queer ideas

The case against the case for support

On the face of it, the case for support should be the key organisational tool for fundraisers, but having seen a fair number over my working life, I'd question how many are actually fit for purpose.

Tim Seiler, Director of the Fund Raising School at Indiana University and author of Developing Your Case for Support has provided my preferred definition of what we should expect from a case for support...

"The case statement focuses on or highlights factors that are critical in arguing for gift support and is typically tailored to reflect the needs and interests of the supporter being addressed."

Which leaves me wondering why do so many charities fail to take into account the reasons why donors give when preparing their own particular case? And instead end up creating an internally focused document that defines what the organisation does and why.

To me, that's not a case for support. It's the basis of a strategic plan. Not something that too many donors are interested in. Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang describe this situation rather well in Fundraising Principles and Practice...

"Too often case expressions are written from the perspective of the organisation, containing jargon and reasons that make perfect sense to those working inside the organisation but that have little relevance for donors or others viewing the organisation from the outsider's perspective."

As a result of this internal focus, the case for support will often cover a huge raft of information, including need, core beliefs, vision, the role of the charity, the 'unique selling point', the personality, the key services and – if you are lucky – even a little on the role of the donor.

Try translating that into an effective fundraising offer whilst you're under the watchful eyes of your organisational brand police and you're in for some fun.

I don't understand why it has to be so complicated. If we look at some of the key elements and ask ourselves what they offer donors, I'm not sure if we'd come up with much of an answer.

Even need isn't that important.

Alex Spanos, is a U.S. Billionaire who each year gives millions to a whole range of different causes. When he was interviewed about how he chooses what to support, he placed need firmly into context.

"I never give because I think there is a need. There are lots of needs. I give because its a programme I'm interested in and I think I can make a real difference."

And he's right. Even when we feature life or death stories our DM recruitment response rates remain pitifully low.

I'm not saying we can forget need. Far from it. It is essential. But there is so much need, it's simply not a point of real differentiation.

Moving on to the vision. This obviously can be inspirational when handled well, but when given too little thought, it can also get in the way.

I remember a number of years ago, being presented with a new strategic direction for a charity. There was a new case for support and we were charged with making it work for fundraising.

As part of the process, we visited a number of projects to gather information to use in appeals. At each project, we asked to see examples of the new approach in action and every single person we met said the same thing, "We haven't started that work yet."

It was Henry Ford who said that "you can't build a reputation on what you're going to do." But we still had to get appeals out and I ended up producing packs that were written for two audiences – the comms team and the donor. I doubt either of them was really happy with what they received.

And when it comes to the old favourite of the 'unique selling point' (USP), charities often seem to focus on an attribute that's unique rather than one that will help to sell the cause. Just because a charity can identify one aspect of its work that other similar organisations aren't promoting, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to adopt it as a key strategic platform.

A USP only matters if it matters to the donor.

So what should a charity do when building a case for support for fundraising from individuals?

To start off, I'd recommend that any team working on this particular problem should write Tim Seiler's definition on the whiteboard and refer to it constantly throughout the process. I'd then suggest that three key areas are worth concentrating on.

1. What can you offer donors that other charities don't, can't or won't?

This obviously covers far more than the opportunity to tackle a need. We know that donors value some elements of their relationship with a charity above others. This should be our starting point and might include...

• The opportunity to see how their money has made a difference.
• A means to demonstrate to others what they believe in or are part of.
• The chance to fund a specific area of work.
• Direct access to those helped.
• Invites to social events.
• Control over the relationship and communications received.

This post is also worth a read.

2. How can you make your appeal as emotionally rewarding as possible?

This might require featuring a specific areas of work or certain beneficiaries – which when looking at any charity working with people, will normally be children. Unfortunately any other group rarely offers the emotional rewards of helping a child.

I'm not saying that it isn't impossible to build an effective case for support that focuses on adults. It's just very hard work. When Bluefrog built lendwithcare.com for CARE International as a means for people to directly fund entrepreneurs in developing countries it was the result of almost two years of extensive research and planning. The result is an inexpensive means to recruit donors with over 50% of all lenders donating to CARE as well. We also found ourselves on the receiving end of some significant corporate support.

We were rewarded by fundamentally changing the offer in response to what donors actually wanted from a charity.

3. How can you allow your donors to be part of the narrative?

You obviously want to build a relationship with donors that brings them closer to your charity. This has two key benefits. First it will help you raise more money and second, it might encourage your donors to want to learn more about your charity (which, funnily enough, is what your comms team actually wants).

So rather than focus on the macro-story of your organisation, try articulating your work through a series of micro-stories that people can become part of.

By identifying a small number of beneficiaries or staff who agree to help you demonstrate to donors what their money is doing you'll build a group that have a real stake in fundraising. Your focus will mean that the information you gather will be of a higher quality and the subsequent impact on the donors far greater.

Couple this with offering donors the chance to do a little more, such as sending beneficiaries greetings cards (as in the case of child sponsorship) and you'll find that loyalty and response rates significantly improve.

Which, at the end of the day, is what any good fundraising programme should have as its goal. And if your case for support isn't helping you achieve this perhaps it's time to have a look at the case for writing a new one.

Five things we can learn about fundraising from DJ David 'Ram Jam' Rodigan

If you saw David Rodigan walking down the street, you might imagine he was a bank manager or an accountant. He's a bespectacled 59 year-old who hasn't got much hair left, but see him on stage with a couple of turntables and you'll start to understand why he's lasted so long in a business that that always seems to be looking for the next new thing. 

So what can we, in the fundraising world, learn from him?

Here are five things about his approach that I think makes him different - and successful. All of which are demonstrated in a 1 minute 21 second video clip (recorded late last year by @misterkoop in a club just around the corner from the Bluefrog offices).

1. He concentrates on delivering just what his audience wants

We all have favourite parts of a record and can't wait until we get to 'the good bit'. 

As you'll see, if there's something that the crowd likes, David simply rewinds and plays it again and again and again. He gives his 'customers' just what they want - as many times as they want.

It's the same for fundraising.  When we communicate, we should do the hard work and make sure we give our donors what they want – over and over again. Donors tell us that what matters to them is knowing what impact their gifts have had. 

But too many charities talk generally about their work. They make donors fish through brochures, websites or mailing packs for the few gems of information that provide them with what they are looking for.

2. He's passionate

David doesn't hide behind the decks like most DJs. He runs around and spends time at the front of the stage dancing and singing. He shows his audience that he's just like them and loves the music as much as they do.

As a result, they get to know him as a person.

As fundraisers, we shouldn't hide our passion beneath formal language and corporate style brands. We should share it with our donors. Our role is not to be balanced. Our role is to be like our donors and champion the causes we care about.

3. He knows his audience wants to be part of his show

As you watch the video, you'll see that the volume is turned up and down giving the audience the chance to join in.

Donors are the same. Few want to be passive cheque signers. A surprising number want to have a chance to show they are part of your organisation.

A short while ago we offered donors to one charity a selection of devices they could use to demonstrate they were part of the organisation. Over 90% of responders donors requested one.

4. He shares

Throughout his show, David tells you the name of the track he's playing or shares short stories about when he first heard a song. Sometimes he holds up a vinyl 12-inch record sleeve to demonstrate that he's bringing you the original version.

Some DJs don't like people to know the names of the tracks they are playing. I've seen people go as far as sticking white paper over a label so others can't 'copy' them. Not David. After a show, you've got the names of some new singers or bands to go and listen to.

It's the same for charities. One of the reasons why I write this blog is to share good and bad ideas so fundraisers will have a better idea of what is worth copying and what isn't. If you've tested an idea that has failed, be brave and let other charities know (you can do a guest post here if you'd like). As a sector we are pretty good at this, but I still see too many examples of organisations copying 'bad' ideas and paying the price.

5. He asks his audience what they think

Throughout the show David asks for 'signal' about different records. In short, he's asking people if they like what he's playing. If it's a big yes, they get some more. If it's not so big, maybe the record won't get played as often or for as long. He's constantly keeping an eye on what works for his audience and responding.

As fundraisers we should be constantly assessing our appeals and judging whether we are pleasing donors. Our biggest signal is more income. Donors tend to vote with their cheques and credit cards. The more money we raise, the more we have pleased our donors.

But they can let us know what they want in other ways too. Whether it's formal surveys or analysing the one-on-one conversations that staff have with donors, we should never stop listening.

And then we should test whether other donors might like the idea too. A few vocal individuals (or staff) might not be representative of your whole supporter base. David learns from the crowd as much as from individuals. We should do the same.

Protect the donor

We all know the old adage, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves, but it should probably be extended to supporters too. Because if we take care of our donors, we won't need to worry about income targets.

That might sound brave or foolish (or both), but following the launch of Animal Protector for WSPA, it should ring true.

Animal Protector has been built using Bluefrog's uSpace donor loyalty engine. If you'd like to know how uSpace works, I featured it in this previous post and others have mentioned it too.

Animal Protector was created in response to WSPA's desire to improve donor retention. It aims to build a relationship with regular givers by showing them exactly how their donations are protecting animals. Through regular updates, supporters can see projects unfold and get to know some of the animals they care so much about.

But more importantly, it gives people a chance to interact with WSPA and define themselves as supporters – in a way that works best for them.

Because if there is one thing we've learned as we've moved from the first generation of uSpace to the second, is that choice is important to donors. But not in the way that many people might think.

WSPA works with a wide range of animals in many different parts of the world, and it seems obvious that one way to enhance a donor's relationship with the charity is to allow them to choose to fund work that benefits a favourite species.

It's obvious. But it's wrong. Donors may have a preference, but that doesn't mean they want to fund work that only benefits that type of animal (if they did, there are many species-specific charities they could easily discover on Google).

By choosing one specific creature, donors have to say no to others. And that can make people feel uncomfortable, particularly when their primary aim is to stop cruelty to ALL animals.

So rather than ask people to choose just one project, we gave them the opportunity to align themsleves with their favourite animal in a different way – by customising their Animal Protector site.

When people sign up, they are presented with different menus, one of which allows them to choose their masthead...

 

 

I've chosen a cow, but if people prefer a bear or a dog, they can choose that header instead. All the time knowing that they are helping all animals...

 

As you'll see, the logo also changes to match donor choice. It's based on a human thumbprint, but developed to represent each animal through the use of the relevant paw or footprint. Donors can use this as their default avatar, but many are uploading pictures of their own pets or animals they have seen in the wild. We've examples of everything from dogs to bears, to ducks to tortoises. And, shock horror, some donors are even uploading photographs of themselves. It's going to be very interesting to look at how the type of avatar relates to giving behaviour.

But choice doesn't stop there. Supporters can also choose a travel wallet or keyring that publicly demonstrates their commitment.

And those people who don't think that donors are interested in these devices, might be interested to hear that over 90% of donors who are signing up are actively requesting them.

And of course, donors can share their opinions too. Each post is accompanied by a growing list of comments. This is perhaps the most exciting (and rewarding) part of the project as donors are showing just how much they value being an Animal Protector and the the insight that goes with it.

A comment from one particular supporter, that summed up the sentiment behind many of the thoughts being shared, simply said...

"Thankyou to those in the midst of this wonderful rescue work for their dedication to animals that come in to their care. The animals can't say "thank you" themselves so I will say it for them. They send you lots of love."

However, I've left the best to last. The site has only been live for a week or two, and has already attracted thousands of supporters. But one of the most interesting side-effects of offering this combination of self-definition and in-depth feedback has been the number of people who have upgraded.

When we launched the site, we simply wanted to get as many people as possible to join. But donors have been so happy to know their money is making such a big difference that almost 8% of current regular givers who signed-up have chosen to upgrade their gift without even being asked.

See what I mean about income targets looking after themselves?

If you'd like to know more, why don't you sign up for yourself and see just how rewarding being an Animal Protector can be? Just click here to find out more.

When to choose choice

Choice is becoming a buzzword in fundraising. But just how important is it?

Over the last few years, organisations like Kiva, DonorsChoose and CRUK (with MyProjects) have done rather well by offering people a chance to decide how their donations are used. Kiva, which launched in 2005, has generated over $200 million for people working their way out of poverty. DonorsChoose, which is only two years older, has generated over $77 million for schools in need of teaching materials. And CRUK has over 400 individual fund raising pages and 23 project pages which have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds.

But is choice the key factor that lies behind this level of fundraising success?

There are a number of charities that have built websites around the offer of choice who haven't been quite so successful.

Take FORGE for instance. I wrote a piece about this charity back in 2008 on how they came unstuck when they focused on offering online donor choice as a means to raise funds.

See The Difference, who do some great social networking activity to promote their site, also seem to be struggling (see this post for more thoughts on their approach to fundraising). If you look at their most funded projects on their website, few have generated more than a thousand pounds.

And My Action For Children which generated a massive amount of hits from press advertising and celebrity tweets seems to have converted just a tiny percentage to donors. Sign-ups just one month later have dwindled to a trickle.

I believe the different levels of success seen by the two sets of examples is down to something other than choice.

Kiva is fundamentally different. It asks people to lend - not give. And though a supporting donation is suggested (to fund the work of the KIva organisation) this is discretionary. In effect, you are not giving to charity as you can get your money back. As we've seen in the UK with Lend With Care, this is an offer that people find different and attractive. Add feedback on the impact of your loan and fantastic celebrity and corporate support (most notably that offered by YouTube) and you have a financial success on your hands.

DonorsChoose has also benefitted from celebrity support. But at its heart it offers something very special – great feedback. Though they will accept any size of gift, DonorsChoose prompts donors to give $100 by promising them a feedback pack from the school they help. This pack contains a letter from a teacher along with drawings, thank you notes and photographs from the children who've benefitted from the donor's gift. DonorsChoose encourage schools to get really creative with these packs and see them as so important that if a school fails to provide them to donors they can be excluded from the site. The other stroke of genius of the DonorsChoose model is that they also offer a thank you pack to everyone who gives a closing gift. So if a project has just a few dollars needed to hit target, the donor who makes up the shortfall - even if it really is just ten or twenty dollars – gets a thank you pack as well.

Take a look at CRUK's MyProjects and you see two main types of donation – gifts in memory and gifts in response to personal fundraising pages. In this respect it is not that dissimilar to JustGiving. The most successful of the projects on MyProjects is the Santander staff fundraiser for mobile cancer awareness units. Santander staff have been encouraged to raise money for CRUK with the promise that if they hit a certain target they will be eligible for a trip to Brazil to help renovate a school. MyProjects has simply functioned as an online means for them to run personal fundraising activities (see what I mean about it being just like JustGiving?).

If choice was that important to donors, thousands of tiny niche charities would be doing much better. If someone wanted to offer support for disabled children in London for instance, all they need to do is type those words into Google and they'd be presented with a long list of organisations that would love a donation. And more to the point, they would probably all offer a more rewarding and personal experience of giving than can be had when you donate to the national charities you'd find bidding on those search terms through AdWords.

And here's another example of why I think that choice is only a small part of the route to better fundraising.

I started out my fundraising career at ActionAid (about twenty years ago) where I worked on a product called ProjectAid.

ActionAid raised most of its income through child sponsorship. Supporter feedback and research told us that people loved knowing how their money changed a child's life. It also told us that some people found sponsorship expensive and others found it 'emotionally unattractive'.

We took a few logical steps and the end result was ProjectAid. We'd ask the donor to sign up to a regular gift and every four months we'd send them details of projects in need of funding. They could choose the one they wanted to support and we'd then report back on how work was progressing. I still have the first recruitment piece we ever produced and, as you can see, It's not that far from the 'game changing' ideas of crowd funding that we see today. Just on paper rather than on-line.

We tested it with a variety of media, but it didn't do that well.

But what was particularly interesting was how donors responded to the offer of choice. Most ended up ticking the 'where the need is greatest' box on the donation form. The product eventually was used as a 'drop ask' for people who were interested in child sponsorship but found the price too high. It was superseded by another product that concentrated on providing good feedback, which in the long run was more effective.

I've been involved in offering choice to donors in a number of different ways over the years and found similar results pretty much every time. Some people do value choice (particularly with causes such as cancer research and with high level gifts), but many others were more interested in hearing about need, impact and what they had done to make a difference. As one donor put it (and I paraphrase)...

"You're the experts on this. I just want to know that my money has helped".

In my experience, that's what charities should be focusing on. As I mentioned in a previous post, choice is only important if it is relevant. If it isn't, it can become a chore and actively turn donors off.

And if you are interested in finding out why, you should probably take a look at this study featured in Neuromarketing on choice fatigue.

If used appropriately, choice can probably enhance your offer, but, using the tried and tested (and tired) golfing analogy, it should be one of a number of clubs in your fundraising bag, rather than a single club that you rely on for the whole game.