Nonprofit Failure Is Too Rare
The past two days, Roger has written (here and here) about innovative ways to test direct mail acquisition packages. He’s also written recently (here and here) about applying predictive modeling techniques to donor prospecting … including tools for smaller organizations.
But how willing, really, are nonprofits to innovate?
Here’s Seth Godin’s take on that subject — Non-profits have a charter to be innovators.
He poses two mindsets:
“We’re doing important work. Our funders count on us to be reasonable and cautious and proven, because the work we’re doing is too important to risk failure.”
Versus …
“We’re doing important work. Our funders count on us to be daring and bold and brave, because the work we’re doing is too important to play it safe.”
Godin urges: “Go fail. And then fail again. Non-profit failure is too rare, which means that non-profit innovation is too rare as well.”
His post focuses on innovation on the program side of nonprofits’ work. But the same applies to the marketing/fundraising side … doesn’t it?
Tom
2 responses to “Nonprofit Failure Is Too Rare”
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
If an organization does not have any bombs in testing, they are not likely to have any big winners either.
And going old school, Peter Drucker said business has two functions: “marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are just costs.”. I agree that innovation has to occur on both the marketing and program side. An innovative culture is created and fostered from the top down. Unfortunately given nonprofit budgets these days, the top is most likely focused on the risk of failure.