queer ideas

Please like the condescending corporate brand page

I couldn't help but recognise the behaviour of a fairly significant number of charities on the Condescending Corporate Brand Page. It's a spoof Facebook page which usefully highlights some of the more annoying things that organisations do on the social networking site.

We know that most people like corporate brands on Facebook because of discounts. And when it comes to charities, social badging tends to be the key driver.

Which begs the question why we see so much completely ineffective quirky and fun stuff, along with the ubiquitous requests to 'hit like' and share posts on charity pages. Perhaps it's time for us to re-think what people actually want from a charity on Facebook and start delivering it.

Thanks to the Harvard Business Review for featuring the Condescending Corporate Brand Page. As they say, "Like it, share it, but please – don't do it".

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.

What would happen if you lived your real life like your virtual one?

A rather entertaining viral video from the English National Opera, that demonstrates what might happen if you used Facebook and Twitter rules for your real life.

Nothing really to add apart from the obvious - not all friends are friends.

How to make a social stew

Last month I featured an episode of Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle where he shared his views on why celebrities get involved with charites.

I recently discovered he's just published a presentation on what he could do to boost his social media presence. As you'll see, the strategy included:

• Redesigning his Facebook page
• Building a Stewart Lee photo app
• Creating a game based on Angry Birds
• Strategically integrating Stewart into popular online brands

It looks like he ignored the recommendations and decided authenticity was a better route to follow. If you ever receive advice like this, I suggest you do the same.

The web is older and so are (some of) its users

A rather interesting statistical view of the digital landscape in Europe has just been published by comScore.

The report provides insights on content categories, trends in social networking (and the knock-on effects on email and instant messaging), with a great snapshot of what's happening in online advertising, video, search and smartphone use.

Key points worth highlighting (with a nod to the older demographic that tends to interest fundraisers) include:

• The Dutch and the British spend most time online (31.39 and 30.38 hours / month respectively).
• Europeans spend more time on Facebook than any other site.
• As you might imagine, this means social networking and photo sharing are the fastest growing things to do on the web.
• Which also means that social networking has been the main driver in the growth in display advertising.
• Email use is still growing amongst those aged 35 and over (though nowhere near as fast as social networking).
• There seems to be a shifting preference to watch fewer, longer videos online (the average length of a video is now 5.6 minutes).
• Europe-wide, smartphones account for about 30% of the mobile market.
• 28% of European Facebook users are aged over 45...

...but over 36% of LinkedIn users are in the same age group.

With the significantly older (and wealthier) profile of LinkedIn users, it makes me wonder why I hardly ever hear about it as a fundraising medium. It might not be as sexy as Facebook and Twitter, but with the right offer it could be far more successful.

I personally find LinkedIn a great source of information on attitudes to giving amongst higher-value donors. We are just starting to use it to enhance the higher-value DM appeals that we create at Bluefrog. As you can imagine, It's a great way of learning about prospects. But it's useful in a number of other ways too.

If you're new to fundraising on LinkedIn, you might find these tips or this case study useful.

I'd also suggest you download the full paper from comScore (it's available here free of charge but registration is required). You'll also find the 2010 US digital review and the 2010 mobile year in review at the same site.

Whatever Jumo is, it isn't magic

I'm sure people sometimes confuse me with Harry Potter.

They invite me in to discuss a new piece of work and the conversation goes a little like this...

Hopeful fundraiser: We need to raise (insert very large sum of money of your choice here) urgently.

Me: Ok. What do you need it for?

Hopeful fundraiser: General running costs. We are looking at a shortfall. We need the money as soon as possible.

Me: What's the goal of your organisation?

Hopeful fundraiser: Fighting poverty.

Me: Can you give me some specific examples of what you do and what you've achieved?

Hopeful fundraiser: (sliding last year's annual report across the table) It's all in here.

Me: (quickly scanning through annual report trying to find something that I could use to interest a potential donor). I might need a little more than this. Have you any Interviews with those you've helped showing how you've changed peoples' lives? Any photographs? Case studies? Stories? Real life examples that I could use to demonstrate your organisational impact?

Hopeful fundraiser: Nope. Sorry. Our staff are too busy to collect that sort of information. It's not part of their core task. We just don't have the resources available for that.

Me: Any budget?

Hopeful fundraiser: (shakes head)

Me: Ok. That's not a problem. Let me just get my magic wand out and (theatrical flourish) hey presto! (money starts falling from the sky).

Hopeful fundraiser: Excellent. If you could do that again, it would send a great message to the trustees. They might even consider paying you next time.

I'm many things. But I'm not magic. And unfortunately, I don't think Jumo is either.

But before I explain why, I should perhaps give you a quick synopsis of what Jumo actually is just in case you haven't heard of it yet...

Jumo is a 'social network for the social sector'. You can get more details in this video, from this blog post and in this article.

It was created by one of the people who brought you Facebook – Chris Hughes (who also looked after the online organisational activity for Barack Obama's election campaign and created my.barackobama.com).

And that sounds exciting doesn't it? Everyone uses Facebook (well 550 million of us do - which is about 8% of the global population).

And if there is something that Facebook knows a little about. It's getting people to do stuff online.

After joining Juno, you can choose to follow a selection of charities and other non-profits. You'll also notice that your Facebook friends who've also signed up will appear on your home page.

Your home page is filled with feeds from Facebook, Twitter, blogs and news sites updating you on what your charities are up to and what your friends are saying about them.

And this is what makes Jumo different. There are a huge number of online giving platforms – JustGiving, See The Difference, Causes, ChipIn (and others) – that concentrate on generating donations.

But as Hughes explains, at it's heart, Jumo is about building relationships...

"A relationship is built over time. Maybe you start volunteering. Maybe you do start to give money. Then maybe you tell all your friends and family and co-workers about it. You personally feel a sense of ownership, and the technology enhances that relationship".

In another interview, he adds... 

"We're trying to avoid the classic feeling that a lot of people have when they start talking to a non-profit or NGO. It's always, 'Oh, they want my money.' But we're not going to start or end there."

"We are really more like a social news site. We believe that sustained giving happens only after you get to know an organisation."

"It [Jumo] becomes a bucket for all information that's being produced by or about the organisation, including links to everywhere they live on social media platforms."

People can give through Jumo (though only to US charities at the moment). All donations are handled by Network for Good and donors have an option to add a 'tip' to their gift to help fund Jumo. Then Network for Good "acknowledges the donation and send the donor a tax receipt."

Algorithms ensure the most relevant information from sources such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs and news reports is pushed to the front of Jumo, based on how many people are liking or commenting. Each charity can also manually control what appears in a similar way to how an administrator might control a Facebook page.

But it is automation which Hughes believes is important. In a live discussion on The Chronicle of Philanthropy, he stated...

"We're trying to build technology to automate social media engagement. We know nearly all non-profits are resource constrained, so we're trying to automate things as much as possible, while at the same time enabling the organisations that do have people working in their social media sphere can use Jumo as a complement to their existing efforts"

"After the Obama campaign, I spent a year talking to as many people as I could in the international development world and in the social sector here domestically. The one thing that I kept hearing again and again was, "I am resource constrained. How can I find a tool that helps me use social media to engage my supporters but doesn't increase my costs?" Jumo grew out of that frustration."

And therein lies the problem.

When Chris spoke to charities, it looks like he heard something similar to my story – that they want magic – engaged and loyal supporters without having to put the work in to build relationships.

And though it is early days, I don't think Jumo is going to turn out to be the magic wand people are looking for. My Jumo is delivering a random series of disjointed chunks of information from various feed sources that talk about a wide range of areas of different charities' work, but really don't engage at all. My facebook friends are rather quiet too.

It's like reading a giant compendium of various charities' annual newsletters and annual reports. It is quite a chore. I'm not getting much sense of a relationship at all.

But that doesn't mean Jumo is a waste of time. It can work – but only if charities are willing to put the time and effort in to make the content valuable. 

Donors respond to organisations that show them that they are special, that personalise communications, that tell them relevant and engaging stories and that demonstrate that the organisation knows who they are and shows them that they are valued.

That means the automation needs to be turned off on Jumo. Instead charities should concentrate on combining it with DM appeals and emails as a means to show people what their gifts are doing. That way it could develop into something rather fantastic.

Otherwise it could present your charity to your donors in a similar way to those boring corporate Facebook accounts that no one wants to 'friend'. And we all know what they look like...

 

With thanks for the illustration to Tom Fishburne which is packed full of great cartoons that he allows bloggers to feature for free. Thanks also to @jeffbrooks of futurefundraisingnow.com for the heads up on Tom's work.

 

Online donors are old-fashioned too

A particularly interesting report has just been published by Network for Good and Truesense Marketing.

It looks at online giving in the US. It's a massive study that covers $381 million in online giving through Network for Good's platform including 3.6 million gifts to 66,470 different nonprofits from 2003-2009.

But rather than recounting list after list of statistics, the paper is actually about the online relationship that charities have with donors. And every page says pretty much the same thing:

The better the relationship, the more a donor is likely to give.

It's as simple as that.

The paper is packed full of evidence that shows just how important builing an emotional connection is. Take, for example, the impact of giving directly through charity sites, giving portals and social networking sites like Facebook charity pages from Causes. The study shows:

• Portal donors gave smaller average gifts (25.1% lower) than website donors.
• While 10.2% of charity website donors were still giving on the third year, only 8.3% of portal donors were still giving – which is a difference of the best part of 20%.
• Social networking sites tend to generate the lowest value gifts. As the paper suggests, donors give through social sites because of a relationship with a friend rather than the charity or because it is convenient when they are in a receptive frame of mind.

As you might suspect, most donations are made in December and at times of disaster. What is amazing is just how many gifts are made on the 30th and 31st of december – 22% of all online giving in a year is made on the last two days of December.

This demonstrates how important tax is as a motivation behind giving (the 31st marks the end of the US tax year) as it dwarfs the peaks seen in the run up to Christmas.

It interesting to note that donors who give in December have a three-year cumulative value that's 51.8% higher than donors in the other 11 months of the year – perhaps because they are simply repeat giving to favoured charities each year when time is at a premium in the few hours before the tax year closes.

The paper also includes loads of other interesting nuggets of information, like this chart that shows online giving by time of day from 2008. It seems to me that the morning mail (both traditional and electronic) is a pretty powerful driver for getting people online.

It's a tremendous study and well worth reading. You can download the paper by clicking here (registration required). Though it is a report on the US market, a very large part is directly transferrable to what's happening in the UK.

Thanks for the heads up to The Agitator.

Taking protesting from the streets to Facebook

There are many ways to protest and with things like Facebook around, you don't neceassrily have to pick up a placard or loud-hailer and march the streets.

PETA proved this when they staged an anti-fur protest on DKNY's Facebook page last Monday.

Sixteen different users simply changed their profile pictures to letters (or simple blanks) which spelt out DK BUNNY BUTCHER.

You can read more on Mashable.

 

What happens after that mailing pack lands on the mat?

TNT Post have just released the results of a poll on the importance of direct mail for raising funds.

They surveyed 2,000 British adults and found that:

• One-third of people who give to charity are prompted to do so by receiving direct mail appeals.
• 57% of people who respond to mailing packs do so by mail.
• 87% of people who want more information about the charity go online.

It's great that another survey shows the continuing importance of direct mail, but what it really demonstrates is the importance of integrating online and offline activity.

An appeal pack might get people thinking about giving, but a substantial percentage of your supporters will turn to your website to actually hand over the cash.

This is nothing new. A 2008 study by Harris Interactive for the NonProfit Times found that 17% of online gifts were prompted by direct mail appeals.

Donors prefer to give in the way that works for them. You can see this in action by keeping an eye on your online giving. A mailing substantially boosts the income coming through your website.

And unless you take time to track what's happening, you might not fully appreciate just how important direct mail is to your online fundraising. You'll also miss out on the extra income that integrating online and offline activity can generate.

It doesn't take much work to raise more funds. These are just a few basic ideas that I'd recommend you try...

• Feature your appeal on your home page. If you are running a TV campaign, put the ad on your home page as well. It's an approach used commercially and it works for charities too.
• Configure your online donation form so it links with your DM campaign. Feature the same stories and photographs. Repeat the call to action you use on your donation form too.
  
• Can you extend the story? Video, more photographs, more information and up to date news can all be a reason to go online and nudge donors in the direction of giving.
• Can you offer auto-fill on your donation forms? Anything you can do to make giving easier works!
  
• An email reminder can add another 5% to your bottom line (and often more).
• And more importantly, a thank you / update showing how donations have been used, can generate a substantial second wave of donations.
• Don't forget to use your social media activity to support your appeal - videos work very well.
  

And if you think you don't need to worry about this because your old donors don't go online, think again. A study by Pew Internet shows older people are embracing the internet and social networking in ever greater numbers. You can read more about this here.

Update: details of another study on what donors are looking for when they go online can be found here.

Putting the power of mums to work

Nick Clegg is off to the UN Summit in New York at the end of September and Save The Children want to put some pressure on him to encourage world leaders to refocus their efforts to ensure we achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Getting help from 100,000 people to nudge him in the right direction through signing a petition is part of their plan and they have decided that some influential UK parenting blogs could be a good recruiting round.

So they have invited three prominent bloggers: Josie from Sleep Is For The Weak, Sian from Mummy Tips and Eva from Nixd Minx to fly out and see what the charity is doing in Bangladesh. All three will obviously be speaking to mothers and children about their lives, hopes and fears and sharing their experiences on their blogs.

And through their blogs, they'll encourage their readers to get involved by signing the petition, donating money and giving unwanted clothes and household goods to their local Save the Children shop.

Some tweeters with huge followings like Neil Gaiman and Stephen Fry have already starting promoting the campaign (known as #blogadesh) and are generating some significant traffic.

But it will really kick off when the bloggers start writing about what they see. When someone you know and trust as a source of advice and inspiration starts talking about poverty, it's going to be more relevant, more motivating and more engaging that just seeing an advertising banner asking for help.

There's been some interesting research in the last few years in neuro-cognitive science that helps explain why this is the case. In short, if we see someone experience an emotion - anger, joy or sadness – the same neurons spark in our brain as if we were experiencing it ourselves.

It's one of the fundamental donor needs. We are driven to be sociable. We need to belong. And it's empathy which is the primary driver behind that need.

Rather than make you trawl through 1,500 words on the latest scientific research that backs up this claim, I've found this great animated video from the RSA where Jeremy Rifkin explains it far more effectively (and entertainingly) than I ever could.

As you'll see, new technology is changing the way we think about our fellow human beings. We are now extending our identities far beyond national and religious boundaries.

As a result, we are able to directly relate to people's suffering on a far more personal level - as mothers for instance – and do something that is becoming increasing clear that we psychologically need to do - offer help.

That's why I think Save The Children's approach is so exciting – it directly taps deep into our psyche and, as a result, I expect the outcome should be very rewarding for everyone who's involved - not just the people being helped in Bangladesh.

For more more details on donor needs take a look at this previous post.

Thanks to @charityclare for the heads up.