critical for any challenge, finding donor/s willing to make a significant gift is not enough.  The key is to be thoughtful, strategic, integrated and purposeful in how to use that generous contribution.

Kathy Howrigan joined Marts & Lundy in March of 2011 as a senior analyst and associate consultant.  She has spent the bulk of her career in fundraising and marketing capacities for various non-profits, particularly higher-educational institutions. You can follow Kathy on Twitter and connect with her on LinkedIn.

Photo credit

Continue Reading

By Guest Blogger Sarah Pierce

For a long time, on behalf of the nonprofit sector, I’ve been jealous of the corporate sector. Corporations have investors who, via financial interests, are tied to the future of the company. These investors seek out information on the corporation and identify themselves with the company. Is it possible to harness that relationship and help donors to be similarly invested in nonprofit organizations?

Last week, Rosetta Thurman and Allison Jones hosted the monthly Twitter chat #ynpchat with Dan Blakemore as guest host. The chat for young nonprofit professionals focused on fundraising and discussed how we define fundraising, what role we play in it, challenges it presents, and fundraising resources. As it is each month, the chat was filled with passionate individuals and fascinating side-conversations, including one spurred by Dan and Red Cross Development Director, Patrick Sallee: How does donating compare to investing? And what can we, as fundraisers, learn from the company-investor relationship?

The Company-Investor Relationship

In the corporate sector, investors are shareholders. As shareholders, each person legally owns a share of stock in the company. Shareholders also hold special privileges with respect to the company that can include the right to vote on or nominate directors, get dividends or share in the company’s success, and the right to vote on other important company decisions. All of this means that investors and shareholders feel a sense of ownership about the company and its future.

What’s more — the relationship is mutual! Every corporation has a legal obligation to work to earn money for their shareholders.

The Nonprofit-Donor Relationship

Nonprofit organizations have a similar ongoing structure that misses one key element: the return shareholders (aka donors!) get on their investment. At the heart of every nonprofit organization is the social good contract it maintains with the public. The organization does social good and the public supports it with donations. The key for every nonprofit organization is convincing the public that by donating to the organization, they’re investing in receiving a return – a social good.

If nonprofit organizations had a way to make their social good more like the return that shareholders get on their investment in corporations, donors would feel more ownership over the organization and the part they play in it.

I’ll never forget my Business Associations professor explaining that he invests in The Walt Disney Company because it felt good to be a part of The Magic Kingdom. Nonprofit organizations need to find a way to give donors some sort of return on their investment that helps them to feel a similar ownership over the organization.

Sure that’s nifty, but how do we go about doing it? How do we give them ownership and a return?

A feeling of ownership can be established through knowledge and power. Nonprofit organizations already have a pretty strong handle on the knowledge aspects. We educate donors through blogs, newsletters, emails, mailings, events, and just about any other existing channels. The more familiar donors are with the workings of the organization, the more they feel a part of it.

The harder things for nonprofit organizations to emulate are the power and return aspects of the company-investor relationship.

One of my favorite examples of empowering donors is the model that FORGE uses. FORGE is a U.S. based nonprofit that gives donors the power to select the specific project to which they would like to contribute, and educates them on how much the project costs overall and how much has been contributed so far. Thus, donors know exactly what their money is being used for and how they are helping.

The return aspect however, is still trickier. I think a big part is the message Dan gets across so clearly in this blog: stewardship. It gives donors the return of both the appreciation of the nonprofit organization and knowledge of what a difference their funds are making. Personalizing thank yous and appeals to each donor can make him or her feel some of the positive impact the gift made on the organization and ideally help to create a long-lasting and meaningful relationship.

But that can’t be the only way! Are there other ways to establish the company-investor relationship with donors? What should the “return” be? And are there downsides to doing this?

Guest Blogger Sarah Pierce is a third-year law student at the University of Iowa and the Director of Outreach at Child Soldier Relief.  While in law school, she has interned at Human Rights Watch and the California Appellate Project.  You can follow her on Twitter @sarahcpierce.

Continue Reading