Simone Says: “Why?…Why?…Why?

May 5, 2021      Roger Craver

Wonderful stories abound as memories of Simone Joyaux flow across Fundraising Land.

Here at the Agitator we counting our “Simone Blessings” and also checking our archives.  We came across this post from a few years back that illustrates how Simone’s curiosity and constant questioning helped keep us all on our toes in an effort to her respond to her frequent sign-off to a series of thoughts or questions:   ?why?… why? …why?”, not to mention, ” and…and…and.”

Thus this reprint from the Agitator of April 17th, 2018.

Roger

Confucius on Fundraising Tech Tools.

The other day I received an email from the admirably and voraciously curious Simone Joyaux attaching the 2018 Global NGO Technology Report  listing the “10 Most Effective Tools” for online use by nonprofits around the world.

Simone asked: “Do you believe the nonprofits are “correct”?  Or, are theser nonprofits thinking stuff is good but they don’t actually know how to measure or do good?

My answer in a minute. First, a digest of the report:

  • The 2018 Global NGO Technology Report is sponsored by the Public Interest Registry  and researched by Nonprofit Tech for Good.  It summarizes how NGOs use web and email communications, online fundraising tools, social media, mobile technology, and data management and security software.
  • Survey respondents were asked to rate the tools as:(1) Very Effective; (2) Somewhat Effective; (3) Not Very Effective; or (4) Ineffective.

10 Most Effective Tools

1) Email updates: 82%

2) Websites: 81%

3) Social media: 78%

4) Video: 72%

5) Email fundraising appeals: 64%

6) Print annual reports: 62%

7) Social media ads: 61%

8) Print fundraising appeals: 60%

9) Peer-to-peer fundraising: 56%

10) Print newsletters: 54%

4 Least Effective Tools

1) Text-to-give: 27%

2) Text messaging: 33%

3) Messaging apps: 35%

4) Search engine ads: 49%

Back to Simone’s query. Do I think these findings are “correct” or is the report merely a compilation of thinking stuff is good but not really knowing how to use the tools or truly measure their effectiveness?

Here’s how I answered Simone:

“I just finished sorting my tool shelf in the basement.  There are some fine saws, a miter box,  planes, files, various hammers, chisels and screw drivers, but damned if I can make a desk drawer or even repair a stuck door.

“The essential toolbox for all of us must include curiosity, experience and our willingness to listen (two ears, but even one will do) and one or two eyes to witness what’s going on around us.  And that tool box should be set in the middle of a damn good and well-worn library.

“All the tech stuff in that global survey is only inventory of a fundraising hardware store — the true value of which depends on a skilled fundraising artisan.”

Jeff Brooks was copied on Simone’s email thread and here’s how he responded:

“My first thought was that the list is evidence of mass hallucination.

“But as I considered it more, I moved into Roger’s toolbox thinking: You can have the best tools in the store, but if you don’t know how to use them, they aren’t going to be very useful.

“Search engine ads on the “Least Effective” list?  I’ve seen that work like crazy. But it’s very difficult to do right; takes extremely specialized knowledge and a good amount of time and money to make it work. Otherwise, it really is ineffective.  Like some kind of specialized saw that cuts your fingers off because you were holding it wrong.

“Direct mail — which we know to be the most effective fundraising tool after the house of worship collection plate — is also viciously difficult. So easy to screw up and slice your fingers off. Just look in your mailbox for clear evidence that a lot of fundraisers are using DM completely wrong. No wonder it’s not at the top of the list.

“I think the list reflects what fundraisers in the real world are really experiencing— great tools being used by people with widely varying levels of experience. Remember that the large majority of them are very small orgs without the resources to pay for high-end professional help.”

Simone answered back to Jeff and me with this verbatim summary:

  • “Social media etc. is not the answer to everything. But someone told us all it is; so that’s a problem.
  • Tools are only as good as our skills and our skills are only as good as following those who can teach us best; back to “body of knowledge and best practice” that is researched etc.”

Whatare your favorite tools? And why?

Roger

P.S. As Confucius said:

“The expectations of life depend upon diligence; the mechanic that would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools.”   

PPS:   May 5th, 2021. Of course Simone responded.

3 responses to “Simone Says: “Why?…Why?…Why?”

  1. Roger, thank you for sharing another terrific story about Simone. In my own tribute to her, I wrote about her use of “and … and … and.” Whenever she used it, I was never sure if she had more to say or if she was encouraging the rest of us to think more deeply for ourselves. Probably both. I’m thinking of making myself a t-shirt.

  2. Jay Love says:

    Michael, she always had more to say, but was always encouraging us to think and say it first. Thanks for suggesting both!

    I was so blessed to see her do this with my grandchildren where she would lead them to thinking about new subjects and ideas, then coax the very best of their imagination out of them.

    It was pure magic wrapped in adoration and love…

  3. Tom Ahern says:

    Love you all, Roger, Jeff, Michael, Jay … and of course my dear Sim One.

    Michael’s interpretation of Simone’s “and…and…and…” is profound and right on the money. As Jay points out, she always had more to say. We did a lot of long walks, and she would sometimes talk for an hour without interruption about some bee in her bonnet.

    BUT she also wanted the reader to step in and join the conversation. She taught “conversation” as a basic fundraising skill … and was famous for her “cage-rattling questions” ~ you know, the ones that have no clear answer and make you think.

    LOL re: Jeff’s “mass hallucination” crack.

    Loved the survey results, too. Apparently lots of people think “print annual reports” are an “effective” fundraising tool.

    Well, that explains so much right there about under-performing donor-communications strategies. Sure, maybe if you have in hand something created as a fab, story-telling “gratitude report” by Agents of Good … otherwise? Everyone, take the “Simone Pledge.” Stop guessing. Learn the body of knowledge.