By now pretty much everyone has heard of the debacle that has befallen Facebook over targeting user profiles in the 2016 Presidential election. It comes at a particularly inopportune time for nonprofits, because very recently Facebook had become a major platform for raising money online.
As any good businessperson knows, it is easier to get a current customer to buy more than it is to acquire a new customer. The analogy in the nonprofit sector is to increase affinity. Affinity can start as volunteerism then culminate as donations, or in peer-to-peer, as fundraising activity.
One of the main tools that we use to motivate people is recognition. Recognition can be delivered in many forms, so deploying recognition for maximum effect takes planning and strategy. One component is almost always the use of email. Recognizing people personally with email is inexpensive, and its effects are measurable.
At Turnkey, we place a premium on analyzing every campaign to provide our clients with the best estimate possible of their return on investment. While reviewing the reports, occasionally someone asks why we report average fundraising of all peer-to-peer participants rather than reporting only the average of peer-to-peer fundraisers (we define a participant as anyone that attends an event hosted by a Non-Profit, and a fundraiser as any participant that raises >$0).
We recently had the pleasure of having lunch with Alan Siegel, a well-known New York City-based brand expert. We had contacted him after reading an article in the New York Times about nonprofits turning to pros like Alan to craft marketing campaigns to sell their causes to donors.
In a recent blog, we wrote about the new tax bill that doubles the standard deduction, effectively reducing the number of taxpayers who itemize deductions from 30 percent to 5 percent, according to experts. That’s a decrease in roughly 30 million households.
We’ve all heard the old saying, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Nonprofits routinely use pictures to communicate their messages to their constituents. Usually, the photos are selected to represent the people who will be helped by supporting the mission of the nonprofit.
Recently we met with a major healthcare nonprofit who was reviewing its fundraising portfolio. Their peer-to-peer campaign had become an unholy mix of walks and runs, often holding runs and walks on the same day, mixing constituents who showed great affinity to their cause with others who showed great affinity to running 5K races.
I recently did a webinar for a major nonprofit preparing to roll out next year’s Walk campaign to its local chapters. There were about 200 chapter directors on the call.
Around the first of each month, I go through my bank’s drive through and get some cash in five and ten-dollar bills. I keep the money in the console of my car to give away to people on street corners asking for assistance when I’m driving around.
A recent blog we wrote titled, Why the Rich are Greedy (and What to Do About It) garnered some interesting responses from readers. The blog cites research that documents that wealthy people give a smaller percentage of the discretionary income to charity when compared with less well-off individuals.
Who is more likely to help out someone in need – a poor person, or someone who is rich? We are inclined to think that the wealthier you are, the more you can reach out to others, so you will do so...Research tells us that the opposite is true - as people become more affluent, their sense of compassion towards others declines.
By now pretty much everyone is aware of the massive tax bill that is expected to be voted into law this week by Congress. If you are a hedge fund manager, you are pretty happy right now. If you are a nonprofit CEO or CDO, well… not so much.
...when it comes to the buttons, ribbons, wristbands, t-shirts – all the stuff that people wear with a nonprofit’s brand – more is not always better. Sometimes, more can be, well – less. Here’s why.
You have a great idea. You run it up the flagpole to leadership. They love it! Then, nothing happens. You wait. You push it up there again. They love it again. They gush over your creativity and forethought. Then, nothing happens.
Most people think that anything that gets people to focus attention on their nonprofit leads to good things happening. Increased attention = increased revenue. And no matter what your mission is, you can find ways to connect with prospective constituents. Facebook, of course, is the biggest fish in the pond.
In a recent blog titled, Why I Care About Your Cause, But Don’t Donate, we wrote about the importance of focusing on the donor, fundraiser, or constituent in order to persuade them to support your nonprofit. If numbers are any indication of relevance, this was one of the most-read blogs that we have ever written. This strategy struck a chord.
Sometimes a nonprofit’s fundraising seems to go into a death spiral. Revenue isn’t just flat, it’s declining. The interventions attempted don’t work, and “big change” ideas won’t fly.
“So much of the general population has this condition, I know that we’ll be able to get a huge percentage activated to fundraise.”
Thus, begins the path to your personal fundraising hell, begat when you first told your CDO what you thought could happen.
In the last few years the term “implicit bias” has gone mainstream, and the idea has infiltrated even the backwoods of Virginia.