Giving / Philanthropy

Sounds counter-intuitive doesn't it?  Surely our selfless motivations, if  we really believe that "we are all in it together" should prompt us to ask "where can I help?".

But we're not all altruistic to the point of self-sacrifice because increasingly we can't afford to be.  Perhaps the most realistic expectation is to ask "what's in it for us?" where "us" means our nearest and dearest as well as our broader community and associations.

Why am I talking about this philosophical stuff, you may ask...? Because if we as organisations want anything from other individuals or organisations, I believe we need to understand the distinction between the above positions very clearly.  There is a tried and tested marketing concept called the value equation which suggests that in order to elicit the action we want from target audiences, we have to offer something commensurateand meaningful to them in order for them to perceive value in doing it.

On holiday in Devon recently, I visited the famous Donkey Sanctuary (yes really!). Two things struck me. Firstly, entry was free – a great way to attract new donors from around the country. Secondly, on the walls around the site were huge boards naming their legacy donors, year by year - and I mean huge! They were unmissable and listed the many hundreds of people who have remembered this charity in their wills. So what can we learn from this?

Do you want to know how to easily write the ideal case study?  So would I. 

Unfortunately, in my experience there are too many variables for it to be ‘quick and easy’.

I’m not going to name names here but in the last fortnight, in the process of helping charity clients to write case studies I’ve come across many articles, e-books and blogs that all suggest a magic formula to what should be included in a good case study.  To be fair, lots of what I found makes sense in that they should be succinct wherever possible, outcomes-focused and in today’s multi-media world should contain images and even video links to show your work or outcomes in action. 

I found some particularly sound advice over at ngo media - if you appreciate an experienced view overlaid with common sense, this is a good place to start.

But here’s why I disagree with those who purport to having THE formula for a great case study – and it’s really obvious if you think about it...

Not all audiences want to see, hear or know the same things about us or our work.

There is plenty of free advice on fundraising on the web, but not much from donors. And here is a very good example from the latter type.

Being a bit harder-hitting in our marketing can be a powerful way to create an emotional trigger to encourage action.  That said, it’s also at the riskier end of communications techniques because there is a greater potential to shock or offend recipients rather than inspire them to action.

Anti-fur clothing campaigners like PeTA famously use shock tactics (and lots of stripped off celebrities) to get across their point about animal cruelty and appeal to the audience’s raw emotion.  But, as we know, this doesn’t always work in their favour as even sympathetic audiences can be turned off by communications they deem have simply gone too far.

Last week Oliver Burkeman's column in The Guardian magazine asked "Is it true that for every subject, th

Whilst social media is still perceived as a cool set of communications tools, the debate continues to rage regarding hard facts-based ROI for fundraisers. This new article and infographic from the Care2 network shows a picture from the USA which suggests these channels are valued but that direct mail is still the daddy when it comes to fundraising success.

I've seen better results from UK charities (the now infamous NSPCC Facebook campaign and Comic Relief to name just two) so what do UK fundraisers think of this experience from the USA? Does it mirror what we're seeing here or are we ahead of the curve in terms of using social media for fundraising as opposed to building awareness?

For those feeling daunted by 2012, a word of encouragement. It’s not all bad news. Yes, things will be tough, but we’re all getting used to that. Nevertheless, you will still need something to carry you through the year and help you raise the funds your organisation depends on.

What a week of message contradictions we've noted at Bottom Line Ideas...

First there was research from Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) which showed Britain to be the fifth most charitable country in the world (up from eighth last year apparently). The same research also reported that nearly 80% of us give regularly to charity, second only to the Thais. Then we saw the British Government veto any further support to the IMF in support of specific Euro-zone bailouts - our European cousins perhaps not feeling our generosity quite so much.

I was reading the tweets from the very useful @marketingdonut team and was pleased to see them share  renowned marketing expert Drayton Bird’s “35 things I have found to be almost always true”.  I was pleased to see it again as I didn’t get the chance to add to the list from a not-for-profit perspective... something I aim to put right below for the most impactful of Mr Bird’s points:

1. Relevance matters more than originality – 100% agree but originality tends to get more cut-through than cliché
2. The most important element in any creative endeavour is the brief – ie; the robust thinking that went into it and how the organisation can articulate that to an outsider
3. The urgent takes precedence over the important – but a mixture of both is likely to be the right thing to do (if your plans are robust, that is)
4. The customer you want is like the customer you’ve got – so true... but as well as the new types of donor, volunteer or supporter, not instead of!
5. The internet is just accelerated direct marketing – I think it's more than DM these days.  Perhaps it’s just a hugely powerful means to achieving a whole raft of objectives (including traditional direct marketing)?