The Extreme Fundraising Blog

Just watched the latest episode of Oprah’s The Big Give. (And I’m commited to keeping this post far shorter than the last Big Give post!)

The final words of the judge Malaak Compton-Rock really get at what I mean when I teach seminar attendees and coaching clients they need to engage. If we’re not connecting with the people we’re serving–be it as a nonprofit or as a donor–we really don’t know what the right gift is.

It was chilling to hear the the mom Sheg was sent to help say the money could’ve gone so much further.

Ouch.

Rachael was guilty of not listening too. She insisted on “helping” the lady that didn’t need anything done. In reality, it was pretty clear Rachael was only helping herself.

It makes me wonder about the dozens of nonprofits that are being created on a daily basis. What if the founder decided to help work with an existing nonprofit instead? Or what if the ones struggling for existence are simply “solving” a need no one is feeling?

It’s humbling to know that, like Stephen found out, all people often need is to be heard and treated like equals.

[Click here to see all the blog posts in this Oprah’s The Big Give series.]

I just heard from the publisher. They expect to have the printed copies of Ask Without Fear! “on or about” April 4th!

I’m thrilled! This process has taken a l-o-n-g time. Special thanks go to those of you who’ve purchased copies over the last few months.

To celebrate this milestone, I’m offering a free chapter of the book. To download your own copy of 7 Fundraising Myths, go to: http://fundraisingcoach.com/7_Fundraising_Myths.pdf

This also means it’s your last chance to cash in on my special pre-publication offer. If you still want the book with free USPS priority mailing run, don’t walk, to: www.askwithoutfear.com.

This was the It Could Happen to You episode of Oprah’s The Big Give!

I suspect, most viewers thought it’d be incredibly easy to give away $100,000 in 24 hours, even with the quirky restrictions. But it’s not as easy as it seems!

First I want to highlight a couple lessons donors can learn from this episode. Then I’ll comment on some of the ways people gave their money away.

As I see it, one of the main lessons of this episode is the need for philanthropic advisors. The only person to give all the money away was Stephen. His dad acted like a philanthropic advisor, making him aware of an impoverished neighborhood in the area.

In a perfect world, there would be more research done too. What’s the use in getting an oven if you don’t have the wiring to handle it? Or in getting a huge HDTV if your neighborhood has a high crime rate?

I don’t mean to take away from Stephen’s creativity and achievement. The rules were strict. I do find it interesting that the only person to succeed with the task had an “advisor.”

Another big lesson from Sunday’s episode concerns Eric’s experience. He promised to pay the funeral costs of a family in mourning. But because of restrictions, he needed as many family members to be present as possible. Not enough were there at the wake so he promised to come to the funeral the next day.

He simply didn’t show up.

Can you imagine how awful that was to the family? Not only are they in mourning. But now their emotions are getting jerked around by a do-gooder that doesn’t follow through. (Fortunately, the notes on the Big Give’s message boards say Oprah gave $20,000 to the family on her show Monday. But still…)

So here’s the second lesson for funders: in the words of a great Irving Berlin / Bing Crosby song, be careful, it’s my heart.

No charity is “entitled” to a donor’s money. Ever.

But donors that promise a gift set up very real expectations in the minds and lives of nonprofits. To not follow through can be quite traumatic, causing the nonprofit to lose focus on it’s mission while it scrambles to make up for funding it was supposed to have received.

If circumstances change, communication is key. Things change all the time. If a donor needs to shift giving priorities, that’s his perogative. But it’d be thoughtful to at least let the charity know. Or better yet, to let them know that funding will be tapering out over the next couple years. Advanced warning can be extremely helpful.

Why didn’t Eric get a phone number to contact? At the very least, he could’ve called to say he was running late, get the count of family members, and arrange to leave the cash at some point later that afternoon.

Now some highlights from the other contestants:

• I loved Cameron’s taking the encourage the kid at the Midas to do good to others. What an amazing teachable moment. One missed by people like Kim and Rachael. They bought people stuff but didn’t appear to leave the people with any encouragement to “pay it forward.” In doing this, Cameron made his gift move from a mere transfer of cash to an enduring character lesson in the life of at least one child. Good for you, Cameron!
• Kim had a really hard time. But I loved the “it ain’t over ’til it’s over” lesson from her experience. I had a flashback to every capital campaign I’ve done. We always hit the wall and don’t think we can go on. But something inevitably happens to give us a second wind. It’s a great reminder for us to not give up to quickly.
• Brandi’s giving the bus tokens seemed to come right out of It Could Happen to You! What a great gift for those women.

  And it was inspiring seeing how much joy Brandi got from giving away $2,000 worth of flowers. And how happy she made people! I also loved that she pulled at least one other person in to the joy, getting him to help her.

• Rachael’s giving to the cystic fibrosis function was just shameless. She obnoxiously swoops in to what was clearly a huge event for them, makes a splashy donation, and sweeps out. This happens far too often in real life but it’s still painful to see.

This post is runnnig long so I’ll stop.

But remember: If you’re looking to give away lots of cash, get an advisor, someone that knows the lay of the land. And be careful with the expectations you set up!

Here’s a question that appeared on LinkedIn.com:

Question:
If donors that have the option to give online would it be a good idea to give them the ability make online pledges?

Here’s My Answer:
If you’re asking as a nonprofit looking at implementing a system, my answer in a word is NO!

I’ve worked with nonprofits across the country for over 10 years. Clients never cite “online pledging” as a source of funding.

The web is an instant gratification medium. Donors wanting to make a gift will want to do it now.

As the previous folks have said, people will give bigger gifts if they can split it up over time. But that usually takes a one on one conversation.

I’d recommend having an online giving set-up that allows donors to “make this a monthly gift.” For years, I’ve offered “monthly, quarterly, and annual” options on the Inland Foundation website but that seems to REALLY confuse people.

Plus, you have to have really good systems in place to “collect” on the pledges. That’s usually a burden for the smaller shops (unless it’s for a capital campaign where the gifts are larger.)

But if you’re asking as a business owner looking to market to nonprofits, online pledging could be a useful option to help make sales. And you can use the other answers to come up with a sales presentation selling them on the value of pledging.

If you haven’t read it yet, go get a copy of Seth Godin’s “The Big Red Fez.” It’s a short book on web design. His premise is that when we sit in front of a web page we’re all like organ grinder monkeys, we just want to know “where’s the banana.”

Effective websites make the banana really obvious, like Google.com. It’s clear what you’re supposed to do: search.

Yahoo.com is so confusing it can hinder people’s response.

And too often, we do that in the non-profit world. We want to be sure all the options are out there, that we confuse the donor.

Oy, this has gotten long! To sum up, if you want to raise money online, I’d recommend NOT making pledging an option.

[You can see all the answers by going to: http://www.linkedin.com/answers/government-non-profit/charity-non-profit/GOV_CNP/198274-7495757]

Just read this in MaineBiz:

Report: Maine philanthropy has grown
Maine philanthropy has increased dramatically in recent years, according to a new report from the Maine Community Foundation and the Maine Philanthropy Center.

“Giving in Maine: A Report on Philanthropy 2008″ found that individual giving has grown sevenfold over the last 22 years, from $67 million to $482 million. The report also says 27% of Maine estates over $1.5 million donate to philanthropic causes, versus 20% nationally, and total giving and average giving by individual Mainers has increased 25% over the last five years.

The state’s charitable foundations are strong, according to the report, with assets almost doubling over the last five years, to $1.5 billion, and giving increasing by 74%.

The economy hasn’t been great here in Maine. But our residents are growing in generousity!

I hope that’s encouraging as we navigate our current economic waters.

Reading Stephen Hitchcock’s Open Immediately: Straight Talk on Direct Mail Fundraising, I’ve been reminded of one of the great truths of fundraising, one I’m calling Fundraising Secret #15: people give to people.

This is one of the reasons fundraising letter templates don’t work. They’re like a fundraising version of Mad Libs: easy to fill in the blanks but sort of funny sounding when they’re read.

And that’s why impersonal “Dear Friend” letters don’t work well either. But even if you insert a donor’s name, it’s really easy to sound impersonal in fundraising letters.

According to Hitchcock’s extensive research, fundraising letters get better response rates without brochures. I’d imagine this is because brochures are, by their very nature, impersonal.

So don’t include a brochure and don’t let you letter sound like a brochure! To help resist the temptation to become impersonal, Hitchcock advises using conversational language and having only one signature at the end of a solicitation letter.

A technique I use for overcoming impersonality is doing demographic research to find out who my typical donor is:

• how old,
• what gender,
• where she lives,
• how big her family is, etc.

Once I’ve done the work, I write to that person. It’s helpful to get a picture of what that person might look like to put on your computer monitor. And I always give her a name.

However you fundraise for your nonprofit–whether you’re asking for money in a fundraising letter, on the web, or in person–remember this timeless truth: people give to people.

[For the prior “Fundraising Secrets” posts, go to: http://fundraisingcoach.com/blog/category/frsecrets/]

On LinkedIn.com, I asked what people think of “Oprah’s ‘The Big Give’” now that it’s been on for a month.

Little did I know how deeply emotional the responses would be!

Most people answering are hostile to reality tv, the premise of the show, and Oprah’s intent. It’s really amazing!

Some of the points are well taken. And I would understand the negativity if the show had been pitched as a “primer on philanthropy,” or a “guide to wisely investing in charity.”

But it’s a game.

Unlike Survivor, where you have to “outwit, outplay, outlast” and lying is seen as a tool, the rules of The Big Give are designed around helping strangers.

Perhaps what makes it hit at such a deep level for us in fundraising is that this game isn’t on some remote tropical island. It’s being played out right in our communities.

See all the answers for yourself at: One month into the show, what do you think of Oprah’s ‘The Big Give’?.

And for the lessons I think nonprofits can learn, go to: Fundraising lessons from Oprah’s “The Big Give”

I’m not an “events” person but they do seem a necessary evil in our field.

And to be fair, they do have lots of other benefits: visibility, engaging volunteers, etc.

So when I saw that this month’s Giving Carnival topic was “Tips For Successful Fundraising Events,” I knew I had to chime in.

The best tip I ever got about events (other than don’t do them if at all possible!) was: give the event three years before deciding to continue it or not.

Fundraising events are time and labor intensive. And they take time to mature. Often by the third year, you and your team are in a groove.

So if you or your board is contemplating doing a fundraising event, be sure to ask yourself if the organization can commit to doing it for the next three years.

[Check out the other great ideas at the March Giving Carnival.]

I read an interesting post on the Chronicle of Philanthropy about the Google for Nonprofits portal.

Looks like things many of us are already using, or ought to be using, to promote our organizations. (Granted, it’s probably a bit odd to have a “Google Checkout” badge on the links for the Vineyard Church of Waterville AdWords ads! But folks in our church like to pay their tithes and offerings online!)

What intrigues me most about this offering, is a quote in the Chronicle article:

“Many of us have heard from our friends in the [charity] community that, while they knew our tools could be helpful to them, sometimes they weren’t sure exactly where to start,” [Bob Boorstin] says. He believes the portal will help answer such questions.

Check it out for yourself and tell me what you think:
Google for Nonprofits

The grants and gadget options are particularly intriguing! These may be innovative ways to engage your donors.

Another episode of Oprah’s Big Give.

I’ve watched all three episodes in three different ways:

1. via recording on my DVR
2. on TV like I did in the 1990’s
3. on abc.com!

Who knew TV shows could be so adaptable to technology?

This week’s program brought out two interesting themes: creative engagement of donors and the dangers of self-absorption. I’m going to assume you’ve seen the episode. If you haven’t, you can see the full show at Oprah’s Big Give.

Team Field of Dreams had no team work but an incredibly engaged volunteer: Andre Agassi. He was professional, entreprenurial, and a complete gentleman. And a darn good fundraiser. I’m not sure if he sensed the disorganization of the team or not, but he came in with ideas, connections, and a plan. And he got the job done.

I left this episode hoping to be like him when I grow up.

Team Forgotten Christmas had a great team. They worked really well together.

But they hardly engaged Tony Hawks. Granted, a skating crowd is probably a very different demographic and socio-economic background than a tennis crowd. But still, they didn’t seem to suggest ways he could help.

Here’s one of the longest running extreme sport celebrities. He’s got to have connections. It’s not really his job to think, “who do I know?” It’s the job of the fundraiser to ask things like:

• “Who do you know?”
• “What connections might you have to make this an amazing project?”
• “How might the people you know be able to make this blessing last beyond a one day event?”

But noone in the team seemed interested in finding out.

Perhaps both results stemmed from the same problem: self-absorption.

Both teams seemed so consumed with trying to do an amazing deed to be able to stay in this challenge that they neglected to get to know the schools or the celebrities.

The way the show was edited, neither team came up with the idea of getting a tour of the schools they were helping. They seem to quickly figure out the problems and then hastily start “fixing” them.

But you can’t really do that without spending some time getting to know the people you’re working with and for.

Agassi apparently knew this. When he came, he got a tour. And in getting a tour of the school, he found out that the kids needed more than just a playground, they needed new computers and other equipment. Engaging the school helped him get a better understanding of how he could help.

As fundraisers, we must be interested in other people: donor prospects and the people we’re helping. The people we’re helping can’t simply be “a cause” or “a group we’re helping.” They’re individuals with stories that deserve to be heard.

And donors and donor prospects, even celebrity donors, don’t know us well enough to know exactly how they can help. That’s why fundraisers need to get out from behind our desks. We need to walk around and see the mission that our organizations are accomplishing. And we need to engage our donors so that we get to know them.

The Christmas Team did great things for so many kids. But I wonder what “money” they left on the table because they didn’t explore with Tony.

Would I have done any better? I have no idea.

Some may argue that they did the best they could given the time constraints. But all of our nonprofits work daily under the type of time pressure these Big Give teams work under. We have an extremely limited time to get our mission funded. And it’s often “do or die.”

So let’s not get distracted by that pressure. Let’s remember to see individuals as people that can help in special and unique ways.

Who can you get to know better today? Perhaps they have talents, relationships, or passions that are a perfect match for your group!

This is the third blog post in a series related to Oprah’s Big Give.