queer ideas

How to raise $65,000 in a day without spending a penny. Like a boss

Reddit.com is a social news website where users (called redditors) submit content. Other redditors then give each post an upvote or a downvote depending whether they like it or not.

A post with plenty of upvotes will find itself on the front page where thousands of people get the chance to see it.

Redditors aren't the type of people that you would normally see on many charity lists. The audience profile shows the average user is likely to be male, under 25 and browsing whilst at school.

But that didn't stop them from giving when a two line post appeared on Reddit, accompanied by this picture…

"Meet Omari. Two days ago he returned from the hospital after being hacked in the face by a machete defending an orphanage of 35 children by himself. Think we could raise the $2,000 need for the remainder of the cement/barbed wire to keep both him and the children safe?"

Omari is the son of the female carer who looks after the Faraja Orphanage in Ngong, Kenya.

The Orphanage had been broken into a few times and Omari was expecting another burglary. He woke in the night to hear some men trying to get through the door. As soon as the door opened he threw a hammer at the first person he saw and chased three thieves away.

The next night they returned for revenge and though he put up a fight, Omari was outnumbered, hit in the face with a machete and woke up in hospital.

It was clear that the attacks would continue until the wooden fence protecting the orphanage and the small vegetable garden could be replaced with a high wall and barbed wire.

There were few donors to ask for help, so this simple appeal went out on Reddit. No branding. No case for support. No registered charity number. No celebrity involvement. No simple, one click donation form. Gifts were received by the US based Longonot Education Initiative.

Within a day, $65,000 had been donated (a few hours later the total had risen to $79,000). The wall could be built many times over. But Redditors still carried on giving.

So why did this appeal work so well?

First off, Reddit is a community. When members vote on which posts they like, the people who put the posts up receive karma (or lose it on downvotes). The higher your karma, the more trust and kudos you get in the community. In short, redditors (to varying degrees) care about what other redditors think of them (just like the rest of us!).

Take a look at the comment stream and you'll see hundreds of redditors talking about their gifts. How much they gave and why. 

One gift of $10,000 was given by Weebly (who happen to host the Longonot Education Initiative's website). The result was an outpouring of love for the company on Reddit and Weebly's Facebook page – accompanied by offers of new business.

Second, it was authentic. A number of redditors questioned if the appeal was genuine. Within a few minutes, posts had begun appearing from other redditors who either knew of, or had undertaken research into, the organisation.

Third, it was a story people (particularly redditors) could relate to – one man trying to protect an orphanage from a group of thugs. He was a hero and people could show their support and actually become part of the narrative by donating.

But it didn't stop there. In addition to gifts, redditors also offered their time and skills. Within a few hours, this had grown into a new group called Redditors Without Borders where hydrologists, web designers, medics, journalists and a whole host of different people with different skills volunteered to help out the Faraga project and others.

Finally, donors were connected to the cause with rapid feedback. As the gifts came in, the story unfolded online. The wall was going to be built but so much more could be achieved – the school could employ two security guards to protect the children and Omari. And it was going to be done tonight!

A second photograph soon appeared with Omari thanking donors and before long a second post appeared detailing what else was happening as a result of redditors' generosity.

I think this is a fantastic example of effective fundraising which offers five important lessons to those of us working for more established charities on how we can improve our appeals..

• Make the content appropriate for the audience. Feature work in your appeals that donors are interested in funding. Remember that this isn't always work that your organisation deems the most important.
• Move quickly. If something happens and you need help or you think your donors want to help, get in touch as quickly as you can.
• Real beats designed. In my experience authenticity always wins – photographs with a few lines written on the back are better than those reproduced in a leaflet. Hand written is better than the organisational font.
• Show donors what they have done with specific feedback on the projects you have featured (not the general work the charity has done).
• Let your donors show off. Give your supporters the chance to show others what they have done. This can be something as simple as a sticker enclosed in a mailing pack or a recognition flash on an online profile.

And not surprisingly, whilst I've been writing the story is continuing to unfold on Reddit (it has even made it to the Huffington Post). If you'd like to become part of it you can make your gift here.

Why giving to charity can be like buying a Polaris submarine

My dad was a printer. When he worked night shifts on the national newspapers I always went to bed very excited. That's because I knew he'd come home with a gift for me. As soon as I woke up, I'd rush downstairs to find a toy car, a model plane or an American comic sitting on the kitchen table.

The American comics were perhaps the most exciting. Unlike British comics, they had glossy covers and featured exotic characters like Richie Rich or Casper the Friendly Ghost.

As well as the stories, they were packed full of ads that featured the most amazing products that seemed perfectly designed to separate a seven year old boy from south-east London with his hard earned pocket money.

The choice was mouth watering. Within a few pages you could find 'Real' X-Ray spex, instructions how to build a 'working' laser pistol, a 100 piece plastic soldier set with tanks, ships and planes packed in a footlocker, or the ultimate toy - a Polaris nuclear sub - that at over 7 feet long was "big enough for 2 kids".

To my young mind, this submarine was fully functional. The advert described it as the "most powerful ship in the sea". You could actually release nuclear missiles and torpedoes (if you were so inclined). And encased in "200 lb test material" you'd surely be safe at the bottom of the ocean.

All this was available at $6.98. The only thing that stopped me from buying one was the fact I had no idea how to get hold of a dollar money order.

Instead I was left imagining the thousands of Polaris submarines containing children of my age that were undoubtably a hazard to shipping all along the US coastline.

It wasn't until much later (after I met real Americans) that I found out that most of these toys were little more than cheap junk. The soldiers weren't a patch on our own homegrown Airfix variety and the submarine was actually made from cardboard. A mild drizzle would see it turn into a pile of sodden pulp. The fact that the missiles were fired by a rubber band would also mean that the world's population could sleep soundly knowing that a rapidly emptied money box wasn't going to bring about a nuclear winter.

If I had managed to get hold of $6.98 (plus 75c to help cover shipping charges) I'd have spent the weeks waiting for delivery in breathless anticipation only to be left with a huge sense of disappointment once the "best toy you ever had" arrived ready for assembly but not for a quick trip over to France from Hastings beach.

Such was the seductive power of the ad, even the fact I could get my money back wouldn't have erased the pain of the unfulfilled dream of sinking slowly below the browny-green waves of the English Channel in search of pirate treasure.

I'm a little older now, but I still have dreams. And, like many other people, I try and make those dreams come true by supporting charities. A cure for cancer, the end of poverty and prevention of animal cruelty are all on my list, but just like buying a submarine, the result of giving often leaves me feeling a little flat.

Instead of being invited to be part of something life changing, I get a polite and formal letter that informs me that my money has gone in to a big pot and will do something good, somewhere at some point in the future.

I'd like a little more than that. And when we see just how few people give a second gift in response to cash appeals, it looks like I'm not alone.

Fundraising isn't just about asking. If it was that simple, charities would be awash with money. It's about giving something to your donors that they need and value.

That doesn't mean simply telling donors what your charity does (yet again) in a welcome pack.

It's about grabbing the one chance when you are virtually guaranteed that a donor will open your communication and read it. You can then give them just what they want...

• Recognition for what they've done.
• The opportunity to demonstrate that fact to others.
• Authentic, personal treatment.
• A reason to smile (or cry).

If we do that, we'll find people will actually want to open our appeals. And though they might not get as excited as I did about the thought of my own personal submarine, it will go a long way to encourage a one-off donor to become a long-term supporter.

If you'd like to dig a little deeper into the world of comic book ads, this is a good place to start.

Online donors have letter boxes too

Here's another couple of charts that Damian O'Broin from Ask Direct and I shared at IOF London on our international mystery shopping exercise.

It gives a few more insights in to how charities are integrating email and postal communications.

One of our most surprising findings was that relatively few of the charities we surveyed put a thank you letter in the post in response to an online gift.

Just 5% of British charities did. American charities came next at a little over 20%. Canadians were better at 40%, whilst Australian charities provided over half of online donors with a 'real' thank you.

And when it came to subsequent appeals, things weren't much better.

As you'll see from this chart (showing results just from the UK), emails were often flying thick and fast – though not in all cases. But what surprised me most was that many charities didn't send out any postal appeals in the six to seven months following receipt of an online gift (purple columns).

A number of people questioned this point in our session, asking whether it was appropriate to mail someone who had chosen to given online. And luckily we included a few recent studies on online giving that surprised a few people and demonstrated, once again, that DM is still alive and kicking.

The first is a piece of US research from last year that found that 14% of online donors gave an online donation in response to a mailing pack, whereas just 6% gave in response to an email.

And when it comes to preference, you'll see below that over a third of those surveyed were happiest using a charity website to give to DM appeals.

TNT found UK donors had similar attitudes in a study they also undertook in 2010. You can read more on this survey here.

I'll ensure that we have the complete presentation of the mystery shopping survey up soon.

Who sends your emails?

Along with Damian O'Broin of the rather good Irish fundraising agency, Ask Direct, I presented some findings taken from a massive international mystery shopping exercise (270 charities in six countries) at IOF London yesterday.

I'm going to post the full presentation online, but I thought it might be worth highlighting one or two specific findings in the meantime.

The first is the weird set of entities that send a thank you email in response to an online gift.

You'll see from the screen grab just some of the fun descriptions that people use. My own particular favourite is Internet. It's like being thanked for giving to a DM appeal by the Royal Mail.

To my mind it isn't really a great way to start a relationship and it looks like organisations like the Irish Heart Foundation, Barnardo's, UNICEF and Amnesty agree.

It might take a little effort and you might even have to change the people who process your payments, but I think it might be worth turning off the default receipt system and creating your own one instead. Particularly if it results in happier donors.

The case against the case for support

On the face of it, the case for support should be the key organisational tool for fundraisers, but having seen a fair number over my working life, I'd question how many are actually fit for purpose.

Tim Seiler, Director of the Fund Raising School at Indiana University and author of Developing Your Case for Support has provided my preferred definition of what we should expect from a case for support...

"The case statement focuses on or highlights factors that are critical in arguing for gift support and is typically tailored to reflect the needs and interests of the supporter being addressed."

Which leaves me wondering why do so many charities fail to take into account the reasons why donors give when preparing their own particular case? And instead end up creating an internally focused document that defines what the organisation does and why.

To me, that's not a case for support. It's the basis of a strategic plan. Not something that too many donors are interested in. Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang describe this situation rather well in Fundraising Principles and Practice...

"Too often case expressions are written from the perspective of the organisation, containing jargon and reasons that make perfect sense to those working inside the organisation but that have little relevance for donors or others viewing the organisation from the outsider's perspective."

As a result of this internal focus, the case for support will often cover a huge raft of information, including need, core beliefs, vision, the role of the charity, the 'unique selling point', the personality, the key services and – if you are lucky – even a little on the role of the donor.

Try translating that into an effective fundraising offer whilst you're under the watchful eyes of your organisational brand police and you're in for some fun.

I don't understand why it has to be so complicated. If we look at some of the key elements and ask ourselves what they offer donors, I'm not sure if we'd come up with much of an answer.

Even need isn't that important.

Alex Spanos, is a U.S. Billionaire who each year gives millions to a whole range of different causes. When he was interviewed about how he chooses what to support, he placed need firmly into context.

"I never give because I think there is a need. There are lots of needs. I give because its a programme I'm interested in and I think I can make a real difference."

And he's right. Even when we feature life or death stories our DM recruitment response rates remain pitifully low.

I'm not saying we can forget need. Far from it. It is essential. But there is so much need, it's simply not a point of real differentiation.

Moving on to the vision. This obviously can be inspirational when handled well, but when given too little thought, it can also get in the way.

I remember a number of years ago, being presented with a new strategic direction for a charity. There was a new case for support and we were charged with making it work for fundraising.

As part of the process, we visited a number of projects to gather information to use in appeals. At each project, we asked to see examples of the new approach in action and every single person we met said the same thing, "We haven't started that work yet."

It was Henry Ford who said that "you can't build a reputation on what you're going to do." But we still had to get appeals out and I ended up producing packs that were written for two audiences – the comms team and the donor. I doubt either of them was really happy with what they received.

And when it comes to the old favourite of the 'unique selling point' (USP), charities often seem to focus on an attribute that's unique rather than one that will help to sell the cause. Just because a charity can identify one aspect of its work that other similar organisations aren't promoting, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to adopt it as a key strategic platform.

A USP only matters if it matters to the donor.

So what should a charity do when building a case for support for fundraising from individuals?

To start off, I'd recommend that any team working on this particular problem should write Tim Seiler's definition on the whiteboard and refer to it constantly throughout the process. I'd then suggest that three key areas are worth concentrating on.

1. What can you offer donors that other charities don't, can't or won't?

This obviously covers far more than the opportunity to tackle a need. We know that donors value some elements of their relationship with a charity above others. This should be our starting point and might include...

• The opportunity to see how their money has made a difference.
• A means to demonstrate to others what they believe in or are part of.
• The chance to fund a specific area of work.
• Direct access to those helped.
• Invites to social events.
• Control over the relationship and communications received.

This post is also worth a read.

2. How can you make your appeal as emotionally rewarding as possible?

This might require featuring a specific areas of work or certain beneficiaries – which when looking at any charity working with people, will normally be children. Unfortunately any other group rarely offers the emotional rewards of helping a child.

I'm not saying that it isn't impossible to build an effective case for support that focuses on adults. It's just very hard work. When Bluefrog built lendwithcare.com for CARE International as a means for people to directly fund entrepreneurs in developing countries it was the result of almost two years of extensive research and planning. The result is an inexpensive means to recruit donors with over 50% of all lenders donating to CARE as well. We also found ourselves on the receiving end of some significant corporate support.

We were rewarded by fundamentally changing the offer in response to what donors actually wanted from a charity.

3. How can you allow your donors to be part of the narrative?

You obviously want to build a relationship with donors that brings them closer to your charity. This has two key benefits. First it will help you raise more money and second, it might encourage your donors to want to learn more about your charity (which, funnily enough, is what your comms team actually wants).

So rather than focus on the macro-story of your organisation, try articulating your work through a series of micro-stories that people can become part of.

By identifying a small number of beneficiaries or staff who agree to help you demonstrate to donors what their money is doing you'll build a group that have a real stake in fundraising. Your focus will mean that the information you gather will be of a higher quality and the subsequent impact on the donors far greater.

Couple this with offering donors the chance to do a little more, such as sending beneficiaries greetings cards (as in the case of child sponsorship) and you'll find that loyalty and response rates significantly improve.

Which, at the end of the day, is what any good fundraising programme should have as its goal. And if your case for support isn't helping you achieve this perhaps it's time to have a look at the case for writing a new one.

How to win donors and influence them

How to win friends and influence people was one of the first self-help books ever published. Written by Dale Carnegie in 1936, it has been constantly in print and sold millions of copies world-wide.

I don't know if Dale ever turned his hand to fundraising, but when he laid out his views on how you can make people like you, he might well have had our profession in mind.

Follow these principles in your communications with donors and you won't go far wrong...

• Be genuinely interested in your donors.
• Smile (be nice to them).
• Remember that a person's name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
• Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
• Talk in terms of the other person's interests,
• Make the other person feel important and do it sincerely.

If you are interested in learning a little more, this video might be of help...

Five things we learned at the IFC

Following a very enjoyable few days at the International Fundraising Congress in Amsterdam, I've put together my key take aways from the event.

1. There's loads more to data than just numbers.

Chuck Longfield, Blackbaud's chief scientist, has a job where he can crunch millions of numbers from a huge range of charities. If a question pops into his head, it doesn't take him long to find the answer.

In his session, Chuck shared some of his findings which included the following juicy nuggets…

• If someone calls you to change their address they are TEN times more likely to leave you a legacy (or upgrade, or set up a regular gift or anything else you might ask them to do).
• Donors who tend to give uncommon amounts (e.g. £32) are much easier to upgrade than those who give common amounts (e.g. £25).
• Donors get hooked on giving amounts. After 4 years they are 80% more likely to stick to their preferred amount rather than increase their gift (rising to 90% after 5 years).
• Calling a donor to thank them (whether you speak to them or just leave a message on the answer phone) can increase their next year's gift value by up to 40%.
• Misspelling someone's last name can decrease gift size by up to 12%.

2. Old school communications are the best for building deep engagement

AJ Leon is Chief Maker of Trouble (that's a real job title) at Misfit Inc. in New York. AJ told a story of how he helped raise $72,000 for a total cost of $250. He included a few key insights too...

• Stories have to have conflict. If Frodo had just skipped into Mordor and tossed the ring into the volcano, no one would have cared.
• The tools of fundraising are changing, but the principles of engagement are the same.
• People don't automatically trust big brands any longer - including charity brands.
• Never let your organisation get in the way of a good story.
• When launching a campaign always ask which bloggers you can link up with.
• Social media has made donating even more annoying.
• Management boards kill great ideas.
• Things are moving so fast that spending time writing a ten year strategy is worthless.

You can see AJ's presentation here. And you might like to read Paul de Gregorio's thoughts on it here.

3. The recession is here to stay

Tony Elischer (amongst others) pointed out that the recession is going to be sticking around for a long-time yet but that was no reason to accept poor results. He highlighted the fact that over 60% of donors only give once, describing it, quite rightly, as shameful...

"That's not the fault of people who are giving. That's our fault. We're still not getting that second gift."

He showed how organisations like Christian Aid have bucked the trend by fundamentally changing their fundraising offer, recruiting donors by focusing on work that donors want to support and allowing them to give in the way that works for them.

4. Rubbish in = rubbish out

Direct Mail is working. Digital is working. Mobile is working. The trouble is they don't work if the underlying idea, content and offer is rubbish.

5. Everything on the internet is just speeded up direct marketing

Beate Sorum of the Norwegian Cancer Society put together a great presentation that tackled one of the ongoing myths of the fundraising world – that digital fundraising is magic. It isn't.

What was particularly interesting about Beate's presentation was the distinction she made between communicating online and through a press ad or DM pack. The difference is one of size. And that's the problem...

"On the internet we can put up any crap...so we forget to prioritise, we forget to ask and we forget to rigidly monitor and analyse".

Her advice was that we should re-learn our direct marketing and remember to test what we ask for, how often we ask and who we ask.

Or in other words, we need to give donors an opportunity to do something they want about something they care about.

You can see Beate's presentation here.

The anatomy of a failed campaign

A few weeks ago, I questioned the decision of the D&AD to award a coveted Yellow Pencil to a student team for an idea that they developed for Oxfam.

The D&AD asked me to write a follow up piece that you can read here. Or for those who are a little short on time, you might prefer the Reader's Digest version...

The creative process that ignores the needs of donors is a waste of time and money.

It's why I always find the news that yet another charity has appointed yet another above the line agency to develop a mould breaking campaign so depressing.

The fact is, good fundraising isn't actually broken. Even in these tough economic times it still works very well. So rather than rejecting it for the best guesses of people who have never raised money in their lives, I'd suggest that any charity concerned about income should embrace traditional fundraising techniques tighter than ever.

And to help illustrate what might happen if you decide to do otherwise, I'd like to point you in the direction of a rather remarkable but cautionary tale on SOFII.

It's written by Lucy Gower and features an account of ActionAid's failed 'What a Feeling' campaign given by their ex director of fundraising, Richard Turner.

It's remarkable because for the first time (that I'm aware of), somebody has been brave enough to give an honest account of what can actually happen when a revolutionary new fundraising strategy is implemented.

Lucy explains...

"The idea came from meeting supporters. The team deliberately got a diverse group together to hear them talk about ActionAid. What stood out was the way they spoke about what they gained. This tallied with the anecdotal comments from supporters when meeting fundraisers; as a result of donating, fundraising, or campaigning for ActionAid, supporters would frequently describe their feelings. Therefore it was decided that this would be the basis of the campaign - real supporters sharing their real feelings to encourage other people like them to sign up to help ActionAid..."

It was a complex strategy that used a wide range of traditional and new media. This video helps give a flavour of the approach and the thinking behind it.

And the results?

..."Despite the conviction of Richard and the fundraising team that they were onto something great, the campaign failed. ActionAid didn’t reach the targets for sign ups to new direct debits. They missed them by a mile."

You should read the whole article as Richard has obviously thought long and hard about the reasons for the failure, but I'd particularly like to highlight three key points that we should all remember...

1. Spend your time understanding the problems you actually need to tackle (such as high attrition or poor recruitment) before embarking on broad engagement / awareness campaigns.
2. Don't lose focus on the work that donors want to fund.
3. Test your ideas and only roll out once they have been proven to work.

As Lucy points out, ActionAid were actually on to something with 'What a Feeling'. I strongly believe that the emotional rewards we receive in return for helping others is our sector's 'product'.

But my sneaking suspicion is that donors don't really want to think they are giving for 'selfish' reasons. To my mind, this very thought is likely to reduce the power of the feelings that, as fundraisers, we are trying to generate in the first place.

I also think it is worth including the short-lived TV ad produced by OgilvyOne London that followed the campaign's launch. You can find out what happened after this was run here.

A massive, massive thanks to Richard for being so open about the campaign. As Lucy says...

"I hope that sharing his experience will help us all learn, as well as encourage us to be more open about failure in order that we can ultimately all fundraise more effectively for the causes that we are passionate about."

Update: Richard has posted more thoughts on this campaign on his blog. You can read them here.

If you think stewarding donors is expensive, try ignoring their needs instead

Rapidata has released their August direct debit cancelation figures and they don't look particularly good.

At 4.58% they are the highest seen for August since the monitoring of regular giving trends started back in 2003.

In a worrying commentary, Rapidata's Managing Director, Scott Gray, says he expects to see cancellations exceed 5% in September. But he also offers some sensible advice on how to tackle this rather frightening downturn...

"If you are stalling a stewardship programme or have communications, appeals or campaigns on hold, it's time to act."

I have to agree. When we look at this data alongside appeal results, we see that the recession which the individual giving sector has avoided for so long seems to have finally arrived.

Throwing up our hands in horror is obviously an option, but I'd suggest that there are better ways to tackle the effects of the economic slide. Here are three ideas that have worked for me:

1. Drop your 'luxury' communications. By that I mean those communications which might please charity staff, but do nothing for donors. Self-congratulatory, navel-gazing newsletters that focus on policy issues and getting over the 'brand' message would be first on my list.

Instead, use your newsletters to show donors what you have done with their money and reinforce the reasons why you continue to need their support. At the very minimum re-think your headlines. Try and turn each into a mini-appeal. You can read more about this approach here.

2. Re-double your efforts to find great stories. There is only so much that even the greatest writer can do with a few paragraphs describing the broad nature of a programme supported with two or three weak quotes. Instead invite your creative partners to visit your programmes and meet beneficiaries.

When I visit projects, I always try to find time to ask the staff I meet three questions. The answers have delivered a number of fantastic fundraising packs.

If a donor gave you £5, how would you use it?

If a donor gave you £500, how would you use it?

If a donor couldn't volunteer or afford a gift but wanted to do something, what would you ask them to do?

3. Ask donors for what they can afford. Look at your data and identify donors who have given you a large gift within the last three or four years. In your next appeal, remind them of just how generous they were and how important the gift was (if you can, tell them how you used it) and ask them if they can match it.

I'd also review your uplift strategy. Instead of asking donors to increase their gift by 10% or 20%, try asking those who aren't responding for 10% or 20% less.

The greatest problem we face as fundraising becomes harder is fear. Cutting back is easy, but pointless. Instead, look at every single communication you send to your donors (or potential donors) and ask how it strengthens your relationship with them. Give real consideration to removing anything that doesn't bring donors closer by answering their needs.

Not only will that ensure you optimise your fundraising efforts whilst times are tough, but it will leave you very well placed when finances start to improve.

600 thank you letters

Charities spend a huge amount of money and time on creating appeal packs but the most important part of the relationship building process – the acknowledgement – is often little more than an afterthought.

If you think your own set of thank you letters might be in need of a refresh, the Donor Relations Guru is on hand. Lynne has compiled over 600 acknowledgement letters from around the world to give you some inspiration.

It's quite surprising how similar many of the examples are, but a few do stand out. I thought this handwritten example from the University of Queensland was particularly good.

The full archive is available here. Happy reading.

Coca Cola turns vending machines into collection boxes

If you feel a little thirsty next time you're in Japan and decide to make a trip to your nearest vending machine for a refreshing beverage, you'll find more than a few cans of Coke on offer. You'll also be able to support the Japanese Red Cross.

The jointly branded machines give users the opportunity to donate their change simply by pressing a button. In response the donor receives an electronic thank you for their generosity. The machines also feature photographs showing the Red Cross in action.

The experiment is due to finish at the end of September, but if successful may well be rolled out to support future emergency appeals.

Japan has the highest number of vending machines per capita in the world and with one available for every 23 people in the country, it could be a very handy way to raise money.

Thanks to Japan Trends for the heads up.

Direct debit cancellation rates on the rise

Following my post on the general downturn in DM response rates experienced at the time of the Royal Wedding in April, we have more evidence that this might be the start of a more pronounced trend.

Rapidata has released details of direct debit cancellations for July and they show that the high cancellation rates seen in May and June are continuing to run at approximately 4%.

This might not be as high as we saw in early 2009 when the monthly cancellation rate rose to over 5.5%, but is still a real cause for concern.

It should remind us that we need to focus like a laser beam on giving donors what they need and want in our communications. Even in the toughest times, few donors will cut back their giving completely. Instead they will concentrate their support on the charities that are most relevant to their needs.

Jeff Brooks has some advice on this point that is well worth heeding...

"When you are irrelevant to donors, they seldom complain about it. They just ignore you. Which is far worse than the handful of "too much mail" complaints you're going to get no matter how much or little you mail.

Here are common ways fundraising makes itself irrelevant to donors:

• It's all about the organization -- how wonderful they are in every way. It's not about the donor and her opportunity to change the world.
• It's about things organization insiders care about, not what donors care about. You want to "build sustainable communities." Donors want to save lives. Your work accomplishes both. But the fundraising is aimed at pleasing the insiders.
• It's aimed at the wrong age group. Design, color choice and other elements are what staffers in their 20s and 30s believe they would respond to. It leaves their real donors -- who are typically 60 and up -- out in the cold.
• The segmentation is sloppy. It talks to non-donors as if they're donors -- or vice versa.
• There's no context. The organization only asks, never reports back on the impact of donors' giving."

I'd also like to point out a request for help from Becky Slack of Charity Insight who are monitoring cancellation rates in partnership with Rapidata. She has asked that any organisation who has seen a significant downturn in donations over the last few months to get in touch. Becky can be reached at becky.slack@charityinsight.com.

Using mobile to make press ads speak

Interesting use of mobile / QR codes to turn a press ad into a multi-media experience.

 The original inspiration looks like it came from this idea used to spice up a CV.

The real life adventures of David Ogilvy

As featured in ADWEEK as a tribute to his 100th Birthday. Illustration by Joao Maio Pinto.

Does religion make people nicer?

Take any mainstream charity and you'll find that a significant number of people on the supporter base regularly attend a place of worship.

But does that mean religious people are nicer than everyone else?

After reading Deepak Malhorta's study on religious salience, it seems the answer might be sometimes - particularly if that time happens to be a Sunday.

Professor Malhorta undertook a study that looked at the factors that might encourage participants in an online charitable auction to continue bidding.

The experiment was based on sending two different kinds of emails to the participants. The 'charitable' email included the following message...

"We hope you will continue to support this charity by keeping the bidding alive. Every extra dollar you bid in the auction helps us accomplish our very special mission."

A second email, encouraged people to bid again with a 'competitive' message...

"The competition is heating up! If you hope to win, you will have to bid again. Are you up for the challenge?"

The results showed that religious people were more likely than non-religious people to respond to an appeal 'for charity' but only on the day that they attended their place of worship. On other days of the week there was no discernible difference between the two groups.

 

The 'competitive' email was more effective on religious bidders than non-religious bidders, but there was no 'Sunday effect'.

So, in short, it seems attending a religious service primes people to respond to a request for help from a charity. That might help explain why our ads in the Sunday press normally tend to work better than those run during the week.

You can download Professor Malhotra's paper here (PDF).