Andrea Berry's blog

Friend-to-Friend Fundraisers = Major Donors

I'm quite passionate about the process of friend-to-friend fundraising, it’s true. I feel pretty strongly that this is a fundraising approach accessible to all organizations, not just the property of health fundraising organizations or groups with traditional walk-athons.

Friend-to-friend fundraising is so exciting because it has an amazing ability to turn a lower level donor into a fundraising powerhouse. While every one of us may not be blessed with boatloads of money, most of us know a good number of people. And a small few of us are social in such a way that a simple ask of support will generate large amounts of money. These are the key individuals to search out. Find one (or preferably a collection of) highly social friend-to-friend fundraisers and get them to raise money on your behalf and you’ll be golden…once. However, one of the biggest challenges in the friend-to-friend fundraising process is getting those people to continue to come back as lead fundraisers year after year.

There are a number of reasons why friend-to-friend programs struggle to keep their high dollar raisers engaged and returning on a consistent basis- burnout, loss of connection to the cause, fear of asking again are all potential factors. But I believe the biggest reason why many friend-to-friend fundraising programs lose their fundraising powerhouses is because the nonprofit never shifts to see those fundraisers for the money they raise instead of the money they personally donate.

Let's agree that in some cases the amount of money that our friend-to-friend fundraisers bring into our organization can be highly substantial. A single fundraiser can bring in thousands and thousands of dollars during a single campaign. Yet many of us continue to place them in giving circles based on their direct personal financial contribution instead of the overall financial contribution that they have made to our organization. If we allow our mindset to shift to the total contribution, then many of these friend-to-friend fundraisers at the top of their game knock themselves into our major donor categories quite easily. Treating our strongest friend-to-friend fundraisers the same way we might treat a $10,000 donor is, in my opinion, a key to retaining powerhouse fundraisers from year-to-year.

So my recommendation: court your friend-to-friend fundraisers like you would a major donor. Buy their lunch, send newspaper clippings, invite them to big-ticket events on your dollar, and recognize their contribution as a truly substantial one. And if we start treating our friend-to-friend fundraisers as if they themselves had the big bucks, we will find that they feel more appreciated, they feel more connected to our organization and its mission, and they return year after year. 

 

Choosing Giving Levels for Online Donations

When thinking about your online donation landing page it is essential to consider the giving levels that you suggest to your potential donors. These little numbers end up conveying a lot about your organization and your fundraising priorities and can directly influence the giving amount that a donor chooses. Ask too little and you will likely receive less than a donor had planned to give, ask too much and you may deter lower level donors from giving at all. 

There are a number of different approaches you can take to crafting your online giving levels. Take a look at the ASPCA, Nature Conservancy and American Red Cross as examples.  The ASPCA lists dollar amounts from $20 to $100 working to elicit lower level gifts while the Nature Conservancy lists amounts from $50 to $10,000 implying an expected donation of much larger sums. The ASPCA is clearly speaking to first time or lower level donors while the Nature Conservancy has made a choice to address higher level donors with less attention to small gifts. Interestingly, and worth considering, the Red Cross chooses not to list suggested giving amounts at all. 

Okay, so assuming you do want to suggest levels, how do you choose what the right giving levels are for your organization? (For the purpose of this post let’s narrow the field to one-time donations as opposed to monthly gifts.  I’ll address that thought process at a later time.) For one-time donations, most often I see levels at $25, $50, $100, $250 and $500.  These numbers reflect a generic progression of gift size for small- or medium-sized organizations.  Let’s start here and ask some questions to see if we can make an argument to change any numbers in the progression.

First, take a look at your donation history overall. What is your lowest gift? If you get a substantial number of gifts smaller than $25, consider lowering the low point to $15 or $20 to include those donors in the online process. Plan on using the low number to try and push those low-level donations higher, so if you see a large number of $10 donations, consider making the lowest level donation $15 to encourage a slightly larger gift. (It is true that typing a 3 instead of a 2 is a lot easier than writing thirty instead of twenty on a check! So if you are seeing $15 via check, assume you can push at least a little online.) On the flip side, if you only get a few gifts lower than, say $35, consider that as your low level gift and work up from there. Don’t give your donors an easy option to give lower than their standard, make them type in $25 instead of $35 rather than providing a simple radio button for a lower gift. 

Next, consider your highest gift amount listed. What is a realistically high gift amount for your organization?  If you rarely see gifts larger than $1000 then don’t list $5000 as a top number! As with the lower level, you want to try and use these suggested amounts as ways to push your donors to stretch their gift.  So if most larger gifts register at $250, consider a high level of $300 or $350 to push that gift higher but not alienate your donors. 

At the high level, you also need to consider how much you are willing to give up in donation administration fees.  If you are working with a 4% fee for credit card processing, at $25 you pay a $1 fee- not much to think about, but at $1000 that fee is $40, which is a substantial amount to loose from the donation.  Make sure to calculate in your admin fees in the determination of the high value you want to encourage via online donation tools. 

And once you have you high and low value, use your common sense to determine price points in between.  Try to list somewhere between four and six values in total, with the increments being closer together at the low end and then farther apart as the amounts get higher. Always make sure to add an “Other” option, and do list that after the high end donation level to imply that this is for gifts larger than the top amount listed.

As a best practice, consider annotating (if your online donation too will allow) what each donation amount will “buy”.  Take a look at the ASPCA’s donation page for a fantastic example of this concept.  

Remember, the numbers you choose to suggest to your potential donors are pushing them to give at certain dollar amounts. Try to push your donors to give a little more, but make sure to provide them with options that meet their giving level. If you can’t find a reason to change the $25, $50, $100, $250 and $500 progression then go with it.  No matter what you choose, run the giving levels for a test period, then stop and evaluate the response and adjust accordingly. 

Friend-to-friend fundraising works- so why aren't you doing it?

I’m a pretty passionate advocate of nonprofits trying Friend-to-Friend or Social Fundraising techniques for their organizations. Having come out of the health fundraising world, I’ve seen the power of having supporters fundraising on your behalf. Mobilizing an army of passionate advocates for your organization can tap into thousands of dollars in unseen funds and link your organization to hundreds--if not thousands--of new supporters.

So why does this technique seem to be the domain of heath organizations alone?   

Is it the fear of the work of putting on a massive event like a Walk-a-thon or Dance-off? With the entry into the online marketplace of social fundraising tools like FirstGiving, Causes, Razoo and Blackbaud’s Friends Asking Friends, you don’t even need to associate your campaign with the a-thon event to see major success. So that’s not an excuse. 

Is it lack of confidence in your supporters? Do you think it would be a lot of effort for little excitement? I promise you, if Idealware can do a Friend-to-Friend Campaign, so can your organization. Really--do you think your cause is less sexy than helping other nonprofits improve their technology capacity?

Is it lack of knowledge about how to motivate your supporters? Remember, this is a fundraising technique. I know you all tell your boards “you can all raise money for our organization,” so why are your most fervent supporters less qualified or less motivated? In fact, throwing in a little bit of fun--like contests for the person or team who raises the most money or contacts the most people, raffles for anyone fundraising, a kick-off party for training, or an e-mail leader board--can go a long way. If I can make this fun, so can you. 

We used to offer a seminar on “Getting Started with Distributed Fundraising,” but no one ever took the class. Thinking it was due to a terrible name, we changed the title and tried again. Enter “Turning Your Supporters Into Fundraisers,” but still no takers. Feeling very strongly that nonprofits should know about this approach, we decided to offer the session for free, and it had the lowest registration rate for any of the 11 free seminars we've offered in 2011.

So what is going on? Why don’t you care? Because honestly, you should. This method works. I promise. 

 

AskIdealware: How do I use social media to define my brand?

 What do your Facebook and Twitter posts say about your organization? In this video, Andrea Berry talks through how to define and control your brand on social media.

Want to learn more about how social media can help your organization's brand? Check out our recorded seminar, Branding Through Social Media.

Calling all CMS consultants: directory now open until September 7th!

The flurry of automatic “I’m away on vacation” responses should have been our first hint that sales for our CMS consultant directory might be slow during July. Message received loud and clear: the beach, hot dogs, summer vacation and the Olympics all have slightly more draw than our report update process. Who knew?

We initially closed the Idealware CMS Consultant Directory on July 31 with about 15 listings, but to best serve our nonprofit readers, we want to give them as many options as we can to choose from. So—cue the drum roll, please—we’re pleased to announce the re-opening of the Idealware Content Management Systems Consultant Directory for a limited time only. We will accept directory listings and ads until September 7, the Friday after Labor Day, to give people time to submit their listings when they get back from their August vacations.  

Listings start as low as $45, with the hope that we will have a strong representation from independent consultants as well as larger firms. Thousands of individuals considering their CMS options will thumb through the directory—will you be represented? We hope so.  

So while you’re building castles at the beach, or during the seventh-inning stretch, take out your smartphone, tablet or laptop and purchase a directory listing. You’ll be advertising your great services and supporting Idealware—plus you can count it as “work” time, and we won’t tell anyone that it only took two minutes.

When Giving Online is Not Ideal

 As fundraisers we dream about the new frontier of online giving as a potential golden ticket for reaching younger or more tech savvy donors. Driving everyone to give online, in monthly installments, is all the rage. But what happens when a donor wants to give $1000 or more? Is there potential negative organizational impact in accepting large gifts online?

Negatives to Large Online Gifts

There are fees associated with online giving that can add up quickly if you are not paying attention.  Paypal has the smallest fee in the field, coming in at 2.4% of each donation, and the percentage cut taken by online giving tools can go up from there to as high as 7.5% (or more). These fees may seem small when donations are a few hundred dollars or less, but when we start looking at donations in the $500 to $1000 range the bite that fees take out of a donation can become substantial. So at what threshold do you start considering counseling people away from online giving and towards check, stock or cash donations?

Consider what your average small gift donation amount would be- that could be $25, $35, $50- and use that number to determine the maximum amount that you are happy to pay in fees per donation. A good rule of thumb would be to aim for a payout to the online donation company that is equivalent or less than your average small donation. So if your average small gift is $25 and you are paying a 2.5% fee per donation, you might consider setting your maximum online gift threshold at $1000 ($1000 x 2.5% = $25).

There are certainly additional factors that can have a potential negative effect on your organization when accepting large online gifts. The timeframe in which the money actually becomes available to you is an important thing to consider. Many organizations set up accounts in which donations are delivered via a short term direct deposit, in which case the transfer time probably is not critical, however organizations who use online donation tools that pay in a monthly or a twice monthly lump check will see substantial delay in receiving large funds when an online major gift is made.

Strategies to Counseling Away From Large Online Gifts

It's tricky to direct donors to give via a specific avenue when it comes to major gifts, but there are some techniques that you can implore to help direct your large dollar donors away from online giving. The first to consider is your online giving menu. These are the dollar amount suggestions that you offer to potential donors via the online donation tool. You can suggest that larger donations are not made online by a setting the dollar amount progression to max out at your maximum online gift threshold.

Additionally, acknowledging to online donors that there is an opportunity to give off-line might provide enough of a hint for major donors to deliver their donation through a different avenue. Straight up asking that gifts larger than a certain threshold not be given online, with added explanation as to why that request is being made, feels like a somewhat risky endeavor and the etiquette around that is a little unclear.

There is also the potential to direct large dollar donors to give under a different online tool than your standard giving channel. Google Checkout is an interesting option in this area, as Google Grant recipients get access to this payment technique without any fees. The user experience is not ideal as it may be a little wonky, but for a donor who is determined to give a large amount through an online channel it may be a nice compromise tool to allow you to retain the entire value of the gift. Be cautious when going this route though, you don't want this process to seem overly complicated or to come off ungrateful.  Save this strategy for people whom you can be sure will understand the situation. 

Overall, remember, you don't want to scare away your donors due to an obsession with saving the fee, but a gentle nudge in the direction you want to move them can certainly help.

AskIdealware: How Do I Get Started With Corporate Sponsorships?

What are the basic guidelines for online sponsorship? Andrea Berry explains in this AskIdealware video.

Permission To Improve

I just got Dragon NaturallySpeaking dictation software, and it's changed my life. Now, I'm not going to talk about how much I love the ability to speak and have my words recorded, which I do, by the way (if you want to know more about the tool see Steve Backman’s thoughts). Instead, I’m telling you about my new software love to empower you to find your life-changing tool. Productivity is essential for those of us who work at nonprofits, everyone really. Finding something that will help you do your job better and more effectively is absolutely amazing and potentially job-altering. We talk about this at the organizational level all the time, so why don’t we allow ourselves to spend that time personally, especially when it would improve the way we work?  My advice, from someone who has avoided spending this time for years: give yourself a little bit of time to look around and see if there are ways that technology can help you improve the way you do what you do.

What did I do to come to this revelation?  I asked myself, where do I struggle? What are the things I do during the day that I know if I had a little bit of help I could do better? For me it was writing. I write perfectly well, but slowly. I speak quickly and in full sentences however, and my thoughts come out of my mouth much faster, and often more eloquently, than when I type. That made the power of dictation software a no brainer. I wrote this post in about half the time it usually takes me, all thanks to my new best friend.  

Now it’s your turn. What do you that you could do better, faster, more efficiently? Do you struggle with tasks? Is there a tool out there that can help you manage your to do list? What about with time management? Can you find something that will help you stick to your timeline? There are tools out there that can help you in probably any area that you need support. Imagine the impact it could have on your day-to-day work. You’d do it for your organization, why not yourself?

It’s okay, you have permission now. Give yourself a little bit of time to explore and see if there is a solution out there for you. Spending some time upfront to find something that would really make a difference can be hugely worth it. It can change your life, I promise. And when it improves how you work personally, it will improve your organization’s capacity at the same time!

Who Tweets For You?

Yesterday I received a seemingly simple question about Twitter handles from a member of our community--should an organization have a handle that directly represents the organization, or should staff tweet as themselves? As I thought about my response, it dawned on me how tricky an issue this can be. Really, it all comes down to your goals...

Carol's Question:
I have a question about social media, especially Twitter. Is it better to have key company executives tweet on behalf of the organization? One of our execs wants their own Twitter handle to do her own tweeting, so it more easily shows her as the author, but she’d be talking all about things she does on our company’s behalf. What’s the best way to do that? 

My Answer:
Unfortunately, I think there is no single right answer to this issue. A number of big marketing blogs suggest that having a person represent the organization on Twitter is the best way to go, that it humanizes the organization in an important way (see: http://www.businessesgrow.com/2011/01/17/your-companys-single-biggest-mistake-on-twitter/). However, many of these experts are speaking to businesses that need to put an emphasis on humanization and personality, like GE, and that may or may not be necessary for your organization. The right path for your organization is going to depend on your branding goals with Twitter. 

Here are some scenarios to consider:
  • Branding a single individual as an expert in a certain area (without caring if there is an immediate connection to your org)- In this case, consider giving that individual a Twitter handle using whatever name best identifies them. Vicki Phillips of the Gates Foundation is a great example here. Her handle is @drvikip, reminding us that she is a doctor and therefore has educational clout in her area of expertise, with the Gates Foundation only mentioned in her bio. As she tweets for the Gates Foundation, which doesn’t really need any help with credibility building or name recognition from the organizational side, they don’t need to also brand the handle.  

    Pro: real person feel. Con: little connection with organization.

  • Branding a single individual as an expert in a certain area (but you also care that there is an immediate connection to your org)- In this case,  get that person a handle that references both them and the organization. Consider using a real photo of the person instead of a logo, and reference the connection in the bio as well as the handle. Connecting the person to the organization can have benefits both ways. It helps connect the person to the brand of the organization, giving the person additional authority based on your organization’s reputation. Connecting the organization to the person allows the organization to directly and publically benefit from the good things that the person says, building reputation and showing the caliber and personality of their staff. Katya Andresen from Network for Good does this well as @KatyaN4G.  

    Pro: real person with organizational connection. Con: just one personality, what if there are more people? What if that person leaves?

  • Branding the organization as an authority- In this case, if you don’t already have a Twitter mogul tweeting on your behalf, you’d likely want to tweet as your organization. Many organizations go this route and as long as they maintain some personality in their tweets instead of acting like a spambot then they can still connect with people in a meaningful way. This is what we do at Idealware. Both myself and Laura Quinn tweet as @Idealware. In all honesty, we don’t have the time to tweet under multiple handles, so opted for the joint account instead of separate names. Our goal is NOT to form truly meaningful relationships with people, but rather to brand Idealware as a resource for essential tech news, and so the person to person feel you might get with an individually named account (for Laura, for example) doesn’t get us much.

    Pro: clear organizational branding allowing for multiple managers. Con: loss of personal feel. 

  • Branding the community around the organization- In this case, you might want multiple people tweeting as themselves, but clearly representing the organization (and maybe even an account for the organization as itself in addition). NTEN is a great example here. They have an organizational handle, @NTENorg, that tweets out general info from the organization. Additionally, each of their staff has a personal Twitter handle that is associated with the organization to a varying degree- Holly Ross, their Executive Director, tweets as @ntenhross, while Amy Sample Ward, who had already built a Twitter following before coming to NTEN, tweets as @amyrsward, with only a mention of her affiliation in her bio.

    Pro: you get the best of all worlds. Con: it is a lot of work!

It may be that no single one of these scenarios is right for your organization. Do feel free to mix and match in the way that makes the most sense (while still being doable). TechSoup Canada does a nice job here. They are a small but growing organization that is trying to build its reputation and presence in Canada, leveraging the reputation of its parent company. In that case, they see clear value in having an organizational account that allows them to seem a bit bigger than they actually are (or were when they started Tweeting) and directly reference the name TechSoup. They are also trying to brand their Community Manager, Tierney Smith, as a social media resource and build her reputation in the tech community. To do that, they created an account specifically for her (@tierneys). Often the accounts tweet the same thing, but at other times the individual personality of the accounts will come out in the way a point is presented or the content of a tweet. 
 
While there are many different ways you can approach this issue, just know that whatever you choose will be OK. As long as you work on sharing valuable information, respond when people talk to you, and be a committed part of the community, whether the organization tweets as itself or as an individual will have only a small impact on how you are perceived. 
 

 

The DIY Donor Management Software Selection Process

I've recently been doing a number of small "micro-consulting" call-in sessions with nonprofits looking to switch Donor Management Systems. At the conclusion of each call, I walk participants through a process for taking the conversation we just had to a more detailed level, arming them with a sort of DIY software selection roadmap. This step-by-step process can be hugely helpful in taking what seems to be a completely overwhelming process and sectioning it off into achievable, time-bound chunks.

So here it is, the Idealware DIY Donor Management Software Selection Process:

 1. Figure out if you really need a new system.

Is it a problem with:
Training.
Support.
Understanding.
Or is it really:
Too Weak/Robust.
Too Expensive.
Out Of Date.
No Longer Supported.
 
 
2. Identify a Team of Stakeholders.
Make sure everyone who will use or be affected by the system is represented.
 
3. Understand your current processes.
Make a detailed list of fundraising processes. Then, standardize them.
Use best practices. Eliminate redundancies before you invest.
 
4. Prioritize a Features Wish List.
What does the software have to be able to do? What’s nice to have? I recommend creating a three tiered list: 
a. What do you need or else the system is useless?
b. What would be nice to have but isn’t a deal breaker.
c. What would you want if money was no option?
 
5. Do Your Research.
Make a shortlist of 3 or 4 viable systems.
•       Check out the Consumer’s Guide to Low-Cost Donor Management Systems to help you choose.  
 
6. Schedule vendor demonstrations
Use real examples to see how each system will work for your needs.
•       See our blog post, Six Tips for Navigating the Vendor Demo.
 
7. Rank the systems against your wish list.
 
8. And choose the right one for you!
 
 
Some additional articles that might be helpful:
And a general article about mistakes in choosing software, 10 Common Mistakes in Selecting Donor Databases.
 

 

Syndicate content