I’ve had the pleasure of consulting closely with countless unique clients with diverse missions, yet all face a common challenge. They struggle to position their organizations effectively in a manner which communicates the impact of their organization to various demographic segments. The challenge, common among most non-profits, goes beyond messaging to encompass internal operational silos, departmental or programmatic territorialism, false profiling of market segments due to lack of proper evidence, and an overall challenge in defining each organization’s role in changing the world for the community they serve in an appropriate way – all the while addressing the communications preferences of disparate populations. Does this sound like too many balls to juggle in the air? I argue this is not the case.

More often than not, organizations approach challenges such as user-intuitive information architecture (navigation) on their web site and through other communications channels without taking into account how unlike individuals will navigate and interpret information. An exercise recently conducted with one client’s technology and web review board unexpectedly triggered surprised looks as board members realized for the first time that individuals tasked with the same objective in reviewing, critiquing or navigating a web site will not only interpret and perceive navigation, visuals, interactivity, and messaging differently, but will adamantly argue that their views apply to all. They’re all disagreeing, but they’re all right – their way is “the right way.” One of the first lessons I learned in my career in non-profit fund development and marketing came to me from a mentor and VP at the world’s most popular cola creator. In chairing my organization’s PR and marketing committee, he operated under the mantra, perception is reality.

Perception is, indeed reality. This is an immutable truth. And each individual will perceive differently, regardless of how appropriately we package our organization with targeted messaging, visuals, and interactivity. I would imagine that if you’re reading this blog, you’re a non-profit professional. Furthermore, I would be led to believe that you have a particular interest in driving outcomes – fund development, awareness, program, or countless others. I’m not psychic, I simply determined my audience prior to crafting this message. You may be a membership, conservation, healthcare, higher education, grant making, social service, or another variety of NPO, but we all have one unifying commonality. We all seek to achieve one of the aforementioned outcomes, and we do so by our ability to influence individuals.

In order for us to successfully influence, we must understand our audience. As an example, as I choose words in this blog, I’m cautious about my use of constituent, member, supporter, prospect, client, community member, and other words. In marketing terms, these are all held equal as the consumer. However, my guess is that my use of the term consumer may prevent this information from truly resonating with my various target audiences, whether it be a marketing, development, program, or other executive-level officer.

Put it in perspective – it’s the equivalent of having a conversation with a current or prospective supporter, a VIP who you know everything about, whether it be from experience and relationship or BI. From recreational and philanthropic interests, to where his or her daughter practices ballet, you’re hopefully educated on who the individual is, what he or she likes, and the appropriate means by which they should be solicited. The same is true for audiences online – audiences that have hopefully been defined and segmented to the fullest extent your due diligence and resources will allow or, as is unfortunately often the case, assumed that you know their motivations and interests and structured your packages and appeals (aka information in the form of a pitch) based on false assumptions.

If the latter is the case, the most important lesson any non-profit afflicted by this misdirection can learn is that everyone is different – the best thing we can do is understand and guide our operations by this principle so that we can unite and target information by commonalities among these varying populations of clients, supporters, and prospects. After all, diversifying your target demographic is like diversifying funding – if you can build affinity with a new group, or strengthen relationships with existing groups of supporters, you’re better able to solicit and steward these individuals in the most personal, educated way. Go forth, and question your web site. Does it inspire you to get involved? Are you compelled to give? Do you come away from this interactive experience better educated about how your support (money, time, connections, etc…) impacts your organization’s ability to deliver a meaningful impact to the constituency it serves? This questioning could continue in perpetuity; however, if you said no to any of the above step back. Breathe deeply. Define your existing audience as it relates to your mission. Segment them as appropriate. And finally, craft an interactive experience that boils the blood and inspires – an experience that does so with the same standard of personal touch you would provide your most avid supporters.

Josh Hopkins is internet solutions manager at Blackbaud Interactive where he works with organizations around the globe to deliver executable, constituent-focused marketing strategies that drive fund development and engagement success for clients. Josh has worked and volunteered extensively within and alongside the non-profit sector, serving as chief marketing and fund development officer for the nation’s largest Hispanic social service provider prior to the Blackbaud team.

CRM grew out of the disco database marketing days where companies and organizations crunched through mounds of information in an attempt to sell more widgets or reach more people. The problem with relying on just data to make important decisions is that data ≠ information. What decision makers really wanted were systems that could track every interaction, connection, transaction, and other important events to build a more informative picture of the relationship. And thus, CRM was born.

Companies like General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Ford Motor Company, and Wal-Mart spent hundreds of millions of dollars on sophisticated CRM systems to sell more jet engines, shampoo, toilet paper, cars, dog food, and household items. Over the years CRM became a lot more sophisticated and companies like Amazon.com, Costco, JetBlue and Target took things to a whole new level.

What these innovators understood was that it was very myopic to define “customers” as just people that purchased one of their products or services. A much broader view is that customers can also be influencers, trendsetters, early adopters, referrers, and have a hand in other important roles. In a highly competitive global market, managing those relationships and retaining those relationships has never been more important. The word “customer” has been redefined.

Nonprofit organizations have also been making the transition from “donor database” systems to solutions that enable the entire constituent relationship to be managed. They understand that fulfilling their mission and satisfying the needs of stakeholders requires more than just a place to put data about dollars and events. Organizations have been gradually embracing the concept that a constituent isn’t just someone who donates to the organization.

In the past, I’ve given presentations about the three different ways individuals “give” to nonprofit organizations. People give their time, talent, or treasure. (cue the visuals)

An activist might give their time to support a cause, an accountant might give their talent and serve as a board member, and an alumnus might give their treasure through a major gift. (I think you get where I’m going here.) A traditional fundraising model might be entirely based on moving individuals from time to talent to treasure. But a more modern approach is to acknowledge that constituents may have their only interaction with an organization through a time/talent/treasure relationship.

I used to think that this broader definition was overstating the obvious. But I continue to talk to organizations that still have an old school view of things, and worse yet, nonprofits that have a progressive view but are stuck with systems that still don’t get it. The other limiting factor to success is having multiple disparate systems to track and manage different types of constituents. Activitists in one system, alumni in a another, donors in another, major donors in another, corporate contacts in another, online donors in another, volunteers in another, direct mail recipients in another, email recipients in another, and no ability to look across groups to better personalize the relationships.

Bits and bytes won’t entirely solve the need to redefine what constituents mean to nonprofits. This is a bigger philosophical shift to understanding that every individual and organization that interacts with a nonprofit is a valuable relationship that needs to be nurtured and developed over time. Technology can help carry some of the load , but it will take the leaders of nonprofit organizations to point the way.

In Montreal, the group L’Itineraire is going to use the city’s old parking meters to help raise funds for the homeless. The project is being led by municipal politicians and they hope to have 34 fundraising meters up and running by the end of July.

I’ve never heard of such a thing before and thought it was really cool and wanted to share it with you. If you’d like to read the full article, it’s on The Chronicle Journal site.

I imagine that if you’re reading this you probably know what a giving circle is, but let me just make sure. A giving circle is a group of individuals who pool their money and, collectively, decide where to donate that money.

Giving circles have been around for generations, and they are now becoming much more popular. Even I belong to a very loosely organized circle with some friends who support a couple of causes. We got together because we thought if we combined our money and made one larger gift to a nonprofit it would certainly make more of a difference. Have we made more of a difference? Dunno. Maybe I’ll do some analysis and make a future posting about that.

Touted as a way for people to get more involved in the fundraising process and to make a bigger impact with their donated dollars, giving circles make it hard for nonprofits to get access to individuals, where connections and real relationships are built. It’s through these personal relationships we build with volunteers and donors that our organizations grow, and how we “move” donors through a variety of stages, ultimately to a place where they are sincerely engaged in what we do. Giving circles take away our access to the individual and limit the interactions we can have at a one-to-one level. And, as giving circles grow and their interests change, it’s difficult for nonprofits to find funding for multiyear projects.

And, larger, more organized giving circles can require significant accountability reporting about the impact their contribution has made. While larger nonprofits may have the staff to fulfill these requirements, my friends at smaller organizations tell me they are hesitant to go to giving circles because of the reporting burden. Says a friend, “Going to our regional giving circle is like going to a major foundation. There are just too many hoops to go through, and I don’t have the staff to do this.” At the same time, she has found that several of her “rising donors” now give exclusively through the circle, effectively eliminating her access to them directly.

As always, I would love to hear your thoughts!

Happy Fundraising!

NASCAR Day is now in its fourth year as the major public-facing fundraising initiative of the The NASCAR Foundation. In exchange for a $5 donation, participants receive a commemorative NASCAR Day lapel pin. The majority of the donations come from the many corporate partners and sponors affiliated with NASCAR and its participating motorsports teams.

This is the second year in a row that the organization has partnered with Blackbaud Interactive to develop an online micro-site to promote the event. Last year’s NASCAR Day was the largest and most succesful to date with over 3,000 companies across the country participating to help sell over 100,000 pins worldwide.

The growth and success of the event is in large part due to the Foundation’s ability to mobilize individuals acting as a “Crew Chief” within companies. A NASCAR Day Crew Chief is responsible for registering their company and collecting donations for a minimum of 25 NASCAR Day pins. To help Crew Chief’s out The NASCAR Foundation provides an online pin ordering system, downloadable marketing materials, and a participation kit to make running a local fundraising campaign as easy as possible.

The number of philanthropic efforts that involve partnering with corporations is on the rise. The (PRODUCT)^RED campaign has successfully partnered with companies like American Express, Apple Inc., Motorola, and The Gap to raise money for The Global Fund. The money helps women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa. (PRODUCT)^RED) uses a variety of Web 2.0 tools like weblogs, MySpace, and Flickr to engage supporters online. Their partner companies have specially branded “(RED)” products and the entire effort is an example of effective integrated communication in action.

This speaks to the power of distributed fundraising with the Internet acting as a tool to streamline communication and participation. In the case of NASCAR Day, it also helps that the Daytona 500 race had a television audience in the tens of millions. (The Web site statistics went through the stratosphere.) The ads will continue to run during races up until the May 18th event.

Corporate accountability to the public markets and the general public continues to be an important issue. Partnerships with nonprofit organizations should continue to increase and the Internet will be a major factor in the success of these efforts. The NASCAR Foundation is hoping to put a new spin on an old cliché: Win on Sunday. Donate on Monday.

But a huge part of facilitating processes involves communication among people and departments. I’m wondering what we can do to better allow users to communicate with each other through our products? And where would this type of functionality be most useful? We’ve already taken steps in this direction in specific areas - Major Giving cultivation, for example, where we’re looking to improve the ability of fundraisers and their managers to communicate progress and status on their prospects. But I think this is an area we can explore further and really take advantage of some of the newer tools available to us.

It seems like there are some key characteristics of situations where in-product collaboration would be most useful:

• The specific context lends itself to questions, clarification, and a general discourse on the value, interpretation or significance of what is being shown. Obviously, part of this characteristic includes the need for multiple people to be interested in the context.
• There is some value in being able to capture this conversation in a centralized place and in close proximity to the subject of discussion.
• The relationship and proximity of the people involved encourages online communication. People who share a cube are less likely to use something like this than are people who are spread across departments and separated by some distance. Probably more value to larger organizations than in smaller ones.

Examples where in-app collaboration might be useful include:

• KPI dashboards and other reports - this type of data display can immediately provoke questions, clarification and discussion around its meaning and implications. Why is this trend happening? Can we expect to make this goal? What events may effect the future of this data? An ongoing discourse of this kind if very healthy for an organization, and could further enrich the usefulness of this type of display.
• Major giving cultivation - all of the intricacies involved in cultivating a prospect are often difficult to capture in a set of pre-defined fields. Ongoing conversations about the propensity and inclination of prospects could potentially be managed through in-product collaboration features.
• Event management - planning large events takes a huge amount of communication, and decisions are made quickly constantly throughout the lead-up to the event. Centralized management and documentation of the decision-making process could help ensure that decisions are communicated clearly and people don’t spend time repeating past discussions.

Relative to other more prescriptive features, in-product collaboration solves an “ill structured” business problem. In some ways, we may not know how (or if) users would employ it until it is in actual operation. How might this type of feature fit into your organization? Do you see opportunities for improving communication through in-product collaboration?

That’s where SixDegrees.org, AOL Instant Messenger, and Network for Good come in. Someone had the brilliant idea to put these three ingredients into a giant Web 2.0 blender in the hopes of producing a tasty, social fundraising smoothie – and it looks like they have succeeded.

With Kevin Bacon as the natural pitchman, 6Degrees.org is asking donors to choose a nonprofit, then get 6 friends to give to the same organization. Network for Good is covering the online donations, while AOL’s MySpace equivalent AIM Pages handles the social aspect. The idea is to use a social network to form impromptu giving circles…got it?

No? Here, I’ll let Mr. Bacon tell it like it is:

All you have to do is use the AIM for Good module on this page. Simply pick the charity that you would like to rally support for, enter up to six e-mail addresses of your buddies and family members, and write them a note asking for their support. The e-mail that they’ll receive will give them the opportunity to give, right there, to the charity you’ve selected. All transactions will be private and secure.

Another way you can help is by making your own AIM Page, which can include the AIM for Good module on it too. So, when your buddies stop by your page, they’ll be reminded to get the word out and rally support with their friends and families.

While I love the concept, the whole things feels a little thrown together. When you read about it, or hear Kevin talk about it, it’s not crystal clear who is involved and exactly what you are supposed to do. With some tighter integration and better defined user paths, I can see this program really taking off. Cheers to everyone involved!

Here’s the story. Over the past several months I have made small gifts ($25) to a number of CLIENT organizations that I worked with during the same period. To be exact, I made 10 gifts of $25 each: seven made online, two sent by mail, and one handed to someone at the organization while I was onsite. These gifts represented my first donations to these particular organizations, and were undesignated so that the money could be used where it was most needed.

So far, so good, right? Here is where it gets interesting. Take a guess at how many acknowledgments I received for the 10 gifts I made. It’s less than half – actually, it’s way less than half. TWO! Two thank yous out of 10 gifts made! One from an online gift, and one from a mailed gift. And, yes, every organization had my mailing address and I did not indicate anywhere that I did not want to be acknowledged for my gift. Don’t blame this on me!

Here’s a little more insight into my experiment. I have followed up with most of these organizations over the past month, starting with the two that did send me thank yous. Both of these organizations were a little surprised when I called to thank for thanking me. Most of my contacts at organizations that didn’t thank me were themselves surprised that I had not received a thank you, and promised to follow up and to be sure that I was thanked (and still not one thank you as of January 22 – so now they have had TWO opportunities to thank me and have failed to do so both times…) And, keep in mind – these were all Raiser’s Edge clients. There is absolutely no excuse for not acknowledging donors.

What surprised me most, however, was a comment my contact from one of these organizations made in regards to why I had not received an acknowledgment. She said, “It’s our policy to not acknowledge gifts under $250. We only acknowledge gifts that are over $250.” She did go on to say more, but I honestly didn’t hear a thing she said after that. They really have a policy about NOT thanking some donors?!?

This whole thing has me very puzzled. I would have understood if one or two organizations had neglected to thank me, but eight out of ten? Was my sample not representative of the industry? Plus, these were Raiser’s Edge clients, so I know they have the infrastructure to efficiently acknowledge gifts – it’s just as easy to run 100 thank yous as it is to run 10, right? Did they think I didn’t need an acknowledgment because I work for a company that is one of their vendors? Or, are these organizations just out of touch with their missions?

I didn’t make these gifts just as an experiment. I also genuinely believe in what these organizations do (I would share with you what these orgs do, but it would be too easy to figure out who they are). And, to be honest, yes, I was personally testing them. How they handle a small gift tells me a lot about how accountable they are as an organization. Can I trust them to use my money in the way I intended? If I worry about what they did with my $25, I surely am not willing to give them more money.

Loyalty is a two-way street to me. I want to give to an organization that I know cares deeply about the mission they serve, and also about me as a supporter of their mission. I get asked for money all the time, and I have my own rules about who I give to: your mission has to touch me personally, you have to show me that my dollars (no matter how big or small) can make a difference, and you have to treat me like I am part of the team. What are you doing with my (and everyone else’s) money? How is this helping you accomplish your mission? Loyalty is a two-way street to me.

So, am I expecting too much? Was this homemade experiment skewed in some way? Should I be as puzzled about the outcome as I am? Or, should I accept this as the state of fundraising today? I would love to hear your thoughts!

When I was asked to become a blogger, I was a bit surprised. Someone thought you might be interested in what I have to say. Believe me, I have a lot to say - just not sure others wanted to hear it. So, you be the judge. I hope you’ll give me lots of feedback, disagree with me when you think I am crazy, share this with your friends and colleagues, and teach me lots of new stuff.

That’s it for now - I plan to post at least a couple of times this coming week. Some of the topics flowing through my mind are centered around the care and feeding of donors - old and new, especially as we begin a new year. I’ll put my thoughts into whole sentences and post them right here.

Until then, happy fundraising!

Jim