The Little Words Mean the Most

Approved by the Trump for President Committee, a poem: I AM

 

 

I AM

 

very smart

very rich

very friendly

very artful

very smart

very rich

very friendly

very nice

very artful

sure some lice

On the Food Trail @ Boston #AFPFC

Are we going to get a Hillary-Billary or headlines like "America Plays Worst Trump Card Ever?"

I spoke here. They had this.

On the left, I spoke inside here:

And I was surprised (yet, as a substantial taxpayer, delighted) to find receptacles for "government waste" everywhere:

You're not allowed to shoot inside the Federal Reserve. So I shot a photo of my hotel corridor that looked similar. You could drive a big car down my hotel corridor and have bodyguards running alongside. It was a very spacious hotel. Very grand.

That's lots of lovely people at #AFPFC taking a moment to wave to JANE, Simone's mom,

THANK YOU, YOU BUNCH OF SWEETIES!

Just in case I hadn't posted this before

20 Questions, The Test ~ Donor Communications: When You Really Don't Know

12. How quickly should you thank a new donor?

Answer: Within 48 hours

Notes and assumptions....

In 2011, Damian O'Broin, founder and manager of Ask Direct in Ireland made a presentation in The Netherlands, at the global IFC conference. He shared some startling research from McConkey Johnston International UK (now the Christian Fundraising Consultancy).

            The research found that first-time donors who received a personal thank you within 48 hours were 4 times more likely to give again.

            Yes: thanking in 48 hours = 400% improvement in renewal rates.

            First-time donors are ardent. But that ardor cools fast if you don't sustain it.

            It's like a campfire ignited by match from tinder. You nurse it. You feed it oxygen, blowing across it. A super-quick thanks does the same: it blows oxygen across an ardent new donor, keeping that new donor, keeping that small flame alive. Excited by your mission. Your vision. Your potential IN THEIR LIVES. At the very least, a super-quick thanks gets your organization past what often happens in the same 48-hour period: buyer's remorse.

            Look, the standard for thanking in the nonprofit world has fallen so low that any unusual gratitude on your part will probably net you far more friends. As The Agitator reported in 2013, "A three-minute thank-you phone call will boost first-year [donor] retention by 30%."

            The ghastly truth is that most charities thank poorly (if at all). They predictably, relentlessly, remorsefully, and (let's hope) unwittingly, UNDERwhelm their donors.

            Be the "OVERwhelmer" instead. Your charity will reap rich rewards.

ANSWER #8 in my new 20 QUESTIONS donor comms test, downloadable as a PDF: NO | 1st draft / below: "so what do you think gets edited out"?

 

"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.

 

 

Spring Sounds

This is the marketplace of life.

Please Join Your Energies to the Nonprofit Storytelling Conference, Chicago, Nov10-11, 2016. WE NEED YOU sorry to be needy

As Shanon bespoke. 100% of T-shirt proceeds go toward scholarships to this world-class, extraordinary, nonprofit conference.