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.

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.

Have you got a magic drawer?

This is a photograph of Shanon Doolittle's magic drawer.

As you'll see, it's packed full of cards - greeting cards, thank you cards, anniversary cards – every sort of card that might be useful to show a donor that you appreciate their support.

Of course, she could just send an email, but as Shanon says...

"That’s too easy. You could type that email in your sleep. With a card, you’re telling your donor that they deserve a special kind of greeting. One that takes time, effort, and most importantly, thought. It’s touches like these that move your relationships forward and deepen the bond between your donors and your organization."

I think it's a fantastic idea. You can read more on Shanon's blog, Do Good, Feel Better.

Now, it's about time I visited Paperchase.

A topp way to raise money

There is one simple way to dramatically increase income and improve your donor retention. You don't need to employ expensive consultants, install a new database or develop a brand new welcome strategy.

Instead, you thank donors.

That's it.

You thank your donors.

All of them.

You thank them quickly, personally and memorably.

With this simple action you could improve your donor retention by 400%. Research by fundraising consultancy, McConkey–Johnstone International UK found that first-time donors who receive a personalised thank you within 48 hours of making a donation, are up to four times more likely to give again, when compared to those who aren't thanked promptly.

The word personal is important here. It can be a massive temptation to mail out a computerised thank you similar to Nigel Molesworth's famous self-adjusting thank you letter, as featured in every schoolboy's favourite guide to life, How to be Topp...

Packed full of customisable fields, you can insert the donor's <name>, <salutation> and <gift amount> and still come over as impersonal and uncaring – even if you do get your thank you letter in the post within a week of receiving a gift.

The result is that you'll lose a significant number of your very expensively recruited donors.

Instead, why not send a thank you that is designed to make the recipient feel special? Something that shows the human face of your organisation? It might take some effort, but that is the secret to building donor loyalty.

Here are two rather good examples...

• Pamela Grow shared a great thank you on the SOFII blog, where a pack of chewing gum was enclosed with the letter as a means to define the donor.
• Marc A. Pitman on the Fundraising Coach blog, described how after a ribbon cutting ceremony, he gave donors a pair of scissors that had been inexpensively engraved with details of the event.

What makes these approaches so special is that they do more than just show the donor they are valued and appreciated. They also create a memory that will positively influence the donor's response to the next appeal that lands on their mat.

And that is what great fundraising is all about.

Fake philanthropy

I've seen one or two fundraising campaigns recently that seem to have taken a strategic leap in a strange direction – they tell people that it gives you a nice feeling when you give to charity.

I can understand the thinking behind the approach. When you speak to donors in order to uncover their motivations, it doesn't take too long to discover that donors really do give because it makes them feel good.

The trouble is, you can't stop there.

You have to dig deeper.

When you do, you'll see that if you give donors even a sniff that they might be giving with selfish aims, it completely destroys the reason to give in the first place.

It happened to Larry David when he gave a very large donation to fund a wing in an environmental resource centre. To thank him, the charity concerned named the wing after him.

However...

His friend, Ted Danson, also donated a wing. But he did it anonymously.

Though it wasn't as anonymous as Larry would like. All of which makes him feel rather uncomfortable...

When to choose choice

Choice is becoming a buzzword in fundraising. But just how important is it?

Over the last few years, organisations like Kiva, DonorsChoose and CRUK (with MyProjects) have done rather well by offering people a chance to decide how their donations are used. Kiva, which launched in 2005, has generated over $200 million for people working their way out of poverty. DonorsChoose, which is only two years older, has generated over $77 million for schools in need of teaching materials. And CRUK has over 400 individual fund raising pages and 23 project pages which have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds.

But is choice the key factor that lies behind this level of fundraising success?

There are a number of charities that have built websites around the offer of choice who haven't been quite so successful.

Take FORGE for instance. I wrote a piece about this charity back in 2008 on how they came unstuck when they focused on offering online donor choice as a means to raise funds.

See The Difference, who do some great social networking activity to promote their site, also seem to be struggling (see this post for more thoughts on their approach to fundraising). If you look at their most funded projects on their website, few have generated more than a thousand pounds.

And My Action For Children which generated a massive amount of hits from press advertising and celebrity tweets seems to have converted just a tiny percentage to donors. Sign-ups just one month later have dwindled to a trickle.

I believe the different levels of success seen by the two sets of examples is down to something other than choice.

Kiva is fundamentally different. It asks people to lend - not give. And though a supporting donation is suggested (to fund the work of the KIva organisation) this is discretionary. In effect, you are not giving to charity as you can get your money back. As we've seen in the UK with Lend With Care, this is an offer that people find different and attractive. Add feedback on the impact of your loan and fantastic celebrity and corporate support (most notably that offered by YouTube) and you have a financial success on your hands.

DonorsChoose has also benefitted from celebrity support. But at its heart it offers something very special – great feedback. Though they will accept any size of gift, DonorsChoose prompts donors to give $100 by promising them a feedback pack from the school they help. This pack contains a letter from a teacher along with drawings, thank you notes and photographs from the children who've benefitted from the donor's gift. DonorsChoose encourage schools to get really creative with these packs and see them as so important that if a school fails to provide them to donors they can be excluded from the site. The other stroke of genius of the DonorsChoose model is that they also offer a thank you pack to everyone who gives a closing gift. So if a project has just a few dollars needed to hit target, the donor who makes up the shortfall - even if it really is just ten or twenty dollars – gets a thank you pack as well.

Take a look at CRUK's MyProjects and you see two main types of donation – gifts in memory and gifts in response to personal fundraising pages. In this respect it is not that dissimilar to JustGiving. The most successful of the projects on MyProjects is the Santander staff fundraiser for mobile cancer awareness units. Santander staff have been encouraged to raise money for CRUK with the promise that if they hit a certain target they will be eligible for a trip to Brazil to help renovate a school. MyProjects has simply functioned as an online means for them to run personal fundraising activities (see what I mean about it being just like JustGiving?).

If choice was that important to donors, thousands of tiny niche charities would be doing much better. If someone wanted to offer support for disabled children in London for instance, all they need to do is type those words into Google and they'd be presented with a long list of organisations that would love a donation. And more to the point, they would probably all offer a more rewarding and personal experience of giving than can be had when you donate to the national charities you'd find bidding on those search terms through AdWords.

And here's another example of why I think that choice is only a small part of the route to better fundraising.

I started out my fundraising career at ActionAid (about twenty years ago) where I worked on a product called ProjectAid.

ActionAid raised most of its income through child sponsorship. Supporter feedback and research told us that people loved knowing how their money changed a child's life. It also told us that some people found sponsorship expensive and others found it 'emotionally unattractive'.

We took a few logical steps and the end result was ProjectAid. We'd ask the donor to sign up to a regular gift and every four months we'd send them details of projects in need of funding. They could choose the one they wanted to support and we'd then report back on how work was progressing. I still have the first recruitment piece we ever produced and, as you can see, It's not that far from the 'game changing' ideas of crowd funding that we see today. Just on paper rather than on-line.

We tested it with a variety of media, but it didn't do that well.

But what was particularly interesting was how donors responded to the offer of choice. Most ended up ticking the 'where the need is greatest' box on the donation form. The product eventually was used as a 'drop ask' for people who were interested in child sponsorship but found the price too high. It was superseded by another product that concentrated on providing good feedback, which in the long run was more effective.

I've been involved in offering choice to donors in a number of different ways over the years and found similar results pretty much every time. Some people do value choice (particularly with causes such as cancer research and with high level gifts), but many others were more interested in hearing about need, impact and what they had done to make a difference. As one donor put it (and I paraphrase)...

"You're the experts on this. I just want to know that my money has helped".

In my experience, that's what charities should be focusing on. As I mentioned in a previous post, choice is only important if it is relevant. If it isn't, it can become a chore and actively turn donors off.

And if you are interested in finding out why, you should probably take a look at this study featured in Neuromarketing on choice fatigue.

If used appropriately, choice can probably enhance your offer, but, using the tried and tested (and tired) golfing analogy, it should be one of a number of clubs in your fundraising bag, rather than a single club that you rely on for the whole game.

How to get a £1 million donation

The Coutts Million Pound Donors Report 2010 has just been published.

It takes a look at the condition of British philanthropy at the very top of the giving scale – which, as you might guess, covers gifts of £1,000,000 and more.

There were just 201 donations of this magnitude made in the 2008/09 financial year, with a pretty healthy combined value of over £1.5 billion.

That doesn't actually mean that money found its way into the hands of charities – half the money recorded was actually 'banked' in foundations for distribution over time. But the remainder was donated, with 58% going to hIgher education and 13% going to arts and culture.

'Traditional' charities didn't do too well. International aid received 5%, human services and welfare generated 4% and environment and animals brought in just 1% of the top-end gifts.

Which got me thinking about what universities, art galleries and theatres have that the rest of the charity sector lacks.

It certainly isn't need. In a matter of life and death, I'm sure that few people would prioritise a painting over saving a child's life.

And it's not like people are falling over themselves to give to universities, theatres, museums and art galleries. A paper published by Arts & Business – Arts Philanthropy: the facts, trends and potential estimates just 1% of the UK population give to arts organisations and the Ross-CASE Survey 2008-9 (that analyses trends in giving to universities and higher education institutes) shows that about 0.26% give to higher education.

The government has actively tried to boost giving to the educational sector. 2008-09 was the first year after the launch of the £200 million three-year matched funding scheme where, depending on the size of the donation, the government would match a donor's gift.

But that isn't enough to account for the large number of super-high gifts these sectors receive.

I'd suggest that one significant issue might be that many people working in the educational and arts sectors are actually used to dealing with very wealthy individuals and, as a result, are very comfortable asking for very large sums. We also need to remember that both sectors can also offer a very special type of recognition.

David Spinonla, Head of Individual Philanthropy at the Royal Opera House, explains how they treat people who donate £1 million or more:

"People who donate £1 million or more to the Royal Opera House are invited to become mebers of the Chairman's Circle and their contribution is also honoured on a glass panel in the Paul Hamlyn Hall, in addition to the supporter acknowledgements already in place within Royal Opera House print and in the foyer.

Royal Opera House philanthropists are offered an exceptionally wide range of opportunities to experience how their support is being put to use. Involvement is closely tailored to the interests of donors, taking account their preferences to specific art forms, artists or practicioners and their existing knowledge and experience. Our Chief Executive, Tony Hall, describes them as "a family", and donors relish the opportunities we offer to meet with artists and senior staff...and to see how productions are put together, from initial designs through to the creation of props and costumes."

It sounds pretty glamorous. Meeting up with stars, watching shows come together and probably the odd party to go to as well.

High value donors to universities are given very special treatment too. Take Oxford University for example. Depending how much you donate, you can be invited to join the Vice-Chancellor's Circle or The Chancellor's Court of Benefactors.

You'll be able to attend dinners, debates, receptions, balls and sporting events. The Court of Benefactors even has a ceremony of admission where you get to wear a rather groovy gown and 'bonnet'. Your name will also be engraved on the Clarenden Arch alongside other great benefactors such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Sir Ernest Oppenheimer. And the most generous benefactors are likely to receive The Sheldon Medal.

It's all a rather long way from what many 'traditional' charities might be able to offer in the way of recognition. For many people, a cup of tea in an office in Islington might struggle to compete with dinner at the High Table or watching La Boheme from the wings.

But there are some things that can be learnt from these massively successful campaigns. And a number of these are spelled out by the author of the Coutts' report, Beth Breeze.

Rather sensibly, she didn't just collect information on income and expenditure. Beth also asked donors and fundraisers to share their top tips on fundraising and she includes them in the report. And here are just a few examples that you might find useful:

"Take your time and ask at the right time. It can take 3 or 4 years before a donor is ready to make a really significant financial commitment."

"Find out what benefits the donor would be pleased to get, as they are not always obvious or that difficult to fulfil. We give one major donor an annual staff car parking pass and he is delighted with it."

"Be prepared to give major donors access to the people within the charity that they want to speak to, including the most senior staff who can talk about strategy and the front-line workers who can explain what is happening on the ground."

"Major donors will rarely ask for formal acknowledgement, like naming opportunities, but they usually appreciate being asked."

"Involve your major donors as much as is appropriate. Million pound gifts come about because someone is passionate about what you do, so give them every opportunity to enjoy their passions."

"The bigger the donation, the more reassurance the donor usually needs. Give them every reason to trust you and believe their money will be well-spent for maximum effect."

Are you Luke or Yoda?

Donors need motivating, and great storytelling is a rather effective technique to cut through jargon, bringing visions and missions to life.

Through using great stories, we get people giving and doing.

And if you'd like to improve your storytelling skills, I'd recommend you add Resonate by Nancy Duarte to your reading list.

Though Resonate is primarily about creating better presentations, it's packed full of great advice that will help you achieve your communication goals - whatever your choice of media.

It takes a very audience-centric approach, and one quote in particular stood out for me:

"You are not the hero who will save the audience, the audience is your hero."

It's exactly how we should look at fundraising.

We might like to think of ourselves as the ones who are changing the world, but when it comes down to it, the donor is actually making our work possible by ensuring we have the resources to achieve our goals.

As a result, they are the heroes.

We may have the expertise, the experience and the knowledge to achieve our mission, but our organisational goals are bigger than we are. Without our donors, we are going to struggle and fail.

Nancy includes a great quote from screenwriter, Chad Hodge who believes that to communicate effectively we need to ensure people...

"see themselves as the hero of the story, whether the plot involves beating the bad guys or achieving some great business objective. Everyone wants to be the star, or at least to feel that the story is talking to or about him personally."

As fundraisers, we need to understand this. We are Yoda, setting targets, offering guidance, giving advice. Our donors are like Luke Skywalker battling the dark side of The Force.

They want the cures for diseases, the end to poverty and cruelty. Our job is to show them the way and, most importantly, recognise their role and reward them for it by demonstrating their impact through the stories we share with them.

With thanks to Nancy again.

Why all charities should thank donors

One of the most dangerous things you can do to any appeal is add a 'we don't value you enough to thank you' tick box to your donation form.

They seem to offer supporter choice and some donors appear to like them, but to my mind they simply tell the donor that only egotists expect to be thanked. And that's not particularly nice.

You've probably seen the type of thing I'm referring to...

We try to make money go as far as possible so we only acknowledge donations when specifically requested to do so. If you would like an acknowledgement please tick this box.

They are dangerous because they can destroy the relationship before it has a chance to start.

Yes, people give because they want to help, but unfortunately the charity / donor relationship is a little more complicated than that.

Donors have a whole range of needs and the process of thanking is as important to them as the process of asking.

The key message behind any thank you is one of value. In a transaction with a donor, it is a chance for the charity to say "we value you".

And showing a donor that they are valued is an incredibly powerful step towards getting further gifts.

The impact of thanking was recently demonstrated by Adam M. Grant and Francesco Gino in a series of studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Their experiments are recounted on Psyblog...

"In the first study 69 participants were asked to provide feedback to a fictitious student called ‘Eric’ on his cover letter for a job application. After sending their feedback through by email, they got a reply from Eric asking for more help with another cover letter.

The twist is that half of them got a thankful reply from Eric and the other half a neutral reply. The experimenters wanted to see what effect this would have on participants' motivation to give Eric any more help.

As you might expect, those who were thanked by Eric were more willing to provide further assistance. Indeed the effect of ‘thank you’ was quite substantial: while only 32% of participants receiving the neutral email helped with the second letter, when Eric expressed his gratitude, this went up to 66%."

The researchers then looked at the wider impact of thanking. Would Eric's thanks motivate people to help others? To find out, they introduced Stephen, another student in need of help with a cover letter...

"In a second study, Eric’s thanks (or lack of thanks in the control condition) was followed, a day later, by an email from ‘Steven’ asking for similar help. The percentage who offered to help Steven was 25% when they had received no gratitude from Eric, but this shot up to 55% when they had been thanked."

It's an interesting finding, and I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it transferred to people's attitudes to charity.

If it does, those organisations that save a few pounds by not thanking donors might not just be damaging their own income, they could also be hurting the rest of us too.

Picture credit: Fenng