The Annual Giving Exchange

Hula Hoops, Members Only Jackets, and the Cabbage Soup Diet were all popular for a brief period but, for one reason or another, none could endure the test of time.

Annual giving has had its fads too.  Pre-call postcards, return address labels, and rubber donor bracelets all had their heyday.  And while many of these tactics still continue to be important components of our annual giving programs, their popularity has since faded.  Even the “blah, blah, blah letter” (common in direct mail fundraising before being made infamous at the expense of Framingham State College) could be considered a fad.

As the opportunities and impact of social media fundraising continue to grow, some still question its staying power.  But skeptics should take note.  Click here to see why social media is more than a fad.

In the beginning, there were print alumni directories.

Then, internally hosted online communities emerged supported by companies like Harris, Kintera, and Convio, where alumni could read news, update their information, and reconnect with old classmates online.

Enter Facebook with over 250 million users and growing.  Why should organizations rely on self-hosted online communities when free tools are available elsewhere?

Social media changes quickly, and rapid change can be very difficult to manage.  Once you get the hang of one platform, a new one pops up.  The trick is not how fast you can change media platforms it’s how well you can integrate the old and the new.   As new social networking tools like Twitter and LinkedIn gain momentum, development programs should be looking for new and effective ways to engage their constituents on multiple platforms.  New technologies can be exciting, but the most effective programs embrace these new tools and find ways to make them fit into their existing systems.

Click here to learn more about how Colgate University is integrating a Facebook application with their internally managed alumni community.

Before your next annual fund appeal, stop and give yourself a pop quiz.

1. Do you have more men or women giving to your organization?
2. What percentage of your donors lives within 20 miles of your organization?
3. How many donors have made more than five gifts to your organization?
4. What is the average age of a $100,000 donor to your organization?
5. What percentage of your donors has ever attended an event at your organization?

While most of us could find answers to these questions very quickly, it’s unlikely that many of us could answer them without doing a little research first.  Finding the answers to questions like these is called data mining, an over-utilized term and an under-utilized tool.

Data mining, like physical exercise, has the greatest benefit when it’s done consistently.  Just as you wouldn’t expect an annual trip to the gym to be enough to keep you fit, don’t expect that counting the number of LYBUNTS, SYBUNTS, and Non-donors once at the beginning of the fiscal year to be sufficient for your annual fund.  It should be part of your regular routine.

Once a month, create a pop quiz for yourself.  Invent new questions.  Recruit help finding the answers.  Consider ways to use your findings, and over time you’ll refine the definition of your organization’s “typical donor.”  Let this exercise guide your future segmentation strategies.

Barack Obama’s recent fundraising campaign received accolades for securing large numbers of donors and encouraging gifts of all sizes.  But was their participation rate something your organization would brag about?

Three million donors out of 300 million U.S. citizens would mean that the Obama campaign’s donor participation rate was 1%.  If that math sounds too conservative then change the denominator to the 66 million people who voted for Obama.  That would give the campaign a donor participation rate of 4.5%.

The point here isn’t that Obama’s campaign had a poor participation rate.  I would argue that it had a very good one.  The point is that framing your donor participation rates can send a very powerful (or not so powerful) message about the viability of your cause.

How does your organization frame donor participation?   Do you use a number or a percentage?  If the latter, is the total population (your denominator) broadly or narrowly defined and why?  Do you consider donors to be people who gave in a particular time period or those who have ever made a gift?  Is a donor someone who has given you money or do you also count donations of time, advice, or ideas?

While each industry has its own standards and guidelines for calculating participation, it’s important to consider all of your options.  Think about what message you’re sending to your donors (and prospective donors) when you talk about your donor participation rates.  And remember that donors, in almost every case, want support to a winning cause.

Recruiting callers for your phonathon program can be a long and exhausting task.

Yes, building a large staff enables you to complete more calls, but you also want to recruit the best possible team.  Some program managers conduct phone interviews or phone screenings to expedite the recruiting process (this is, after all, a business conducted over the phones).  But while phone interviews may be an efficient use of your time, nothing beats a face-to-face meeting.

As a tactic for maximizing efficiency and recruiting the best possible staff, try interviewing prospective callers in groups.  Doing so:

1. Enables you to spend less time recruiting and more time training.
2. Gives you a chance to meet every caller in person.
3. Creates an opportunity to similate a live call center environment.
4. Allows you to compare callers to one another.
5. Encourages callers to stand out.
6. Provides callers with a chance to meet the people they’ll be working with.
7. Builds a sense of community within your program.

There is an ancient Greek maxim that suggests a fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.  A fox’s world is complicated and constantly changes.  A hedgehog’s world is simple and focused.  A fox is always scheming and looking for new ways to conquer his task.  A hedgehog remains focused on one goal.  Despite the fact that a fox is cunning, the hedgehog often emerges victorious in the end.

In managing your annual giving program, what animal do you resemble?

Do you measure true success in terms of dollars raised or donor participation?  Would you rather improve the performance of individual programs (direct mail, phonathon, etc.) or find better ways to integrate them?  Is it your job to solicit or to educate?  Are you more interested in how much donors give or how much they care?

Annual giving programs are great places to test new ideas, but don’t miss the bigger picture.  If you’re in the business of raising money, it’s likely you’ll find yourself acting like a fox.  If, though, you’re in the business of building a community, then you’re probably a hedgehog.