"Completely on the page with e-fundraising"

Even though the e-mail address is an 'info@', many charities list the names and responsibilities of their personnel - often with brief resumés as well. So why use an info@?

1. Because people move on - the average tenure in most jobs is 2 years or less these days. How sad would it be if a major donor was in contact with Joe, went travelling for a couple of years, came back, e-mailed Joe to re-engage with the charity - and got a bounce back because Joe has been replaced by Jane.

2. The vast majority of charities are relatively small and may only have one or two fundraisers. Or fundraisers may be volunteers/working from home etc etc etc. Joe and Jane may not wish for the other to see *all* their e-mails if one of them goes on holiday - let alone that some charities don't have a dedicated IT resource and it may take a day or two for e-mail accesses to be sorted out if one of them goes sick (no warning).

A number of people can be given access to the "info@" inbox, ensuring that queries are answered as fast as possible by whoever picks up the e-mail. You would hope that whoever answered would give their name to start that personal relationship!

It's a pity that Redina has focussed on this as her first issue. In my opinion, the issues she discusses in relation to the messages (all very true in too many cases) are far more important.

Sandre
-------

Congratulations Andrew and team on doing a great job with online giving... lots of food for thought and interesting ideas.

Well, since direct mail got a bit of beating I would like to say that there are good elements of direct mail that online giving teams can incorporate in charity websites.

Here are some of the common weaknesses of I have discovered in charity websites when it comes to online giving that if addressed can help a charity build stronger relationships with online donors:

No personalised invitations to give - in direct mail fundraising the invitation to give is issued from one person (e.g. the CEO, the fundraiser or the particular project leader) to another (e.g, the donor). In most websites, with very few exceptions, there is no personalised invitation to give. In other words, online fundraising asks are like 'unsigned' letters issued to a whole crowd. Crazy or what?

The online visitor is often invited to relate to info@charity.com Try asking a question to a charity, make an enquiry about their work, or donate and sure enough you will be directed to that infamous online 'person' called 'info' who may or may not reply to your email. Why is that? - I still haven't found a satisfactory answer to this question. But if you are a charity fundraiser reading this blog then go and have a look at your charity's website - pretending for a moment you are an outsider how would you feel if the only contact point with the charity is that dreaded 'info@charity.com' ?

Generic invitations to give that don't relate to compelling stories. You know what I am talking about - take a look at a charity's homepage and you will find one or two compelling stories of how the charity is making a difference. Then press the 'Donate Now' button and hey presto a page will open up with a donation form and no reasons to give that relate to the story you have just read. Even the most inexperienced fundraiser would not dream of mailing out just a response form to potential donors without connecting the 'ask' to a project or a cause - so why set ourselves up for failing by doing this online?

Giving no reasons to motivate donors to become regular givers. Sure, most charities now have a regular giving facility online but, once again when you click on that 'regular giving' button what comes up is a standard form without any inspiring copy to encourage donors to become regular givers. Ah, I almost forgot - some fundraisers hasten to add in the regular giving page a sentence about 'regular giving helps us keep our costs down'. Well good for you - but I don't think that is the number one reason that motivates donors to give. Do you?

Too many calls to action - a couple of weeks ago I reviewed a charity website with six calls to action that included donating now, regular giving, sponsorships, prayer, campaigning, carbon footprint reduction tips, volunteering, - you name it they had it. A labyrinth of opportunities that paralysed me completely - so I took a look got confused and well, left! Please understand me that different calls to action are not necessary a bad thing but, next time you add another one please prioritise ... and stay focused otherwise you are likely to overwhelm your potential givers and confuse them too. Once again, you would not ask the donor to do three or four things in one appeal when you send a fundraising letter so why do that online?
The list can go on I suppose but I will stop here and would be very interested to hear your views and opinions on this matter.... so please feel free to comment.

Redina Kolaneci
Senior Fundraising & Stewardship Consultant
McConkey/Johnston International UK
www.mcconkey-johnston.co.uk

Sarah,

Thanks for the comments and praise! I think you are completely right that we need to help the whole sector understand how to fundraise online better and that sharing success is a part of this.

Personally I think the sector has been slow because an approach in terms of a whole new set of metrics is necessary. Online marketing isn't about return on investment and response rates. You don't (or shouldn't) pay to get people on your site and try to get money out of them quick as if it was a mailshot or advert. You try to make a website a pleasant and interesting place where people bring their friends. About 45% of our new visitors bookmark our site and thats far more important than converting to cash in the long run. Trying to understand it as if it were just the same as other media, and paying in the same way is all wrong.

Andrew