Crowdfunding
Wired has a great article illustrating “crowdfundng,” the process by which groups can be formed online to target donations at a specific project.
The Wired story features MyProjects, an initiative of Cancer Research UK. Using MyProjects, donors can choose specific cancer research they wish to fund, and follow progress on their particular research project.
As Wired describes: “The website allows users to browse a variety of projects funded by Cancer Research UK, so that rather than giving to an organisation as a whole, donors can choose exactly where their money is invested. Each page explains the disease each team is aiming to treat, and how it aims to do so. The pages then provide donors with feedback on the impact their donations are having.”
I love this approach. It provides for heaps of donor choice and initiative, but the giving occurs in the context of a “mothership” charity that helps provide both programmatic and fiduciary credibility for the individual projects. Cancer Research UK is still in the role of setting overall priorities (by virtue of the projects it includes in MyProjects), as well as having the opportunity to build a broader relationship with the donors involved.
This is the perfect blend of "macro" (our priorities) and "micro" (you choose) for my fundraising tastes.
[How many nonprofits do you know who would put their pet projects up for "auction"?! Which is effectively what this approach does. Would your program folks go crazy … or would they welcome the "competition"?]
And the MyProjects website itself is very clean and well done. Take a look.
Tom
Thanks to Giving in a Digital World http://givinginadigitalworld.org/ for the tip.
3 responses to “Crowdfunding”
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
What I love about this idea is how it begins to form a relationship with a donor as they track progress on the project. It gives the donor an opportunity to be more intimately involved by following along. Imagine if the outcome of the project is successful. Do you think the donor will give again? What a concept, donating is fun! Lucinda Yates
I agree that the CRUK site is great. To offer donors that level of choice is great for the donor, and great for the charity.
We did a campaign with WSPA a little while ago which asked people to choose which WSPA projects they wanted their donations to go towards. Targets exceeded by nearly 50%. A really high average donation. And 70% of donors choosing to give unrestricted income is great.
But more valuable is the knowledge that 30% of donors stated that one area of WSPA’s work was more important to them than any other. We know who and we know ehat. And we can now talk to them about this in a completely personal way. 30% of donors who will become WSPA’s greatest advocates.
http://www.thegoodagency.co.uk/our-work/specialisms/campaigning-fundraising/wspa-4/
Roger
A really interesting post… However, I just want to point out that crowd-funding isn’t as easy as it sounds. Although even close to as important or worthwhile as cancer research, I’m trying to raise money for the printing of a series of books (worldoflil.com) for toddlers to help them build cognitive skills – and once you tap your family and friends the big challenge is – how do i get anyone not associated with me already to jump in? Or even to become aware of the project. Questions such as this need to be answered before you start your raise… I tried to do this to the best of my ability and am still only 1/3 raised with about 35 days to go via kickstarter. Even on a larger scale, with the project mentioned in the article, how do you reach outside of your ‘network’ and get people interested enough to head to the campaign page and pledge?