This tough because I am more of a marketing fellow than a fundraiser like Jen, so I tend to read a lot of both. Nonetheless, in the last three years, the one book that I have read and loaned out numerous times (and now don’t know who has my copy! can i have it back?) is Tribes by Seth Godin.

I’ve blogged about Tribes before and even got a personal thank you from Mr. Godin.

To answer Nancy’s question, this is my book of choice because it ordered me to do the two things I feared the most.

Lead and challenge the status quo.

Seth writes, “Leadership is scarce because few people are willing to go through the discomfort required to lead. The scarcity makes leadership valuable. If everyone tries to lead all the time, not much happens. It’s discomfort that creates the leverage that makes leadership worthwhile.

When you identify the discomfort, you’ve found the place where a leader is needed.”

Leading is scary because we can screw up. We can be laughed at. We can be fired. Leading is scary…

But – and here is the important point – we need to lead because we have fans, we have tribes of people who need us to.

In our case, I see a sector that is SCARED TO DEATH of being wrong. Funds are tight, our donors demand that we spend every dollar as wisely as possible. There is not a lot of room for mistakes. But here’s the thing…

If we do everything the same way we always do it – or worse yet – the same way everyone else is doing it – nothing will change. You will get the same results as the year before, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less…

Being a leader and challenging the status quo takes courage, it takes guts, and we all can do it. You get that right?

We all can do it.

I’m prepared to be laughed at, or fired, or mocked, or criticized. It means I’m doing the right thing.

Your tribe needs you.

I strongly urge you to pick up Seth’s book, it will change how you think about the work you do and the life you lead.

So now you can tell me, what book has changed your professional life?

A few weeks ago I asked a question on Linkedin, “Simple question today: when i say “donor centered” – what charity, agency or consultant do you think of ”

The results were interesting and insightful and I invite you to read them.

I asked because I had been thinking of gathering some “donor centered” experts, as determined and perceived by others, for either a panel at a conference or perhaps just an interesting article…

But what really got me heated up was the dismissal of donored centered fundraising as some sort of catch phrase, a buzz word, something flung around in boardrooms by high paid consultants… I suddenly felt dirty for even asking the question, like somehow I was being grouped in with a bunch of overpaid, buzz word spewing consultants who have raked valuable dollars way from those who need it …

In the halls of Agents of Good, donored centered fundraising isn’t a buzzword. It’s a way of life.

If you don’t know what it means, either you don’t do it or don’t care to find out.

BUT you are in luck, I’m gonna tell you.

It means, (and please listen closely) that all things you do, you do for your donor.

Does that sound like a buzzword?

All things you do, you do for your donor.

Your charity was created because someone or ‘someone’s'… Wanted to make a difference or fix something that needed fixing. Once it was created, it needed some people to help sustain it, support it, nurture it, care for it… These people are called staff, board and donors… All of them are very important.

But at the the end of the day, the only consistent… Is your donors. Your staff, your board, you… Will come and go… But your donors, if they are cared for, supported and nurtured, will stay forever.

So who is the most important entity in this relationship?

We (Agents of Good) aren’t doing anything new here folks. People like Gwen Chapman, Ken Burnett and Tom Ahern have been going on about this forever, but it’s like everyone has forgotten.

A 80 page annual report all about your programs? Not donor centered.
A newsletter with small pics of people holding big cheques? Not about your donor.
A website with tiny type and links to every other site on the internet? Nope.

BUT

Tweeting about a volunteer who made a difference today – that’s donor centered.
Sharing the stories of how someone’s life was changed due donor support – that’s donor centered.
Making it easy for people to give and support – that’s donor centered.
Saying thank you when someone gives – that’s donor centered.
ACTUALLY caring and remembering you have donors with names and lives (and not numbers!) – that’s donor centered!

Don’t tell me you are being donor centered when you aren’t. Don’t tell me it’s a buzz word because you don’t know what it means and don’t tell me you can’t do it cause it costs too much money.

All things you do for your donor.

Put that on your wall above your desk and JFDI.

Additional resources: Pamela Grow’s Donor Centered Tip Sheet here.
Great collection of other people’s thoughts on what donor centered means via Kimberley Mackenzie.

Because the content sucks.

I watched the debate. Boring, entitled white guy backpedals and blames the other guy. I follow the candidates on Twitter. Broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

But now the election is coming into my mailbox. You’re on my turf now.

I could write for days about the vacant, forgettable and uninspiring “leaflets” I’m getting from the candidates. They literally go straight to the kitchen table so Sadie can colour on them and then at least they are worth talking about.

But today, dear readers, I’m writing to tell you about the voter information card to save you the agony I experienced today. I received the Elections Canada mail saying “Have you received your voter information card from Elections Canada?” It looks like the voter card, which I’ve received for years now, but it actually is not a voter card. It is a reminder that if you don’t have your voter card you should contact Elections Canada. It has a large image OF the voter card on it, but instead of saying Jennifer Mary Love (no, Danger is not my middle name) it says YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS. Huh?

So, being me, I go online. Find the number of my local elections office and call. It’s a 1-800 number, which puzzles me, since I’m pretty sure I’m calling someone in my community. Nevertheless, I get through.

After some voice-activated prompting and button pushing, I get through to a guy. I describe the confusing and weird mail in my hands. I explain that I am on the voters list, at this address, so I want to make sure I can exercise my democratic rights on May 2. He says, yes, I am on the voter’s list, and that my voter card will come to me, but that “it seems” they mixed up the order of the voter cards and the “have you received your voter cards” and I should be receiving my voter card next week. Helpfully, if it doesn’t arrive,  he reminds me, I can just call back.

Seriously?

Imagine sending out the reminder before the appeal? Or the tax receipt before the gift? It boggles my mind to think of how many monkeys fell asleep on their desks for this to happen.

If only there was something I could do to change the way I feel about my government. All I need is my voter card.

#sigh

Tom’s e-news landed in my inbox this week and once I read this I knew either I had to steal it or ask for his permission to post it (don’t worry – he said I could!) So I hope you enjoy this post as much as I did. – john

“Dear donors: We’re happy to say, we have switched to a digital annual report.”

Happy? R U really so sure?

In February 2011, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published a story that tracked the nascent rise of the digital annual report.

The Salvation Army (USA) had found that “about half” its printed annual reports went wasted: found no audience; were literally never opened. So “it decided to scrap the hard-copy version, moving to an all-digital one….”

You can almost hear the conclusion at headquarters: “Print isn’t working. Let’s go with digital instead.” And a digital version certainly has advantages.

-It’s conveniently available at the click of a mouse, 24 hours a day.
- It can offer lively entertainment. In this one, videos, professionally shot and edited, take the viewer on a journey into the actual neighborhoods where the Salvation Army does its difficult work.
- And even the messages from the director and board chair (customarily, the “Death Valley equivalent” in printed annual reports) are compelling when spoken on-screen, under dramatic lighting, with a musical soundtrack and Hollywood production values. Imagine your executive director acting in The Da Vinci Code; that’s what it looks and sounds like.

I wonder, though. Is this merely a “half empty/half full” conundrum?

If half the annual reports were never opened, then half WERE opened, after all.

And, unlike online video, you never know where a physical copy of your annual report might end up.

Let me tell you a real-life story. A couple of years ago, an attorney phoned this community foundation I know. He had very good news: the foundation would soon receive a multi-million-dollar gift from a man who had died without heirs.

Of course, the foundation was delighted. But puzzled, too: they’d never heard of their benefactor.

“How did he even know us?” the gift officer asked. The attorney replied, “Well, I happened to have your annual report on the coffee table in my reception area. He came in for an appointment and got to reading.”

So I have two questions for The Salvation Army (USA). One: Was it really print that failed? Two: Is it really an either/or situation?

One of the first seriously wrong conclusions about donor communications I ever heard was this: “We tried direct mail,” said the executive director of a small nonprofit. “And it didn’t work for us.” I accepted her assessment. Back then, I didn’t know any better. But as I armored up with training over the years, I learned to be more analytical:
- Was her direct mail piece any good to begin with? No, probably not.
- Was her mailing list well selected to begin with? No, probably not.
- Were the results, therefore, lousy? Yes, predictably so. Direct mail fundraising is a gladiatorial arena where only the well-trained survive.

Lesson learned: If you know nothing about direct mail, do not expect to succeed in that particular hard-to-get-right, easy-to-get-wrong medium.

Lesson extended: If your annual report isn’t getting read, don’t necessarily blame the reader or the medium. Look in the mirror first: Are you doing this well?

Even smart organizations (and the Salvation Army USA is a very smart organization when it hires donor communications vendors for things like direct mail) get clumsy when it comes time to do a printed annual report.

Takeaway >>>>
Boring and risk-free simply do NOT work in marketing. Ever. There are neuroscience reasons why that is, but I won’t get into those today.

Just keep this in mind: fundraising is a type of marketing. Fundraising must obey the very same psychological principles of persuasion that marketing must obey. Brains are brains. Being a donor may grant you an honorary halo, but it does not change your neural network.

What boring is is safe. Choosing to be safe is the professional equivalent of throwing in the towel. Safe donor communications will NOT raise as much money. But then no one above you is likely to know that’s the case. So if you do choose to be safe, this is one of those spanking great times when the ignorance of your boss and board (re: how donor communications really work) will help you. They also like — oh, come on: they love — safe, too.

Even though it doesn’t work. Guaranteed.

Thanks Tom – I would strongly urge that you RUN – don’t walk to Tom’s site right now and sign up for his informative, insightful and always entertaining e-newsletters right now. Like, right now. Why are you still reading this?

John and Jen are two incredible fundraising and marketing professionals who I have the honour of working with at Second Harvest. They have kicked our direct mail program and website development into hyperdrive, and I really can’t recommend them enough. Plus, they are awesome and opinionated people. Here is their website: http://www.agentsofgood.org/ and here is their terrific blog: http://blog.agentsofgood.org/

1. Nothing beats a good story. Nothing.
2. At the end of the day, it is our relationships that define us.
3. Sorry Marshall, the medium is not the message. Your channel of communication needs to be appropriate, but content is king.
4. Agents are everywhere, but not everyone can be an Agent.
5. People are moved to act because of stories and feelings, not facts and statistics.
6. People want to believe their support matters.
7. People are disgusted when they are betrayed or mislead by a charity. And they are suspicious forever.
8. We are truly and deeply inspired by the number of passionate people who want to be part of something special and unique. We all want to be part of a tribe that speaks to us.
9. Like all Agents projects, this list isn’t about us, it’s about you.
10. The three most important words in fundraising? You. You. And you.

And here you are reading my blog about it.

You’re going to hear my venting. But if you can hang on through the rage, you’ll also hopefully think about how you talk to your donors/communities of supporters.

Phone rings.

Me: “hello?”

Pause. Clicking. Some kind of murmuring.

Me: “hello!?”

Murmur louder. Then YELLING: “MRS. LOVE?!?!?!?!”

Me: “Hi. You’re loud. But I can hear you now.”

Caller: “Sorry. The machine doesn’t always tell us when we have someone on the line.”

Me: “Uh. OK.”

Caller: “Anyway Mrs. Love, I’m calling to thank you for being a loyal customer and ask you if you have any questions about our service.”

Pause.

Should I? Should I tell this woman how “the machine” makes me feel unimportant, and that if she wants Mrs. Love she should call my mother, or my paternal grandmother (who just died). I’m Ms. Love and proud of it. The only thing that’s worse is when people call and ask for Mrs. (my husband’s name). Should I tell her that her manner is unpleasant, and that I can hear hundreds of other people just like her yammering in the background. I decide not to.

Me: “I don’t really have any questions.”

Caller: “Well, I also should let you know that we have great promotions to sign up for other services with us.”

Me: “Like what?”

Caller: “Like internet, cable TV, digital cable, home phone and wireless.”

Me: “Uh. I already have all those things with you.”

Pause.

Caller: “Oh, well then you aren’t eligible for anything. Thank you for being a loyal customer.”

Hangs up.

Seriously?

I have ALL your services. I thought that’s why I got the loyal customer call.

But no. I got the loyal customer call because one person, from one division of this massive company, had the bright idea to call all the customers and ask them to sign up for other services from the same mega company.

What they didn’t spend 30 seconds doing was to segment this list. Figure out who has one service and offer them a second. Figure out who has two services and offer them a third.

And, in the worst case, you call someone who is a loyal customer, give them bad service and then have nothing to offer.

#FAIL.

And you know what hurts most? It’s my birthday. And they know that. Because when I do call them I have to give my birthday (including year…those assholes) so they can “confirm me”.

Here’s how, if the Agents of Good ran the world, the call would go.

Phone rings.

Me: “Hello”.

Caller: “Hey, Jen! I’m calling from ABC Company and I’m just calling to say thank you. You are a loyal customer of ours, and we are reaching out to say thanks. Do you have any questions about your service, anything I can help with at all? No? Well, that’s awesome. Oh, hey. I see it’s your birthday! WOOT! Happy Birthday. Have an awesome day.”

Nothing like waking up and over your morning coffee, tucking into a blog post that instantly makes your blood boil.

In case you doing want to read The Agitator article, let me nutshell it for you. Wikipedia is in the midst of conducting its annual fundraising campaign – which has been collaboratively put together by 900 volunteers…

No -that’s not a typo. 900.

I quote:
Philippe Beaudette, the Wikimedia Foundation staff member overseeing the campaign says:
“Group collaboration is the future of fund raising. Organizations are going to have to work harder for donor dollars, and the ones that will be successful will be the ones that do not involve professional fund raisers. Professional fund raisers are sometimes limited by history and afraid to think outside the box. It is going to take new creative ideas, and the best way to get that is to have a huge number of people thinking.”

Here’s a link to the whole article: here.

So what has my undies tied so tightly in a knot this morning?

At the risk of a gross generalization (who me?): “professional fundraisers” have gotten lazy. They’ve been lazy. A few of my lasts posts have been about stupid direct mail and a lack of innovation – I’m attacking both sides of the coin here.

I think what settles me down a little is knowing that every day we try.

Jen and I have had a lot, and I mean a lot of discussions around this.

The best “professional fundraisers” know when to rely on history and tried and true methods that work, they know when they need to do something unique and innovative – maybe not the the sector but to the cause and its audience, they know that working with other good people can result in work that is fulfilling and effective.

But I digress.

Anything, in my mind, designed by 900 people is going to be a disaster and smells of a publicity stunt to me. But as always, who cares what I think – how does their annual campaign do? We will all sit back and wait to hear from Philippe.

In the meanwhile, let’s not be lazy. Let’s not be trapped by our organizational box or history. And I swear to you, if you always remember there is a living being on the other end of that envelope, or clicking on your email, or watching your video, and you do EVERYTHING in your power to connect to them, no one will ever accuse you of being lazy or lacking innovation.

Also – coincidentally enough, I also got my fall newsletter from my pal Bob Knight… and he had this to day on the same subject:

THE FAVOUR OF ORIGINALITY IS REQUESTED
A couple of weeks ago, on one day, I received direct mail solicitations from two charities. But you’d hardly know at a glance that they were different. That’s because both outer envelopes bore the very same teaser: “The favour of your reply is requested.”

As a result of the aforementioned, I don’t expect to do any of them the favour of replying.

Without prodding or poking, our very own Godfather of Good, Agent David Love, fired me this rant this afternoon and I share it with you now.

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

If you’re a certain age, you’ll recognize this anguished response. If you’re not, watch the award-winning film “Network” and enjoy a spectacular performance by the late Peter Finch.

I’m mad as hell too. And at a network.

Last week, the CBC decided to pillory Canada’s charities after taking a superficial look at the public forms charities are required to produce for the Canada Revenue Agency.

They found that there were “third-party” fundraising agencies charging such large commissions that little money went to the cause. Armed with this selective, non-representative fact, the network castigated all charities and all fundraisers.

I’ve been raising money for over 40 years and I’ve been called a lot of things. The CBC just called me dishonest.

And all because there are a few telemarketing agencies without scruples that have been fleecing charitable clients for many years. If the CBC had done two minutes of homework, they could learn from any fundraiser who these agencies are. And then they could have exposed these frauds.

But instead, they tarnish the entire sector and by doing so ensure that millions of dollars will not go to humanitarian aid, environmental protection, human rights, social services agencies and much more.

It’s an irresponsible and shameful act of sloppy reporting.

As for not taking it any more, I’m throwing my radio out the window to lie in the rubbish with Peter’s TV set. Where the CBC belongs.

You know it’s fall in Canada when the news media jacks up coverage of how much money charities spend on fundraising. They eviscerate charities — and their agencies — who spend almost as much as they raise. And Canadians respond. Story after story of disappointed, disheartened and disgusted donors.

Charities justify ludicrous fundraising expenses because slimy agencies make them believe this is what it takes to raise money.

This is a snake eating its own tail: charities who feel entitled to the support of their donors, and agencies who feel entitled to be in business.

As my fellow Agent John Lepp says “Donors don’t give to your charity. They give to your cause. You just help them.”

This year, I hope the media coverage is a rallying cry for donors.

As donors, we can and should:
1. Ask questions and insist on learning how your gift is put into action. Smart charities will delight in keeping you informed about how your gift is put to work. If charities aren’t proud to tell you what they are doing, ask. If you’re not satisfied with their answer, don’t give.
2. Give with your heart and your head.

This year, I also hope this is a rallying cry for fundraisers.

As fundraisers, we can and should:
1. Ask questions. Take ownership of your fundraising program. Your consultant or agency does not know your cause better than you. You may wake up in the morning intending to “do good”. But if you are not taking responsibility for that fact that donors are entrusting you with their gift, go back to bed.
2. Work with people you trust, who empower you and your cause. Who care about your donors, not your business. There are lots and lots of amazing, passionate and results-focused agencies and consultants out there.
3. Get ahead of this story. Establish and maintain a fundraising program that is transparent, honest and donor-centred.

And for you slimy agencies…this year, Agents are coming for you. Our army is growing. And this is my message to slimy agencies — and the fundraisers who hire you. Just like Cee-lo says: “I’m like, f*ck you, and uh, f*ck them too”.