The formula for success isn't as simple as dollars in - dollars out = bottom line - particularly for nonprofits working in the area of advocacy or providing direct services.
If you're the boss of an organisation whose only concern is fundraising, then measuring your success is easy. Pick up a pen, grab an old envelope, and write out the following simple equation: {spend x, raise y (over z years)}. Substitute your own figures for x, y and z, and bingo! You now know all you need to know about whether to reward or fire your fundraising manager.
But for organisations that conduct advocacy and/or provide direct services, the challenge of measuring success is very different and almost always much more complex. Perhaps that's why some nonprofits make only the most cursory attempt to do so, whilst others dodge the issue all together.
Scoring election scorecards
I've been thinking about this a lot recently, ever since I received an ‘election scorecard' through my post from a well-known environmental nonprofit. You've probably received one yourself - several nonprofits produced them in the run up to the general election.
As I held the scorecard in my hand, and read through the list of issues the nonprofit wanted me to consider when deciding who to vote for, I couldn't help but wonder: as the various departments allocated precious dollars to this exercise, how many took the time to work out exactly how they would measure its success? And come to think of it, exactly what would constitute a successful scorecard campaign anyway? New supporters? A flood of donations? Or would a slight rise in the profile of the highlighted issues be deemed enough?
It's a question I put directly to the manager who was directly responsible for the scorecard that arrived in my post that day. I asked him to imagine I was his boss, and that I had called him into my office to justify the expenditure on scorecards vs. other campaign devices.
He acknowledged it was a good, if tough, question. His response was to point out that the campaign wasn't about translating the scorecard into votes; it was a service for members and would hopefully raise the profile of the issues highlighted.
"Yes", I said, "that's all very well. But I'm your boss and I need some proof that this was money that couldn't have been spent more productively. So how are you going to measure the success of these two goals?" His answer was, in a nutshell, through anecdotal feedback and media mentions.
Measuring success might be tough - but it is necessary.
I fully appreciate, of course, that environmental nonprofits will always face a tough job measuring the success of profile-raising campaigns. After all, we can't know if a climate change campaign was successful until such time as climate change has been demonstrably arrested - or the last human on earth dies of its affects.
Yet as difficult as measuring success certainly is, I firmly believe that it's part of every good fundraiser's job to come up with ways to do just that. Especially when you are an environmental nonprofit, and your job is to save the planet. There is simply too little money around to waste a single cent on a campaign that doesn't have a real, tangible and measurable impact.
Success for service providers
So it is hard for advocacy nonprofits. But what of service providers? On the face of it, measuring the success of what these organisations do must surely be far easier. For example, let's say you run a helpline, and you've just launched a campaign to raise its profile. If the number of calls goes up in the wake of the campaign, all you have to do is divide the increase by the cost of the campaign, and you've got a figure to measure your success against, yes?
But hang on, what about the quality of the calls? What if the information was not relevant As soon as you go down this qualitative, rather than quantitative, avenue, you realise pretty soon that measuring the success of a service provider isn't as simple as you might have thought.
A case study: Epilepsy Action
So how do you measure outcomes in terms of quality of life? To answer that question, I want to talk to you about Epilepsy Action, a fantastic nonprofit that is very close to my heart. Partly because they were my first client in Australia, partly because a very dear and close friend had a terrifying operation to treat his debilitating epilepsy (it worked by the way). And partly because they have a very thorough approach to quality control: they bend over backwards to measure outcomes.
Carol Welsh from Epilepsy Action told me that after each person is helped, e.g. at a camp or a memory workshop, participants complete surveys and mark how relevant and useful parts of the service were. She explained that: "our staff look at the surveys and then feed into the next activity. Also we use our phone room to call about a month later and ask [participants] questions specifically to see how the service is being delivered."
Carol went on, explaining that at the moment they are "Trying to reach out to people in rural communities to promote services by video."
Sounds sensible, but it gets better. As I write, Epilepsy Action is doing various marketing initiatives to build up a database of relevant people in welfare and health services and network through networking. But get this: "... we measure staff time on each task and evaluate whether it produces the outcome we are expecting." Fantastic stuff - they actually measure staff time against marketing activities that are not just fundraising. Now, how many organisations can say they are doing that?
Measuring outcomes - not just output
I am not an expert on epilepsy, and I imagine there are conflicting approaches to value from services but at least Epilepsy Action is measuring its outcomes (not just outputs) clearly. They have a sound platform upon which to plan and improve their future campaigns and service provisions. What's more, when potential donors ask them exactly what they have achieved for the quality of lives of their beneficiaries, they can give them a direct and demonstrable answer.
Which prompts me to ask once again - how many other advocacy and service providing organisations are able to do that?
Reading this article, you are probably a fundraiser. But ask yourself - are you raising money that is having a good value impact? I am not talking about dollars in, dollars out. I am talking about impact.
One final piece of advice: a great structure to use and evaluate yourself against is Givewell's Impact Analysis. This is not Givewell in Australia (fantastic data gatherers!) - it is Givewell.org in the USA. Check out what constitutes ‘impact' on their website here.
(c) Sean Triner September 2010
(This is my most recent Agitator column published in F&P Magazine E-bulletin.)
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tactics trump Economy
I think there is little doubt now that consumer confidence with regard to the economy in Australia has led to a more challenging fundraising market place. As many predicted, corporate and events fundraising seems to have been hit the most (see previous blogs) and regular giving (automatic payments from credit cards and bank accounts) the least.
But clients and staff at Pareto Fundraising wanted to know about direct mail appeals to warm (donors that have given before). Twenty eight charities agreed to self report their results from tax mailings (around May/June) in 2009 v 2010.
The results showed a total increase in income of about 2% which was much less than Australian inflation (3.1%).
When we looked into why, we saw a decrease in average donations and average response rates. The only reason the total was up was that more people were mailed - ie volumes were up.
Interestingly, about half the charities actually grew and half declined. A key factor in growth seemed to be a shift in tactics - mailing more people, mailing more often, conducting high value donor reminder calls, high value donor packs and using better copy techniques all helped explain growth for many of the charities. Charities that had implemented these tactics in years gone by didn't reap the rewards in additional growth in 2010 but to be fair to them, they were already ahead of the game.
It seems to me that there are only three factors in growing direct mail appeals income:
1) Realise the potential of your current database through what you mail.
Make sure you are doing best practice direct mail that has been around for years, and is in all the books and blogs: Thank properly, target properly, use personal one to one copy, have an engaging case study or story, use specific ask amounts, longer letters, lots of 'lifts' (relevant additional information), seperate response coupons etc.
2) Realise the potential of your current database through how often you mail.
Jeff Brooks (Future Fundraising Now) reckons you should aim to build up to about thirty asks per year. With the size of Australian databases and staff resources, I reckon aiming for at least twelve a year would make more sense. I have never seen a case where mailing more often decreases total income. It is a matter of balancing costs and time for you, rather than pushing donors away.
3) Get more donors. Simple - if you are getting the most of your donors, then get more donors. And now is a great time; many charities are getting their best ever cold direct mail results.
Sean
But clients and staff at Pareto Fundraising wanted to know about direct mail appeals to warm (donors that have given before). Twenty eight charities agreed to self report their results from tax mailings (around May/June) in 2009 v 2010.
The results showed a total increase in income of about 2% which was much less than Australian inflation (3.1%).
When we looked into why, we saw a decrease in average donations and average response rates. The only reason the total was up was that more people were mailed - ie volumes were up.
Interestingly, about half the charities actually grew and half declined. A key factor in growth seemed to be a shift in tactics - mailing more people, mailing more often, conducting high value donor reminder calls, high value donor packs and using better copy techniques all helped explain growth for many of the charities. Charities that had implemented these tactics in years gone by didn't reap the rewards in additional growth in 2010 but to be fair to them, they were already ahead of the game.
It seems to me that there are only three factors in growing direct mail appeals income:
1) Realise the potential of your current database through what you mail.
Make sure you are doing best practice direct mail that has been around for years, and is in all the books and blogs: Thank properly, target properly, use personal one to one copy, have an engaging case study or story, use specific ask amounts, longer letters, lots of 'lifts' (relevant additional information), seperate response coupons etc.
2) Realise the potential of your current database through how often you mail.
Jeff Brooks (Future Fundraising Now) reckons you should aim to build up to about thirty asks per year. With the size of Australian databases and staff resources, I reckon aiming for at least twelve a year would make more sense. I have never seen a case where mailing more often decreases total income. It is a matter of balancing costs and time for you, rather than pushing donors away.
3) Get more donors. Simple - if you are getting the most of your donors, then get more donors. And now is a great time; many charities are getting their best ever cold direct mail results.
Sean
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Counter intuitive ideas
I am blogging live from Pareto Fundraising with Jeff Brooks of Future Fundraising Now fame presenting fundraising ideas to our staff. We are discussing donor retention for mail and email appeals. One advantage Jeff has over us is that his clients have much, much bigger data files so he is able to get more testing done.
Testing is great because lots of best practice fundraising is counter intuitive. For example, longer letters tend to work better, more frequent mailings asking for money increase retention and total lifetime giving, calling people at dinner time and asking them to upgrade their monthly gift works.
If you were to ask donors, in advance - perhaps in a focus group - about the tactics above they would suggest that these tactics won't work. But they do.
So here is a new counter intuitive idea that he says works, and we don't do here.
With the volumes of data available to him, he has been able to test the use of thank you letters as asking delivery mechanisms. This is not done by charities in Australia, and Penelope Burke who wrote Thanks! advises against it. But, according to Jeff, her research is based on opinion through surveys etc. He, however, has tested it on data and over many years has found that it does not increase attrition, but does increase income by 10-15%.
So, if you may appeals and ask for money here are some tips.
1) If you send more than one wave, do not remove donors who give to wave 1 from the subsequent waves. You are reducing your income now and in the future.
2) Test including an additional ask in the actual thank you letter. For example, a tear off option on the thank you letter, or a self mailer envelope. Always include a return envelope.
We have seen some recent success in sending a regular giving ask with thank you letters to newly acquired donors based on an American idea, so this cash ask approach seems an obvious thing to test, even it if feels wrong. More forward thinking charities could try testing a regular giving self mailer or 'pack' which goes out with all thank yous to non-regular givers, not just new donors.
If you try it in the future, or already have - please let me know the outcome!
Sean
Testing is great because lots of best practice fundraising is counter intuitive. For example, longer letters tend to work better, more frequent mailings asking for money increase retention and total lifetime giving, calling people at dinner time and asking them to upgrade their monthly gift works.
If you were to ask donors, in advance - perhaps in a focus group - about the tactics above they would suggest that these tactics won't work. But they do.
So here is a new counter intuitive idea that he says works, and we don't do here.
With the volumes of data available to him, he has been able to test the use of thank you letters as asking delivery mechanisms. This is not done by charities in Australia, and Penelope Burke who wrote Thanks! advises against it. But, according to Jeff, her research is based on opinion through surveys etc. He, however, has tested it on data and over many years has found that it does not increase attrition, but does increase income by 10-15%.
So, if you may appeals and ask for money here are some tips.
1) If you send more than one wave, do not remove donors who give to wave 1 from the subsequent waves. You are reducing your income now and in the future.
2) Test including an additional ask in the actual thank you letter. For example, a tear off option on the thank you letter, or a self mailer envelope. Always include a return envelope.
We have seen some recent success in sending a regular giving ask with thank you letters to newly acquired donors based on an American idea, so this cash ask approach seems an obvious thing to test, even it if feels wrong. More forward thinking charities could try testing a regular giving self mailer or 'pack' which goes out with all thank yous to non-regular givers, not just new donors.
If you try it in the future, or already have - please let me know the outcome!
Sean
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Best Fundraising Resource Online
I have mentioned Jeff Brooks' and his Future Fundraising Now blog before, but here is a reminder about how brilliant it is.
In fact, if you manage fundraisers and they don't subscribe to the blog, you should get them in your office and have a stern word.
At a recent consulting session at World Vision, I mentioned how great it was, and we signed up about a dozen new subscribers there and then - all will be better fundraisers for it!
Recent blogs from Jeff include:
* Why young fundraisers get it wrong
* What to consider before you blog
* Why stories are so important
Not so recent, but brilliant...
* Stupid non profit ads, featuring WWF, Movember, Red Cross Spain, United Methodist Church and more.
Jeff is flying out to Australia next weekend, to present at the F&P conference (and spend a day with Pareto staff having some fun) - if you are in Sydney 1 & 2 September, come along to the conference and see him live. But whatever happens, please subscribe to his blog!
Sean
In fact, if you manage fundraisers and they don't subscribe to the blog, you should get them in your office and have a stern word.
At a recent consulting session at World Vision, I mentioned how great it was, and we signed up about a dozen new subscribers there and then - all will be better fundraisers for it!
Recent blogs from Jeff include:
* Why young fundraisers get it wrong
* What to consider before you blog
* Why stories are so important
Not so recent, but brilliant...
* Stupid non profit ads, featuring WWF, Movember, Red Cross Spain, United Methodist Church and more.
Jeff is flying out to Australia next weekend, to present at the F&P conference (and spend a day with Pareto staff having some fun) - if you are in Sydney 1 & 2 September, come along to the conference and see him live. But whatever happens, please subscribe to his blog!
Sean
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Very clever stuff
How clever is this? My colleague at Pareto Fundraising is trying to tell me to move on I think. But check this out, and think about how you could use this technology to communicate with your donors or customers.
Sean Triner is about to become Australia's Prime Minister
Sean Triner is about to become Australia's Prime Minister
Friday, August 6, 2010
Ted Hart at Pareto Fundraising
Digital Integration, Ted Hart
Following Kate from Google, Ted Hart from p2pfundraising.org is telling us all about social media and fundraising.
Some key points:
- for all the technology out there, it doesn't change the fact that people give because they are asked. Online you kneed to ask or you can't fundraise.
- it is all about integration. You need a real strategy; these free tools - Google, Facebook etc are free but they are not the strategy.
- Think about your donors. He says that, in Canada (and probably same here) only 30% of online donors are gen X. Nearly all the other 70% were born before 1962.
- Regardless of how good your online stuff is, it is no good if you are not an organisation that looks after donors, and understands the importance of relationships
- Whatever you do or don't do online, on social networking sites someone else is talking about you. And on these sites people have a desire to connect.
- Good communications online give you an instant larger audience - if they are good communications they could get forwarded
- True measure of a fundraising professional is not shaking people down for $1000 now, it is getting them giving $25,000 over the years
- Don't worry about about the fact that non email based communications (like Facebook)are growing. Be aware, plan for it but for now your audiences are still using email.
- Amazing tool for Outlook, xobmi.com, when an email comes in it tells you if they are on Facebook etc
- Forget social networking completely, until you have a proper website strategy. He was lovely here and plugged Pareto to help charities do that, thanks Ted!
- Reckons that of the $15.48bn raised online in 2009, a third was generated online the rest was things like people following up an offline promotion and just signing up online, or printing out a form and sending it in
- Website should give the full complement of you, not just your online stuff
- ASPCA shows that people who supply their email give 112% more on and offline. He thinks because they've received more communications. They also gave 85% more donations and 15-20% higher average donation
- Nearly half of annual giving happens in December, in America
- Ted says email is not direct mail, electronically. It is more than that, use it to build relationships, engage and inspire.
- check out Nonprofits guide to Facebook, and Executives guide to Twitter
- Facebook, according to iStrategylabs has plenty of old people on it. Old people = good donors, but reiterated that you need to get the basics right first. Like website design....
- Websites have ten seconds to get across to the browser who we are, what we do and what we want you to do
- Note that according to Marketing Sherpa 79% of visitors don't come in through home page
- Privacy policy does not need to be complex, but should be here. Saying what information is collected, who can access it and how it will be used
Ted then went on to 'review' (slaughter) several charities' websites. People from Vision Australia, Wilderness Society' Wild Endurance event, Starlight, Centenary Institute, Cancer Council NSW and House With No Steps were all brave enough to get publicly ripped apart, especially Martyn Hartley at Vision Australia who really got some flak!
I am not going to be cruel enough to write up here what was said, but it was very, very useful...
More information on Ted here. Bottom line, if you are 'doing social media' and are a fundraiser then read his books.
Following Kate from Google, Ted Hart from p2pfundraising.org is telling us all about social media and fundraising.
Some key points:
- for all the technology out there, it doesn't change the fact that people give because they are asked. Online you kneed to ask or you can't fundraise.
- it is all about integration. You need a real strategy; these free tools - Google, Facebook etc are free but they are not the strategy.
- Think about your donors. He says that, in Canada (and probably same here) only 30% of online donors are gen X. Nearly all the other 70% were born before 1962.
- Regardless of how good your online stuff is, it is no good if you are not an organisation that looks after donors, and understands the importance of relationships
- Whatever you do or don't do online, on social networking sites someone else is talking about you. And on these sites people have a desire to connect.
- Good communications online give you an instant larger audience - if they are good communications they could get forwarded
- True measure of a fundraising professional is not shaking people down for $1000 now, it is getting them giving $25,000 over the years
- Don't worry about about the fact that non email based communications (like Facebook)are growing. Be aware, plan for it but for now your audiences are still using email.
- Amazing tool for Outlook, xobmi.com, when an email comes in it tells you if they are on Facebook etc
- Forget social networking completely, until you have a proper website strategy. He was lovely here and plugged Pareto to help charities do that, thanks Ted!
- Reckons that of the $15.48bn raised online in 2009, a third was generated online the rest was things like people following up an offline promotion and just signing up online, or printing out a form and sending it in
- Website should give the full complement of you, not just your online stuff
- ASPCA shows that people who supply their email give 112% more on and offline. He thinks because they've received more communications. They also gave 85% more donations and 15-20% higher average donation
- Nearly half of annual giving happens in December, in America
- Ted says email is not direct mail, electronically. It is more than that, use it to build relationships, engage and inspire.
- check out Nonprofits guide to Facebook, and Executives guide to Twitter
- Facebook, according to iStrategylabs has plenty of old people on it. Old people = good donors, but reiterated that you need to get the basics right first. Like website design....
- Websites have ten seconds to get across to the browser who we are, what we do and what we want you to do
- Note that according to Marketing Sherpa 79% of visitors don't come in through home page
- Privacy policy does not need to be complex, but should be here. Saying what information is collected, who can access it and how it will be used
Ted then went on to 'review' (slaughter) several charities' websites. People from Vision Australia, Wilderness Society' Wild Endurance event, Starlight, Centenary Institute, Cancer Council NSW and House With No Steps were all brave enough to get publicly ripped apart, especially Martyn Hartley at Vision Australia who really got some flak!
I am not going to be cruel enough to write up here what was said, but it was very, very useful...
More information on Ted here. Bottom line, if you are 'doing social media' and are a fundraiser then read his books.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Digitial Integration Day - Google Adwords
I am writing this at Pareto Fundraising's Digital Integration Day. Right now Kate Conroy from Google is explaining how to get Google AdWords up and running.
Google gives charities $10,000 per month to spend on AdWords. Combined with goodSearch Engine Optimization (SEO) it is great way to drive people to your website or a landing page.
It doesn't take long to set up, just go to Google Grants and click on apply now. You will need a scan of your DGR certificate - evidence that you a 'deductible gift recipient' which is how Google defines an eligible charity in Australia.
Interestingly, there are fifty odd people here, all fundraisers from more than 30 diverse organisations from giants Red Cross to the new to Fundraising Indigenous Community Volunteers. Only two organisations actually have a grant. We are hoping that by the end of next week there will be a lot more.
If you are reading this outside of Australia, then don't despair, they are available in other countries too. For the full list click here.
She is showing us how it all works by creating some ads and keywords live. Really useful stuff and she has given us a link so we can have a look at how it looks and feels inside. If you want to have a look, then log in as grantsdemoview@gmail.com, password charitiesonline (from 6 August).
One of the main criticisms of Google Grants is how long it takes to get approved. Although I am still not happy about the delay, at least I now know why. Amazingly, Google runs the whole scheme by asking it's staff to volunteer time to work on Google Grants.
Good on Kate and others for putting in their time, and knowing that, I would ask charity staff to be gentle on these Google volunteers. Thanks!
Google gives charities $10,000 per month to spend on AdWords. Combined with goodSearch Engine Optimization (SEO) it is great way to drive people to your website or a landing page.
It doesn't take long to set up, just go to Google Grants and click on apply now. You will need a scan of your DGR certificate - evidence that you a 'deductible gift recipient' which is how Google defines an eligible charity in Australia.
Interestingly, there are fifty odd people here, all fundraisers from more than 30 diverse organisations from giants Red Cross to the new to Fundraising Indigenous Community Volunteers. Only two organisations actually have a grant. We are hoping that by the end of next week there will be a lot more.
If you are reading this outside of Australia, then don't despair, they are available in other countries too. For the full list click here.
She is showing us how it all works by creating some ads and keywords live. Really useful stuff and she has given us a link so we can have a look at how it looks and feels inside. If you want to have a look, then log in as grantsdemoview@gmail.com, password charitiesonline (from 6 August).
One of the main criticisms of Google Grants is how long it takes to get approved. Although I am still not happy about the delay, at least I now know why. Amazingly, Google runs the whole scheme by asking it's staff to volunteer time to work on Google Grants.
Good on Kate and others for putting in their time, and knowing that, I would ask charity staff to be gentle on these Google volunteers. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)