Responding To New
Yesterday we posed the challenge of what to do about the reportedly 12 million Boomer prospects who want to start all over by launching their own nonprofits or social ventures.
Do they consider your nonprofit irrelevant or ineffectual? Or don’t they even notice you exist?
Assuming such prospects do knock at your door, how will your nonprofit respond? Suppose someone shows up with a really new and challenging proposition. Then what?
Seth Godin wrote a post the other day suggesting that your organizational culture would pre-determine the outcome.
He says: “If your organization is both pessimistic and operationally focused, then every new idea is a threat. It represents more work, something that could go wrong, a chance for disaster. People work to protect against the downside, to insulate against the market, to be sure that they won’t get blamed for anything that challenges the system.”
In contrast, there’s the organization characterized by “optimistic enthusiasm”.
Godin says: “an organization filled with people who are rewarded for shaking things up and generating game-changing products and services just might discover that outcomes they are dreaming of are in fact what happen. The enthusiasm that comes from believing that this one might just resonate with the market is precisely the ingredient that’s required to make something resonate.”
Regarding that Boomer — which reception will your organization give?
In your nonprofit, are new ideas threats or opportunities?
Tom
3 responses to “Responding To New”
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 duality thinking of threat or opportunity is too simplistic. New ideas are generated by the thousands in a few minutes. No one has the resources to pursue every passing idea – the question is, does a culture exist that encourages discernment of ideas, a vetting – would the idea advance the mission of the business or organization? Is there capacity within the organization to do the vetting and pursuit? Does the organization have an open mind AND ability to act?
There is no end to the limitless needs of the ego, or the generation of ideas. That doesn’t mean they should all be seriously considered and acted on. It is clear that many of our institutions are stuck in place and stopped being effective or irrelevant some time ago. It will be those who have the inspired ability to effect change, either within or without those institutions, that will create the new way of doing business…
Well said, Kay. What does this mean, practically, for governance of nonprofits? Quite practically, perhaps it will be those organizations who budget for “research and development” who will be prepared to implement new ideas — who will have the “ability to act.” Building an endowment ensures the long-term viability of an NGO. Planning for R&D as part of a cycle of business lasting 1 to 3 years (longer?) that is not necessarily part of endowment seems like a good idea. That would require a major cultural shift in the way that many nonprfit organizations and their donors think — and also require a shift in the way charities are “graded” by their boards, the IRS, and charity watchdog organizations. Kate .
My experience in the UK when meeting Baby Boomers in legacy/bequest focus groups seems pretty clear. Baby Boomers just don’t seem to trust traditional non-profits. They trust themselves. 10 years ago this generation would never consider leaving a charity/non profitlegacy; now bucket loads of them want to because they do not trust their children to spend their inheritance wisely. The fact that they trust themeselves most, a charity second and their kids third is challenging to say the least.