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
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Donor: "May change mind"
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
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
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Lesson from Vodafone
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
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
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Charity merger: Operation Smile Train
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
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
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Why the 'flood levy' shouldn't harm good fundraising
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
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
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Don't give me an excuse not to donate
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
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
Monday, January 24, 2011
Why aren't charities doing more digital fundraising?
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
- 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
Monday, January 10, 2011
Cricket and data: all is not always as it seems
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Trust and charities: getting on the front foot
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)