“If you can’t tweet what you do, the problem is not Twitter.”

That quote was delivered by Allison Fine last night at a presentation by Fine and Beth Kanter about their new book The Networked Nonprofit.

Her point was that nonprofits should keep it simple. Don’t try to be everything to everyone. Concentrate on what you do best and partner for the rest.

I had occasion to quote her at today’s Marketers Making a Difference meeting. Our featured nonprofit had been telling us about themselves for about 15 minutes and we still didn’t know what they did. So we spent the rest of our time helping them craft a new mission statement.

By the end of the meeting they had a vastly improved one-sentence mission statement and a short list of key concepts to flush it out. They were thrilled with the progress but also frustrated that they were still struggling with how to describe themselves after a year of working on it.

Sometimes a group of strangers can be better at describing what you do than you are (especially if they’re all marketers). Still, speaking with your target market is even better. I suggested they continue to refine the mission statement until they were comfortable with it and then run it by a few teachers (their target market).

The truth is, short and simple is not always easy and it takes time and effort. Can you tweet what you do?

I Love to Count

It’s not surprising that in tough economic times performance measurement has become a hot topic.

From a donor’s perspective, there are few tools available to evaluate the best use of their charitable dollars. The most widely used rating agencies – Charity Navigator and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance – rely heavily on measures like “overhead” to rate a nonprofits effectiveness.

Don’t get me started on “overhead.” Plenty of other people have made the case against this short-sighted perspective, so I don’t need to rant about it here. For example, see this article by Katya Andresen, about the commotion at this year’s DMA Nonprofit Federation meeting.

From a nonprofit manager’s perspective, we often feel so stretched for time and money that performance measures seem like a great idea that we’ll get to some day. Many of us also have an inherent distrust of statistics (damn lies and statistics). We sometimes prefer “touchy feely” measures or rely on “experience” to guide decision making.

From Andrew Wolk’s perspective, performance measurement is critical. Wolk is the founder of Root Cause, a nonprofit research and consulting firm. Yesterday at an event titled “Learning from Performance Measurement, Investing in What Works” he made the case that in an environment of limited resources and urgent social issues, we must concentrate investments on solutions that have the greatest impact. In order to do that, we need reliable performance measures. But, these measures are not just to guide decision-making for outside investors; they are also a management tool for continuous improvement and sharing best practices.

Paul Carttar, Director, Social Innovation Fund, Corporation for National and Community Service was also there. He shared that while government cannot take the lead in innovation, it can take a leadership role in identifying innovation, and performance measurement is key to that process. Simply by changing the way government funders like the SIF measure performance, they can have a ripple effect on the nonprofit sector. Carttar strongly urged private funders to demand performance measures to guide their philanthropic investments as well.

From a marketer’s standpoint, I advise caution. There is plenty of research that shows you can raise more money with one compelling story than with statistics. As much as we like to think we are rational beings, people make decisions for emotional reasons.

So, if you believe in performance measurement, do you share your results with donors? You absolutely should use data to make decisions. And you absolutely should make performance data available to all your stakeholders. Your annual report, website, and even your grant proposals are excellent places for this data. You might not want to build a fundraising campaign around it. But, don’t take my word for it. Test it yourself. Part of that data you are collecting should include message testing for your appeals.

Root Cause provides plenty of resources for building a performance measurement system on its website.
To hear Wolk & Carttar’s comments for yourself, here is also a podcast of yesterday’s discussion.

Happy counting.

What's on Your Backside?

This may be a little off topic, but it's on my mind because I just ordered business cards. Business cards used to be simple things that conveyed contact information. Now, like a lot of things, they have gotten fancier and fancier as individuals try to stand out from the crowd. As a result, many people choose to put content on the back of the card. I always find this annoying because I like to make notes on the back of cards I receive. Today, among other things, I was offered the opportunity to add a calendar to the back of the card. The print is so small I'm not sure how it helps me or the recipient.

The one thing I did add to the back of my cards was the recycle symbol. Recycled content seems far too hard to find, but that's a rant for another day. The point is, it's important for me to reflect my values in everything I do. That's how you build a brand - consistency and congruity.

Years ago I interviewed with an environmentally-focused organization and I asked why their glossy annual report wasn't printed on recycled paper. It was, they just weren't taking credit for it! Whether you have an environmental mission or not, your constituents will be turning you over and looking at all your decisions - from purchasing to your HR policies and more. Make sure your backside is covered.

Piling On

I’m a little strange. I collect fundraising solicitations. What’s even stranger is I open every envelop I receive. That makes me really rare. Here is a photo of the pile of direct mail I received in 2009.



On the left are “friends” and the right are “strangers” with a number ten envelop in front for scale. I use the term “friend” broadly. The friend pile includes the five hospitals where I have received care in Massachusetts, the two universities where I earned degrees, three organizations where I have applied for jobs, a few organizations where I have volunteered, and even a few to whom I have previously given a donation.

What’s the point? If you are going to send a direct mail solicitation, you need to keep in mind that you’re letter will be added to this pile. What will you do to make sure it gets opened? Read? Responded to?

Corporate Self-less-ness ?

This post was inspired by a tidbit I ran across and wanted to remember but didn't know how to file the information. Since I think it's pretty cool, I share it with you and preserve it for future reverence at the same time on this blog.

It turns out that Self magazine conducts "Good" research which "which explores womens' emotions resulting from the good a consumer perceives she does by purchasing socially responsible products and brands." How cool is that?

The latest research found something very interesting about skepticism (a leading reason companies shy away from cause marketing).

1) Only 16% of consumers meet the magazine's definition of highly skeptical.

2) If you can convince these skeptics, they are actually MORE likely to purchase products from companies they perceive as doing good things.

3) Skeptics are highly involved in supporting causes -- their skepticism comes from caring.

Wow. Maybe this is what is known as "healthy skepticism." To see the full article about it in Advertising Age click Here.

To give credit where credit is due, I paraphrased this little summary from the "Cause Marketing Today" email newsletter by the Cause Marketing Forum.

Something Old, Something New

Recently, I heard Stacy Joseph, Director of Annual Giving at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, give a talk about “Annual Giving and Best Practices.” It was a great talk. But, before I discuss it I’m going to digress about “annual giving.” I think it’s a terrible term. It’s useful internally for distinguishing between operating funds, campaign donations, and major gifts. The problem is - it’s very “inside baseball.”

At a previous talk, the presenter asked us if we participated in annual giving. I didn’t raise my hand. It’s not that I don’t donate, it’s just that I don’t necessarily donate to specific organizations once a year. I donate when I feel moved and able to afford it. I think a lot of people do that. The term “annual fund” doesn’t resonate with donors. Because I believe in the power of words, I’d say even just using it internally has a bad influence. Plus, it’s really, really hard to keep people from using internal terms with the outside world.

Now that I’ve gotten that rant out of my system, I’ll revisit the issue of the dreaded mailing labels. I wrote previously about my dislike of mailing labels but according to Stacy Joseph, lighthouse mailing labels outperform every other solicitation they’ve tried. Dana Farber is a sophisticated operation, so I’m sure they’ve tested a lot of great ideas. Admittedly, they’re mailing list skews toward an older demographic. If it works, don’t fix it. But they don’t stop there. They started offering eCards not long ago. The minimum donation to send one of their eCards is $5 and according to Stacy, the average donation is $19.

See, eCards really are cool. Do you know what’s even cooler? Ringtones. Dana Farber’s “ Rally Against Cancer” campaign encourages schools to compete to see who can raise the most for the Jimmy Fund. When kids register to be part of the campaign, they can receive exclusive ringtones from the Redsox’ Jon Lester or Joe Catiglione.

Smart marketers like Dana Farber use cutting edge techniques to attract new supporters while continuing to offer the base of loyal supporters what they want, whether it’s cool or not.

How Does Your Garden Grow?

I’ve been attending a number of seminars, workshops, courses, and the like about fundraising. They all talk about the importance of “cultivation.” That’s a lot more than just asking for money. You’re not likely to raise very many funds from people who have never heard of you or your cause. All of the experts I’ve heard stress the importance of seeing fundraising as relationship-building rather than managing transactions (one-time gifts).

Just like a garden, once you’ve done proper cultivation the next step is stewardship. The Association of Fundraising Professionals defines “stewardship” as “a process whereby an organization seeks to be worthy of continued philanthropic support …” Really? Fundraising is the “sales” of the nonprofit world and often has some of the same negative stereotypes. Just like a professional sales force, when done well fundraising is much more than “show me the money.” The definition continues “… including the acknowledgement of gifts, donor recognition, the honoring of donor intent, prudent investment of gifts, and the effective and efficient use of funds to further the mission of the organization.” Wow. That’s a tall order.

So, when it is time to ask, especially for serious money, what do you do? Some of the best advice I’ve gotten so far was not from an instructor, but from a fellow class mate. She works for MIT and told me they have a saying that goes “If you want advice, ask for money. If you money, ask for advice.” That intuitively makes a lot of sense. If you ask for money without first establishing trust, you’re likely to get some unsolicited advice on what you should be doing with that money. What she didn’t say (but I believe she meant) was - when you ask for advice, even though you are hoping for money, you have to respect your donors opinion and sincerely want advice. Being open to insights from your constituents and respecting your donors is all part of “being worthy of continued support.”