Help Us Out, Please
Recently, The Agitator has done a string of posts on social media … perhaps more attention to this subject than we normally devote in a concentrated period.
So we get these two comments (among others):
From Jim : "I am not surprised that I have the first comment on today’s blog entry and it is 2:00pm EDT. Maybe the social networking blog entries are not only getting so commonplace as to be boring OR maybe nonprofits need to spend time in media that raises money." OUCH!
From Jill: "I think you’ve got this social media thing all wrong. You’re setting it all up as an either/or situation – do social media or do something else. Yes I agree we have to prioritise and yes I agree we have to keep doing the things that make money, testing, improving etc etc. But social media should not be ignored. It’s the product of a whole new paradigm. The world is changing … Frankly, it’s the quick and the dead, and any monolithic, backward looking organisations that fail to embrace change – responsibly – will die." TOUCHE!
OK, so we’re boring Jim and aggravating Jill!
What about you? Should we do more on social media, or less? Cheer it on, or stick to what raises money today?
And after you sent us your advice, here’s your last chance to take our Social Media Verdict survey. That will tell us what priority you are placing on social media in your nonprofit. We’ll be reporting the results next week.
Your guidance, please!
Roger & Tom
P.S. Being truly wounded, we looked at our open rates on Feedblitz and our web traffic on Google Analytics for last week (when all our posts dealt with social media). All levels are normal. At least you’re reading our stuff, even if it gives you heartburn! We did set out to agitate, after all.
10 responses to “Help Us Out, Please”
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
The problem is, I read lots of blogs and other news sources related to the non-profit sector. There is so much coverage of social media that I’m glazed over. Almost everyone in our organization uses social media organically. It’s not raising money but it is making connections. I’m sure that we could do it better, but as a young, small organization, we have many more urgent areas of concern. When I scan for what to read, I skip the social media topic.
Chuck Pruitt wrote an article a few months ago that included some interesting data. The article was titled, “Is direct mail fundraising really headed for the exit?” His firm has done donor research for quite a while. Pruitt wrote:
“Our 2007 survey also found that direct mail and online donors live in very distinct fundraising worlds. Thirty-three percent of online donors also give through the mail, but 67% do not. Similarly, 22% of direct mail donors give online, but 78% will not contribute through this channel. The conclusion is obvious to anyone except those who myopically seek to wish away one or the other type of fundraising communication: You will not get both kinds of donors and you will, therefore, not maximize your fundraising potential unless you do both online and direct mail marketing”
I think that, like all things, its a matter of balance.
I agree with Jeane Goforth that I’m a little glazed over from all the coverage of social media at this point. I work at a small, regional non-profit and we just don’t have the staff to dedicate to Facebook, Twitter, etc at this time. However, since it is a new arena, I’m thankful for the information I’ve received so that when my organization is ready to go there, I can contribute an educated opinion.
I’m a newbie to fundraising and in the middle of our annual fund drive. I got a lot more out of posts that had to do with effective direct mail campaigns, donor loyalty and retention issues, donor centric language and approaches to fundraising, etc. I’m still at the point where I’m trying to initiate a new donor welcome package and configure our database and mailings so that our donors receive only the kind of communication they want to receive from us.
As I said before, I think to balance coverage of all fundraising techniques is key.
I really think that now social media is here it’s here to stay. It’s may not directly increase fundraising dollars, but it is a part of a fully integrated communications plan. We can be more savvy by combining all of our agency communications, instead of having siloed communications. It’s also FREE or very cheap. I know in my non-profit we do not have a sophisticated marketing department so social media is a new way to get out there. It levels the playing field with other organizations who are spending (wasting?) a bunch of money on billboards, radio, tv and print. So Roger and Tom, I think you’re doing a great job that lends to the work I do. I’m sure there’s a spectrum of opinions, just keep up with a variety of topics.
We’re a very small non-profit that just hired its first development director after 40 years of existence. We’re trying to create our social networking capabilities with Facebook and Twitter but feel we’ve only hit the fringes of these communications’ capabilities. The problem is the availability of person-power. The media might be able to reach a million people but without someone in our office concentrating on building our networks and posting our news/tweets, then it’ll just be another unused/under-used marketing tool. I see it more as a cultivation/prospecting tool than a fundraising tool even though both of these actions can lead to contributions. To solve the problem of needing someone to manage this program, we’ve just advertised and will be hiring an unpaid college “intern”. Only time will tell if this is the golden goose solution. In the meantime, please keep publishing articles on this subject….not all of them are directly relevant but you never know when one article will make the difference.
Tim (& Chuck Pruitt) are completely right. While most donors don’t give via multiple channels, the multi-touch strategy DOES increase response rates in all channels. Online responsive people will be reminded by a DM piece, a TM call, or even a text message to go online and give – even if that email got lost in their cluttered inbox and they happened to miss the ask in their newsfeed. And DM responsive people who also get an email, a call, or a reminder from the page they are a fan of are more likely to go write that check.
And while there is a lot being written out there on social media, the fact is that most nonprofits are not maximizing its potential or even doing it remotely right and as Jill said any organizations that fail to embrace change – responsibly – will die. It’s a brave new world, one in where convenience rules and we fundraisers, marketers, relationship builders need to reach supporters where THEY live, not where we want them to be.
Jill is correct and several of us have been saying this for some time. I think many charities are going to go the way of “Dinosaur’s and Dodo’s” if they don’t learn to embrace change today.
Should The Agitator provide more coverage? Yes – if your coverage is going to discuss what’s working and effective, as opposed to whether or not Direct Mail is dead or whether or not social media is a fad.
One of the reasons this is such a challenge is that none of us knows what’s going to work. We don’t have the decades of data that we have for print and direct mail. We don’t even know what tomorrow’s big communications platform will be. Will twitter become truly mainstream? Will young people abandon Facebook now that their grandma is there? What’s the next “big thing”? Or are we going to enjoy some degree of “communications stability” with social networks for awhile?
There are more questions than answers and that’s not going to change. Hopefully, we can spend less time talking about whether or not social media is valuable and more time discussing how to effectively maximize its value.
I agree with Jill, for the most part. I don’t really believe you’re setting up a true either/.or situation, but I do find myself wondering why you’re devoting so much attention to social networking. Your posts on donor attitudes and behavior are superb. When you offer new insights on direct mail, you can’t be beat. But I read the same sort of thing about social networking in many other places, and it’s not useful. Dipping toes into Facebook, Twitter, and other services makes sense. Testing various approaches to using them does too. But overemphasis isn’t justified. And, intended or not, you seem to be encouraging that.
There is so much with which to agree in the comments made by our colleagues here; I will not bore everybody with a retelling of their worthy points. Lots of good points!
Suffice it to say that because social media are the newest communications “channel” or the newest technological “toy” out there, everybody is taken with them, talking about them and experimenting with them! That’s just fine with me.
What I stress with my clients is the need to make a thoughtful, informed and creative judgment about just how social media should fit into the mix of methodologies used by a particular organization, based completely on the factors of its own circumstances.
At the same time, it’s important to decide whether social media will be used strictly for ancillary communications purposes (i.e., building, communicating with and cultivating constituencies), or for a mix of communications and actual fundraising/solicitation. The key word on this count, as mentioned by Anne (above) is: INTEGRATE, INTEGRATE, INTEGRATE!
For some organizations, particularly young or small and modestly budgeted ones, it’s a matter of sticking with the basics, as pointed out by Jeane. My approach with clients is always to see that those time-tested basics are being addressed effectively before worrying about the new or next best things!
To answer your question, Tom and Roger, I think your coverage of social media has been appropriate, since it’s an emerging methodology. But, again, let’s not lose sight of those basics!
I agree with much of what other commenters have said. What I tend to appreciate about your writing is that you focus on what is important rather than what is new. That is something that many of our consulting in the nonprofit/tech sector really, really struggle with.