I liked this flier from Action Cancer UK recruiting for the New York City Marathon. Changing the shape from a traditional flier to a Big Apple made it stand out straight away and prompted me to take a closer look (I really wasn’t sure what it was for, so I wasn’t just being a curious fundraiser)
The flier was a little bit too big, so that would the only thing I think they could change. But good job. We all know that we need to stand out and this worked
I always think of the Little Britain sketch above when I think of the well known fact that a picture of someone looking directly at you from the page is known to increase response rates, as Paul Dervan comments on his recent post “the real power of one”. It’s all about the eyes
The example above is, in my opinion, one where they have succeeded in getting it wrong. The principle is there, but the picture just isn’t a good one and I believe that this is a poorly designed poster (on display in Peter Mark hairdressers). I have to say I am a little surprised at the Children’s Medical Research Foundation for putting this out there, they do great work and some of their DM pieces are so powerful, using this same principle. Perhaps the artwork was driven by the sponsor?
In Paul’s post he remarks that the research shows one set of eyes has a higher response rate than more than one set of eyes (he also makes his point by using a great picture!). The research was carried out by Paul Slovic, of ‘Decision Research’. You can read Pauls post here and Paul Slovic report here
This is a great post on Understanding Charitable Lead Trusts from the onPhilanthropy Blog. Click here to read the article
I really wish we had a better system for this kind of thing over here.
I wrote earlier about the Sunday Times Rich list which is being printed this Sunday. Last weekend, they published an article called Out of the City, into Africa as rich list at last start giving, .
Similar to the ITV show it was very interesting, especially their commentary on the approach the rich are taking to giving. It stated that they are bypassing established charities and in some cases are giving directly to the governments in the countries they want to operate in.
These are very successful (understatement) business people so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they look on their giving as investments and they want to make sure they get the best return on their investments, (does it bring you back to my bad language post? maybe this is the place for that new language?)
I was fascinated to read about Christopher Hohn:
a City hedge fund manager, who has given £235.8m in humanitarian aid. The figure is more than twice his remaining fortune of £110m, giving him the highest ever Giving List score of 214%. (Source. The Sunday Times)
There was a quote that I really liked in the article from Andrew Carnegie, a 19th-century steel magnate, which states that a “man who dies rich dies disgraced”. It seems like this years Rich List are living by that motto.
So buy the Rich List this Sunday, but be warned if you think you can write your major gift hit list from it…perhaps you are picking it up for the wrong reason!
You can read the entire article here
Here is a link to the Sunday Times Rich List 2008
The Sunday Times Rich List is being published this weekend and in the past week, for the first time that I can recall, there has been a lot of talk about how the Rich List are giving.
During the week there was a show on ITV, hosted by Duncan Bannatyne, called Giving it Away, Britain’s Rich List, you can (until the end of May) watch the show here. In the show Bannatyne asks Britain’s super-rich (you need to be worth 80 million pounds to make the list, that’s 10million more than last year) if they are giving away as much as they could, or should. He explores not just what they give but also how they give.
“I believe that giving the money you make away is the best reason for making it in the first place and that we rich in Britain don’t do enough yet,” Duncan Bannatyne
During the show he meets a who’s who of Britain’s richest business people (they answer the phone to him!) and talks to them about their giving habits, is even brave enough to challenge them and tries to persuade them to give more. I found it interesting in the interview with John Madejski when he (Madejski) stated that he got 15-20 asks a day in the post.
Who is sending those letters!? Do they really expect a response or a massive cheque? I hope not, and not because I think Madejski is unlikely to give, but who is going to donate at this level from an unsolicited letter?
By the end of the show (don’t read this bit if you plan on watching it) Bannatyne declares that he intends to set up a foundation to give away his money. He states that
you know that means I’m not going to die the richest man in the graveyard
I disagree, I think it will make him the richest.
Sandra Sims wrote about Reuseable Bags in a post on the Step-by-step fundraising blog on Friday.
In March 2002 the Irish Government introduced a levy on plastic bags, they placed a charge of 15 cent, now 22 cent, for every single plastic bag used. Retailers were obliged to pass the charge on and collect the levy. Retailers then brought in a wide selection of re-usable bags at a range of prices. Tesco Ireland report that the number of regular plastic bags have been reduced by 93% since the levy has been introduced.
Its funny I actually take it for granted that you buy re-usable bags, and its great to see them forming part of retailers environmental policies.
I know Tesco put their charity of the year logo on their re-usable bags (in Ireland), but as far as I know the profit doesn’t go to the charity (I’m happy to be corrected if Im wrong here though)
I do wonder what the mark-up is on these for retailers. And if it’s significant then should they not be donating some of these proceeds to good causes.
Is this a case of retailers using the environment and environmental issues to look good and at the same time make money for themselves?
Read Sandras post here
P.S. why do they call them Bags for Life…when they really aren’t
I was reading an interesting post on the Whitewater blog from the start of April where the they were announcing that their client, the NSPCC, have decided to move away from asking for Legacy pledges from donors.
The new strategy will
no longer measure success by the number of legacy pledges but by the number and quality of legacy conversations across all media – both face to face and direct marketing.
According to Whitewaters Chairman Steve Andrews:
“The tail has been wagging the dog. Our need to measure has driven the whole sector’s obsession with pledging. But donors told us that our desire for a pledge put them off. We have come up with a new approach and way forward.”
Interesting approach. The NSPCC clearly do their research and the results show, and with Whitewater they seem to have a great agency (I’ve never worked with them but they seem to be pretty cutting edge). I wonder as Legacy Promotion Ireland are planning to launch their campaign My Legacy, have they taken this into consideration or what their research has told them?
People donate for many reasons, one of them is because they care. So why is it that so often we don’t care about our donors?
We have all been in the office when a donor calls and they aren’t happy that they didn’t get the newsletter they were promised or worse still were never receipted and thanked for their donation. It’s a shame that theses calls happen…but they do…what we need to do is deal with them better. Too often we get defensive and see the donor as a nuisance.
Well with more charities setting up every year those of us who want to be leaders need to look at ways to stand out, and caring for our donors needs to be a top priority.
Here are two GREAT examples of charities who are looking after donors (actually the word Investors makes sense here).
1. Global Giving have brought in a Giving Guarantee. Any donor who makes an on-line contribution at GlobalGiving.com and is not satisfied with their giving experience may invoke the guarantee by phone or email. GlobalGiving will then refund the donation in the form of a gift certificate the donor can then donate this back to another project. I read about this on the nonprofitexpert blog, here is a link to the full post
2. This comes from the Donor Chose organisation. They have a jilted donor programme to deal with those contributors who never hear from the recipientof their donation. They apparently also give a “gift certificate” which can be designated to another project. I read about this on Don’t Tell the Donor, read the full post here
What a great way to acknowledge, from the outset, that we can get it wrong sometimes, and to be proactive in dealing with the issue.
Movember, which I spoke about in an earlier post called…Movember as it happens, has been nominated for the MTV Australia Awards in the Good Karma Category. Read more here and it looks like you dont have to be in Australia to vote, so if you feel like it vote too!
I like the category.
As the discussion on my Volvic Post has shown, Sponsorship isn’t straightforward. Here is an interesting piece I found on the Fundraising Institute of Australia Blog .
In an article on 14 April in The Australian Financial Review it is noted that the ‘commercial path’ was rejected in favour of naming the Melbourne Theatre Company’s new theatre after the company’s founder. Naming rights have become increasingly popular as a way of recognising benefaction – but there can be hidden risks which may relate to organisational reputation and potential conflicts of interest. As some North American institutions have found, physically gouging out a benefactor’s name from the material fabric of a building is messy and unsightly.
Is there a need for less ostentation and a greater reflection of true benefaction without personal or corporate gratification
Its something we all have to deal with, whether its the title rights to a sponsor for a campaign or the naming of a new wing in a hospital.
Are we using too much bad language in Fundraising?
Well according to an article in the Sunday Business Post yesterday we are (well the wrong language).
They report , according the the Suddes Group, that by using words like “charity”, “non-profit” and “donor”,charities are using the wrong language and are defining themselves in negative terms.
So what should words should we be using? Apparently we are “for-impact” organisations that have “investors” rather than “donors”.
The article acknowledges that this language sounds more like management terminology….is that a bad thing though, aren’t we trying to get charities to take a more business like approach?
Is this the future? Does it work? What are do donors make of this language…do they care? Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the article reports that the DSPCA has taken on the Suddes Group philosophy and they suggest that they are on track to raise an additional €500,000 to €1 million this year. Add to that the fact that the Suddes Group, founded in 1983, has since managed more than 300 campaigns and helped to raise more than $1 billion in funding.
How much of that is as a result of this new language is unclear? Maybe the Suddes Group are just in a position to help charities look at things from a different angle, strategize a bit better. I don’t know.
It’s an interesting concept though and certainly worth consideration and investigation and at the very worst, testing. We are trying to get our supporters to invest more in our organisations, so perhaps this language is the way forward?
Any thoughts?
This is a similar campaign to the Pampers one I spoke about before. I am a big fan of these well thought out partnerships that don’t require people to think too much. It makes sense that Volvic want to help supply water….and as a consumer I feel its what they should be doing, right? I think these are the kind of partnerships we should be looking to get into. Word of Warning though: We need to make sure that its not just lip service and allowing a corporate get out of a hole. For example I dont think a Fast Food company supporting an obesity clinic would be the most appropriate partnership to engage in. They have to bring real value to both brands.
This Campaign has been around since March but it just cut through to me today and I heard the ad on the radio. It’s a shame I can’t find the sound file for the ad, but its a great ad. The copy says something like:
You know what its like to be thirsty, your mouth dries up etc…
Ok so there is more copy. The point is, as I was listening my mouth did dry up and I did start to think about water and what its like to be thirsty. Just as this was happening they got to the point of the ad. That is that for every litre of Volvic sold in Ireland and the UK, Volvic and World Vision will generate ten litres of clean and safe drinking water in communities across Africa through the provision of mechanised wells.
This is a great fit, probably even better than the Pampers one. I wouldn’t normally give a brand manager an airing on this blog…. but Kerry O’Sullivan, Senior Brand Manager for Volvic kind of sums it up well
“Volvic and World Vision are both in the same business – providing water…..water is one of the four key practical focus areas of World Vision’s work. Volvic’s contribution wil allow World Vision to provide safe clean water” (taken from World Vision site)
In the UK they have a nice supporting website which you can take a look at here, and the World Vision site has it prominently displayed (why cant the same be said for World Vision Ireland and the Volvic Site??).
P.S. It looks like they do this campaign with Unicef in other markets…I wonder why that is?
I was telling you in an earlier post (thanks again to Elaine) about TOMS Shoes. Well I’m a man of my word and yesterday I went and got a pair. I couldn’t actually buy them on line, but I got them in BT2 in Dublin, and they have a huge list of distributors.
They come in a really small box and all over the box are reminders that they will be giving a pair of shoes for every pair you buy. The box is nice and small, about the size of the width of a pair of shoes, which is nicely environmentally firendly. They also give you a great TOMS Shoes flag and a hanger for your shoes….again reminding you about why you bought them. They are incredibly comfortable as well. Take a look at the pictures I took of the box and what comes in it. I’m already working out what my next pair will be.
On a bit of a side note….I owe an apology to JP from The Ray Foley Show on Today FM (nice blog)
I noticed he was in the same shop when I was buying the shoes, and well I am so fond of these shoes that I decided to take the opportunity to, well practically, pounce on the guy! “Hi there….listen I just bought these shoes” At this stage, as I handed him the flier I had picked up, I think he thought I was going to try sell them back to him!
“Anyway” I managed to continue “I think they are really cool, everytime you buy a pair they give a pair to kids who need them”...Ok so he is still looking confused and probably thinking that I am a complete nut job…”Well I just thought you could talk about them on the show”. Yes there you have it, I’m now telling people on radio shows how to do their jobs!! Well I’m just enthused by this product, so sorry JP.
Anyway, here are those pictures I promised.
There are shocking and disturbing amounts of money spent on the US Primaries, and remember its still just the primaries with Obama spending $1.5 million a day in February alone, that’s just Obama!
Anyway every cloud…..Rod Taylor has done a great post on the Blogorrhea Blog, “What fundraisers should learn from Barack Obama”.
In it Rod has picked out 5 lessons fundraisers should take from the campaign, here’s a synopsis:
1) Hope sells. People don’t want to throw their money at an endless intractable problem. They want to see some hope for a better outcome.2) Change sells too. Get your donors excited by presenting a new approach that actually stands a chance of changing the game and solving a problem. (Rod also mentions nothing but nets which I spoke about earlier)3) Words matter. Long letters pull better. Shut up and test it if you’re sceptical….. longer letters (containing more words) inspire more people to take action. And some words matter more than others: You, Free, Thanks, to name just a few.4) But delivery matters more. Yes, words do matter. But if you don’t get people’s attention with an intriguing package design they’ll never get read in the first place. No matter how short or long the letter is.5) It’s better to raise a little money from a lot of people than a lot of money from a few. If you build a nonprofit on a foundation of a million donors you are going to be around for the long haul. But if you rely on a handful of donors to give you big gifts you are in a much more perilous predicament.
These are just some highlighted pieces from the post so take the time to read it all here (and its a great blog so subscribe in a reader too!)
Hopefully some future good can come from these elections.
Just read this on Nancy E. Schwartz Blog. Its so startling I just had to share it:
As Nancy says:
A bad tagline, or none at all, is a huge missed opportunity. I urge you to close that gap. Now.
One Charity that I know of that knew the value of this was Barretstown. About 5 years ago (I could have the date wrong) they did a full brand review and one of the key things they focussed on was a strong tag line. Here is what they came up with, and trust me it has worked for them.
I would love to hear from anyone who has developed a new tag line and has found how well it is working for them?
Conor Byrne's Blog 
