Brilliant Fundraising Products
I’ve always been intrigued with the challenge of growing monthly giving programs.
We’re all familiar with the undisputed king of monthly giving — child sponsorship (this might be the first … Plan Spain, 1937).
[I’m not quite sure why SOFII included The Onion’s hilarious spoof of child sponsor programs in its coverage here. Although I must confess we at The Agitator have used The Onion’s ‘expose’! But I digress.]
However, cloning the approach for other kinds of charities and nonprofits, especially for advocacy organizations, can be difficult … even with the higher development and cultivation costs that can be justified on an ROI basis.
So I was pleased to receive this recent showcase of ‘brilliant fundraising products‘ from SOFII, several of which are designed to support monthly giving programs.
I especially liked the sponsor a dog (Dogs Trust), the reverse book club (Book Aid International), and Frontline (Greenpeace) programs. But there are 15 other products to look at as well.
I’d love to hear from Agitator readers about the ‘product’ (or other) approaches you are using to support donor investment in monthly giving programs.
Tom
5 responses to “Brilliant Fundraising Products”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Working with Parkinson’s UK, Bluefrog has just launched Sponsor a Worm – http://www.davetheworm.org.
We’ve had some great inital feedback from supporters, old and new alike, including this lovely blog post from Nell Barrie summing up exactly what we were trying to achieve which is brilliant!
http://nbarrie.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/dave-the-worm-getting-creative-with-basic-research/
Check out this Onion feature, Tom.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-am-a-brand-pathetic-man-says,30545/ Any commentary? Kate
As PLAN USA’s Director of Development and Communications in the 1980s, I can tell you that the real brilliance at the core of child sponsorship is exactly what newer organizations like KIVA are being lauded for… the donor’s ability to make a direct connection between their contributions and the people being served. And as a result, as both KIVA and all child sponsorships have learned, this leaves your very vulnerable when the inevitable something goes wrong.
As for the monthly sponsorship, it does allow individual donors to give at much higher levels than they might otherwise have given. But unless you get those monthly donors on some type of automated payment system, do not underestimate the time and expense of getting these donors to renew their gifts every month. The individuals who had to send in their checks by mail each month had much higher attrition rates than those who gave quarterly or annually, and significantly higher attrition rates than those on an automated system.
For much of the last three decades I’ve worked with ActionAid, one of the UK’s most successful child sponsorship charities, and I agree with Gayle 100 per cent re the ‘direct connection’. Donors want to know their gift is making a difference and CS is a near perfect mechanism for that. But as Gayle says, the real beauty in any regular giving scheme is automated monthly payments – PAC or EFT teamed alongside good old inertia, this time working in our favour.
Curiously the USA still seems to lag behind Europe in accessing the financial benefits of regular low/middle-level monthly giving, which may be mainly down to differences in the banking systems and general public acceptability of automatic direct debits. As we’ve seen in many European cultures such things can change quickly, given the right impetus. If acquisition and retention are issues in the USA there could be real benefits in simply promoting different methods of payment. Sadly perhaps for we relationship fundraisers, few things will have more impact on your bottom line than how your donors pay you.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see monthly giving really taking off in the USA?
We’re so pleased our recent SOFII Stars email was well-received by you and other SOFII supporters. I’ve been checking why the Onion’s spoof piece was included on our case study for Plan. As far as I can determine, it’s there because you tipped us off Tom and because we agree with you, it’s hilarious! It also demonstrates that a product like child sponsorship can raise concerns and is an easy target for light and heavy attack. We have put back the caption to the illustration which somehow got lost when we relaunched SOFII a while ago and acknowledged you as the source.
If any of the Agitator readers have any other tip-offs for SOFII or would like to submit a case study, we’d love to hear from you!