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.

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

Can art help charities?

This piece of art was hung in a gallery in Germany in 2006. Amnesty International reported that over 7,000 visitors saw the sculpture in just two weeks.

The clickrates on amnesty-international.de during the promotion were 16% higher than in the previous months, and they received 50% more applications for memberships right after the promotion.

I think it is a wonderful example of engaging an audience with the benficiaries of Amnesty’s work – something that is really hard to do. (See under “Who am I?” for another example)

But as a fundraiser I can see from the metrics that the strategy was to generate PR rather than generate a direct response.

This art (and many other great pieces) can generate attention and interest in a cause… I am interested in whether it can then be stratgecially partnered with elements that generate the act of giving.

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.

When was the last time you found a good story?

“Charities exist to make the world a better place.”

The statement above is one that I base a great deal of my beliefs on.

To create “a better place” someone, somewhere has to imagine what the better place is. Imagination is what fuels the vision of most charities.

Next comes the task of problem solving.
Imagination coupled with the ability to create the right conditions for changing the world is what helps charities succeed.

When the general public is presented details of a solution that has captured the essence of an imaginative vision, and created real results… they are impressed.

As fundraisers we have a duty to try and tell those stories.

Does your organization do anything as imaginative, and smart as the “million program”?

New York students are being handed free mobile devices, which automatically disable call and text functions during school hours, but allow searches on specified sites such as National Geographic.

In turn teachers use the device to set homework assignments and provide reminders.

The real twist is that for attending school, arriving to lessons punctually, and completing homework, the kids get mobile credits to use for chatting to friends, and getting access to music and video downloads. The can even be exchanged for discounts at sports and clothing stores.

Get inspired by what your charity does once again. It is never too late to ask everyone who works there… what do you do?

Can we turn everyday actions into fundraising activities?

Wary of the “me-too” tag, many marketers often look for a brand new big thing to help their cause raise money.

Be it mobile phone calls, yoghurt bars, or even music downloads, there are a lot of examples.

I am often concerned that the same charities that develop these approaches are neglecting a direct relationship with supporters. And that makes me wonder if they are caught in the fundraising trap of being afraid to just ask for money.

The often cited reason for these approaches, is that they reach new audiences. Which in itself opens up a lengthy debate as to whether charitable giving should be as universally appealing as say baked beans.

This often makes me wonder whether charities should therefore be helping schools and parents educate their children as to the merits of philanthropy, rather than marketing to cynical adult audiences. I know many parents who sponsor children for this very reason, and I certainly remember (proudly) the picture of a Bolivian school child that my mum had framed on our TV, as well as my own typically obsessive collection of WWF-information as a junior member.

I recently learnt of the Tap Project in the US, and realised that it was an example of how with a little thought, the right everyday action can be chosen as the basis for a fundraising activity.

For one week a year, when you visit participating restaurants you can opt to donate to UNICEF a payment for the free tap water that the restaurant would normally provide for free. The money goes towards providing free clean water to children around the world.

The idea is simple and I look forward to it launching here in Australia.

What attracted me to it firstly, was when I heard that this was developed by an ad agency who then approached UNICEF with the near completed idea. As the creator David Droga testifies, he has finally made his mother proud after years of working on beer commercials. Nice to learn that Australia’s biggest ad-superstar (some would say the world’s) is humble enough to admit what his mum thinks of him.

I hope that UNICEF and Droga also have the sense to test ways of trying to develop an understanding of why this approach works, and whether any of the tap water purchasers would actually welcome entering a lengthier relationship with UNICEF.

Visit the tap project.

How can I encourage repeat gifts?

I recently came across an online game here at mtvU.

It is a narrative-based game (like the old “choose your own adventure books”) where you are exposed to the harsh realities of trying to survive in a refugee camp in Darfur. The “searching for water” section of the game especially makes it clear how dangerous life is.

It is a novel approach to encouraging people to empathise with people in need. For so long viral games have been a staple part of online traffic generation techniques.

I have seen and even developed games for not-profits which have used humour as a way of pulling interest, but never before have I seen someone use the media to dramatise the actual need in this way. I like it.

Good fundraising is based on the work that an organisation does. It begins by ensuring that your aduience understands what the need is. You should always aim to communicate this – otherwise your supporters will be sporadic and impulsive. They won’t believe that what you do is important, because they will forget the need.

Like this game, you should do as much as you can to help donors walk in the shoes of those you help.

Whilst this game hasn’t been used for repeat gifts, or any fundraising ask. The online actions are intrinsic which is briliant. To get results – they have made people feel the need.

When are holidays good?

A few weeks ago I heard this…

“On a remote Fijian Island an Eco Community is being built.”

What a thoroughly good idea – provided it does no harm to the community as well. Then I read…

“Tribewanted is both an online and real island community. The aim of Tribewanted is to build a simple sustainable village on Vorovoro Island and a buzzing online community. When you join the tribe you can choose when you visit Vorovoro and, unlike any other adventure holiday, you can take part in the project online before and after your island stay.”

Good I thought. And read more…

“Tribewanted was founded on the principle of sustainability. That whatever we do outside the realms of the internet will not damage the environment and would benefit the people we are working with in Fiji. Deciding to be more responsible in our work and travel is less about a lifestyle choice and more a moral obligation.”

”5 Environmental Engineering postgraduates at University College London are helping to realise this goal by developing an ecotourism community project on Vorovoro which is sustainable for the environment and for the Fijian people. UCL are empowering the tribe to develop and live more sustainably.”

What a great idea. I have other aspirations to visit Antarctica and hope I can find something of the same ethical standards.

Take a look at the well-created site – and maybe book yourself a well earned break that doesn’t break anything.

What good is a mobile phone?

Amnesty International are a great charity. So it is reassuring to hear that having reviewed SMS technology a few years ago, their UK branch decided that taking donations via mobile phones wouldn’t work for them.

I tried this back in the UK a few years ago and reached the same conclusion. The phone companies were being greedy and there were limitations on the amount you could viably take.

But that wasn’t the only downfall of using SMS as another payment method. I found that people just didn’t get it.

I tested making a donation via SMS against texting for entry into a prize draw. Guess which won? The prize draw of course. But the really great thing about this was when we phoned people and asked them to make monthly donations. Our contact rates were high, as the data was 100% accurate, and people carried their mobiles with them everywhere. We called soon after they entered the draw whilst their memory was fresh, and the campaign was a success.

The fact that Amnesty in the UK have recently signed up to LUUL is something to watch out for. Will people really want to use their mobile in this way? Of course kids will love it… but will they make good donors? Years ago Ericsson and Nokia were salivating over drinks vending machines that dispensed cans of pop when you texted them… but of course mobile phones just can’t trump coins.

If you ask me… mobile phones are great for prospect pooling, not taking donations, but let’s wait and see.

You can read a full story about this at ITPro.