How should you court a major donor?

Most solvent nonprofits today have long since gotten over the idea that they can exist solely on income from grants. They have developed a diverse funding strategy that accesses funding from various sources, and that often includes major donors.

So what is a major donor?

There is no hard monetary definition of a major donation.  For one organization it might be $1,000, while another may define a major donor as anyone donating over $10K or even $50K.

Of far more importance is the connection, the relationship if you will, of the donor to your organization.

Developing a major donor is not about a predator-prey relationship. It is about developing long-term friendships that can result in contributions to your income stream.

All nonprofits struggle with maintaining a minimum constant income stream. Whether that's $5,000 or $500 million, the income has to at least equal the outgo. Grants are nice, but they don't last. Even fee-for-service or fee-for-performance government contracts or grants have a fairly short life cycle.

Major donors on the other hand can remain interested and involved in your organization for a lifetime.

When I review a new client's revenue sources,  I look for evidence that they have major donors, or at least someone who could become a major donor.  That's why I strongly recommend that you record every donor's contact information, even if their donation is well under the threshold that requires you to give them a receipt.

Let's say you receive a new donation from someone prominent in your community. It's only $50, but hey, it's nice to know they've noticed you.

If you stop there, you could be throwing away a chance to make a long-term friend for your nonprofit.

That person could be a candidate for your major donor database. So, what now?

Of course you want to acknowledge the gift, but you should be doing that for every donor. How do you move beyond the pro forma receipt?

One way is to add a little something extra.  Write a nice letter of thanks, and include some additional information on your program or organization. Invite them to a meeting or a tour of your facility.

Take some time to research the person. If you have any people in common, you might mention that connection. Perhaps they have a personal connection to your mission, such as a family member who once needed the type of help you offer. Or you might invite them to your next event.

Don't get too pushy.  People with money have heard every pitch there is from people and organizations that want to relieve them of some of it. Concentrate on developing a relationship.

One strategy is to develop a list of major donor prospects and send them a special newsletter or invitation to an event. It's not that they won't understand the motivation behind the invite, but if it's done tastefully and the event (or the other attendees) piques some interest for them, they may show up.

Look for areas of common interest.  Maybe someone on your board also serves on a board with the prospect. Perhaps you belong to the same gym or country club. Look for ways to connect where you can share more information on your mission and goals.

In some cases, it might be wise to wait and see if they donate again, which can show some genuine interest in your mission.

In short, you have to do the same things you would do to cultivate any other relationship.  Building rapport and mutual respect will benefit everyone. 

Startup cash - networking for support

Search online for "nonprofit startup funding", and you'll get lots of results from well-known players in the field as well as articles from prestigious universities and publications.

The common thread is that you aren't going to access funding from one of the large foundations. In the beginning this is definitely a  DIY project.

Nearly all of these searches are going to emphasize you almost literally have to be a door-to-door salesperson.

Of course today that also means social networking, but regardless of how you do it you have to start with one-on-one contact. Checks don't write themselves.

One of the currently popular ways to raise capital is through some type of crowdfunding. It's relatively inexpensive to do, and some of the results are staggeringly successful.

What all of these campaigns have in common is viewer participation and that comes from awareness.

 

That means you have to do something to  generate interest.

 

That could mean latching onto a current news story. Remember the business owner in Ferguson MO whose business was trashed so badly she thought she might have to close for good? She got so many contributions from a GoFundMe campaign that she is going to be able to help other businesses that suffered after their businesses were trashed. That campaign leveraged the national media attention on the underlying issue.

Or maybe you have a few dozen followers on your Facebook page that already have an interest in what you do. You can ask them to tweet out a call for supporters interested in learning more about your cause.

Local papers are usually looking for community or local area news.  Find out who is bylining those stories and let them know you have some news for them. It helps if you already have a fundraising campaign in place.  Be sure you let the interviewer know how people can help.

If your nonprofit targets an area or problem that has already been in the news recently, be sure you let the reporter know.  After all, it could turn into a series of articles for them.

And of course there is your board of directors. Each one of them probably has a social media or community presence as well.

Attracting startup nonprofit cash is about building relationships. Relationships require connecting to someone. Check out these two messages.

Both use a picture of a little dog. One says "Local group wants to build no-kill animal shelter"  The other one says "Without your help, Fido will die on Friday".  Which one do you think people are going to click on?

If you need help designing a campaign or appeal for startup funding, drop me a line at rightwords@ida.net. It's what I do.

 ©2015 – Rebecca Lee Baisch  

Can your nonprofit apply for grants?

To most of the public, the definition of a nonprofit or charity  is the one used to describe 501(c)(3) organizations. In other words, organizations that solicit and spend tax-exempt and  tax deductible funds "for the public good."

Actually there are several subsections of section 501, and how you file your initial paperwork can substantially change the funding landscape for you.

For some of the differences, check out this chart.

Lately, I have run into several organizations self-described as foundations and approved as 501(c)(4) entities that want to apply for grants from other foundations.

In most cases, I don't quite understand why they chose that subsection to file under, but that's a topic for another post.

If you are wondering "what's the difference, we are still a charity " then you might not understand why foundations reject your grant applications and donors don't support you.

 One major difference is that donations to a (c)4 are not tax deductible, and you are legally required to state that fact prominently on all your publications asking for support.

While tax deductibility in and of itself is not the major reason people donate, the lack of that component can lead casual donors to question whether their money will be used for charitable purposes or political lobbying.

As far as major foundation and corporate donors are concerned, the (c)4 can legally only access funds from other charitable organizations under certain well-defined conditions.

That means that (c)4's are far more dependent on developing their donor base one-on-one than their (c)3 counterparts, meaning that grants are usually not part of the fund-raising equation.

Fundraising for a (c)4 may involve more donor education to attract individual donors.

Particularly since the flap about the IRS targeting (c)4's for their political activities, donors need to be told why your foundation is problem-centered rather than politically centered, assuming of course that is the case.

Other types of fundraising that are typically more productive are things like black-tie events, one-on-one donor meetings, social media campaigns, website donation capability, direct mail, phone campaigns  and email solicitations.

You can combine events with a (c)3, as long as the donations are clearly separated. You can rent an email-list from (c)3's, but it must be rented at fair market value (typically .10 to .40 cents per name).

If your mission and that of a public charity are aligned in some way (for instance a research mission to find a cure for cancer could combine with a public charity seeking funds for respite care for cancer victim caretakers),  the (c)3 might welcome your participation.

A major donor cultivation program is essential to access larger lump-sum donations. Just be aware that currently donors are limited to a $13,000 a year limit.

It is absolutely essential that your board participate in fundraising efforts. Even more than usual, (c)4 fundraising is more about who you know than what you know.

Some (c)4's are spin-offs from(c)3's and vice versa. If your organization is having a lot of trouble fundraising, you might want to consider converting to or adding a (c)3, again assuming that your primary mission is not political. 

The questions you're asking.

Sometimes a lot of question topics I receive start to repeat themselves, so to cover more of them for more readers, here is a round-up from the last few weeks.

Q. How can I get a stable income for my nonprofit administrative expenses?

A. The only way to have a reasonably secure source of nontaxable income is to have a product or service that you sell that aligns with your mission. For instance, healthcare related organizations generally contract with a government agency to provide services paid by Medicare, Medicaid or a state or city department of health. Community organizations might have a thrift shop. After-school government-funded programs may utilize nonprofits as paid caregivers. In some cases, and assuming a large enough base, you might try a membership model with the dues being allocated to general support (must elect this when applying for IRS determination).

Alternatively, if you are in a position to pay the upfront costs, some larger NPO's rely on one or two large fundraisers each year.

Q. I want to start a nonprofit, but I hate fundraising. Can't I just apply for grants?

A. Even grants are a form of fundraising, but in the practical sense, if you hate fundraising then you need to recruit people for your board or as volunteers that love it. Nonprofits spend a lot of time (as much as 40 to 60% in the early years) securing funding, and grants are a small percentage of the total. Grant income during your first two to five years is likely to be very small, and it's nonexistent during the first year. Nationwide, grants only comprise about 12-14% of all nonprofit income. That makes ongoing fundraising a necessity.

Q.  I keep applying for grants but I either never hear back or they reject me. What am I doing wrong?

A.  Grant applications are usually not funded for one of three reasons. One, your organization goals are not closely related to those of the grantor. Two, you are not in their geographic focus area. Three, your proposal doesn't show why you would be the best choice for success of the grantor' s mission. Of the three, it is the last that usually gets a " thanks but no thanks" response. Very new or very small organizations often aim for very large grants, but are not prepared or able to deliver the level of results the grantor expects. And of course sometimes they just run out of money before they get to your needs. If allowed, I would definitely try to contact the organizations and get feedback on your application.

Q. It seems like every foundation doesn't accept applications. Why are they in business if they don't want to make grants?

A. To a large extent, this is the result of oversupply in the nonprofit market. Simply put, there are too few foundations trying to fund far too many nonprofits. Sometimes it is due to adverse economic conditions, and they are putting their grant-making on hold until their funding catches up. Other times they have simply become comfortable with the grantees they already know, or the staff is overwhelmed with the sheer volume of responses to an open application period.

Q. I applied for a business start-up loan from my bank, but they told me my financial projections (in my business plan) are unrealistic. They're projections!  To me that means my best guess. What now?

A. Without seeing the plan, I can't comment specifically. However, typically I would expect that they were either based on insufficient real data (market research, competitive stresses) or you were too optimistic regarding your growth. I would ask if you can meet with the bank's development officer or loan manager and ask for clarification. If that isn't possible, then you need to have the plan reviewed by a knowledgeable third party. If you are projecting growth rates in the first two or three years outside the norm of 10-30% a year, and can justify that, it could even work for you instead of against you.

Have a question?  Drop me a line at rightwords@ida.net, I'll answer it and maybe even use it as a topic for a future post (without using your name, of course!).

Promoting your nonprofit

Unlike a famous movie line, just because you build it doesn't mean they will come. "They" being the donors you need to attract to actually make your nonprofit dream a reality.

Just like any other small business, you need to convince people you may not even know to spend money to support you, or rather, your mission. So, how do you do that? Especially when as a new charity, you can't qualify for most grants?

You must have a webpage, but you still need people to visit it. How do you drive traffic to your site and hopefully to your "Donate Now" button?

Well, you could advertise, but advertising costs money, sometimes a lot of money. Even a business card size ad in your local paper or a 30-second spot on your local TV station can cost you a few thousand dollars a year. However, many media outlets have public service requirements to fill, so traditional advertising is still possible.

Of course there is always social media. Lots of nonprofits have Facebook pages, but they don't typically generate many dollars, and they don't attract many new faces. Facebookers are generally talking to people who already know them. On the other hand, those people also know people that they can bring to your cause.

Twitter can be a way to attract new blood, provided you understand that the response will be to "hashtag-their interests." If they don't know you, then a key phrase that targets their interest will be far more effective than "hashtag-your charity's name."

Then there is the oft-dreaded personal interaction. Speaking at meetings, attending stuffy events, or even volunteering creates personal connections. While it isn't quite the same as door-to-door sales, sometimes it feels that way.

The point of all advertising to reach people. People are the conduit to the funding that supports  your nonprofit.

To that end, try all of these strategies. Some will work better than others, and then you can refine your campaign. But you can't succeed without reaching out, no matter how awesome your mission statement sounds.

One emerging form of fundraising is crowdfunding. As it becomes more well-known, a lot of nonprofits are posting on sites like Kickstarter, Indiegogo or StartSomeGood.com and a lot of them are not meeting their goals.

The one thing that all of these sites require is that you have a network or nucleus of supporters. People aren't logging on to their computers every morning and typing "find an awesome nonprofit I can donate to". You have to have people that will not only start the ball rolling by donating, but reach out to their friends and direct them to your campaign.

Start developing your PR strategy now, build your network, and the funding end of things will become a lot simpler. Need more information?  Email me at rightwords@ida.net and we'll talk!

More on Nonprofit Crowdfunding – Is it leaving the little guy out?

In  my September 13, 2013 post, Crowdfunding for Nonprofits - Hype or Hope, I presented an overview of this form of funding development. This follow-up offers a more in-depth look at how the process is evolving to provide better structure, protection and validation for both donors and nonprofits and some of the pitfalls of that process, particularly for smaller organizations.

The visible problem  

In the above post, after viewing some of the websites catering to this funding model I stated:

 " There didn't seem to be a lot of vetting of the projects and nonprofits for the donor's peace of mind. In some cases, there was no way for the donors to receive an accounting for whether the money actually resulted in tangible gains or completed projects."

Apparently I wasn't the only one who spotted this weak spot. Now there are various approaches to deal with it.

Anything that deals with collecting and spending OPM (other people's money) is generally viewed with some reservations by would-be supporters. There is a good reason why the California legislature is moving forward to pass a law to crack down on what they see as fraudulent fundraising practices in the charity sector.

That's one way to approach the problems of donor exploitation. Another way is for the industry itself to define parameters by which such campaigns can be vetted. It's the old government vs. private enterprise argument. Should government impose a one-size-fits-all regulation, or can the industry police itself?

Public perception vs. reality

Nonprofits on the whole don't want to cheat anyone. Not the donors, not the beneficiaries of their goods or services, and certainly not the nonprofit community as a group. The problem is that one well-publicized bad apple experience taints the whole sector, and no one understands that better than the nonprofits themselves.

The public, perhaps naively but certainly vociferously, demands that nonprofits, like Caesar's wife, be above reproach. They might shrug off insider trading on Clorox as an isolated event, but just let a charity slip up once, and the whole sector gets a black eye.

Then there is the public perception of what constitutes charitable giving. The Nonprofit Times in an article published June 1, 2014 notes that  donors seem to be having trouble differentiating between funding and fundraising.

Measuring honesty

Legitimacy is the keyword, but to have legitimacy, you have to have a standard.

Enter the Accountability Review Wizard as designed and distributed by  the Charities Review Council. This tool seeks to bring uniformity and legitimacy to a rating and certification process.

In a April 16, 2014 posting on the hosting website, the Charities Review Council states that this is the only cloud-based risk and assessment tool currently available. In addition, they promise to provide resources to assist charities to advance to meet the optimum standards.

This fee-based service requires that the charity have the usual documents to verify organizational and financial  legitimacy, and seems fairly reasonably priced, at .02% of the organization's annual operating expenses, rather than total revenue, and ranges at present from $100 to $3,000. That should make it affordable even for smaller charities.

Arguably, someone should also address the vetting of the platforms on which campaigns are posted. Enter the Crowdfunding Bill of Rights developed and sponsored by David Neff and Miriam Kagan and profiled on the Kimbia.com website. For a more in-depth look at this proposed toolkit,  check out the entire article in The Nonprofit Times referenced above. While this is primarily slanted at the donor, it does peripherally note that the fees charged by some of the platforms are quite high.

All this is a step in the right direction. The internet has a well-deserved reputation as a hotbed of scammer activity. Anything that is perceived as or results in reducing the risk for donors or investors is surely better than nothing.

 Or is it?

Are we measuring the right things?

The one problem I see with all of this is the attempt to define what constitutes an acceptable level of administrative costs vs. program investment.

The California legislature ran into this problem when crafting their law. Originally they had a set-in-stone ratio of program spending vs. administrative and fundraising costs. After some educational meetings with nonprofits, they discarded that number.

The problem arises when looking at the vastly different mission requirement costs for nonprofits, and the public perception of what is "good".

No matter who or what agency tries to arrive at that figure, it is going to result in assigning an arbitrary number as the optimum standard. That number will then be the benchmark for the general public to judge which organizations are "good".

This isn't a new problem. Every nonprofit rating website has some sort of arbitrary standard they use to assess nonprofits. That can be anything from a cost ratio tied to the revenue figure of the organization to the dollar figure of the key personnel salaries.

The problem there is that it doesn't necessarily present a total picture of your organization.

A nonprofit delivering a healthcare service may have salary and labor costs in excess of 50% of their operating budget due to the legal requirements to employ highly-trained licensed professionals. A all-volunteer group that collects food, clothing or books for the underprivileged may not have any salary costs, but  does pay out a substantial portion of the budget for fundraising to purchase the items distributed. Very new organizations may have high initial development vs. program  costs.

The above-noted Accountability Review Wizard, as a part of their method to assign a rating, does attempt to address this by having a range of acceptable program spending levels from 65 to 90 percent,  but even in that framework, they suggest that a 90-10 ratio of program to administrative spending ratio is the most desirable.

That just seems to further the notion that all nonprofits have to be broke to be effective.

And therein lies the problem with crowdfunding, particularly if it is an all-online event.

The strategy, which is growing exponentially year-over-year in dollars invested in charitable giving, needs to be more about educating the public.

That doesn't mean that developing these benchmarking strategies is ineffectual or wrong. They just don't go far enough.

Is there a logical next step?

To address that shortcoming, if you think it is a shortcoming, the nonprofits themselves need to be actively involved in providing educational tools that go beyond dividing numbers attained from the 990 or the financial statements to arrive at ratios.

For instance, should the mid-six figure salary of a CEO whose organization requires the holder that position to have multiple master's or doctoral degrees be equated to the $10,000 salary of a  CEO who oversees a newly-formed  local conservation group? The former may only utilize 1% of the organizations funding, while the latter might currently account for 40% of the revenue. Do the ratios tell the whole story?

What's acceptable should be somehow tied to the type of nonprofit and it's relative chronological development as it relates to effectiveness.

In that way, a donor, whether through crowdfunding or more traditional avenues, could assess whether the effectiveness of the organization is improving with the modifiers of age, growth and revenue. Is bigger better?  Should donors fund  developing management expertise in favor of programs during the first five years of the nonprofit's existence?

What about you?

This is an area that the nonprofits would seem to have to move from passive acceptance of other's standards to active participants in shaping those standards. Larger organizations know that, and some of them are doing it, thereby shaping the dialogue.

Smaller and newer nonprofits have a stake in this too. Crowdfunding is evolving into something much larger than a simple social media posting event. The organizations that stand to benefit the most are the little guys, the ones that can't immediately access large grants.

Your messaging needs to address the issues being debated and codified on a national scale by these larger platforms. Even if you choose not to be evaluated, you ignore current trends in shaping public perception at your peril.

You are the folks that constantly contact me to bemoan the fact that you can't compete in the traditional grant marketplace. This is your chance to make the dialogue about effective outcomes, not financial ratios. Make the most of it.

If you need help crafting a message, contact me at granthelp@ida.net, or visit my website at http://www.cloudlancerwriting.com. 

Is your board helping you pay the bills?

Judging from the number of nonprofit founders that tell me they need a grant because they have maxed out their personal ability to support their nonprofit, I'd have to say the answer is a resounding "no".

In my white paper, "Climbing the Ladder to Nonprofit Success" (you can get a copy by requesting one here) I explain why depending on getting grants to start a nonprofit, or even winning grant funding in the first year or two, is not a very wise financial plan.

So where do you get your initial funding after you have put all the personal money you can afford into the mission? Normally, it is going to be from your board, your immediate friends and family, small local events or a combination of all three.

Everyone seems to get the friends and family and the small events part, but they don't want to make fundraising a board duty.

There will probably always be a philosophical discussion about whether to set fundraising goals for each board member. I don't understand why that is even a point for discussion.

Admittedly, many people start nonprofits and  ask people they know to be on the board, just to satisfy the legal requirement that they have a board. It is a good bet that some of the people they pick say something like "OK, but I won't have to do anything, right?"

 

Wrong.

The board should be initially a development group. First and foremost they should care passionately about accomplishing the mission, and believe that they can do it. Right after they affirm their allegiance to that idea, they need to understand that missions need money to succeed. Making the board an integral part of that aspect of being a nonprofit right at the start shouldn't be optional.

If founders would sit down and figure out how much money they need in the first two years, cross grants off the list of possible sources, and then approach perspective board members with a honest inquiry as to whether they can contribute to the organization, or at the very least, be willing to go out individually and raise funds to meet those goals, there would be fewer failing nonprofits.

When someone asks me to write a grant and then says the organization is essentially a one-man or woman show, I know that no matter what I do, the grant thing isn't going to happen. That just isn't a model that grantors can support.

Increasingly, prospective funders are starting to ask for a statement as to how much money the board members contribute personally to the organization. At the very least, they may ask for the amount the board as a whole has personally contributed in the past year.

The reasoning behind that question is first, to judge how committed  the board  is to the organization's survival and whether they are taking personal responsibility to ensure that success. Second, if all they see is zeroes or a few dollars from each board member, it tells them that the organizational strength may not be good enough for them to trust with their money. Third, they want to know that the nonprofit has enough reasonably stable funding to stay in business.

Underlying all of those questions is another big one…if your board doesn't support the nonprofit financially, why should anyone else do so?

Many more funding sources are starting to require proof of matching funds before they will fund a program, or they are making an award into a challenge grant. Very new nonprofits usually have a tough time with that, but if the board is willing and able to gather a few thousand dollars toward that requirement, it can open the door to more funding.

For those that feel that accepting board members on the basis of their ability to contribute monetarily leaves out  some otherwise well-qualified prospects, then consider setting a fundraising goal for those worthy but financially challenged people. If asking them to go out and solicit donations puts them off, they will probably never be fully committed in other areas either.

Like it or not, your organization will always be chasing the next dollar. If your board is so passive that they can ignore that immutable fact, it is probably the wrong board.

Having this conversation with your board can be tricky. You don't want to start off by saying "OK, you lazy pot-lickers, it's time to pony up", even if that's the way you feel. Sometimes all board members need is a firm goal to chase instead of a never-ending whine about how broke you are, and they will amaze you. By setting an attainable goal for board contributions, you maximize the chance that they will put some effort into reaching it.

If you aren't sure how to have this conversation with your existing board, or frame it in a recruiting pitch, drop me a line and I can help you present it in a firm but non-accusatory manner. 

Creative grant writing - are you selling a zebra?

Grant applications are essentially tools for selling your nonprofit mission to donors. One of the phrases I see often in RFP's or advertisements for grant writing help is this one:

"…seeking creative writer to apply for grants"

That should  mean that the client wants someone to frame their existing message in a fresh, compelling, interesting  way.

Unfortunately, experience has taught me that clients advertising this way want a bit more than that. These advertisers might just as well say "Need fiction writer".

Let's look at the difference. Let's say you want to describe a zebra you really, really need to sell to someone that wants to buy a pony for their child, but really doesn't know much about horses or ponies. Seems easy, right?

One way could be to say:

"Zebras are black-and-white striped animals that live in Africa."  That's not creative or very informative, but it's true.

An alternate creatively written description could read:

"Zebras are undomesticated members of the horse family, and are native to Africa. Their typical black and white striped coats are easily identified at zoos and wild animal preserves. Unlike their domesticated relatives, zebras are seldom tamed or trained for riding or driving. Since both people and large carnivores prey upon them as a food source, they are highly defensive and can disable even a lion with a well-aimed kick. While most members of the horse family are tractable with proper training, zebras have a well-deserved reputation for retaining their wild characteristics even under trained professional handling."

That's all true too, but it is more informative, gives some insight into their temperament ,and even a hint as to why they have that temperament.  Even if you know nothing about equines you can deduce that this is probably not the pony of your child's dreams.

What happens when you add fiction into the mix?  Well, you get something like this.

"Zebras are Africa's answer to the beautiful Arabian horse. Their elegant black-and-white striped coats make them attractive and they are gentle and willing to please."

Paints quite a different picture doesn't it? There is a kernel of truth there, but if you were looking for a pet pony for your kid, you would  be terribly misled and have possibly tragic results if you bought into the fictional zebra description.

Grant applications need to portray your organization in a compelling, yet truthful way. Claiming outcomes  you can't prove or citing financial records that don't exist will not get you a huge grant award. Grantors do their due diligence before handing out money, and once they discover that your zebra is actually a wild animal and  not a pet, you not only won't get the grant, you will be forever branded as a liar. Even if you later acquire the most wonderful kid's pony in the world, everyone will remember your zebra.

I'm a pretty darn good writer, but if you hire me,  even I can't turn your zebra into a pony.

Making donors feel special as your organization grows.

Donor retention is and has always been a problem for nonprofits. Every major nonprofit advisory organization is advising that donor retention should be on every nonprofits list of top three things to do in 2014. Blackbaud's 2012 statistical giving report states that small nonprofits were far ahead of their large counterparts in that category, increasing their overall giving by 7.3% in 2012.

I believe that trend can be attributed to the fact that smaller organizations tend to have more of a personal relationship with donors. It's easier for their donors to connect with them, and vice-versa. They have missions that more directly impact their donors. It's easier for interested prospective donors to go to meetings or attend events to support a local charity than to go to a gala event clear across the country.

The trick seems to be in retaining that sense of small-town camaraderie as the organization grows. Online fundraising seems to be gaining ground, growing by 11% on 2012, but along with that, donors report that they feel more remote from the organization. The more the organization grows, the more likely it becomes that it will lose that personal interaction.

Many organizations maintain a social media presence, but is that really what donors want?  Expecting donors to "like" you or retweet you is not the same thing as interacting with them on a more personal level. Anyone can read a Facebook posting or a tweet, but they have to initiate the contact.

As far as it goes, macro-connecting at that level is useful, but it tends to fully engage only those people who are already closely connected to the organization as volunteers or staff. Donors say that expecting them to go to a Facebook page really isn't very personal.

The most common reason given for not giving repeat donations is that the donor didn't feel appreciated. The larger the organization gets, the harder it is to maintain that one-on-one relationship with donors.

One way to overcome that feeling of rejection is to keep donors in the loop with a blog or a print or e-newsletter targeted only to donors. Please don't equate that with an appeal letter. These forms of communication should convey a feeling of " You are special and we really appreciate you!". Your purpose should be about replicating that feeling of small town intimacy, not sticking your hand out in every post or newsletter.

To be useful, these communications need to offer more than just an instant replay of a social media posting. Those are nice, but should be expanded upon in blog or newsletter communications.

Perhaps the blog or newsletter could educate donors about exactly what you did with their money last month. Perhaps there was a particularly touching story that you can share only with donors, or if you deal with complex issues, you can offer educational content to further emphasize why continued support is needed.

For-profits understand that keeping customers and buyers engaged is an important part of staying profitable, and they use CRM, or Customer Relationship Management techniques to keep their customers engaged, i.e. to keep their business top-of-mind with their customers.

Donor retention is exactly the same theory. You want to stay connected, or at least be the first thing the donor thinks of when they think about your mission focus. That way, when the inevitable appeal for donations does go out, it won't have the feel of a panhandler on a street corner.

Far less expensive and certainly more personal than traditional media campaigns, targeted blogs and newsletters are a great tool to keep those donors you worked so hard to get, firmly in your corner.

©2014 Rebecca L. Baisch

###

Need help designing or maintaining a donor connection campaign?  I can help you. For more information, drop me a line at granthelp@ida.net