Could It Be ‘The Product’?
So much fundraising advice I see — including the advice offered by The Agitator — addresses the ‘how’ question.
- How to improve retention?
- How to calculate and use lifetime value?
- How to use online video?
- How to master the mobile channel?
- How to get donor feedback?
- How to make fewer appeals, yet raise more money?
- How to improve email opens?
- How, how, how?
These are worthy lessons to learn and improvements to make.
But they all suggest that the root of the problem is technique and methodology. If we’re just a bit more clever with our tactics, more donations will rain down upon us.
But what if you’re tactics are pretty damn clever, and your fundraising is still stalled.
Has it occurred to you that the problem might be with your ‘product’?
Jeff Brooks zeroed in this in a recent post, The curse of unremarkable fundraising. And he wasn’t focusing on tactics — mail/online, fewer/more, long/short etc.
He was talking about the content … what you are selling. Most fundamentally … is it remarkable?
What makes your proposition to donors unique, memorable, worth talking about and sharing?
As Jeff laments: “People don’t talk about us because the fundraising propositions we put in front of them are just so boring there’s nothing to say. They give because they care about the causes. But there’s no additional magic that might get them to tell their friends.”
If you’re lucky, your organization might tread water by being boring and conventional … your existing donors might be so committed and your cause might be so compelling that it sells itself. But that won’t last long.
If your organization wants to grow in today’s marketplace, it had better be remarkable. True, ‘remarkable’ can be reinforced with good technique, like exceptional customer/donor service.
However I submit that ‘remarkable’ begins with your product. For many nonprofits, that might require a serious re-think.
Tom
P.S. Of course Seth Godin wrote the book on transforming your business (cause, charity) by being remarkable, Purple Cow.
3 responses to “Could It Be ‘The Product’?”
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
Thanks, Tom. The reminder that maybe the particular cause isn’t particularly interesting to particular people. And of course, that’s okay and that’s life. I have my beliefs and values and things I want to accomplish – through giving through an NGO. You have yours. Roger has his. And on and on.
But then there’s that other little teeny tiny angle of the cause. Do you do it well? Or are you just some humdrum status quo organization afraid of your own shadow. Or somewhere in between.
And sometimes, the world is too far behind your vision. Look how long it took and is still taking …. MLK and now Black Lives Matter. And gender equity and environmentalism and and and …
Keep up the fight. But do it well.
Remember the old Saturday Night Live Bassomatic skit. No matter how good the sales pitch might be, some products don’t sell.
One potential antidote to our being consumed by the “what we do” and “how we do it” is to re-visit – or visit for the first time – Simon Sinek’s book and related TED Talk “Start with Why.”
https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en
Or perhaps it requires a return to the founding vision – the raison d’etre of the organization itself. Chances are there was something some folks found remarkable to inspire creation and growth and partnership and stewardship. The days before maintaining the status quo became an acceptable goal.
And then, of course, there’s that crazy notion out there that we could actually ask some of our most loyal donors to tell us their “why” on the off chance their personal responses might re-inspire us and our work and many more donors like them.