Nonprofit Bridge

In the recently released American Express Charitable Gift Survey, there are some surprising insights about online fundraising.

Through a two week sample of donors in September 2007, the survey analyzed how much people give to charity in single donations and the differences between online and offline donations.  Below are some of its major points (withmy comments in italics):

• about 2/3 of Americans gave to charity in the past year, but only 6% gave online.  This is much lower than I would have expected, but surely this will continue to grow rapidly.
• convenience or speed is the top reason for giving online. This is why it’s so important to make the online donation process as simple as possible, e.g. not having too many steps and not asking for too much information.
• most contributions are below $100, regardless of the method of donation. While many nonprofits focus on major gifts, it’s clear that small donations play a critical role.
• on average, the online gift is about the same amount as offline gifts. This is the most surprising conclusion.  At most presentations I’ve heard on this topic, online gifts are always described as being higher than offline gifts.
• the most frequent response for not donating online was not having a computer or Internet access.  This will change as Internet connectivity becomes more universal.
• although people under 35 are more likely to make online gifts, the greatest share of Internet donors (50%) are between 35 and 54 years old.  This also is a surprise, but the survey explains that more people in this age range give to charity than any other age group.
• there is little difference between the percentage of men and women giving online, and little difference in the types of charities they support.  This suggests that segmenting constituents by gender may not be helpful in stimulating online giving.

Thanks to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the Innovative Research Group, American Express Merchant Services, and Ted Hart, founder of the ePhilanthropy Foundation and now head of the Hart Philanthropic Services Group for preparing this insightful report.

As I’ve become more involved in development issues, I joined the Association of Fundraising Professionals this year.  I recently received their Advancing Philanthropy bimonthly magazine which featured an article on how fundraising and marketing staff can work together.  Quoting a recent study which examined the relationship of marketing to other NPO departments, not working together can “lead to conflicts that substantially affect a nonprofit’s performance.”  Yet when constituents interact with a nonprofit, “they’re dealing with the organization as a whole.”

Instead, it is suggested that brand can act as a common thread that unites separate departments.  “Brand is everything you do, everything you are, everything you say.  Making sure that they are all consistent across different functions is essential.”  While I’ve never seen marketing and fundraising merged into a separate department, it does seem to make sense since “the roles that marketing and fundraising play in crafting a distinctive brand is complimentary,” according to Network for Good’s CEO Bill Strahmann.

Brand is also critical in differentiating your organization from others that represent the same cause.  Jo Sullivan, who manages both development and communications at the ASPCA, has done especially well in this area.  The ASPCA is also represented on Facebook and MySpace.  (Some organizations are still debating whether or not to devote resources to social networking sites.)

How do you get NPO departments to work together and not in different directions?  At my current organization, we’ve occasionally had lunch meeting where one department will highlight projects it is working on;  judging by comments from other attendees, it’s clear that not everyone is on the same page.  Understanding the complementary objectives of fundraising and marketing is a vital step towards establishing a consistent image to our constituents.

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving.  Let’s be grateful for what we have every day of our lives.

As I’ve worked on defining my brand this year, I’ve reviewed my accomplishments since joining the nonprofit sector in 2000.  The achievements I am most proud of have to do with helping organizations to effectively use the Internet to do fundraising and to engage constituents.  A good description of the term can be found at Network for Good and through resources available at the ePhilanthropy Foundation 

Having done considerable training in recent years, I’ve recently applied to become an ePMT, which will allow me to further help nonprofits develop and implement their online strategies.  ePhilanthropy involves bridging multiple areas which have traditionally run separately: technology, communications / marketing and development.  While the web site is important, but so are other forms of online communications.

The book Nonprofit Internet Strategies describes ePhilanthropy as “an ongoing process of communicating, educating, cultivating and soliciting nonprofit supporters to build and enhance stronger relationships.”  Many nonprofits have succeeded in this area by focusing on:

1. the relationship: integrate all messages to supporters
2. give supporters a reason to visit you online
3. interact with supporters;  don’t just send messages
4. communicate using multiple methods (offline and online methods should be managed as an integrated strategy) .
5. access and improve performance

While technology is my core strength, I use many other skills to help nonprofits use the Internet effectively to achieve their mission.  Focusing on ePhilanthropy seems to describe it best.

Attended an Nten Webinar this week on Marketing for Non-Profits, led by Robert Rose of CrownPeak Technology, providers of content management software.

Highlights from the presentation:

• While it is not a good idea to have a lot of ‘private content’ available only to members or subscribers, it is wise to provide premium content in exchange for site visitors providing their email address and other personal information.  Many constituents will ‘register’ in exchange for a useful study or informative enewsletter
• If you’re going to use web 2.0 tools such as blogs and podcasts, you have to commit to a regular update schedule.  Building an audience requires quality content and takes time to build.
• Use a variety of tactics to engage constituents;  I find, for example, that while it’s convenient to get RSS updates, I open my email daily but don’t open my RSS readers as frequently.  In addition, subscribers can signup for RSS feeds without providing any information while email newsletters require, at a minimum, email address.
• It’s more important to analyze who is visiting your web site than how many.

I asked Robert whether it’s still a practical goal to create custom web content for segments of your audience, as I’ve heard many vendors preach.  The reality – it’s usually enough of a challenge for a nonprofit to keep its content up to date for everyone than to develop targeted content for specific groups.  There are some good reasons to integrate CMS with your CRM database (e.g. so subscribers can access their past donation history online and print receipts) but the ability to customize web content isn’t one of them.

Robert also suggested that it is rarely necessary to build custom software, no matter how ’specific’ your requirements may seem.  I agree. With so many strong CMS packages available, I don’t think there’s any excuse for any nonprofit not to have an updated web site as the foundation of its communications strategy.

Network For Good, which recently started a monthly teleconference series in nonprofit marketing and online fundraising, has now released a study, The Wired Fundraiser.  Key findings include:

1. People listen to wired fundraisers.  People donate because they trust the messenger, not primarily because of the importance of the cause.
2. Not every wired fundraiser excels, but some can raise thousands for the charities they support.
3. Tools such as widgets and social networks are especially helpful in making personal fundraisers effective.
4. Smart charities embrace the wired fundraiser rather than try to control the process.

I’ve said in the past that fundraising needs to be a joint effort of many departments within an organization, not just development.  But now Katya explains how “technology enables anyone to be a fundraiser, anywhere online.”  As nonprofits, we should give these motivated supporters everything they need to be successful because they will help us to reach audiences that we would have never been able to access, no matter what marketing strategies we use.

More details of the study are summarized in Katya Andresen’s non-profit marketing blog.