60 posts from 2007

As described here recently, my wife and I recently switched to Verizon FIOS for our television, phone and Internet service.  Despite some confusion during the ordering process and a very lengthy installation process, everything seems to be working fine now.  Last week we drove to Cablevision to return our cable equipment and to cancel our service.  I was expecting to be asked why we were canceling and had several answers prepared:

• their refusal to reimburse us when one of their wires became dislodged across a street and caused several hundred dollars damage to our car
• their not allowing us to qualify for their 'triple play' promotion (roughly the same price as the Verizon package) because we already had two of the three services
• frequently losing our Internet connectivity and having to disconnect and reconnect all of our equipment.

Not completely to my surprise, the person who accepted our equipment asked us nothing, simply handing us a receipt.  We had cable service for over five years;  wouldn't there be some curiosity on why we were bailing out now or whether there was anything they could do to keep us as a customer?

Relating this to our nonprofit organizations, when a constituent becomes disenchanted with us, do we find out why?  Do we quickly respond to complaints that come through the web site? (I receive many about issues with online donations not being accepted and not being able to find information on our web site.)  For long time donors who suddenly drop out, do we take the time to find out why?  Not asking for this information is not taking advantage of valuable information on how we can better serve our constituents.  Do we apologize when potential donors are inconvenienced, even for factors that are beyond our control?

I can't say I've had wonderful experience with Verizon in the past, but Cablevision didn't even try to ask why we were leaving.  Maybe we'll eventually get a survey to fill out, but by then I may not take the time to fill it out.

Wishing everyone a healthy and joyous 2008!

This week, the Foundation Center's column, The Sustainable Nonprofit featured this targeted article on Spending Your Web Site Dollars Wisely.  Major points:

• Delegating responsibility to the lowest level staff member or volunteer is foolhardy.  In a world where many will visit your web site as the first step in learning more about your organization, the web site must be professional and kept current.  It should not be primarily maintained by Information Technology, except for the back end responsibility of keeping it online
• When to use a content management system (CMS) - "the more content you have and the more you plan to change or update it, the more you'll need (and want) such a system"
• Use professionals to create copy and images.  Hire a professional designer (if you don't already have one on staff) so that your site is more about marketing than about information technology
  
• Design your site for the visitors' perspective, not your organization's
  
• Take the time to examine other web sites and to create a site map.  Think about what your constituents are most likely to look for and how can find it easily.

At my current organization, I've recently been instructed to review all of our web sites, and fix what's wrong and make sure the information is correct.  Yes of course, but this should be the responsibility of everyone, not any one individual or department. (sigh!)

Wishing everyone a healthy and peaceful holiday season.

This week my wife and I have embarked on a new adventure to combine our phone, TV and Internet service to Verizon's FIOS.  Placing the order was quite a frustrating experience, but what I found most interesting was that the information available on the Verizon web site was very different from what we were told by phone.  The web site would not allow us to complete the transaction and mentioned offers that were impossible to select.  When we asked to speak to a supervisor on the phone, we were told that they have 'no access' to the online offerings, and were unable to honor the promotions even when we read it from their web page.

Moral - offline and online must be in synch.  When our constituents view us, they see one organization.  Presenting a different picture on a web site versus what is said by phone clearly contradicts this image.  In our case, my wife and I went ahead with the FIOS order due to the significant cost savings and the anticipated performance improvements, but nonprofit organization constituents may not be so patient when attempting to place a donation or participate in an event if they can't get clear information.

Last week my alma mater announced the creation of the Center for Nonprofit Strategy and Management, featuring monthly seminars focused on the nonprofit community.  The opening event was a one-day conference where leaders of about a dozen organizations offered their views on what has made them successful, focusing heavily on board relations, fundraising and overall management strategies:

• Theresa Bischoff, CEO of American Red Cross, Greater NY suggested "getting the best people - they will make you successful."  In addition, "learn from everyone in your organization - teachers are everywhere."
• Sister Paulette LoMonaco, Executive Director, Good Shepherd Services, also emphasized the importance of building a strong team, "don't be afraid to have people on your team that know more than you."  She also asked that any new programs be strictly evaluated to make sure they relate to the organization mission.
• Lillian Rodriguez-Lopez, President, Hispanic Federation, suggested asking good questions, but "at an appropriate time";  she also stressed the importance of public speaking and stretching your comfort zone.
• David Jones, President / CEO, Community Service Society, pointed out that the distinctions between for-profit and not-for-profit are starting to blur and described his efforts to reshape his organization's board
• Ruth Messinger, President, American Jewish World Service and former NYC mayoral candidate spoke despite having a horrible cold.  Following up on David's comments, she mentioned how many of us will move back and forth between for-profit and nonprofit, thus the importance of transferable skills.  In fundraising, she advised that we ask prospects for a specific amount of money based on our best judgment of what they can give, and then do not speak.  Finally, Ruth asked that board members understand their fiduciary responsibility, not simply joining because they are friends with the Executive Director.
• Lilliam Barrios-Paoli, CEO, Safe Space and past commissioner of several NYC agencies, said that sometimes it might be worthwhile to take a cut in pay to take a good opportunity
  
• Ronna Brown, President, NY Regional Association of Grantmakers, discussed how the board's role is to rock the boat;  usually the staff wants to keep things as they are.
• Lucy Cabrera, President / CEO, Food Bank for New York City: "Board members are your bosses, not your friends."  She advised getting to know your board personally ("take them to lunch individually") and added that changing one board person can dramatically change board dynamics and decisions
• Darwin Davis, President, NY Urban League, advised to 'give your best, no matter what job you have' and to establish relationships with other department heads (not just your boss).  He also got probably the biggest laugh of the day by reminding us that working for a 501(c)3 doesn't mean leaving at 5:01 PM.
• Linda Selvin, Executive Director, NY Branch of International Dyslexia, followed up on Ruth's comments, saying that the board's purpose is not primarily to agree with the ED.  She also suggested getting to know each board member individually to "understand what each if passionate about."  Interestingly, she pointed out how there may be more opportunity to shine by joining a struggling organization, as she did 8 years ago .

Congratulations to Jack Krauskopf, Director of the Center for Nonprofit Strategy and Mangement, for coordinating such an inspiring program.  Since there wasn't much mention at the conference of ephilanthropy or how nonprofits have successfully implemented online strategies, can I help with a follow up event on this topic?

In the recently released American Express Charitable Gift Survey, there are some surprising insights about online fundraising.

Through a two week sample of donors in September 2007, the survey analyzed how much people give to charity in single donations and the differences between online and offline donations.  Below are some of its major points (with my comments in italics):

• about 2/3 of Americans gave to charity in the past year, but only 6% gave online.  This is much lower than I would have expected, but surely this will continue to grow rapidly.
• convenience or speed is the top reason for giving online. This is why it's so important to make the online donation process as simple as possible, e.g. not having too many steps and not asking for too much information.
• most contributions are below $100, regardless of the method of donation. While many nonprofits focus on major gifts, it's clear that small donations play a critical role.
• on average, the online gift is about the same amount as offline gifts. This is the most surprising conclusion.  At most presentations I've heard on this topic, online gifts are always described as being higher than offline gifts.
• the most frequent response for not donating online was not having a computer or Internet access.  This will change as Internet connectivity becomes more universal.
• although people under 35 are more likely to make online gifts, the greatest share of Internet donors (50%) are between 35 and 54 years old.  This also is a surprise, but the survey explains that more people in this age range give to charity than any other age group.
• there is little difference between the percentage of men and women giving online, and little difference in the types of charities they support.  This suggests that segmenting constituents by gender may not be helpful in stimulating online giving.

Thanks to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the Innovative Research Group, American Express Merchant Services, and Ted Hart, founder of the ePhilanthropy Foundation and now head of the Hart Philanthropic Services Group for preparing this insightful report.

As I've become more involved in development issues, I joined the Association of Fundraising Professionals this year.  I recently received their Advancing Philanthropy bimonthly magazine which featured an article on how fundraising and marketing staff can work together.  Quoting a recent study which examined the relationship of marketing to other NPO departments, not working together can "lead to conflicts that substantially affect a nonprofit's performance."  Yet when constituents interact with a nonprofit, "they're dealing with the organization as a whole."

Instead, it is suggested that brand can act as a common thread that unites separate departments.  "Brand is everything you do, everything you are, everything you say.  Making sure that they are all consistent across different functions is essential."  While I've never seen marketing and fundraising merged into a separate department, it does seem to make sense since "the roles that marketing and fundraising play in crafting a distinctive brand is complimentary," according to Network for Good's CEO Bill Strahmann.

Brand is also critical in differentiating your organization from others that represent the same cause.  Jo Sullivan, who manages both development and communications at the ASPCA, has done especially well in this area.  The ASPCA is also represented on Facebook and MySpace.  (Some organizations are still debating whether or not to devote resources to social networking sites.)

How do you get NPO departments to work together and not in different directions?  At my current organization, we've occasionally had lunch meeting where one department will highlight projects it is working on;  judging by comments from other attendees, it's clear that not everyone is on the same page.  Understanding the complementary objectives of fundraising and marketing is a vital step towards establishing a consistent image to our constituents.

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving.  Let's be grateful for what we have every day of our lives.

As I've worked on defining my brand this year, I've reviewed my accomplishments since joining the nonprofit sector in 2000.  The achievements I am most proud of have to do with helping organizations to effectively use the Internet to do fundraising and to engage constituents.  A good description of the term can be found at Network for Good and through resources available at the ePhilanthropy Foundation 

Having done considerable training in recent years, I've recently applied to become an ePMT, which will allow me to further help nonprofits develop and implement their online strategies.  ePhilanthropy involves bridging multiple areas which have traditionally run separately: technology, communications / marketing and development.  While the web site is important, but so are other forms of online communications. 

The book Nonprofit Internet Strategies describes ePhilanthropy as "an ongoing process of communicating, educating, cultivating and soliciting nonprofit supporters to build and enhance stronger relationships."  Many nonprofits have succeeded in this area by focusing on:

1. the relationship: integrate all messages to supporters
2. give supporters a reason to visit you online
3. interact with supporters;  don't just send messages
4. communicate using multiple methods (offline and online methods should be managed as an integrated strategy) .
   
5. access and improve performance
   

While technology is my core strength, I use many other skills to help nonprofits use the Internet effectively to achieve their mission.  Focusing on ePhilanthropy seems to describe it best.

Attended an Nten Webinar this week on Marketing for Non-Profits, led by Robert Rose of CrownPeak Technology, providers of content management software. 

Highlights from the presentation:

• While it is not a good idea to have a lot of 'private content' available only to members or subscribers, it is wise to provide premium content in exchange for site visitors providing their email address and other personal information.  Many constituents will 'register' in exchange for a useful study or informative enewsletter
  
• If you're going to use web 2.0 tools such as blogs and podcasts, you have to commit to a regular update schedule.  Building an audience requires quality content and takes time to build.
• Use a variety of tactics to engage constituents;  I find, for example, that while it's convenient to get RSS updates, I open my email daily but don't open my RSS readers as frequently.  In addition, subscribers can signup for RSS feeds without providing any information while email newsletters require, at a minimum, email address.
  
• It's more important to analyze who is visiting your web site than how many.

I asked Rob whether it's still a practical goal to create custom web content for segments of your audience, as I've heard many vendors preach.  The reality - it's usually enough of a challenge for a nonprofit to keep its content up to date for everyone than to develop targeted content for specific groups.  There are some good reasons to integrate CMS with your CRM database (e.g. so subscribers can access their past donation history online and print receipts) but the ability to customize web content isn't one of them.

Rob also suggested that it is rarely necessary to build custom software, no matter how 'specific' your requirements may seem.  I agree. With so many strong CMS packages available, I don't think there's any excuse for any nonprofit not to have an updated web site as the foundation of its communications strategy.     

Network For Good, which recently started a monthly teleconference series in nonprofit marketing and online fundraising, has now released a study, The Wired Fundraiser.  Key findings include:

1. People listen to wired fundraisers.  People donate because they trust the messenger, not primarily because of the importance of the cause.
2. Not every wired fundraiser excels, but some can raise thousands for the charities they support.
3. Tools such as widgets and social networks are especially helpful in making personal fundraisers effective.
4. Smart charities embrace the wired fundraiser rather than try to control the process.

I've said in the past that fundraising needs to be a joint effort of many departments within an organization, not just development.  But now Katya explains how "technology enables anyone to be a fundraiser, anywhere online."  As nonprofits, we should give these motivated supporters everything they need to be successful because they will help us to reach audiences that we would have never been able to access, no matter what marketing strategies we use.

More details of the study are summarized in Katya Andresen's non-profit marketing blog.

Peter Campbell, IT Director of Earthjustice and author of Tech Cafeteria has published a wonderful primer on data integration, Understanding the Alphabet Soup of Data Integration.  Thanks to Idealware, which sponsored this article.

Exchanging data between applications can be done in a variety of ways, but many can be difficult to grasp.  Peter offers a clear explanation of how data can be stored, types of data formats and methods to transfer data, as well as how APIs are used.  What I found especially useful was his section on how to identify "data exchange friendly software," in ways such as "Can I do data exports" and "Is there an API available?"

Tate Hausman who issued his Integration Proclamation also recently described to me how he is attempting to manage an integration project between SalesForce and Democracy in Action, two applications often used by nonprofits.

It's clear that being able to share data is finally getting some attention, as evidenced by the recent announcements of Kintera' Connect and Convio Open.  Wouldn't it be nice if eventually we could select the applications that are best for each of our needs, and easily move data between them.

My take: data integration must be discussed before products are chosen;  if they don't connect, look for an alternative that does.  Vendors must also do more to make this area understandable by non-programmers.  Why is this important for online fundraising?  Because everyone in a nonprofit needs to have access to the same information about constituents (not just development), and it shouldn't be different depending on which internal system you use.