About the author: Chris Forbes is a certified Guerrilla Marketing coach and founder of MinistryMarketingCoach.com. He speaks and writes on the subjects of ministry marketing, faith-based nonprofit marketing, social marketing, and Guerrilla Marketing for nonprofits. Many organizations put together their marketing materials with the worst approach for getting attention from the people they want to reach. They send their messages out with what Jay Conrad Levinson calls “You Marketing.”You marketing: is the kind of communication that centers on the organization. When I pick up your brochure as a prospect, I am learning about you. You are talking about you. You are telling your side of the story.Me Marketing: Most people are tuned into what matters to them. They tune in to the messages that speak to their needs from their perspective. If I pick up your brochure and it is talking about “me” I am far more interested. This approach, forces you to find the benefits and life-application of what you are offering to people.That reminds me of an illustration I read in the Outreach Church Communication’s Strategic Outreach Guide by Ed Stetzer and Eric Ramsey, imagine a restaurant that spoke only of their features in “you marketing”. They would talk about their staff, their great kitchen, their use of the latest cooking techniques. Who cares?Now, imagine that same restaurant with “me marketing.” They would talk about fresh ingredients, the options I have for what kind of food I want, the variety, the atmosphere of the restaurant for meetings and special occasions like my anniversary. They would make the price right for me, the food to my taste, the presentation pleasant to me.Now go back and look at your website or brochures. Do you tell about your mission, your great staff, your awards, your programs? Is it all about you-you, you, you? How can you change the copy to reflect more “me marketing?”
Need to start online fundraising? Have you checked out PayPal or Google Checkout?It’s time to consider a better (but still free!) solution. Network for Good provides a free online fundraising service to registered 501(c)3 organizations — DonateNow Lite.How does DonateNow Lite compare to Paypal?Donor experience is heightened because of Network for Good’s use of a donation form (rather than a shopping cart).Donors receive automated tax receipts and online donation history.You can accept recurring donations.You can track donations with online reports.Our service is registered to process donations for nonprofits from the residents of all 50 states + DC — PayPal is not. (While Network for Good is a registered charity in all requiring states, we recommend that you also seek professional advice for your unique situation in complying with applicable laws governing charitable appeals in the respective states.)Network for Good is a nonprofit like you are.We offer our subscribers free fundraising training & resources at www.fundraising123.org.Don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions!
The Chronicle of Philanthropy has a great series up right now with 10 things to do now, to raise money during the downturn. You need a subscription to read the full articles but here’s their list. It is based on interviews with a variety of organizations. Some of these are back-to-basics ideas, which is what a lot of people are focusing on. Others are about being frugal and innovative. All excellent ideas these days.Don’t treat giving as a financial transaction. Tell donors how their giving is making the world a better place and don’t just focus on the perks they will receive (e.g. “you get a newsletter and four free tickets” — this is especially important for arts organizations).Keep close ties to donors. Don’t make your only contact with donors be solicitations. Focus on thanking and showing impact. Find ways to let donors see the impact for themselves.Offer matching grants. Ask a loyal donor or funder to provide the match.Ask donors to give monthly. ‘Nuff said.Look for ways to save money on fundraising. Trim special event expenses or eliminate programs that aren’t serving you well. Look for ways to move your communications online. Freeze salaries. Renegotiate with your vendors and consultants (don’t know about this one!).Seek alternatives to soliciting private donations. Can you rent some of your space to another organization? Start a social enterprise? Develop a cause-marketing partnership with a corporation?Collaborate to raise money. You can have greater impact and generate more attention by working with others. For example, ten grassroots organizations serving people with disabilities could put on one large event instead of each having their own. They would probably raise more, hold a better event and get more attention than doing it alone.Scale back ambitious campaigns, but don’t give up on them. You may have to scale back on the goal or increase the length of your “quiet phase” where the lead gifts are solicited.Avoid emergency solicitations. Asking donors to bail you out or save you from impending demise is not an appealing message — who wants to invest in an organization on the brink of collapse? Instead, tell people how the economy is hurting the people you serve and the issues you work on.Shore up relations with grant makers. It is going to take some time before endowment-based funders can get back to decent levels of giving, but that doesn’t mean you should stop paying attention to them. Be on their list when giving resumes, by being in touch and continuing to show them you are making a difference. Source: http://blueprintfundraising.com/the-fundit/
BBMG’s second annual Conscious Consumer Report is out. The national study on purchasing behavior and social values is available here. Below are highlights from the report, provided by BBMG. They sound about right to me – there is a lot of skepticism about all marketing claims these days. And this is further proof that Wal-Mart has done quite a job turning around national opinion thanks to some high-profile moves to be more socially responsible.Consumers Like Green, but Are Skeptical of Corporate Claims. Nearly one in four U.S. consumers (23%) say they have “no way of knowing” if a product is green or actually does what it claims, signaling a lack of confidence in green marketing and revealing a widespread “green trust gap.” But consumers’ lack of trust does not mean lack of interest. The BBMG report finds that 77 percent of Americans agree that they “can make a positive difference by purchasing products from socially or environmentally responsible companies,” and they are actively seeking information to verify green claims. Consumers are most likely to turn to consumer reports (29%), certification seals or labels on products (28%) and the list of ingredients on products (27%) to determine if a product is green and does what it claims. Consumers are least likely to look to statements on product packaging (11%) and company advertising (5%), signaling deep skepticism of company-driven marketing. Interest in Green Holds Despite Tough Economy. Nearly seven in ten Americans agree (67%) that “even in tough economic times, it is important to purchase products with social and environmental benefits,” and half (51%) say they are “willing to pay more” for them.Price and Performance Still Paramount, But Green Gains Ground. Price (66% very important) and quality (64%) top consumers’ list of most important product attributes, followed by good for your health (55%) and made in the USA (49%). But green benefits have increased in importance since last year – including energy efficiency (47% very important in 2008, 41% in 2007), locally grown or made nearby (32% in 2008, 26% in 2007), all natural (31% in 2008, 24% in 2007), made from recycled materials (29% in 2008, 22% in 2007) and USDA organic (22% in 2008, 17% in 2007).Wal-Mart Tops List of Most and Least Socially Responsible Companies. When asked unaided which companies come to mind as the most socially or environmentally responsible companies, 7 percent of Americans named Wal-Mart, followed by Johnson & Johnson (6%), Procter & Gamble (4%), GE (4%) and Whole Foods (3%). Wal-Mart also topped the list of the least responsible companies (9%), along with Exxon Mobile (9%), GM (3%) and Ford (3%), Shell (2%) and McDonald’s (2%). Interestingly, 41% of Americans could not name a single company that they consider the most socially and environmentally responsible.Consumers Reward, Punish and Influence Based on Corporate Practices. Seven in ten consumers (71%) agree that they “avoid purchasing from companies whose practices they disagree with”; and approximately half tell others to shop (55%) or drop (48%) products based on a company’s social and environmental practices.
Download the MP3 audio recording, transcript, free e-book and presentation slides below!Everybody’s talking about Twitter and its potential for online fundraising, but is anyone actually raising money with it? What are the key success factors shared by nonprofits who have used Twitter successfully? Where do nonprofits start on Twitter?This webinar covers how to tell if Twitter is a good fit for your organization and where to find recommended resources, free tools and reading.In this presentation you will:Know how to explain Twitter to your grandmotherMaster the 4 post types – when and how to use themUnderstand the pros and cons of Twitter vs. email and direct mailLearn Twitter campaign management basicsTraining made available in part due to the support of the Surdna Foundation
The Washington Post had an article yesterday (registration may be required to read it) that made the same mistake nonprofit marketing folks often make when judging the relative value of Facebook: it simply looked at Facebook as a place you post a cause and expect the dollars to roll in. If it doesn’t do that, the Post concludes, it doesn’t work.I’ve heard fundraisers say the same thing.But there is more to the story.Be sure to read the excellent comments here and more important, read Allison Fine’s response on her blog.Bottom line: the value of Facebook is not to be calculated by dollar per donor. Allison notes:Let’s reframe: what if Causes was judged by the number of people who know about a cause who didn’t know about it before; the number of people who increase their involvement with that cause by sharing information with friends about it, organizing an event, blogging and tweeting about it, and so on; the number of people who have self-organized an event for the cause. I’m sure there are other meausres, but you get the point, what measures we use to define success will utlimately define us and while dollars in might be easy to measure it’s not alwasy the best one to use… Causes isn’t just about raising money, it’s also about raising friends and awareness, and in the long run turning loose social ties into stronger ones for a cause may be more important than one-time donations of $10 and $20 dollars right now. Our rush to judge this application effective or ineffective over a very short time period with a primary user base of very young people is off base.Facebook is one tool for interacting and engaging with a community — not a fundraising silver bullet.UPDATE: Be sure to read Beth Kanter’s post on this as well.
IssueLab recently told me this was possible. I said, “really? Prove it with a guest post.” And here’s what they have to say:Does your organization have a stale list of publications on your web site or a shelf full of research you produced years ago? Are you looking for a way to hook into a hot news topic or online discussion but you don’t have the resources to produce new research? Nonprofits often think their older work isn’t newsworthy anymore – but we know from IssueLab’s user behavior that people are looking for research on relevant topics, no matter how old it is. In the same way that lessons from very local issues can be applied regionally or nationally, or extrapolated data can provide important indicators for a bigger picture, older research can and does inform and support current debates. Research reports provide ‘milestones’ that can serve as benchmarks, historical records, examples of successes and failures, a resource for further information (through citations and references), a method for identifying gaps in the sector, and as indicators of change over time. How would we know whether policy shaped action, or action led to policy change – without older research? The point is, research can always be relevant for someone, somewhere. Nonprofits shouldn’t shy away from archival work just because of its publication date. Constituents are looking for your work! As an example, in IssueLab, the three most requested reports published before 1990 were viewed almost 600 times in 2009 alone. That’s almost 20 years after they were first published!We think it’s vital that the collective body of research remains large enough to reflect the importance of an issue at any given time. So, dust off that report, digitize it if necessary, and start sharing it as a “backgrounder” on your web site, in the comments section of blogs where there is debate and conversation about an issue related to your work, twitter it as a “resource”, add it to IssueLab’s forum for nonprofit research, or even include it in your next e-newsletter as a testament to how far your issue has come or evidence of the fact that things haven’t changed enough!To add your research to IssueLab, create a free account today and list as much research as you’d like – just go here – we take care of the rest.
Network for Good is hiring. Let me know if you’re interested in these positions. We have sales positions and an opening for a user interfact/front-end engineer. Terrific people, please apply!
Here are some posts you should be reading. Transparency is a hot topic – the new black, really – so what does this mean? How much is the right amount? For whom? What are the ups and downs of demand for tranparency, which is here to stay.Read:Lucy Bernholz on transparency’s ups and downs.Allison Fine’s reflections on tranparency (be sure to read Lessig’s comment)David Roodman’s thoughts on Kiva in recent weeks amid this tranparency debate
Posted on February 9, 2011November 13, 2014Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Summary: Women Deliver is an advocacy organization focused on solutions to improve the health of girls and women – long-term and short-term – at the national, regional, and global levels. The position of Executive Officer is second in charge to the President and works closely with the President and staff to achieve Women Deliver objectives. The Executive Officer participates in the overall planning, integration, and oversight of all Women Deliver programs; serves as a resource to all programs; has oversight responsibility in formation of policies, and serves as a key advocate and fundraiser for the organization. This position has a high degree of independence.Reports to: The PresidentEssential Functions:Acts with full-delegated authority on behalf of the President in her absenceIn close coordination with the President is responsible for the development and execution of the organizational goals and operational strategyIn close coordination with the President provides leadership and coordination for fundraising and donor management, business development and partnership activitiesIn close coordination with the President represents the organization to the public, key stakeholders and business partnersIn coordination with the President provides leadership and direction for staff, setting an effective team agenda and ensuring performance goals are set and achievedServes as a mentor, coach and guide to senior staffOther duties as requested by the PresidentFor requirements, more information and how to apply, visit Women Deliver’s Careers page.Share this: ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read: