"Increased visibility" is not a substitute for fundraising. Not even close. Not even as close as Aunt Jemima's pancake syrup is to Vermont Grade A farmer-tapped, single-bush maple syrup (formerly Fancy): Golden Color and Delicate Taste.
"Increased visibility" is a well-meaning remedy. Boards and bosses love the idea. It seems like an obvious and cheap solution. And until "visibility" is "increased," there's little point in fundraising hard. Whohoo! Bonus points for that, from a board point of view. We can relax until staff get this visibility thing figured out.
Still, here's my point: chasing "increased visibility" rather than fundraising is the wrong direction to go in.
It's also irresponsible from a fiduciary standpoint. If I wanted to sue your charity for board malfeasance, your dogged insistence on "increased visibility" might well be my point of entry. "You thought increased visibility would raise money by itself? What are you, nuts?"
"Increased visibility" is a by-product, not a goal. It is so for every organization, for-profit or nonprofit ... unless you have ball fields of money. (Charities, spoiler alert: you don't.)
People assume that, when an organization and its mission become better known, gifts automatically follow. Sure: if you're a global celebrity like Mother Teresa. Or you can buy your way into everyone's head, as some nonprofit version of Coca-Cola.
Now you see the problem, right?
You can't rise above the noise. (Playtime: say it as Jack Nicholson would, in the courtroom climax of A Few Good Men. Hint: "You can't handle....")
It's a money problem, charities. You don't have anywhere near enough. And you most likely never, ever, never, ever will. Coca-Cola buys every space it can where any eyeball might rest for a moment. HENCE: Coca-Cola can BUY its way into my head ... even though I drink very little: maybe two Cokes a year?
Coke has top-of-my-mind awareness. I consider Coke's product a publicly-tolerated poison ... yet I think about it automatically. Why? Coke has limitless pockets.
So, OK: let's say you are a local nonprofit instead. Your work is incredible, innovative, worthy of support from the entire community. And then a local newspaper ... or an online local news service ... or the big local talk-radio personality notices you for one news cycle.
What happens next? Maybe two people contact you. If the talk-show person included a strong call to action, maybe ten people contact you. Maybe nobody contacts you. Likely nobody contacts you. (Unless your good cause is The Society to Make BBQ the State Bird.)
"Raising awareness" is NOT the same as "raising funds."
And, for all you spooky climate-deniers and other "fact skeptics," we have good research re: that very point.
Up first: Jeff Brooks, one of modern America's most successful direct mail writers. In his blog: "The truth is, if you have limited resources, there's almost no way you can justify spending them on awareness campaigns." Jeff noted, "For the awareness campaign to be worthwhile, it would have to improve fundraising by 67%. If you've been in fundraising for more than a couple of years, you know how unlikely that is." He wasn't done. "And the reality is that most awareness campaigns make no measurable difference [his emphasis] for fundraising campaigns."
Up second: Ireland's Ask Direct founder, Damian O'Broin. He ran a real-world test.
Results? If your charity spent £500,000 on competent direct mail fundraising, you might well bring in 4,000 gifts. If your charity put £200,000 into awareness with the other £300,000 put into direct mail fundraising, you brought in 3,000 gifts: 25% fewer.
"Raising awareness" is a loser's priority.