1 Month = 6,000 Donors = 17% of Those Solicited. Really?

(from a post by Kathy Howrigan @ my firm, Marts & Lundy)

Really. In a recent #fundchat Twitter chat, the topic of multi-channel marketing came up. I mentioned that when I was at Dartmouth College, we did a “challenge” integrating messages from direct mail, phonathon, e-mails, volunteer managers, and anyone else who would talk about it. It was hugely successful, totally exceeding our expectations, so Dan Blakemore asked me to elaborate a little bit — hence my first guest blog post. (We are republishing the blog here in case you missed it at danblakemore.org.)

Sylvia Racca, Executive Director of the Dartmouth College Fund, and I designed the challenge (but it was her idea). I debated sharing the theme and messaging we used for the challenge in this blog post, but as I worked through it, I realized it would be way too long. Anyone who is interested should feel free to contact me for more information.

------------------------------------------

The goal: The Dartmouth College Fund’s participation goal for fiscal year 2006 was 50 percent. In February, we realized that we were behind the curve to hit 50%, especially in bringing lapsed donors back on board. To reach this milestone, the Fund needed to increase the number of lapsed donors significantly in the months of April, May and June over previous years. To help achieve our goal, we created “The April Challenge.” More specifically, our goal was to get 4,000 alumni to give in the month of April (note that the record at the time for April donors was less than 2,400).

------------------------------------------

The strategy: A “challenge.” Find some leadership donors who would offer to give X dollars per Y donors – no matter the size of the gift.

------------------------------------------

The plan: Four alumni challenged the Dartmouth College Fund to bring in gifts from 4,000 donors in April. At each 1,000 donor benchmark, each donor would give the Fund $25,000 (up to $100,000 each).

Because we were concerned that the challenge would only cause regular donors to give earlier in the year – in April and not June (which would get us to our challenge goal but not to 50 percent), we wanted to develop a segmentation strategy for lapsed donors. We knew we needed to do well in these categories. We set goals by solicitation strategy (direct mail, phonathon and volunteer solicitation) and by giving segment (last year donors, one year lapsed, two year lapsed, three year lapsed, four year lapsed, five year plus lapsed and never givers), and used these goals to develop the marketing plan. These goals were applied specifically to each channel as well, and closely monitored all month.
The marketing plan included a direct mail piece sent to 33,424 non-donors, inserts for pledge reminders distributed during April, customized scripts for the student phonathon callers, five e-mail solicitations directing non-donors to our website to make an online gift, and communication with our volunteers. A special webpage, which included a “thermometer” tracking progress towards the challenge goal, was created and promoted through the e-mails, student callers, and on the main webpage.

------------------------------------------

The results: The April Challenge final cash donor count for April 2006 was 6,031 donors. The previous record for the month of April was 2,379 donors.

• In the end, we did well in all segments, including LYBUNTs, but it was recapturing lapsed donors that pushed us over the top.


• 1,199 alumni made a gift for the first time in several years and 370 were first-time donors.


• The student phonathon brought in a total of 2,058 donors, 121 percent of our goal.


• Volunteer teams and direct mail donors equaled 3,973, 192 percent of our goal.


• The DCF online giving site saw tremendous activity during the month of April. The number of online gifts increased with each e-mail solicitation sent. The first e-mail solicitation sent on April 4 resulted in 92 gifts in one day, while the last e-mail sent on Friday, April 28 resulted in a total of 555 gifts from Friday – Sunday.


• Including the challengers, the April Challenge raised more than 3.8 million dollars.

The Dartmouth College Fund achieved its ultimate goal of 50 percent participation with a final result of 50.8 percent alumni participation. The success of the April Challenge enabled us to reach this milestone.

------------------------------------------

Most surprising finding: I was most surprised by the e-mail responses — keep in mind that we were e-mailing the SAME PEOPLE! So the 260 donors on April 28th were replying to their FIFTH e-mail solicitation.

------------------------------------------

Why I think The April Challenge was successful:

• It was metric-driven, with desired metrics informing the strategies.


• Clear and consistent messaging across all channels.


• The use of all channels – one direct mail piece and two e-mails would not have been enough.


• We provided feedback via callers, volunteers and in e-mails on a regular basis.


• There was a clear deadline.

Notice that I didn’t list the challenge funds as one of the factors that made the challenge successful. While this is obviously critical for any challenge, finding donor/s willing to make a significant gift is not enough. The key is to be thoughtful, strategic, integrated and purposeful in how to use that generous contribution.

The Recession: Is It Getting Better for Nonprofits?

While I still am cautious about what lies ahead for nonprofits (I am anxious this December won't bring the significant spike in giving that we have seen in years past) at least one report indicates the worst of the recession may be behind us.

The November 2010 Fundraising Survey is a collaboration between Guidestar, the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Blackbaud, and the Foundation Center.

Between October 19 & November 3, 2010, representatives of 2,356 public charities and 163 private foundations took the group's online survey. The following is a modified excerpt from Guidestar's release.

--------------------------------------------------

The results are encouraging:

• The proportion of participants reporting decreased contributions dropped 14 percentage points, from 51 percent in October 2009 to 37 percent in October 2010.
• The percentage who said contributions had increased grew 13 percentage points, from 23 percent in October 2009 to 36 percent in October 2010.
• Larger organizations, those with annual expenses of $1 million or greater, were more likely to report increased contributions.
• For the eighth consecutive year, a majority (68 percent) of participants reported increased demand for their organizations' services.
• Half of the organizations represented in the survey receive the bulk of contributions during the last quarter of the year, the period known as the giving season. Of this number, 36 percent predict that contributions received during the fourth quarter of 2010 will exceed those from the last quarter of 2009, 43 percent expect end-of-year contributions to be about the same as last year, and 22 percent anticipate that end-of-year contributions will be lower.
• Nearly half (47 percent) of participants expect their organizations' budgets to increase next year.

--------------------------------------------------

The last bullet is the one I find most encouraging. While giving will have its cycles, the fact half of the participants are healthy enough to predict increased budgets is great news.

What do you anticipate happening in the months and years ahead? Is the worst behind us?

Image courtesy of Guidestar.

The Key Personality Traits of a Successful Fundraiser

Adam Grant, Ph.D. is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School... and he's an all-around great guy with unmatched energy and passion for his work. (Note: I have not seen Adam in person since he became a father, so it is possible sleep-deprivation has robbed him of some of this energy, but I doubt it!) He has conducted extensive research on the motivational factors and personality traits that influence a fundraiser's success.

A few years ago, I had the good fortune of working with Adam on such research as related to student callers employed by the University of Michigan's fundraising programs. Here were the two key questions of the research:


1) Are there key personality traits we could seek when hiring student callers that would make their success more likely?


2) Would hearing the story of scholarship recipients motivate student callers to make more calls or raise more funds?


This post explores the findings behind question #1. So what traits initially come to mind for you when asked the question:




Here's one common answer:





Other common answers, when Adam and I have presented these findings, have included:

- Agreeableness
- Altruism
- Conscientiousness
- Emotional stability
- Extraversion
- Open-mindedness
- Self-confidence
- Self-esteem

And you know what? None of these matter when examined individually. However, two of them matter when simultaneously present in a fundraiser:

Conscientiousness + Extraversion = Improved Results


In the first week on the job, look at the difference between the conscientious extraverts and the other callers:





That's a significant difference, obviously. So have you considered applying personality trait tests to your hiring practices? It is a common practice in the for-profit world. For more on this research and its findings, see a full presentation on the topic here.

UPDATE: Please note - I am not necessarily suggesting that these two traits are the best for all development positions, but rather that the science of personalities could be a successful tool for using in your organization's hiring practices.

How Active Is Your Nonprofit's Leader on Social Media?

A couple of weeks ago, a Weber Shandwick study concluded that 64% of the CEOs at the world's largest companies were not social online. How about your nonprofit? Is your CEO/Executive Director/President/etc. active on social media? Well... let's start with the basics... Does he/she have an account with any of the big boys (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube)?

If he/she does have one or more of these accounts, what is he/she doing with it? Is he/she using it or is there a random intern who "gets" social media that manages the accounts? Is the CEO blogging anywhere? The level of social media use among nonprofit leaders is this week's poll question. I will follow-up with results, thoughts and best practices once the poll closes.

Poll:

In the meantime, here are some of the findings from the Weber Shandwick study:

• Over nine out of 10 CEOs in the world’s top 50 companies (93 percent) communicated externally in traditional fashion: 93 percent were quoted in the major global news and business publications and 40 percent participated in speaking engagements to an external, non-investor, audience.
• Online communications did not fare as well among this executive set. Most CEO online visibility is limited to what is said about them on Wikipedia, the web-based collaborative encyclopedia which CEOs and their communications teams are not responsible for. Removing Wikipedia leaves the online CEO space rather barren—only 36 percent are engaged through their company websites or in social media channels in any way (e.g., CEO messages on company websites, video/podcasts on company websites or company YouTube channels, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, company-affiliated blogs).

Who Is a Social CEO?
A sample of the characteristics of Social CEOs as identified by the research:

• Social CEOs are multi-users. When they engage online, social CEOs employ more than one channel, with 72 percent using more than one channel (on average, social CEOs use 1.8 channels).
• Social CEOs are more tenured. Newer CEOs (3 years or less) are less likely than those in their middle (3 to 5 years) or later period of their tenures (more than 5 years) to engage online—30 percent vs. 38 percent vs. 43 percent, respectively.

Original version of title photo (without icons) from Heliotrop3's Flickr photostream.

CEO graph from Weber Shandwick press release.

Random Donor & Prospect Thoughts

Eric Hoover, a senior writer with the Chronicle of Higher Education, shared a post yesterday on the Chronicle's Head Count blog titled Random Student Thoughts on Admissions. It had some interesting tidbits and made me think of the parallels between college admissions and non-profit fundraising efforts... So here's a look at the topic, Through Nonprofit Eyes.

If your nonprofit has more than one person involved in its operations, you are almost certain to have multiple opinions on what your prospects and donors would like. This can be in terms of appeals, newsletters, events, investments, leadership and a wide variety of other topics. If you have heard phrases like these, you understand what I am referencing:

• "We need to email our donors more. I hear from XYZ nonprofit all the time and I don't mind."
• "Our constituents do not like to be asked for money."
• "Our constituents won't like that mail appeal - I can't stand the way it looks."
• "I got this [appeal/mailing/email/etc] from ABC nonprofit and loved it - We have to do it too!"
• "We should only send email and those Twitterer things to our young prospects."

While people are naturally drawn to designs, appeals, etc. that they like, you are only one person - an "n of 1" in experiment terms - and your opinion may not reflect that of your prospects. No matter how well you think you know them and how much you think they are all like you!

But in the absence of other information and data, nonprofit administrators will often fill the void with their own opinions. That being said... it is good to remember to listen to your donors and prospects.

Hoover's post about college admissions included quotes from various students. Here is a sampling - Can you see the potential parallel to nonprofit stakeholders?

• Dakota Kornicker, a senior at Hunterdon Central Regional High School, in New Jersey, on recruitment emails: “I love getting emails from your college, but I don’t like getting three emails in one day.”
• Christine Johnson, a senior at Cypress Lakes High School, in Houston, on recruitment mailings: “I find a lot of the stuff I get in the mail from colleges to just get in the way and kind of make me mad … even the short letters from deans saying ‘I’m interested in you’ didn’t really mean anything to me.”
• Alexander Moskowitz, a senior at Cherry Creek High School, in Colorado, on the value of admissions interviews: “A personal interview shows students that you’re interested in them and that you’re giving them a chance.”
• Anne Kaplan, a senior at the New York City Lab School for Collaborative Studies, on colleges’ using social-networking sites: “Facebook is the last place I want to see a school.”

Obviously there are likely to be similar opinions within your constituency. But how do you know? You ask and you listen. I think you'll find many are happy to be engaged. Even those who are unhappy about some aspect of your organization will be happy that the opinion or complaint is actually being heard.

Do you think Starbucks, Coca-Cola and Toyota are conducting marketing campaigns based simply on what the CEO or Director of Marketing likes?

Then why should your nonprofit?

image from ilisten(dot)com

Report: Top 100 Charities Social Media Engagement & Promotion

Before downloading the report, I would appreciate it if you would enter your email address to receive updates & tips from this blog (not required - if you prefer to skip, report is below):

---------------------------

A full report on the social media engagement and promotion highlighted in this post is now available, including grades, methodology and conclusions from the research. My hope is that this report serves as a catalyst for improved social media engagement & promotion for various non-profits. If the best practice highlighted in the report inspires you to make any changes or improvements, please let me know.

I have had multiple organizations contact me about whether I can grade their home pages relative to peers - please email me or comment on this post and I will be happy to do so.

Multiple organizations and web designers have asked if there is a badge highlighting good grades from the report. Please email me and I will provide you with the proper code to install such a badge.

You can find the full report here.

Grading the Top 100 Charity Brands on Social Media Web Promotion

UPDATE 09/08/10:

Full report now available here.

UPDATE 09/03/10:

I have updated this to include actual grades for each of the top 100 charity brands - you will find these grades at the end of the post, as well as some additional examples of the "A+" charities. I hate to give a charity a bad grade, but the reality of the situation is that many are under-utilizing social media.

Original Post:

I was happy to find Cherita Smith's recent post, Adventures in Nonprofit Email Marketing, where Cherita conducted an experiment on how well the Core Nonprofit Power Brand 100 did at responding to email subscriptions, encouraging such subscriptions and harnessing the power of email lists. (@cheritatweets / blog / post)

She uncovered some interesting findings and it piqued my interest regarding the list relative to one of the 8 Common Social Media Mistakes I had posted last month:

2) Making it hard to find your social presence on your websites.
When someone visits one of your primary landing pages (home page, event page, information page, etc.), it should be easy to see the social media links - using icons - without having to dig and find them. I have seen various NPOs who do not have a link to any of their social media accounts anywhere on their website. Use the icons because people's eyes are trained to notice the Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc. icons, but may quickly look past the words "Twitter" or "Facebook" if mixed in with other links.

So, as a companion piece to Cherita's, I did some research on the same 100 charities to analyze how well they promoted social media via their respective websites. A few notes:

• I tracked the three "main" platforms: Twitter, Facebook, & YouTube
• I saw examples of LinkedIn, Friendster, Flickr (probably the 4th most common), MySpace & Vimeo, but not a significant enough number to track.
• I also made note of whether or not links to the org's blog(s) were included.
• I refused to dig for the links on secondary pages - If I can't find your link to your blog and social media accounts on your main page, you aren't doing a good job of promoting them.
• For some reason, Core excluded colleges & universities from the study. The only reason I can fathom is that it would have significantly increased the work required to produce the report. Higher education historically has some of the most powerful brand recognition in the country (Harvard, Stanford, Florida, Texas... just to name a few). One argument for not including these institutions could be that the Florida Gators, Texas Longhorns, etc. gain from athletic prowess, but I don't think the Harvard crew team is doing much for Harvard's brand recognition. I digress...

Here are the findings. Of the 100 charities:

- 41% had a Twitter logo on the landing page, visible without scrolling down the page.

- 26% had a Twitter logo on the landing page, visible after scrolling down the page.

- 2% had current tweets visible on the page (without an app)

- 5% had current tweets visible via an app.

- 4% had the word "Twitter" listed as a link, without a logo.

- 30% had no mention of Twitter

- 42% had a Facebook logo on the landing page, visible without scrolling down the page.

- 27% had a Facebook logo on the landing page, visible after scrolling down the page.

- 5% had a Facebook app on the page.

- 4% had the word "Facebook" listed as a link, without a logo.

- 27% had no mention of Facebook

- 31% had a YouTube logo on the landing page, visible without scrolling down the page.

- 19% had a YouTube logo on the landing page, visible after scrolling down the page.

- 14% had a YouTube video embedded on the page.

- 2% had the word "YouTube" listed as a link, without a logo.

- 46% had no mention of YouTube

- 47% had a link to their blog

- 53% did not have a link to their blog

* Note: In the Twitter, Facebook & YouTube categories, totals add to more than 100% because some orgs had logos with and without scrolling, had links and embedded videos or apps, etc.

I have to say that the overall findings are a bit disheartening. Particularly these:

- 30% had no mention of Twitter

- 27% had no mention of Facebook

- 46% had no mention of YouTube

- 53% did not have a link to their blog

Plus this one:

- 17% had no social media listing whatsoever, including 2 of the top 10 and 5 of the top 20.

While there are exceptions to every rule, it is difficult not to view these as missed opportunities for the "top 100 branded charities." What does this say about the Not-Top-100?

As Cherita did, though... I look to end on a positive note. Here are some positive examples from the list:

The International Rescue Commission (which also made the "nice" list for Cherita) has a nice landing page. Links at the top to YouTube, Twitter & Facebook (could be a little larger, in my opinion) and a great embedded YouTube video:

Mercy Corps Great Facebook, Twitter, mobile & email subscription links that pop as soon as you land on the page. Also includes a Twitter app below the fold and a nice social app listing recent donations:

Thoughts? Any other non-profits not on the list that you think have great social media presence on their website?

UPDATE: Agree w/ Cherita below... here's World Wildlife Fund:

Handing out the grades

These grades were attained by scoring each of the characteristics noted above, applying the "C" grade to the average score and distributing grades from that point.

A+
Big Brother Big Sisters of America
Union Rescue Mission

A look at the two A+ charities, both are great... though the URM page may be my favorite because of the "notifications" on the icons - as in the Twitter example below. If you click on the Twitter icon, the four URM accounts are shown:

A
The Salvation Army
Food for the Poor
International Rescue Committee
Natural Resources Defense Council
American Nicaraguan Foundation
Environmental Defense Fund
World Wildlife Fund
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Muscular Dystrophy Association
Mercy Corps

A-
United Way of America
American Red Cross
Goodwill Industries
Girl Scouts of the USA
Volunteers of America
CARE USA
March of Dimes Foundation
Project HOPE
National Audubon Society
Teach for America
Heifer Project International
Cross International Aid
Oxfam America

B+
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

B
The Arc of the United States
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
Boy Scouts of America
Shriners Hospitals for Children
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
Make-A-Wish Foundation of America
Academy for Educational Development
MAP International
Direct Relief International
Special Olympics
Combined Jewish Philanthropies
Covenant House
Local Initiatives Support Corporation

B-
Save the Children Federation
Ducks Unlimited
Arthritis Foundation
American SPCA
Medical Teams International
International Aid Inc.
Easter Seals

C+
Alzheimer's Association
Children's Hunger Fund
International Medical Corps

C
Habitat for Humanity International
Feed the Children
American Diabetes Association
American Kidney Fund
Paralyzed Veterans of America
National Kidney Foundation
JA Worldwide
Camp Fire USA

C-
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
The Humane Society of the United States

D
World Vision
Gifts in Kind International
PATH
Gleaning for the World
YWCA USA
Hope for the City
Operation Smile

F
World Emergency Relief
Project Orbis International
Catholic Charities USA
The Conservation Fund
Mental Health America
Heart to Heart International
Samaritan's Purse
Doctors Without Borders
Feeding America
United States Fund for UNICEF
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
Institute of International Education
Conservation International Foundation
Children's Network International
National Wildlife Federation
United Cerebral Palsy Association
YMCA of the USA
American Cancer Society
American Heart Association
Planned Parenthood Federation
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
AmeriCares
City of Hope
Compassion International
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Wildlife Conservation Society
Marine Toys for Tots Foundation
The Rotary Foundation
National Cancer Coalition
Children International
Adventist Development and Relief Agency
American Lung Association
Girls Inc.

Results: Should gift officers make gift to organization?

I posted the above question last week. The results did not surprise me, but it is good to see the actual numbers:

The "Other" responses included one from a consultant who writes letters for many orgs and does not see the need to support each of them and one without a comment.

That being said, having overseen staff fundraising campaigns previously, I doubt 87% of fundraisers do make a gift to their employers. I also have seen the divide between "frontline fundraisers" and "backroom operations" / "support staff" in terms of giving percentages. This is why I hammer home the need to make everyone on your team embrace the fact that every individual is a fundraiser, even if they don't go out and make the final ask. The research, support, etc. are all critical components of a fundraising campaign and should be recognized as such.

If you have giving percentages for your organization feel free to share below (anonymously) or share your thoughts in the comment section.

When Personalized Data Go Bad... And Go Right.

Marketing and fundraising can use data to personalize the donor/customer experience, which can have a positive impact on the relationships of an organization's efforts. However, the quality of this impact is only as strong as your data and the systems you have in place to manage them. Two examples follow...

Data personalization gone wrong occurred Friday when AT&T emailed my wife a happy birthday message and coupon. AT&T doesn't know that I manage both of our phone bills online w/ my email... so I don't fault them for emailing me the birthday message. I'll make sure she knows they cared enough to send their very best ;) However, take a look at the message, for context:

The issues:

• It came the day after my wife's birthday. Huge deal? No. But it makes AT&T look like they don't pay attention to the details. If AT&T has a system in place to send these out on Fridays (Maybe in hopes of weekend shopping use), they could simply change it to say "As our gift to you for your recent birthday..." or something similar. This error is one I probably would have overlooked, if not compounded by...
• The "Participating stores near you" lists two stores in Ann Arbor which were near us... When we lived in Ann Arbor. I updated my address with AT&T a couple of months ago. Hmm... I think someone's data systems are not talking to each other as well as they could.

These issues could just as well happened at a non-profit. In fact, I'm quite certain it happens more often at non-profits than places like AT&T. Why? Because the right and left hand are often failing to communicate at non-profits. Consider taking these actions:

• Have a clear data management policy. When updates come in, where do they go? Does everyone understand this?
• Make it easy for gift officers to email/share information. Can gift officers or volunteers send an email to updates@yourorg.org?
• Review marketing and solicitation communications for language like the birthday message above to make sure your automated systems are worded accurately.

On the flip side... My wife ordered some makeup from Sephora a couple days before her birthday via the website. Because she has an account with them via the website (that included her birthday information at sign-up), they prompted her as to whether or not she would like to include her birthday gift - which you normally receive when shopping at one of the brick & mortar stores - with the online order. And the receipt that came with the order even said "Happy birthday beautiful!" (Which honestly made me wonder if I had ordered it for her in her sleep or if she had actually sent herself a birthday message!).

All great use of personal data. So I dug on Sephora's website and found this policy. Kudos Sephora!

All Beauty Insiders are eligible to receive a get-gorgeous birthday gift from Sephora. Your gift will be automatically included with any merchandise order placed at Sephora.com within 14 days of your birthday. To include the gift with your order, simply place a check in the box on the Beauty Insider page of the checkout process.

If you are within the correct timeframe, but you do not see the birthday gift as you are checking out, please call customer service at 877-SEPHORA before placing your order so that we can assist you further. If your birthday timeframe has passed for this year, rest assured, we will have another exciting gift next year. We regret that we are unable to send the birthday gift from Sephora.com without a merchandise order, and we thank you for your understanding.

If you prefer, you can also pick up your birthday gift at a Sephora retail store during the same timeframe. When picking up your birthday gift at one of our retail locations, please make sure to let our Cast Members know that you are a Beauty Insider by presenting your Beauty Insider Card or referencing your registered email address. No purchase is necessary to receive your gift at a Sephora store.

I never thought I would be bringing you my wife's birthday, AT&T or Sephora Through Non-Profit Eyes, but that's one of the reasons I blog ...to share best practice for non-profits from other media and industries!

For more on data management and its importance, see Supporting Advancement's Prospect & Donor Records page.

Ad Execs, Part III: Miles Nadal

-----------------------------

An Airplane Magazine, Through Non-Profit Eyes: Part 3 of 5: Miles Nadal

See all five series posts here.

I rarely read the airlines' magazines when flying because I'm generally doing one of the following: reading something I brought along for the flight, sleeping, or working on my computer. For some reason (even though I had the capability of doing any of these preferred activities), the July 2010 issue of Delta's Sky magazine caught my eye on a recent Baltimore-NYC-Boston trip. Well, not just "some reason," but the fact that the cover story was entitled The Mad, Mad World of Advertising. The magazine tied interviews with leading advertising professionals in with an article about the hit show, Mad Men.

I found some great material from those interviewed in the magazine and bring you the following quotes, Through Non-Profit Eyes. The direct quotes are from Sky.

-----------------------------

Miles Nadal (@milesnadal), Chairman and CEO, MDC Partners

Sky: Nadal is founder, chairman and CEO of the Toronto-based MDC Partners, an advertising, media and marketing holding company that includes the hot shop Crispin Porter + Bogusky (the firm behind Burger King's "Creepy King" and Best Buy's "Buyer be Happy" campaigns). Nadal also founded First Asset Management, one of Canada's largest asset-management firms.

More Donors Blog: It should also be noted that Nadal is a generous and dedicated philanthropist. He has given millions of dollars to organizations such as the UJA Federation, Reena Foundation, and the Jewish National Fund of Canada. Nadal also was honored as the 2004 Volunteer of the Year by Toronto's chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

Some of the firm's work:

Nadal: (speaking on changes impacting the advertising industry) ...You'll find something more meaningful going on - the corresponding swing of the brand-building pendulum from persuasion to the influence of trusted sources, as seen, for example, in the proliferation of social media. Again, if you seek to drive change, it's essential to grasp not only the "whats," but also the "hows" and "whys" of new media.

MD: This is a topic you likely have thought of if you're taking the time to read this post, but the "hows" and "whys" - and I would add the "whos" - of new media are critical to advanced non-profit communications. Along those lines:

• How does social media fit into your overall message and communications plan?
• How does your NPO's work impact the people on Twitter & Facebook?
• Why would someone want to follow you on Twitter? Do you provide something useful to the conversation?
• Who among your followers, fans, donors, supporters, volunteers, etc. have the greatest influence on others? ...And will they speak on your behalf?.

N: ...Finally, I think the wise agency realizes that the phrase "creative talent" encompasses left-brain, analytical thinking, too. This is especially true in today's incredibly interactive marketing world, where consumers tell us so much about their preferences, lives and actions - if we know where to look and how to listen.

MD: Do you have this talent on your team? If you need to know about your constituents preferences for giving, how you impact their lives, and what actions they take to support other NPOs, where do you look?

• Analyze your data to see patterns in giving in terms of timing (time of year/month/day), frequency (annual/monthly/quarterly/etc.), channel (mail/phone/web/email/social-media) and amount. Look at the same for event attendance and volunteering.
• Plan future appeals accordingly - asking for the right amount at the right time via the right channel. Save your NPO resources and respect your constituents by not inundating them with mail appeals when they have only responded to email in the past.*
• * That being said... I'm a strong believer in campaigns in one channel helping fuel the success of campaigns in another. For example, the success of your year-end email appeal may be due in part to the case you made for support in your newsletter. Pay attention to results and analytics and adjust your strategy accordingly.

Quotable Tweet:

photos courtesy of Twitter & Sky

Social Media Statistics

FrogLoop pulled some nice information out of NTEN's 2010 Nonprofit Benchmarks Report that is useful for social media benchmarking. I've included some of FrogLoops's highlights and added some additional graphs and slides I thought you might find useful.

According to 1200 nonprofits surveyed:

• Facebook is the number one used commercial social network by nonprofits. 86% said that they have a presence on Facebook, a 16% increase from 2009. However, nonprofits experienced a drop in their average community from 5,391 members in 2009 to 2,440 in 2010.
• 60% of nonprofits are on Twitter as compared to 43% in 2009. Twitter’s average community size (i.e. number of followers) grew the fastest and by 627%. In 2009 nonprofits had an average of 286 followers. In 2010 nonprofits average close to 1800 followers.
• LinkedIn (largely used by education institutions and professional associations) usage remained steady over the last year (32.9% in 2009 and 33.1% this year).
• YouTube usage also remained steady over the last year moving up slightly from 46.5% in 2009 to 48.1% in 2010.
• MySpace suffered a 45% drop in popularity, dropping from 26.1% in 2009 to 14.4% in 2010.
• 50% of nonprofits said they plan to hire social media staff in the next 12 months.
• 20% said that they will increase funding towards social media projects such as hiring consultants, designers, and programmers to ramp up their social media presence.
• The nonprofits that have experienced the most success with social media are the organizations that have 2+ full time social media staff. These staff members spend time listening and engaging communities and are developing metrics to measure their impact.
• However, even with 2+ social media staff, nonprofits still face significant challenges and are requesting additional staff to increase their capacity for doing even more with social media.
• Fundraising is a priority, but few are bringing in significant dollars through the channel. Graphs below.

Though the report does not mention this, it is important to note that just because dollars aren't coming in directly through the social media channel, it doesn't mean that fundraising via social media isn't successful. It can be challenging to measure, but I would argue that the case-building conducted via Facebook, Twitter, etc. can make your direct marketing appeals and fundraising events more successful.

Interesting stats: