Next Big Thing: Integration
Fundraising Success says:
“Looking for the Next Big Thing? We’ve got news for you … no matter what the next cool strategy is that emerges for fundraising, the one and only true Next Big Thing is, was and always will be integration. No matter how good something looks, it can’t stand alone; you have to make it a part of your overall program.”
And so they’re hosting a free webinar on Wednesday March 2, 2pm eastern, on integration — Strategies for Seamless Integration Across Fundraising Channels — featuring folks from the Susan Komen for the Cure and the Merkle and Clarity Group agencies.
The webinar will cover:
- What’s working and what the major hurdles are today
- What the top 4 things are you need to focus on to begin the integration transformation
- How to measure the effectiveness of integrated marketing and, most importantly, why the traditional direct marketing metrics are not enough.
Sounds good. And you know how The Agitator feels about integrated marketing!
Tom
One response to “Next Big Thing: Integration”
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
I recently discovered your blog and for the last couple of weeks I have enjoyed it immensely – the New Rainbow Warrior is brilliant.
As a breast cancer survivor I feel compelled to write you about promoting Komen as an example of integration. The organization was pushed to transparency as breast cancer survivors have become more medically, politically and organizationally savvy. Many of us feel that the organization conducts mis-education instead of true education and empowerment. We question that their decisions and actions are guided by loyalty to major donors and advisors (such as pharmacy as insurance) instead of to meeting the needs of women. There are many of us who question if the organization’s primary focus is related to breast cancer or if it is fundraising and organizational supremacy.
Recently, even fans of Komen have questioned the legal fees and heavy handed tactics against small grassroots groups that use “the cure” in their names or events. In an era where we are working toward patient-centered care and improved two-way communication, Komen’s response is frequently “No comment” when questions are raised about organizational inconsistencies, education practices or questionable use of funds. For example in the KFC uproar, KFC engaged in blogosphere and social networking while Komen remained silent.
Just last night I was at a local health policy forum where there was extensive discussion about how important it is for consumers to understand that the purpose of insurance companies is not to support well communities, their purpose is to make money. (I feel that I must add that this was in a conservative rural area and the topic was raised by a vocal anti “ObamaCare” panelist. ) I bring that up because insurance companies and Komen have been questioned about their commitment to wellness if they are investing in fast food and in companies that are generating environmental toxins. Both Komen and the insurance companies have indicated that these investments are the best use of the organizations resources because of the profit involved.
To me, truly integrated organizations are clear in purpose in every action they take. It is not an integrated organization if your fundraising and investment strategies are in conflict with your organization’s stated purpose.
I rarely raise my concerns about Komen. I simply let others know what organizations I support because I feel they are making real progress in education and treatment. However, having read and completely agreeing with your earlier post about Integration, I wondered if you were aware of the whole story of Komen when you raised the organization as a role model of integration.
Thanks again for your thoughtful posts and great content.