Givv me some feedback

Here’s a new site that reckons it has found the secret to helping persuade more people to give money to charities on a regular basis.

Givv.org allows you to pick a bunch of charities… and then each month those on your list will receive the amount you have nominated them to get. Be that $2.11, or $45.26. Each month you can then play with the list, and the donation amounts… so you’re totally in control of the amounts you are giving.

The prickly direct marketer inside me is furious that one of the benefits that Givv.org are promoting is “keeping off a fundraising list”, but setting that aside… I am left wondering “where the heck are the supporters going to get feedback from?”

So I have written to them and asked.

My hopes are that this is a slice of social media heaven as the site does facilitate users sharing on their profiles who they give to and even how much. This in turn is used to create popularity boards which help new users decide who to give to.

I have often joked with friends that people’s attitudes to giving to charity is often a great way for me to judge my compatibility with them. If this site helps people to share this as part of their identity both on this site and on Facebook… then it may start to encourage a system by which people could be persuaded to benchmark their giving levels against one another.

My hope is that charities can integrate this site with their other social media strategies… which should include sharing video stories and pics + text movies of how money is helping the charity beneficiaries. If the site allows charities to post up videos and pics so that supporters and those interested can browse them each month… it could be onto a winner, and charities will be forced to compete on the basis of their stories.

My fear is that the site has been created without an awareness that supporters actually benefit from learning what the charity is doing with the donations provided. If the site has been created purely from the perspective of an angry donor who doesn’t like mail packs…. then it will rely on its users being interested / savvy enough to follow the charity’s facebook page / blog / etc instead of connecting them to the very stories that will keep them giving month after month.

Given that the site says “if you see an advert for Amnesty international on TV you can then add them to your list that month…” I fear that the site creators may not have understood the power of storytelling.

I shall post their reply here!

I’m Mr Brightside

For the last eight years I have gotten used to people referring to the ‘dark side’.

Sometimes they mean ‘working for a corporate’. Often they mean ‘working for a supplier to the charity sector’.

Well… after twelve years or so of working for marketing agencies… eight in agencies that only worked with charities… I have joined a charity.

I am now working for the Inspire Foundation. I am the Director of Fundraising and Communications.

I hope you check out our website.

And I hope you try really hard to find the donate button.

But I doubt you will try hard enough… so of course feel free to leave me your details here and I’ll let you know when I’ve had it moved.

And please wish me luck or even ask me questions about what making the switch is like.

Honest challenges and hope

Image courtesy of John Hyatt http://johnhyattillustration.com

The advert above is often applauded as a successful advert. It is said that it generated over 5,000 applications for Shackleton’s adventure.

I learnt today that the advert may actually be a fake. Not just the illustration above which is of course fake (the English spelling of ‘honor’ is honour) but in fact that Shackleton may have placed an advert something more akin to:

“Hands wanted for long voyage in small boat. No pay, no prospects, not much pleasure.”

What the fake and the probable original share is raw honesty. Whilst none of us would suggest that charity marketing is full of lies. We should not neglect to tell our supporters exactly what the situation is. For example, if no breakthroughs have been made, we should explain why. Furthermore if we cannot explain why our service works, then we’re clearly not ready to be trusted with people’s money.

What the fake does offer though is hope. It presents the harsh challenge alongside the possible glorious outcome.

Honest challenges and hope – two more ingredients for successful fundraising communications.

When’s a good time for a press advert?

This wonderful ad was spotted in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

There beneath the inevitable article about Obama… was an advert for the hair removal product ‘Veet’, and the simple line “Goodbye Bush”.

I share this because it reminded me that sometimes it pays to think about when your audience will be zoned into your cause, and so it often pays to have a “quick-fire” strategy already mapped out for taking advantages of these moments of high interest.

This doesn’t need to be limited to charities delaing with crises or disasters.

A health charity may feel it appropriate to advertise when a celebrity dies – it doesn’t have to be done without sympathy. A doggie rescue charity may keep an eye out for a famous celebrity losing his or her dog. An environmental charity may use a newspaper heading to spark a new campaign.

Think about your potential spikes in interest, and then develop a strategy for ensuring you can respond quickly and creatively.

You can look more closely here at this inspiring reminder of the importance of timing here…

Should you give your ‘regular givers’ a name?

I’m often asked whether charities should spend time developing product or campaign names. I believe that the answer is often to consider whether it is a trick question or not!

The question above is of course, a trick question.

If you are going to remember, recognise, and value the support of ‘regular givers’ you are going to need to acknowledge their act of regular giving, and probably their status as a ‘regular giver’.

So… rather than use a piece of unfriendly, generic jargon such as ‘regular giver’ to personalize your communication.. why not spend a little time developing a unique name for them.

Here are some examples… if you would like more details of why I have grouped them the way I have, ask me for my opinionaid!

Group 1: Futuremakers, Full Stop supporter
Group 2: Field Partners, Discovery Partners, Frontline Member, Friend of PAWS, Golden Hearts supporter
Group 3: Human Rights Defenders, Frontline Member, Child Sponsor, Heart Saver, Kennel Sponsor

Getting over guilt

Advertising here in Australia is sometimes a little blunt. Last century there was “If you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot”, this year there is an interesting advert which shows women wiggling their little fingers at boy racers as they speed off down the street.

Australians love being direct. I love that.

So it surprises me that there are still some circles that love discussing whether their fundraising makes people feel guilty. After all, every day people are presented with advertising messages where products and services are positioned as the solution to people’s problems:
“If your home is smelly, buy our room deodorant.”
“If your children need answers for their school projects, buy our broadband.”

For charities this approach has been replicated. Step 1 – present someone or something who is in need. Step 2 – present message of “if you want to help that person or thing, donate to us”. For many, this approach is criticised because it encourages the development of a new problem for people:
“If you want to stop feeling bad about these people in need, donate to us.” Or even “Give us the money or the dog gets it”.

What are we worrying about? Complaints? Do you think anyone complains that TV adverts make them feel like they have a dirty house, or that their kids aren’t as well cared for as the Ramsey’s next door? Of course they do. What drives this criticism is a desire to reject the given marketing approach. People do not want to feel bad. So whilst for some the answer is to donate to charity, for others the solution is to criticise the organisation for trying to emotionally blackmail them.

The ethics of this approach has been debated since Dr. Barnardo told how he would have to turn homeless children away if people didn’t donate. I think it is getting boring now. Let’s get direct with people, and get over their guilt.

Can everyday actions be turned into fundraising activities? (Part 2)

I’ve already ‘bigged-up’ one example here on opinionaid.

Of course there are more out there.

One such is ‘ripple’. Recently commended in BRW as one of Australia’s best web 2.0 sites, it takes an everyday action and tries to turn it into a fundraising activity.

Every search that is conducted via their site will generate funds for the selected charities using advertiser-sponsored links.

The site also generates funds from advertisements.

Simple ideas. The success of which will depend on increasing the volume of users, so give it a go.

But as a fundraiser what really impressed me was the “click-handles”. They have creatively pushed forward the concept of a dollar handle (which shows a donor what their dollar will “buy”). Good on the charities for providing the exact detail required. This will set the foundation for the site. Since the search engine is powered by Google, users will need to feel suitably reassured that it is worth them using this alternative.

Click-handles will go someway to providing that. Let’s hope they’ve got their eye on case studies of beneficiaries too!

How can I persuade people to give via my website?

With the growing awareness that average donations online are higher than those from other channels, more charities are focusing on driving traffic to their website.

Research conducted by Amnesty International in the states has focused on investigating what factors influence people who actually arrived at their site. So, instead of focusing on what they needed to change in terms of lead generation, they were examining what to do to improve the conversion rates of the leads generated.

What a brilliant strategy!

The study was conducted with amazing integrity and focus on how o measure the impact of small changes. And their finding was that small changes can make a big impact.

Using a politely worded “ask” compared with a more slogan driven approach had a significant impact on donations.

“Please make a tax-deductible gift today to stop the abhorrent practice of extraordinary rendition”

Yielded a better conversion than…

“Donate Now! Help us end extraordinary rendition!”

They also found that there was no need to be demanding. Using firmer language on the donation button (“Donate Now” instead of “Submit“) did not produce statistically higher
Conversions.

Take a look at the report and consider how you could use the insights to test what works for your supporters.
donordigital_donation_page_optimization_research

When should you be quiet?

You are proud of your organisation. You have raised a lot of money over the last ten years. You have secured a new corporate partnership.

You, you, you, you.

Whenever you feel yourself talking a lot about your organisation, stop yourself.

Don’t stop communicating altogether just keep quiet about all that stuff about you.

For the sake of your supporter relationships… try and keep out of the way of the two really important groups. It is very tempting to build your credibility with tales of your history, and information about your structure, but actually the people who care really want to hear about the beneficiaries of your work. They also want to be remembered and valued, so rather than take up their time talking about yourself… talk about them.

Just like in life, it is not always about you.

Where are the underdogs online?

I recently came across globalgiving.com a website that connects people with “grassroot charities” all around the world.

You register, you pick a cause or even location that you’d like to help, and sure enough a few projects are presented to you.

The power of being able to choose who to help is alluring, and is of course, symptomatic of the new age of the internet… or as I have heard it called to it the “new Consumerscape”.

For grassroots charities this seems like a marvellous portal of giving.

Research in the UK last year conducted by Bluefrog confirmed that many supporters have a “portfolio” of charities whom they support, and that this usually contained an underdog. We like to give to charities who we consider few other people are helping out.

I therefore found it strange that global giving felt the need to scaremonger about the administrative costs of charities.

If you’re a small charity, play the underdog card as much as you can. Send out home-spun communications, add yourselves to sites such as these. But don’t take pot shots at the big boys, or waste your breathe talking about low admin. The secret to good fundraising is helping connect people who care with the beneficiaries of your work.

If you are showing supporters what their money will buy and how that will make a difference – they will give.