queer ideas

What can we learn from Lord Grade?

Last week, I shared a few thoughts in Third Sector, about Lord Grade's views on fundraising. You probably read about his interview in The Sunday Times and may well have heard his speech at the IoF gala dinner.

What follows is a slightly more detailed piece on my take on his point of view and what we can learn from it. I've decided to share it here, because I received some very strong confidential emails thanking me for saying what I did - but no public comments.  I'm getting the impression that many people actually feel worried about speaking out against the current consensus, so I've added a vote at the end. If you'd like to share your view – completely anonymously – please take a few seconds to let me know what you think.

Because if you listened to the response around the IoF convention and on Twitter, you'll know that it reflected a less than positive take on his comments. "Unhelpful", "patronising" and "condescending" were some of the more diplomatic adjectives on offer.

But could there be something positive in what Lord Grade had to say?

Perhaps.

At university, I attended a few lectures given by Professor Sir Roland Smith, then chairman of British Aerospace. I took away a very important point that he made about communications: it’s not necessarily what people say that matters; it’s what they actually mean that counts.

The fundraising crisis that burst across our front pages last year was not a complete surprise. It was heralded by an increasing amount of negative feedback from donors that was eventually reflected in the media.

These weren’t complaints about grassroots work. Instead we saw a stream of dispiriting remarks, comments and articles about how charities were run.  About large salaries, high administration costs and aggressive fundraising techniques.

We took those donors at their word and responded by justifying those activities. Explanations were given about the need for competitive pay and how effective fundraising actually is. The "one bad apple" defence was employed (perhaps too often). And it was also suggested that all anyone had to do if they didn’t want to give, was to say "no thanks" or drop that appeal letter in the bin.

These responses failed to change anything, because they did not address the fundamental concerns of donors – that they are unhappy about how fundraisers treat them and make them feel.

It’s interesting that when Lord Grade highlighted this point by reminding us that donors were also consumers, his analogy was a Scrabble app that disturbed his enjoyment of the game by regularly flashing up ads. Of course, he could have paid for a version that was ad free, but perhaps he didn’t know one existed? Instead, he became irritated about the fact that the game developers used ads to try to earn a living from their work.

Could it be that fundraisers are facing a very similar problem? I think I’m safe in saying that we all want improved medical treatments, organisations to protect everything we hold dear and an end to poverty. But perhaps, as with Scrabble apps, people now expect these services for next to nothing?

But why has this happened?

I’ve long thought that the proliferation of repeated requests for gifts of £2 or £3 has significantly underpriced our work. Such small gifts make giving easy. The sums are so small that, to many people, they hardly matter.

The fact is, giving can and should be enjoyable. And anyone who thinks that the future of fundraising can be built with techniques that simply make it easy is dangerously myopic. The commercial world has known for a long time that everyone values better treatment. Even Michael O'Leary of RyanAir eventually realised he had to stop treating his customers so badly. They may have come for low prices. But they certainly didn't stick around to 'enjoy' the customer service.

And that’s why Lord Grade might have done us a favour. He’s reminded us that as consumers, we will pay for what we need and what we value. This is particularly important when payment is voluntary – as with his Scrabble app and with anyone’s gift to charity.

Our focus has to be on building relationships that donors actually want. And to that end, we must focus on making giving emotionally rewarding. Because, at the end of the day, that’s the type of feeling that people will actually pay for. The growing interest in mid-value fundraising recognises this very fact. But our goal should be to treat all donors like our wealthier ones.

I think Fundraising Regulator board member Lucy Caldicott summed it up quite well when she suggested that we’ll know we are doing something right when Lord Grade welcomes fundraisers knocking at his door with open arms.

I think she may well be correct.

Avoid stone age fundraising techniques

The Super Fundraiser seemed to go down well, so here's her nemesis - The Neanderthal Fundraiser.

Where the Super Fundraiser focuses on answering donor needs, our Stone Age chum is driven by a burning desire to get as many donors on board as possible - even with the knowledge that many won't stick around to give more than once or twice.

The neanderthal might look big and powerful, but that tiny brain puts them at a disadvantage. The shift from hunting and gathering to cultivation and farming changed society. It's the same for fundraising. Great stewardship of engaged donors will always win in the end.

What makes a Super Fundraiser?

In the face of the UK's fundraising crisis, lets not forget there are some super fundraisers out there. This is what I think makes them special.

The return of how fundraising works

As the first part seemed to go down well, we can have a sequel. This time with a few suggestions from your side of the screen.

Thanks for sending them in. For many, it seems it was a chance to indulge in a little therapy and help put a few frustrations to rest.

I've re-formatted some of the suggestions to make them easier to read (and done a little re-wording), but that's about it. I was particularly pleased that Dick and Jane made an appearance from the other side of the Atlantic.

If you'd like to have a go, send me your ideas and If we get enough, we may go for a third edition. Otherwise they will go up on my Twitter stream. Here's a good selection of illustrations to use as base material. As before, Chatham House Rules apply.

 

Your grandmother is a better fundraiser than you are

Yes. That’s right. No matter how many years you’ve been working in fundraising, no matter how many books you’ve read or how many tests you’ve been involved in, your grandmother (or mum) is instinctively a better fundraiser than you.

She just knows that life is better for everyone if we all do three simple things.

1. Be nice

Be aware of other people’s feelings. Say thank you. Show that you’re grateful. Don’t keep asking for things.

I’m sure you’ve all heard those suggestions many times as you were growing up. But the fact is, they are also very important in building and maintaining relationships with donors.

We undertook a simple test for one of our clients recently where we assessed the impact of introducing a highly personalised thank you instead of sending a (good) computer generated letter.

The group that received the personalised thank you, gave 16% more over the subsequent 12 months than the control.

2. Tell the truth

Be honest about everything. Fundraising shouldn’t be about tricking donors into giving to you. If you only want a £3 gift, that’s great. If you want to call those donors up and ask them to give a direct debit, that’s fine too. But dropping people into a never ending upgrade programme based on the fact that they struggle to say no to multiple asks is questionable at best.

Yes, it may bring in more money in the short-term. But what impact will it have on how they feel about your charity and the sector as a whole?

And be very careful about value exchange devices. I mean the sort of promotion where you offer a booklet or something free if someone sends in a text or emails you. Particularly if, all along, you have the primary intention of getting their details just to ask them for a regular gift.

Be aware that some donors are starting to complain about these tactics. If the sector is still under scrutiny, I wouldn’t be surprised if this became a focus of press attention.

So, if you wouldn’t feel comfortable about justifying your strategy to a journalist, give very careful consideration before using this type of technique.

3. It’s good to share

People give to you because they want to solve a problem. They want to stop something bad from happening. They want to be part of a change in society. Remember this. Share successes with your donors like they are theirs - not yours. That’s how you build loyalty, reduce attrition and raise more funds.

And if you doubt me, why not ask your grandmother (or mum) what she thinks. She’s the only fundraising guru you’ll ever need.

If you'd like a copy of the image in a hi-res format for printing out, you can download a PDF by clicking here.

The fundraising paradox

Keep your communications in the purple zone and you won't go far wrong.

Update: This little diagram has really taken off, so I've produced two higher resolutions versions that you can have (no registration required). They are suitable for printing out or dropping in to your own blogs or websites or whatever. And please make sure you click on the words beneath your favourite design.

 
Click here to download the 3D button version           Click here to download the chalk board version

The 2014 fundraising decision making flow chart

At the heart of any fundraising programme lies a plan.

That plan identifies an audience, details what they will receive, through what communication channels, timings and what actions the recipients will hopefully take.

They can be hefty documents akin to a telephone directory or something a little more accessible. The Children's Society for example, has been able to refine their fundraising strategy to the point where it fits on a business card.

But no matter what size, a plan is essential. And if you are currently looking at your charity's fundraising plan for the next financial year, you might find this flowchart useful. We use a similar one at Bluefrog to help charities break free of the but that's how we've always done it syndrome.

As you'll see, if you have legions of fully committed donors who give to every appeal and have pledged huge legacies you carry on just as you are.

But if your charity's income is flatlining or in decline, if your second gift rate is poor, if your expensive new donors are leaving you, if your direct debit attrition rate is far too high or your legacy pool is shrinking, this flowchart might just help you to make a very difficult decision.

To do something different.

All too often, change (at either a tactical or strategic level) is doing the same thing in a different guise.

After all, a request for a cash gift, a direct debit, an SMS gift or even a legacy is still just a request for a gift.

As a result, many strategic plans are often underpinned by fundamentally very small changes which result in simply asking for a gift in a slightly different way. Perhaps three of the most popular approaches are...

• Asking for smaller gifts
• Asking more often
• Asking people to give to a different area of work (often following a rebrand)

And because the strategic change is so small, it rarely generates much positive impact. As a result, it can be soon forgotten and another round of consultation takes place that will have the much the same result.

So what change will make a difference? What can be done without a major strategic overhaul that can make a real difference to the bottom line?

Here are four suggestions that are worth looking at.

1. Put recruitment and development in the same team

It can seem a sensible division to make. One team focuses on recruitment. Then once the new donor is signed up, they are handed over to the development team who manage the relationship from then on.

The trouble is, if you are judged on how many people you bring through the door and at what cost, you might not be that focused on the long-term potential of your new recruits. The result is that the development team can find themselves struggling with donors who simply aren't interested in any sort of relationship.

All acquisition should be focused on donors that are going to keep on giving. By having recruitment and development as part of a single process, the focus remains very firmly on the long-term.

2. Thank well

One of the simplest ways to improve retention is to look at your thanking programme. Keep your thank you letters fresh and different. Keep updating them and make them relevant to each appeal. And thank in real time too. If you have an email address on file consider thanking donors twice – once via email as soon as the cheque arrives and then by post as soon as your systems allow. And whenever you can, add a handwritten comment. It makes a huge difference to lifetime value.

And don't forget the telephone either. Penelope Burke found that donors who received a thank you call within 24 hours of the receipt of their gift were 39% more likely to give again than those who weren't called.

3. Asking again when you thank

Don't be frightened of offering people an opportunity to give again in thank you letters. It might not be for everyone, but I've seen response rates of up to 26% from a well constructed thank you. This piece on asking again from Derek Glass is worth a read. It can dramatically improve life time value and retention.

4. Don't make giving easy. Make it attractive.

There's a great deal of talk about making giving easy. Of giving people the chance to give without hassle. A very low value ask, a simple click button on a website or a text giving option can all help in driving response. But don't stop there. Rather than build strategies around making giving easy, focus on what will make giving attractive. The question that any great fundraiser needs to answer is  what will encourage a donor to give more?

This is not a strategy



Nor is this...


Great fundraising isn't about reducing the amount you ask for until it means so little to the donor that they simply don't care about handing it over. Nor is it about asking again until the donor feels uncomfortable saying no.

It's about engagement.

It's about finding a point of connection that resonates with your audience.

It's about creating that spark of understanding in your donor that giving brings joy.

It's about keeping that spark alive and watching it burst into flames as you show your donors that giving is one of the most enjoyable things they can do.

Any idiot can ask someone for a few pounds or dollars. What's hard is showing someone that their donation is worth far more to them than its cash value.

Note: All images adapted from Scott Adams' Dilbert series. Words are mine.

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.

Do you really want to be a cliché?

Jeff Brooks has recently written about the impact of re-branding on fundraising and included some hard facts based on his first-hand observations.

He covered the four areas that are usually included in any new comms director's re-brand strategy and shared the following:

• Changing the logo generally has no financial impact.
• Changing the graphic standards (we'd call this changing the visual identity) has a small negative impact.
• Changing the organisation's name leads to a 25% to 50% loss of revenue.
• Changing the cause identification leads to a 20% to 30% loss of revenue.

As you can see, Branding is a risky business, so as soon as someone mentions that a re-brand might be on the agenda, I always recommend they have a quick flick through Don't Mess with the Logo (and yes, there is a clue in the title). It helps cut through all the nonsense and jargon that makes the subject seem so mysterious and will help you identify whether you are working with someone who knows what they are doing or someone who might leave you with a shiny new brand book but also a hole in your balance sheet.

And even if you haven't got time to read the book, here's a game that you can play when your new logo is finally revealed that serves the same purpose. It's called spot the cliché and is based on the the top ten most overused visual ideas in branding as identified by the authors, Jon Edge and Andy Milligan. It comes with the following advice:

"Make sure the designers you use are not just throwing one of these at you."

1. The aperture or gateway – basically an excuse to stick stuff in the 'O' or any part of your name.

2. The simple geometric shape.

3. The 'person shaped-figure'. This is usually sold with the explanation that 'people engage more with people than type' (which means your name is sh*t and so let's make it into a friendly face or little man – a bit like seeing dragons in cloud formations).

4. Lower case.

5. The colon or asterisk.

6. The globe.

7. The non-logo – an excuse to use a new typeface bought for another client that didn't use it.

8. The unique colour route (almost always purple).

9. The ripped-off logo not used any more from Los Logo book or from 10 years ago.

10. Using/emphasising a misspelling, use of a z or an x – or flipping a letter backwards or upside down.

They also include a few sketches to help you spot some of the more obvious examples.

Jeff asked readers with contradictory experience to share their stories. So far his comment stream is blank. Maybe our experience in the UK is different, so if you have increased your revenue directly beacuse of a re-brand it would great to hear about it.