I got fooled this past week. Twice.

In both situations I walked into a client meeting feeling like we put together the smartest, coolest, cleverest concepts. I thought we would simply drop our ideas on the table and sit back and wait for the accolades. I found myself scrambling because in both cases the client was not buying what I was selling. The two situations are remarkable because they were so similar and happened so closely together. That’s what it took for me to learn the lesson. Both times we heard that yes, absolutely they were smart, clever and even cool. Both times we heard that they were too clever, too smart for many the donors who would be receiving them.

A great concept is not great because it is clever, greatest is found in simplicity and clarity. Whether online, in print, or at an event we have precious little time to make our point, grab our donor, and make an impact. We do not have time to make them think. If they have to think—we lose.

I found myself reflecting back on an advertising awards competition that I helped judge several years ago. There were tons of great complex, clever pieces in the show. There were multimedia pieces, Annual Reports, all kinds of cool complicated programs. Do you know what won the best in show award? An 8 ½ x 11 poster. There were three things on it: the name of the bar at the top, a large frosty mug of beer with a fly in the foam, and the words “Our patio is now open” at the bottom. It was simple. It was clear. It was funny. And admittedly, yes, it was even clever.

At the end of the day we do one thing for our clients, help them raise more money. Period. We will do this only if we deliver a clear, unvarnished, simple message. For charities this means giving up the desire to gratify yourself by portraying the complexity of your work. For us this means giving up the desire to create rich and complex creative pieces.

Just the facts, ma’am. Keep It Simple Stupid. Considered myself reminded.

Cam

While there are still some great Direct Mail programs out there it feels like every few months there’s a new hot ‘it’ approach. It’s about your Social Media presence. Forget that if you want to raise money and new donors look to organizations like Charity:Water and their Peer-to-Peer model. How about events, events are working. The hot approach de jour seems to be Face-to-Face. In Europe it’s just about all they are doing, and North America is catching on fast.

So where to invest? What is right for you?

We’ve got answers. On May 8th we are holding our Annual Summit. We decided we would hold it every other year in Guelph rather than Sacramento and make it a shorter, one day, event. This year we are taking on the topic of Acquisition. Our speakers cover the spectrum from the way out there to the traditional. We also plan to spend time networking, talking and figuring out what is working best. Join us!

Our Keynote speaker is Taylor Conroy. The “Destroy Normal” CEO of The Change Heroes. I promise he will challenge your traditional thinking and inspire you to think differently. That is exactly what he does.

We have a series of other industry leaders also sharing their insights.

Invest in a day out of the office. Give your self the chance to be inspired and evolve your thinking. Be there or be square.

Let me know if you want more details.

Cam

At the recent International Fundraising Congress in Amsterdam several European colleagues were diving deep into Shalom Schwartz’s research on universal values. What makes a person act? A number of organizations have taken his research and used it as a starting point to help figure out what motivates people to give. Not surprisingly, while we may all share the same ten basic values, different values are more prominent for us depending on our age, education and other circumstances. It’s complicated. But as Brent Klassen my business partner at Blue North says, computers are pretty good at working through complicated equations.

Ok park this line of thought. I’ve been in three different meetings over the past two weeks where clients have been talking about the sectors or specific offers that their file responds to. “Our file loves water but doesn’t respond to malaria”, or “our file just doesn’t connect with literacy”.

Really?

Do we really think that our donors will give to one urgent need and not another? Maybe. But maybe, just maybe we are falling into patterns of framing certain offers specifically aligned to specific motivational values. A water ask is always urgent. A Micro Finance ask is always about value. Rather than assuming our donors don’t like a sector, should we be pausing and thinking about what values drive our file to respond and then frame all of our asks accordingly? More specifically, should we be segmenting our file by age and a few other basic factors and framing our offers according to each donor’s history and profile?

I’m not crazy about scrambled eggs. Does that mean I don’t like eggs? I like poached eggs and even like an over easy egg, heck I’ll eat a hard-boiled egg.

Let’s not give up on malaria and literacy. People care, and if they are loyal to you they want to respond, you just have to serve it to them properly.

One of the interesting things about being at a conference like this is that you get to experience the ‘world of fundraising’ quite literally. This experience has been a bit of an eye opener for me today. While much of the session content was excellent it was the extra-curricular conversations that got me thinking at the end of the day.

I sat through a very well presented Major Gift session today. The leaders were from Canada and the US. The presentation all made sense to me and was consistent with the kinds of things we would have said if it were Gail giving a seminar for Blue North. As part of the session we did a breakout and I was with people from the Netherlands and Norway. They were shocked by the session and said it was not very applicable to their context. They went on to talk about tax rates and government support in their countries, and about how donors do not like to be recognized nor do they give very large gifts because it would be culturally insensitive to those unable to give in that manner. Hmmm.

At the end of the day I talked with Moustapha Mikaty the Head of Communications and Development for the Arab Human Rights Fund based in Lebanon. He told me that although Arabs give very generously to those in need as part of their faith (whether Muslim or Christian) giving to human rights charities is simply not done, and for many even forbidden by their faith interpretation. As a result he said he felt about 50% of the conference was applicable to him.

Two very different conversations, one very clear theme.

This got me thinking about our work in Canada and the US, two extremely multi-cultural countries. Donors in those countries bring their cultural traditions with them, yet we treat them all in a very ‘North American’ way. I think of my friend Jeff Lee from Wycliffe who is a major gift fundraiser that focuses all his efforts in the Asian community. He will plainly tell you that you are missing opportunities by treating all donors the same and ignoring cultural realities.

What percentage of our files are we missing, frustrating, shocking or offending but treating them in a monocultural way? There might just be something to think about there.

Cam

 “The days of giving large sums of money away are done. It just doesn’t happen anymore” says Doug Balfour, CEO of Geneva Global. I had lunch with Doug today and his thoughts were consistent with other private philanthropic leaders at the conference. Geneva Global builds and manages large scale philanthropic funds for high net worth philanthropists and charitable foundations. Doug emphasized the point that Major Donors are looking for partnership and involvement and that organizations unwilling to allow for that involvement simply will not benefit from the funds that are available.

Robert van der Laan, Director of PWC’s charitable foundation, agreed. He said that “The first meeting I have with a partner is to figure out whether that partner is willing and able to discuss OUR (PWC’s) strategy. If they are coming to ask for money, the answer will be no.” He went on to say that many of the charities he meets with mean well but have no clue how to discuss their strategy, those charities he emphasized, leave with nothing.

More than ever, as government dollars dwindle, Corporate, Foundation, and Major Donor resources are available and out there. But; the rules have clearly changed. Private funders require both participation and that their expertise is part of the solution. P&G calls their extensive Pampers brand partnership with UNICEF ‘Doing well while doing good.’ They know that UNICEF does a tremendous amount of good, and they feel that they can help them do a better job of it by bringing business skills to the table. Geneva Capital’s funds sometimes even go to the next level, using their extensive field expertise, they will at times design the solution and go out to find implementation partners.

Skype is yet another great example. They do a lot of philanthropic work, but they are not looking for opportunities to give money but to leverage their technology to help organizations expand their impact. Antoine Bertout is Skype’s Luxemburg based Partner Relations Manager and he said “tell us what you want to do with Skype and maybe we can help. We love challenges.” He spoke of examples of using Skype technology to raise money, raise awareness and rally audiences.

I’ve said more times than I can count that fundraising is about relationships. There are no exceptions. Major private funding requires more than an ask, it requires you to enter into a relationship. The thing with a true relationship is that you need to go in willing to be changed, to learn, to improve.

So here’s the rub.

While I’d be hard pressed to get anyone to admit it, most charities love corporate dollars but feel a little gross about the ‘dancing with the devil’ that is required in order to get them. In the past it has been a matter of plugging your nose, swallowing a little crow, going in and acting nice in order to get the cash. It’s harder now, in order to capitalize on the opportunity, the social sector needs to go in with an open mind, and be ready to engage in new ways with corporate partners. Yes partners.

Cam

As we sat down and started talking she told me ‘You know it’s really hard to start something new.  All kinds of natural forces are working against you. It is way easier to take two established entities that are already working and figure out what they can do for each other.’ I asked her how strategic she was about researching and identifying partners. She almost blushed and said that she has a really big network and she has had the best success just sitting with a senior person going through each company’s strengths and challenges in order to find ways to help each other out. Rarely, she told me do you leave a meeting without an opportunity to partner.

Partnering.

The most successful partnership organization I know in the fundraising space is the Children’s Miracle Network. I recently talked with Wally Edwards from CMN. He told me that most non-profits simply do not get it when it comes to corporate engagement. Sure you can go to a corporation and ask for their philanthropic dollars and you may even get some. But that is missing the real opportunity. You need to look for areas where both sides win. It’s not about asking for money. It’s about offering the organization exposure, leveraging their retail or client channels to raise money that may not even come from the organizational budget, and all the while doing good in the world. Some CMN examples that raise millions of dollars are:

• Dairy Queen Miracle Treat Day – one day of the year blizzard sales go to CMN
• Re/Max Month of Miracles – $25 from home sales go to CMN

I think when partnering the biggest mistake organizations make is trying to be too strategic with the fit. Sure there are some matches that are just meant to be but they don’t need to obvious to work. Take a tip from my friend; build on connections not the obvious. What does selling a home have to do with sick children?

Like everyone I am exposed to promotions and advertising every day all day. Even with this steady barrage two times this week I was stopped in my tracks as a result of effective non-profit partnerships. The first seemed obvious and the other less so.

1. I was at a local Mega Church on Sunday and the Pastor, in the middle of his sermon, started talking about his heart for children around the world and how Compassion International was the organization he believed was best able to help. After the service I did the research to find that Compassion had a long-standing partnership with this Church.
2. I love the San Francisco Giants. On the weekend I noticed advertisements on their website promoting a partnership with International Justice Mission. They were offering tickets to special events at an upcoming game. No obvious connection, but because I love the Giants, along with gazillions of other fans, I now am looking more closely at the work of IJM

In both of these cases the power is found by connecting something I like and trust to a non-profit I am not currently supporting. A certain amount of the fondness and trust transfers. This is the power of partnerships.

Organizational leaders are driven to do the things they are not good at.

I met with one client who was bemoaning the fact that their average donor age was 63. They were compelled to develop tools and programs that attracted younger donors.

I met with another client that has a great mass and mid donor program but virtually no major donors; they wanted to talk about building a major donor program.

I met with yet another that had the opposite problem, a small loyal major donor base and no monthly giving mass donors. They wanted to build out a mass level monthly giving program.

I get it. You naturally go to the ‘holes’ in your system when you are looking to grow. It makes intuitive sense. In every one of the cases I outlined above however it wasn’t going to get them what they were looking for.

As a long term strategy it makes sense to build out a more robust and complete program. If, however, you are looking to increase short-term revenue, quite likely the most successful approach will be to build on the great work you are already doing. Find out who loves you now and go get more of them. Going out in the cold and building a brand new program, changing your internal culture along the way is tough work. I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m saying it’s not a short term strategy.

If you’re looking to do something fairly fast, take an asset inventory – look at what you’re best at and do more of it.

As a fundraising leader from one of America’s largest and oldest agencies told me ‘sure our base is 65 and over. You know what? Almost everybody is going to be 65 and over at some point, and during the next 20 years there will be more of them than ever before. I’m not going to invest millions in attracting young folks with no money. When people turn 65 however, I want them to be thinking about us.’

It features a bold, stark photo, with colours fading to black and white, and three children looking directly at you. In the headline, in vivid red, is the word that sums it all up: Malaria.

This 2011 mailing informed donors about how a single mosquito buzzing in the nighttime can end a child’s life. The mailing appealed to donors to help prevent the deaths of children in African communities—and eventually eliminate malaria as a threat to children’s lives and health.

Want to find out more? Visit www.worldvision.org/EliminateMalaria