Online Fundraising War Stories

I’m on tap to do three sessions at CASE’s “Online Strategies” conference this week in Seattle. As part of my preparations, I’ve had the chance to chat with online fundraisers on five campuses—east, west, and points in between. Here are some of the interesting things I heard:

• University of Washington has worked with 110 campus units to “skin” online giving pages with the unit’s own branding (an example). The underlying technology is managed by the university’s development office. Dartmouth also offers customized branding options to units on campus.
• Dartmouth is considering an e-campaign to promote major campaign giving opportunities, which are cataloged in a searchable “Gift Browser” the college launched last year.
• Ohio State, where the online giving program grew by 45 percent between 2006 and 2007, added a search function to its online giving site in March. Donors can now make contributions to more than 3,000 funds. Previously, OSU offered only the primary dean’s discretionary funds as online giving options.
• The University of Iowa’s Flood Relief Fund received contributions from 2,605 donors this summer, and 82 percent of those contributors made their gifts online. Online gifts comprised about half of the total dollars raised for the flood fund.
• Dartmouth recently raised its maximum for online gifts to $100,000, after a donor’s attempted to make a $72,000 gift and hit the college’s $50,000 ceiling.
• Cal-Berkeley recently redesigned its giving site to reflect the branding of its separate campaign site. The new giving site focuses exclusively on transactions, rather than making the case for private support because at that point, people “have already been sold on the need.” The folks at Berkeley based their assumptions for the site on 22 interviews (90 minutes each!) with donors.

If you’ll be at this CASE conference, be sure and say hi. With Mizzou’s Lori Croy serving as conference chair, you know it’s going to be both informative and FUN!

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Fundraising

Discuss this article (0)

Email: Still the “Killer App”

I’ve worked in the online sphere since 1995, and I really can’t remember a time when email wasn’t dubbed a “killer app.”

A new study confirms that the moniker still applies. (The grain of salt: It was conducted on behalf of a company that specializes in email.)

A few of the study’s findings that caught my eye:

• 67 percent of respondents prefer email as a communications channel over other online vehicles. (Take that, Web 2.0!)


• Monthly emails and content and frequency options positively impacted a company’s reputation. (Here’s an earlier post on this topic.)


• Email will be as central to online commerce and communications in the future as it is today.


• More than 88 percent of respondents said they would like organizations to give them more choices over the content and frequency of the emails they receive, including options on advertisements, special offers, articles, newsletters, white papers and other specific content options.

The last bulleted point is an important one. That’s true not only because of the significant response, but also because creating a system that accurately reflects the many kinds of emails sent by a college or university is a big job. I know, because I’ve been there.

In my previous life as a web director at a large public university, I was part of a group tasked with creating efficient methods for alumni and friends to manage their email preferences. Using email addresses pulled from the institutional database, we sent mass emails to hundreds of groups—folks who graduated from specific academic programs; people who attended arts or athletic events; participants in outreach activities. All these and countless fundraising appeals, several dozen e-newsletters, plus the occasional survey.

The email calendar often was jam-packed in December, when there’d also be numerous holiday greetings; lots of year-end e-solicitations; and football bowl tours and game information … at least in winning years. One December, we had a mass email scheduled every work day for three weeks straight. Most of those were sent to small groups; even so, there was plenty of audience cross over.

Plus we knew that some units maintained their own email lists and sent mass emails that we didn’t know about until they occasionally landed in our in-boxes.

The institution’s policy was that each email offered the option of unsubscribing from that specific type group (e.g., e-solicitations from the College of Engineering). We established dozens and dozens of email drop codes in the institutional database, so users could make discrete decisions about the type of emails they wanted to receive.

Managing those codes became a challenge. We needed enough to accurately reflect the audience segments. But we didn’t want them to proliferate so much as to become unwieldy. On the web page where users could select their email preferences, we listed all the popular options, but omitted some of the more esoteric groups. The system worked, but it didn’t offer the user the level of control requested by 88 percent of study participants.

It takes a savvy and complex system to accurately reflect the nuances and diverse audience segments of a large, multi-faceted organization.

Nine out of 10 in this study wanted more control over the kinds of emails they receive. That statistic clearly confirms that a regular and systematic review of the email preferences web interface available to alumni and friends is time well spent.

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

“Different People Need to Hear Different Stories”

Seth Godin-marketer extraordinaire of Meatball Sundae, The Dip, and Purple Cow fame-was the featured speaker during a Chronicle of Philanthropy live discussion earlier this week.

I didn’t participate in the live version, but the transcript is online. There you’ll find this exchange:

Question: How do you think emotional marketing by non-profits compares to campaigns that are more focused on performance capabilities and demonstrable impact?

Seth’s answer: Marketing is about storytelling. And the thing is, different people need to hear different stories. Some people respond to a cold hard number. Others want to see the happy kid with braces. The challenge is in telling the right story to the right people in the right way at the right time.

The “different strokes for different folks” comment reminded me of a higher-ed site I recently visited, one that tells the many stories of an annual fund. Annual giving sites often can be dry and a little stale. Not this one.

Start your journey there by visiting Brown University’s homepage. Right now, you’ll find the “Million Dollar Month Participation Challenge” highlighted on the “Giving to Brown” tab.

That leads you into the Brown Annual Fund site, which is full of bells and whistles. Currently those include:

• Participation challenge—they’re seeking 4,000 donors and $1 million in the month before commencement … and they’re almost there.


• Thank-you gifts for donors—this year, a photograph of Carrie Tower.


• A flickr contest—they’ve finished accepting entries and now are judging the 388 photos submitted. One of those will become the next donor thank-you print.


• A game, Brown Grad Libs—fill in the blanks and the site generates your own Brown story. This is the first game I’ve seen on a higher-ed fundraising site.


• Annual fund impact, by the numbers—what difference does a $50 make?


• Annual fund impact, as told by students and faculty.


• Quite a bit of Annual Fund-related news and headlines, along with a handful of special initiatives (giving programs for reunions, parents, etc.) and the requisite details on giving methods, recognition, and whatnot.

Brown also is a good place to observe how “Web 2.0”-type content can be created and integrated into fundraising sites.

Ever since they launched the “Boldly Brown” campaign, they’ve highlighted video and podcasts on the campaign homepage. They do a nice job of presenting campaign outreach and dedication events online (available on the “News” page), and take the time to post photo galleries from those events. Currently the campaign site features an online survey, asking students how they’d like to get involved in “Boldly Brown.” And don’t forget the previously mentioned flickr photo contest for the Annual Fund.

This is the first time I’ve seen podcasts on a planned giving site. Like many other schools, Brown is using syndicated material from Stelter for much of their information, but they’ve done a lot of customizing and incorporated quite a few videos into the standard content. Right now, a video with a 1988 grad explaining why she established a bequest is the lead item on their “What it Means to Give” page.

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Content and writing / Fundraising

Discuss this article (1)

One More Look: Making the Case Online for Scholarship Donations

A follow-up to my post from last week, Offline Fundraising Priorities Online:

An article in today’s Wall Street Journal, “Colleges Turn to Donors to Meet Aid Pledge,” opens by mentioning a $300 million scholarship fundraising endeavor that’s underway at the University of Chicago. Scholarship support is one of three “Human Capital” priorities in “The Chicago Initiative,” a $2 billion campaign.

Chicago’s campaign page outlining student aid goals is rather dry and ordinary. The content looks it could have been pulled directly from printed resources.

However, if you follow the link on the campaign homepage that directs you to the Odyssey Scholarship Challenge (which oddly isn’t a link on the scholarship priority page), you’ll find a micro-site with some really good content, including a video where a student explains the challenge. He does a great job of making the case for why more funds are needed even after Chicago received the $100 million Odyssey contribution.

Speaking of missing links … I didn’t find a link on the Odyssey site back to the main campaign site. As Michael says, links are free. It’d be nice to see more of them here.

On the whole, the Odyssey site makes a compelling argument for investing in scholarships, as well as gathering and presenting quite a bit of information about the Odyssey program. Beginning this fall, more than 1,200 UC students will benefit from these scholarships. Over the next few years, it’ll be interesting to see how the Odyssey site shares those students’ stories and evolves as it seeks to engage alumni, donors, and would-be donors in support of the Odyssey challenge.

Dartmouth had a similar opportunity about four years ago with a Kresge challenge grant that supported Kemeny Hall. Check out that micro-site to see all the content Dartmouth ended up posting, including a full honor roll.

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Fundraising

Discuss this article (0)

Offline Fundraising Priorities Online

An article in the May 2 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Colleges Step Up Fund-Raising Efforts to Support Student Aid,” focuses on scholarship fundraising initiatives at six institutions.

Three-Franklin & Marshall College, St. Olaf College, and Loyola University Chicago-are in the planning stages for campaigns that will have significant student aid components.

The article cites another trio-University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Purdue University, and Grinnell College-as schools that have significant endowments, but still “have pumped up their fund raising for student aid.”

The article made me wonder: How would this acknowledged fundraising priority be presented on the schools’ development websites? Would the sites reflect the institutional commitment to raising private support for scholarships? Here’s what I found.

The site that best “talked the talk” is University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. On the development homepage and throughout that site, Michigan staffers have added numerous references to two scholarship-related endeavors: the President’s Donor Challenge and M-PACT, a program to increase financial aid for in-state undergraduate students. On the giving site, “Need-Based Support for Undergraduates” is the second fund listed and two scholarship funds are available in the separate Schools and College Funds list. Michigan did such a good job of including the scholarship priorities throughout its development site, I wondered if the presidential challenge had made its way to the president’s website. Alas, I wasn’t able to find a link or mention there.

Notes on the other schools’ sites:

Franklin & Marshall College

Scholarships are mentioned on the annual fund page and donors may earmark “Scholarships and Financial Aid” for any online gift made to the Franklin & Marshall Fund.

Grinnell College

The Grinnell site focuses primarily on annual gifts to the Pioneer Fund. That page promotes class gifts and “Grinnell’s current green decisions,” but oddly does not include any mention of scholarships. The FAQ for the fund does explain that the fund helps pay for financial aid. The giving form accepts Pioneer Fund gifts, as well as “special” gifts, where the donor could write in a scholarship designation.

Loyola University Chicago

“Students and Faculty” is one of nine “Giving Opportunities” on the development homepage. On the actual “Giving Opportunities” page, it’s the first priority mentioned. Once you’ve landed on the giving form, the “Magis Scholarship Program’ is the seventh designation option in the drop-down box, while “Student Scholarships” is the 19th.

Purdue University

From the University Development homepage, scholarships are included in the “Where Your Gift is Needed” page. That includes a link to a 20 meg (20 meg!) case statement for “Student Scholarships and Fellowships” that’s from the comprehensive campaign that wrapped in mid 2007. The old campaign site did feature the “President’s Scholarship Campaign,” although the content on that page is quite lean now. On the giving form, scholarships designations are available as the 19th, 20th, and 21st options on the drop-down menu. The Chronicle article mentions a $300 million campaign for student aid that was announced in April, but information about that hadn’t made its way to Purdue’s development site.

St. Olaf College

On the “Giving to St. Olaf” homepage, “Endowed funds and scholarships” is the 26th link in the navigation bar. Also, the annual giving page explains that 22 cents of every dollar donated to the Annual Fund go toward financial aid and scholarships. The gift form doesn’t specifically mention scholarships, but they do provide an “other” field for gift designations.

The takeaway here? If you’re in the quiet or even active phase of raising funds for specific initiatives, especially something as broadly reaching as student scholarships, make sure your site is telling the stories of how private support for that endeavor would make a difference on campus. Even if you’re not ready to share specifics about the campaign’s aspirations, your site should pave the way for upcoming solicitations by making the case for how that support would change lives.

Here, Michigan’s done a good job of integrating that kind of message throughout its development site. Theirs is a site to watch and emulate.

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Fundraising

Discuss this article (0)

Benchmarking Nonprofit Sites

Two new studies provide industry benchmarks for nonprofit websites. For a number of key site metrics, the studies report very similar statistics, validating each other’s findings.

For example, there’s mixed news about email lists and e-solicitations.

Good news: Non-profits are gaining email addresses. The studies found that nonprofits’ email lists grew 32 percent (Convio) and 29 percent (M+R and NTN).

Bad news: Email open rates are down. Open rates dropped from 22 to 14 percent (Convio) and from 21 to 18 percent (M+R and NTN).

Both studies report double-digit increases in e-fundraising: Online donations are up 23 percent (Convio) and 19 percent (M+R and NTN).

Grab your own statistics and see how your site stacks up with other nonprofits. (Note: Only the Convio study includes results from higher-education institutions, which comprise 20 of the 419 participants).

Full reports are available online:

• Online Marketing Nonprofit Benchmark Index Study
  A study by Convio
• 2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study: An Analysis of Online Messaging, Fundraising and Advocacy Metrics for Nonprofit Organizations
  A study by M+R Strategic and the Nonprofit Technology Network

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Marketing and branding

Discuss this article (0)

How Donors Use the Internet

Wondering how donors use websites when they give? Here are some key references that provide insights into their thinking and behavior:

“Every nonprofit must learn to regard the Internet as its most powerful direct marketing medium. Why? Because the Internet allows an organization to engage in a kind of dialog marketing that creates opportunities to develop conversations with prospects and donors. Engaging in conversations with people, over time, gives nonprofits the ability to make more and better friends, turn those friends into donors, and grow those donors into loyal donors.”—“Nonprofit Websites: Cutting Through the Emaze,” Grizzard Communications Group, Inc., 2001 (emphasis added)

That early prognostication might have seemed a bit grandiose in 2001. The Internet? A nonprofit’s most powerful direct marketing medium? Back in 2001, the power of the web to engage donors hadn’t been proven nor experienced.

Research conducted during the intervening years, though, has validated that assessment.

Consider the following collection of research findings, all of which point to the power of engaging donors and would-be donors online.

2003:

58 percent of Internet users have engaged with nonprofits online. Three-quarters of those visiting charity-oriented sites take action.

39 percent – Donated offline 37 percent – Signed a petition online 37 percent – Referred friend 23 percent – Signed a petition offline 20 percent – Donated online—“Toward E-engagement: Non-profits and Individuals Engaging Online,” Network for Good, The Bridgespan Group, and GuideStar

2004:

Online givers are better givers than regular givers. Median lifetime giving for online givers is 50 percent higher than regular givers.—“Getting to Know Your Online Donors Can Pay Off,” Peter B. Wylie

2005:

More than 75 percent of donors who go online before making a donation noted that their web visit had some impact on their decision whether or not to give, whether online or offline. More than 25 percent said the impact was significant.—Kintera/Luth Nonprofit Trend Report

2006:

Many fundraisers [from the 60 participating colleges and universities] cited ePhilanthropy as a factor causing higher revenue per donor. Average online gifts tend to be higher than those given in the mail or on the phone, and the economics of email and widespread web access facilitated more communication and cultivation with donors.—“Index of University Fundraising Performance,” Target Analysis Group

Treat your online donors as your most valuable members. Your online donors, if they follow the pattern we see in the data, probably already make larger and more frequent contributions than your mail/phone donors, and they hold the most promise in terms of loyalty and retention.—“Keep Your Postage Meter: The Status of Online Giving in America,” Craver, Matthews, Smith & Co. and The Prime Group

2007:

There is an untapped pool of donors who are influenced by a charity’s online presence, and charities could benefit by proactively reaching out to them.—American Express Charitable Gift Survey

2008:

The wired wealthy represent the future of middle and major donor giving. These donors, most of whom are in their early 50s, are comfortable online. Clearly there is a major shift from the mail to the web, and any major gifts program that fails to account for this transition has quite a bit of catching up to do.—“The Wired Wealthy: Using the Internet to Connect with Your Middle and Major Donors,” Convio, Sea Change Strategies, and Edge Research

The Digital Future Report found that the Internet is perceived by users to be a more important source of information for them—this over all other principal media, including television, radio, newspapers, and books. —“2008 Digital Future Project,” USC Center for the Digital Future

The takeaways from these research findings?

• The Internet has become a top source for information, and that extends to donors seeking information about nonprofits.
  
• Online gifts aren’t the best way to judge a website. After donors visit your site, they’re more likely to make an offline donation or contact a development officer than an online gift.
  
• The act of having made a gift online will help identify a donor as a future major gift prospect.
  
• Donors’ use of the Internet to make philanthropic decisions is significant and will continue to grow.
  

Request a copy of mStoner’s white paper, “Developing an Internet Strategy for Your Capital Campaign,” by contacting .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Content and writing / Fundraising

Discuss this article (0)

Designating Donations

Every funding campaign for undesignated dollars seeks to explain (preferably with emotion, creativity, and a sense of urgency) to would-be donors what their gifts would help accomplish.

Nonprofits like Heifer International have built very successful online and offline giving programs around the idea of allowing donors to “purchase” items, like a cow, sheep, or llama. Those donations actually are just unrestricted gifts. The animal designation is a tool to help would-be donors make philanthropic decisions, along with better understanding the organization’s mission.

The Heifer fine print explains that the gift designation is merely symbolic:

Gifts made through this catalog represent a gift to the entire mission. To help the most number of families move toward self-reliance, Heifer does not use its limited resources to track gift animals from donation to distribution. We use your gifts where they can do the most good by pooling them with the gifts of others to help transform entire communities. And, because you are helping Heifer fight hunger and poverty, your gift is tax deductible.

Now the premise of donor designations has been embraced by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The campaign’s newest fundraising adventure, called MyPA, allows donors to select how their contributions will be spent for the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, with options for television airtime, online ads, radio airtime, signs, vans, or door hangers. As I pen this, you’re out of luck if you’re a van fan: that category, which had a $25,000 goal, is “sold out.”

I learned of this new tactic in an email from the campaign:

We need yard signs to show our campaign’s strength. We need vans to get Pennsylvania voters to the polls on April 22. We need ads on the air and online to compete against the Obama campaign. And starting today, you can decide just how your contributions will help us win Pennsylvania. MyPA, our new online effort dedicated to winning the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, allows you to designate exactly where you want your money to go.

Most college or university sites provide “by the numbers” type of information to explain how unrestricted dollars are spent. Here are examples from Dartmouth, Macalester, and Stanford. Oberlin does a great job of illustrating gifts in action and how your gift helps students.

While many colleges and universities allow donors to give to many different funds online via shopping carts or gift browsers-University of Washington, UC Berkeley, Ohio State, and the University of Iowa are all examples that come to mind-I’ve not seen any create a seemingly artificial designation interface like these for what I assume are indeed unrestricted gifts.

I’d guess that such designations could create problems with donor intent. Are you aware of schools that employ similar interfaces as Heifer International and HillaryClinton.com to jumpstart their unrestricted donations?

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Fundraising

Discuss this article (1)

Wired, Wealthy, and Visiting Your Website

A major new study on online fundraising came out last week, focusing on the opportunity to engage major donors online.

Titled “The Wired Wealthy: Using the Internet to Connect with Your Middle and Major Donors,” the report seeks to answer the following question:

What role, if any, can the Internet play in cultivating, securing, and stewarding major donors?

The study-conducted by Convio, Sea Change Strategies, and Edge Research and focusing on wired donors who make four-figure or higher gifts to one or more charities-concludes that most non-profits “are not making the best possible use of their Web and email efforts to connect with this critically important audience.”

The report offers statistics about the Wired Wealthy’s:

• Giving patterns—80 percent had made a gift online in the last two years.
  
• Use of a charity’s website before making a first-time gift—66 percent visit the site.
  
• Internet usage—averaging 18 hours online each week.
  
• Web habits—a significant majority bank, pay bills, and read news online.
  
• Online content consumption—more than half use YouTube, and a quarter at least occasionally read blogs.
  
• Email preferences—they believe they receive too much from non-profits, but are receptive to e-solicitations.
  

The study’s recommendations for non-profit professionals?

1. Don’t panic … but don’t assume doing nothing is an option.
   
2. Segment your list.
   
3. Power to the people—make donor control your new mantra.
   
4. Let the message drive the technology and not the reverse.
   
5. Pay special attention to video.
   
6. Make listening an every day tactic.
   

There’s lots more (actually, 70 pages more) on Convio’s website.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy includes two articles about the study-Online Giving Appeals to the Wealthy, Study Finds and Let Donors Control How Much E-Mail They Receive, Report Urges-in its April 4 edition.

And on a related topic (note, shameless self-promotion to follow) ...

When this research report was released last week, we were finalizing a new mStoner whitepaper, “Developing an Internet Strategy for Your Capital Campaign.”

Because this research was topical to our own paper and provided some really good data about online content consumption by larger donors, I spent some time reviewing the study’s data and conclusions. Our whitepaper, which will be posted on mStoner.com later this week, includes several references to the “Wired Wealthy” findings.

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Content and writing / Fundraising

Discuss this article (0)

If Wal-Mart Can Do It, So Can You

Calm down, “buy local” fans. Here’s a reason to celebrate, even emulate, the smiley face-sporting, big box store that likely sits on a street corner near you.

They’re hosting a real blog, “Check Out: Where the Lanes Are All Open.” One with real people. Telling real stories. About real products. And whatever else comes to mind.

They get authentic voice. They learned the hard way, but they get it.

Here’s a snippet from an article, Wal-Mart Tastemakers Write Unfiltered Blog, posted Monday on nytimes.com:

Known for its strict, by-the-books culture-accepting a cup of coffee from a supplier can be a firing offense-Wal-Mart is now encouraging its merchants to speak frankly, even critically, about the products the chain carries.

Corporate blogs are nothing new-General Motors, Dell and Boeing have them-but Wal-Mart’s site, called Check Out (checkoutblog.com), turns the traditional model on its head. Instead of relying on polished high-level executives, it is written by little-known buyers, largely without editing.

Read the article. It shares the story of Wal-Mart’s adventures with blogs, transitioning from flak-filled P.R. talk to the musings of Wal-Mart merchandise managers. The lesson learned? “Create an authentic blog or don’t create a blog at all.”

As the article states, “Wal-Mart’s decision to let buyers do the blogging reflected a growing recognition that ‘trying to control who can speak and what they can say does not work.’” And, yes, they’ve left the comments on, although it looks like those are reviewed.

So, if you’re still working to rally support on campus for unmoderated student blogs, or a non-ghost-authored leadership blog, or a blog written by a fundraiser or scholarship recipient … this blog’s for you (as is that New York Times article).

After all, if the world’s largest private employer can loosen the reins and encourage regular employees to share their unvarnished thoughts and unfiltered opinions, so could your institution.

A takeaway if your institution already hosts a number of blogs? Perhaps Wal-Mart will inspire you to consider less conventional authors than institutional leaders or students who write admissions blogs.

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Content and writing

Discuss this article (0)