Media Management and crisis communications are jobs usually reserved for the comms manager rather than the fundraising manager but it's certainly something we all need to be aware of. A very minimum requirement is that the organisation should have a risk management plan that includes fundraising issues.
Recently in Australia, as was reported in a recent issue of Fundraising New Zealand, a news media reporter registered and attended the annual fundraising conference. Surely this would be a good thing? At long last the public would hear of our good planning, our donor stewardship, our love of people, our great success at our chosen profession and all the good we are doing for the community. Oh no, from the public point of view we were presented as cold, calculating and money hungry! How could this be?
The worst headlines came from a session on bequests. A few unfortunate jokes (you can imagine what they might be!) cracked by a presenter were used to demonstrate how callous our fundraising strategies might be.
So we need to think carefully about how we present ourselves at all times. Ditch the jokes, however internally they may be intended! Remember at all times that our donors are amongst us. Remember the higher calling of our profession and that what we do is a wonderful thing.
Our own Fundraising Institute, along with the FIA, is looking at media management. Currently there is little budget for media work. But our professional reputation is important so we should be supporting our professional body to represent us. We need to let Council know that this is an important issue and that we support budget going towards media management.
In your own organisations make sure you are prepared for media crises. Identify the potential issues, how things may be interpreted, the questions the media may ask. Prepare answers and decide who will represent you to the media. Make sure everyone knows who has the media speaking rights. Only one person should speak for all. Make sure they are trained. Yes, its expensive but it's an investment for your brand. Perhaps your corporate partners will help you with this. You may be able to attend media training courses for their staff at no additional cost. Finally ensure you have contact details for all important stakeholders so you can alert them to any upcoming headlines.
Let's hope its something you don't ever need but better to be ready, than lost!
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
National Charities Beware - Gaming funds will be off the table!
At the FINZ Conference Trevor Garret of the Charities Commission reminded us to have a look at the amendments to the Fair Trading Act which include the Amy Adams proposal. This one certainly bears a look. It all started the year before last when Amy Adams proposed that charities should be challenged to notify donors about the cost of fundraising.
The second Bill we need to be aware of is the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill proposed by Te Ururoa Flavell. Again this has been around for some time but it has now passed its first reading by 83 to 7. Winston Peters is the only name of note opposing it largely because it removes racing as an authorised purpose.
So what is the purpose?
The aim of this Bill is to enable “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. The Bill also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and “proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking and pre-commit cards
From an outside point of view this Bill be supported by a large number of charities but there are some drawbacks as I shall explain. The Bill proposes that territorial authorities will replace gaming societies as the arbiter of who gets the funds. Societies will no longer exist and each local council will instead appoint a committee of local people to make local decisions. At least eighty percent of the funds raised will go to local worthy causes.
So my question one is what happens to national applications. The Bill is only 11 pages long and I cannot find any positive explanation of how national charities could apply. So national fundraisers beware. You will have to apply to about 65 local body councils to get funds for a national project and then you will have to show how it's being spent in each council area.
For local organisations I see no particular benefit. Societies will be replaced by councils but there is nothing to say that the fund distribution committee will be anymore supportive of your group than any other. In fact if someone on this committee doesn't like your work (or you personally) there will be nowhere else to turn! At least at the moment you can find differing opinions by going to different gaming machine societies. If you don't succeed with one, you can at least try your luck (Ha!Ha!) with another. Under the proposed legislation you will be stuck with only one local funder. This actually gives amazing power to a few appointed people in your community. Too much power I would advocate! And remember if these people are appointees, they will change with every local government election. If your politics don't fit - all of you will be out!
I have to declare my personal interest here. I am an elected member of a licensing trust which has a class four gaming licence. We are established to support our local community which is a more restricted area than our local council covers. Under the proposed changes our gaming funds will be added to a pool for the entire area, thus having the opposite effect than the Flavell Bill intends. So in our case, our very local community will suffer as we're taken over by the big boys!
I'm also unsure how the local council will cope with responsibilities of owning/managing and supervising gambling in their communities. They are not going to be funded to run pokie venues. They don't have the ability to create economies of scale like the societies have done. They don't have specialist staff - they will need to recruit managers and inspectors. They will need to create mechanisms for appointing (and perhaps paying) community representatives and while this may sound like a great job, realistically would local people want to be held responsible for approving and declining funding for organisations and people that they know very well! Corruption is just as feasible in this scenario as it is with gaming societies.
So where is the good news?
This will benefit some very local charities who will have the opportunity to lobby very local representatives. Full stop! I can't really see anything else. I don't advocate that our current system is perfect but nor do I see this as a reasonable alternative.
Be aware, be very, very, very aware of all the implications and remember that it was passed on first reading 83 to 7!!!!!
The second Bill we need to be aware of is the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill proposed by Te Ururoa Flavell. Again this has been around for some time but it has now passed its first reading by 83 to 7. Winston Peters is the only name of note opposing it largely because it removes racing as an authorised purpose.
So what is the purpose?
The aim of this Bill is to enable “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. The Bill also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and “proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking and pre-commit cards
From an outside point of view this Bill be supported by a large number of charities but there are some drawbacks as I shall explain. The Bill proposes that territorial authorities will replace gaming societies as the arbiter of who gets the funds. Societies will no longer exist and each local council will instead appoint a committee of local people to make local decisions. At least eighty percent of the funds raised will go to local worthy causes.
So my question one is what happens to national applications. The Bill is only 11 pages long and I cannot find any positive explanation of how national charities could apply. So national fundraisers beware. You will have to apply to about 65 local body councils to get funds for a national project and then you will have to show how it's being spent in each council area.
For local organisations I see no particular benefit. Societies will be replaced by councils but there is nothing to say that the fund distribution committee will be anymore supportive of your group than any other. In fact if someone on this committee doesn't like your work (or you personally) there will be nowhere else to turn! At least at the moment you can find differing opinions by going to different gaming machine societies. If you don't succeed with one, you can at least try your luck (Ha!Ha!) with another. Under the proposed legislation you will be stuck with only one local funder. This actually gives amazing power to a few appointed people in your community. Too much power I would advocate! And remember if these people are appointees, they will change with every local government election. If your politics don't fit - all of you will be out!
I have to declare my personal interest here. I am an elected member of a licensing trust which has a class four gaming licence. We are established to support our local community which is a more restricted area than our local council covers. Under the proposed changes our gaming funds will be added to a pool for the entire area, thus having the opposite effect than the Flavell Bill intends. So in our case, our very local community will suffer as we're taken over by the big boys!
I'm also unsure how the local council will cope with responsibilities of owning/managing and supervising gambling in their communities. They are not going to be funded to run pokie venues. They don't have the ability to create economies of scale like the societies have done. They don't have specialist staff - they will need to recruit managers and inspectors. They will need to create mechanisms for appointing (and perhaps paying) community representatives and while this may sound like a great job, realistically would local people want to be held responsible for approving and declining funding for organisations and people that they know very well! Corruption is just as feasible in this scenario as it is with gaming societies.
So where is the good news?
This will benefit some very local charities who will have the opportunity to lobby very local representatives. Full stop! I can't really see anything else. I don't advocate that our current system is perfect but nor do I see this as a reasonable alternative.
Be aware, be very, very, very aware of all the implications and remember that it was passed on first reading 83 to 7!!!!!
Sunday, May 13, 2012
FINZ conference 2012
Just come back from the FINZ Conference held at Waipuna last week. Great line up of speakers, exhibitors and attendees. Over fifty percent were new attendees which shows some activity in the profession. International guests included Sandy Rees, Stephen Pidgeon and James Greenfield. Sandy invites people to register for her enewsletter. Sean Trinor, who hasn't missed a conference in years, was also (as usual) a popular speaker.
Awards were won by such diverse organisations as Rural Women and Ronald McDonald House Canterbury through to the Cancer Society for their relationship with ANZ National Bank.
Frank Claridge won the Henry A Rosso Award for his contribution to the profession. I became a Fellow for my contribution the Institute and the sector. Wow that was a special moment! I need to change my cards!
We had some good discussions on topics such as whether it was appropriate to take government money, through to what are the attributes of high performing fundraisers and whether they are a liability or an asset. I know which one I think is right!
Keith Dignan once again shared some fantastic statistical insights into telemarketing. A morning tea with James Greenfield persuaded me that we do need to take a lot of notice of financial reporting requirements. Breakfast with our good friend Trevor Garrett from the Charities Commission warned us about the update to the Fair Trading Act which would require charities to report on cost of fundraising. We will have to up the ante on our reporting if that is passed. It's already moving through the process. Remember this was the Amy Adams proposal from a few years ago. It didn't go away.
Awards were won by such diverse organisations as Rural Women and Ronald McDonald House Canterbury through to the Cancer Society for their relationship with ANZ National Bank.
Frank Claridge won the Henry A Rosso Award for his contribution to the profession. I became a Fellow for my contribution the Institute and the sector. Wow that was a special moment! I need to change my cards!
We had some good discussions on topics such as whether it was appropriate to take government money, through to what are the attributes of high performing fundraisers and whether they are a liability or an asset. I know which one I think is right!
Keith Dignan once again shared some fantastic statistical insights into telemarketing. A morning tea with James Greenfield persuaded me that we do need to take a lot of notice of financial reporting requirements. Breakfast with our good friend Trevor Garrett from the Charities Commission warned us about the update to the Fair Trading Act which would require charities to report on cost of fundraising. We will have to up the ante on our reporting if that is passed. It's already moving through the process. Remember this was the Amy Adams proposal from a few years ago. It didn't go away.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Blackbaud Index of Charitable Giving
The latest Blackbaud survey of charitable giving shows that fundraising in the US has returned to pre-recession levels. In fact it has above the level of giving last seen in 2007.
My gut reaction, because we don't keep regular statistics in this way, is that New Zealand's donation levels will be fairly static across the board but increased for emergency causes such as the Canterbury earthquake.
Blackbaud is able to gather such significant statistics because it runs a benchmarking product with regular subscribers. The benchmarking product is available in New Zealand but there are insufficient subscribers to create a regional group.
Otherwise we are reliant on the annual statistics collected by the Charities Commission, which of course, relate to the previous financial year.
The appetite for measurement and evaluation of one' s success is poor. There are few organisations that I talk to that want to invest in benchmarking. Chief executives don't understand enough about fundraising to know that the service is available and fundraisers may not want to put their efforts to the test.
For a number of organisations that I've come across the job descriptions don't specify the actual financial targets, even when a performance bonus is part of the remuneration. So why would these organisations be interested in benchmarking?
I talked recently to a senior fundraiser in a well known organisation who was struggling to satisfy a new CEO who was setting objectives. I had a look at what the CEO had proposed. There was no simple financial target. Instead a list of wishy, washy, unmeasurable challenges. The CEO called an emergency meeting, without consulting the fundraiser and announced that the organisation was in a poor financial position. Feeling very miffed, the fundraiser resigned. Later I did some research on the organisation. Its bequest income was very successful and the organisation would be held up as a model for its active bequest strategy. The results found through the Charities Commission register showed the organisation to be doing well. This is obviously a justification for benchmarking but without any comparison to go on, the fundraiser could not prove that she was doing a good job!
My gut reaction, because we don't keep regular statistics in this way, is that New Zealand's donation levels will be fairly static across the board but increased for emergency causes such as the Canterbury earthquake.
Blackbaud is able to gather such significant statistics because it runs a benchmarking product with regular subscribers. The benchmarking product is available in New Zealand but there are insufficient subscribers to create a regional group.
Otherwise we are reliant on the annual statistics collected by the Charities Commission, which of course, relate to the previous financial year.
The appetite for measurement and evaluation of one' s success is poor. There are few organisations that I talk to that want to invest in benchmarking. Chief executives don't understand enough about fundraising to know that the service is available and fundraisers may not want to put their efforts to the test.
For a number of organisations that I've come across the job descriptions don't specify the actual financial targets, even when a performance bonus is part of the remuneration. So why would these organisations be interested in benchmarking?
I talked recently to a senior fundraiser in a well known organisation who was struggling to satisfy a new CEO who was setting objectives. I had a look at what the CEO had proposed. There was no simple financial target. Instead a list of wishy, washy, unmeasurable challenges. The CEO called an emergency meeting, without consulting the fundraiser and announced that the organisation was in a poor financial position. Feeling very miffed, the fundraiser resigned. Later I did some research on the organisation. Its bequest income was very successful and the organisation would be held up as a model for its active bequest strategy. The results found through the Charities Commission register showed the organisation to be doing well. This is obviously a justification for benchmarking but without any comparison to go on, the fundraiser could not prove that she was doing a good job!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Social media for fundraisers
I've just given a presentation on social media strategy for communication managers at non profits and it got me thinking about the integration of communications and fundraising. The biggest organisation attending had employees dedicated to social media communications and to fundraising. The smallest organisation had two employees. So let's presume that most organisations don't have people dedicated to social media.communications.
For the fundraiser social media could be a valuable tool in acquisition and in retention but it could also be a huge time waster and a diversion from the real job objectives. The challenge for the fundraiser, and perhaps any communications manager is to spread the load.
Collaboration is the key. While the fundraiser might be concerned about donor relations, retention and acquisition, other members of the senior team will have their own objectives - education, lobbying, advocacy, information, brand management etc.
On this particular communications tool, the smart organisation will be working collaboratively to ensure that resources are used to the best effect. There will be new roles and responsibilities delegated to different staff members. For example the new hire who already has her own facebook site and easily sends numerous twitters to her friends every day will become the social media adviser and trainer. The IT guy who hardly ever leaves his office will be the moderator. The nurse or social worker will be content specialist and a disabled client living in rural Northland will provide the monthly reports on web users, traffic, number of followers and topics of conversation. The fundraiser may tap into all of these areas of expertise and all of this content to digest into a weekly, monthly blog for donors.
The fundraiser may decide the key area is relationship building. So instead of focusing on the internal needs, he or she focuses on donor recognition at the places where donors hang out.
Here's some ideas for donor relationship building
For the fundraiser social media could be a valuable tool in acquisition and in retention but it could also be a huge time waster and a diversion from the real job objectives. The challenge for the fundraiser, and perhaps any communications manager is to spread the load.
Collaboration is the key. While the fundraiser might be concerned about donor relations, retention and acquisition, other members of the senior team will have their own objectives - education, lobbying, advocacy, information, brand management etc.
On this particular communications tool, the smart organisation will be working collaboratively to ensure that resources are used to the best effect. There will be new roles and responsibilities delegated to different staff members. For example the new hire who already has her own facebook site and easily sends numerous twitters to her friends every day will become the social media adviser and trainer. The IT guy who hardly ever leaves his office will be the moderator. The nurse or social worker will be content specialist and a disabled client living in rural Northland will provide the monthly reports on web users, traffic, number of followers and topics of conversation. The fundraiser may tap into all of these areas of expertise and all of this content to digest into a weekly, monthly blog for donors.
The fundraiser may decide the key area is relationship building. So instead of focusing on the internal needs, he or she focuses on donor recognition at the places where donors hang out.
Here's some ideas for donor relationship building
- Identify the face book sites of your donors and post thank you's where all their friends can see!
- Celebrate their philanthropy with virtual certificates and endorsements - become friends through social websites
- Track the special interests of your donors through sites like Linkedin and actively communicate in the groups they are following
- Actively seek information about social media sites your supporters are following
- Set up closed groups for specific stakeholders to meet and converse with each other
- Ask influential or respected people to thank your best donors through social media such as Facebook or Linkedin
- Introduce your supporters to each other through social media sites
- Seek feedback from your supporters through social media tools
Monday, January 23, 2012
Controversial fundraising tools - do they work?
Face to face and telemarketing are probably the most controversial fundraising tools. Even the most pleasant and enthusiastic supporters will cross the road or hang up the phone to avoid the (over) enthusiasm of commission sales staff.
However much we might hate these assertive fundraising activities, the truth is that these tools work, if they are used for the right reasons, and in the right way. Both are tools for acquisition (getting new names on your database). There's no doubt that if you ask people, they will respond. The down side is that these tools are very expensive. In year one, you may spend more money to acquire new names than you get in donations. But if you can convert these new followers to seasoned supporters, the effort will be rewarded over a three or five year period.
My top recommendations:
However much we might hate these assertive fundraising activities, the truth is that these tools work, if they are used for the right reasons, and in the right way. Both are tools for acquisition (getting new names on your database). There's no doubt that if you ask people, they will respond. The down side is that these tools are very expensive. In year one, you may spend more money to acquire new names than you get in donations. But if you can convert these new followers to seasoned supporters, the effort will be rewarded over a three or five year period.
My top recommendations:
- Explore other fundraising options first. This isn't something for the fainthearted.
- Set your objectives clearly - what is the end goal, the long term goal?
- It's a five year plan - always refer to the long term plan in all your reporting, avoid talking about the money and focus on the acquisitions and retention
- Adopt a code of conduct or something similar to show your good intentions
- Have the evidence handy to prove your case - you will get internal and external complaints - be ready for them
- Build relationships with your supporters - retention is the key to success!
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Direct Mail - still relevant?
Direct mail is still king as far as fundraising goes. Even with the advent of email addresses, blogs, online sign ups etc, the most money is still being raised from direct mail. We also know that if you sign up people on line you will need to convert them to direct mail if you want to keep them for more than a year.
In a recent survey conducted by the magazine Fundraising New Zealand, six organisations were asked to provide details about their direct mail campaigns in 2011. For all full run down on the results contact Tony Pilalis(you can find him on Linkedin) or view the www.foresee.co.nz website.
However I wanted to draw your attention to the changes in the average donation. The survey found that over the six organisations, the average donation had increased to $60.92, up from $33 in 2003 and $52.96 in 2008. Does this size of donation surprise you? Does it fly in the face of anecdotal comments you have been hearing? This shows the importance of getting the numbers right by testing. You don't want to be asking people for $25 if they are happy to give you $65, When preparing your direct mail campaign, make sure you don't undersell yourself by asking for too little.
The other influencing factor in a successful direct mail campaign is to segment your database to make your correspondence more personal and the size of the request more appropriate. There are a number of ways of segmenting, for example according to size of previous gifts, number of previous gifts, average of the last year's gifts, whether they have ever given before, how they signed up, when they signed up, reference to personal interests. Can your database give you this information? Are you even collecting this kind of information?
In a recent survey conducted by the magazine Fundraising New Zealand, six organisations were asked to provide details about their direct mail campaigns in 2011. For all full run down on the results contact Tony Pilalis(you can find him on Linkedin) or view the www.foresee.co.nz website.
However I wanted to draw your attention to the changes in the average donation. The survey found that over the six organisations, the average donation had increased to $60.92, up from $33 in 2003 and $52.96 in 2008. Does this size of donation surprise you? Does it fly in the face of anecdotal comments you have been hearing? This shows the importance of getting the numbers right by testing. You don't want to be asking people for $25 if they are happy to give you $65, When preparing your direct mail campaign, make sure you don't undersell yourself by asking for too little.
The other influencing factor in a successful direct mail campaign is to segment your database to make your correspondence more personal and the size of the request more appropriate. There are a number of ways of segmenting, for example according to size of previous gifts, number of previous gifts, average of the last year's gifts, whether they have ever given before, how they signed up, when they signed up, reference to personal interests. Can your database give you this information? Are you even collecting this kind of information?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)