Let’s make a wager.  I’m betting there’s no more than one out of every 1,000 disease or health care nonprofits in the world with the guts or leadership to follow the process I’m about to outline. It’s donor-centric but also so very, very counterintuitive to what most organizations would—but should—do. I’m certain (sadly) that my bet’s a sure thing.

Most disease charities, hospitals and healthcare organizations make the unforced error of limiting or jealously guarding who within the organization is entitled to produce certain types of  interactions with patients or folks affected by  a particular disease.

Most commonly,  program specialists or medical experts handle the disease or healthcare information through one communications channel.  Fundraisers ask for money through another channel.

Sadly,  seldom the twain meet.  Consequently, time and energy are wasted. Constituents are cheated and lots of money lost.

What a tragic mistake.  A mistake rooted in failure to understand that for organizations of this type the huge emotional need of both donors and prospects is tied to either the prospect/donor’s health or the health of a loved one. Think about it: no one goes to a hospital or visits a cancer website to give money.

For this reason, a fundraising dollar spent recognizing the existence of this emotion and tapping into it by communicating helpful medical or caregiving information  –without immediately asking for money –is money well spent.  That dollar spent, at a minimum, delivers on your mission.

But, it’s a have your cake and eat it too dynamic because the best way to turn that fundraising $1 into $2 in income is to hold off asking for money until after you’ve delivered value tied to the donor’s real need which is far heavier on emotion than hitting the donate button.

It seems so simple. So why, given today’s technology and CRMs doesn’t every organization draw up their communications/solicitation plans and schedules with this in mind?  Because of the self-preservation nature of functional fiefdoms and the silos that proliferate in most organizations.

Example: An Act of Heroic Heresy

I can see the heads shaking and naysayers neighing in their silos. But if you can change mindsets and eliminate false boundaries and implement this process you’ll likely see:

• A 250% increase in revenue from your website.
• A 90% increase in monthly donors; and …
• A 150% + increase in folks willing to register or signup for more information and engagement.

Let’s get started.

Recommendation #1: Begin by removing the ‘Donate’ button from your homepage and just about everywhere else on your site. Unless users of your website are hiring it to make their giving of money easier, ‘donating’ is not a Top Task on health charity websites.

Ah, I can hear the screams of ‘heresy’ already. All those blogs. All that misinformed, non-empirical advisory bullshit indicating the ‘donate’ button must be prominent and frequent.

Here’s the reason why I’m suggesting something far different. And it’s related to Recommendation #2.

Recommendation #2: Find out — as in survey, talk to users of your website and other communications — what Top Tasks the users want your site and communications to enable or perform. Chances are their priorities aren’t at all what you think.

At this point by way of a proven example, enter The Norwegian Cancer Society and a fundraiser-led reorganization of their communication/website design.

Convinced they weren’t realizing the potential of the web for fundraising and public education; the Society hired the consulting firm Netlife and together they set out on the task to remake their website.

They built it based on user feedback indicating top needs.  Ah, but people don’t know what they need, 95% of thoughts are subconscious, System 1 (or is it 2?) and people don’t do what they say, blah, blah, blah.   These are all, at best, half-truths and gross oversimplifications from those with a thimble full of knowledge mistaking it for an ocean.  These urban legends exist to smooth the glidepath of a “do it the way we’ve always done it” world.

Before I report what happened, a bit of background. The ‘old’ society website had 4,000 pages. Between 40 and 50 people in the organization could post content. There was no central editorial control on what content went in, what came out, or in what order.

So far, sound familiar?

At this point the scenario changed dramatically from what most of us have experienced. The Society and Netlife gathered all the stakeholders —I call them silos — and they agreed they should really ask the users what mattered. They drew up a list of 70+ ‘tasks’ they thought the website performed.

Then they asked actual website users to vote on what features were the most important to them. Here’s what they found in order of user priority:

Top Tasks:

1. Treatment
2. Symptoms
3. Prevention
4. Research

Tiny Tasks– at the bottom of the priority list:

1. Donations
2. Gifts
3. Annual report
4. Press releases

That’s right. Out of 70+ tasks, users voted ‘donations’ as about the 66^th most important priority.

So … fighting a tidal wave of denial, the group met again, discussed the finding, and agreed (there was a lot of gnashing of teeth, lest I over-simplify this stage) they would remake the website to reflect the users’ priorities.

Here’s what they did:

• Everyone representing a silo within the organization signed a contract promising to abide with the ‘new rules.’
• The site was reduced from 4,000 pages to 1,000 pages.
• Whereas 40 members of the staff were authorized to post content before the reforms were made, today only 5 people can add, modify, or delete content.

Here’s how Beate Sørum, head of Digital Fundraising for the Society during this project, summarized this extraordinary adventure:

• What was obvious was that donating was not a top task for people who visited the website.
• In trying to get more donations, the traditional approach would be to devote much of the space on the homepage and other major pages to asking for donations.
• The logic goes that the less attention people are paying the harder we must work to attract it. And that is in fact how the old homepage for the Cancer Society looked. It had lots of banner ads asking for donations and support.
• The new approach is very different. It now focuses on helping people get the information they need (treatment, symptoms, research) as quickly as possible. There are no banner ads for donations.
• This is true customer/donor-centric design — putting the needs of the donor/customer front and center. In appropriate places, such as on research pages, there are carefully phrased requests for donations. Why? Because if someone is reading about research, then it is appropriate to ask them in that context.

“So Beate”, the Agitator asked in an interview, “How has this worked out for you?”

• Year over year comparisons of giving on the old website versus the new find the new producing 200% and possibly more than the old. (The exact increase will be known when all year-end gifts are tallied.)
• An 88% increase in monthly (sustainer) contributions.
• Average gift is up and, even more significantly, the conversion rate (web browsers to web donors) is up. Conversion rates from their Christmas appeal were 13% overall … 10% by mobile … 17% by tablet … 13% by desktop.
• Perhaps most important of all, by sharply focusing the site to meet users’ top needs the Society has reached its strategic goal of making the Norwegian Cancer Society the most trusted name where the issue of cancer is concerned. {You can see Beate’s explanation of the process here. )

And you’ll find your pot of gold–and  not only at the end of the website rainbow. All your communications and fundraising efforts will be enhanced as soon as you understand what your constituents and donors want AND as soon you can kill the mindset where one department thinks its content is sacrosanct and thinks the other stuff is just fundraising.

In short, the best way to raise money is not to repeatedly slap your constituents upside the head with a red DONATE demand. Instead recognize the reality of what he or she needs and wants.  The giving will follow.

Roger