In Defense Of Serious Fundraising Dialogue
You’ll recall that yesterday I did a post on the NTEN conference.
The purpose of the post was NOT to draw attention to the conference itself, but to the research released around it that might be helpful to FUNDRAISERS.
A number of Tweets signaled that we’d hit a nerve, but for the life of me I can’t see that it’s a nerve that matters. What does interest me is that I now see why, so far, the use of social media is virtually worthless as a fundraising channel.
Why?
It’s clear from the Tweets that the posters: a) comprehend long-form copy (meaning anything over 140 characters); b) they have little fundraising experience; and c) fail to putting anything into context before using of their thumbs and ‘send’ buttons.
Can’t fault them for that. Each new gadget that has come my way in life has enthralled me: the typewriter, the electronic calculator, the fax, the personal computer, the cell phone, the iPod, the smart phone, the smartphone’s camera. You name it.
However, there’s a danger to serious fundraising and charitable good works when folks get too infatuated with technology.
The solid, professional, serious advancement of our trade by serious, professional, ground-breaking work by NTEN and organizations like it is seriously diminished by those who flit about on the channels, all thumbs, no thought. Those who have little idea what fundraising is all about, often because they have minimal experiential grounding in what’s important and why.
The social media channels are INDEED important to the future of all organizations. Each day we see hundreds of Tweets, for example, that link us all to good and substantive ideas. In fact, so important is this social media channel that none of us should for a minute tolerate sloppy or even mediocre thinking. If our sector ever needed the best, most thoughtful distribution of ideas it’s now. Mediocrity in fundraising must be made intolerable. The vapid should be vanquished.
The truth is, there’s too much ‘twit’ mentality in Tweets and Facebook and all other channels.
Tom and I try to honor and encourage those who contribute in meaningful ways to the dialog we seek to stimulate via The Agitator, whether we agree with ‘em or not. That’s what I tried to do in yesterday’s post regarding recent research reports.
Clearly, the “twits” didn’t get it. For example, one Tweeter says “110 tweets in 1-5 years? Only following 136 ppl? No 2-way comm? I bet #12ntc attendees could help you w/your comm strategy.”
I’m sure they could. On The Agitator, we’ve published more than 1500 daily pieces (always over 140 characters) over 5+ years, followed daily by 5,000+ readers with an average of 10+ years fundraising experience, who have Commented, Forwarded, Re-Tweeted and Linked thousands of times. But if anyone can help us reach even more thoughtful folks like these, we’re mighty open.
What concerns me is not the barbs, but the clutter they create, particularly in the Twitter channel where there is serious stuff to be found.
I received several emails from readers on the merits of the studies we reported on – the main purpose of the post. Some agreed, some disagreed with the analysis. All were serious and helpful.
So keep the comments coming. We’ll even read and digest the ones that exceed 140 characters.
Roger
P.S. Well tri to du a beter job at profing hour posts as wel,b ut we thnk its da taut dat cowntz.
7 responses to “In Defense Of Serious Fundraising Dialogue”
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
My 90 year old grandfather once told me, “the only difference between fundraising today and when I did it is technology. Building personal, relevant relationships with donors will always lead to success.”. He said that in 1991 and was referring to fundraising in the 60’s and ’70’s.
His comments have never been more true. Technology is not the end game.
Real success will come to those that figure out how to leverage new technology to motivate todays donors, but the principles remain the core focus.
Chip Grizzard
Superb comments in today’s article and by fellow long time vendor in the NPO sector Chip. Fundraising is all about relationships!
Relationships since biblical times have been based upon communications.
Ironically, every tool mentioned in today’s post from the typewriter to the iPhone have basically been tools to improve communication flow. Just ask any college student how to crowd raise and they will fill you in about the speed the latest tools and applications provide. Hopefully a few of them will become future major gift officers harnessing the latest technology to build strong long term relationships!
Let’s talk. I appreciate some of what you’re saying (though not how you are saying it – regardless of how many characters you use) and think more convo could be good. Send me an email! We could host some great chats that could be valuable to all.
Hi Roger,
Indeed, thoughts before thumbs. But NTEN guides folks to do that, rather than the opposite!
Would love you to attend next year’s conference so you can participate and then share your thoughts! I’d love to have that conversation with you.
All the best,
Nancy
P.S. I’m an NTEN board member but got there because I’m such a loyal fan!
Hey Roger … I’d love to talk man. 🙂
I believe there’s value in social media as a new/upcoming form of two-way communication/engagement (I think you do as well based on your comments mid post).
Good fundraising includes a heavy dose of effective communication and engagement of which social is now a part of.
As with any good communication/marketing plan it takes a lot of elements to create success – direct mail, phone, email, advertising, web content, in person meetings, and now social.
If folks don’t start learning the new medium, figuring out the do’s and don’t, connecting with people and otherwise coming to a point where they understand how to be successful they’ll be stuck “learning” when they should be excelling.
It makes me think of email. By now, you’d think more people in our sector would be VERY good at email communication/marketing, but I still see packed sessions about email at conferences like NTC and Blackbaud’s conference for nonprofits. Didn’t email come out like 50 years ago? 🙂
At the end of the day the 4th Annual Nonprofit Social Networking Benchmark Report is (in my mind) pretty clear about three major things:
1) budgets for social media are still small
2) staffing for social media is still small
3) nonprofits are continuing to grow their networks despite the small budgets and limited staffing
Which is showing folks that social media as a communication channel is still new (relatively). Some org’s have found it to be very effective, but most are still growing their networks, learning and building for the future. And that’s one of the key take aways – nonprofits should be building for the future (in all the spare time they have).
Anyway, seriously, let’s chat (you’ve got my email). I’m officially inviting you to BBCon to do a session with me on social media fundraising 🙂
@franswaa
What’s wrong with social media fundraising?…
If you have a thick skin, do what The Agitator did recently and say something critical about the use of social media for fundraising: In Defense Of Serious Fundraising Dialogue. What happens is this: A lot of 140-character shouting. You are an ignorant…
Hi Roger,
Thanks so much for attending 12NTC. We loved having you there and appreciate you sharing what you learned. We (NTEN) work hard to bring compelling research to the community and appreciate when the effort is recognized.
-Brendan