Frozen Cinema

To let the privileged experience how homeless people feel during the winter, non-profit organization fiftyfifty turned the temperature down in cinemas across Germany.

There is something I like about this – but there is something that jars with me slightly. I think it might be a bit too intrusive and forced on people. Im actually not sure it needed the video on screen, feels a bit preachy to me. I think a simple explanation would have done the trick – maybe something like- “We turned the temperature down to 8 degrees – homeless people have to sleep in temperatures as low as minus 4 – please help” then knock the heat back u.p

5 seconds to change behaviour

This would work really well with a donate call to action I think

Money Words (guest post)

By Perry Esler, Childrens Miracle Network Hospitals:

Tell a story – give the number. That’s the simple, best-practise, message we share with hundreds of radio people every year at stations across North America. It works. $450M raised since 1998 for our partner children’s hospitals. Great stories with a great pitch means lots of calls to the donor hot line.

Now there’s research that shows we might be able to increase pledges off those calls by how we greet the donor. Philanthropic psychologist Jen Shang has released a study that shows five words tied to moral qualities prompt larger donations.

Caring

Friendly

Kind

Compassionate

Helpful

The Indiana University Professor tested her theory at an appeal of public radio station WFIU in Bloomington, Indiana. The phone volunteers answered by thanking the caller and then they would randomly pick two of the five words to describe the caller. It sounded something like this: ‘Thanks for calling. You’re a caring and compassionate donor.’ In the end female donors gave, on average, 10% more.  By contrast the use of these adjectives had no impact on men.  Suffice to say since most donors to our radiothons are women this may be worth a try.

Many events still don’t script their phone volunteers, but this study should be enough to convince you otherwise.

Here is a recent interview we at Children’s Miracle Network Hospitals conducted with Professor Shang about the study.  It concludes that a focus on the connection between moral identity and an individuals cause might create a higher ROI than focusing solely on the cause

Click here to listen to an interview Perry did with Prof. Shang.
Follow Perry on twitter here 

Drive Aid

Brilliant stuff (again) by Action Aid UK

The S#*!T KIDS SAY

Powerful piece, part of the NSPCC don’t wait until your certain campaig. Great use of their research to create a compelling piece.

Plan UK – Interactive Billboard

 

Plan UK is running an interactive outdoor campaign that contains content only women can view. The bus shelter ad uses facial recognition software with an HD camera to determine whether a man or woman is standing in front of the screen (claims the technology is 90% accurate), and shows different content accordingly. Men are denied the choice to view the full 40-second ad in order to highlight the fact that women and girls across the world are denied choices and opportunities on a daily basis due to poverty and discrimination.

(content from the brilliant Goodbuzz)

 

Chugger Debate

There is a serious amount of chugger bashing going on at the minute. I have never seen or heard such negative sentiment around this form of fundraising. I have never worked for a charity that had chuggers, so I have no strong ‘pro’ chugger agenda. I do however know lots of charities that do use them, both in house and contracted, and I know the value they provide to the organisations (financially).

What frustrates me about the whole “debate” is that its not a real debate with any proper understanding of this revenue stream.

What happens instead is people make comments when they haven’t taken the time to research the issue. So for example we see comments like these from Senator Catherine Noone (clearly seeking column inches), where she says that Chuggers have:

“started to turn charity from an act of giving into an industry, with volunteers being replaced by people who are paid per hour”.

What planet is the Senator on!? Charity is an industry. Charity is a business. She clearly hasn’t taken the time to talk to anyone in the sector…but sure why should she, she  is

“…. somebody who gives a decent amount every year to charity”.

Similarly this morning Ian Dempsey on TodayFM said that

“charities need to find another way to raise the money”.

Again, an off the cuff remark made by someone who hasnt taken the time to understand how charities work. If he is going to use his airtime you would really like him to at least be informed (or take the time to be informed).

I am not saying there are no issues with Chuggers. I am not saying it is the greatest way to fundraise. Like I said I have never worked for an organisation that uses them (maybe that says something, I dont know). But the mis-information that is being bandied about by people is frustrating. This revenue stream works for charities. That’s why they do it.  Next people will say they are fed up with Direct Mail, because charities are spending money on postage!

If there is going to be a debate about chuggers, firstly there needs to be a better understanding of the business of charity. There also needs to be an understanding that there is a code of practice that all charities sign up to (Senator, maybe you should have checked that one out!?). Also people have choices. Every day I walk past a chugger, and I can see them trying to make eye contact, I just say no thanks and walk on. It doesnt really ruin my day!

NOTE: I have asked two people, one from either side of the debate to do guest posts on this blog….hopefully they agree. I will keep you posted

Can Komen Recover?

The problems at Susan G. Komen for the Cure are well documented at this stage. In this great article Ad Age asks, can they recover?

(Source: Ad Age, Alexandra Bruell, Feb 6th, 2012)

In a case for the marketing textbooks, Susan G. Komen for the Cure showed how a brand can boomerang from one of the most loved into one of the most reviled in a head-snapping two days.

The story of how Komen got consumers seeing red, rather than pink, says a lot about how social-media wildfire can singe even the most fireproof of brands. But it also demonstrates how inconsistent communications can fan the flames, and illustrates how quickly sponsors can become engulfed in controversy. On its website, Komen, which has raised billions of dollars for breast-cancer research, lists more than 200 corporate partners. The question now is how much collateral damage those partners have sustained, and whether Komen can persuade them to stick around in the aftermath.

AP broke the story Jan. 31 that the charity was withdrawing funding from Planned Parenthood. Komen quickly became the New Coke of nonprofits last week when within 48 hours it confirmed that it was pulling funding, contradicted itself in explaining its motive, and then backtracked on the decision following a groundswell of protest. It initially cited a new policy requiring it not to fund organizations under government investigation. The move prompted Planned Parenthood to berate the organization for letting right-wing, pro-life politics influence its decision, and critics quickly took up the cudgel on Facebook and Twitter.

The first public response, a video of founder and CEO Nancy Brinker via YouTube, didn’t help. PR executives said the background — a stuffy library — and Ms. Brinker’s seemingly calculated statement was counterproductive. “Nancy Brinker is coming across not like the woman who made the promise to her sister,” said Carol Cone, vice chairman of the business and social-purpose group at Edelman. “Unfortunately, she’s coming across so hard.”

A day later, Ms. Brinker told the Washington Post that the real reason for the funding cut “…has to do with the fact that [Planned Parenthood does] not provide mammograms to women, but only provides mammogram referrals.” That same day, a Komen board member flip-flopped the message again. Lobbyist John D. Raffaelli told The New York Times that Komen “had become increasingly worried that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R.-Fla., would damage Komen’s credibility with donors.”

But Komen was doing a fine job of damaging that credibility on its own. What started as a communications crisis quickly flamed into a brand crisis as the organization went more than 24 hours without a tweet, during which time consumers besieged the Facebook pages of Komen’s corporate partners and voiced concerns on Twitter. As of Feb. 3, there were 18,645 likes on the “Defund the Komen Foundation” Facebook page. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave Planned Parenthood $250,000 out of his own pocket, indirectly admonishing the organization’s decision.

“If they had quickly come out and communicated and said, ‘Oops, we blew it,’ that’s one thing. But 48 hours is an eternity today with social media,” said Kivi Leroux Miller, author and blogger at the website Nonprofit Marketing Guide.

Now its reputation — in a Harris poll last year Komen ranked second among nonprofits in terms of trust and tops in brand equity — and the stability of its relationships with corporate sponsors hangs in the balance. While it’s said the organization has not lost any official corporate sponsors at this point, it will have its work cut out for it in the coming weeks in reaching out to sponsors, partners and affiliates.

When asked how a sponsor should react, Ms. Cone said, “I’d follow it and wait it out first. Komen has to stay true to what it does, [which is] help to build a sisterhood, continue to create awareness and help those who need to get preventative [care].” Some sponsors may have time to think it over; Breast Cancer Awareness Month is October.

General Mills, which is one of the marketers most publicly allied with Komen via its Yoplait brand, said: “We are committed to the fight against breast cancer, and we will continue to partner with organizations that will have the greatest impact in that fight.” And Pepperidge Farm told Ad Age that it “concluded its sponsorship of Susan G. Komen for the Cure at the end of 2011 for business reasons.” Related or not, that timing coincided with when Komen told Planned Parenthood of its decision.

Komen declined to comment. But an executive close to the charity said that former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who had previously been brought in by Komen as an advisor, initially helmed the communications effort. Ogilvy, Komen’s corporate and issues firm on retainer, was asked to take over that role Feb. 3.

“It’s surprising that such an established organization didn’t take a pulse check on different stakeholders,” said Tara Greco, senior VP-corporate responsibility at APCO, a public-affairs firm.

“Did they not learn, especially at the highest level, about the power of social and of their own community?” asked Ms. Cone, citing the outcry over its earlier gaffe of painting pink ribbons on buckets of KFC.

All that said, it’s likely the brand will be forgiven. “There’s still awareness to be made and funding for search and access to services that are critically needed,” Ms. Cone said. “I don’t think [Komen] will go away.”

SVdeP says thank you

I really like how SVdeP have done a campaign to say thanks following their Christmas Appeal. Well done folks

Gifting is a two way thing

Christmas is only 50 days away (I think) and all the window displays and music has got me thinking about gifting. This is probably obvious, but I think it is often forgotten, gifting isnt just about the person who receives the gift.

If you think about Christmas time when you give a gift to someone, first of all you spend a decent amount of time thinking about the gift. You probably write a list of ideas, the kind of things this person would like, would maybe never buy for themselves but would really enjoy using. Then you take time to wrap the gift and give it to them. You love seeing the reaction on their face when you hand over the gift. It is even better if you are there when they open it and you get to see the delight on their face. The fact that you thought of them, that you knew them so well to get them this gift. You, as the giver of the gift, get a warm glow, a feeling of joy, at seeing that reaction.

So, as a non profit, think about the gift giving process. Think about how you feel when you give a gift, how you love to know how the gift has made the person who received it feel. Then think about your donors.

When they send you a gift, they want this feeling too. They may say they don’t, but the do. They don’t just give to make you and your mission happy. They give because they too want to feel a warm glow, a feeling of joy.

Your job is to make sure that they get this feeling. So many charities either don’t do this or do it really badly. It is my strong contention that doing this well will make you and your cause stand out from others.

Appreciation is a sustainable business model.

Digital Fundraising: Blurring the boundaries between giving and living

This is a fantastic presentation by Stuart Glen, of Kilbryde Hospice, made at the IOF Scotland Conference this week. I really would recommend you click on the image below and go through this presentation:

Personalised Thank you’s

I mentioned to a charity recently the importance of appreciation, I suggested that where it isn’t possible to physically get to a location to say thanks in person, the technology is available to us to still thank people personally.

Then coming out of the IFC last week this turned up, a great example of this being done really well. And guess who it is that is doing it well?

Yes – Charity Water! They are just so good at what they do. Here is a personalised thank you they sent to a 6 year old boy. Its fantastic.

Mobile Giving

I had an interesting (albeit brief) conversation on twitter last night, which was kicked off by this post from Paul De Gregorio talking about mobile giving. He makes some great points and it is well worth a read.

I asked Paul, Stuart Glen and Tim O’Dea what they thought about apps that are exclusively about giving. I have seen a few of them and posted about them. My concern with them is whether or not a person would be bothered to download an app that purely allows them to donate.

Is there any real market for that? I haven’t been convinced by any that I have seen. I don’t see any real appeal for a consumer in downloading such an app.When I asked Paul, Stuart and Tim what they thought, they all seemed to agree.

I have seen some examples of charities trying to do other things around the idea, like this one from the Eve appeal, where you send a kiss and donate a pound. Interesting idea, in that you get something for your pound, but is it engaging enough or of enough value to have me download it and come back to it.

Stuart shared this example from breakthrough breast cancer in the UK. This is a great example, in my opinion, of how it should be done.

So well done Breakthrough Breast Cancer

Irish Examiner’s big charity expose!

The dramatic headline reads:

Charity bosses’ salaries exceed €100k

Oooooooooh. To think that people running organisations that turn over tens of millions of euros would get such excessive salaries! 

The article starts with its dramatic headline and then progresses into nothing-ness when it reveals shocking stats like these:

• Charities have generally not granted a pay increase in the past year.
• Three chiefs executive have a company car.
• Expenses are vouched and relate mainly to travel.

Honestly what was Catherine Shanahan thinking? What was her editor thinking? What was the purpose of this article?

I am actually almost annoyed at myself for talking about it here but the Irish Examiner dont like you commenting on their site (no facility) and they dont engage on social networks. So it really is the only place to vent my frustration!.

One thing I would say is….slap on the wrist to the 6 charities that didnt provide information…What were you thinking? You are helping no one by being secretive about your cost base. Stand up and defend your salaries, they are no doubt well deserved. Don’t hide behind No Comment. You can’t and shouldnt!

But a bigger shame on you to the examiner and Catherine Shanahan. What a waste of time, resources and print.

The Social Charity 100 Report

Short but sweet post this evening. This is a report that is well worth downloading if you you want to be a social organisation. Some great tips and then a list of organisations who are doing it well…so follow them!

Download the report here

This report is by Visceral Business