Jonathon Grapsas' blog

This blog has moved....

2011-06-21T14:21:00.012+10:00

Yep, the time has come to move.

As you know I recently set up flat earth direct.

With the site live I'll now be blogging from here.

That's www.flatearthdirect.com/blog

For subscribers to this address, no need to do anything. You’ll continue to receive email alerts.

For any new subscribers, there’ll be a sign up service available tomorrow on the newly created blog for you to register your details and be kept up to speed.

This site will be kept open so you can access all of the content on it.

It's been a blast. Thanks for your support.

I look forward to seeing you over at www.flatearthdirect.com/blog

Jonathon

More great examples of saying thank you

2011-06-17T10:07:00.016+10:00

The subject of great thank you's has been covered a lot in this blog. A few months back I posed this great example from Médecins Sans Frontières Canada.

Earlier this week preparing for a workshop with a client I went searching for some recent examples of simple, but effective thank you communications.

I stumbled across the following two.

The first here is from Operation Smile in the US. I love it because it does all of the things a sincere thank you should do. Says the words thank you, makes the link between you, the donor, and the impact they're having, shares the love from both staff and benefactors, and is truly authentic.

I particularly love the fact that it doesn't feel too fabricated, it's a little raw. And that's more endearing.

Take a peek.

The second one is from an organisation called the Aspinall Foundation, a conservation group in the UK.

Their's is a little quirky and fun, but also hits the nail on the head. They show you the work you're helping to make happen, they make a direct link, and it's also really warm and you can't help but like the guys presenting.

Check it out below.

You could do worse than replicating what these two org's have done here.

Jonathon

Fundraising resolutions: mid year update

2011-06-09T13:49:00.015+10:00

Almost 6 months ago I challenged myself with a list of resolutions for 2011. As we approach the midway point of the year, I thought it was time to take stock of how I'm doing, with a frank and honest self assessment.

- Increase my thirst for knowledge. I reckon I've succeeded with this one, so far at least. I've cast the net a little wider, and have stumbled across some terrific resources, most notably Mitch Joel's blog Six Pixels of Separation. I've also been more active on twitter, and as a result finding some real gold dust along the way. And I've become a LinkedIn junkie, spending more time on this platform than any other social outlet.

But, I can always do more.

- Stop putting things off. Again, happy that I've made stuff happen and haven't procrastinated. I took a leap of faith and set up my own business. I think that qualifies.

- Listen more. To those who I agree with, to those who think differently. Yes and no. There are times I do consciously stop and listen to something or someone I wouldn't naturally agree with. But I can definitely see why this is so important and reflecting on the last 6 months I can recall times where doing that has led to a really positive outcome, fuelling ideas I would not have otherwise found.

- Be tenacious about testing. Challenge conventional thinking, test more than ever. Failing at the half way mark. Trying, but failing. Must keep at it.

- Look outside. Not just outside the walls of the agency, but outside the sector. I rank this in line with the first point, and note again some of the people I now look to for constant inspiration. Running my own agency has meant reaching out to people I hadn't met in the past which is very cool.

- Empower others to do even better. There is always going to be a watching brief on this one, because it's what I do. I can see where I've made progress here, through the training and workshops I deliver, but there's no time for back slapping. Whenever you feel comfortable with what you've done, remind yourself of the words of the great creative thinker of our time Edward De Bono who says, "excellent, but not good enough".

- Get the balance right between learning from what worked and learning from what didn't. No doubt I learnt more in the past few months from stuff that didn't work that stuff that did. The things that didn't work force you to reassess everything and ask the tough questions. The things that do merely tell you at least one thing was right, whilst potentially masking mediocrity.

What about you? How are your resolutions looking?

Jonathon

Cool and clever stuff only works if also clear and easy. So what about Blippar?

2011-05-31T14:49:00.018+10:00

It doesn't seem that long ago that QR codes were all the rage. In fact it was less than 3 months ago I write about QR codes being cool, but pointless unless used properly.

That still rings true, and I suspect the same for newer kids on the block, including Blippar. For those not aware of this new technology, read this insightful piece entitled Can Blippar make QR codes redundant?

Blippar which is just about to launch, is an augmented reality mobile app which sets about making it easier for mobile users to interact with offline advertising. It uses image recognition to launch interactive content on the user's phone, which is easily triggered by a logo or image on an ad.

I go back to the point of my earlier post. Very cool, if used properly.

People talk about low take up rates of QR code apps and the like. That doesn't bother me so much. Enough people have used them/are using them to make use of them.

But from a charitable perspective, while this stuff excites me, I'm skeptical. Not because I can't see ways to use them, but the take-up on this kind of stuff (I.e. QR codes) has been minimal, if even noticeable. So what's to say we'll release the risk shackles and dive head first into something like Blippar?

I hope we do, the possibilities are endless. Imagine you're an environmental org and want to highlight to print readers the destruction of forests. An image of some trees doesn't really cut it, but a quick snap of the ad and a 30 second "walk" through said forest just might do. The clip finishes with you posting a video message or attaching your name to a petition that's being blasted directly to the Environment Minister.

This would work because it's powerful, good content that uses a 'less' engaging media to bring home an important message. Backed up with a direct action request.

It wouldn't work if it was simply clever and cool.

And that's the point with any new piece of technology out there. Don't be dazzled simply by the bright lights. Think about real, easy ways to bring your content to life, aimed at the right people, armed with an end goal in mind and delivered to enhance other media simultaneously.

Jonathon

I've started my own agency..

2011-05-23T09:31:00.019+10:00

After 12 years of working for some of the best agencies around the world, I decided it was time to set up my own.

And so flat earth direct was born.

flat earth direct is dedicated to fundraising and social action for good causes. Quite simply it’s about direct response, digital and campaigning stuff that results in real, tangible outcomes.

There are two distinct things I'm trying to do by setting this up.

1 Deliver the best results by bringing in the best people, regardless of location.
2 Work with organizations that really want to grow, particularly those who are usually handcuffed by smaller budgets.

We're going to be really focused on digital fundraising and marketing, all things direct response and advocacy stuff that supports the pointier end of campaigns.

Our website is a couple of weeks from being finished, but in the meantime if you want to find out a little more, here's how you can get in touch with me.

Jonathon Grapsas
director
flat earth direct

jonathon@flatearthdirect.com
ph: +61 7 3311 6308
mob: +61 4 0447 5551
skype: jonathon.grapsas
twitter: @jonathongrapsas

www.flatearthdirect.com

Best advice I've been given

2011-05-19T09:01:00.006+10:00

I'm in a reflective mood this morning.

Recalling some of the best pieces of advice I've been given by people I've worked with and for. And from people outside of work.

These are the ones that stick out.

Procrastination is the thief of time. From my year 7 English teacher. At the time I thought he was nuts. But I've never forgotten it. We all do it. Put things off we don't want to do or are just too hard.

"I don't have time", is the stock standard response.

The best rebuttal to this is, you have time, you're just choosing to use it in a different way.

Just get on with it. Those that do achieve more than those who don't.

Act the role you want to be, not just the role you are. I think this applies to life generally, but certainly in the work environment.

No point complaining about why that promotion hasn't come your way if you haven't stepped up. This is about controlling your own path. Tenacious and ambitious people do more than what they're required to do. They look to the next level up and morph into that role, while still fulfilling their own.

Judge people by the best thing they've done, not the worst. It's easy to get caught up in the minutiae of detail when someone does something you don't like. But stop and think whether that's truly reflective of who they are, on balance. Or perhaps it was just a blip. Out of the ordinary. It'll certainly help your relationships, in the office included.

What are some of the pearls of wisdom that have stuck with you? I'd love to hear them.

Jonathon

Why I love the Greenpeace UK site

2011-05-12T14:39:00.000+10:00

I'm constantly trawling the web looking for fundraising and action driven websites.

Look no further than Greenpeace UK. One of my fav's.

Here's where my love comes from:

It's focused. It becomes obvious really quickly what the Greenpeace team want me to do. That's to 'do something' by getting involved in one of their campaigns, or open my wallet.

Whenever you click through to any of their action or donation pages, each of them is coherent and clear. I'm left in no doubt as to what they want me to do. No distractions, no fuss. No worries.

It's clean. Well laid out, good use of white space, good web friendly fonts and design. The content has a nice balance between imagery and copy.

It's easy. I look at this from a "how painful is it for me to do what you're asking me' standpoint. And here it isn't difficult at all. Good navigation, solid search function in the top right hand corner, consistent labeling.

It feels right for Greenpeace. I'm not just talking look and feel, but the tone and the things they're asking me to do. If you had in your mind a picture of what the Greenpeace site would look like, and how it would do its job, this isn't far off the mark.

Below I took a screen shot of the homepage.

The blue highlights the action requests, the black where they've closed the loop providing feedback, the squiggle at the top the easily located and functional search box. The purple line showing where we may want to go a bit deeper to learn about Greenpeace's work, who they are etc.

Hats off to the Greenpeace UK gang. You make me want to keep coming back.

Jonathon

Making your presentations sticky and memorable

2011-05-06T08:03:00.004+10:00

Mitch Joel at Twist Image shared some thoughts this week on presenting, in particular how to be authentic.

I loved this line, "Remember, you're presenting, not performing, but the best presentations are also authentic performances."

It's apparent sometimes that presenters cross this line to become performers, and forget what they're there for.

So how can you be authentic?

Mitch suggests "you have to know when you're no longer presenting with passion, but regurgitating memorized lines and trying to perform each line out instead of delivering the content with what I'll call a "quiet confidence."

In other words, be yourself, but with some renewed energy and passion.

What about being memorable?

For me, this is about being "sticky". For those who are starting to wonder what on earth I'm suggesting, get your wallet out today and buy what in my opinion is one of the best business books you'll read, Made to Stick.

The Heath brothers cover in detail how to make good ideas "stick" and not die. It's a cut through read, truly memorable. I still use it to this day.

One sticky tip I learned from this book was how to get a message across in a presentation that will stand out in peoples minds. Let's say you ask delegates a question. Typically you'd hope one brave soul would shove their hand up, whilst everyone else sheepishly avoids eye contact with you. Been there before?

Remove that. Have everyone in the room get out a pen and paper. Get them to write down what they think the answer is, and then simultaneously hold up their bit of paper with their response, as you trawl through the room scanning and commenting on the answers. Really easy, more memorable.

Thanks to Mitch Joel at Twist Image for sparking some thoughts here.

Jonathon

We've got a long way to go

2011-04-29T08:28:00.006+10:00

I started reading Jeff Brook's blog this morning, Donor Retention tells half the story and admit to getting a little excited...

70% retention rates for one organization, 90% second gift rates. I was scratching my eyes wondering if my morning caffeine fix hadn't yet hit me.

It continued to get better as I discovered both net income and organizational growth.

And then it hit.

Comments about stopping acquisition for five years, and how its unethical to tell a donor their (small) gift will make a difference when in fact its going to postage, printer bills etc..

This is not a dig at this organization who made the comments, it's a sector/society wide concern.

I actually wondered if time had stopped still. It was over two years ago I blogged about this very matter in Imagine a World whereby...

Citing Dan Pallotta's game changing book Uncharitable, I provided three practical recommendations for charities to control what they could control and flip the following dreaded question on it's head.

"How much of my dollar goes to the cause"?

The first suggestion was this:

1 Stop apologizing to donors for $ spent on overheads, administration, fundraising. These are genuine costs that are actually necessary and part of the work you do to fulfill your mission.

Enough said.

Finally, it reminded me of listening to Bob Geldof talk about his experiences and his response to the question "Don't you feel the scale of the problem is too big and you aren't making a real difference"?

His response: If I've helped one person, one child, then I've made a difference.

The same can be said for a donors gift, regardless off the size.

If you haven't done so already, please go and buy Uncharitable here at Amazon now. Send a copy to each board member, your boss, all your colleagues.

Because we really do have a long way to go to educate ourselves, as well as punters on the street.

Jonathon

Budgeting beyond spreadsheets

2011-04-21T12:18:00.003+10:00

It’s that time of the year again for Aussie fundraisers, when heads are down and doors are closed as we feverishly plan for next financial year. The budget cycle.

So what should be top of mind when sorting through a myriad of spreadsheets and detailed discussions about the future?

Think three years, not one

Whilst it’s easy to look at the immediacy of our decisions, we know as fundraisers that the real impact often comes a lot later than the toil involved. Regular, monthly giving is a great case in point.

So to overcome the potential blockages placed in front of us when we present our plans, ensure all budgets include the longer term payoff, through years 2 and 3 as a minimum. Even longer where necessary.

That may mean overlaying your income expectations with expected life time value and not just income in the coming year.

Start from scratch, the zero based approach

Whilst I’d agree with the old adage about not fixing what ain’t broken, stagnant programs or those looking for serious growth could do worse than start from scratch.

Consider this. You’re an organisation that generates $1m a year in income. You’ve been tasked with growing that fivefold in three years.

Doable? Most certainly.

Doable within the current program framework? Likely not.

Ambitious growth requires solid investment, informed risk taking and organisational commitment. If you’re planning to transform your program, looking at what you’ve done the last ten years and tweaking it isn’t going to help you make that leap.

Starting afresh and asking yourself and your colleagues “what do I need to do to generate $5m a year” is the question you need to be able to answer. Not, “how can I turn $1m into $5m?”

Balance your portfolio

Diversification and balance are key. A balanced program means investing in areas that will deliver:

* Short term income (cash appeals, emergency appeals, events)
* Medium term income (regular, monthly giving, major donors, donor care)
* Long term income (bequest marketing, donor care)

Having a reliance on more than 80% in one income stream can put you in a precarious place should the landscape move.

If you take a look at those charities around you that have gone through massive growth, there’s no doubt most of it will be driven by one channel. In Australia over the past ten years that’s been F2F (street canvassing) recruiting regular, monthly donors.

But if you look closer, the charities that have harnessed this best have dipped their toe into other vehicles, including more traditional channels like the telephone, DM, direct response television and more recently digital.

When trying to decide how to allocate funds, applying Google’s 70/20/10 rule for investing in innovation is a great way of working to achieve both balance and diversification. This would see:

* 10% of funds dedicated to exploring new initiatives, with the expectation that almost all will fail but occasionally one or two will show potential and end up reshaping the future
* 20% of funds be given to those initiatives that showed promise from the previous year’s new trials, to see if they are sustainable as an income stream
* 70% of funds dedicated to roll-out and optimisation of what is proven to deliver the bulk of (fundraising) income

Invest in donor care

Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. An acquisition budget with no real commitment to donor development and supporter care is flawed. It’s hard enough to hang onto donors and even hard to look after them without any investment.

That means donor care and stewardship pieces, training for supporter services staff, mystery shopping other charities and generally keeping this topic on your agenda. Acquisition needs to work hand in hand with great supporter development.

So whilst its heads down at the moment, take the time to see the forest for the trees to enable you to help your organisation change the world, now and down the track.

This post featured in the March edition of Pareto Talk.

Jonathon

Regular giving growth continues in Australia/NZ

2011-04-13T09:00:00.010+10:00

Last week at Pareto Fundraising we released our latest benchmarking results from Australia and NZ.

Thank you firstly to the 41 organizations involved. Hats off to you all.

Some snippets from the latest report:

- Regular giving continues to be the key driver of income growth from individuals. Income growth of around 12% in 2010.

- 3 out of 4 of the charities involved in the study grew their income from individuals in the two years between 2008 and 2010, despite the recession.

- Investment in new donor acquisition continued as volumes of new supporters continued to grow.

- On average, 0.9% of active cash donors have indicated they have left a bequest to that organization. The benchmark for one charity was 6.3% of all active donors having confirmed.

- Recency, Frequency, Value, plus tenure all correlate with propensity to indicate leaving a bequest.

- Income from onetime cash gifts grew less than 1% over the two years between 2008 and 2010, in line with the continued shift toward investment in regular, monthly giving.

If you're interested in knowing more about our benchmarking program please get in touch with our man on the ground, Clarke Vincent.

Jonathon

It's about the (online) journey, not just the (online) destination

2011-04-07T12:28:00.012+10:00

I don't want to sound like a walking book of jargon, but it really is about the journey.

As much so when we talk about the online world. We as a sector spend far too much time worrying, finessing and getting distracted by the destination.

By the destination I mean your website.

Don't get me wrong, it's an important place. And making sure you keep people there, capture data, share stories, and ultimately generate donations is critical.

But getting people there, and finding ways to attract new sources is paramount.

As my colleague Sean Triner says, having a brilliant website (with no traffic) is like having the world's best department store in the middle of the desert. Useless.

When I talk to fundraisers about developing a digital road-map for raising more money online, I often hear people say "yes, well we're building a new website" or "our website is rubbish".

They're focused on the end result, the destination.

Yes it's important, but spending a tonne of effort and resources on building the world's most aesthetically pleasing website is going to be a complete waste of time without any traffic to drive there.

Consider these traffic driving questions:

- Are you looking at ways to re-engage and drive online prospects back to your site? By online prospects I mean previous activists, e-newsletter subscribers or enquirers.

- Are you investing time managing your search activity? See here for an earlier post on Google AdWords for charities. What about your organic listing? Are you spending time to make sure you are ranked as high as possible in search engines, such as Google?

- Are you re-targeting visitors to your site with a different offer? For example, of the 5,000 visitors to your site each month, the majority visit and then bounce away, meaning you haven't 'closed the deal'. Re-targeting allows you to present your offer again to these prospects in an effort to re-engage them. It's relatively inexpensive and is used regularly by those in the commercial world. Yet we seem to be slow on the take up on this. Easier to re-engage that introduce ourselves to those who don't know us.

- Have you investigated the new frontiers in online advertising? The power of behavioral and contextual advertising, where you can present your offer to people whose online behavior dictates they have some affinity/interest in you. Again the commercial world is leaps and bounds ahead of us here, but the technology exists, it's about tapping into whats out there to ensure we're locating real prospects who are showing characteristics that suggest they care. In real time.

Don't get me wrong, the destination requires time and effort. It requires thought around ways to engage and capture. But remember, that without the traffic it really is like the best department store in the desert.

Jonathon

Downgrading: where asking for less results in getting more

2011-03-31T14:51:00.012+10:00

For years some of my colleagues and I have been banging on about the need to seriously consider actively downgrading regular, monthly donors.

Are you going mad, Jonathon?

Possibly, but not on this one. The rationale is simple. There are certain groups of regular givers for whom we know, statistically, they are likely to stop their ongoing giving. Their characteristics have predetermined that they'll fall out of love with us really quickly and hence cancel their gift.

I'm talking about 'younger' face to face recruited donors. By younger I'm talking under say 25 (may vary by client).

We look at data for F2F donors every day. Whenever we run the data through some geeky data modeling, its spits out the same result every time. Younger donors are more likely to stop their giving in the first 3 months than 'older donors'. There are other criteria that dictate attrition levels, like payment type and housing type, but hands down every time age is the most significant variable.

So for me its always been simple. If we know statistically that a group is likely to cancel, would we not be better off tackling this head on rather than sitting back waiting for the inevitable?

Well, I was incredibly excited a couple of weeks ago when a Canadian client shared they have been doing exactly this. And guess what, its working.

Of course, by working you need to ensure that the drop off in income from either doing nothing and the lower average gifts is offset by more supporters staying on board.

Let's do the math.

Scenario A. I have 1,000 donors giving me $20 a month ($240 a year). The data shows me that I'll likely lose (because of the make up of the data) 300 in the first 3 months. So my $240k in annual income is, in crass terms likely to be around $168k if we do nothing.

Situation B. What if we took the 300 "likely" cancellations (the "younger" ones identified above) and asked them to consider dropping down to $10 a month? Assume of those 300 two thirds of them say yes, the other 100 we can't reach of decide to cancel anyway. We now have 700 donors @ $20 per month and 200 donors @ $10 per month. That means my annual income is now $192k, a far better result than sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

There are a few things to consider here:

- Do it on the phone. Make sure the call is intended as a donor care one, not an administrative one. Thank, check in, share, acknowledge. Then discuss their giving level and how comfortable they are.

- Test the timing of this. Likely done best around month 1 after sign up, but play around with this. See what works for you.

- Just because someone may agree to lower their financial commitment, don't forget them. F2F recruited donors need to feel the love, albeit in a slightly different manner. They don't behave like donors from 'traditional' media. Long letters and dry newsletters are a waste of time. Punchy, shareable and relevant content all the way.

If you do this, let me know how you get on.

When asking for less means getting more. Sometimes direct response just doesn't make sense.

Jonathon

The mobile movement

2011-03-25T10:24:00.010+10:00

Stumbled across this brilliant schematic yesterday which encapsulates perfectly the incredible shift in the mobile world.

It's time we accepted (granted, I know many of you have long ago) that our use of technology and the way we share content, communicate and transfer information has changed forever.

Consider some of these pieces of data, and alongside them 'thoughts' about what they mean for fundraisers:

- 1 in 4 mobile users have smart-phones globally (in Australia it's close to 1 in 2). Does your online approach consider the way people are viewing your content? Are you mobile enabled? If not, consider the barriers you're placing in front of your constituents.

- 86% of mobile internet users are using their devices while watching TV. Your supporters and prospects are becoming more and more distracted. Are you working specifically on 'sticky' material and messaging that cuts through? The 'traditional' way to evoke emotion and capture someone's attention may not have the same impact when American Idol is blaring in the background.

- Within three years mobile internet usage will overtake desktop internet usage. The 17 inch monitor is becoming less and less relevant. It isn't simply about adjusting our creative for smaller screens or tablets, but thinking through how our shift in mobile behavior is impacting when and how we're viewing stuff. "I'll go online during my lunch break" is a far less used term. A shift in our online behavior dictates a shift in our online thinking and approach. The when, where and how has changed.

Who knows, I'll soon be crafting these posts on my mobile.

Jonathon

QR codes are cool, but pointless unless used properly

2011-03-16T14:14:00.021+10:00

There's been a heap written over the past few months about the use of those funny little barcode looking things we know as QR codes in marketing and fundraising.

For those who are not sure what they are, QR codes are a matrix barcode (or two-dimensional code), readable by QR barcode readers and camera phones. QR stands for quick response. In essence they speed up the response process, removing the need to "get online" or "send that letter" later. They potentially remove one of the biggest barriers to response: shortage of time.

Unfortunately as fundraisers the take-up of this technology (seems) to have been slow. I've found it difficult to locate examples of where they have been used, and if so, were they effective?

My colleague Paul De Gregorio piqued my interest on this a few weeks back over at his blog. Similarly Katya Anderson provided some insights on their potential value via a guest post from Blase Ciabaton.

Last week I attended the AdTech, digital marketing conference in Sydney. Google revealed some startling data snippets about mobile usage in Australia, most noteworthy that by the end of 2011 more than 50% of Australians will own a smartphone.

I'm often cynical about statistics like this, because whilst it's an interesting insight, it doesn't alone suggest people will change their buying/giving habits. Just because you build it, does not mean they will simply come.

That being said they do provide an exciting opportunity. And if used properly they have the potential to lift marketing and fundraising effectiveness.

We're about to test them with some of our clients in upcoming DM appeals. However instead of using the same, generic QR code sending donors to a general landing page to donate, we will be sending QR codes embedded with a personalised URL.

The upshot of this is again decreasing the amount of work a donor will have to do. If they scan the QR code they'll bounce through to their own, unique donation page. They'll simply need to fill in their credit card details and presto, a gift is made.

A couple of things to consider:

- If you're testing the impact of QR codes, don't just include income raised from the QR code mobile landing page. The key consideration is, has the advent of the QR code increased income overall from the group who received them?

- Despite the prevalence of smartphones, the usage of QR codes is reportedly quite low. Therefore, education and assurance is going to be key. I'd suggest any effort to push people to using them should include simple instructions explaining how to download the app and how to use the QR code reader. Put people at ease. Provide guidance.

Remember, these aren't going to revolutionize your fundraising, at the end of the day they are merely a response device. But well executed, and used for the right purposes, they may help you bring the online and offline world just that little bit closer.

Jonathon

Facebook fundraising, that works

2011-03-08T12:29:00.035+10:00

We were fortunate this morning to have Leonard Coyne from the Soi Dog Foundation spend a couple of hours with myself and my colleagues at Pareto Fundraising sharing how they had successfully managed to recruit hundreds of regular, monthly donors directly from facebook.

Yes you read that correctly, recruited monthly donors from facebook. An organization that generates around $300,000 AUD a year has managed to find more than 500 ongoing, monthly supporters (giving $20 a month) in the last year. That's over $100,000 a year (over one third of their income) coming from facebook recruits.

Incredible. And all very doable.

So here are the secrets to their success, and what Leonard candidly explained to us that they have put into practice over the past few months. It isn't rocket science, but it bloody works.

Perspiration. They worked hard, they sweated. They were also incredibly patient. One of the mistakes organizations make is falling out of love with social media as quickly as they fall in love with it. "We need to be on facebook". The proceed to set up a page, recruit a tonne of 'fans', then run out of ideas or energy and simply do nothing.

Leonard has invested time and effort into ensuring not only do Soi Dog have a social presence, but that they commit to making it work, from a fundraising perspective. Not everything has worked, they've got stuff wrong, it's been about trial and error. And it's paying off.

Let go of control. The Soi Dog page now has adaptations in 6 languages, driven purely by advocates who have offered their support, and then run with it. Soi Dog isn't playing big brother and micro managing, they let their administrators post new comments, interact with fans, suggest new applications.

I once heard someone at a fundraising conference comment that they were afraid to relinquish control because people would 'talk about them' and that they weren't able to control their brand. The reality is people will talk about you anyway, rather than try and sanitize it, encourage it. Soi Dog has.

Advertising and asking. Leonard's been using facebook advertising for the last year, recruiting regular donors from targeted ads (particularly focusing on individuals with an interest in animals), and also placing ads to their own 'fans'. As Leonard commented, advertising to their fans seems counter intuitive yet in fact it makes sense. They are essentially what I'd call tepid prospects and we know tepid prospects respond better than those with no affinity at all.

They regularly attach asks (to become regular givers) to stories and photos they share, like the one below. They're not afraid to show confronting (real) imagery, attached with a dog that needs help. And then ask.

Great, regular content. It needs to be relevant, shareable and regular. It isn't just about posting a story about an upcoming event or a new blog on your website.

It's about beneficiaries. Leonard realises their fans want to know about the dogs they help, or that need help. So content, whilst shared regularly, is also very focused on imagery and on the work they actually do.

Consistent, real dialogue. Leonard and his colleagues respond to, talk and actually engage with those who have taken the time to comment. They don't just talk the talk here, they walk it. If you don't believe me, take a peek yourself.

In fact get on facebook now and check them out. A wonderful example of how to make money from facebook, from someone who's actually doing it. Hats off to Leonard and Soi Dogs.

Oh, and here's Leonard's presentation which he has kindly shared.

Jonathon

Soi dog preso by leonard coyne march 2011

View more presentations from Pareto Group.

Donor: "May change mind"

2011-03-03T11:04:00.013+10:00

Great time in Melbourne at the FIA Conference last week.

I usually figure if I get two pieces of gold dust from a conference it's a good result. I got tonnes over the three days.

One of things that has stuck in my mind is something Ken Burnett said during one of the wonderful sessions he delivered.

Ken shared a story about a fellow fundraiser's insights about donor loyalty.

The three words that were forever etched at the top of this persons mind were "may change mind", referring to the constant battle as fundraisers we face.

May change mind.

Pretty powerful few words.

We probably entertain these words when we study the chasm between good and awful donor care, or on the back of a supporter complaint.

Yet in reality, they are arguably the three most important words in fundraising. Just as Ken said.

They change the way we think about donor conversations. They keep us forever on our toes. They prove the how volatile the relationship between a supporter and our organization can be.

Ken also quoted Canadian fundraiser and author Harvey McKinnon who articulated beautifully where the buck stops when it comes to donor relationships by saying, "donor loyalty is about you being loyal to your donors, not the other way around".

So what should you do?

Keep reminding yourself of those three simple words.

May change mind.

And perhaps consider plastering one of these on your monitor?

Jonathon

Lesson from Vodafone

2011-02-24T06:36:00.007+10:00

It's not often I'll draw on something a telecommunications provider has done to inspire fundraising greatness. I'm often the first one to scorn at my phone company.

But I make an exception here.

Last night I got this email from the CEO at Vodafone.

Pretty candid. Quite gutsy. He even put his photo on here so we could visualize him apologizing. The only thing he could have done to expose himself more is done this via a video clip (but then the reach would likely have been lower).

I like the way that Nigel makes no bones about the fact that they haven't been up to scratch. He doesn't try and make excuses, simply tells it as it is.

"The simple answer is that we’ve been growing fast, and when problems came, we responded too slowly. "

He could have given us some garbled response tinged with big words that would have left us flummoxed but he didn't. Merely admitted they tried to run before they crawl.

I love the rawness of this. It reminds me of a client a few years back who had a major internal meltdown days after an appeal lodging. Database crashed, staff shortages, the works.

And what did they do?

Something similar to Nigel Dews. Wrote to their donors, explained what happened and asked for a little patience as it may take longer to get back and thank them if they had indeed already sent a gift.

What happened?

Gifts flowed in. To the apology letter. It wasn't the point, nor the intention. But it proved that showing their cards, opening themselves up, was absolutely the right thing to do.

Now if this client had done this again, and if Vodafone doesn't deliver, then people will walk.

But right now, it's hats off to Nigel Dews and the Vodafone gang. Never thought I'd say that.

Jonathon

Charity merger: Operation Smile Train

2011-02-16T20:58:00.024+10:00

I was thrilled to receive a call from a colleague yesterday sharing the brilliant news about the merger of two wonderful organizations, Operation Smile and Smile Train.

Brilliant news because it will, if successful, give smiles to more kids around the world. Plain and simple.

Brilliant also because good, robust and successful charity mergers are few and far between.

There have been a handful of leading case studies over the past decade in the UK. Cancer Research UK is a cancer research organization formed in 2002 by the merger of The Cancer Research Campaign and Imperial Cancer Research Fund.

Before they merged, they generated around £225m between them. They've now more than doubled that to over £500m. Not bad in less than 10 years. More than twice as much pioneering research delivered, lives saved. Case in point.

More recently Age UK was formed, the coming together of Age Concern England and Help the Aged.

So what's the point?

Done correctly, well thought through mergers allow collaborators to further their great work. To quote the leaders at Operation Smile Train they're mission is simple, believing they can "capitalize on each other’s strengths to:

- Reach more children than either of us could on our own
- Launch more medical missions and train more local doctors
- Operate more efficiently so we can accomplish much more."

Simple, but inspiring, right?

If it works, yes. The reason I think this coming together is so important is it is the only one I know of (I'm sure there are more) when the organizations have a checkered history. It isn't any secret that things haven't been rosy in the past between Operation Smile and Smile Train.

But who cares. They've seen through all of the reasons mergers don't typically happen: ego's, territorial-ism and inability to see the bigger picture (and long term impact of coming together).

They've done it purely and simply because it is the right thing to do, ensuring Operation Smile Train will do what they do better than anyone else. No other reason.

And that means more smiles for kids who otherwise wouldn't been able to do what we all take for granted. Smile.

My colleague Sean Triner wrote a great piece about charity mergers a couple of years ago, worth a read.

That's not to say charities should merge merely for the sake it. There are arguments against it. Like losing your ability as independent organizations to be nimble, and as a result becoming less effective. But usually examples like this are hurdles. And hurdles are meant to be overcome.

Those who ignore it because its too hard or will put our own jobs at risk are doing those we're out to help a disservice.

And that means less of what Operation Smile Train will no doubt so better than anyone else. Create more smiles like the one below.

Jonathon

Why the 'flood levy' shouldn't harm good fundraising

2011-02-09T10:52:00.006+10:00

It’s been a horrible start to the year for Australia, in particular the state of Queensland. We’ve been hit with some of the worst floods in our history and one of the more brutal cyclones; all while other parts of the country suffer through bushfires and heat waves.

With the impact of the floods likely to be in the billions of dollars, the federal government has introduced a 12 month flood levy, which increases personal income tax (by around 0.75%) for a year, for those earning more than $50,000. The levy is designed to help rebuild Queensland’s infrastructure ruined by the floods.

In the aftermath of the announcement, my friend Cam asked me what I thought, and whether I expected charitable support to be impacted by the levy? Did I believe that by the government ‘forcing’ people’s hands to support would be to the detriment of Aussie charities?

I really don’t think so. For two reasons:

People tend to give above and beyond what they normally would in emergency situations

Last year we had a Canadian client due to lodge an appeal the day after the Haiti earthquake. My client rang me in a panic wondering whether in fact we should post the appeal, or delay it.

My response was a categorical yes. The Haiti situation was horrendous, beyond belief. But the kids we were appealing on behalf of needed help. Their situation hadn’t changed one bit. It couldn’t wait.

So the pack went out, net income increased 25% from the previous year’s appeal. It was a strong appeal. No doubt some of those donors also reached into their pockets to support organizations working in Haiti. But they didn’t forget the kids that also needed help locally in Canada.

I believe the same will ring true after the floods. But a word of warning the next time this happens (and it will happen, disasters are occurring more frequently). Don’t offer an excuse as to why donors shouldn’t or don’t need to respond. Good appeals for support are about clarity and need, not easy ‘get outs’. So avoid wording that mentions conditional support, like “I know you’re probably helping in the aftermath of X, but we also need your help”. That provides an excuse to switch off.

We saw a similar situation as part of the economic meltdown a couple of years back. All of the direct response testing I saw showed what we intuitively thought. Mentioning the recession suppressed response.

People give when they see that something needs support, not when they’re presented a raft of excuses why they shouldn’t.

This was about infrastructure, not people

The flood levy is about rebuilding a state’s resources. Roads, buildings, technology. Decimated by a natural disaster.

Whilst that indirectly helps individuals, the levy isn’t about handouts to those affected.

Hence why I believe it won’t affect charitable support, assuming of course it’s backed up with damn good fundraising.

My advice to those fundraising post emergencies is to continue doing what you were planning on doing. Good results follow good practice.

And that’s what I told my mate Cam.

Jonathon

Don't give me an excuse not to donate

2011-02-03T21:31:00.010+10:00

Enjoyed Jeff Brook's post today about fundraising words we don't like.

It got me thinking about 'excuses'. I reckon in direct response we offer too many ways to 'get out'.

Excuses not to respond. Like reminders of tough financial times, or other significant events that may take precedence. Don't provide an easy way out. I need to feel this is the most important thing I've heard, seen or read today.

Excuses to put something down, turn away. Perhaps in frustration or annoyance. Like cumbersome and clumsy words. Trying to be too clever comes across that way. It can make me feel uneasy, even angry. But don't open the door for me to walk away.

You've got my attention, don't allow it to wane.

Jonathon

Why aren't charities doing more digital fundraising?

2011-01-24T11:00:00.015+10:00

The cynic in me could answer with the following:

- Online income is still a small portion of all individual giving.
- No-one really knows how to/where to start.
- They are, but its unreported (attributed to other channels).

The above points all have some merit.

But for me, specifically related to recruiting new donors online (I'm not talking about retention, integration, optimization), I've noticed that the following rings true, for most organizations:

A lack of genuine understanding about the online targeting landscape.

Not enough depth of knowledge about how to buy media online. Either none, or limited understanding of how to use paid search. And similar lack of inventiveness around how to move cold/tepid online audiences to become supporters.

Let's take online media.

Think about when you last went online. You're browsing your favorite news site and you see an advert for flights to Mexico.

Whilst you didn't think much of it at the time, in retrospect ask yourself:

- Have you recently searched for any travel online or clicked on a travel related advert?
- Have you recently used any terms in Google/other search engines related to Mexico or other central American locations?

I'd be surprised if you didn't answer yes to the above. Use your own recent experience and work backwards in terms of how that ad may have been placed in front of your eyes.

Now think back to the organization you work for.

How can you apply this thinking? If you're:

- An environmental org: you can reach out to those offsetting some carbon.
- Helping animals: you can place your message in front of someone who has searched for a pet adoption agency.
- Helping the homeless: you can locate find those who have signed a petition online to increase the number of housing shelters in your areas.

I'll be writing more on this. But next time you're playing around online, don't just ignore the ads being places in front of your eyes. Or on the right of your screen.

Think about how can apply the same intelligence to help you find more generous supporters online. People whose behavior dictates they are in the mind space to consider supporting your cause.

Jonathon

Cricket and data: all is not always as it seems

2011-01-10T08:15:00.024+10:00

I've been copping a lot of flak from my English friends over the past few weeks.

You see, Australia and England have been competing in The Ashes series over the past two months. For those not familiar with cricket or The Ashes, check out the history of the series here.

For those in North America, think Canada v USA in the hockey. Or the Lakers versus the Celtics. Bitter sporting rivalries that ignite two nations, or two cities and sets of crazed fans. For those wondering what the hell cricket is, think a longer version of baseball with two batsmen, 11 players on each team and five day games.

Have I lost you yet? Stick with me, there is a point...

The upshot is that England annihilated us, winning the series 3-1. Which wouldn't be as hard to take except for the fact that until recently the tables have been turned. In fact Australia ruled the cricket world for the best part of two decades.

Now we're losing and we don't like it.

So the ribbing between mates has been at an all time high recently, and I in particular have been bearing the brunt of it (I'm now wishing that I shut my mouth during my time living in England).

But I got a chuckle this morning when my Aussie mate Tyron, living in the UK, sent an email, with a rather amusing story attached including the following graph. It plots the relative success in Ashes history over the last three decades with the relative employment levels of each country.

In short the story and chart suggests an inverse relationship between holding the 'Urn' (the trophy awarded to the winning team) and the health of the country's economy.

The blue line plots the Australian unemployment rate minus the UK unemployment rate, the red line showing the net result in the Ashes encounters.

Amazing. Win ashes, economy suffers. Sluggish economy, great cricket team?

Wish it was that simple, for fear of the humiliation we've put up with recently, I'd trade it for double figure unemployment. It would spare me the barrage of insults from my northern friends.

Not really.

The point?

Data is not always what it seems. As the adage I often refer to explains, data + insights = intelligence. And as much as I'd like to point the fingers at our insipid cricketing performance to our strong economy, I think that's a long bow to draw.

Don't look too hard for something you desperately want to be there. Ensure you're armed with the right information, all of the context, and not seeing things through rose tinted glasses, merely to see the picture you want.

Jonathon

Here's more on the Ashes and economy relationship via Business Spectator.

Trust and charities: getting on the front foot

2011-01-05T08:59:00.026+10:00

Over Christmas, I caught up with lots of friends and family I hadn't seen in some time.

Twice during this period, the conversation turned to charity. Once, ignoring the fact I was sitting there (despite knowing broadly what I do for a job) and the other time because I was sitting there. In other words, friends felt they could vent with/at me knowing what I do.

Both dialogues were similar. Murmurings of "not sure which charities I could trust" to "Can't believe they waste money sending me these letters".

At the heart of both of these tirades from those close to me, was a severe lack of trust born out of two things. No real education on how charities do their work and an inherent belief that if charities spend money it must be wasteful.

So after some pretty lengthy discussions about the world we live in and the economics of fundraising, I got thinking.

Are we doing ourselves any favors or do we sit on our hands and cop this flak?

Not surprisingly, for the most part its the latter. It's reactionary. And of course is hurts us as a sector.

I turned to the web to take a peek at whether organizations help themselves either 'organically' through search (in other words, are they helping themselves with the content on their sites), and/or through paid advertising.

Here is what I found.

The first screen shot here shows what happens when I enter 'which charities should I trust?'

The answer is not much. Wikipedia references to to charitable trusts, as opposed to trusting charities ranks first. In terms of paid ads (right hand side of the page) little action, and nothing at all from industry groups promoting giving and philanthropy.

Of course you'll notice that third on the organic listing is charity watchdog Charity Navigator. That's about as much air time as they'll get here, their measures flawed and destructive as they're based solely on unfair financial measurements and not on real charitable impact.

So where are we?

I found it interesting that industry bodies, nor charities for that matter have taken the bull by the horns here? Do we not talk about why we're a trustworthy organization that is having impact? Either within the content on our site, or by paying for keywords through Google ads?

Then this, when I typed 'which charities should i donate to?'

A slightly different story here. Whilst you could argue they're different scenarios, a much more proactive approach taken with several organizations (highlighted on right hand side) bidding for these keywords either using paid ads or through their Google Grants.

The point?

There's a lot written about mistrust of many wonderful organizations in our sector. We spend a lot of time talking about industry bodies, task-forces, working groups. All aimed at sticking up for what we do. Being on the front foot.

Yet there are some perfectly good opportunities to do this, very simply, very easily. And we're missing it.

Please get on the front foot.

For more stuff on how to use Google AdWords, visit an earlier post.

Jonathon

Thank you from MSF

2010-12-24T09:00:00.006+10:00

Just received this from Médecins Sans Frontières Canada and was compelled to share it.

A wonderful way to say thank you, through the use of a remarkable story.

Why is it so good?

- It wasn't about MSF, it was about me. And my partnership as a monthly donor. In fact 11 times, I heard the words you/you're.

- The timing was great. Just as we are winding down for the Holiday season, a timely reminder of why I support MSF. How do you think I go into 2011 feeling about the work they do?

- A story. Yes, a wonderful, warm and moving story about a beautiful little girl called Mirlanda. Shared by video.

- The email did all the things it should, and easily. All the good stuff before the fold, was viewable as a landing page if not through your email platform and I could share it with a friend.

- It bought me really close. Not just through Mirlanda's story, but by showing me the sign made by the people of Haiti. Love it.

- I was thanked six times in the email. And genuinely.

Hats off to the MSF team for inspiring me, and hopefully many others at the end of 2010. Keep up the amazing work helping people like Mirlanda.

For more thank you tips, check out an earlier post here.

Jonathon

Fundraising resolutions: version 2011

2010-12-20T17:06:00.016+10:00

Not a big one for forlorn new years promises, but thought it would be a bit of fun (and a good checklist to look back on) to pen some fundraising resolutions for 2011.

Here goes. My plan to become a better fundraiser next year.

- Increase my thirst for knowledge. Read more (blogs, articles, papers), absorb as much as I can from the thought leaders in our sector, be a bigger sponge for learning.

- Stop putting things off. As a wise school teacher once told me, 'procrastination is the thief of time'. Smart man he was. I need to just get on with things.

- Listen more. To those who I agree with, to those who think differently. Pause more often and simply hear what others have to say.

- Be tenacious about testing. Challenge conventional thinking, test more than ever.

- Look outside. Not just outside the walls of the agency, but outside the sector. Most of the new stuff I learnt in 2010 was from the commercial sector. Not because they're smarter, but because I looked more than I normally would outside our own world.

- Empower others to do even better. My job is about changing the mindset and actions of others as well as my own. Spend more time on changing behavior than I did in 2010.

- Get the balance right between learning from what worked and learning from what didn't. Not too much back slapping (the road to failure is paved with success), not too much castigating your own work.

When I think I've done what I said I would do, read the list again from start to finish.

What are your 2011 fundraising resolutions?

Jonathon

-

Holiday giving online

2010-12-13T12:30:00.015+10:00

Here's some data showing the spread of gifts given online through the months of November and December, last year. The data is from Australia.

Of course this is linked to when push activity is happening, as you will see from the period around the 10th of November, and the same time in December. When many charities send their first and second waves of their Holiday appeal.

What's more enlightening however are the spikes in the days immediately prior to December 25.

Added to that is the following piece of data which shows an even more stark upward trend post December 25th.

It's important to note this is data from North America, and there is definitely some end of year tax sentiment attached.

So what does all of this mean?

For me there are two things:

- It indicates the tremendous value in end of year e-pushes attached to your other channels. If you're not incorporating multi layered approaches, you should be.

- It isn't too late to appeal immediately prior December 25 and December 31. Don't assume the Holiday period ends when the Christmas calendar tells you.

A final health warning attached: apply the same principles to your digital activity at this time as you would any offline approach. Be relevant, clear, compelling, and make the decision to donate and the action attached really, really easy to complete.

Jonathon

Conferences and sugar rushes

2010-12-08T14:24:00.018+10:00

It's time for a rant about conferences.

Last week I attended our Aussie teams staff conference. The usual stuff: sharing what's happening in our offices, trying to tick off a few of the problems we face on a day to day basis, talking about exciting stuff to test, some socializing mixed in along the way.

I must admit as much as I enjoyed it, there were some moments of frustration when I realized that some of the discussed topics and matters arising had been regular points of interest for the last 6 years. Why hadn't we sorted these things yet I thought?

At the same time many friends and colleagues attended the AFP Toronto Chapter's Congress on the other side of the globe. I watched with interest at a raft of titillating tweets and great blogs began to surface.

So as I sit here a few days after both events, I ask the question to my friends and colleagues...

How many of the items on the 'to do' list, that you got SO fired up about last week have you ticked off as of today?

Because if you haven't put a line through them within a week, don't bother.

Harsh?

Not really. Think about it. Going to conferences is like having an almighty sugar rush. You catch up with friends, get inspired by some rock star presenters, promise to change the world. And then...... well usually, nothing.

I once spoke at the opening of a large fundraising conference on behalf of Pareto as a sponsor, and implored delegates to isolate three things they would do as a result of what they learnt over the coming days. And do it within the next week. Otherwise forget it.

Because if the conference itself is the rush, the following days are the post sugar come down.

Back to your desk. Loads of emails. Firefighting problems. Vowing you should never have gone to the conference in the first place. Your notes, written in the cheesy notepad supplied by one of the sponsors, is gathering grime and dust at the bottom of your bag.

Sound all too familiar?

Enough ranting. The solution? Here's my blueprint for post conference success.

1 At the end of the conference, limit yourself to 3 tangible actions that you plan to follow through on from your list of learning's. I.e. "Test the inclusion of a high value lift in my next appeal.."

2 Book in 20 minutes on your first day back in the office to map out how you'll make this happen. I.e. send meeting request to Tim about upcoming appeal testing.

3 Commit to sharing your conference learning's (and your 3 actions) with your colleagues. I.e. Make 'conference learning's an item on next weeks team meeting.

These are easy things to do. They're also essential to ensure you get darn good value for the organization that has sent you along to these events.

But if they don't happen within a week, they won't happen at all.

Jonathon

Starting from scratch: the zero based approach

2010-11-30T14:59:00.013+10:00

Today's been an interesting day. I'm a bit like a kid starting his first day at a new school.

After a month off traveling, today I started my new role with Pareto as Fundraising Development Director.

Exciting, because its new and fresh. Daunting, for the same reasons.

My job will be about working with clients around the world to enable them to try new things. Testing and innovating.

So as I was thinking about where to start, I stumbled across a great blog from Steve Scott called Let Zero Based Thinking Improve Your Life.

The concept is simple. It's about doing what's right and what you want to do, rather than what history has served you up. I touched on this earlier in year in zero based communications planning.

Steve is re-looking at his life and asking himself the following about key relationships/decisions in his life:

"If I had not made this decision, knowing what I now know, would I make it?"

The reason I love this is that it removes the shackles that we chokes ourselves with as direct marketers, and as fundraisers.

I'm not suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. A critical sin as direct response folks, as we should be constantly testing against what's worked.

But what it implores us to think about is making decisions because you believe they're right. Because you believe they'll create better outcomes for your benefactors.

Not because that's what you've done previously.

Jonathon

What makes you happy at work?

2010-11-12T12:20:00.011+10:00

More of a philosophical, rather than practical post today.

Had lots of time to think whilst on holidays, and one of the things that's been occupying my mind is work happiness.

What is it and what for me are the most critical things to loving what I do?

For me the following are crucial. Note I exclude "the cause/s" that I work for, that's a given in this sector. Well, for most. I haven't met many folks who love their job because it's right near the subway or they have a great lunch room.

- My values are aligned with the organization I work for. That doesn't mean we fundamentally agree on everything. But we're headed in the same direction for the most part.

I reckon there's about an 18 month threshold for this. I've seen really resilient people try really hard to believe they are sold into the same things as those they work for. Eventually the differences in beliefs wear them down. And they move on.

- Love the actual work. Might sound a tad obvious, but the day to day functions of the job, for the most part, you need to love. You can believe in the same things as your colleagues, but if the stuff on your job description doesn't cut it, then it makes it harder to start the day raring to go. You need to love what it is you're paid to do.

- Really like the people around you. Perhaps love them, maybe not. But you need to work with people you'd go to the pub with or invite round to your place for dinner. For me great people that inspire me, make me laugh and are just good fun to be around garner a work atmosphere that gets the best results from me. It's a critical element in my work happiness factor.

- There needs to be a chance of change brewing. Could be just round the corner, might be a year off. It may be something really trivial and small, but I need to be able to see some change. Not change for change, but a shift that will make work life and the work I do even better. More effective. More enjoyable.

We don't always enjoy the actual process of change, but seeing something in the distance that's a little different keeps me fresh and inspired.

- Short term goals, big picture objectives. Little things to get by day by day, week by week. As well as an end goal. A big campaign, a year end target, a pioneering project.

Small, maybe even routine tasks to get me through the days. Bigger, more aspirational things to keep me there for the long haul.

These are just my take. These are the things that help me love what I do.

What makes you happy at work?

Jonathon

Inbound Marketing

2010-11-05T01:24:00.009+10:00

Less than a week from finishing work, and in the midst of driving through some of the beautiful parts of the world I've ever seen, and yet here I am, as my wife puts it, reading a "work" book.

I can't help it. Partly because that's what I do (and love) and partly because I don't read fiction.

I'm reading a great book called Inbound Marketing. It's all about how the marketing paradigm has shifted and we're now in a world where pull beats push. As the writers put it, the rules of marketing have changed.

I agree, to some extent. Whilst they signal the death knell for traditional "outbound" forms of marketing, in the charitable world, and when it comes to attracting and retaining donors, outbound still wins. Hands down.

But they have a powerful message to tell, and it's an easy read with lots of terrific information, particularly for those wanting to get found on the Internet.

They talk about, amongst other things:

- How to create remarkable content and how critical that is to being found and being successful with inbound marketing

- How to get found in Google, with some really practical and solid search engine optimization tips to consider.

- How to harness other media (including social media tools) to "get found"

It's a great read, and even if you are on vacation and visiting some of the most serene places on earth, check it out.

Jonathon

Digital stuff: keeping it simple

2010-10-29T06:40:00.011+10:00

Recently I got really excited about some cool digital stuff I'd seen at a conference and alluded to some interesting projects we were working on.

Well, we're live with those projects as we speak.

One of them we've worked on is has been with the wonderful folks at WWF-Canada.

We're using a mixture of paid online search and email marketing to individuals who have some (non-financial) relationship with WWF.

If you visit the micro site here, you'll see we present people with two simple options - fill in a short survey or make a monthly gift (in fact for the 'tepid' people we're contacting they are presented with just one option, fill in a survey).

We're less than two weeks, and whilst I can't right now share results, what I will share is what is working really well, and a few key reasons why.

What's working is the survey.

Why?

- The call to action throughout all of the media is very, very clear. Share your view with WWF, tell us what you think about environmental issues.

- It's simple. It takes less than 3 minutes to complete. The questions are easy to understand, and even easier to fill in. No barriers.

- There are no distractions. Remember the Ikea theory I talked about? In other words, keeping the website focused, keep people in one spot. Don't make it easy to get out. Much like a visit to Ikea.

- The language throughout is warm, endearing and inviting. People feel like they want to share.

- The site is clean. Easy on the eyes.

- We're asking people to do something really easy. Something small. And we've provided an incentive to do so.

The key overall is signing up new monthly donors. You'll notice we do have the option to sign up immediately on the site, but we know this is a tough sell. So we're in the main focused on survey completion.

Then it's all about the conversion process (phone and email) afterwards. Watch this space for more on that later.

Just remember, simplicity works. The mechanics and the back end may be complicated, but the key to getting people to 'do something', regardless of the channel, is make it so bloody easy they can't help but do what you're asking them to do.

Jonathon

JFDI

2010-10-21T05:05:00.016+10:00

This is an acronym we use quite a lot in the office.

It isn't that hard to work out its meaning. I'll give you a clue. A rather well known sporting brand coined the term 'Just Do It'.

We simply added another word. Finish (ahem).

You get the drift.

Whilst I'd like to claim I always have a JFDI attitude, it's been my experience that whenever we really put our foot to the floor, on all cylinders - despite the pain, results follow.

Some of the most effective and successful campaigns I've been involved in have happened in the shortest time, with the least time for "planning".

12 weeks campaigns condensed into 7. Responding to emergencies in less than 24 hours. Turning a new idea into a live campaign in a month, when conventional wisdom says it should take 10 weeks.

One specific fundraising project I worked on trebled net income from the previous year, done in a month less than it would 'typically' take. Frankly, we didn't have that extra month.

Doing this usually means blood, sweat and often quite literally, tears. I was reminded of this in the last few days as we went live for one of the most exciting projects I've worked on. Exciting, yes. The cause of upheaval? Most definitely.

It's early days but I'm confident this particular campaign will be a 'stormer'.

Why is it that just getting it done so often really is the best way forward?

I think for two reasons:

1 There is no time to second guess yourself. You back your initial instincts and plough ahead

2 "Planning" time becomes doing time, and there is something to be said for working to a strict deadline. We're humans, we love deadlines (hence why they work so well in direct response).

I'm not suggesting every project you work on should be on a whim, involve staff meltdowns and escalating blood pressure, but in the right environment JFDI can be the way to go.

Jonathon

Silence is deafening

2010-10-12T22:43:00.007+10:00

But whilst I haven't had anything to say here for a little while, I've managed to contribute some thoughts over at the blogs of some colleagues.

Phyllis Freedman asked me to share my 20 cents worth on the lack of planned giving innovation in our sector. Here's my take.

John Suart asked me to share my views on what's right when it comes to spending money on marketing/fundraising. Here's my take.

Thanks Phyllis and John for broaching such provoking, yet necessary topics for us as fundraisers. Helping us continue to raise the bar.

Jonathon

Ikea and charity websites

2010-10-01T13:37:00.011+10:00

What should they share in common? No, it's not that they give guys (including me) cold sweats and a nauseous feeling. That's just Ikea.

Incredibly focused. Corridors. Hard to get out.

It's easy to get caught up in aesthetics and design when redeveloping your site. It isn't rocket science. Up to date news and stories, easy to navigate, not cluttered, coherent explanation of what you do, use of imagery and video.

Again, make it hard to get out. Keep me in there. Make it clear what you want me to do. You can take me off in another direction, but keep coming back to the same spot.

Remember the corridor. Remember Ikea.

Jonathon

Getting some end of year cash in the door

2010-09-25T05:30:00.015+10:00

There have been some really good posts floating around the last few days focused on practical tips for your end of year push.

So, how do you get that cash in the door during the festive season? For many, the lifeblood of our organizations.

Rather than reinvent the wheel I'm going to re-hash an old post, ten copy tips for your next appeal.

However I'll add the following suggestions to give you the best chance to maximize cash gifts right now:

- Tell me the single most important thing (SMIT) that you need to tell me at this point in time. No superfluous information, no distractions. One thing, one thing now.

- Add some extra layers to your end of year push. Consider: pre appeal conference calls for a select group of donors, pre and post email "sandwiches", post appeal phone calls (a nice reminder that the end of the year is approaching and we have not reached our target).

- Promise to feedback post appeal as to the impact you've been able to impart. Then do it. Early January is a wonderful time to reflect on a year gone, and look ahead to the stuff that needs to happen this year.

- Don't sugar coat your appeal. Similar to point 5 in my earlier post, your job is to bring those who care (donors) closer to those in need (beneficiaries). We are not moral gatekeepers, we're fundraisers. Tell it as it is.

Good luck getting that all important cash in the door. And please, share your experiences.

Jonathon

What I wish I knew

2010-09-17T23:43:00.010+10:00

A colleague tweeted the other day asking what as a fundraiser do I wish I'd known/done early in my career?

I'm not one for regrets, but racked my brains to think of some of the things that may have helped knowing when I stumbled into the fundraising world. Mainly:

- I wish I'd got my hands on the Tiny Books of Fundraising much, much earlier. They're called Tiny for a reason, but chock full of nuggets of information that are priceless and lay the foundations for what fundraising is all about.

These are a must read for any colleagues that work with me as part of their induction.

Likewise, Ken Burnett's Relationship Fundraising. A real gem.

- I wish I'd understood that what people say and do are two very different things. It didn't take me long to figure this one out, but knowing that "I won't read/respond to/give to that" doesn't necessarily correlate to response is a handy lesson to learn.

Ask yourself, how many statements do you make about things that you plan to do that you actually follow through on? Apply the same logic to fundraising. People simply respond to darn good fundraising, not just what they think they will.

- I wish I'd asked more people more tough questions. Show me some rubbish things you've done. Talk to me about the biggest screw up you've made. The worst performing campaign. There's lots of chest beating that happens, we're all guilty of it. But I'd rather work out how to avoid common pitfalls than simply look at muscle flexing and storming campaigns.

- I wish I'd realised how important it is to be disciplined with what you do, avoiding loads of distraction. I'm not suggesting stifling innovation, but I would encourage doing what works, and do it really well. Remember what pays the bills.

Ok, I'm starting to feel a little like a kid penning their Christmas wish list. I just wish I'd written this post a few years back.

Jonathon

Need v incompetence?

2010-09-10T07:05:00.009+10:00

We really need the money. But we don't want to look like we are inept.

Thought about that before?

It's a valid concern.

In recent times I've had this conversation with several fundraisers. The discussion comes about when endeavoring to create more urgency to garner further support.

Naturally we think, how do we do that without looking incompetent? Even if you're bloody good at what you do, even the best in the world, this fear can arise.

My suggestions to counter this:

- Ask when you need the money, stop and feedback in between.
- Find the right times to show off your wares, announcing your successes.
- Do a terrific job explaining why you're unique and better than everyone else at least one thing.
- Ensure the execution of the ask is clear, concise and explains why you need help, right now.
- Get the balance right between asking (when there's a need) and non-asking (donor care).

Get these things sorted and the lifeblood of your organization, your supporters, won't question your work. They'll embrace it, and give time and time again.

Jonathon

The link between in memory and legacies?

2010-09-03T08:41:00.013+10:00

When I attended the Institute of Fundraising Convention in July I listened to some interesting stuff about the link between gifts made in memory and legacies (bequests).

Makes sense.

People are making a gift in memory of someone they care about. They are in that head space.

So we've recently been doing some legacy prospecting with one of our clients. Generated a chunk of new confirmed legators through the advent of online/offline surveys (with some follow up activity).

And guess what? One quarter of them had an in memoriam relationship with us. No other financial history, simply made a gift in memory.

It's fair to say this at the heart of legacy approaches for many organizations. Take Cancer Research UK for example. Check out the placement of their legacy and in memoriam asks within their website.

Coincidence? I doubt it.

I'd suggest looking closely at those who have left you that lasting gift and those that have planned to.

In memoriam programs are often the poor cousin of the fundraising mix. Usually because we don't really know what to do with them.

All is not always what it seems. There may be more value there than you think.

Jonathon

PURL's of wisdom

2010-08-27T08:41:00.012+10:00

One of the more counter intuitive things in direct response fundraising is limiting response to just one vehicle.

In other words asking donors to respond through the mail, and the mail only.

Surely giving more options (web, phone) can only increase response/income?

Not necessarily. The reason/s?

- DM donors are DM donors. They're habitual. They love responding through the mail.

- It's easy. There are no distractions (especially if you laser all of their details on the response form and include a postage paid reply envelope).

- There can be a disconnect between the response form/appeal and the person on the end of the call or the landing page on your website.

In other words, you ask for $100 in the letter, all the way through. Then you send me to your 1800 number. The rep on the phone tells me I can "give whatever I feel comfortable with". Huh? But you asked for me $100 in the letter?

Similarly you bounce through to our donation page. The default ask is $40. Huh? But you asked me for $100 in the letter?

See what's happening here.

Now let me say that we have seen instances of more channels open = more income. But it isn't a given. You need to test it on your file. Let the donors do the talking.

The goalposts have shifted recently however. With the advent over the last few years of PURL's: personalized URL's.

Put simply, that means you can send people/donors through to a page where their details are dropped into their own personal page. That $100 ask is still $100, not $40 or "whatever you feel comfortable with".

We're about to do some more testing around pushing people online versus keeping it focused through the mail. But the difference being we're using PURL's in the online group to see whether this increases the chance someone will respond (by pre populating their details) and ensuring we generate the same level of gift we would through the mail (by including the same ask level).

Technology can make our lives easier. And hopefully our fundraising more effective. Who would have thought.

Jonathon

Decision paralysis: harming good fundraising

2010-08-20T07:57:00.014+10:00

I often get funny looks when talking about 'single focus works best'.

In other words, in any fundraising piece, talk about one thing, and one thing really bloody well. Don't stray from the original message. We've tested this over time and proven it to be the most effective way to maximize return.

For Torontonians you'll be familiar with the Steamwhistle beer brand, a local micro brewery that pledges to do one thing, really, really well. And yes, their Pilsner is damned good.

I blogged about this at the start of last year, in keeping it singularly focused for best results.

I'm reading a terrific book at the moment, Switch, by the Heath brothers, made famous by the brilliant business book, Made to Stick.

In it they talk about the notion of decision paralysis. In other words, when presented with lots of choices we often behave irrationally. But as humans.

Like the gourmet food store who set up a table where customers could sample jams for free. One day the table has 6 jams. The next day 24. More customers huddled round the table with 24 jams. But when it came time to buy, they're frozen. Can't make a call. Those who were presented with less options were 10 times more likely to buy.

Decision paralysis creeps in.

Back to fundraising.

You spend 3 pages in a DM piece reiterating the importance and need for ongoing monthly gifts. You build a brilliant case, explain the long term impact on your beneficiaries. You ask for a gift 5 times. You laser the personalized ask on the response form.

And then you pop a cash option on the reverse.

"Yikes, what the hell do you want me to do?"

Decision paralysis creeps in, again.

This isn't some two-bit theory. We've tested this and shown that single focus works best. It makes sense, remember like Steamwhistle, do one thing, really, really well.

Actually, I think it's time for a beer.

Jonathon.

No love for Google?

2010-08-06T08:08:00.009+10:00

I was checking out Sean Triner’s blog yesterday as he was blogging live from a digital integration session he was helping to facilitate with Ted Hart in Sydney.

Of the 30 odd organizations represented there, only two had applied for and were using their Google Grants. Staggering.

Google are giving away free advertising space (helped by volunteers) and charities just aren’t using it. Yes, there are some restrictions. Yes, it requires time to manage, but it’s worth it.

I’ve talked about this before in Google AdWords learning’s for charities, but I still find it disappointing that we aren’t taking advantage of a wonderful opportunity.

Take the Haiti disaster for example. Look at this screen shot below, I typed in Haiti Help and whilst there were paid searches, its obvious many organizations fundraising for Haiti aren't using this as a vehicle to drive traffic.

Regardless of whether AdWords drive donations (emergencies are one area where they can drive significant $), we need to be doing this. Here are three reasons why you must:

1 Provides great learning for proposition development. Here's what people are actually searching for, online.

2 Great for traffic (not donation) building. If you have a program in place that is focused on building a decent email file (with the intention to cultivate and ask), well thought through ads can rock this.

3 If you're not running campaigns, someone else is.

Of course, there are many things to think through, in particular ensuring you have someone responsible it.

Click here for some earlier learning's. We're running more campaigns now, so watch this space for further insights.

Jonathon

Digital stuff that excites me

2010-07-31T06:42:00.005+10:00

I just got back from the latest Bridge Conference in DC, which I have to say was top drawer stuff. Got some great value from this years event.

A must event for direct response fundraisers, so try and get along in 2011.

I was fortunate enough to speak there again, and talking about one of my fav topics, monthly giving.

My focus outside of this was definitely in the digital sessions and there were some enlightening sessions, particular from the folks on the commercial side sharing their wares.

I was most intrigued learning about intent data online, which is now second behind transactional data as seen by the most effective tool for digital marketers in driving sales.

I also learnt about Twitters plan to introduce sponsored tweets and about 're-targeting' (where you look for people who have visited your site previously in other spots once they've left your site).

All stuff that we're not paying enough attention to in the charity world.

Here are a few digital initiatives that I'm working with my brilliant clients on at the moment:

- An online survey aimed purely at retention of street recruited (younger) shortly after sign up, using the aid of a custom built micro site.

- A multi staged acquisition effort focused on driving traffic through digital means and using the phone as the primary conversion vehicle (to convert to monthly giving).

Prospecting will be geared initially around finding 'hand-raisers' (people who have previously done 'something') - and then moving them along to do something else, another action, before asking for a financial commitment. We'll also be trailing a series of other prospecting approaches including Google AdWords campaigns (where the CTA is based on action at first, followed by a donation request), and paid online advertising. We'll definitely be looking into the use of intent data to help us better place relevant ads.

- More website optimization efforts which will focus on more effective data capture, specifically looking at the best way to get people signed up to getting more information from you. Again looking at ways to solicit hand-raisers initially, testing ways to convert to a larger commitment thereafter.

Thats it for the week. Watch this space.

Jonathon

We don't know what we don't know

2010-07-23T08:05:00.009+10:00

A fairly old adage and definitely applicable to individual giving.

Here are a few examples where this saying rings true. In other words, where people really don’t know what they don’t know.

- When it comes to communications preferences. On a response vehicle, how can we expect donors, and in many instances new donors, to know what “send me one communication a year” really means. Added to that, how do they know whether if they received 5, 8 or 12 communications that they wouldn’t be completely enamored and inspired by what you’ve spoken to them about? More so than if they got one communication each year. The point is we can’t assume. This communication preference can be incredibly destructive for your program, and ultimately the work you support.

- When we’re talking about types of legacies/bequests. Did you know the difference between a residual bequest and a pecuniary bequest before you began working in fundraising? Unless you worked in the legal profession I doubt it. So why should we assume donors know this? It’s our duty to explain to them the difference, and in this particular example why residual bequests are worth on average anywhere from 5, 10 or even 30 times as much on average than a bequest left for a specific amount. Because it maintains its relative value over time (whereas a specific amount loses its relative value over time). See here for more on that.

- When we’re talking about the impact of other types of gifts, namely the way in which ongoing, monthly (regular) gifts can stretch the impact they can have on your beneficiaries in the long term.

Often we get so caught up in jargon and what we perceive as benefits (newsletters, trinkets, receiving less mail) that we neglect to talk about what this really means. What's in it for me (as a donor) and your beneficiaries? That includes a sense of satisfaction, perhaps even a feeling that we're insuring ourselves and our loved ones from whatever it is we're supporting, the threat of cancer or a killer disease.

That's what real benefits are about. But how can we assume people know?

It is an old adage, but a bloody good one worth thinking about.

Jonathon

Two words to say to you

2010-07-16T08:14:00.008+10:00

Thank you.

Two of the easiest words to say, often the two most neglected.

Not the case in this wonderful example of donor care shared by Doug Nelson and his team at the BC Cancer Foundation, to those who helped them most last year. Their donors.

The format? A fantastic two minute video repeating those very impactful words over and over. From staff, from beneficiaries.

I love this for its simplicity, personal touch and pragmatism.

In Doug's words, "Normally at this time, we would produce an Annual Report and mail it out to all of our donors. This year, we’ve done something different".

Brilliant.

I wish more organizations would adopt this philosophy. It's not to say the financial stuff isn't important (it's contained within the micro site), but it isn't the focus.

Enough from me. Check it out.

Well done Doug and team. Thank you for sharing.

Jonathon

Stuff from across the pond

2010-07-08T20:40:00.020+10:00

As an Aussie, I'm not usually the first person to admit the Brits are teaching us a thing or two. Although to be fair that conversation usually pertains to sport.

But my week back in the UK for the Institute of Fundraising Convention has shown me once again that the Brits are really doing some good stuff, again showing they're not afraid to try things.

The two big things I took from this conference were that British charities are still at the forefront of testing (and not paralyzed by fear in doing things that may not work), and they they're in general further ahead in the digital space.

On the latter, I deliberately immersed myself in the digital fundraising stream and was impressed by the level of sophistication organizations are displaying. Like listening to Cancer Research UK talking about their hyper personalized approach to e-communications with event participants that includes up to 2,000 variations for sign up emails. As well as the significant levels of multivariate testing they've been conducting throughout their website, understanding the behaviour of individuals and using that to drive better conversion of those who visit their site.

Quite frankly we should all know which layout, format, colors, fonts and call to actions work most effectively on our site. But we don't. Thanks to CRUK for sharing and providing impetus for all of us to do better.

Some other tidbits I picked up included:

- Guide Dogs approach to in memoriam fundraising. Dispelling the myth that in mem is only for death related charities, Guide Dogs believe they've been successful here because it's about life, and positive experiences with their cause, not death. They also shared that they've seen a direct link between in memoriam gifts and legacies.

- In the panel I sat on called Response at any Price, looking at the role of incentives/premiums in DM, the British Red Cross shared the results of their 12 month cohort test. The upshot was that a years worth of testing of the use of premiums to attract new supporters, and then use them to continue to cultivate this group resulted in an additional £800,000 in net income for the organization to spend on the work they do abroad. Amazing stuff. Hard to argue with the data.

- Matt Goody from Shelter tackled the ongoing issue of attrition of face to face recruited regular givers. With average year 1 attrition in the UK of around 60%, Matt talked about the work Shelter had done to try and reach out to older donors, without impacting the volume of new supporters they were attracting (the biggest obstacle on focusing just on finding older donors). Whilst initially (through geo-demographic targeting) they were able to reduce overall attrition, this was offset by lower sign ups and much higher cost per donor to recruit. Over time however they have slowly addressed this balance and are now generating much more long term value by finding those all important 'older' donors (I.e. over 25) to feed into the acquisition mix.

Hats off to my friends across the pond, showing that even in tough times it's all about innovating, trying new things and undertaking proper, robust tests.

Jonathon

The next 'big' thing?

2010-06-29T22:38:00.027+10:00

We're always looking for 'the next big thing', right?

It's a conversation that I've been having with lots of people over the last couple of months.

Fortunately, for us in North America, the biggest areas likely to impact our programs dramatically are staring us right in the face. Specifically:

1 Finding lots, lots more of those wonderful monthly donors. By doing the following:

- Spending more where you'll get the greatest return. Often to take a quantum leap we need to make a sizable investment. It's not the answer we may want to hear, but its often the reality. Refer to previous posts about looking and understanding the relative net value of different types of supporters.

- Finding hand raisers. In seeking out and attracting new people to support on an ongoing basis, this offers the potential to find serious numbers of new individuals.

The concept is simple: asking someone to do something really easy, really simple. "Would you sign this petition?" .... "Would you stand beside me and say no to....?"

Quickly followed by something else. Perhaps another simple action or campaigning piece. Then once this person has had the chance to know you a little better, we ask for a regular, monthly gift. It opens up a conversation for many you couldn't have has minus the two-three stepped approach. Bingo.

- The above ties into another question which I'm regularly asked: where do I find younger donors? The simple answer is on the street. There is no better mechanism for finding younger donors that face to face fundraising. Large volumes, and quickly. There are caveats as always and this blog has dedicated a lot of time in the past talking about street fundraising.

- The next best place is moving into the digital space. We know through benchmarking that the average value of online recruited monthly donor is between $900 and $1,000 after five years. The challenge is finding them. Needle in a hay stack. Volumes are tiny.

My suggestions here:

- Don't use any one vehicle in isolation. Banner ads, Google AdWords, cold eblasts. All great sources to 'push' people to do something. But very difficult to make them work on their own. Sheerly as a result of volume.

- Keep it really simple. Send prospects somewhere, preferably a custom built site. When they land there, make it hard for them to get out. Don't have lots of distractions. Keep the space really clean and simple.

- Get a phone number. Even if you need to incentivize people to provide it. The difference between success and lack of it, when it comes to multi staged approaches and conversion is the penetration level of telephone numbers.

- Put your personal feelings aside. If I had a dollar (actually maybe ten) for each meeting I've been in where someone has said "I would never do that", I wouldn't be blogging right now. I'd be off sailing in the Caribbean. Gut feeling and instincts are great, especially in direct response where you can test.

But data is critical. If Greenpeace had listened to what I'm sure the gut instincts of a lot of their staff were thinking in the early 90's, we likely wouldn't be writing about face to face. And the sector would be billions of dollars worse off.

2 Getting back to basics on bequests. By doing the following:

- Looking at your data. Our work through benchmarking uncovered recently that the things that intuitively make sense (yes, our "gut" instincts) in this instance are spot on. Loyalty is a driver in someones propensity to leave a bequest. Number of gifts, cumulative value and how recently someone has given a onetime cash donation are indicate how likely someone is to have confirmed you in their Will.

There is likely an element of targeting here, in other words we're asking these people more often, but it's mostly a reflection of the relationship.

- Repetition. Follow the logic of all fundraising: ask, ask and ask again. You're planting seeds here. Whilst we have seen supporter surveys as one of the biggest drivers of delivering prospects and those who have self identified as confirmed bequestors, those who have the most success are the gardeners who planed those seeds long before.

Once, twice a year we need to be telling people the enormous difference they're lasting legacy could make. And of course, not just educating, but asking.

- Not overcomplicating things. Ask for residual bequests. They're worth far, far more because they hold their relative value over a time. For some organizations 20, 30 or 50 times more than a specific amount.

And almost in all circumstances the large majority of planned giving income is from actual bequests left, that is not gifts of stock or securities. Yes there are always exceptions, but I've found these incredibly rare. Which means, keep it simple. Push for residuals, offer specific bequests as an option.

- Focusing on the why. A much more effective way to introduce, and quite frankly, sell bequests. The how needs to come afterwards.

- I mentioned getting back to basics. The mail, whilst helping spot those people with a greater likelihood of leaving a gift in their Will (older, loyal, long term donors) also happens to be one of the most effective ways to 'convert' supporters. In fact the mail plays an integral role through bequest packs, surveys and follow up conversion letters. However of course the best approach strategically uses the telephone and some face to face solicitation (including things like bequests events).

That's it for a Tuesday morning. The next big thing for us North American fundraisers just happens to be right here, on our doorstep. There's a hell of a lot of growth still to be driven from more effectively generating lots of new regular supporters, and helping people leave us their most significant, lasting gift.

Jonathon

Debunking the myth: 'mail less'

2010-06-19T02:24:00.011+10:00

I was checking out Jeff Brook's article on Fundraising Success this morning, The Curse of Too Much Mail.

I've broached this a lot in the past, namely here at how often should I talk to my donors and more recently here when drawing a similar bow, specifically how often should I blog?

Jeff is absolutely spot on when he points out "Adding more impacts to your schedule increases revenue and improves donor retention".

And when qualifying that also hits the nail on the head by saying "The real problem isn't too much mail, but too little relevance. The wrong  message sent to the wrong people at the wrong time."

Earlier in the year we looked at this as part of our benchmarking study in Canada.

And guess what we found?

Those that contact their donors the most often invariably deliver the most net income. You'll note I said contact, not mail. Yes a large portion of that contact is through the mail, and yes a large portion of that includes asking, but not always.

That includes asking, thanking, updating, feeding back. Some more asking. And then all over again.

That includes phone, mail, digital, personal contact.

That includes getting the balance right.

So when we looked at this in detail the upshot was that those organization's delivering the best retention and reactivation rates, and the most net value both in terms of cash income and monthly were those who made the most effort to reach out and get in touch.

So we really shouldn't mail less. We should mail/talk/connect with people when we have something to say.

Jonathon

Haiti response: 'mystery shopping' findings released

2010-06-12T02:45:00.019+10:00

One of the things I'm passionate about in our sector is delivering brilliant levels of supporter care.

In fact much of what I've done over the few years is working with charities to find even better ways to reach out and look after those people who are the lifeblood of what we do: our donors.

You may have seen some earlier posts here about the mystery shopping work we've been conducting in different parts of the world. To understand how charities care for donors, and look at ways to do it even better.

So in the wake of the devastating earthquake in Haiti earlier this year, I got together with my colleagues in Australia and our friends over at Pell & Bales in the UK, and The Fundraising Company in Spain to get a sense of how charities fundraising for Haiti were doing in the wash up.

I'll spend some more time over the coming weeks looking at some of the specific findings from this project, but in a nutshell here's what we did:

• Made an online gift around two weeks after the Haiti disaster. The gift made was for the equivalent of $25 USD, to 52 organizations in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and Spain. A full list of those organizations that we ‘mystery shopped’ can be found at the end of this document.

• Sat back and watched what happened after the donation was made. We monitored the organizations subsequent efforts for the next two months (up till the end of April).

• Analyzed the results, based on five key criteria:

1. Initial contact experience. What was the experience like as a donor making the donation? Did the charity actually take our money?

2. Response time. Did we hear back from the charity the same day the gift was made online?

3. Value of the ‘thank you’. Was it personal? Were we actually thanked ’? Was a story shared? Were we provided with links to up to date information?

4. How proactive the organization was. Was information shared about how our gift would make a difference? Was regular/monthly giving promoted initially and throughout the period?

5. The follow up. Was there ongoing feedback and updates? Were we asked for subsequent donations, and if so were we asked to consider a regular/monthly gift?

So what happened?

For the most part the initial response to our gifts was pretty good. Most responses were speedy, the level of thanking was good (mostly) and in the main our gifts were processed (except for 4 donations we attempted to make in Spain).

Immediately after our gift we began to be communicated with regularly. We were kept abreast of what was happening in the field. Certainly from an operational perspective. Our biggest observation was that there were a real lack of stories being shared, about people, real people, who were actually being helped. We were fed lots about the facts, not much about human stories.

Subsequently we wanted to see how many efforts were made to ask us for another gift/s. And in particular did these organizations each out and ask us for a regular/monthly gift? The take up on this was low, which was disappointing. We know that (perhaps bar the US, see my earlier post) all of the countries have seen explosive growth in this form of giving and we expected charities to ask us to 'convert'. And quickly. Some did (just 29% in the first 2 months), most didn't (some have done since).

As I said there will be more on this over the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, check out a summary of our findings and some observations and recommendations about what next.

Jonathon

Why hasn't monthly giving exploded in the US?

2010-06-11T07:54:00.024+10:00

I've been canvassing opinion from some of the best American fundraisers of late about the $64m question: why has monthly/regular giving not really "taken off" like it has in other developed fundraising nations?

The views I've had back from some of the best in the business, including the likes of Mal Warwick, have been pretty universal.

Before I go on I should say, for clarification, by monthly gift I mean an auto deduct or automatic payment form someones credit card or bank account. I am not referring to monthly giving clubs that require organizations to send monthly reminders to people. These are two very different things.

Most cite the proliferation and unsophistication of the banking system. Cheques still play a huge role in the lives of people in the US, less so automatic payments, like us Aussies and Brits are used to. As a side note, the UK plans to go "cheque less" by 2018.

There were other consistent reasons given, like trust (both with banks, and from donors).

I feel all of these are excuses. Monthly giving really is the big idea, the next big thing in the US.

Of course there are some brilliant organizations with large monthly files. ASPCA, Amnesty International, Greenpeace. All I believe are riding the monthly giving wave. There are no doubt more. But not enough.

But for me, there are two very simple reasons why ongoing, regular gifts have not (yet) transformed the monthly giving landscape in the US.

1 US charities are a victim of their own success. Direct response, in particular direct mail, programs in the US quite simply, rock. The sheer volume, and on the back of it, levels of income organizations generate from these vehicles is astounding.

There's a part of me that thinks if I was Director of Development of a US charity I too would find the case for monthly tougher if I was bringing in tens of millions of dollars through the door this year with an intensive onetime cash driven program.

It's certainly an easier "sell" in Australia, Canada, the UK or New Zealand, where we are fishing from small pools comparatively.

That doesn't mean it isn't a case worth fighting for. For example, check out the slide below which shows the average 3 year net value for monthly gifts versus onetime cash gifts. This varies by method of recruitment, and of course varies depending on other factors, but gives you a sense of the difference over the long term of the power of monthly gifts.

When you put it like that, its a tougher proposition to ignore.

2 Poor execution. To be fair, this is not exclusive to the US. There are many cases of not getting the implementation right, and I've blogged about it lots, including back here.

However the point I want to make here is its easy to do something once, not get it right - reflected by poor results - and then be heard to say "we tried that and it didn't work". I also talked a little while back specifically about this topic, why poor execution can get in the way of a solid approach.

I hope this doesn't happen for lots of US organizations in the pursuit of serious fundraising transformation.

Monthly giving has changed the way we fundraise in the UK, Australia, Canada and many other countries.

The US is next.

Jonathon

The 'best' speakers at conferences

2010-06-02T22:35:00.015+10:00

Fundraising conferences want the best speakers, the latest and most topical content, real case studies, insightful commentary, sharing results. Right?

If you answered yes to that question then why the hell do we care about whether the person facilitating the session works directly for a charity, or works indirectly for a charity (consultant/agency)?

Quite frankly we shouldn't and we need to stop our obsession with this.

My colleague Sean Triner wrote a piece earlier this week about the same issue. I won't steal his thunder too much, check out what he has to say.

I was speaking to a colleague a little while back who told me about a certain conference that had a mandate to have a certain % of their speakers (in fact almost exclusively) from charities.

This doesn't help anyone. Least of all the delegates. As I mentioned in the first line of this blog, surely we want the best, of everything? If we agree that's the case then it's irrelevant which organization the person at the front of the room is paid by.

Of course consultants have a vested interest in speaking. Noone will deny that. But again, if they present loads of really useful, practical case studies, share results and provide tons of brilliant ideas then that's the point. If they don't, then they don't get invited back. Simple. Same goes for charity folks.

I've been fortunate recently to help out the gang at AFP as part of the education committee for Congress 2010. By the way it's shaping up to be a terrific event.

As part of the education committee we're looking for the best of the best. From locally here in Ontario, throughout Canada and from around the world.

It's not a debate about 'charity v consultant'. Hence why Congress is one the leading fundraising get together's in the world.

Check out Sean's article as he looks in depth at the inherent problems with our obsession with consultants speaking.

But please. Please stop complaining about this. Put your hand up and contribute at conferences and understand the reasons why focusing on the best is more critical than focusing on charity speakers.

Jonathon

Surprise and delight

2010-05-27T14:44:00.016+10:00

I had dinner at a lovely restaurant in Vancouver tonight.

As I sat waiting for my food, the waiter appeared with a dish 'compliments of the kitchen'. I think he was more taken aback by the look on my face than I was by the gesture.

I can't remember the last time this happened I'm thinking. In fact I don't think this has ever happened to me? It certainly took me by surprise, and delighted me no end.

The dish was small, but really nice. Yet the act significant. After that the food tasted better, the service seemed exceptional, and of course I left a decent tip. Well, big for an Aussie (we aren't great tippers).

I sat there wondering how often charities 'surprise' and 'delight' their donors? I racked my brains thinking of how charities can have this effect on their supporters.

How can you surprise?

- By showing, sending or talking about something we've never heard before.
- By saying thank you, or giving feedback, just because 'you can'. When I least expect it. And not attached to an ask.
- By asking me to 'do something' occasionally that doesn't involve opening my wallet.

So how can you delight?

- By reminding me why it's gifts like mine, however small, that have a cumulative effect. Again, when it wasn't expected.
- By using inclusive language that makes me feel part of a special group.
- By finding ways to genuinely bring me a step closer to the work I support.

It's fair to say I'll return to the scene of tonight's dinner.

Surprise and delight. A simple concept with significant impact.

Jonathon

Where do online donors go?

2010-05-21T08:32:00.014+10:00

As part of our benchmarking study recently, we were asked to look at the subsequent behaviour of new onetime cash recruits.

In other words, of donors that are recruited online, where do they go once 'on board'? What about DM donors? Do they follow the same stream or veer off into other vehicles.

Here's what we found:

- DM recruited cash donors tended to keep doing what they did originally. 90% subsequently kept giving through the mail. No surprises there.

- The same mostly rang true for telephone recruits, 85% continuing to give via the phone and almost 15% through the mail.

- For online recruits, slightly more varying (and perhaps surprising) results. Around 75% continued giving through the method of recruitment, around 15% then gave through the mail, and the remainder through a combination of other channels. This is shown below.

What's the upshot of this?

Whilst some of this may appear on face value a little startling, all is not what is seems at first. In other words, the reason a large chunk of 'online' recruited donors moved across to donate offline is not necessarily indicating too much about their giving behaviour.

More about their giving requests and cultivation. The fact is many of us have much more sophisticated and coherent offline fundraising streams. Therefore if the numbers are small (ish) we tend to include donors in the bucket that allows the most flexibility, largest volumes, has the most frequent communications.

And often that's the mail.

I'm not suggesting it isn't noteworthy - it dispels somewhat the myth that online recruits won't give offline, but contextually I think it says more about programs than behaviour.

Jonathon

Insights vs. Analysis?

2010-05-14T22:01:00.011+10:00

Data analysis and data insights.

Same thing, surely? Semantics?

Possibly, but I think there's a difference. In fact let me summarize with the 4 biggest differences:

1 Analysis is usually about results and performance. Insights are about turning opportunities into outcomes.

2 Analysis is mostly done using programs with fancy three and four letter acronyms. Insights uses fancy tools like Excel and Access to produce the data.

3 Insights are delivered in workshop style. The value is more in the conversations than the 'hard' data itself. Analysis typically looks something like this picture below. I've seen many analysis projects support really crooked desks and act as great door stops.

4 Insights provide context, analysis doesn't. For example knowing that a retention rate from one channel is half of that of other tells you nothing about why, how or what to do. It also may not provide any discussion or link to the relative value of those donors (with half the retention rate).

The point is data shouldn't just be about geeky stuff (although granted insights may be produced by geeky types). Data insights is about real actions and uncovering ways forward to grow (and make more money). It should be delivered by practitioners/fundraisers, not analysts.

I think the best way to measure the value of this is gauge the value driven from the discussion attached to any data project more so than the data itself.

Door stops can be handy, but insights much more useful to help you fundraise more effectively.

Jonathon

'5 reasons for nonprofits to still use Direct Mail'

2010-05-09T05:23:00.018+10:00

That was aptly named title of the webinar I presented with the folks over at Artez on Thursday.

Fair play to the gang there for inviting me to deliver on this topic, given that, for the most part their business is focused on the digital world.

On the back of the news I shared the other day, specifically what's really happening in Canada - it would be easy for the doomsayers to say; there's the proof, direct mail has had it.

Not so quickly.

You can click here to see the slides I walked through the other day. Let me summarize my argument 'for':

1 Still a large chunk of the pie. Despite a drop in income in Canada in 2009, cash income from DM still accounts for 60% of all cash income, and 20% of all income from individuals. Hardly pocket change.

2 Delivering long term valuable monthly givers. We know monthly continues to play a bigger role (growing 9% last year). The average DM recruited monthly donor we are seeing at around $500-$600 net after 3 years. If you can get em' they really are your best friends.

3 Getting close to your donors. DM is the most effective way to get people, on a large scale, to open themselves up and tell you lots about themselves and their motivations. Surveys done to offline donors are around 10 times as effective as other channels. And we know, finding those emotional trigger points positively impacts retention, hence long term value.

4 Working with other channels. Some of the best digital campaigns I've seen have been driven on the back of offline learning's. Case in point was the successful online survey acquisition activity I shared (which recruited over 500 monthly/regular givers aided by insights from the offline world.

Online (and other channels) can also drive DM. A great example of this is the advent of search engine marketing and in particularly Google AdWords. Using online lessons around what people are looking for and responding to can help shape what you do in other media. See earlier post on learning's for charities here.

5 Fueling bequests. The mail plays an enormous role here. Not only in finding the right people that are prepared to 'put their hand up' but as the flow chart I shared displayed in the actual prospecting and conversion process. Huge. Don't lose sight of this.

Remember, the session was not the 5 reasons why nonprofits should just use direct mail. The most successful programs right now are those that ensure a connect between all channels, that talk to each other.

Thanks again to the Artez team.

Jonathon

So what is really happening in Canada?

2010-05-05T23:15:00.025+10:00

Did the bottom fall through the floor of charitable giving in 2009? Is DM dead and buried? Is online giving alive and kicking?

These are the issues that we've been able to answer through the data and insights (and conversations) shared as part of Pareto Fundraising's latest round of benchmarking, released two weeks ago.

Firstly I'd like to thank the 14 brilliant organizations who were involved in the latest study. You made this happen.

For those interested in the key findings, click here for the full media release.

However, let me give you a teaser:

- 2009 was a 'mixed bag'. Whilst we saw a dip in overall and individual income, we saw increases in some key areas of giving. The fall in individual income was attributable mostly to a fall in direct mail (house and prospect) income. However it should be noted that some of this was a result of less activity, not simply a drop off in results.

- Monthly giving continues to grow, up 9% from 2008 to $48m in annual income, at the height of the global financial crisis. On the current growth trajectory, regular automatic payments look set to topple cash giving as a source of income in 2010.

- Whilst income from planned gifts (bequests) grew last year to around $23m, this is an area of massive potential for Canadian organizations, with the average proportion of cash donors that have indicated they have left a bequest in their Will at around 0.2%. This is far below other countries we've looked at this, where we've seen this range from 1% up as high as 6%.

- Online giving continues to (not surprisingly) grow as a proportion of the 'pie', but it's still a small one, representing around 2% of all income from individuals.

- The average value of a mail recruited monthly donor is worth, on average, five times the value of a mail recruited cash donor, after five years ($800 vs. $135).

So what?

Some key takeaways/what this means for Canadian charities:

1 Recruiting low value cash donors is a waste of time*. Monthly giving is where growth is, it's reliable, resilient and recession proof. The caveat is if you are using low value cash donors to feed into a monthly giving conversion program, immediately.

2 It is not too late to jump on the monthly giving bandwagon. Those who have done so within the last two years are already reaping the rewards.

3 Bequests, bequests, bequests. Same point as above, it isn't too late. Strategically, its debatably the single most important area of investment. It is irrelevant that you may not see the fruits of your labor, the point is, your beneficiaries will. Refer here for an earlier post about how to effectively talk about bequests.

4 Direct mail is not growing. Online is. However before you revert your budget from offline to online, remember that mail programs feed into your monthly giving and planned giving efforts. Not to mention fueling prospects for major gifts. Don't lose sight of that. The performance of your traditional streams can't simply be measured on the level of cash they bring you, but also the impact on your other efforts.

5 Remember my post recently about the balance between volume and value. Those who are worth the most are traditionally the hardest to find, and often the most expensive. Think about what you want to achieve.

I'll be touching more on the insights delivered from this exercise over the coming weeks. Stay tuned.

Jonathon

What to do following Haiti?

2010-04-27T07:57:00.010+10:00

In the days following the tragic circumstances in Haiti, many fundraisers posed the question, what should non-emergency charities do?

Should they continue to appeal to donors? Should they keep prospecting? Should they delay things till 'the dust settles'?

My colleague Ruthann and I discussed this. For about 12.8 seconds. And then realised, as I blogged about back them, that it was business as usual. Full steam ahead.

Ironically for us we were due to lodge an appeal for a client just two days after the Haiti earthquake. So when we got to work on the morning after and realized the enormity of the Haiti disaster, we braced ourselves for the obvious question that our client could reasonably ask...

Should we delay the appeal?

The brief chat with the client was just that, brief. They trusted our judgement and agreed wholeheartedly. The appeal was urgent. It needed to go out. We needed to raise the money.

And it did, it went out on time.

So what happened?

A little over 3 months since the first (of two) stages of the mailing was dropped and the appeal is rocking along nicely. Net income (that's taking into account all costs) is up around 25% on last year, and rising daily. Average gifts and response rates are both up from 2009.

Why?

Because the appeal did what it needed to do. Strong call to action, told a compelling story, used personal information, asked appropriately.

It really was, and still is, business as usual for non-disaster charities.

Jonathon

Volume vs. Value?

2010-04-23T05:26:00.017+10:00

When I ask fundraisers which they'd prefer for their recruitment efforts - get more donors in the door (volume) versus get more money (value), not surprisingly the response usually starts and ends with 'both'.

On Tuesday I presented to 14 brilliant Canadian organization's who have pooled their data together as part of Pareto Fundraising's benchmarking cooperative. Brilliant because they have the foresight to see the tremendous insight provided by coming together to share for the greater good. Hats off to you guys.

I digress a little.

As we walked through the latest round of analysis, discussing the implications of the findings (more to be released shortly), questions and debate arose around certain fundraising methods/channels.

"Why would we do that? It seems a lot of work for little net return"

Good point indeed.

And herein lies one of the challenges we face. Do we want lots of new people or lots of income from new donors?

For example you have channel X which brings you $800 net on average after 5 years. Wonderful you think. But you can only find a few hundred of them a year.

On the flip side channel Y delivers just $350 after taking into account all costs in the same period. But you can recruits in the thousands each year.

What to do. What to do...

Here's my take on this:

- The decision should be made in light of what delivers the most long term income overall.

- There may be other factors dictating your ability to invest in channel X or Y. For example what's your comfort level with channel X which may ruffle some feathers both internally and to the general public?

- Linked to the above point, yours and your organizations attitudes to take risks are incredibly important.

- Consider the roll out potential of any method of recruitment. Pointless investing in something that offers little beyond any trial phase.

The short answer is you likely need a balance of both. Really solid drivers of growth in volume balanced with 'money in the bank', vehicles that deliver lots of net income.

For example, in countries like Canada and Australia if you want large volumes of monthly donors you invest in street recruitment. If you want long term, loyal and valuable supporters, digital and direct mail recruited donors are your meal ticket.

Consider the above points, and what you are setting out to achieve.

Whatever you decide, have the long term interests of those you exist to help, your benefactors, front of mind.

Jonathon

Securing Future Growth: 10 Point Plan

2010-04-15T05:23:00.017+10:00

I just got back from the AFP International Conference in Baltimore.

The session I presented focused on securing future growth, looking at some critical lessons from the global financial meltdown and what charities can do to prepare themselves for ensuing tough times.

In reality however the session essentially talked about a blueprint for more effective fundraising.

You can find the presentation here. I've also included a summary of the 10 points that are covered in it:

1 Stop using ROI as key measure and focus on net income. An obsession with ROI can be destructive and stop you focusing on real growth. Worry more about increasing net income.

2 Don’t sacrifice long term for short term. Cuts you make in acquisition and planned gifts/bequests are difficult to make up. You're always playing catch up. See the forest from the trees.

3 Accept that donors are not cheap. Therefore spend time looking at those will deliver the most, long term net return.

4 Use data cleverly to make informed and strategic decisions. Data + Intelligence = Insights. Understand what the data is really telling you, all is not always what it seems.

5 Avoid distraction. Spend more time doing what you know will make you lots of money, then on things that have the potential to make you some. That doesn't mean don't innovate - but remember, innovation isn't about doing new stuff that no one else is doing, it's about doing things you're not currently doing.

6 Look around at what others are doing: understand where growth is coming from. Scan environmentally. Benchmark. Mystery shop others. Look to see what others are doing: good, bad or indifferent.

7 Implement proper, well thought out supporter relationship management. Looking after donors means: proper thanking, giving and getting feedback, being personal, focusing on the 'honeymoon period' (first 30 days after someones first gift).

8 Get the fundraising tactics right. Continue to ask, tell stories, ask for the right thing, give people deadlines.

9 Focus on monthly givers. Ongoing, automatic (monthly) giving has transformed the fundraising landscape*. It continues to grow (even in the recession where we saw growth of around 10%). It's the way to go. Caveat is in the US where fewer organization's have ridden the monthly giving wave, but this is changing.

10 Use multiple vehicles to find new supporters. Multi stage and multi channel recruitment programs are rocking right now. Simply relying on one acquisition vehicle is dangerous and blinkered.

The crux of the session focused on decisions we can control, not those we can't. The organizations that have/are coming through the financial crisis in healthy, and in sometimes 'better' shape are those that have adhered to the above blueprint.

Jonathon

Is your appeal urgent?

2010-04-07T05:11:00.019+10:00

I've had a few philosophical discussions (and debates) about the use of the word urgent in fundraising appeals.

My take is simple. If you need the money and you're putting it to good use, it's difficult to argue it isn't urgent.

That being said, it can be tricky going back with the same message every single time you appeal to your supporters.

There are a number of ways you can display the need for funds in an urgent manner, without the use of the word emblazoned across every page of the appeal and the outer envelope, namely:

- The use of a deadline. "Will you please send your gift by the 30th of June so I can decide with my team whether we will be able to fund XYZ..."

- The tone and language used within the letter. No need to sensationalize, but linking the need to a real person helps bring home the gravity of the situation. And hence the need to drop everything and act. Now.

- The repetition of the ask, which reinforces the need, and implicitly it's urgency. As a rule, within a 4 page letter aim to have the ask repeated 5-6 times to maximize results.

And there is another way. Please note, this is merely a tactic and I wouldn't suggest using this more than once. See the diagram below of a pack we developed a few years back. Anything stand out?

If you guessed the express post envelope (with guaranteed next day delivery) then you were right.

This was sent to around 450 identified high value donors. The pack cost more than $10 a piece for this segment, but bought in well over $100k. Not bad.

Of course the success can't be solely attributed to the use of the express post envelope. The message within had to look and feel urgent. Which it did.

The envelope definitely helped. But remember, this was a tactic, and it hasn't been used for this group since.

Ask yourself, is my appeal really urgent? And if so look at ways you can display it's critical nature, besides the use of the dreaded 'U' word.

Jonathon

How often should I blog?

2010-03-31T04:27:00.013+10:00

I find the most difficult thing as a blogger is actually blogging. Not thinking of things to talk about, but actually dedicating the time to put my fingers on the keypad.

But as per my post last week about having a thirst for knowledge, we all have time. We just have to decide how to use it.

The second hardest thing is thinking (and often over-thinking) how often I should blog. I wrestle with this a lot. Once a week isn't often enough. Three times will really tick people off.

So I usually settle for twice a week. In fact I looked back at the past two years and noticed I was blogging between 1.5 and 2 posts on average a week.

So what?

Well, just over a year ago I responded to a similar concern that many fundraisers have, how often should I talk to my donors?

We worry incessantly about this. And usually for no reason. The short answer is, you talk to donors when you have something to say. You'll notice I said talk, not ask. Deliberately.

You ask when you need the money. You thank, feedback and care in between. Get the balance right and you can say goodbye to those sleepless nights.

For me (and my blog) the proofs in the pudding. Guess what, when I blog regularly, assuming the posts are mildly useful and have some decent content, people come back.

Funny that. Keep your communications relevant, useful and tell some stories and look what happens.

To summarize:

- Ask, then thank, feedback and care. Repeat the cycle.

- Do what's right, not what is easiest. That means constantly reinventing your communications. There is an argument for simply repeating past communications if they've worked (I've seen this generate the same level of results from one year to the next). But are you taking people on a journey? Are you giving them the opportunity to learn something new about what you do and who you help?

- Understand what your data is telling you. Too often we feel obliged to 'mail less' because it feels right. Your gut tells you one thing, the evidence shows you another.

Thanks for visiting. If I practice what I preach then I have one more blog to write later this week.

Jonathon

I've got copy on my mind

2010-03-26T02:50:00.013+10:00

Thinking lots about copy this week, as appeal drafts come across my desk, and the blogosphere seems to be a buzz with copywriting tips.

In fact I'd recommend two excellent posts worth checking out. There's Agent Jen Love's piece entitled Dear Mr Fancypants and Jeff Brooks' seven more ways to write better fundraising copy.

Really good 'cut through the clutter' stuff from Jen and Jeff.

Last year I gave my own take on simple, but effective copywriting tips here.

If you think about what you want people do when they read your letter:

1 You want them to nod their head in agreement as they read

2 You want them to get past the first page (best way to do this is getting them nodding, as per point 1. To do this, introduce a story really early in the copy, showing the impact their support could have illustrated with a real, human story).

3 You don't want to distract them. So avoid saying things like ' please refer to the enclosed brochure'. Keep them focused on the letter.

4 You don't want to treat them like they haven't read a letter before. I really don't think people need to see the words 'please turn over' at the bottom of the page. In fact break the sentences at the bottom of each page, enticing them to read on.

5 You want to compel them to stop doing whatever they were doing, finish the letter and so what you asked them to do (support financially, fill in a survey etc).

Simple, huh? It is, follow the ten steps in this earlier post and you're well on your way.

Jonathon

Are you thirsty?

2010-03-20T03:27:00.015+10:00

Someone asked me recently, 'Is there a common thread in really successful people'?

Good question.

Yes there is. And for me it's simple. It's an insatiable thirst for improving ones self and learning more. Every single day.

One of my favorite quotes is from Drayton Bird, who believes firmly that the road to failure is paved with success, something I talked about sometime back.

In other words, never feeling as if you're quite there. Always lifting yourself out of your comfort zone.

The common rebuttal when I talk to people about their own personal development is "I don't have time".

Garbage.

We all 'have time'. In fact we all have the same amount of time. We just choose to use it in different ways. And going back to the original question posed to me, successful, brilliant and inspiring people make the time to get more from themselves.

So enough ranting Jonathon, how do I learn more?

Two thing's I'd suggest:

1 Surround yourself with 'thirsty' people. Gets you out of the 'I don't have time' destructive mentality, and

2 Make the time. Find the time in your schedule to reach out to those who you can absorb from. To read, listen and soak stuff up.

In this day and age, it doesn't necessarily mean days and days away from home at professional development events/conferences. But it does mean spending 20-30 minutes every single day checking out blogs, reading articles, talking to those who teach and inspire you.

And best of all, most done from the comfort of your desk.

Jonathon

Using post it notes to raise more money

2010-03-16T23:30:00.007+10:00

The inclusion of post it notes in appeals increases response and net income. Simple.

Of course tactics like these work best when they are genuinely handwritten: for your high value donors, for people who have left you a gift in their Will, for your monthly/regular donors.

As you can see from the example above however, you can have these pre-printed. And they work. We've tested it and shown that even with the additional costs, it's worth the effort (increases net income).

Why?

Because it stands out. It takes a little extra time to show that your response is really important. Like a P.S, it's that additional reminder about why we're asking you to do what we want you to do. In the case above, fill in a survey.

Remember though, this is a tactic. It doesn't replace real personalization. Picking up the phone, actually talking to people, a little note at the bottom of someones thank you letter.

Jonathon

Will you put your hand up?

2010-03-11T04:15:00.022+10:00

I love the concept of hand raising.

In fundraising terms, hand raising is asking people to stick their hand up to do something for a cause they like.

Herein lies the art (and the beauty). By asking people to 'stick their hand up' and show they care, initially that's all we do. Get them to do something really small, almost too easy to do.

Examples have/can include:

- Signing a petition
- Filling in a survey
- Writing a message of hope to someone in need
- Lobby/advocating against a particular issue

In short, you're putting your voice to something you believe in, albeit in a small way to begin with.

Next comes the science.

Warming these wonderful people up, getting them excited about what you, showing them there's much more they can help you with.

And of course, asking them to do something slightly bigger. Ask them for a (financial) gift.

There are loads of examples of this happening around the world. From asking people on the street to sign a petition about action on climate change, to calling someone and asking them to send a note to a prisoner of conscience.

Once 'on board' as a hand raiser, spend the next week reaffirming why they stuck their hand up and then ask them to take the next step by supporting financially (and of course, ask for a monthly gift).

It helps if you're an advocacy group (although you don't have to be) - there is a natural remit to do this stuff anyway. The key is finding real, genuine ways for people to campaign on your behalf, tied in with the need for financial support shortly thereafter.

You can test time in between the first contact to the financial ask, the number of non financial asks before you ask for a gift and the various channels in which to do this.

I love the concept of hand raising because it advances your cause further (get someone to lobby on our behalf), it gives you an opportunity to have several conversations with people, and adds another vehicle to reach out and find new supporters.

I expect we'll see many more examples of this in the coming years.

Are you prepared to put your hand up?

Jonathon

Google AdWords for charities: learning's

2010-03-05T05:05:00.020+10:00

Late last year I talked about my love for Google.

Three months on and we've got a lot of learning at Pareto Fundraising about how charities should be using Google AdWords. If you want some more context on what Google Adwords are, check out my earlier post here.

Here are some things you should consider:

- Understand why you're using it. In other words, what are your objectives? If you're thinking of it as a means to drive loads of traffic which in turn will generate a significant number of donations, you'll quickly be disappointed.

Running ads is great for delivering click throughs to your nominated destination, but for the most part charity websites are not great vehicles to solicit donations. So do one of two things:

1 Consider driving people to a custom built micro site, where you can take people on a journey (much like you would during a conversation in person or on the phone), or, (and the most preferred option)

2 Consider asking people to do something other than donate. Ask them to do something small in the first instance - like sign up to your e-news list - then begin to talk to them (regularly, ever few days) via email, ultimately get a telephone number and use these methods to get them to become a financial donor. Ideally a monthly donor.

- One of the words you'll hear talked about often when it comes to running successful AdWords campaigns is relevance. Ensure that the ads you're running are appropriate for the people you're trying to attract. No point running ads that have copy around 'helping children in need', when it fact your work centres around environmental issues.

It's not about volume, it's about getting the right people to click through to where you want them to go.

Also, follow the same logic with the URLs you are sending prospects to. If you're a human right organization and you're ad talks about the abhorrent treatment of child soldiers, you're not really continuing the message if you send them to a page about landmines.

Think 'relevance'.

- Regularly monitor and update your ads. Initially I'd suggest daily, then after the first couple of weeks aim for every 2-3 days.

Take the time to sift through the keywords that are delivering strong CTR's (click through rates) - by strong I'd say above 1%. Look at whether you can maximize results by applying these keywords to other ads you are running, where relevant.

- All of the testing I have seen shows that capitalization is key in AdWords campaigns. A good post here about it.

- As mentioned above, running Google AdWords, even very well, will not transform your fundraising. In isolation they help drive some traffic, working within a multi channel approach (including e-blasts, banner ads, other prospecting activity) they can be very powerful. Simply because the volumes alone will not make it a viable fundraising tool, but amongst other drivers it makes sense.

- Be aware that once you have your Google Grants (read here if you're not sure what I'm talking about) there is a limit of $1.00 that you can bid per click.

What that means is that whilst you're paying for clicks (I.e. before you get your Grants) you can bid as much as you like, but the science to this is working out how to make your keywords and ads work best for no more than a $1.00 per click. There are loads of good resources on this, no better I think than Google AdWords for Dummies.

Remember, Google AdWords are great. But make sure you think about why you're using them, be realistic about expectations, and use all of the great resources out there to maximize the performance of your campaigns.

Jonathon

STOP including a bequest tick box on your appeal response forms

2010-03-02T03:43:00.011+10:00

Please stop doing this. Now, right now.

It suppresses response to your appeal, as well as suppressing average gift. And I have data to prove it.

Why? Because it is a distraction.

But you're missing the opportunity to talk about bequests, right?

Yes and no. Yes in one sense you are, but refer my previous point about suppressing appeal performance. And the key thing is there are other much more effective ways to talk to people about bequests. I've blogged lots about this, most recently here.

Anyway back to the data. We tested this for a client last year. One group included a tick box about receiving information on bequests. The other group did not.

The response in the group without the tick box had a response rate 1% higher than the group with the tick box, and an average gift almost $2.50 higher.

Both of these differences were statistically significant, thus proving the inclusion of this request suppresses the overall return of that appeal.

It comes down to telling donors the single most important thing you want to tell them right now. Don't confuse the message, keep it simple.

Use other opportunities (separate bequest communications, surveys etc) to talk about bequests. It really is the most effective way to grow your bequest program.

Jonathon

PS - For those interested in what the 'ultimate bequest program' looks like, check out a presentation I delivered a little while back on this.

View more presentations from Pareto Group.

AmeriCares post Haiti response

2010-02-25T05:09:00.019+10:00

I've been watching with interest the response of development organizations worldwide in the wake of Haiti. I've blogged about this several times, including tips on disaster response here.

Overall, there's been some good stuff happening from speedy appeals for help, to very thorough and regular feedback. One of my favorites I talked about here recently, a story told by the folks over at Free the Children.

One of the better attempts to bring people closer to the devastation of Haiti has been that of AmeriCares.

Their response has been well orchestrated, coherent and timely.

In particular check out the email I received, as a donor to Haiti, inviting me to a teleconference to hear first hand the gravity of the situation and AmeriCares response.

I listened in to the briefing today. I heard about some of the barriers AmeriCares faced on the ground, like the need to move hospitals outdoors, for fear of aftershocks, and the impending risk of the wet season. They also talked about the 'generation of amputees' that have been created by the quakes, which will have social, psychological and financial implications.

Not to mention that amidst all of this, AmeriCares provided aid to another 41 countries since Haiti. Amazing.

So I walked away with a pretty clear idea of just what has been happening. But I felt there was one thing missing.

A story.

At one stage one of the staff members started talking about patients, but their conversation quickly shifted to operations. Like the photo above, I wanted to hear first hand how my support was helping real people. This felt like an opportunity missed.

Then, less than an hour after the briefing I got this (below - you might need to click on it to enlarge).

Brilliant - an ask for a monthly gift. I'm not certain about the fixed term of the monthly gift - I hope they tested it - but I'm glad they asked for it (this was the second time so far I've been asked to commence a monthly gift since my first donation a month ago).

Nice work AmeriCares. You're leading the way in your post disaster response.

Jonathon

A quick reminder: sign up here now

2010-02-21T06:06:00.004+10:00

Of how you can help me keep in touch with you. As I mentioned a little while back if you provide your email address in the box on the right hand side here you'll get an email each time I post something.

Makes it easier to keep up to speed with what's happening on this site.

Thanks again for visiting.

Jonathon

Why you should also ask your monthly donors for onetime cash gifts

2010-02-17T06:50:00.012+10:00

The data below proves that the oft talked about and equally oft misunderstood fundraising myth that 'you shouldn't ask monthly donors for additional cash gifts', is just that. A myth.

See below the results of a 12 month cohort test with one of our clients. We split test two groups, the group entitled included received cash appeals throughout the course of the year, the group entitled excluded, did not.

The upshot?

The attrition rates were almost identical - those who received appeals had a lower attrition (Although not statistically different), but disproves the first suspicion people have that mailing appeals to monthly donors will tick them off. Wrong.

Note the figures are in HKD. 1 HKD equals around 0.12 USD.

You'll then see that by including - and asking - the test group for onetime cash gifts, this group generated around $1.2 HKD in additional income - that's almost $100,000 USD. Not bad, huh?

So what?

Mail your monthlies, and ask them for cash (ensuring you don't forget to give them great donor care in between asks). But before you go on, note there are some exceptions to this. Namely that younger audiences (specifically street and sometimes TV recruited) don't respond to cash requests well and I'd suggest testing within these groups, should the volumes allow.

Rock on again monthly donors...

Jonathon

Making the most of the 'honeymoon period'

2010-02-11T00:14:00.014+10:00

I'm sure you remember the excitement of that new relationship.

You can't get enough of each other, in constant contact, living in each others pockets, wondering what the next encounter will bring, waiting by the phone in anticipation of that call..? Right?

Don't panic or switch to another page on me here, I'm not about to start dishing out relationship advice. The 'honeymoon period' as we flippantly refer to this time when we're madly in love with each other translates to new donor relationships. Well it should anyway.

Let me explain.

In a post late last year I talked about the eight ways to get more by getting it monthly. Here I touched on the post sign up feeling that donors get, when the excitement of the sale has worn off. Perhaps similar to some relationships when we get to know each other a little better.

The key is addressing this, and addressing it quickly.

In fact, at the point of sign up. That means starting with a communication (whether that's on the street, after an online donation, or a welcome pack in the post) that kills off any feeling of uncertainty and trepidation about the decision just made.

The next 30 days (the honeymoon period) need to be filled with communications like this. Two-three times a week, constant reinforcement.

Below is an example of a test program a client of ours is undertaking, in this case a heart research organization recruiting mostly mail donors.

So does this work? It seems pretty intense and likely pretty expensive?

The answer is yes it does and yes it is worth spending the money.

In fact one of the biggest mistakes we can do in this situation is be apathetic about this type of thing. Particularly if you are recruiting decent volumes of monthly donors, it is worth taking the time and investing the dollars to arrest attrition, as very small differences can mean a big payoff in long term value.

Take this example below. This client was investing a lot in recruiting monthly donors on the street (face to face recruitment). You'll see from the graph below that the first 3 months after sign up were the biggest spikes in cancellations. Over the past 3 years they have implemented a series of new contacts, including better sign up materials, video messages to new donors and a regular stream of e-communications.

And it has worked.

Whilst the impact may seem small, what this equates to is a reduction in attrition in the first three months from 21% of donors acquired to 16%. If you were recruiting 10,000 donors a year and managed to keep an extra 5% (500) at an average of say $200 a year that's $100,000 in income, just in their first year of giving.

Not difficult to see that small changes can make a big difference.

So don't be apathetic toward new donor relationships. Make sure they feel the love of the honeymoon period. You'll both feel better for it.

Jonathon

A story about Darleen in Haiti

2010-02-05T02:34:00.005+10:00

One thing stands out about this Haiti email from Free the Children. I think you'd pick it up even without the red marker all over it...

Not only does Craig make this feel real... "hours ago I returned from a week in Haiti", but he tells us about Darleen, a 12 year old whose parents were lost in the earthquake. Heart wrenching stuff.

The email isn't perfect (needs a stronger call to action to accompany Darleen's story), but it was the first contact I had from an organization on the ground that shared the story of one of the victims, a real, named person. No doubt there are others, but this was the first I witnessed.

Well done Craig and the Free the Children gang. For your brilliant work, and for sharing Darleen's story with us.

Jonathon

Keep design simple

2010-02-04T06:10:00.011+10:00

My designer friends may not like this, but the most effective design I have seen in charity communications is usually really simple. (There are times when stuff should be graphically designed of course, but for me simple is best).

As a side note, for my tips on developing appeals and design, check out this earlier post on the nine steps to doubling your appeal income.

By simple I mean authentic, real and often not even 'designed'. Take a letter for example. If you want it to 'feel' like a letter, then make any additional pieces feel like they should be there.

The piece below is a brilliant case in point. It was developed by one of our staff at Pareto Fundraising (not a designer), in around 20 minutes. Done in a really sophisticated tool called Microsoft Word.

The client, the Starlight Children's Foundation Australia, had an important message to tell it's donors. The letter didn't hold back, informing supporters that without a significant boost in income, as a result of tough times, Starlight could not grant as many wishes to sick children as it wanted to.

There was a lot of press about this at the same, so the decision was made to highlight this within the appeal, supporting the gravity of the problem as explained in the letter.

The result?

The appeal doubled net income from the previous year and was Starlight's most successful appeal ever.

The pack pulled no punches. It told it as it needed be told.

Oh, and the design was really simple.

Jonathon

One of my favorite donor care letters

2010-01-29T00:02:00.012+10:00

This is one of my favorite donor care letters. (This is only the first four paragraph's in a four page letter. You can click on the image to make it larger).

To uncover the power of this piece, see the letter again below, this time with some copy highlighted.

The beauty of this becomes a little clearer. In the first few paragraph's 15 references to Sean, the donor, and the signatory, in this case Lisa, the Fundraising Director.

The letter:

- Is genuine in it's thanks for Sean's support

- It's incredibly personal. As well as the colloquial language, you'll notice the red copy here, which indicates the variable copy, based on Sean's personal information, including how long he has been supporting for

- It tells a story. Lisa tells Sean about an amazing young woman called Anna

- It demonstrates a link between Sean's gift and the difference Sean is making. (The letter goes on to give more tangible examples of how Sean is helping to change lives)

You'll notice I haven't mentioned the organization's name. Deliberately, as it isn't about the organization, it's about Sean and people like Anna. (Although FYI, it's the Children's Cancer Institute of Australia).

Really simple, but very impactful.

Jonathon

Zero based communications planning

2010-01-22T04:42:00.008+10:00

Zero based planning and zero based budgeting are hardly new concepts.

Quite simply, it's where you start a new period looking at what you're planning to market to your constituents or how much you're going to spend, from a zero/neutral point. In other words, not looking back and saying, well I sent 8 letters last year so that's what I should do this year.

The reason I love the idea of zero based planning is because it rebuts the comment I hear so regularly "We send that appeal in March, because..... that's when it's always been sent".

The appeal should be sent, when it makes sense to be sent. When it's the right piece to be sent. When you have a need to appeal. When you have a story to tell.

Not because last years plan tells you it needs to drop on March 15th.

Now is the time to practice this approach.

Look at your communications plan and work out how much money you need and what you need to do to get it. From there you can work out how many appeals, donor care letters, monthly conversion requests, phone calls, e-comms, postcards, and other touch point deemed relevant that you need.

Of course you need to balance this with what donors will respond to. And herein lays the beauty of the direct response fundraisers who looks at data to help shape the scope of their program.

Jonathon

Disaster preparedness and conversion

2010-01-19T22:45:00.010+10:00

Last week, in the wake of the Haiti tragedy, I talked about how I felt that non emergency charities should continue doing what they were already doing.

I've been chatting to lots of colleagues about charities response to Haiti this week and the message has been the same, speed is key. In other words, getting to donors, prospects, the general public quickly is critical to maximizing support.

The same applies in the wash up from disasters, of which Haiti is no exception.

We just finished some testing for one of our Canadian clients at Pareto Fundraising. We tested different approaches to disaster donors, trying to determine the optimum way to get a 2nd gift, ideally a monthly gift.

The upshot was, the sooner we get back to people the more likely they are to commit to a subsequent gift. Hardly surprising, but the difference was significant. We were twice as likely to get someone to commence a monthly gift whose first gift was within the last 12 months, versus someone whose gift was within the previous 24 months. In fact if we got back within 12 months we could breakeven well inside a year.

The point is however we should be testing number of weeks after first gift to convert, not years. Fortunately for this client, we have developed a control pack that can be sent to disaster donors, including Haiti supporters, weeks after their first commitment. And that's when you start to see this program maximize its impact.

Being prepared, ready to go to supporters within weeks is absolutely crucial to conversion efforts. And disasters happen, so there is no excuse for not having conversion plans.

I was going to write some more on post disaster follow up, but my colleague Sean Triner has written a great piece called Cashing in on disaster donors that is worth a few minutes of your time to read.

Jonathon

What should non emergency charities do in an emergency?

2010-01-14T09:05:00.007+10:00

The answer to this is pretty simple. Continue doing what you were already doing.

The tragic events of the past 24 hours in Haiti are exactly that. Tragic. And unthinkable what the people there are going through. My heart goes out to those who are suffering as a result.

But it doesn't stop the quest to find a cure for breast cancer, nor help that sick puppy being abused and in need of attention.

If we look back to emergencies over the last decade, the Tsunami, 9/11 to name just a couple. The organization’s who suffered are the ones who did.... nothing. That is, scaled back on fundraising.

Don't commit fundraising suicide. Check out this article with some more evidence from the Tsunami experience and why you should solider on as normal.

Jonathon

PS Hats off to the disaster relief organization’s who had emergency appeals out within 24 hours, particularly the American Red Cross who had an email in my inbox just 6 hours after the earthquake hit.

Why, how and now

2010-01-11T07:53:00.028+10:00

I read with interest Mark Phillips thoughts today on an oft misunderstood area of fundraising: the single minded proposition.

I touched on this, although not as articulately as Mark, a few weeks back when talking about the eight ways to to get more by getting it monthly.

It's an area that is easy to undersell and equally difficult to get right.

If you're trying to convince someone to leave you a bequest, commence a monthly gift or even give you $20, you need to get across why they should do it, show them how they can help you and convince them why they must do it now, (as opposed to tomorrow or next week).

Pretty simple stuff, in theory anyway.

As direct response fundraisers we're pretty good at telling people the how: using call to actions, deadlines, response vehicles.

Likewise, the now: using human stories to show real impact, talking about genuine impact and demonstrating need.

But what about the why?

I love the way Mark simplifies the importance of the proposition, saying "Your proposition should focus on a nugget of information that has the power to make someone stop and think".

When convincing someone why they should do what you've asked them to do, remember the following:

- Scale it down. Tell me about one child in need of help, one sick puppy. The enormity of helping thousands is overwhelming.

- Focus on benefits, not features. A feature is a factual representation about a product, or service that you're offering. But features aren't what entice donors to give, their time, money or effort. That's where benefits come in. A benefit answers the question, what's in it for me? Like, "you're helping to insure yourself, and those you love..."

- Ensure you've 'nailed' the why before you move onto the how, and now. Particularly when it comes to planned giving/bequests, the weight is often stacked in the wrong favor. Convince someone why, then go on to tell them how and why now.

- Give it life. That one child you're referencing has a name. "... will help children, like little Ian".

One more time: tell me why, show me how and explain to me why it's so critical, right now.

Jonathon

Help me keep in touch with you

2010-01-02T07:33:00.004+10:00

After 18 months of blogging I finally discovered Feedburner. It allows you to get emails as soon I post a blog.

I'd love it if you entered your email address in the box to the right of this post. Will take out about 30 seconds and save you having to remember to always click here to see if I've posted a new blog.

I'll keep in touch regularly, around once or twice a week. Rarely more than that, rarely less. Except for next week when I'll be sitting on a beach.

Thanks for visiting my blog.

Jonathon

Don't "just do what you did in 2009"

2010-01-01T04:32:00.010+10:00

I was just looking over some of my previous 94 blogs from 2009, and whilst surprised at how many times I can rant in a calendar year also managed to stumble across something that whilst posted in January is worth rehashing, on how tradition can be destructive.

I think that's a poignant note to leave 2009 with.

When you return to work in 2010, look back on the year gone with a view to taking the good with you into next year and leaving behind the bad or indifferent.

But a word of warning, don't adopt the attitude that 2010 will look a lot like last year with some small nuances - and expect the rest to take care of itself.

Do what's right, what needs to be done and what's going to help you help more benefactors. It's easy to simply rollout past activity, but remember that tradition can be destructive.

With that, happy New Year and here's to a prosperous 2010.

I'll be back blogging on the 11th of January after a week on the beach in Mexico.

Jonathon

Eight ways to 'get more by getting it monthly'

2009-12-24T02:39:00.033+10:00

Monthly giving rocks. You read about it in blogs, you hear about it at conferences. The data I look at for my clients shows me growth in countries like Canada and Australia and many other developed fundraising nations of 20% year on year. With no sign of stopping.

To put further credence to the argument, on average a monthly donor is usually worth four to six times as much over their lifetime as a 'onetime' cash supporter. Sometimes more.

But how do you get them, and how do you keep them?

Let's break it down.

Getting them

1 Developing the right proposition. What works to get onetime cash donors won't necessarily work to find monthly donors.

Soliciting cash gifts is about 'the now', the 'give me $50 or the dog gets it' kind of pitch.

Asking someone to become a monthly supporter is about partnership. It's about being in it for the long haul, together. It's about ongoing, committed support. It's about sustainability. It's about seeing the forest from the trees.

This isn't downplaying the importance of onetime gifts, it's about articulating the difference.

Attempts to secure monthly gifts fail usually because the messaging is wrong.

2 Google is your friend.

Use tools like Google Insights for Search to help shape your messaging.

Why? Because this shows you exactly what people (online) are searching for. It will give you some clues as to what people are really searching for and interested in, not what you think they are.

3 Don't lose sleep trying to 'be creative'. Sell benefits.

Calling your monthly program 'Wings of Hope' or 'Project Discovery' might sound really cool, but it won't grow your monthly file.

Tell people how they will help you change the world.

The benefit of supporting world class medical research is that I am helping to protect myself and my loved ones by ensuring leading research is conducted and able to find cures for killed diseases like cancer.

The benefit is not joining a club with a fancy name or the two glossy newsletters I get.

4 Break it down.

Firstly, break down the ask into daily amounts. Psychologically 30 cents a day doesn't sound like a hell of a lot. I can manage that.

Secondly, tell me about the one person (cat/dog/tree) I am going to help. I want to know about little Boys like Tommy, not the thousands of kids I could save. The gravity of the problem in the latter sounds far too big if not broken down.

Keeping them

5 Kill off cognitive dissonance. Really quickly.

You know that horrible feeling you have when you question a decision you have just made? That's how donors feel when they have just walked away from the canvasser on the street, or put down the phone from that telefundraiser.

Don't let this fester, attend to it immediately. Make the most of the 'honeymoon period'. The first month after sign up, when both parties should still be madly in love with each other.

That means brilliant welcome calls/packages that reinforce the original decision. It may be an SMS the day after I join, perhaps a video message from someone in the field, or a beneficiary just saying thank you.

The honeymoon period is about regular communications playing back how we're helping make a difference.

6 Talk to them differently.

A donor recruited on the street (younger, average age around 30) looks and behaves a lot different to a donor recruited in the mail (older, different life stage, average age 60+).

It's roughly the difference between my mother and I. We look at things differently and we certainly behave differently.

This is the way you should view your communications streams. Acknowledge that different recruitment vehicles will bring you unique constituents. Acknowledging this is the first step to ensuring you talk to them differently.

Don't put them in the same 'bucket'. Test different communications streams/cohorts and determine the best way to look after them, delivering the most value to your donors, and ultimately your beneficiaries.

7 Upgrade them.

Go back to new monthly donors shortly after sign up (between 4 and 9 months, test this to find the optimum time). Ask them to increase their monthly contribution.

Three reasons why you should do this:

- You will generate more income.
- This is an opportunity to speak to your donors, tell them a story
- You will increase retention, regardless of the outcome (provided its a great call)

8 Understand their real value

Work out the net value to date of all monthly donors recruited by channel and year. In other words, take into account what it cost you to recruit and cultivate each monthly giving group.

This allows you to say things like "My direct mail monthly donors are worth an average of $250 net after three years, whereas my TV recruits are worth $400".

I can tell you, this will change the conversation you have with your boss or board member when asked "Why do we do street fundraising" or "Why are we calling people at 8pm when they are in the bath"?

Having this level of information helps you to know the success of various initiatives, budget for the future and tells you where you should be focusing your efforts.

Ongoing, monthly support really is the way to go.

Jonathon

Gotta love Google

2009-12-17T06:06:00.028+10:00

I'm not just talking about their search function, of which they dominate the market with a 60% share.

Firstly, if your charity is not receiving Google Grants, then click here right now (after finishing this post), and apply.

For those who aren't aware Google Grants is a unique in-kind donation programme awarding free AdWords advertising to selected charitable organizations.

If you're not sure what AdWords is, it's the advertising that'll see on the top of and right hand side of your page when you perform a search on Google. For example if you search for cell phone you'll see ads for Blackberry, Sony Ericsson and so on.

If you're not using this, you should be.

Why?

- To drive traffic to your website. The key for you is driving relevant traffic, people who are genuinely interested in your cause.

- Understand what people are searching for. This helps you shape propositions and messaging when developing acquisition activities.

- To learn about the digital space and people's online behavior. You'll be amazed how much you can learn about what people are actually doing online. Not what you think they're doing.

If you're starting from scratch I suggest buying this book, AdWords for Dummies. Yes, I am a dummy and bought it. It's a great, very practical tool to guide you through the world of AdWords.

I'm learning loads about this right now, specifically about how relevancy is key to getting your Ads placed at the top of the Google page. That's the beauty about this tool, in that ad placement isn't driven by necessarily the biggest spenders. Relevancy to the keywords selected and the content on the page you send people through to play a big role.

Which means that, in theory, a local sporting retailer, can compete on a level playing field with Nike.

Two things I'd recommend:

1 You need to manage your AdWords campaigns regularly, and not let them run for extended periods of time. This could potentially cost you lots of money and deliver you poor quality leads to your website. I'm amazed at how many charities are not utilizing the power of this tool, either not using it at all or letting their interest lapse, hence limiting it's effectiveness.

2 If you apply for your Grants, great. But don't wait for the grant to come through to start using this as I believe they can take up to 6 months. Spend some money now and start trialing some campaigns.

At the same time check out another cool Google tool called Google Insights for Search. Essentially this allows you to look at what people are searching for through Google.

So when your colleague who runs an event says (in response to "how much did the event raise"), "Oh it didn't net much income but it raised loads of awareness", check out Google Insights for Search and see whether that really is the case.

It shows you relative traffic searches so you can see where and when people were searching for various words or terms. The caveat is of course that this just looks at online searches, but it still gives you a good sense of:

- What activities are driving spikes in search volumes (I.e. is it certain events, press releases, direct response fundraising initiatives, news stories)

- Which words are specifically driving traffic? This, combined with your AdWords campaigns really help give you a sense of what people are actually looking for (and can shape messaging)

It's staggering when I enter some key words that relate to popular causes and large organizations which result in nothing. Google a keyword like cancer, health charity or "insert cause of charity I would for" and see what happens.

So, get to it. Apply for your Grant today, get a copy of AdWords for Dummies and starting using Google Insights for Search.

Jonathon

Thank you

2009-12-12T00:43:00.021+10:00

Thank, thank and thank again. A simple mantra to live and breathe.

Read a good post about thanking here where a fellow mystery shopper has gone searching for examples of great thanking and donor care. Which, as I know, can be hard to come across.

This, and Jeff Brooks' post about getting rid of annual reports and replacing them with gratitude reports prompted me to add a little more about the power of thanking.

So, here are 10 key things to play back to yourself when saying thank you:

1 Actually say the words thank you. "We appreciate your support" is all about you (the organization). "Thank you" is about your wonderful donors.

2 Thank for the actual gift, not the communication. "Thank you for contacting us the other day" is not about the wonderful decision someone made, but "thank you for your generous support" is.

3 Any thanking communication should 'play back' the story associated with the ask. "Your gift really will go towards helping young children like Tommy who I wrote to you about recently".

4 Do it quickly. But do it well. I'd argue the latter is more important, but both are critical. 3-5 business days from receiving a gift, no exceptions.

5 Make the thank you stand out. Don't copy and paste the thank you letter from last year, which has actually been in circulation since 1996. Most thank you's are quite mundane and dull. Ensure it's unique.

6 Be personal. Handwritten notes, postscripts etc rock. Take the time, clients of ours who do this see the long term benefits (through increased retention). It shows you care.

7 Be relevant. Thanking isn't just about responding to a specific gift. It's about frequent and relevant feedback and caring. If you know Mrs Jones likes the work you've doing in Sudan tell her regularly what's happening there in the field and referencing you know this is of interest to her. Most caring of donors is impersonal and not that interesting to supporters. Finding those links means your donors are genuinely engaged.

8 Be specific. What did my $50 help do? Tell me.

9 Don't be hindered by technology and processes. Yes you can spill a thank you letter onto a second page. Don't allow the attaching of the tax receipt to dictate how your thank you letter flows/looks.

10 Call it a thank you letter. Get out of the mindset of calling it a receipt. It's a thank you, that happens to include a receipt, not the other way around.

Thank you for reading this post.

Jonathon

Our duty as direct response fundraisers

2009-12-08T01:54:00.010+10:00

Testing: hardly a new topic for this blog.

Last week at Congress I attended a session about copywriting for DM. A discussion began about 2nd gift strategies, and one of the delegates remarked they waited around six months to ask a new donor for a second gift.

I commented that we'd found through testing with clients 3-6 weeks was the best time to ask for a 2nd gift (always going for a monthly gift first), statistically.

Ooh's and ahhh's echoed the room as if I had committed a senseless crime. "Surely not". "That doesn't make sense". "I don't believe that".

And herein lies the beauty of direct response fundraising. Intuition aside.

Test your own 'gut feeling' by letting the data and subsequent evidence help you make informed decisions. It's your duty as a direct response fundraiser.

Jonathon

How social psychology can shape your fundraising

2009-12-04T03:16:00.004+10:00

Brilliant session at Congress by Professor Adrian Sargeant.

He's done tons of testing around social psychology in fundraising. Particularly with large national public radio stations in the US, and the impact of various techniques on the response to inbound calls via radiothons.

They found:

1 Referring to a past callers donation amount increases average donation levels. "I just spoke to someone who gave $80, would you consider giving something like this.."

2 People (donors) who know others that support that station or even just listen to that station will give more. So qualifying questions around this are key.

3 Men are unmoved by the use of words suggesting morality, whereas women are moved and therefore likely to give around 20% more. I.e. using words such as generous, kind, caring etc before making the ask.

This is incredibly useful for helping us shape (by testing, of course) the way we frame asks within individual fundraising asks.

Keep the research coming Adrian.

Jonathon

Turn off. Share. Change.

2009-11-30T09:07:00.010+10:00

Tomorrow's the beginning of AFP Toronto's Congress which I spoke about last week.

Here's a few pointers to make sure you go back to work after Congress (or any conference for that matter) ready to embrace change.

Turn off then turn on. Turn off the crackberry, turn on the focus. Your office, staff and your latest campaign will not spontaneously combust in your absence. Trust the people back at the office to keep the ship afloat and keep your mind on the job at hand, learning.

Work out the true cost to send you to Congress. That's the delegate rate + your time. Your time isn't cheap, particularly three days of it. If you think of it like this, it forces you to appreciate what it's costing your employer to send you and puts extra onus on you to bring back some brilliant ideas.

Swap and share. In every session swap a business card with at least one new face and commit to meeting up post Congress. You'll be amazed the opportunities these meetings uncover. Share as much as you can during, in between and after sessions. Those who give the most get the most back.

Change. Be prepared to go back to the office a changed fundraiser. That change may be as significant as a shift in strategy, it may be a change in mindset. But open your mind to change and during each session jot some action points down as a starting point.

Enjoy Congress folks.

Jonathon

Take a bow AFP Congress team

2009-11-22T07:31:00.013+10:00

Hats off to the organizing team at the AFP Toronto Congress.

A week out from the event and they have nearly 900 delegates signed up for the three day event. That mean's Mark Hierlihy and his team look likely to have attracted more fundraisers to Congress than ever before. Great stuff!

Recession, re-schmession I bet they're saying.

Here's why I think the team has managed to engage fundraisers in a time when so many organization's have cut, even slashed professional development budgets:

Damn good marketing

The communications I've received about Congress have been frequent, but relevant. They've been fun and made me think Congress looks really cool. They have embraced new media, using Vismail video technology, video slideshows, facebook and twitter postings plus more traditional (but still interesting) e-blasts.

They've kept it fresh

Over 50% (39 out of 74) of the speakers are first speakers at Congress. You could argue that's risky, and perhaps it is. But we live (in the fundraising sector) in a risk averse world, so good on em' for having the willingness to give new people a go.

Added to that is the list of new speakers includes a bunch of well credentialed (and I know eager) people who are bloody good fundraisers. A nice international flavor too (says the Aussie whose home is now Canada).

The format invites itself to actually learning something

You may remember me posting a while back my views on how to make fundraising conferences genuinely useful.

One of the things I'm most critical of at the majority of conferences is that the vast majority of sessions are far too short, the breaks far too long.

At Congress we have seven educational sessions in three days. Yes! Perhaps next year we could move to just three sessions in three days? Full day sessions where you come out with real, practical solutions and even physically produced something, I.e. a DM pack?

Great work Mark and the Congress team. You've overcome the biggest barrier to conferences in a long time ("we have no professional development budget") and look like having your best event ever. Bravo.

The challenge is still upon us however. Organizers, speakers and delegates. To make Congress the best ever please come prepared to share, challenge, meet, absorb and inspire.

If you do this will be a remarkable event.

Jonathon

Last minute Christmas appeal tips

2009-11-17T23:56:00.006+10:00

Whether you've just dropped your Seasonal or Christmas appeal - or whether you haven't even thought about it, spend 3 minutes here for some last minute tips.

Jonathon

On their way to AFP Congress..

2009-11-14T06:22:00.008+10:00

My colleague Ruthann Richardson and I got to make some really cool calls yesterday. We got to speak to the four people we'd chosen on behalf of Pareto Fundraising as recipients of passes to AFP Congress at the end of the month.

We received a large number of really good applications, which made our job harder. But there were four that really stood out for us.

So we were thrilled to award the four Congress passes to:

Pam Bastedo from Meal Exchange
Aileen Doyle from JHR (Journalists for Human Rights)
Elaine Scrivener from Mark Preece Family House
Mary Warner from the Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative

Each of these individuals shared with us what they were most excited about learning at Congress and how they would be able to use the knowledge and experience gained to further their organizations fundraising and make the world a better place.

Thank you to all who those who took the time to submit an application. And congratulations again to Pam, Aileen, Elaine and Mary. We think you rock! And we know you'll make the most of the three days.

We’re really looking forward to a great Congress.

I'm personally looking forward to bring inspired, challenged, taken out of my comfort zone and perhaps having some fun along the way.

See you there.

Jonathon

Time to stop our unhealthy obsession...

2009-11-11T23:43:00.021+10:00

I read with interest this morning the latest philanthropic trends report delivered by KCI Ketchum, which you can read here. Thanks to KCI firstly for releasing this.

Actually, I read more with angst than interest. The fixation by our sector (not donors) on 'cost to raise a dollar' bugs me for four reasons:

1 We perpetuate the problem ourselves. Organization's claiming that they spend no money on fundraising and administration set unrealistic expectations for the rest of us.

2 It's a storm in a tea cup. When was the last time someone told you they don't or haven't supported you because you are not fiscally responsible? Or the last time a donor left you because they weren't happy with your ratios? Or the last time you asked a donor why they support you and they responded with "I am passionate about your low administration costs".

Give me a break.

Ron Dumouchelle, President & CEO, VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation says, “however, in our experience, it is not an issue that is often brought to us directly by our donors.

3 We spend an exorbitant amount of time worrying about this. I'd argue time that could be spent more effectively, actually fundraising.

And finally, but probably most importantly..

4 Cost per dollar ratios are flawed.

As Innes van Nostrand, Vice Principal, Upper Canada College says in the KCI article, "..The way this ratio is positioned with the public leaves the impression that a low cost per dollar raised indicates good overall performance on the part of the organization..

..The problem is that the ratio doesn’t take into account other factors that are critical to how well an organization is performing – factors like the quality of services, the kind of fundraising being done, the longer term outcomes of programs or even whether donors gifts are being used as intended. As a result, for most charities, I don’t think it is wise for it to be the sole or primary indicator of a charity’s performance or worthiness for investment..”

Here, here Ingrid. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Let's stop the obsession with this and get on with doing what we do best. Fundraising.

Jonathon

Canadian charities rocking on monthly...

2009-11-07T06:59:00.014+10:00

Amongst all the doom and gloom, there is some good news.

At Pareto Fundraising we recently released the latest findings from our ongoing benchmarking studies.

Firstly, a big thank you as always to the 10 amazing organization's who participated and who are raising the bar when it comes to leading edge fundraising. Not to mention their openness to sharing.

Quite simply, you rock.

Check out our media release here.

In short, the biggest message that came through this was: monthly givers are recession proof. This form of giving continues to strengthen, on every measure. They are resilient in every way. Frankly, they are just bloody brilliant people.

In addition to this latest evidence, if you need any more ammunition about why its such a fantastic way to engender support, I have loads of old posts here, including this one from last year entitled getting the most by getting it monthly.

There are some other really interesting insights uncovered in our latest findings, including our members collectively increasing individual income in 2008. Although in terms of sheer impact, none was more impactful than the reiteration of the power and magnitude of committed, monthly support.

So in case I didn't make myself clear enough: monthly, monthly, monthly, monthly, monthly....

Jonathon

Thinking ahead rather than looking behind

2009-11-06T01:04:00.011+10:00

It's been a week of prognosticating and big thinking. Kicked off by Ken Burnett's future of fundraising vision, which I commented on here earlier.

Ironic actually as I'm in the midst of reading a great book on how bad we are in the world at decision making and creative thinking. Check out Edward De Bono's Think!: Before it's Too Late: Twenty Three Reasons Why World Thinking is So Poor

Ironic also because we do tend to spend a lot of time (guilty as charged) looking back. Talking about past successes and failures.

I remember hearing Bernard Ross talk about this at a session once, critical that all we do at fundraising conferences is regurgitate old stuff. A showcase of what's happened in the past, an almanac of fundraising campaigns, if you like.

So Bernard has done something about it and pulled together the aptly named fundraising scenarios site that's generating lots of interest right now.

I've used this forum to follow up my earlier post about where I see us needing to go as fundraisers moving forward. You can view my thoughts here.

Jonathon

Crystal ball gazing

2009-11-02T23:39:00.013+10:00

I thought it would add my 20 cents worth on Ken Burnett's interesting piece about the Future of Fundraising.

Thanks to Ken and Bernard Ross for opening up this dialogue.

It's about 5 minutes long, enjoy.

Jonathon

PS - I'm going to follow up with some more detail on the 4 items I discuss over the coming week. Watch this space.

The acquisition hook

2009-10-31T03:21:00.006+10:00

It's damn tough to find new supporters. It's even harder to keep them.

So if it's so hard to keep them, why don't we revisit the hook that got them to support us in the first place?

I think this is too often overlooked.

Your acquisition pack talks about Darfur. Or perhaps your street canvasser talks about land preservation.

We then get so excited at the lovely new person that comes on board that we forget about what made them tick in the first instance.

Get back to your (acquisition) roots. Make it normal practice to bring your new donors back to where they just were, just days or weeks ago. Use some variable copy in the next appeal or that subsequent phone call to remind them why they did what they did.

Remember, it was damn hard work finding them. If you play back why they made that decision to help you, you'll find it a little easier to hold onto them.

Jonathon

Keeping it fresh

2009-10-28T04:41:00.021+10:00

When was the last time you took stock of every touchpoint you had with your supporters?

Sean Triner wrote a really good blog today about how in many ways not much has changed in fundraising over the past 120 years. Namely, long letters still work, much like they did for Dr Barnardo's in the 19th century.

That is true. And I'm very much an advocate of doing things that works. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But what I do see too often is stale communications. Ask yourself, does this communication advance the relationship with your supporters? Does it cut through the clutter?

I ask because I see lots of stuff that is downright dull. Crusty and old.

So, enough of the ranting. Here is some 'meat to the bones'. I'd suggest you:

1 Make a habit of critiquing every piece of literature that reaches your supporters. By that I mean appeals, newsletters, telephone scripts, e-communications, thank you letters, welcome packs. By 'habit' I mean at least twice a year.

2 When you analyze each of these pieces, do the following:

- Read it aloud, preferably to someone else. Does it sound like something you would actually say or does it sound like an advert for health insurance?

- Get someone else (who isn't intimately involved in the fundraising program) to critique them. You'd be amazed at how much can creep into your materials that doesn't make any sense or just doesn't sound right. Health warning: you're not looking for someone to mess with your fundraising, like suggest you take out all asks. You're wanting someone to see if what you're saying makes sense.

3 Look around you. There are a vast array of really good and very relevant supporter communications out there. Specifically look at the way other organization's communicate with their donors (online, offline, via the phone). Look out for materials that are simplistic and easy to understand.

4 Strip out as many references to you . It isn't about you. It's about your wonderful donors and those people/animals/environment they generously support. Spend most of your time talking about the latter.

5 When you think you've done all of this, repeat steps 1 through 4 one more time.

This may not be the most fun or sexiest part of your job. But it helps to ensure:

- That you're not stale
- That you're communicating with donors, not at them
- That you care enough to tell it as it, right now

Jonathon

Inspiring action

2009-10-26T10:50:00.005+10:00

A little over a year ago I moved into the blogosphere.

I've just worked out how to post videos. There's no stopping me now.

Check out my first video blog on how you can inspire action as well as solicit donations this Christmas.

Jonathon

Don't forget to actually talk to people

2009-10-22T01:26:00.000+10:00

Tell me something I don't know, Jonathon. There is a point, bear with me.

I've been following some of the tweet action at the International Fundraising Congress, and noticed a few talking about website content and the like.

This got me thinking about my mystery shopping experiences over the past few years. Not just in Canada but early days in the UK and then later down under and in Asia. For a recap of the Canadian exercise conducted last year, check out my earlier post.

It got me thinking about this specifically because schmick websites were often the downfall of many organizations we contacted.

Why?

Because too often when we spoken to organization's (this applied in all countries we have done this) we were met with, "why don't you go check out our website, there is some great information posted there'.

Errr... because I rang you to actually speak to someone (a human being), so that's why I don't want to go to your website.

A brilliant, easily navigable, clear and succinct website is essential. But it's essential to support other media, to enable those who prefer to interact with you in this way to do so.

It isn't a replacement for real dialogue, real conversations.

And that's the point. Far too often when we rang a charity to make a donation, to make an enquiry or even to make a complaint, we were directed to the organization's lovely, very schmick (or sometimes not very schmick) site.

I firmly believe this to be one of the key reasons why do many charities failed to truly engage us and 'solve' our complaint, why many didn't take our donation or even answer our general enquiry. Because it was all too hard, and sending us to their site was all too easy.

In the age of digital enhancement and moving online, spare a thought for just having a chat to someone.

Jonathon

Pareto Fundraising is giving away four passes to the AFP Congress in Toronto

2009-10-20T21:39:00.000+10:00

One of the things we’re incredibly passionate about at Pareto Fundraising is professional development. I love the fact that we regularly provide free, quality training to fundraising professionals. It’s one of the parts of my job I love the most.

So I’m thrilled right now that we’ve got four passes to award to fundraising professionals who want to attend this year’s AFP Congress in Toronto. We’re giving this to people who wouldn’t normally have the opportunity to attend Congress.

Click here to find out whether you're eligible and if so tell us in 500 words or less what you hope to learn from your attendance at Congress.

Applications close on Thursday, November 5, 2009.

Jonathon

"I really don't know..."

2009-10-20T03:40:00.000+10:00

It would be nice to hear these four simple words more often than we do.

Working agency side, there is a perception, often correct, that consultants aren't prepared to mutter those words.

Ted Grigg posted a great blog about consultant credibility last week broaching this very topic.

Ted notes that "..competence is reflected by the easy manner in which such consultants readily admit that they do not have the answers to everything related to their field of expertise.."

Well said Ted.

People, in charities and even for-profits, hire agencies and consultants because they want access to an array of learning's and testing, because they want to have their ear close to the ground to ensure they are up to speed with latest sector developments and finally (although many won't admit this) because they want their lives made easier.

That's not to say that life is always easier working with a consultant, but that's the aim...

I'm digressing.

In addition to Ted's blog I was reminded of how important it is to throw your arms up sometimes and say "I really don't know, please help" when I was back in Australia recently. I was doing a workshop with the brilliant team at the Children's Medical Research Institute in Sydney.

One of the guys who had been part of the organization for 30 years at one point during the session put his hand up and said to his peers "Look, I've been here 30 years. That doesn't mean I know everything. If you think something is wrong or we could do it better, feel free to challenge me".

The point was recognizing that longevity in a role doesn't mean you're always right. Nor should you be expected to be.

Ask questions, challenge and do what's best. Not what is easiest.

If someone who has been in a fundraising team for 30 years is prepared to admit they don't have all the answers then that's good enough for me.

Consultants know far from everything, and the best ones readily acknowledge this.

Jonathon

Taking a break means really taking a break...

2009-10-16T03:44:00.000+10:00

I'm back online after a few weeks in Australia including a short hiatus (to get married).

On the plane on the way back I had a lot of time (24 hours in fact) to reflect on my trip and what I'd learnt during my time back home.

The three things that stuck with me were:

1 When you go on holiday/vacation have a real break. That means no checking of emails, sneaky looks at your blackberry or the occasional check in phone call to the office.

It means complete and utter distancing of yourself from your work environment. Hard for many, some may say impossible. I used to think like that, but realize now that in order for me to be at my best, ooze passion and commitment when I am working, I need a real break. And even though this break was less than two weeks, I feel reenergized and craving my next challenge.

Linked to how well you can do this (have that 'real' break) is the next thing, which is...

2 Surround yourself with brilliant people.

Might sound bleedingly obvious but in order to switch off completely you want to have the confidence in your colleagues who take up the slack whilst you're away.

I went on vacation two weeks ago completely relaxed once I walked out the door as I knew my team around me would deliver what was needed (and more) whilst I was away. And they did.

3 Believe in yourself and what you do.

Again, hardly a revolutionary piece of advice, but I was reminded of how important this is whilst watching a documentary on the plane of David Ogilvy, known by many as 'the father of advertising' as we know it today.

His story is quite extraordinary, particularly when you consider that a former door to door salesman and a man who had just left living amongst an Amish community took on the big boys of the advertising world on Madison avenue, with no advertising experience. It really was David taking on Goliath at the time, but it's fair to say the Ogilvy Group is now the Goliath of the advertising world.

So what did David Ogilvy have that made him succeed? He had an ability to generate lots of big ideas for his clients, but fundamentally he could sell and believed in himself. If he didn't I'm certain he would have packed up his life and moved back to the UK, given that by his own admission he initially struggled to win clients.

Most remember David Ogilvy for his creative and advertising brilliance. I take my hat off to him for his entrepreneurial tenacity, drive and above all, belief.

The trip was a good reminder of the simple things that help keep me going on a daily basis, doing what I love.

Jonathon