Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Fundraising'

| Subscribe via RSS

Quick Tips from AuctionStar

August 23rd, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Fundraising

What can we learn from auction fundraisers?  I have always found it useful and productive to share my event experiences with my clientele.  The opportunity to understand how others are handling challenges with their auction fundraisers in effect provides a chance to all of us come together, collaborate, learn and ultimately return home with ideas and best practices that will help organizations achieve their goals.

Auction Tip #1:  Manage your auction fundraiser like a business.  Savvy auction chairs recognize that the gala evening fundraiser has the potential to raise hundreds of thousands in just a couple of hours.  Attend to all the logistics and details for your event as soon as an event date has been established.  Provide your management teams the handbook from prior years with their specific objectives.   Your event night timeframe for fundraising is critical so make each minute count.

Auction Tip #2:  Know your attendees.  Every organization is different in its demographic profiles.  Common attendees range from the bargain shopper, supporter, big spender and your beneficiary.  Keep both your fiscal and mission objectives in mind when putting together your guest list.

Auction Tip #3:  Product selection.  If you have diligently done Auction Tips one and two, then your auction team will have identified the particular products that will fulfill your financial goal.  Make the selection as unique as possible so that your auction items are not identical to all the other events in town.

By Valarie Minetos

Marketing & Sales Director

AuctionStar Software & Event Services

www.BarcodedAuctions.com

Copyright (c) 2010 CrestWare Inc. All Rights Reserved.

‘Karmas’ Become Dollars For Charities That Are Mobile

August 23rd, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Fundraising

By Kate Rogers

Non-Profit Times

Sixth graders from low-income families who attend Eberhart Elementary School on Chicago’s South Side needed Net Book computers to increase their technology skills. Donors across the country made this happen on Feb. 19, without spending a dime.

Through the use of a simple iPhone app, CauseWorld, which partnered on the project with New York City-based DonorsChoose.org, consumers checked in at restaurants, clothing stores and supermarkets on the app, turning their retail therapy into dollars donated.

In other words, there was an app for that.

Nonprofits are upping their tech game by creating smart phone apps, which enable donors and constituents to give or volunteer in quick and simple ways, without the limits seen in text-to-give campaigns. More importantly, charity apps bring something different to the table; they combine education and fun.

CauseWorld users earn between five and 10 “Karmas” for each store they check in at on the app, and can accumulate up to 10 karmas to give to a charity. For each 10 karmas donated, sponsors Kraft and Citibank donate a fixed rate, which varies from cause to cause. Donors also have the opportunity to learn more about each cause before donating to it.

Users donated 772,595 karmas to classroom projects at DonorsChoose.org, totaling $7,725.95, according to Jonathan Evans, director of vendor relations at Donorschoose.org.
“It’s very peer-to-peer,” he said. “They (users) decide where funds go, and there’s a direct connection between a need and an individual who wants to help.”

The app was created as a way for corporations to use marketing budgets and join forces with charitable causes, according to Cyriac Roeding, CEO and co-founder of shopkick Inc., in Paolo Alto, Calif., which created CauseWorld. The application, which is available for iPhone and Android phones, was downloaded more than 300,000 times during its first two months, and has added Proctor & Gamble to its list of sponsors. Roeding said the app taps into the passionate mindset of those who want to do good but can’t always afford to make donations.

Soon, CauseWorld users will be able to earn karmas by scanning the barcode on Proctor & Gamble products in stores across the U.S. Roeding said there is no way to tie purchases to karmas as yet, and support from the app’s stores is not needed.

The ASPCA in New York City launched an iPhone app called Pet Safe, after previously successful interactive marketing campaigns and social media engagement. The app works as a consumer tool, and gives users complete access to the charity’s toxic plant database, which can also be viewed on the ASPCA’s Web site. It lists the plants that are toxic to dogs, cats and horses in alphabetical order, along with photos, warning signs and a breakdown of the plant, showing what parts of it are and are not toxic. Users can also contact the Animal Poison Control Center.

The app allows users to donate directly to the charity, and can also link them back to the ASPCA home page, which is now mobile-optimized for smart phones. From there, users are given the option of signing up for email alerts and charity information.

Betsey Fortlouis, vice president of member communications at the charity, said the ASPCA has the number one toxic plant database in the country, and hopes to extend it to include common household poisons.

“Right now, we are trying to figure out how to re-reach the 70 million homes in America with pets, in a more fun, hip, forward-thinking way,” Fortlouis said. “The demographic is changing. It used to be little old ladies with seven cats at home sending in a monthly donation. But now, we are seeing more savvy, active members, and we are looking to reach more people like that.”

Creating smart phone apps should be a natural move for nonprofits that are investing in current technology, according to Beth Cathey, business development consultant at is7.com in Richardson, Texas. The gap between smart phones and PCs is narrowing, Cathey said, and charities should take advantage of the opportunity to engage a rapidly growing audience.

“Mobile giving strategies should be a part of your plan. Instead of spending time and money on the latest thing, figure out how it compliments what you are already doing,” she said. “Make a smart phone-optimized Web site, so you are not scrolling and scrolling. That is the kiss of death when you are trying to get someone to give you money.”

Web optimization is extremely important for nonprofits to consider, she said, because it allows donors to get information and donate within seconds, anywhere they might be.

“Its almost like impulse buying at the grocery store,” she said. “They can access it wherever they are, and whenever they get inspired.”

Nonprofits like VolunteerMatch.org in San Diego, Calif., are making volunteering easier. On its new iPhone app, the organization links volunteers to one of its 70,000 participating charities based on their age, location, interests and skills. Robert Rosenthal, director of communications for VolunteerMatch, said because volunteer listings have become increasingly niche-based in recent years, the charity hopes to take advantage of such interests by making it more simple to connect volunteers and their choice causes. The app, which is free to download, is similar to the charity’s Web site, which allows volunteers to search for opportunities in their area.

Using GPS technology, the app looks up volunteer listings based on a person’s location, Rosenthal said. The app will evolve over time to give people volunteer information based on what the phone itself already knows about the person.

“This allows us to more quickly give people things that are more relevant to them,” he said. “It filters based on what you care about. It’s so important to make it easy for nonprofits to connect with volunteers.”
Once a volunteer signs up for a nonprofit on the app, the charity will reach out to the person on its own. From there, volunteers can share charity information through their own social media accounts, Rosenthal said.

The app debuted at the SXSW Interactive Conference in Austin, Texas last month and had more than 400 downloads in its first week, Rosenthal said. The charity is working on creating versions of the app for other smart phones.

Los Angeles, Calif.-based MobileCause is making app creation and deployment easier and cheaper for nonprofits with its uGive software. Charities can launch their own iPhone app in just four steps, according to MobileCause President and Co-founder Daniel Scalisi. Nonprofits can upload video content and photos, link their Facebook and Twitter accounts, connect their text campaigns and self-publish using the platform, Scalisi said.

The app can be maintained and updated through the same steps. The software comes as part of a bundle from MobileCause, which includes text to donate and $5 and $10 text to give campaigns, for $99 per month.
“With an app, nonprofits are immediately exposed to a whole new audience,” Scalisi said. “We realize there is much more to a donor relationship than text messaging, and the trigger for us was the app marketplace was meaningful enough to pursue it. It was critical for us to make an app simple to create and deploy.”

Close to 35 nonprofits were using uGive by press time, before its official release, Scalisi said. uGive is free to download and gives users access to all participating nonprofits. They can sort and save the nonprofits they want to learn more about and follow. Users can also share information about the charities with their Facebook and Twitter communities. Donations can be made in just two clicks, Scalisi said.
“It’s a far richer experience and its more personal, because (the phone) sits right in your hand,” he said. “Its more immediate and simple, and the device is so much more pervasive and accessible than a desktop PC.”

Apps can typically cost charities upwards of $10,000 to create and hundreds to maintain. However, the ASPCA’s app was created free by the Treviso Media Group. The charity is not projecting to make a ton of money from the tool, Fortlouis said. Instead, the ASPCA is seeking to enter into the world of interactive marketing and gauge its success.

“The purpose of this is to get our foot in the water,” she said. “This will be cool for us, because we didn’t have to spend money on acquisition mailing, and we can reach out to people in a new way. We are very limited with our budget, so we want to figure out where else we can go with this.”

Although the nonprofit had not previously worked with mobile fundraising, it did offer pet tips of the day through a text messaging campaign. Fortlouis said nonprofits are often limited during mobile campaigns, because donors can only give up to $10 and charities cannot access their home or email addresses to cultivate a relationship with them. Such is not the case with a smart phone app, which will allow the ASPCA to access the users’ contact information.

Text-to-give campaigns will not completely disappear in the wake of newer technology, such as charity phone apps, is7.com’s Cathey said. However, they will become more advanced and give donors more options.

Many donors and nonprofits become frustrated with such campaigns because the donation amount is limited and it can take up to 90 days for a charity to actually see the money raised. “The fact is that organizations forget that a donor only has one relationship with them; they don’t have email, direct marketing or text-to-give options to choose from,” Cathey said.

“Organizations have to use analytics to figure out how donors want to engage with them. If you want to be the recipient of a donation, then you better make it quick and easy for donors,” she said.

Roeding said charities should get in the app game as soon as possible to take advantage of mobile technology’s vast user base.

“It’s embedded in your daily life,” he said of mobile technology. “As a nonprofit, people are in love with what you do, but there are only so many people who are directly engaged in your charity.”

Taking Advantage Of Direct Mail Postage Savings

August 23rd, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Fundraising

usps-300x300With the U.S. Postal Service facing an estimated cumulative shortfall of $238 billion by 2020, it is seeking approval for an overall price increase of about 5.6% starting in January 2011. Add to that tight corporate budgets and it’s easy to understand why marketers are intensely focused on looking for flexible solutions that meet their direct-mail delivery time frames yet stay within the budget.

Too frequently, however, the focus on saving money is on how the piece is produced while savings that can result from the right postal solutions are overlooked. Production oversight is important for saving a few pennies per thousand pieces, but there are many mailing options that offer the opportunity for more significant savings. It takes understanding the options and when to use them. Let’s take a look:

• Destination entry. The USPS offers postage discounts for standard-class mail to those that deliver their mail to its large automated sorting facilities. But for this option to make sense in most cases, the discount needs to exceed the freight cost by a large enough amount so that the administrative costs are worth the difference. This method is best for a large mailing or one with a very dense geographic coverage.

The highest discounts are available for those that can ship their mail to a Sectional Center Facility (SCF), which is a processing and distribution center for post offices in a designated geographical area. If it doesn’t make economic sense to use an SCF, then shipping to a USPS Bulk Mail Center (BMC) or utilizing co-palletization might be the best option. For some mailings, a combination of these options works best.

• Co-palletization. A service provider authorized by the USPS to offer co-palletization services can combine trays from multiple mailings together on the same skid, qualifying for SCF postal discounts. Each mailing is presorted and produced independently but may be merged onto one pallet, maximizing collective postal discounts. For midsize mailings, co-palletization often is the best option and is frequently complementary to BMC drops. If freight costs are outweighing the savings of BMC/SCF, co-palletization should be considered.

• Commingling. For mailings that have multiple letter shop versions, or small quantities of about 20,000 to 30,000 pieces that are delivered to a widely dispersed geography, commingling can maximize postal rate savings for first- and standard-class mail. A lower fixed postage rate can be gained by combining components with other mailings than what would be achieved by mailing components separately.

However, for some small mailings, commingling may not be the best option. For example, with commingling it is more difficult to control actual arrival dates. Keep in mind, too, that commingling is often offered because a service provider has invested in expensive equipment and wants to use it.

There are many complex variables when considering all the postal options available today. When planning a campaign, consider sending your service provider an exact data file that is scrubbed of confidential information, leaving only the address information—a so-called “dead file.” In this way, any service provider expert at postal optimization can consider all the campaign’s variables, determine the best postal fit for the job and provide an accurate bid. A confidentiality agreement can be signed too, if desired, which allows you to securely compare providers.

It is also important to know if a mailer has a system for real-time tracking and reporting, as well as access to the Postal Service’s PostalOne information management system for more time-efficient and cost-effective campaigns.

Finding the right postal solution to best fit the requirements of a direct-mail campaign, at the best rate, lowest freight cost and fastest delivery might take a little homework, but the savings gained for marketers looking to save their companies money is well worth the time.

View Source

10 Key Online Fundraising Trends

August 23rd, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Fundraising

donate-keyboard
While direct mail is still king in bringing in funds, online fundraising remains an ever-growing channel that is vital to the future of every organization. Studying the trends and understanding where opportunities lie going forward as today’s online generation reaches prime giving age are musts. To that end, nonprofit technology provider Convio recently released its Online Nonprofit Benchmark Study.

Here are some key findings from the study:

1. Online giving grew 14 percent despite a difficult economy. Overall, 69 percent of organizations raised more in 2009 than 2008, while 31 percent saw declines in their online fundraising.

2. An increase in gifts drove fundraising gains. Of those that grew fundraising in 2009, 92 percent saw an increase in the number of gifts in 2009 compared to 43 percent of organizations seeing an increase in their average gift amounts.

3. Donors were still giving, but smaller amounts. Sixty-one percent of all organizations saw their average gifts drop in 2009.

4. Regardless of mission, online fundraising continued to grow. The only exception was disaster and international relief organizations; there were more significant disasters in 2008 than 2009.

5. Small organizations grew fastest. Organizations with fewer than 1,000 e-mail addresses on file grew online revenue by 26 percent and gifts by 32 percent.

6. E-mail files continued to grow strongly. The total e-mail file grew 27 percent in 2009 to 39,100 constituents.

7. Web traffic continued to grow for most organizations, but at a slower rate. Sixty percent of organizations grew their website traffic from 2008 to 2009. Web traffic growth in 2009 was at 6 percent compared with double-digit growth seen in previous years.

8. Web traffic was strongly correlated with e-mail file growth. Thirty-eight percent of an organization’s success building large e-mail files could be directly attributed to the amount of traffic to the organization’s website.

9. Registration rates dropped. The rate at which organizations converted website visitors to their e-mail files declined to 2.12 percent in 2009.

10. Constituents more reluctant to open e-mails and click through. Open rates for fundraising appeals and newsletters remained around 20 percent, but clickthrough rates for both declined in 2009.

To view the entire study, click here.

View Source

Emergent Philanthropists: America’s Evolving Ethnic Donor Groups

June 15th, 2010 | 1 Comment | Posted in Fundraising

KatherineSwank-largeHistoric philanthropy patterns of America’s affluent donors are giving way to a more complex and disparate population that represents our country’s patchwork communities. The systematic and predictable giving methods by the rich no longer dominate our donor bases. Diverse communities are emerging with new giving patterns and objectives.

Affluent African-Americans, Asian-Americans and those of Hispanic heritage are joining the donor ranks of many organizations. Their concepts of philanthropy encompass giving from all available resources including time, expertise, money and combined efforts. Nonprofit organizations will need to embrace fresh communication styles and adopt flexible stewardship, solicitation and recognition efforts to garner more involvement and support from these emergent philanthropists.

Giving in the U.S.
People living in the United States are more philanthropic than residents of any other country. The stats say it all:

  • 80 percent of American households donate annually; with 129 million households in the U.S., that’s more than 100 million making gifts to charitable organizations!
  • More than $300 billion was donated in each of the past few years.
  • More than eight of every 10 donations are given by individuals versus donations from corporate entities or large private foundations.
  • Charitable giving has increased nearly 3 percent on average every year over the past 40 years.
  • Average household giving is nearly $3,000 each year.
  • For households with annual incomes between $100,000 and $1 million, the average is just less than $5,000, and for households with $1 million or more in annual income, the average household gift jumps to nearly $60,000 each year.

It’s estimated that one in every five households in the U.S. is affluent — defined as having household income around $100,000 or higher.

Traditionally, the affluent have been middle-aged, white, married men whose wealth was inherited or self-made through business ventures. Today, an affluent household is just as likely to be headed by someone younger, more entrepreneurial, a minority, a woman or a combination of these.

Emerging affluence
Emerging into prominence on the philanthropic scene are three ethnic groups: African-Americans, Asian-heritage and Hispanic-heritage donors. They share the sense of obligation to help others, and much of their giving is linked to family and kinship, therefore more personal and informal. Religion plays a large role in these communities’ traditions of giving as well.

Since this article only begins to touch on the topic of emerging philanthropy from ethnic communities, generalization is necessary. But, by understanding even a cursory introduction to the commonalities and differences of each group, nonprofits can learn about and come to embrace new traditions of giving. Ultimately, we must create flexible, welcoming environments through which these generous donors can connect to accomplish their personal philanthropic goals.

African-American wealth
Around 2.5 million African-Americans live in households at the affluent level. Traditionally, wealth has been achieved through family business but recently has expanded to include certified professions, real estate holdings, entrepreneurial ventures, entertainment, media and professional sports. Even though affluent African-Americans donate up to 25 percent more of their discretionary income than Caucasians, few of them consider their giving as “philanthropic.” Helping those in need is simply a general obligation, and gifts of time and talent are sometimes more highly valued than cash donations.

Traditionally, religion, education, social and political organizations reaped the largest benefits of African-American giving. Lately, donations toward AIDS causes and genocide in Africa have been increasing. Patterns of charitable giving are similar to those of the general population, except these generous people often prefer to make donations privately and confidentially.

Communications should be informational and must provide a sense of accomplishment within the community. Because women tend to be the charitable-giving decision makers in many African-American homes, be certain to highlight gifts and involvement by their peers. The assurance of anonymity, if desired, always should be offered. Solicitations and payment choices that allow cumulative giving options mimic savings patterns employed by many African-Americans. Gifts of impact can be accomplished if structured over multiple years.

The affluent Hispanic-heritage community
The number of affluent Hispanic households has more than doubled in the past few decades, and Hispanics’ wealth is growing faster than the general public. Today, more than 3.7 million Hispanic households have incomes exceeding $100,000. Family-owned and small businesses account for much of this wealth, as well as inheritance. Nearly seven of every 10 Hispanic households donate to charitable causes. Their gifts go to help the poor. The Catholic Church, education, job training, youth and disaster-related organizations receive a large portion of their giving. Person-to-person assistance is more predominate in this community than any other. Millions of dollars are sent to relatives abroad or given to other family members before charitable contributions are considered. Because gifts are given when needed, extremely informal and unpredictable giving patterns tend to be the norm.

The Hispanic population in the U.S. is young; almost half are under the age of 40. This group tends to be fiscally conservative and has a strong propensity toward savings. As these donors are aging, their giving priorities are diversifying, and community needs, capital projects and some cultural organizations are finding interest among Hispanic donors. These emerging philanthropists rally behind their leaders and tend to support their causes as well.

Consider communications that are bilingual when appropriate. Examples of donors who have made a difference through their modest gifts may prompt others to consider engagement. Because many Hispanics have adopted mainstream investment strategies for their own savings, use language that provides the same sense of resource accumulation at your organization. Allow donors flexibility in the timing and level of their gifts. The concept of regular “annual gifts” has not yet taken root among many donors of Hispanic heritage. Large gift solicitation efforts may need to take on a sense of group giving versus individual giving.

Asian-American philanthropy
More than 12 million Asian-Americans live in the United States today. They are the largest source of immigrants in the past 20 years. With more than 60 percent of this group foreign-born, giving patterns are heavily tied to traditional ways. The wealthiest of the emerging ethnic communities, Asian-Americans’ average household income is higher than that of all other major racial groups. They are highly educated and have a higher rate of savings than the average household in the U.S. Wealth has been built through small business ventures including personal services, food and lodging. High-tech company startups and professional positions are also dominant in building wealth.

Philanthropy is part of the Asian culture, and these individuals give a higher percentage of their annual incomes to charitable causes than Caucasians. Many send money abroad to help family members or make gifts person to person. At home, informal loan associations are common, often to help others get started in business. Because of the private nature of these gifts, celebrations and recognition for charitable donations are neither common nor expected. This generous group gives money, skill and time to help organizations and efforts that enhance their communities; often they seek involvement in the projects or even leadership positions. In return, they expect a high degree of accountability and demand effective use of their funds. Be certain to show the results of mission funding in your communications before you seek larger or additional gifts.

Direct services, educational organizations and cultural centers receive a large portion of Asian-Americans’ funding. Nursing homes, health organizations, and services for the elderly and youth also fare well. Successive generations of Asian-heritage donors tend to diversify their giving interests even more.

Before soliciting large gifts, be certain to involve your prospect in the formative stages of the project. Consider providing more information about the funding details and results expected. Include information that shows your fiscal effectiveness and long-term plans. Major-gift giving is common among Asian-Americans and may represent a large life event as well. When celebrating these more public gifts, recognition is welcomed and provides community awareness as well as a desire to prompt others to make similar gifts.

The face of America’s philanthropist is changing. Nonprofit leaders who want to engage a fuller representation of their communities must begin to recognize and invite involvement from these emerging philanthropic ethnic groups. It’s well-known that people respond to people who are similar in look, economic status and values to themselves. Take time to assess the makeup of your leadership and staff; determine if your donor base would benefit from greater involvement with these generous donors; review the visual components of your organizational communications to find out if they represent your community’s changing demographics; and above all, be flexible and welcoming in your fundraising efforts. Be the changing force behind your organization’s open invitation to a new group of affluent emerging philanthropists.

Statistics have been collected from leading sources including GivingUSA Foundation, The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and the 2008 Mendelsohn Affluent Survey.

Katherine Swank is a consultant with Target Analytics, a Blackbaud company.

View Source

Automated Phone Messaging Makes A Difference

June 14th, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Annual Giving, Fundraising

Do you find yourself chasing the promises of social media and other new tools to boost your fundraising?  Are you disappointed by the impact on your fundraising?  For the forseeable future, these strategies will not appreciably increase your results.  Work on them … yes … but  I feel you should continue to explore and develop currently effective tools and techniques.

In annual giving, direct mail and phonathons are responsible for as much as 90% of annual giving.  In this blog post, I’d like to suggest you consider a tool that has elements of both direct mail and phonathon and can boost the results of your existing campaigns. 

You can use automated phone messages to increase event attendance, raise membership levels, thank donors, boost direct mail campaigns, recruit more auction participants, lift pledge fulfillment or introduce new leadership to your constituents.

Automated messaging does these things better than almost any tool you may have tried.  Alone and in combination with other tools, this technique typically boosts results 15% to 50% and clients have reported exceeding fundraising goals by 20% after employing simple campaigns.

Sample Impact on a Direct Mail Appeal

Summer Appeal

- Received Lead 30-Second Message costing $0.10– 15% response rate, $33.25 average gift

- No Message – 10.3% response rate, $23.16 average gift

Christmas Appeal

- Received Lead 30-Second Message costing $0.10 – 11% response rate, $44.59 average gift

- No Message – 6.2% response rate, $23.15 average gift

You will be able to review the impact on any of your programs because you will receive full reports on who receives the calls and whether they receive the calls live or as a record voice or answering machine message immediately following the campaign.

 I encourage you to call and speak to me about these programs now.  There are many benefits:

  • Working with a leader in automated messaging
  • We have completed thousands of programs
  • No project too big or too small with programs starting at $650
  • Deliver different message live or to machines
  • Redirect calls to a call center or your office
  • Marketing advice including script writing
  • Record message 24/7 and schedule message deliver when you want
  • Observe all legal requirements

 We have many satisfied clients including:

Arthritis Foundation

ALSAC / St. Jude Hospital

Penn State University Alumni Association

Ohio State University

University of Arizona

Bennett College

DesMoines Area Community College

Salvation Army

American Red Cross

 

Call or email for more information.

Sincerely,

Brian

  

Brian Lacy

Brian Lacy and Associates

3122 Gannett Street

Houston, TX  77025

 brian@brianlacy.com

(860) 478-9291

Fax:  (713) 667-8352

Tags: , , ,

Why is Annual Giving So Important?

May 20th, 2010 | 2 Comments | Posted in Annual Giving

Last week I was fortunate to spend time and engage in conversations with many dedicated annual giving professionals.  I was at an excellent conference that had me thinking again about why annual giving should be important to all non-profit development programs.  I have thought a lot about this lately.

If you are an annual giving professional, or if you have ever been one, you might be thinking I have been pondering the obvious … but over the past three years I have spoken to an organization which discontinued its phonathon, another which closed its annual giving program, and a large university which actually ceased development operations.

Today, I can happily share that the closed development program reopened, that the annual giving office recently hired not one but three development professionals, and while the phonathon isn’t yet calling even 20% of the available prospects, it again calls thousands of individuals annually.

In these challenging times I’d like to give any of you who need to speak out for your annual fund a little supporting information.  When debating the importance of annual giving and its value to our non-profit organizations, we must consider the following:

1) Annual giving donors have a lifetime value that far exceeds any one gift …  so even if we are down because of the economy or identifiable fundraising mistakes and don’t break even in a given year, our organizations will almost certainly be strengthened over time

2) Our annual giving is marketing of our non-profits to broad audiences … in effect our marketing is subsidized by fundraising and this must be considered an addition a return on our investment

3) More than 75% of $10,000+ donors, in one Target Analytics study, gave six or more annual gifts before their first $10,000+ gift … highlighting that indeed annual giving cultivates donors for even greater support in future

4) 88% of those the same $10,000 donors took three or more years from their first annual gift before making their $10,000+ gift … suggesting that for many, annual giving could be a necessary step before some make major gifts

5) Annual giving solicitation vehicles and tools often tell us more about the condition of our databases for all of our organizations activities … indeed mailing and conversations about annual giving often collect more information updates than any other activity of the non-profit

6) Meer and Rosen reported that a college graduate that has given $20 each of the first five years after graduating, will give eight times as much as the graduates to give one $100 in those five years … so it is not enough for us to have a fund for people to give to, we must have a program that actively seeks support and then a repeated renewal of that support

For more on your annual giving efforts, please give me a call or drop me an email.

Brian Lacy

(860) 478-9291

brian@brianlacy.com

Naming Rights with a Twist

May 20th, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Fundraising
The Distinguished Founders Circle of donors photographed with the Business school Dean Mike Percy. From left top row. Mick Percy, Sandy Sprague, Stan Milner, Court Carruthers, Bottom row, Dr. Dianne Kipness, Irv Kipness, Guy Turcotte, and Roger Philips. The U of A business school launched a major fundraising effort and raised $20 million to keep the faculty name as is. Photograph by: Shaughn Butts, edmontonjournal.com

The Distinguished Founders Circle of donors photographed with the Business school Dean Mike Percy. From left top row. Mick Percy, Sandy Sprague, Stan Milner, Court Carruthers, Bottom row, Dr. Dianne Kipness, Irv Kipness, Guy Turcotte, and Roger Philips. The U of A business school launched a major fundraising effort and raised $20 million to keep the faculty name as is.
Photograph by: Shaughn Butts, edmontonjournal.com

Facing the prospect of a corporate title on the doorway, graduates of the University of Alberta School of Business started a campaign that raised more than $20 million to keep the name just as it is.

Three years ago, a fundraising committee thought it could set up a rich endowment by changing the name and joining the ranks of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management or Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business.

The committee even found interested buyers. Then members had a change of heart.

Instead, almost 170 alumni donated more than $20 million, and the school now has a signed certificate saying the current name will be preserved in perpetuity.

“People are loving it. It’s almost like counter-culture,” said Mike House, a member of the fundraising team.

Rather than honouring a single alumni who made it big, the name represents the whole community, he said. “They’re not about putting themselves first.”

Donors, alumni and administrators gathered at the Alberta Art Gallery on Monday to celebrate.

“This school is owned by its alumni. It’s owned by its community,” said Mike Percy, dean of the business school. “Always has been, always will be.”

The art gallery was built by many of the same donors, he said. “That’s what makes this city unique. There’s quiet wealth here.”

Preserving the name is a way of thinking for the future, he said. The school could have chosen one of its most famous alumni, and “at the end of the day, after one generation, no one knows who they are.”

The $20.5 million will be invested to support the school. Some of the interest will fund the salary of a new research chair position. Other funds will support the general operating fund to make it less reliant on provincial government budgets, while some will support scholarships.

The school was founded in 1960, and has several internationally known programs, Percy said. It also ranks consistently in the top 40 in the Financial Times of London rankings for research.

Stan Milner, a local businessman and philanthropist who led the committee, said members’ change of heart came when they started thinking about the future. “Because we’re building this for forever,” he said.

“Mind you, if Mr. (Bill) Gates showed up with $100 million, we might have changed our minds,” Milner added with a laugh.

The committee started the campaign in 2007, shortly before the economic downturn. But as the economy picked up, many alumni were happy to get involved.

The name “Alberta” gives the school a sense of place, like the Harvard Business School, he said. No one gets confused about where that is.

“(But) the Harvard Business School is so remarkably secure because their endowment is so huge,” he said.

Only endowments can give the type of reliable funding that will let the Alberta School of Business attract and keep star professors. “You need a few Wayne Gretzkys around.”

View Source

Why Donors Name or Intend to Name a Nonprofit in Their Wills

May 19th, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Fundraising

We asked bequest givers and those who plan to amend their wills at some point to include a bequest to rate their primary reasons for naming a nonprofit in their will. Their answers most often related to intrinsic, personal feelings rather than tangible benefits. On average, younger Americans with wills (ages 40–54) and those of any age group who plan to amend their wills tended to offer nearly all of these reasons more frequently.

The majority of those who already have a bequest in their will or intend to amend their will at some point to add one cited the following as a primary reason for doing so:

» You just feel it is the right thing to do (81 percent).

• Those aged 40–54 and those with college degrees are slightly more likely to say this is a primary reason (87 percent each).

• This is also a primary reason for those with household incomes of $50,000 or more (86 percent).

» You can have peace of mind that you are doing something good (56 percent).

• Six out of 10 (61 percent) of the youngest Americans in our sample (ages 40–54) list this as a primary reason.

• Current givers favor this reason (60 percent, compared to 49 percent of likely future bequest givers with wills).

The following reasons swayed fewer than half of potential bequest givers but still factored into the decisions of at least 1 in 5:

» You can leave a legacy to an organization you care about that will live on after you are gone (46 percent).

• This reason appeals slightly more to:

• Those with incomes of $50,000 or more (54 percent).

• Those with a college degree (54 percent).

• Those between the ages of 55 and 64 (52 percent).

» You can honor someone you love or admire with a gift in his or her name (29 percent).

• This is most attractive to younger prospects (37 percent of those aged 40–54).

• This reason applies more to future (33 percent) than current (26 percent) bequest givers.

• This is more likely to appeal to women (32 percent) than men (25 percent).

» You can set an example for family members (26 percent).

• This is more attractive than average to younger prospects (33 percent of those aged 40–54).

• One-third (33 percent) of those with a college degree say this is a major reason.

» You can simplify your estate for your heirs (23 percent).

• This is more attractive to those with a college degree (28 percent).

• This reason is stronger among current (26 percent) than future (19 percent) bequest givers.

» You can pay back a kindness you’ve received, such as a scholarship or medical care (23 percent).

• This reason appeals to the younger prospect group (32 percent of those aged 40–54).

• More future prospects are drawn to this reason (29 percent) than those who have already included a bequest (20 percent).

• Those with household incomes of $100,000 or higher and those with a college degree are also likely to see this as a major reason (28 percent each).

» You can reduce the amount your estate will pay in taxes while keeping the amount you give to family and friends the same (21 percent).

• While neither gender differs notably from the average, this reason is more likely to appeal to men (25 percent) than to women (17 percent).

• Those who intend to include a bequest but haven’t yet are more likely than current bequest givers to credit this as a reason (27 percent among intended givers, compared to 17 percent of current givers).

» You can provide income for family members through gift annuities (19 percent).

• Those who intend to include a bequest but haven’t yet are considerably more likely than current bequest givers to credit this as a reason (28 percent among intended givers, compared to 12 percent of current givers).

» You can reduce the amount of income tax you pay now (13 percent).

• Those who intend to include a bequest but haven’t yet are more likely than current bequest givers to consider this important (18 percent among intended givers, compared to 9 percent of current givers).

• This is slightly more attractive to those with less education (18 percent of those with no more than some college education).

Motivations for Bequest Giving: Why People Give and Why They Don’t | 3

» You feel it is expected of you, for example because of your involvement in an organization (12 percent).

» You can receive income later from deferred gifts and take the tax advantage now (9 percent).

• Those who intend to include a bequest but haven’t yet are much more likely than current
bequest givers to credit this as a major reason (15 percent among intended givers, compared to 6 percent of current givers).

• This is attractive to younger prospects (15 percent of those aged 40–54).

» You can sometimes receive perks or privileges associated with a higher level of giving than what you can afford on an annual basis (3 percent). Six percent did not offer any of these as a primary reason.

*This research was provided by The Stelter Company

What Can We Learn From Our Global Fundraising Neighbors?

May 19th, 2010 | No Comments | Posted in Fundraising

It is always a useful and productive experience to spend time in a new environment. That is the reason we fundraisers like to go to conferences. AFP, CASE, IFC, NTEN are great events that give us opportunities to get together, collaborate, learn and ultimately return home with ideas and best practices that will help our organizations achieve their goals.

What if we could extend this knowledge sharing beyond our own borders? What if we could learn how fundraisers in Bolivia deal with the lack of postal or banking systems? How did a Dutch organization generate more than 500,000 monthly donors? How are Italian organizations using digital media to drive results? How could we, wherever we are located, learn from our fundraising cousins on the other side of the planet?

Working for a global software company that only serves nonprofits, I am lucky enough to spend a great deal of time traveling and talking to nonprofits around the world. What has become obvious to me during my travels and my experience living internationally is the similar passion, drive and optimism that nonprofits around the world share with each other. There may be differences in fundraising styles and techniques from country to country, but the philosophy and passion remain the same. We also, as a global fundraising community, share many of the same challenges and concerns.

The State of the Nonprofit Industry (SONI) is the leading market research survey of several thousand fundraising organizations across multiple countries in Europe, Asia Pacific and North America. The survey focuses on issues critical to today’s nonprofits, including operational issues, technology, accountability and fundraising. This research has enabled us to assess the differences between fundraising in different parts of the world and track the trends over the years.

One example of a current challenge that is universal (or at least global) is the increased trends of donors wanting greater visibility of where their money is going. In fact, 60 percent of organizations in Germany responded that they had seen an increase in this area.

I noted earlier about the optimistic nature of nonprofits globally. This was also an area we polled in the SONI, asking organizations how they expected total income to change from 2009 to 2010. Almost all participants across Europe stated that they expected fundraising revenue to increase, with France being the most optimistic about 2010. Investments were also up, with 61 percent of U.K. organizations seeing an increase in 2010.

One of the most obvious differences between Europe and the U.S., for example, is the different focus between recurring giving and major giving. Almost all survey participants in Europe stressed the importance of sustainer or monthly giving programs, while the results for North America remained flat. In fact, the U.S. has never truly adopted recurring-giving programs on mass, which, as a British person living in the U.S., I find interesting and a significant opportunity. A recent report by Target Analytics, a Blackbaud company, measured the results of monthly giving programs for more than 15 large U.S.-based organizations and found some telling trends:

  • monthly donors tend to be younger than those that give single gifts;
  • recurring donors have much higher retention rates; and
  • monthly donations are less likely to be affected by economic downturns.

Not only are these recurring-gift programs an excellent source of mostly unrestricted, recurring revenue, but they also provide a huge pool of committed and loyal supporters who might make for excellent major- or planned-gift prospects.

The way European organizations acquire these monthly donors is also an interesting difference between our two continents. Face-to-face fundraising is still a huge method in Europe, where a fundraiser or canvasser stands on the street soliciting monthly donations from passers-by. The U.K.-based Third Sector publication estimates that approximately 700,000 donors signed up by this method in 2009. Clearly this form of acquisition is not common in the U.S., and many organizations would, I’m sure, claim that it would not work in the U.S.

Consider this though: Face-to-face is becoming more common in Canada (I was recently approached by two separate large and well-known international nonprofits in Toronto within 10 minutes), and Greenpeace already is successfully acquiring new donors in many U.S. cities.

While the U.S. is by far the largest philanthropic market in the world, there are other markets that are growing significantly (i.e., Latin America). These markets have not had the luxury of fundraising best practices or standards, and they often lack an established culture of giving. Many times they do not have a professional fundraising body and lack the capacity that we in developing countries take for granted.

What we do see in these markets are organizations that are extremely creative. They innovate. They take risks. With little to lose and almost no resources, they look for new and unique ways to reach their constituents and find great, and often unexpected, success. Perhaps that is something we can learn from them.

View Source