It’s the new year and I’ve decided to refocus energy on this blog.  Like trying to lose weight, I’ve got a lot of excuses for not keeping the blog updated and none of them are rather compelling enough to make sense.

So I decided to log back in, and to my surprise I had 892 comments waiting to be monitored.

Seriously- 892.  Did my lack of blogging somehow inspire hundreds of people to suddenly post?  Were people that riveted to everything I wrote?

No, of course not.  Unfortunately, the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and in this case the blog was a victim of SPAM posting by- at last count- a few thousand auto-posters.

The good news is that WordPress catches these spammers, and I’m glad to report that you won’t find, “It’s a little bit off-topic, but…” comments here as you do on every single CNN article ever published since 2009.

So what’s the update?  Read on.

Business at DonorPerfect has exceeded expectations- I could go into more detail but I always have to worry about Michael from Blackbaud reading too much into this blog, lol.  It’s one of the excuses that has kept me busy, and at least it’s semi-legitimate.  For example, on-line donations in the last week of the year are up 78% over last year.  New sales are on the same track.  We had one client process $450,000 in just ONE day, on 12/31/2010.  It’s absolutely true that the busiest day of the year for on-line giving is December 31st.

I caved in and finally bought a new iPad.  While exceedingly easy to use, there are some serious limitations, not the least of which is that it’s very hard to use as an everyday computer to write business email, for example.  Apparently, Apple just doesn’t want to play nice with Google yet, so the native iPad email interface is clunky, and it doesn’t support the desktop version of Gmail.  Ugh.

However, my 9 year old son highly recommends using an iPad to play games, especially SkeeBall.  Heck, I love playing it too, and my hi-score of 1680 is somewhere around 20,050th in the world!

DonorPerfect Online also works fairly well on the iPad too.  The only issue I found is that the iPad handles ‘list boxes’ rather interestingly, in the fact that it doesn’t display them at all and you need to touch/click on the list to see the options.  While somewhat annoying, it’s just a minor nuisance.

Moving forward, we have a ton of new initiatives in the pipeline for 2011- as always, you’ll need to wait and see.  In the meantime, here’s to a successful 2011 for you and your fundraising- I am convinced it will be the best year-over-year growth we’ve ever seen!

One of the biggest challenges to today’s professional fundraising operation is fitting social media into the development mix.

It is not enough to just “friendraise” or even just to ask people to click a link and give.  We must also obtain their contact data, acknowledge their support, determine their level of interest and capacity and then make staff assignments so potential major donors will get proper stewardship.

Fundraising research is a critical component here.  But fundraising researchers, already in limited supply, under-resourced and focused on investigating qualified opportunities, have been reluctant to invest time in social media since it can often seem both so tangential to development and also because it provides information which often cannot be independently confirmed.

The editors of “The Networker,” the publication of the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement – Minnesota, recently asked me how to counter the perception that “non-professional social media (e.g. Twitter) is providing ever-increasing levels of distraction and reductions in productivity”.

My response?

First, we should acknowledge that social media channels are in fact disruptive.  They interrupt the usual trajectory of development work and have their own increasing demands, not to mention a certain addictive quality.

So why spend time on social media?  Quite simply, these channels provide access to a much deeper reservoir of current and pertinent information on a much wider universe of individuals than any resource we have encountered in the past.

The databases of insider securities ownership, biography, real estate and business ownership researchers have traditionally used are dwarfed by the rapidly growing datasets of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social networks.

How much of this information is relevant?  That depends on our definition of relevancy.

One thing is certain: the information is highly relevant to those who are producing it.  It showcases their identity as they see it and want it to be seen, including their passions, peeves and peccadilloes, and even catalogs their circle of friends and influence.

In short, social media is providing us an unexpurgated view of what is important to our market, the donors.

If we are nimble and efficient, an investment of time in social media by fundraising researchers need not result in a loss of productivity.  Rather, it can accelerate the retrieval of information and bring fundraisers closer to its source.

Some good news here for our employees and customers- DonorPerfect was named a winner of the 2010 Campbell Award for exceptional customer satisfaction. Over the summer of 2010, the independent polling firm Campbell Rinker conducted a survey of 2,866 customers of software and online solutions used for fundraising and donor management, and DonorPerfect came out on top.

There’s a press release here.

In addition to our top ratings in the N-TEN / Idealware report, “A Guide to Low Cost Donor Management Systems“, this new survey validates the tremendous effort our employees have given to raise customer satisfaction for our clients.

To be candid, it’s hard to earn these types of awards. While we have been ‘hard at work’ for the last 20 years, it’s really only been in the recent past where we took customer satisfaction seriously and made sure it was part of our culture at all levels of the organization.

Five years ago, it was easy to think that- naturally- customer satisfaction was crucial, and the majority of our employees felt the same way. The problem is that we did not have the right processes in place to ensure it was actually happening. As we rapidly grew and DonorPerfect took off, I will admit that some business measures- like customer satisfaction- may have been taken for granted.

I’m very proud that we’ve reversed course. For the last several years, we have implemented a plethora of programs and processes to ensure that we deliver on our goal of 100% customer satisfaction. We not only focus on quickly correcting problems, but also introduce ways where the problems don’t appear in the first place.

The only way we will be successful is if our clients are successful AND extremely satisfied. With this recent award and our continued growth, our goal is to help as many non profit organizations know that we are the safe and successful choice for their CRM and fundraising software needs.

Yes, I have been remiss in updating the blog. To be honest, upfront, and even candid (that should cover all three bases since we are in the baseball post-season and I am a known Phillies Fan!), I’ve been just a bit preoccupied the last three weeks.

Or 4.

Or 6.

Whatever. The point is that the blog- now nearly 5 years old, has been somewhat neglected. OK, not updated. For a while. Forever….at least since last month.

Now, I love writing- something that would make my 9th AND 12th grade English school teacher, Mr. Graler, either cringe or understand in some rather interesting way. The bottom line is that I do not seem to be alone. There are MANY non profit blogs that have gone silent in the last 18 months  (Alan- Where are you???).

However, recent events have evicted me from my armchair quarterback writing sessions.

These events involve intrigue, wars, fencing, escapes, contract negotiations, and yes, even true love.*

Stay Tuned.

-Jon

*A reference to “The Princess Bride”, perhaps the most inconceivable movie ever produced!

Yes, I have been remiss in updating the blog. To be honest, upfront, and even candid (that should cover all three bases since we are in the baseball post-season and I am a known Phillies Fan!), I’ve been just a bit preoccupied the last three weeks.

Or 4.

Or 6.

Whatever. The point is that the blog- now nearly 5 years old, has been somewhat neglected. OK, not updated. For a while. Forever….at least since last month.

Now, I love writing- something that would make my 9th AND 12th grade English school teacher, Mr. Graler, either cringe or understand in some rather interesting way. The bottom line is that I do not seem to be alone. There are MANY non profit blogs that have gone silent in the last 18 months  (Alan- Where are you???).

However, recent events have evicted me from my armchair quarterback writing sessions.

These events involve intrigue, wars, fencing, escapes, contract negotiations, and yes, even true love.*

Stay Tuned.

-Jon

*A reference to “The Princess Bride”, perhaps the most inconceivable movie ever produced!

Dear Interlochen,

Thank you for a great thirtieth high school reunion!

The campus looked wonderful, something that made many of us at once envious and suspicious that life was getting too easy for the current generation.  The classes and performances were exceptional, a testament not just to the talent the school is attracting but the faculty you are retaining.  And socializing with old classmates was, as they say in the TV ad, priceless.

Of course, one of the moments we all dread at any reunion is when we are cornered in a room and asked for money.  No matter how much we love the place—and with Interlochen the alumni love is palpable—the fundraising experience can be awkward and uncomfortable for everyone.

Except for one thing: We were never asked to give.

Now, I know that Interlochen needs our money.  You told us that quite clearly in a detailed presentation by the president.  We also learned how little our classes had given.  And how small the level of overall alumni giving was to the school.  Much of this was a shock to many of the alumni who attended.  But we weren’t provided with the unique medicine that helps get over that shock.

So, here is a prescription from your friendly alumnus fundraising doctor to help alumni move from confused to enthused at the next reunion…and to raise more money for Interlochen, too!

1)   When reunion attendees arrive and register, allow the registrants to determine what is on their badges.  This year’s badges provided a name, class year and major while at school.  While I am proud of my “Creative Writing” alumni status, I wouldn’t introduce myself that way today.  At a minimum, give alumni the opportunity to define themselves, even if that includes both a past major and current occupation.

2)   Provide badge stickers honoring involvement.  These might include stickers reading “donor,” “class chair” and “planned giving society member.” These acknowledge attendee involvement and encourage others to follow suit.

3)   In the registration packet, include a preprinted envelope with the registrant’s name, cumulative giving, last gift amount and date.  Also include a separate flier talking up the important “all alumni” event (where the “pitch” will occur).  Encourage attendees to bring the packet with them throughout the reunion by including items they will likely want or need throughout the weekend.

4)   Early on in the weekend, seek out and personally acknowledge each and every donor at the reunion and talk with them for a few minutes to ensure their donor relationship is progressing well and all their needs and expectations are being met.  Listen.  And follow up, too.

5)   At various events during the weekend, acknowledge alumni volunteers specifically by name and activity.  Make them feel important and special and provide an example for others.

6)   Attend both staff and alumni generated official activities. When you attend alumni events you demonstrate an interest in their interests and learn things you would not otherwise know.  Yes, this is time consuming.  But it is only one weekend per year.

7)   In advance of the “pitch” event—or, better yet, in advance of the reunion—get permission from a reunion attendee to use a forthcoming gift as a challenge.

8)   During the “pitch” event, have a student say a few words about how a gift to the scholarship fund has changed his or her life—this is far more powerful than any building visit or powerpoint presentation.

9)   The event is also an ideal time to acknowledge donors by name in each of the classes, with special emphasis on those who belong to higher level giving societies.  Thank them publicly!

10)  As you prepare to “ask” at the “pitch” event, have class chairs and other acknowledged donors provide another pledge envelope to each and every attendee with a smile.

11)  Close the deal.  You must do more than state the case and say that support is needed.  You must tell people what they need to do and how to do it.  You must ask them to fill out the form and tell them you will collect it as they leave the room.  Instill some friendly competition by promising details on which class gives the most, has the highest average gift and achieves the greatest participation at an event concluding the reunion.

12)  Have class chairs and other alumni donors make the pitch with you so there is no question that there is already peer support.

13)  Party hop.  We’re all close in age now and there are no lines between administration and alumni other than those we draw.  Go to where the alumni go.  You just might have some fun.  And learn something too.  You’ll certainly break down the barrier of formality allowing a real exchange of ideas and facilitate greater giving.

14)  Hold a closing event.  The Alumni Recital or even the Student/Alumni Coffee House would provide exactly the kind of love fest where you could report good news on how much was raised during the weekend, thank everyone for coming and pass out forms to preregister for the next big event.

In addition to my prescription for alumni recovery and increased involvement, I also have two preventative medicine suggestions.

First, no matter how much any of the “helicopter parents,” seemingly spoiled students or ungrateful alumni may drive you crazy, please keep it to yourself.  Mocking them, even if trying to elicit sympathy for the current state of educators or to inject a little humor, will always fall flat.  Inevitably, when you insult one, even if unintentionally, you insult all.  Remember, a number of alumni are already sending their own children to the school at great personal expense and you don’t want alumni and parents leaving campus wondering if you were talking about them!

Second, reach out more regularly and listen more actively.  The staffing and resource limitations at secondary schools are legendary.  The very best institutions have to think carefully about how best to use their limited time.  But the only way to achieve greater fundraising success with alumni is to get to know those who have the ability and interest to give.  While that process can be aided by research, it is always in the end a matter of staff calling and talking with alumni.

Alumni should not be responsible for reaching out to their alma maters to express interest in volunteering and giving.  The schools must open that door in order to make the experience of giving as comfortable and fulfilling as revisiting the campuses we called home so many years ago.

Since the financial meltdown in 2008, philanthropists have become a frequent piñata for pundits and public alike. First it was the soft criticism that high-income earners are not generous enough.  Now their giving is described as bad for society as well.  What’s a wealthy person to do?

In an article based on their forthcoming book, “The Trouble with Billionaires,” authors Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks take aim not just at rich people generally but benefactors to universities specifically.  It is more than the fear that major donors might influence curriculum—a charge any university would flatly deny—but that the very act of placing the donor’s name on a wall constitutes some kind of erosion of academic integrity and educational mission.

In making their case, the authors quote University of Toronto Professor Paul Hamel, who has as yet unsuccessfully advocated for naming a building on campus for an important and cherished Canadian non-donor, that “the priorities of the university have been skewed towards areas that interest the elites…rather than towards the priorities of faculty, staff and students who are engaged in critical analysis, research and teaching.”

This assumes both that financially successful alumni are completely out of tune with the needs and interests of their alma mater and that the donors control the entire process, forcing a university to take a gift to do something that is not in its own interest. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way philanthropy works since most large scale giving is the result of long-term cultivation and solicitation by the organization and not some kind of educational takeover by the donor.

McQuaig and Brooks do provide an interesting analysis of a $35 million donation from Peter Munk to the University of Toronto in an effort to argue that contributions of this size are not really “philanthropic” at all.  They point out that the tax deduction this gift afforded, together with the public monies it leveraged, gave Mr. Munk maximum credit (i.e. his name on a building) for an amount that actually “cost” him just a fraction of the total project amount.

“This should be treated for what it is,” they write, “not a gift to the community, but rather a business transaction purchasing that most treasured of items — a personal legacy.”

But here is the problem with that logic.  If Mr. Munk or some other wealthy individual, foundation or corporation had not made the donation, then the new school of global affairs which bears his name would either have been funded by the government at far greater expense to the public or not established at all.

Why?  These types of “lead” gifts help to capture the imagination and interest of other donors with more modest financial resources and encourage them to support the project at hand.  The gift, in effect, makes the program more real to the broader community and therefore more likely to garner their support.  Conversely, the absence of such a contribution can suggest a dearth of support among community leaders.

The reality is that names on buildings, the core of what seems to offend those who distrust philanthropy as a vehicle for public good, are at the very end of a process.  Cultivation of relationships with individuals who make large contributions usually begins far before they have amassed their fortunes.

More fundamentally, there are only so many rich people in the world who can fund the construction of buildings or endow new programs.  Most donors, who are also recognized for their contributions—perhaps in an annual report, at a public event or on a donor wall—give small but precious amounts.  They too support activities and programs governments cannot or will not fund completely if at all.  They also benefit from tax deductions for their charitable gifts.  Many of these same individuals would love to give more and perhaps have their own family’s name recognized more publicly if they had the resources to do so.

Would the authors suggest that someone giving hundreds of dollars not be recognized?  Or is it only recognition of donations by wealthy contributors that is so offensive?  Perhaps it is really the very existence of personal fortunes in a time of financial hardship for so many that is at the core of the backlash against philanthropy in all its forms.

But naming buildings is about more than tax deductions and family legacies.  For every student today who walks through a building named for some long forgotten alumnus, it is a suggestion of what is possible for them and an inspiration for someday giving back to make that same educational experience possible for those who follow in their footsteps.

Much of the success of social network fundraising products like DonorPages is due to how they give supporters more “ownership” of their fundraising. Online fundraising tools save time (no collecting checks and cash donations) and make it easier to raise money, thus increasing fundraising results for your official events, campaigns, appeals and other fundraising efforts. But when your supporters take it a step further and combine their passion for your cause with their other passions, your organization benefits in unexpected ways! Here’s one very inspiring example:

When her daughter, Cindy Sherwin, passed away from a sudden brain aneurysm, Elaine Schaller reached out to the The Brain Aneurysm Foundation (BAF). She wanted to learn how she could honor Cindy’s memory by promoting early detection and prevention.

“Cindy died at 33 of a ruptured brain aneurysm while preparing for her first Ironman in 2007.” explains Elaine. “One minute she was riding her bike down Riverside Drive in New York and the next minute she was gone. It might  have been prevented had we known that Cindy had this aneurysm.”

Shortly after, Christine Buckley, BAF’s Executive Director, told Cindy’s story to a supporter while at a conference in Washington, DC. This supporter, who competes in Ironman competitions, suggested he “run for Cindy” and raise funds for BAF. They gave him his own personal online fundraising site, and he raised over $14,351.00 participating in a triathlon.

Team Cindy's DonorPages site

Word spread, and the following year, five athletes formed Team Cindy, and raised over $25,000 while participating in various marathons and triathlons. To date in 2010, eighteen Team Cindy athletes have raised $46,700, combining their passion for triathlon and marathon competition with raising funds in honor of Cindy, for BAF. Elaine now manages Team Cindy and serves on BAF’s board of directors, and she has plans to expand the team to 30 athletes in 2011.

BAF and Elaine, along with the Team Cindy athletes, are rapidly growing a community of people whose shared passion for running, biking and swimming is made all the more meaningful by the very real contribution they make to this important cause. And not just through the funds they raise. Their DonorPages site, FaceBook page and emails they send all help promote awareness, education, support and research funding to reduce the incidence of brain aneurysms.

I had the opportunity to offer some design and layout advice for their 2010 Team Cindy site. Elaine was kind enough to express her thanks, telling me I “have become another important member of our (Cindy’s) team.” I can hardly put into words how moved I was, and how impressed I’ve been as I’ve followed the growth of Team Cindy.

Elaine further added, “This has been a very important part of my healing process. Team Cindy marries what she lived for and what she died of. It’s a perfect way to memorialize her.”

33 Energy Sucking Flood Lights

What you see to the left are 33 bulbs that on average consume 120 Watts as a standard incandescent bulb.  These were mostly in the basement and the first floor of our recent new house we just moved into.

The message?  I was completely amazed that replacing these with Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) reduced the power consumption by 700%.  Literally, though they cost $350 to replace (because they require  ‘dimmer’ compatible bulbs, you can save more by replacing the actual switches), they will save us $1200+ / year. I break even in 4 months.

During the time that we have moved, I gave a lot away on Craigslist (boxes, couches and other things left by the owner, etc.), but these bulbs- though ‘worth’ $100- are being recycled to be never used again.

I know a lot of people read this blog – including many competitors- so let’s do our part and save the planet.  It’s easy and we’re all on the same team.

Park City, Utah in Summer

The summer is flying by as it always does around here- in the fundraising software world, summer is the season of data conversions and implementations as organizations improve their infrastructure to prepare themselves for the fall fundraising season.

This summer has been no exception- and we easily broke our record for number of installations from last year.  I’d like to think it has something to do with our easy to use software, but in reality, it really boils down to the great people we have in our client support services.  These are the folks that make sure your LYBUNTS and SYBUNTS (oh my!) work correctly and that your incoming data is perfectly transferred into DonorPerfect.

I did have some time to attend the Giving Institute Summer Symposium in Park City, Utah in the middle of July.  Park City in July is stunningly beautiful, and I regret I didn’t have more time to explore the outdoors as the sessions were simply too good to pass up.  Sessions included the future of giving (especially related to capital campaigns), as well as the the role that technology plays in developing fundraising techniques.  The discussion was spirited and genuine, and it was a unique experience I will not soon forget.

One of the discussion topics focused on Mobile Giving.  As I mentioned in my post from February, Mobile Giving (in it’s current incarnation) should really only be pursued by a select few organizations.  My beliefs were confirmed by the following blog post from Raymund Flandez who said:

Indeed, the National Wildlife Federation, which is running a mobile-giving campaign for animals affected by the Gulf oil spill, has recently pulled its text-to-donate message from its Web site. The reason? The Reston, Va., conservation group wants visitors to donate more — and not think that a $10 text gift is all they needed to give, officials say.

Clearly, if an organization as large as the NWF is having mixed results with mobile giving, then other organizations should be very careful before they dive in the same waters.

………

Recently, I also had an opportunity to raise funds for an organization I support, called Salute, Org. I blogged about it last month, and you can reach my personal fundraising page here:  http://pcc2.donorpages.com/pcc3/jp2/.

Certainly, we’re encouraging everyone to use their social networks as much as possible – including Facebook and Twitter- but we knew that the number one tool to raise money would just be email.  However, I decided to run a very non-scientific test, and wanted to see how many donations came from my Facebook posts, or from sending email.

The result?  It’s not even a contest.  Despite having 62 friends (and I have met all of them at one point or another), I have received exactly 7 things from these friends:

Zero, Zip, Natta, Nothing, Null, Nill, and Zilch.

Either I don’t have enough friends or they don’t have any money- either way it’s not good.  Luckily, I sent out two email blasts to my address book (about 75 addresses), and received 8 donations totaling $530.00.  I expect to raise another $300- will any of it be through Facebook?  At this point, I really doubt it.  What’s the lesson?  Email works.  It’s powerful and it’s much more meaningful than a status update on Facebook.  People receiving email eventually have to respond (especially when you keep pestering them!), while on Facebook, it’s normal behavior to ignore status updates.

We’re actually in the process of embedding tracking widgets for incoming donations via Facebook.  While I’m certain we are receiving at least some donations through Facebook, my gut is telling me it’s very few.  For the vast majority of people, sending email will be the superior solicitation method for a long, long time.