Welcome to my personal blog on Robin Hood Marketing—the concept of stealing corporate savvy to sell just causes—and my life as a marketer, from Washington DC to Madagascar to points in between.
The value of generous procrastinators
Posted by katya on Thu, November 20, 2008
Do you know the biggest online fundraising day of the year? December 31. Followed by December 30. Over 45% of annual giving via Network for Good is during the month of December.
In addition, the gifts are bigger in December – on average, about $189!
That means there are a lot of generous procrastinators waiting until the last minute to make their donations this year.
What does this mean to you? Here are tips for ensuring those generous procrastinators give to you:
Send out an extra email between December 26 and 31st. That way you’ll be top of mind when these folks are doing their last-minute giving before the close of the tax year.
Keep the appeal short and simple. This is a hectic time of year, so don’t force people to work hard to make their gift. Frame a pithy, compelling ask and make sure that online donation form is a breeze.
Consider asking for a recurring gift as part of the appeal. This year, people may have less money. So set up the idea of spreading their giving over many months if they can’t afford the gift size they want to make.
Don’t forget to thank people when they give – or to acknowledge past support. Give your donors credit for making your work possible. A little gratitude goes a long way.
I’ve left Philadelphia and am now in Houston to speak at the National Arts Marketing Conference. I can sum up the final day of Independent Sector yesterday in this way: lots of excitement and optimism about our new president and the opportunities ahead, tempered by very serious worries that we’re facing an era of enormous problems and huge human need. The final speakers echoed this sentiment. A lot.
So what do we do? There is still a lot of fear in the air. At my keynote in North Carolina last month, I tried to hit this head-on and encourage nonprofits to face the economic downturn with a sharply defined, well positioned identity that stands out—at a time when it feels safer to stick with the same old, same old. It’s time to take the risk of showing what makes us a different, unique investment. It is not a time to simply say we need money.
There is a great Get to the Point edition from MarketingProfs that defines how you do this especially well. (If you don’t already, you should subscribe to MarketingProfs.) This is what they said about how Warren Buffett reacted to the economic downturn:
In a post at Harvard Business Online, Bill Taylor highlights a Warren Buffett interview on Charlie Rose in which the billionaire investor responds to the question “Should wise people have known better?” in the affirmative, with the note that there’s a natural progression when things go wrong:
Innovation
Imitation
Idiocy
An innovator spots an untapped opportunity; the imitator attempts to capitalize on its merit; finally, explains Taylor, the idiot goes and apes the imitator, and with avarice “undoes the very innovations [he is] trying to use to get rich.”
According to Taylor, avoiding this cycle means developing the ability to distinguish between “genuine innovation” and “mindless imitation.” In other words, he asks, “Are you prepared to walk away from ideas that promise to make money [when] they make no sense?” Taylor, like Buffett, concedes this is easier said than done when you see competition heading in a particular direction and fear you’ll never catch up if you don’t join the charge. It takes discipline, notes Taylor, to remain conscious of the difference—taking advantage of innovation without getting caught up in the idiocy.
The Po!nt: “[D]on’t use the financial crisis as an excuse to stop taking chances or downsize your ambitions,” says Taylor. “But do use the crisis as an opportunity to take stock of what really matters—and to stop looking over your shoulder.”
Margaret McKenna of the Wal-Mart Foundation is presenting at Independent Sector right now, and boy is she a pistol. She’s refreshingly irreverent. I’m blogging her remarks live.
She just said Wal-Mart gives away $1 million a day. And they are going to INCREASE their giving next year by 6% to $400 million. (Wal-Mart does well during recessions.) Wow. A lot comes from corporate, but local stores get to give away money too, up to $5,000 grants.
So who is going to get the money? McKenna says: Good programs with good payback – both for a worthy cause and for Wal-Mart.
Regarding good programs, she says, “We’re looking for long-lasting, replicable, scalable impact that is good for our society and for the company… Is this a proposal that, if replicated, would allow us to lower the dropout late or increase adolescent literacy or alleviate homelessness. Does the person in need get the majority of the money? Then I’ll argue it’s good for us to the corporation.” This year they are looking especially at programs that meet basic human needs. They’re looking to help people in dire straits - not necessarily nonprofits in dire straits.
Make sure your initiative is aligned with the key initiative of the company. Do your homework and tell the right story to the right person.
Regarding payback, McKenna says, “If you come to us, tell us how the company will be recognized. And I don’t mean ask us to arrive at a press conference with a big cardboard check. I won’t do it. I mean, when these kids graduate, I want Wal-Mart to be recognized.” Payback can take a number of forms. Companies want to enhance their reputation, retain employees and build skills among their staff.
Stephanie Bell-Rose of the Goldman Sachs Foundation seconded this by citing a McKinsey study that noted companies look to meet their business goals through their philanthropy. Companies are looking to align their philanthropy to address the social issues/trends that directly affect their businesses.
Remember, it’s about the company winning as much as you win. Especially duing a recession!
What Diane Aviv said in her Independent Sector keynote
Posted by katya on Mon, November 10, 2008
An excerpt from Diane Aviv’s keynote at Independent Sector:
This election season has ignited, for many, a newfound interest in the well-being of our polity. As millions of people enter the public square for the first time or return after a long absence, heeding a loud national call for hope and unity, our organizations should be there to embrace them—to help convert their fresh ideas into real-world change, to help transform their enthusiasm into bold new action.
If we stand, as I believe we do, at a moment of profound rethinking about the American social compact, then the values of mutual concern and shared responsibility that unite us must be central to the discussion. We must use our voice — the organized expression of what we collectively call the independent sector, a voice founded on the values and aspirations that are embedded in the work we do.
…When we address matters of public policy, we tend to do so from our respective corners of expertise. We may have something to say about health or child welfare, about the arts or education or urban planning. We haven’t, though, had a common message about the fundamental rules and principles that would keep the economy strong, provide for urgent needs, and make sure the bills are paid. It is time we found our voice not only on the issues directly related to our missions, but on the issues that will determine whether we or our neighbors have the means to discharge our missions at all.
…The surest way for us to grow stronger—for civil society to rise to the mounting challenges that the current moment presents us—is to ensure that we are not charting our future in isolation. The purpose of a new social compact—beginning now, in the extraordinary weeks and months we are living through—will be to weave a new, more durable, more responsible web of interlocking obligations among all the sectors of society and then with our partners in all corners of the globe. We are well equipped to participate vigorously in serving that purpose. What’s more, we need to participate, for the sake of our missions, and of all the things we hope to achieve.
At the Independent Sector session, “Developing Online Simulations, Creating Real World Change” Stephen Bennett, President and CEO of United Cerebral Palsy discussed their game for simulating care giving – Ruby’s Bequest. I liked some of the principles he used to design the game. They apply to just about anything online. I paraphrase them here:
1. Don’t create a new destination if you want to reach a lot of people from the get-go
2. Connect existing groups already predisposed toward your issue
3. Let people stay where they are virtually when they interact with you
4. Make it easy for people to engage
A member of the “Community Empowerment through New Media and Innovative Journalism,” session at Independent Sector (moderated by Ben Binswanger of the Case Foundation), just asked the above question.
I’m going to answer that question here. The problem with this question is that it implies an either/or choice. In my opinion, the answer is all of the above with a third piece the questioner left out. This is NOT about your organization setting up a nice website vs. setting up a nice Facebook page! It’s about not just having a website, but also ensuring your champions have the tools they need to take action wherever they want, including Facebook. It’s about having little satellite presences in those places, IF YOUR SUPPORTERS HANG OUT THERE.
Here’s what I mean:
ONE: A nonprofit needs a basic website that has key information on why anyone should care about you, why your work matters, and how to engage with you.
TWO: In addition, you need to provide portable elements on your website so people who find you online can spread the word about you in other places online. Don’t have a “what’s news” page, have a “what’s news” RSS feed. Don’t just have a donate button. Enable people to fundraise for your cause anywhere they want. What will happen then is those champions will start spreading the word all over the place, creating the Flipped Funnel phenomenon.
THIRD: Build toward a few hubs around the Internet where your audience tends to congregate. If you take step #2 AND regularly explore online where people are talking about your issue, you’ll know where to go.
Here are three good questions to answer before you start going crazy with technology, from Alyce Myatt of Grantmakers in Film + Electronic Media. I’m sharing them from the session I just blogged:
1.What are you trying to do? (As opposed to what you are trying to say. What are you trying to get a certain audience to do?)
2.How best can you make that change occur? How can it best be done? (Given your audience and where they hang out online or in the world, what technology or media will engage them best)?
3.What resources do you have at hand? (This will help you determine the right scope.)
I’m not sure we’re asking these questions enough before we get started.
I’m also concerned we’re not getting started. Ramya just noted in this session that YouTube for nonprofits is the slowest growing vertical on the site. Not enough nonprofits are involved, and too many just slap up a video without seeking to build a community or reaching out to popular YouTube users.
The 2 reasons you need new media, even if you’re old school
Posted by katya on Mon, November 10, 2008
I’m blogging from the session at Independent Sector, “Community Empowerment through New Media and Innovative Journalism,” moderated by Ben Binswanger of the Case Foundation. The panelists are Linda Fantin of Minnesota Public Radio and the Center for Innovative Journalism, Ramya Raghavan of YouTube Nonprofits and Alyce Myatt of Grantmakers in Film and Electronic Media.
Here’s my take on the panel. Just as marketing is no longer a monologue but rather a conversation with an audience, so is new media. It is two-way communication. As Linda pointed out, public insight journalism is predicated on the idea that everyone has expertise, and people know what matters to them. The audience isn’t just an audience – they are a participant that takes part in creating the content – either by interacting with those covering the story or suggesting angles to a story, or by creating the story themselves.
If you’re still doubting this idea, or don’t know how it relates to you, consider two principles of persuasion: relevance and trust. These are two old-school, good old bread and butter ideas. First, we only tune into what is personally relevant to us. Second, we trust ourselves (and people like us) more than traditional authorities. That’s why word of mouth is so desirable. What’s great about new media is it allows us to establish personal relevance and trust on unprecedented levels. Because the audience is the messenger! That’s where old school meets new media.
Take the example from Ramya of voters filming their experience at the polls at Video Your Vote at YouTube vs. CNN talking about long lines on air. There’s nothing quite like watching a first-time voter in Georgia filming herself talking about waiting in line for seven hours to vote – with her baby. It has a level of immediacy and credibility that traditional media doesn’t achieve.
As Linda put it, this ideally changes the nature of how stories are reported via traditional media as well. She said, “If you want to find a left-handed baker who can make pineapple upside down cake while making a YouTube video, you could. But this is not about finding the right example to plug into a set story. It’s about what is happening among real people, and that information shaping the story.”
So what does this mean to you, even if you’re not in the business of media? The bottom line is these tools can make every interaction with your constituency more powerful. Put video in the hands of your donors or people you help. Engage your supporters in a conversation about how they spread the word about your issue. Give them the tools to do it. And then if they give you input, be sure to acknowledge it, use it and celebrate it.
When you lose control of the story, it’s a little scary, but the alternative is having an audience of only one: yourself.
Another blogger to check out: Katrin Petra Ivanovic. I met her and Monica Montgomery in the halls of the conference and heard about their great work as community activists. Update: you can find Katrin here! You go, girls.
I’m blogging from the opening day of Independent Sector, from the first-day session, “Harnessing Election Momentum for Nonprofit Causes.” On the panel are Maya Enista of Mobilize.org, Benjamin Todd Jealous of the NAACP and Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza. (I’m sitting next to fellow blogger Rosetta Thurman, whose fingers are flying. Be sure to read her stuff, too. She’s someone to watch in our sector.)
I’d sum up the session for you this way: What the election teaches us – and what we need to sustain the kind of momentum it created among so many audiences – requires two things. The themes were:
1. Audience appeal
2. Infrastructure (both human and technological)
By audience appeal, I mean the ability to appeal to the personal concerns of your audience. If you read this blog regularly, then you know I say this ad nauseum. You probably want to plug your ears by now. But I have to keep saying it, because it’s so very true. And we so often forget.
The panelists offered great examples of the power of an audience-centric approach on the campaign trail.
Benjamin Jealous talked about jobs and financial security as top issues among his members.
Maya Enista talked about how the youth vote turned out because “the candidates gave youth a reason to vote. They talked about jobs, the cost of college, personal debt and predatory lending on college campuses, and they used online engagement to do it.” She said “We need to know the issues that appeal.”
Janet Murguia talked about the importance of the rhetoric around immigration in engaging her community, as well as the “Yes we can” message of hope harkening back to Chavez and resonating with Latino voters, a group she calls aspirational in nature. Maya Enista talked about calling her mother the night of the election at 11 pm and asking her, “Mom, is this the reason you immigrated here?” Her mother said “yes” through her tears.
It’s all about personal relevance. So learn it from the campaign trail: It’s the audience, stupid, and it always will be. An appeal to your audience’s values is the only way to get and keep momentum.
Second, you need the engine behind, around and underneath that audience. The panelists identified one obvious engine: community-based organizations. That’s the human, organizational part of the engine. If those community-based organizations work together, which is hard to accomplish in our sector at a time where everyone is fighting for grants, you get a super-engine. (Maya suggests we need not only more cooperation but some mergers as well.)
They also discussed a second engine: online engagement. That’s the technological part of the engine. The Obama campaign may not have invented Facebook, as Maya reminded us, but they sure knew how to tap into the platform and all social media to mobilize a younger generation. This is an era when you can enable someone to learn the location of their polling station via Twitter. Online tools put word of mouth on steroids. They also do wonders for your outreach, your fundraising, everything. They enable you to do less with more, as well as to reach new audiences.
It’s the audience and the engines you tap. No matter how small your cause or how puny your pocketbook, you can accomplish much if you keep that in mind.
I’m off to Independent Sector, which I’m attending in a different way than my normal roles at conferences (speaker, marketer, Network for Good rep). I’m covering it as a blogger! I get to resume my old career - journalism - for a few days. Stay tuned for my blog posts from the conference Sunday-Tuesday!
Deborah Elizabeth Finn has a great new review of the book, Philanthropy Reconsidered by George McCully. She notes:
George explains how our rhetoric (and perhaps therefore our thinking) has shifted, as we’ve moved from the industrial age to the information age in philanthropy. It’s no longer about grand patrons giving away their bounty to the deserving poor - it’s about all of us wanting to make a difference, working together, and investing in the change we want to see in the world.
We tend to make use of terms such as “nonprofit” to describe our organizations, thus allowing the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to define not only our sector, but to define the taxonomy by which we understand our missions. In his book, George proposes an alternate taxonomy that he developed in the context of his work with the Catalogue For Philanthropy. He points out the need for terminology not based on postive rather than negative definitions (e.g., “nonprofit” or “nongovernmental"), and a taxonomy that orients us to philanthropy as an integral part of our human mission.
I agree with that for sure.
It reminds me of what our friends at For Impact like to say: We’re not not-for-profits at heart. We’re for impact. And we need as many people behind that as possible.
A while back, through this blog, I met an extraordinary person. Mark Horvath used to be homeless, and now he does all kinds of amazing things, including blogging at Hardly Normal. Now he is onto a new project—documenting via video the stories of people in the situation he once knew all too well. Here is a story you must watch—one day an investment advisor, the next, homeless:
Mark not only has an incredible personal story, he also knows how to tell a story. These stark interviews with homeless people are riveting. If you’re an agency helping the homeless, I’d post them on your site and I’d reach out to Mark. If you’re a funder, I’d fund him. If you’re a nonprofit, I’d do as he does. Put a face on the problem—and the solution. Show, don’t tell.
Posted by katya on Thu, November 20, 2008
(0) 
Syndicate
