Archive for the 'fundraising' Category

Donation Page Example: Hillary Lets Donors Choose

by Michael Hoffman
Monday, April 7th, 2008

Having a good donation page is important so that you can convert those who clicked to get to the page into people who give. You also want them to give more.

Increasingly we see from research that people like to give where they think they can make a difference. If you ask me to save Africa from HIV/AIDS, I am just totally overwhelmed by that. If you ask me to save this one orphan, I can handle it. The success of new internet philanthropies such as DonorsChoose.org and Kiva are connected to the same idea of letting people make a difference where they can actually see the difference.

This idea can find different forms for different circumstances. One that I like is how Hillary Clinton is fundraising for the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania.

Here’’s a screen shot of her donation page:

Hillary Clinton Donation Page

You can see the original here. What is interesting is how she is letting donors decide where to place their money, whether on radio, tv or online ads, vans or printed door hangers. And, you can spread your money around, putting small amounts in each category. The campaign hopes the overall amount will be greater than you would give otherwise.

As Colin Delany pointed out in an online forum, the money is fungible anyway — when they fill one category they can simply reallocate general support money to another.

Can you use this technique in your fundraising? Have you thought about how you can give donors more choice and more transparency? If not, now is the time to get started.

Chronicle of Philanthropy - Where will the donors come from?

by Michael Hoffman
Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

I was quoted a bunch in the latest issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The article is about the decline of direct mail and the rise of online prospecting. Four — count ‘em, 4 — of our clients are mentioned in the article. Amnesty International, American Jewish World Service, AVODAH: The Jewish Service Corp and ISIS.

They even linked to the microsite we did for AVODAH, Jews4NewOrleans.org. If you haven’t seen it, go there and donate.

Here’s the article:

From the issue dated April 3, 2008

New Rules of Attraction

As traditional fund-raising methods falter, charities look for new ways to appeal to online donors

By Holly Hall

This week the Nature Conservancy will kick off a campaign to ask online donors to give $1 apiece to help the charity plant a billion trees in Brazil’s rain forest. But conservancy officials have no idea if the electronic drive will meet its goal of raising $1-million.

The Plant a Billion campaign is designed to attract people who have never previously given to the environmental organization. But it could “go gangbusters or be a flop,” says Sue Citro, the charity’s senior manager for digital membership.

For an organization that raises more money than all but a handful of charities, such uncertainty is unusual. But at big charities across the country, fund raisers face that same queasy feeling as they try to figure out a solution to an unsettling reality. Traditional approaches to seeking new donors by mail or telephone are growing less effective and more expensive every year, yet online appeals are not raising enough to replace them.

“Direct mail is on life support,” says Michael Hoffman, chief executive of See3, a Chicago consulting firm that specializes in nonprofit fund raising and communications. “Charities that have relied on direct mail to get new donors have to start thinking about what’s next, or they will wake up one day and find that an aggressive start-up has taken their place.”

Mailings Lose Ground

Plenty of charities still raise most of their contributions with direct mail, but mass mailings are losing their power to attract new supporters. In 2007, the number of new donors who responded to charity mailings dropped by a median of 6.2 percent in a study of 72 of the nation’s biggest charities, on top of another 10.4-percent median drop in 2006.

Online fund raising offers a promising alternative, especially since people who make their first gift to charity online give one and a half times as much as those whose first gift was made by mail, according to Target Analytics, a Boston company that conducted the studies of both online and direct-mail results. Repeat gifts by online donors also tend to be larger.

But persuading donors to give online for the first time is not easy, says Ettore Rossetti, associate director of Internet marketing at Save the Children. The charity has solicited donations from people who signed an online petition to help needy children, but that approach has achieved only “mixed success,” he says.

“Advocacy people tend to be engaged in lending their voice, not necessarily opening their wallet.”

To figure out what approaches will attract first-time donors, many charities are hiring extra staff members to devise and test new ideas, and are upgrading software to analyze the results. Until such solicitations become more lucrative, however, most charities are still spending about as much as they did on direct mail, telemarketing, and other traditional ways of finding new donors.

“I get executive directors all the time who want to abandon direct-mail acquisition completely,” says Jeff Patrick, president of Common Knowledge, a San Francisco company that advises charities on online fund raising and marketing. “Online fund raising will continue to grow, but it will not replace direct mail in five years,” Mr. Patrick predicts. The movement from offline to online giving, he adds, “is an evolution, not a revolution.”

Other fund-raising experts agree that online fund raising has a long way to go before it becomes a successful way to attract new donors.

“This is an extremely confusing period,” says Mark Rovner, president of Sea Change Strategies, a Takoma Park, Md., fund-raising consulting company. “The old ways aren’t working, and the new ways are not clear.”

Still, fund raisers have found some new approaches in recent months that are helping them better attract donors who can eventually become the lifeblood of an organization. Among them:

Make pitches in person. World Vision, the international relief group, asks people who make monthly gifts to “sponsor” a needy child overseas to volunteer to seek donations from other people.

Two and a half years ago, the charity started recruiting people to give presentations about monthly giving to their colleagues at work or church. People who give at least eight presentations a year are named “Child Ambassadors.” Members of the ambassador group, which has grown to 255 people, must apply for the volunteer position and agree to a background check.

Last year, volunteers recruited more than 4,000 new monthly donors.

Vicki Casper, a flight attendant at Southwest Airlines, is World Vision’s most successful recruiter. She has single-handedly persuaded 400 people in the past two years to become monthly donors, including a passenger on a recent flight to Indianapolis. He offered to sponsor a dozen children for at least a year and, as he got off the plane, handed Ms. Casper checks for each child totaling more than $5,000.

If her results don’t attest to Ms. Casper’s dedication, the recorded greeting on her cell phone does: “Hi, this is Vicki Casper, World Vision Child Ambassador, standing as a link between you and the poor and needy of this world.”

With the ambassadors, “we’ve seen big potential,” says Miyon Kautz, World Vision’s national director of volunteers. In fact, she says, the charity has just finished training three new staff members who will recruit ambassadors regionally. The goal for each region: obtaining 1,000 new monthly donors over the next 12 months.

Tap existing online donors. Charities can take a lesson from the “member-get-a-member” drives held by professional societies, says Kevin Whorley, a Bethesda, Md., consultant. After running direct-mail fund raising at Catholic Relief Services for several years, Mr. Whorley now advises associations.

Holding contests and offering prizes or other rewards can improve charities’ ability to get donors engaged in finding new supporters, he says.

As an example, he points to the National Association of Home Builders’ annual membership day, in which local branches compete during the year to see which one can sign up the most new members.

Winners receive modest prizes, such as an upgrade to a better hotel at the association’s annual conference or a fleece jacket, notes Mr. Whorley. The most recent membership day yielded more than 12,000 new members.

“It is fascinating to me how the member-get-a-member thing, which is an old-school technique, gets new traction in this new world of online relationships,” says Mr. Hoffman, the consultant. He is now working with American Jewish World Service, an international relief group, to design an online campaign to persuade the charity’s donors to get involved in finding new supporters.

Mr. Hoffman suggests, based on his research into what makes such campaigns successful for associations, that charities include in their pitches to existing supporters incentives such as the chance to win a trip, a clear description of what difference donors’ participation will make, easy-to-use online tools, and concrete goals for enlisting new donors.

“You can’t just say, ‘Tell your friends about this great organization,’” Mr. Hoffman says. “It is far better to say, ‘Help us recruit 500 new members by June 1 so we can send 5,000 mosquito nets to Africa at the beginning of mosquito season to fight malaria.’”

Couple advocacy projects with online fund raising. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America knew that anti-abortion protesters planned to show up at 10 of the charity’s clinics over 40 days in the fall, so it used the occasion to start “I am Emily X,” an online video diary and blog.

The site featured videotaped statements from Planned Parenthood clinic workers who described the effects of the demonstration on both themselves and patients, some of whom were harassed by the protesters.

Visitors to the site were invited to post comments and messages to the clinics throughout the protest, and they were asked to pledge a small amount of money, anywhere from 5 cents to $10, for each of the 511 protesters Planned Parenthood counted in front of its clinics.

The site, coupled with e-mail appeals about the project, raised $96,531, and more than half of those who gave were new donors, says Tom Subak, Planned Parenthood’s vice president for online services. “We got a phenomenal response.”

Test fund-raising elements of Web sites. Amnesty International is using new software to randomly send online visitors to slightly different versions of a single Web page so it can see which online elements do the most to persuade people to make a donation or visit other parts of the organization’s site.

After two months, Amnesty found a version of its donation page that increased the number of people who made a gift from 35 to 55 percent, says Steve Daigneault, managing director of Internet communications. In the month of December alone, he says, Amnesty raised $128,000 more with the improved donation page; than it would have otherwise. Those returns, he adds, are many times greater than the cost of the software.

Mr. Daigneault is now conducting additional tests to improve the organization’s online action center, where visitors can sign petitions and engage in other forms of advocacy; that part of the site is the main way in which Amnesty collects e-mail addresses of potential donors.

“I don’t think many nonprofits realize how important this is,” he says of the tests. “Once people catch on, it will be huge.”

Get a celebrity to talk up an online appeal. Save the Children recruited 1,800 new donors and generated more than $50,000 with an online campaign that enabled visitors to its Web site to download or send electronic Valentine’s Day cards in exchange for a donation of $1 or more.

But the holiday alone was not enough to make the online greeting cards work for the children’s charity. The key to success, Mr. Rossetti says, was the actress Julianne Moore, who agreed to lend her support to the effort. To that end, she promoted the online cards when she appeared on The View, a popular daytime current-events show aimed at women. The actress has agreed to promote the e-cards again next year.

Do a year-end campaign online. Planned Parenthood has recruited thousands of new donors by sending a series of e-mail messages during the final month of the year. In December, before asking for any money, the charity sent 50,000 people a survey via e-mail to assess their interest in Planned Parenthood programs. That was followed by two other e-mail messages: a holiday greeting and a link to a YouTube video slide show highlighting the charity’s work over the past year. A fourth message asked for a donation.

The monthlong online campaign raised $1.6-million, including more than $500,000 in a single day, December 31. Out of the 8,957 donors, more than 1,200 contributors who gave a total of $246,000 last year were new to the organization.

The online year-end campaign has proven to be “one of our primary recruitment methods,” says Mr. Subak, the charity’s vice president for online services.

Promote online projects in social networks. Internet Sexuality Information Services, an Oakland, Calif., group, initially drew few entries when it asked people age 15 to 30 to enter an online video contest to express their views on sex education.

That began to change after two staff members began combing through social-networking sites, commenting on blogs, searching online news outlets, writing to reporters, and sharing the group’s own news — that it had received the first 10 entries, for example. By the time the deadline for entries passed three months later, the charity had received 70 entries.

While the video contest was not designed to raise money, the publicity efforts are helping the group attract contributions from new donors, says Deb Levine, executive director of the organization.

Three foundations have asked the group to submit proposals, two for six-figure grants. “This is a result of the visibility we generated through the contest and our positioning ourselves as thought leaders online,” she says.

Build a dedicated Web site. Some charities are creating stand-alone Web sites for specific projects, rather than just sending people to find information on one big site. The separate sites can be promoted to potential donors with related interests.

Avodah: the Jewish Service Corps, which involves young people in yearlong public-service projects in Chicago, New York, and Washington, has a new Web site that promotes its plan to start working in New Orleans in September. The charity tested the new site in December, using it to raise $15,000 to match a grant of the same amount contributed by an anonymous donor.

“People went to this site who we wouldn’t have contact with normally,” says Ilanit Gerblich Kalir, Avodah’s associate executive director. She says that the charity is seeking another challenge grant and plans to promote the site more aggressively online in coming months to people who have an interest in New Orleans and relief work.

“This is a low-cost way to get the word out to an audience you would otherwise not reach,” says Ms. Kalir. “We are a very small organization. We don’t have the money to do acquisition with direct mail.”

NTEN Does Web 2.0

by Daniel Hartman
Thursday, March 27th, 2008

I went to several Web 2.0 sessions at NTEN, Nonprofit Technology Conference in New Orleans last week. It was amazing how many there were, sometimes even two at the same time. They were all very good, and all the same. My one criticism of all of them is addressed at the end of this post. Also at the end, I have embedded the presentations of several of those folks I mention.

The first session I attended was specifically about social networking and led by Brian Reich of Echo Ditto, author of Media Rules!

Brian’s big point was that there’s a lot of noise to cut through and to engage people you must deploy quality, focused, niche communications. Volume and frequency are not primary considerations. Most importantly, participate with authenticity. This is something anyone studying the space knows. You must be a credible member of the community sharing useful information and thoughtful comments before anyone will respond to your asks.

A good tip Brian mentioned was to deputize people to grow your network for you. This is something we have been working on at See3 – methods to build a network of influencers in the social networks who will carry your torch. Giving people certain authority to speak on your behalf, and rewarding them with praise or titles or special invitations to events, etc. In other words, to formalize that relationship is a great idea. Another point Brian made was that perhaps Facebook and Myspace are not for your organization. You may find better success participating in a niche social network like Changents or Gather. I suggest another one to explore, Rethos.

Brian provided an overview of many of the social networks out there. He talked about LinkedIn, but he did not address LinkedIn for Good. I asked him afterwards if he knew of any case studies or saw any potential for using LinkedIn for Good, which launched last year with much buzz but seems like nothing but tumbleweeds rolling by since. His thoughtful response: “I know a bunch of people have tried (and there has actually been some discussion within the NTEN blogs and community about it) to use LinkedIn as a fundraising platform. The LinkedIn platform isn’t structured exactly to support direct fundraising, and I think people don’t necessarily appreciate when you don’t respect the medium. But I have seen groups use LinkedIn to form committees that do fundraising, to have people volunteer time from an in-kind standpoint, etc. So, if you use the right tools through LinkedIn, you can get that much closer to a donation–so I’d say that is a better path. All experiments still, but there is clearly potential.”

Brian emphasized that social networking is not for every organization, and that you must consider your goals, strategies, tactics, and resources, not assuming the use of any particular tool. This notion was echoed by the other presenters on this topic that I saw, but Brian said it the best and with the most authority: “If you leave this conference, go back to your team and say, ‘We need a Facebook strategy’ then I have failed…”

Beth Kanter led a mere four sessions. I attended two of them. The first was about ROI. Coming from a background in SEM and lead generation, I was so glad to see “Web 2.0 ROI” as the title of a session. Beth pointed out a great study on blogging ROI from Forrester. She asked the audience how many people use formal ROI evaluations with regard to social media efforts. I was glad my hand was up but sad it was one of only two.

The first panelist was Eve Smith from Easter Seals. They tried the Causes challenge – seeking donors on Facebook - and her biggest takeaway was that influencers are more valuable than donors. I assume what she means is that if you find the influencers, they will bring you more donors than you could find on your own. Makes sense.

Wendy Harman from the Red Cross gave her case study on Project Listen. She does an amazing job at communicating with and monitoring the blogosphere and reporting on coverage of her organization. Her take-aways from that activity are that internally, people love the feedback from bloggers, and externally, people love to know that you care.

Danielle Brigida from NWF presented a case study on Digg and StumbleUpon. It took her 7 months to establish relationships in the Digg community sufficiently to get good results (ie, popular stories). Just like anywhere else, you have to be a credible, authentic participant and contribute valuable information in order for others to reciprocate. In StumbleUpon, she saw results from being the source of quality, relevant info. I have embedded Danielle’s PowerPoint below.

Carie Lewis, who does tremendous things on Myspace and in other social media channels, gave a case study on HSUS’s video contest after the Michael Vick dogfighting incident. HSUS only got 22 entries but from a marketing perspective it was a success in part because Hulk Hogan did the promo video for the contest. She learned from the experience to require email in the voting tool, target people likely to submit videos, and do more blogger outreach. See3 has run many successful video contests (a few examples here, here and here). Video contests can be a great way to give your community something tangible to do and create great content for your organization in the process.

Justin Perkins from Care2 presented his famous social media ROI calculator. The big take-away here is that if you assume one full-time staff member getting paid $52k/yr dedicated to social media can yield even 10,000 new email addresses for your organization in a year (which I agree would be a lot), then your CPA is $5.20/name. Justin says “there are cheaper ways to acquire email addresses.” He respectfully refrained from plugging Care2, which uses a brilliant petition process to find supporters for your cause among their network of 7 million activists at the cost of between $2-3/name.

My understanding of Care2, based on comments from Care2 clients, is that the lists perform well, however the demographic is clearly progressive, and somewhat skewed to middle-aged women. So how much any organization should rely on Care2 for list-growth really depends on your mission, objectives, and your own community. There is a lot more to this discussion, such as all of the potential benefits to social media marketing beyond strictly list-growth, such as branding, fostering community, creating discussion, distributing media materials, participating in existing communities, and many other results more difficult to fit in a spreadsheet. Again, what are your goals.

Another Web 2.0 related session I attended was See3’s Michael Hoffman about online video, which he already summarized. My take-aways from his session: “viral to what end?” Michael made the point very well that everyone wants their video to go viral, but that is not a legitimate goal in itself. Views do not necessarily lead to donations and email addresses. You need a strategy for your video and your call to action. This relates to Michael’s other session on using microsites to convert views to action. He said it’s important to start with stories and to have a strong call to action. Now here’s the part where I criticize my boss. He showed this as an example of a direct response piece, which is a great video and performed well in the email appeal for which it was created, but not nearly as well as this one, which has a much stronger call to action and is the better example.

The last session on Web 2.0 I attended was called “The Next Latest Thing: The Future of Technology in Nonprofits” led by John Kenyon with Beth. I have to say, the title of this session was misleading. Upon reflection, “the next latest thing” seems cheeky, but “the future of technology in nonprofits” seemed like a fun exploration into the unknown rather than a run-down of the most contemporary tools everyone else was talking about. Nevertheless, what I liked about this session was that John did a great job of getting comments from the crowd after each point, creating some discussion and incorporating feedback into his presentation. What I also liked about this session is that John echoed many things we advocate at See3: tell stories, get user-generated content as a great way to efficiently acquire marketing material and ignite your audience, use media to engage people.

Now here is my criticism of all Web 2.0 sessions, as promised at the beginning of this post: most, if not all, of the case studies are from large organizations with communications teams and resources that allow them to try things like video and daily engagement in social networks. But what about the small organizations that have one person responsible for marketing & communications, and that person is also the network administrator, web manager, and events coordinator? What can they do? We cannot solve their problem of limited resources, but we can find their successful case studies and present them to inspire other organizations like them, which is a majority of nonprofits. I’d be happy to moderate that panel next year in San Francisco.

How Much Is Too Much?

by Mary Dombrowski
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

Are you annoying your supporters?

I recently received a call from an organization I’ve donated to in the past.

They have already solicited me by mail at least once and have made frequent phone calls as well. On the phone, I was thanked for my support and asked for additional support. When I said I would eventually give again later this year, they wanted to send me another piece of mail with a membership card–what exactly I would do with my membership card is not clear–to give me another opportunity to make a donation.

I wonder if the organization realizes how this sounds to a donor. They want me to give them money and I’m willing to give money. At the same time, they are spending my money, as a donor, to mail me things I don’t need and make phone calls I don’t want to receive. I know they have my email address because they solicit me that way as well. Organizations prefer to receive unrestricted funds, but you can see why a donor might prefer to restrict the use of those funds. Any of us giving to an organization wants to know the dollars are being put to good use.

Another example of this is with the election. I recently handled incoming calls for one of the presidential candidates working the 6-9pm shift. The majority of the calls I took were from individuals begging to be removed from the call list; they were being inundated with calls asking them to vote for this candidate. Some are on the “do not call” list and wonder why that isn’t being respected. [Nonprofits are exempt.] For a voter on the fence, this intrusion could make the difference in the candidate they choose to support.

Sure you want to fundraise and keep in touch with your members,­ but are you doing it in a way that makes people want to support you? Are you being as efficient and effective as you can?

The Age of YouTube: Using Online Video to Reach the Masses

by Michael Hoffman
Monday, March 24th, 2008

One of my presentations at the Nonprofit Technology Conference (08NTC) was The Age of YouTube: Using Online Video to Reach the Masses.

Here is the session description:

Broadband is finally here and the organizations that are creating compelling and viral video content are reaping the rewards. Those gala dinner videos are no longer enough. Readily available digital video cameras and editing software allow your organization to capture stories and introduce a wider world to your mission. Video content can be seamlessly integrated into your website and provide the compelling hook for fundraising and advocacy. Portable media players enable you to embed your message in hundreds of sites. But, how do you capitalize on the opportunity?
Takeaways:

1. The benefits to using web video
2. Case studies of innovative uses of video
3. How to effectively use video in your e-campaigns

I opened the session looking at the world we live in — the environment nonprofit messages are competing with. Here is the video I showed at the start of the session:


Here is the slide deck I used for the session. Mostly, these are just illustrative of talking points.

Here is are relevant links to the videos we talked about from the session:

The power of video to breakthrough all the clutter. Example: Yes. We. Can.

The dinner video.
Other pieces you can make from a dinner video. (American Jewish World Service Passover Video)

Bread for the World video we showed as an example of something easy you can do with your staff.

Videos from Amnesty International showing both the man-on-the-street technique and how you can use video in an online campaign and how you can make videos with very different tone out of the same source material.

The funny video.
The serious video.

The PSA type video. An example from Chicago Foundation for Women and a very edgy UK one from Greenpeace International.

A documentary-style video from Columbia College Chicago.

Care2 is an online community where you can promote a video and seed your list in order to reach new audiences. If you are interested, you can learn more by calling Clinton O’Brien
Vice President, Business Development
Email: partners[at]earth.care2[dot]com
Phone: 202-785-7308

AOL quietly offers a program of free banners for certain organizations. If you are interested you should call us at See3 and we can tell you more about it.

If I left something out of this list that I mentioned in the session, please let me know with a comment.

Steve Grove’s YouTube for Nonprofits Tip Sheet. (Steve did not make the session at the last minute, but we got his tips. I will ask Steve some of the questions and publish the answers.)

The Basics

• Reach Out. Post videos that get YouTube viewers talking, and then stay in the conversation with comments and video responses.

• Partner Up. Find other organizations on YouTube who complement your mission, and work together to promote each other.

• Keep It Fresh. Put up new videos regularly and keep them short—ideally under 5 minutes.

• Spread Your Message. Share links and the embed code for your videos with supporters so they can help get the word out.

• Be Genuine. We have a wide demographic, so high view counts come from content that’s compelling, rather than what’s “hip.”

Your Channel:

• Design Your Channel. Go to Channel Design, then choose a color scheme to match your logo or other materials, and decide which modules you’d like to display on your public profile.

• Add Banners and URLs. Go to Branding Options, upload your icons and banners, and enter any of the other options you’d like to use.

• Choose Your Top Video. The top video on your channel automatically plays each time someone visits your page—choose it wisely. Update this video regularly to keep it fresh, or keep your most important video there as an introduction.

• Get Donations Flowing. Sign up for Google checkout, then go to your Google Checkout Options, enter your ID and Merchant Key, and choose donation amounts. Once you’ve filled in the information, the button will appear on your public profile and all of your video pages.

Your Content:

• Direct Dialogue. Make videos that create a dialogue about your work and what you’re trying to achieve. Ask questions and solicit video responses.

• Call to Action. Harness the power of user-generated content by asking supporters to submit videos to your cause. Create a group to collect these videos together; find ways to give recognition to the best ones.

• Tell Serial Stories. Engage viewers with a series of videos that tell a story around a specific theme, and keep them coming back for more. Once you’ve created a few episodes, put them into a playlist. This allows you to develop several video narratives targeted at particular demographics.

• Respond to Current Events. Address relevant news stories by posting videos that explain your position. You can then embed them in emails to your supporters—a video message can be more effective than a text-laden email.

• Use Endorsements. Whether they’re from celebrities or people you’ve impacted, it helps to have supporters chiming in about why your work matters.

Networking and Distribution

• Tag and Title Well. Tag and title your videos with relevant keywords—that’s how users will find your content as they navigate YouTube.

• Embed, Embed, Embed. Broadcast your videos over the web by embedding them on your website and encouraging supporters to do the same on theirs.

• Click “Subscribe”. Subscribe to the YouTube channels you’re interested in to stay up-to-date on their content; they may return the favor.

• Engage and Interact. Draw attention to your work by interacting with both allies and adversaries through video responses, text comments, or joint projects/debates.

• Make Web Traffic a Two-Lane Road. Use your video description field and branded banner URL to drive users to your website, and link to your YouTube channel from your website to encourage people to interact with your video content here.

For video production tips, go to: http://youtube.com/video_toolbox

Firstgiving Adds YouTube Functionality

by Michael Hoffman
Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

Firstgiving is a service that allows individuals and organizations to set up personal fundraising pages. They just added the functionality to allow users to embed YouTube videos on those pages — another step in the general recognition that video is effective for fundraising.

Here’s the release:

Somerville, MA (PRWEB) March 12, 2008 — Firstgiving, a leader in providing Web-based fundraising services for individuals and charities, today announced the ability for its users to add YouTube™ video and Flickr photos to their personal Web pages. Mark Sutton, Chief Executive Officer of Firstgiving stated, “Experience shows us that the more personal the appeal, the more successful the fundraiser. Therefore, we made it easy for people raising money on Firstgiving to add their personal videos and photos to their fundraising pages.” The end result he says is more people raising more money for their favorite charitable causes.

Firstgiving fundraisers can choose from among hundreds of thousands of U.S. certified 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations for which to raise money. Many individuals use the pages for event-based fundraising such as marathons or polar plunges. Others set up pages to raise money in lieu of birthday or wedding gifts or in memory of a loved one. Charities themselves can also use Firstgiving’s fundraising pages for events, special appeals or general donations. At any given point, there are 15,000 - 18,000 active pages on the Firstgiving Web site. Since 2003, they have helped over 100,000 people raise more than $50 million for more than 12,000 charities.

Experience shows us that the more personal the appeal, the more successful the fundraiser. Therefore, we made it easy for people raising money on Firstgiving to add their personal videos and photos to their fundraising pages.
Sutton noted that there is no “right” tone for the videos or photos that people post, but rather that it’s more important that they reflect the personality of the individual making the appeal. “Some are funny, others are serious and then there are those that are so inspiring they knock your socks off,” he said.

Sutton added, “Firstgiving’s goal is to make raising money for non-profits as easy and simple as possible for our users. By putting the right tools in their hands, we can help them make a positive difference for the charities they support.” For more information on how to set up your own Firstgiving fundraising page visit www.firstgiving.com.

Why do people give charity?

by Michael Hoffman
Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

The New York Times Magazine on Sunday was all about philanthropy.

New York Times Magazine Cover

Here’s what you need to read:

What Makes People Give?

This article is really about how some social scientists, economist types are looking at why people give. It turns out that much of what fundraisers think they know is right, but there is a lot of subtlety. The main example in the article is about matching programs. The research suggests matches lead to more giving, but the type of match — whether 1x or 2x or 3x the gift — had no impact at all. The article looks at the psychology of giving.

Some highlights:

For a long time, philanthropy was mostly ignored by social scientists. It’s not an especially large part of the economy, and most charities operate on a shoestring, without the resources to finance research projects. But this is starting to change. Americans gave $295 billion to charity in 2006, equal to 2.2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, up from about 1.8 percent from the mid-’70s to the mid-’90s, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Most philanthropy still comes in the form of small gifts, but there is also a growing group of donors, like Bill and Melinda Gates, who are interested in bringing some of the quantitative rigor of big business to philanthropy.

Academics, for their part, have come to realize that charities provide an excellent laboratory for studying human behavior, in part because so many of them are desperate for the kind of free-of-charge consulting Karlan was offering. When charities are designing their donor appeals, they often go by nothing more than a few rules of thumb, some of which may be profoundly insightful and others a good deal less so. “I think some fund-raisers have developed terrific intuitions, passed on through the fraternity of fund-raisers,” says Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in Menlo Park, Calif., which often works with charities. “But a lot of the intuitions don’t work. Look at how much junk mail you get.” Matching gifts were another good example. People figured that they worked, because — well, how could they not? They seem so sensible. …

…Last year, Princeton University held a conference at which List, Croson, Andreoni and others who study charitable giving got together with fund-raisers from Africare, the National MS Society and elsewhere. I spoke with three people who listened to the academics present their work, and all said they found it invigorating. “We all have different strategies and takes on how to reach out to potential donors,” said Nicole Eley of Africare, which sends development and relief aid to Africa. “Many of them work, some don’t — it’s a trial-and-error process.” It’s easy to imagine that the academic research may eventually serve as the building blocks for a unified theory of how to raise money.


The Celebrity Solution

This article is about celebrity involvement in philanthropy and specifically looks at Natalie Portman, someone who has become the spokesperson for the growing field of micro-lending.

Some highlights:

In 2004, Natalie Portman, then a 22-year-old fresh from college, went to Capitol Hill to talk to Congress on behalf of the Foundation for International Community Assistance, or Finca, a microfinance organization for which she served as “ambassador.” She found herself wondering what she was doing there, but her colleagues assured her: “We got the meetings because of you.” For lawmakers, Natalie Portman was not simply a young woman — she was the beautiful Padmé from “Star Wars.” “And I was like, ‘That seems totally nuts to me,’ ” Portman told me recently. It’s the way it works, I guess. I’m not particularly proud that in our country I can get a meeting with a representative more easily than the head of a nonprofit can.”

Well, who is? But it is the way it works. Stars — movie stars, rock stars, sports stars — exercise a ludicrous influence over the public consciousness. Many are happy to exploit that power; others are wrecked by it. In recent years, stars have learned that their intense presentness in people’s daily lives and their access to the uppermost realms of politics, business and the media offer them a peculiar kind of moral position, should they care to use it. And many of those with the most leverage — Bono and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and George Clooney and, yes, Natalie Portman — have increasingly chosen to mount that pedestal. Hollywood celebrities have become central players on deeply political issues like development aid, refugees and government-sponsored violence in Darfur.

For Good, Measure

This article is about how foundations have found Jesus in metrics.

Some highlights:

The question that troubles many of the newest philanthropists, though, is whether their bequests will have a notable impact. Much of their money either goes into or comes out of private foundations, those largely opaque institutions with huge endowments that, in the jargon-rich environment of philanthropy, differ from charities like the Red Cross in their tendency to engage in long-term “strategic grant-making.” Such foundations do not exist to give emergency aid during crises arising from war or natural disaster; instead, their purpose is to attack social and scientific problems at the root, a process that sometimes requires substantial allocations of grant money over 5, 10 or even 20 years. That’s a long time to wait before you know whether your money is doing any good. As Judith Rodin, the head of the Rockefeller Foundation since 2005, puts it: “Critics have talked about the field of philanthropy and said: ‘Has it really made a difference. And how would you know?’ ” To Rodin, these are perfectly legitimate questions, even when they’re posed indiscreetly by business titans who only recently entered the genteel world of charity. “If we really want to do work that makes a difference, work that has some effect, then we have to know whether it is working,” she told me recently. “And if you really do it well, you don’t only want to know what works; you want to know how it works.”

Faces of Social Entrepreneurship

You can learn about and see some social entrepreneurs.

Faces of Social Entrepreneurs

Michael Gainer started Buffalo ReUse to creatively salvage materials from the 10,000 abandoned houses the city is demolishing over the next 10 years.

Other Articles worth reading include:

Self-Made Philanthropists

This is a profile of Herb and Marion Sandler

Herb and Marion Sandler

How Many Billionaires Does It Take To Fix A School System?

“Last month, The New York Times Magazine invited five interested parties to lunch to discuss the new world of educational philanthropy. What follows is an edited transcript of the conversation.”

America’s Giving Challenge - Beth Wins Again

by Michael Hoffman
Friday, February 22nd, 2008

Once again Beth Kanter and her friends at the Sharing Foundation won the latest philanthropy competition. (If you didn’t help Beth win, you can still give $10 or more to the Sharing Foundation online and help kids in Cambodia.)

The whole giving competition thing is complicated and I am not sure it’s healthy. There is a mad scramble to get donations in a certain time period. Organizations push on their network, “Give now!” “We need you!” “We want to win.” But unless you are an expert like Beth, you don’t usually have much of a chance.

Beth has written about her win and here is the response I left for her. You can read more about it on Beth’s blog.

Beth, you are really great at this. Mazal Tov yet again on a job well done.

This whole competition thing has been a good model for your strengths, and I have given to this worthy cause every time you asked.

But I wonder about all the orgs who went down this road because of the publicity but were so less equipped than you to be successful. I saw lots of questions about this on the PX list and elsewhere and thought to myself, these poor suckers, they are going to spend lots of time putting this together, will get little response, and people like Beth — with big and active networks — will eat their lunch. They don’t have a chance.

I also wonder if this whole competition thing is sustainable. How many of these could you do before you create fatigue in your network? And, is there a way to get the folks who gave with the urgency of this campaign to have a deeper engagement with the Sharing Foundation?

Would love your thoughts on all of this in another post.

Michael

Obama - Online Fundraising Case Study

by Michael Hoffman
Monday, February 11th, 2008

In January, Barack Obama raised as much money, $28 million, as Howard Dean raised in his entire campaign last time around. And they have done it using $25 and $50 donors. Think about it. On the one side you have the traditional way to raise money — rich people asking other rich people to give. “Bundling” is when the partner asks all the associates to ante up the maximum to attend a local fundraiser.

An individual may give $2,300 per federal election. So if I give $2,300 to Clinton I am “maxed out” and the only way for me to do more is get $2,300 from my buddies. Lets say I am that law partner and by making a lot of calls I can get 50 people to max out for my candidate. That’s $117,300, including my own contribution. I become a Hillraiser.

The Obama campaign is raising money differently. They have raised lots of money from those small donors. For the Obama campaign to get to $117,300 from $25 donors mean they have 4692 people donating instead of only 51. Wow.

We care about this because we care about using the internet for fundraising and advocacy. What Obama is doing is a major milestone in the development of the web. The internet, only the internet, makes possible this kind of retail fundraising. There would simply be no other way to get people, excited in their own homes, across the country, inspired by speeches and videos, organized enough to get these donations flowing. People wouldn’t write the checks or fill out the forms, but they can click and give, just like they click to buy a book or a Pez dispenser or, in 2008, pay their parking tickets.

The Obama campaign says they have more than 350,000 donors this year so far. 350,000 donors! Holy smoke that’s a lot of donors. And they are talking about this many in just over a month.

What the internet makes possible, the candidate makes happen. The internet didn’t raise the money. Obama’s inspiration activated people and the internet made it possible to turn that excitement into dollars. As I have written before, the Obama campaign has been amazing at using video to make that excitement portable across the web, capturing those moments that get people juiced.

There is a lot to learn from this campaign and at See3 and among other nonprofit communicators we will be studying it for a long time to come.

MoveOn.org Political Action: Direct Response Video

by Michael Hoffman
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

MoveOn has been a leader in using the web, and email in particular, to get their message out. If you don’t know MoveOn, they started with a simple email during the Clinton impeachment — lets move on — and it grew and grew.

They are no strangers to using video either. They have had video contests, and have made lots of 30-second spots. They have used the web to fundraise for these spots.

Today I saw something different from MoveOn. Eli Pariser, the Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action did a direct response video. It came in an email with a little text and a large screen shot of a video player window. It said:

Dear MoveOn member,
I recorded a video message for you about this election year—it felt too important to put in a regular email.

Watch it here:

The here is this page on the MoveOn.org site.

The page is their standard fundraising page (the kind you get with services such as Convio or Kintera). In the video he even points down to the donation form from his YouTube box, asking the viewer to donate right now to kick of the 2008 campaign activities.

At See3 we’ve been exploring this direct response video technique for a while. We think that in certain circumstances it can work well and we will try to find out how this does relative to non-video landing pages.


free online sample viagra viagra drug side effects viagra
discount drug viagra buy viagra drug peak performance viagra wonder
viagra levitra cialis comparison generic viagra woman use viagra
viagrafix viagra online viagra pictures
drug interactions with cocaine and viagra order viagra generic cialis pills levitra generic viagra
viagra does not work cheap viagra doctor online order viagra visit
dont buy on black market get viagra legally buy viagra online anti depressants viagra
viagra dangers viagra pills viagra substitutes
zocor alternative viagra order viagra online discount viagra sales
womans viagra purchase viagra free generic shipping viagra
free online sample viagra discount viagra alternative impotence natural viagra
viagra does not work herbal viagra alternatives for viagra
free sample viagra online viagra prescription erectile dysfunction herbal viagra
cyalis levitra sales viagra free viagra drug effects more side viagra
alternative buy lavitra levitra viagra viagra alternatives anti depressants viagra
viagraman viagra pill drug get online viagra
apcalis generic viagra viagra alternative viagra price comparison
viagra experiences viagra sale ambien online viagra
generic cialis pills versus generic viagra online viagra viagra usage
fda approved generic usa viagra viagra uk viagra interaction
drug effects more side viagra viagra cheap discount viagra perscription drug
viagra energy drink female viagra viagra tablet
viagra experiences natural viagra viagra overnight
comparison pfizer viagra viagra for woman drug get online viagra
direct generic viagra viagra sale online alternative to viagra online
fake generic viagra viagra generic viagra levitra comparison
alternative female natural viagra pfizer viagra viagra lawsuits
viagra women viagra price viagra experiences
alternative uses for viagra viagra pharmacy dysfunction erectile treatment viagra
discount generic viagra volume buy viagra now online aphrodite natural herbal viagra
viagra pharmacy cheap viagra uk doctor drug limbaugh prescription viagra
viagra softabs viagra order ambien online viagra
viagra how it works buying viagra viagra jokes
viagra suppliers viagra woman effexor drug interactions with viagra
gel generic tab viagra where to buy viagra viagra interaction
viagra shelf life buy generic viagra entry entry greymatter home optional page previous viagra weblog
viagra faq purchase viagra online free viagra canada
viagra levitra viagra drug viagra ingredients
zocor alternative viagra viagra buy entry entry greymatter home optional page previous viagra weblog
viagra interaction viagra prices allchemist generic viagra
discount generic viagra pills buy viagra on line does viagra work for women
air order travel viagra cheap generic viagra viagra use
viagra hgh cheap viagra online zocor alternative viagra
women viagra buy viagra cheap viagra soft tabs
viagra patent erection viagra viagra shop
drug levitra viagra vs viagra erections discount generic viagra pills
drug free viagra viagra erection viagra testimonial
discount prescription viagra buy viagra now viagra result
drug free viagra viagra on line viagra results
generic female viagra what is viagra air order travel viagra
alternative herb natural viagra buying viagra online free generic shipping viagra
free viagra canada buy viagra uk viagra result
alternative natural viagra buy online viagra discounted viagra
viagra side effect headaches best price viagra viagra high blood pressure
al alternativas naturales viagra viagra online pharmacy viagra erection
dysfunction erectile viagra cheapest viagra viagra levitra cialis apcalis regalis zenegra
drug interactions with cocaine and viagra buy viagra in the uk air order travel viagra
viagra levitra cialis womens viagra any drug effects side there viagra
discount viagra generic viagra for women confidential online prescription viagra
viagra usage viagra prescription online free online order viagra
viagra pharmacy online order viagra generic brands of viagra online
aphrodite natural herbal viagra alternative viagra dirt cheap viagra
viagra herbal cialis viagra viagra users
discount sale viagra viagra cialis levitra viagra use
viagra overnight genetic viagra viagra samples
discount viagra generic prescription viagra directory generic online viagra
viagra patent expiration levitra viagra drug free viagra
drug get online viagra get viagra generic cialis pills versus generic viagra
viagra info viagra best buy viagra levitra