US News and World Report Rankings Adjusted

In the realm of college admissions, today is a day to rejoice—or rant. It all depends on your opinion of college rankings (or, perhaps, your college’s place on U.S. News & World Report’s annual list).

Today the magazine unveiled the 2011 edition of Best Colleges. As you may have heard, some university in Massachusetts topped the list of national universities, and a small college in the same state took the top spot on the list of liberal-arts colleges.

Although some things never change, the ranking methodology does. This year, for the first time, U.S. News included the views of high-school counselors in its measure of “academic reputation,” perhaps the most controversial aspect of the rankings. Previously, the magazine used only an annual “peer assessment” survey of college presidents, provosts, and admissions deans to calculate this measure, which accounted for 25 percent of each college’s overall ranking.

This year, U.S. News lowered the weight for academic reputation to 22.5 percent (for national universities and liberal-arts colleges only). Ratings by nearly 1,800 high-school counselors surveyed accounted for a third of that measure, and ratings by college administrators accounted for two-thirds. In other words, the opinions of college officials carry less weight than they did last year.

Complaints about the peer-assessment survey were among the reasons U.S. News brought counselors into the fold, says Robert J. Morse, the magazine’s director of data research. Over time, participation in the annual survey has declined steadily (this year, 48 percent of college officials who received questionnaires responded, the same as last year). For years, Mr. Morse has said that U.S. News would invite other experts to participate in the rankings, if necessary.

“We went out and searched for people who had a stake in admissions, who had a certain expertise,” Mr. Morse says. “High-school counselors play a big part in college admissions, so we counted their votes.”

The significance of this change may be more symbolic than substantial. Sure, the power of the peer-assessment survey, long loathed by some college officials and high-school counselors, has been diluted. Nevertheless, reputation—that slippery and subjective thing—still matters a lot in the U.S. News formula. The mix of reputational experts has just become more diverse.

“The concerns people have about rankings will not be assuaged by giving high-school counselors a voice in them,” says James W. Jump, director of guidance at St. Christopher’s School, in Richmond, Va., and the departing president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. “The idea that No. 9 is better than No. 20 concerns me. Ranking simplifies what should be a complex process.”

In other changes this year, U.S. News raised the weight of the “predicted graduation rate” to 7.5 percent, from 5 percent, of a college’s overall ranking. The magazine also expanded the number of institutions ranked in each category, and it changed the names of two categories (“Universities-Master’s” and “Baccalaureate Colleges”) that had puzzled readers.

U.S. News considered at least one change that it did not make. In June, Mr. Morse wrote on his blog that he and his colleagues might add “yield” (the percentage of admitted applicants who enroll) back into the rankings. In 2003, the magazine’s editors removed the measure from its formula amid criticisms that the rankings had driven colleges to become obsessed with yield. Never mind that colleges have long had plenty of other reasons to fret about yield, or that yield accounted for only 1.5 percent of a college’s ranking by U.S. News.

“In the end,” Mr. Morse says, “we didn’t want the discussion of yield to take away from the other changes we were making.”

View Source

Does “Do Not Solicit” Mean They Won’t Give

(From CoolData Blog guest blogger Peter Wylie)

I think studying higher education alumni databases is a lot like studying a foreign Language. Take French. I’ve been a student of it off and on for over 50 years. I’ve gotten pretty good at it. So much so that native speakers often compliment me on my fluency. When they do, I thank them graciously and quickly add “Plus je sais, plus je ne sais pas.” The more I know, the more I don’t know.

For over a decade I thought I “knew” that alumni who tell their alma maters not to ask them for money meant two things: (1) Don’t ask me, and (2) I’m not going to give you anything. Then a good friend and colleague sent me some data for a project that may end up being pretty cool. Of the 50,000 or so records she sent, over 7,000 had a “do not solicit” tag. Okay. That’s clear. Don’t call ‘em. Don’t send ‘em letters or e-mails. And definitely don’t go knocking on their doors just because you happen to be in the neighborhood. That’s all pretty clear.

But I’m nosy; I checked to see if any of those 7,000 or so had ever given the school any money. It turns out that a little over a third of them had given some money. I couldn’t tell how much because my friend had not given me dollar amounts. Just whether or not they’d ever given a hard credit gift to the school. (We’d agreed that actual amounts would distract us from the goals of the project.)

I couldn’t stop there. I started digging around to see what some of the differences were between the ones who’d given and the ones who hadn’t. I think I found some interesting stuff. Of course, that doesn’t mean what I found applies to other schools. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t.

For me, that’s not so important. What’s important is that young folks (like Kevin MacDonell, the creator of this great blog) who carry the vanguard of data-driven decision making in our field will take this topic farther than I have. And that can’t be a bad thing.

In the rest of this piece I’ll cover three topics:

• Some of the interesting differences between the givers and non-givers (who say “Don’t solicit.”)
• The model I used to “predict” the givers
• Some concluding thoughts

Some Interesting Differences

In a moment we can take a look at Figures 1-6 that show some variables on which “Do not solicit” alums differ markedly when it comes to giving. Before we do that, however, I think it’s important to point out something we don’t know. We don’t know when or under what circumstances any of these alums told the school they did not want to be solicited. For example,

• Did they do it recently or a long time ago?
• Did they do it on a permanent basis, or just temporarily? It’s possible that some of them are parents of kids attending the school and their attitude for the next four years is, “Hey, I’m paying an arm and a leg for tuition. Until I’m done with that, please don’t go asking me for money while I’m in hock up to my underwear.”
• Are they bent out of shape over the beloved football coach who was finally let go after ten consecutive losing seasons – something they may eventually get beyond? Or is it simply a case of, “I’ll give you something, maybe a lot, when I’m ready. In the meantime, don’t bug me?”

Again, we don’t know. But before any advancement person uses the results of a predictive model like the one I lay out here, they should consider these sorts of possibilities. More about that later.

Let’s take a walk through the figures. After each one I’ve made a short comment or two to make it clear what the figure is conveying.

There are huge difference in the giving rates among three types of alums. Undergraduate alums are almost twice as likely to give as graduate alums and more than six times as likely to give as non-degreed alums.

Alums who have attended at least one reunion are two and a half times as likely to give as alums who have never attended a reunion.

Alums who have never attended an event are less than half as likely to give as alums who’ve attended one event and about a third as likely to give as alums who have attended two or more events.

Alums who are members of the online community are twice as likely to give as alums who are not members.

Alums who were members of a Greek organization as undergrads are almost twice as likely to give as alums who were not Greek members.

Alums who are children of alums are two and a half times as likely to give as alums whose parents are not alums.

Clearly, these figures (and several I haven’t included) show there are a number of variables in the alumni database at this school that can be used to predict which “do not solicit” alums may be more likely to give in the future. One way to find out if we’re right is to (a) build a model that yields a “likelihood of giving score” for each of these alums and (b) begin testing the model.

Building a predictive model

I have to admit that, here, I was a bit torn about how much technical detail to go into. If I take you minute step by minute step through the model building process, I risk both confusing you and boring you. That wouldn’t be good. On the other hand, if I go too light on the details, you may say, “Come on, Pete, you haven’t given me enough info to see if I can test your results at my own school.”

So … how about this as a compromise?

Using multiple regression (if you know what that is, great; if you don’t, not to worry), I created a score for each alum where EVER GAVE (0/1) was the outcome variable and where the variables you see above as well as the following were the predictor variables:

• Count of current volunteer activities
• Count of past volunteer activities
• Year the alum graduated (or should have if he or she had completed a degree “on time”)

The model generated well over 2,500 different score levels into which the 7,393 alums  could fall – way too many for anybody to get their conceptual arms around. The adjusted R squared for the model was about 36%. (Again, don’t worry if you don’t know what R squared means.)

I divided the 2,695 score levels into 10 groups of “deciles” containing about 740 alums each. As you look at Table 1, you’ll see these groups varied some in size. In Decile 1 (the lowest scoring 10% of alums) there are 726 people. In Decile 10 (the highest scoring 10% of alums) there are 739 people.

TABLE 1: Frequency Breakdown of “Do Not Solicit” Alums by Score Decile

If the model is to be useful in identifying “Do not solicit” alums who are likely to give, the number and percentage of givers should increase as the deciles increase. A look at Table 2 and Fig. 7 show that these numbers and percentages do just that. For example, in the first decile, of the 726 alums, only 12 (1.7%) have ever given anything to the school. In the tenth decile, of the 739 alums, 649 (87.8%) have given to the school.

TABLE 2: Number and Percentage of “Do Not Solicit” Alums Who Gave by Score Decile

Some Concluding Thoughts

You may have read other stuff I’ve written on data mining and predictive modeling. If you have, could be you’re tired of hearing me say that higher education advancement offices ignore most of the data they have on their alums as they go about the business of raising money from those alums.

Well, no rest for the weary here. This little study is a good example of what I’m talking about. Who would have thought there would be such striking differences between givers and non-givers who ask not to be asked? Not me. I just stumbled onto it because I was playing around with data that had been put together for a totally different reason. And I think that’s my point. When we’re talking alumni databases, there are oceans of data that could help us save a lot of money and generate a lot more revenue for some very worthy missions. But with the drops of analysis we’re currently doing on all that data, we’re not saving all that much money nor generating that much more revenue. We’re not. And that needs to change.

If you’re reading this, I suspect I’m preaching to the choir. It’s probably not you that needs the convincing on this matter. It’s probably the big bosses where you work that need the exhortation and cajoling. So the next time one of ‘em makes noises about spending big money on some product or service that’s designed to “prepare for the campaign” or whatever, you might say something like: “That’s cool. That’s great. But let’s not forget about all that data we’ve got just sitting there waiting to help us identify individuals who can play a major role in this project.” If they look intrigued, start pitching them. If they don’t, don’t give up. Take another run at them in a few months.

Back to the specific topic of this paper. Try to build a predictive giving model for your own “Do not solicit” alums. If you’re not proficient with using statistical software, find somebody in your school who is and get them to help you. If you have an Office of Institutional Research (or some similarly titled entity), that’s a good place to look. Just make sure the person you choose grasps the basic idea of what you’re trying to do and has the capacity to explain technical stuff in plain English.

Then do some in depth research on the high scoring alums that emerge from your model, especially those who’ve been generous givers over the years. Share the names with some of your colleagues, whether they’re involved in the annual fund, prospect research, or part of your cadre of gifts officers. My bet is that at least one alum is going to pop out of the mix who is teed up for a real nice appeal if your group comes up with the right strategy.

Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

(From CoolDataBlog guest blogger Peter Wylie)

View Source

The Tactic We All Love To Hate

Sometimes the world of raising charitable funds can be frustratingly counter-intuitive. Nothing proves this point more than the ever-present role of telefundraising in Canada today.

Stop and think about it. When was the last time you heard a colleague, a friend or a family member say something positive about raising funds by phone? Of all the fundraising tactics and methods I know, certainly none generate as much irritation, anger and frustration as the old ‘call at suppertime.’

Let’s stop and think about this together for a minute. Surely, we can figure it out.

Telemarketing has a bad rep

In my opinion, telemarketing in the charitable sector has built such a terrible reputation for a few important reasons:

Charities call strangers. In our opinion – and our experience – the phone is rarely (if ever) an appropriate tool for donor acquisition campaigns.

Telemarketing scriptwriters insist on leading off the call with the old and very insincere“how are you tonight?”  The caller often launches into the pitch before listening for an answer. You can call me old fashioned, but that’s rude, isn’t it?

Many (and I’d say most) telemarketing companies seem to fundamentally misunderstand the medium – as ridiculous as that sounds. The telephone is a tool for conversation. That means two-way communication. What drives us nuts about telemarketing is that most of it is too one-way. Initiates at seminary school are often taught that ‘we have two ears but only one mouth.’ Those pushy people on the phone should take heed of this sage advice.

And – related to the point I’ve just outlined – too many telemarketers are (and are obviously trained to be) simply unwilling to recognize the word ‘NO.’ I’ve been exposed to phone training rubrics where the phoner is not to accept the word NO until the third time it’s said. How ridiculous is that?

The phone as a tool for good

I’m a fundraising consultant – an (alleged) expert in my field. Despite all my harsh criticism, there’s no question in my mind that the phone has an important role to play in philanthropic marketing today. My colleagues and I are dedicated to helping clients build deeper human connections with their donors. And despite its sometimes awful rep, the phone can be a powerful tool in doing just that.

My FLA colleagues and I research the who, what, when, where, and why of charitable giving all the time. It’s abundantly clear to us that annual giving is now a three-channel stream of mail, phone, and online giving (in that order). Choosing not to use the phone because you just don’t like it leaves a lot of money on the table.

To start with, the call is going to go much more smoothly when the caller explains WHY she’s calling ME. For example, “Leah, we’re calling you because you’ve been a monthly donor to Save the Pussycats for ten years now – and we want to tell you about an important new campaign that’s just getting started.”

The smart charity will take advantage of the conversation to ask me a few questions. This both makes me feel like my opinion matters – and it gives the charity more knowledge about who I am and what I want and expect from them. Even simple customer-service type questions work well here.

The smart charity will let me choose how to hear from them and how to get in touch with them. If I ask to get a package in the mail instead of talking on the phone – or to look at the information on the web site – let me! I’m driving this bus – not the stranger who’s just taken me from homework time with my 9-year old.

Maximize revenue and minimize complaints

This month, I have four specific tips for you:

Look carefully when choosing your phoning agency. Make sure they have a ‘conversational culture’ when it comes to their customer/donor contact programs. Avoid those agencies that push the ‘stick to the script’ approach.

At FLA, we only select phoning agencies which will let us – and our clients – listen in to live phoning any time. We strongly encourage our clients to spend a good deal of time listening to the conversations they have initiated.

Use the phone strategically. Target phoning for specific reasons to specific donor segments. For example, we love the phone to welcome new donors, to convert single-gift donors to monthly gifts, to reactivate lapsed donors and sometimes to sift for the best legacy gift prospects. We have NEVER recommended that a client use the phone for donor acquisition.

Never, ever, hire a telemarketing agency that charges on a percentage of revenue raised basis, takes any ownership whatsoever of donor information, guarantees break-even results (if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is) or insists on a long-term, multi-year contract.

Jose van Herpt is a member of FLA Group, a consulting firm that works with Canadian charities to engage donors at a truly human level and build donor loyalty and commitment. FLA welcomes your ideas, comments and criticisms about this tip.

“This copywright article originally appeared in Canadian Fundraising & Philanthropy, www.canadianfundraiser.com, and is reproduced with permission.”

View Source

Quick Tips from AuctionStar

What can we learn from auction fundraisers?  I have always found it useful and productive to share my event experiences with my clientele.  The opportunity to understand how others are handling challenges with their auction fundraisers in effect provides a chance to all of us come together, collaborate, learn and ultimately return home with ideas and best practices that will help organizations achieve their goals.

Auction Tip #1:  Manage your auction fundraiser like a business.  Savvy auction chairs recognize that the gala evening fundraiser has the potential to raise hundreds of thousands in just a couple of hours.  Attend to all the logistics and details for your event as soon as an event date has been established.  Provide your management teams the handbook from prior years with their specific objectives.   Your event night timeframe for fundraising is critical so make each minute count.

Auction Tip #2:  Know your attendees.  Every organization is different in its demographic profiles.  Common attendees range from the bargain shopper, supporter, big spender and your beneficiary.  Keep both your fiscal and mission objectives in mind when putting together your guest list.

Auction Tip #3:  Product selection.  If you have diligently done Auction Tips one and two, then your auction team will have identified the particular products that will fulfill your financial goal.  Make the selection as unique as possible so that your auction items are not identical to all the other events in town.

By Valarie Minetos

Marketing & Sales Director

AuctionStar Software & Event Services

www.BarcodedAuctions.com

Copyright (c) 2010 CrestWare Inc. All Rights Reserved.

‘Karmas’ Become Dollars For Charities That Are Mobile

By Kate Rogers

Non-Profit Times

Sixth graders from low-income families who attend Eberhart Elementary School on Chicago’s South Side needed Net Book computers to increase their technology skills. Donors across the country made this happen on Feb. 19, without spending a dime.

Through the use of a simple iPhone app, CauseWorld, which partnered on the project with New York City-based DonorsChoose.org, consumers checked in at restaurants, clothing stores and supermarkets on the app, turning their retail therapy into dollars donated.

In other words, there was an app for that.

Nonprofits are upping their tech game by creating smart phone apps, which enable donors and constituents to give or volunteer in quick and simple ways, without the limits seen in text-to-give campaigns. More importantly, charity apps bring something different to the table; they combine education and fun.

CauseWorld users earn between five and 10 “Karmas” for each store they check in at on the app, and can accumulate up to 10 karmas to give to a charity. For each 10 karmas donated, sponsors Kraft and Citibank donate a fixed rate, which varies from cause to cause. Donors also have the opportunity to learn more about each cause before donating to it.

Users donated 772,595 karmas to classroom projects at DonorsChoose.org, totaling $7,725.95, according to Jonathan Evans, director of vendor relations at Donorschoose.org.
“It’s very peer-to-peer,” he said. “They (users) decide where funds go, and there’s a direct connection between a need and an individual who wants to help.”

The app was created as a way for corporations to use marketing budgets and join forces with charitable causes, according to Cyriac Roeding, CEO and co-founder of shopkick Inc., in Paolo Alto, Calif., which created CauseWorld. The application, which is available for iPhone and Android phones, was downloaded more than 300,000 times during its first two months, and has added Proctor & Gamble to its list of sponsors. Roeding said the app taps into the passionate mindset of those who want to do good but can’t always afford to make donations.

Soon, CauseWorld users will be able to earn karmas by scanning the barcode on Proctor & Gamble products in stores across the U.S. Roeding said there is no way to tie purchases to karmas as yet, and support from the app’s stores is not needed.

The ASPCA in New York City launched an iPhone app called Pet Safe, after previously successful interactive marketing campaigns and social media engagement. The app works as a consumer tool, and gives users complete access to the charity’s toxic plant database, which can also be viewed on the ASPCA’s Web site. It lists the plants that are toxic to dogs, cats and horses in alphabetical order, along with photos, warning signs and a breakdown of the plant, showing what parts of it are and are not toxic. Users can also contact the Animal Poison Control Center.

The app allows users to donate directly to the charity, and can also link them back to the ASPCA home page, which is now mobile-optimized for smart phones. From there, users are given the option of signing up for email alerts and charity information.

Betsey Fortlouis, vice president of member communications at the charity, said the ASPCA has the number one toxic plant database in the country, and hopes to extend it to include common household poisons.

“Right now, we are trying to figure out how to re-reach the 70 million homes in America with pets, in a more fun, hip, forward-thinking way,” Fortlouis said. “The demographic is changing. It used to be little old ladies with seven cats at home sending in a monthly donation. But now, we are seeing more savvy, active members, and we are looking to reach more people like that.”

Creating smart phone apps should be a natural move for nonprofits that are investing in current technology, according to Beth Cathey, business development consultant at is7.com in Richardson, Texas. The gap between smart phones and PCs is narrowing, Cathey said, and charities should take advantage of the opportunity to engage a rapidly growing audience.

“Mobile giving strategies should be a part of your plan. Instead of spending time and money on the latest thing, figure out how it compliments what you are already doing,” she said. “Make a smart phone-optimized Web site, so you are not scrolling and scrolling. That is the kiss of death when you are trying to get someone to give you money.”

Web optimization is extremely important for nonprofits to consider, she said, because it allows donors to get information and donate within seconds, anywhere they might be.

“Its almost like impulse buying at the grocery store,” she said. “They can access it wherever they are, and whenever they get inspired.”

Nonprofits like VolunteerMatch.org in San Diego, Calif., are making volunteering easier. On its new iPhone app, the organization links volunteers to one of its 70,000 participating charities based on their age, location, interests and skills. Robert Rosenthal, director of communications for VolunteerMatch, said because volunteer listings have become increasingly niche-based in recent years, the charity hopes to take advantage of such interests by making it more simple to connect volunteers and their choice causes. The app, which is free to download, is similar to the charity’s Web site, which allows volunteers to search for opportunities in their area.

Using GPS technology, the app looks up volunteer listings based on a person’s location, Rosenthal said. The app will evolve over time to give people volunteer information based on what the phone itself already knows about the person.

“This allows us to more quickly give people things that are more relevant to them,” he said. “It filters based on what you care about. It’s so important to make it easy for nonprofits to connect with volunteers.”
Once a volunteer signs up for a nonprofit on the app, the charity will reach out to the person on its own. From there, volunteers can share charity information through their own social media accounts, Rosenthal said.

The app debuted at the SXSW Interactive Conference in Austin, Texas last month and had more than 400 downloads in its first week, Rosenthal said. The charity is working on creating versions of the app for other smart phones.

Los Angeles, Calif.-based MobileCause is making app creation and deployment easier and cheaper for nonprofits with its uGive software. Charities can launch their own iPhone app in just four steps, according to MobileCause President and Co-founder Daniel Scalisi. Nonprofits can upload video content and photos, link their Facebook and Twitter accounts, connect their text campaigns and self-publish using the platform, Scalisi said.

The app can be maintained and updated through the same steps. The software comes as part of a bundle from MobileCause, which includes text to donate and $5 and $10 text to give campaigns, for $99 per month.
“With an app, nonprofits are immediately exposed to a whole new audience,” Scalisi said. “We realize there is much more to a donor relationship than text messaging, and the trigger for us was the app marketplace was meaningful enough to pursue it. It was critical for us to make an app simple to create and deploy.”

Close to 35 nonprofits were using uGive by press time, before its official release, Scalisi said. uGive is free to download and gives users access to all participating nonprofits. They can sort and save the nonprofits they want to learn more about and follow. Users can also share information about the charities with their Facebook and Twitter communities. Donations can be made in just two clicks, Scalisi said.
“It’s a far richer experience and its more personal, because (the phone) sits right in your hand,” he said. “Its more immediate and simple, and the device is so much more pervasive and accessible than a desktop PC.”

Apps can typically cost charities upwards of $10,000 to create and hundreds to maintain. However, the ASPCA’s app was created free by the Treviso Media Group. The charity is not projecting to make a ton of money from the tool, Fortlouis said. Instead, the ASPCA is seeking to enter into the world of interactive marketing and gauge its success.

“The purpose of this is to get our foot in the water,” she said. “This will be cool for us, because we didn’t have to spend money on acquisition mailing, and we can reach out to people in a new way. We are very limited with our budget, so we want to figure out where else we can go with this.”

Although the nonprofit had not previously worked with mobile fundraising, it did offer pet tips of the day through a text messaging campaign. Fortlouis said nonprofits are often limited during mobile campaigns, because donors can only give up to $10 and charities cannot access their home or email addresses to cultivate a relationship with them. Such is not the case with a smart phone app, which will allow the ASPCA to access the users’ contact information.

Text-to-give campaigns will not completely disappear in the wake of newer technology, such as charity phone apps, is7.com’s Cathey said. However, they will become more advanced and give donors more options.

Many donors and nonprofits become frustrated with such campaigns because the donation amount is limited and it can take up to 90 days for a charity to actually see the money raised. “The fact is that organizations forget that a donor only has one relationship with them; they don’t have email, direct marketing or text-to-give options to choose from,” Cathey said.

“Organizations have to use analytics to figure out how donors want to engage with them. If you want to be the recipient of a donation, then you better make it quick and easy for donors,” she said.

Roeding said charities should get in the app game as soon as possible to take advantage of mobile technology’s vast user base.

“It’s embedded in your daily life,” he said of mobile technology. “As a nonprofit, people are in love with what you do, but there are only so many people who are directly engaged in your charity.”

Taking Advantage Of Direct Mail Postage Savings

With the U.S. Postal Service facing an estimated cumulative shortfall of $238 billion by 2020, it is seeking approval for an overall price increase of about 5.6% starting in January 2011. Add to that tight corporate budgets and it’s easy to understand why marketers are intensely focused on looking for flexible solutions that meet their direct-mail delivery time frames yet stay within the budget.

Too frequently, however, the focus on saving money is on how the piece is produced while savings that can result from the right postal solutions are overlooked. Production oversight is important for saving a few pennies per thousand pieces, but there are many mailing options that offer the opportunity for more significant savings. It takes understanding the options and when to use them. Let’s take a look:

• Destination entry. The USPS offers postage discounts for standard-class mail to those that deliver their mail to its large automated sorting facilities. But for this option to make sense in most cases, the discount needs to exceed the freight cost by a large enough amount so that the administrative costs are worth the difference. This method is best for a large mailing or one with a very dense geographic coverage.

The highest discounts are available for those that can ship their mail to a Sectional Center Facility (SCF), which is a processing and distribution center for post offices in a designated geographical area. If it doesn’t make economic sense to use an SCF, then shipping to a USPS Bulk Mail Center (BMC) or utilizing co-palletization might be the best option. For some mailings, a combination of these options works best.

• Co-palletization. A service provider authorized by the USPS to offer co-palletization services can combine trays from multiple mailings together on the same skid, qualifying for SCF postal discounts. Each mailing is presorted and produced independently but may be merged onto one pallet, maximizing collective postal discounts. For midsize mailings, co-palletization often is the best option and is frequently complementary to BMC drops. If freight costs are outweighing the savings of BMC/SCF, co-palletization should be considered.

• Commingling. For mailings that have multiple letter shop versions, or small quantities of about 20,000 to 30,000 pieces that are delivered to a widely dispersed geography, commingling can maximize postal rate savings for first- and standard-class mail. A lower fixed postage rate can be gained by combining components with other mailings than what would be achieved by mailing components separately.

However, for some small mailings, commingling may not be the best option. For example, with commingling it is more difficult to control actual arrival dates. Keep in mind, too, that commingling is often offered because a service provider has invested in expensive equipment and wants to use it.

There are many complex variables when considering all the postal options available today. When planning a campaign, consider sending your service provider an exact data file that is scrubbed of confidential information, leaving only the address information—a so-called “dead file.” In this way, any service provider expert at postal optimization can consider all the campaign’s variables, determine the best postal fit for the job and provide an accurate bid. A confidentiality agreement can be signed too, if desired, which allows you to securely compare providers.

It is also important to know if a mailer has a system for real-time tracking and reporting, as well as access to the Postal Service’s PostalOne information management system for more time-efficient and cost-effective campaigns.

Finding the right postal solution to best fit the requirements of a direct-mail campaign, at the best rate, lowest freight cost and fastest delivery might take a little homework, but the savings gained for marketers looking to save their companies money is well worth the time.

View Source

10 Key Online Fundraising Trends

While direct mail is still king in bringing in funds, online fundraising remains an ever-growing channel that is vital to the future of every organization. Studying the trends and understanding where opportunities lie going forward as today’s online generation reaches prime giving age are musts. To that end, nonprofit technology provider Convio recently released its Online Nonprofit Benchmark Study.

Here are some key findings from the study:

1. Online giving grew 14 percent despite a difficult economy. Overall, 69 percent of organizations raised more in 2009 than 2008, while 31 percent saw declines in their online fundraising.

2. An increase in gifts drove fundraising gains. Of those that grew fundraising in 2009, 92 percent saw an increase in the number of gifts in 2009 compared to 43 percent of organizations seeing an increase in their average gift amounts.

3. Donors were still giving, but smaller amounts. Sixty-one percent of all organizations saw their average gifts drop in 2009.

4. Regardless of mission, online fundraising continued to grow. The only exception was disaster and international relief organizations; there were more significant disasters in 2008 than 2009.

5. Small organizations grew fastest. Organizations with fewer than 1,000 e-mail addresses on file grew online revenue by 26 percent and gifts by 32 percent.

6. E-mail files continued to grow strongly. The total e-mail file grew 27 percent in 2009 to 39,100 constituents.

7. Web traffic continued to grow for most organizations, but at a slower rate. Sixty percent of organizations grew their website traffic from 2008 to 2009. Web traffic growth in 2009 was at 6 percent compared with double-digit growth seen in previous years.

8. Web traffic was strongly correlated with e-mail file growth. Thirty-eight percent of an organization’s success building large e-mail files could be directly attributed to the amount of traffic to the organization’s website.

9. Registration rates dropped. The rate at which organizations converted website visitors to their e-mail files declined to 2.12 percent in 2009.

10. Constituents more reluctant to open e-mails and click through. Open rates for fundraising appeals and newsletters remained around 20 percent, but clickthrough rates for both declined in 2009.

To view the entire study, click here.

View Source

Emergent Philanthropists: America’s Evolving Ethnic Donor Groups

Historic philanthropy patterns of America’s affluent donors are giving way to a more complex and disparate population that represents our country’s patchwork communities. The systematic and predictable giving methods by the rich no longer dominate our donor bases. Diverse communities are emerging with new giving patterns and objectives.

Affluent African-Americans, Asian-Americans and those of Hispanic heritage are joining the donor ranks of many organizations. Their concepts of philanthropy encompass giving from all available resources including time, expertise, money and combined efforts. Nonprofit organizations will need to embrace fresh communication styles and adopt flexible stewardship, solicitation and recognition efforts to garner more involvement and support from these emergent philanthropists.

Giving in the U.S.
People living in the United States are more philanthropic than residents of any other country. The stats say it all:

• 80 percent of American households donate annually; with 129 million households in the U.S., that’s more than 100 million making gifts to charitable organizations!
• More than $300 billion was donated in each of the past few years.
• More than eight of every 10 donations are given by individuals versus donations from corporate entities or large private foundations.
• Charitable giving has increased nearly 3 percent on average every year over the past 40 years.
• Average household giving is nearly $3,000 each year.
• For households with annual incomes between $100,000 and $1 million, the average is just less than $5,000, and for households with $1 million or more in annual income, the average household gift jumps to nearly $60,000 each year.

It’s estimated that one in every five households in the U.S. is affluent — defined as having household income around $100,000 or higher.

Traditionally, the affluent have been middle-aged, white, married men whose wealth was inherited or self-made through business ventures. Today, an affluent household is just as likely to be headed by someone younger, more entrepreneurial, a minority, a woman or a combination of these.

Emerging affluence
Emerging into prominence on the philanthropic scene are three ethnic groups: African-Americans, Asian-heritage and Hispanic-heritage donors. They share the sense of obligation to help others, and much of their giving is linked to family and kinship, therefore more personal and informal. Religion plays a large role in these communities’ traditions of giving as well.

Since this article only begins to touch on the topic of emerging philanthropy from ethnic communities, generalization is necessary. But, by understanding even a cursory introduction to the commonalities and differences of each group, nonprofits can learn about and come to embrace new traditions of giving. Ultimately, we must create flexible, welcoming environments through which these generous donors can connect to accomplish their personal philanthropic goals.

African-American wealth
Around 2.5 million African-Americans live in households at the affluent level. Traditionally, wealth has been achieved through family business but recently has expanded to include certified professions, real estate holdings, entrepreneurial ventures, entertainment, media and professional sports. Even though affluent African-Americans donate up to 25 percent more of their discretionary income than Caucasians, few of them consider their giving as “philanthropic.” Helping those in need is simply a general obligation, and gifts of time and talent are sometimes more highly valued than cash donations.

Traditionally, religion, education, social and political organizations reaped the largest benefits of African-American giving. Lately, donations toward AIDS causes and genocide in Africa have been increasing. Patterns of charitable giving are similar to those of the general population, except these generous people often prefer to make donations privately and confidentially.

Communications should be informational and must provide a sense of accomplishment within the community. Because women tend to be the charitable-giving decision makers in many African-American homes, be certain to highlight gifts and involvement by their peers. The assurance of anonymity, if desired, always should be offered. Solicitations and payment choices that allow cumulative giving options mimic savings patterns employed by many African-Americans. Gifts of impact can be accomplished if structured over multiple years.

The affluent Hispanic-heritage community
The number of affluent Hispanic households has more than doubled in the past few decades, and Hispanics’ wealth is growing faster than the general public. Today, more than 3.7 million Hispanic households have incomes exceeding $100,000. Family-owned and small businesses account for much of this wealth, as well as inheritance. Nearly seven of every 10 Hispanic households donate to charitable causes. Their gifts go to help the poor. The Catholic Church, education, job training, youth and disaster-related organizations receive a large portion of their giving. Person-to-person assistance is more predominate in this community than any other. Millions of dollars are sent to relatives abroad or given to other family members before charitable contributions are considered. Because gifts are given when needed, extremely informal and unpredictable giving patterns tend to be the norm.

The Hispanic population in the U.S. is young; almost half are under the age of 40. This group tends to be fiscally conservative and has a strong propensity toward savings. As these donors are aging, their giving priorities are diversifying, and community needs, capital projects and some cultural organizations are finding interest among Hispanic donors. These emerging philanthropists rally behind their leaders and tend to support their causes as well.

Consider communications that are bilingual when appropriate. Examples of donors who have made a difference through their modest gifts may prompt others to consider engagement. Because many Hispanics have adopted mainstream investment strategies for their own savings, use language that provides the same sense of resource accumulation at your organization. Allow donors flexibility in the timing and level of their gifts. The concept of regular “annual gifts” has not yet taken root among many donors of Hispanic heritage. Large gift solicitation efforts may need to take on a sense of group giving versus individual giving.

Asian-American philanthropy
More than 12 million Asian-Americans live in the United States today. They are the largest source of immigrants in the past 20 years. With more than 60 percent of this group foreign-born, giving patterns are heavily tied to traditional ways. The wealthiest of the emerging ethnic communities, Asian-Americans’ average household income is higher than that of all other major racial groups. They are highly educated and have a higher rate of savings than the average household in the U.S. Wealth has been built through small business ventures including personal services, food and lodging. High-tech company startups and professional positions are also dominant in building wealth.

Philanthropy is part of the Asian culture, and these individuals give a higher percentage of their annual incomes to charitable causes than Caucasians. Many send money abroad to help family members or make gifts person to person. At home, informal loan associations are common, often to help others get started in business. Because of the private nature of these gifts, celebrations and recognition for charitable donations are neither common nor expected. This generous group gives money, skill and time to help organizations and efforts that enhance their communities; often they seek involvement in the projects or even leadership positions. In return, they expect a high degree of accountability and demand effective use of their funds. Be certain to show the results of mission funding in your communications before you seek larger or additional gifts.

Direct services, educational organizations and cultural centers receive a large portion of Asian-Americans’ funding. Nursing homes, health organizations, and services for the elderly and youth also fare well. Successive generations of Asian-heritage donors tend to diversify their giving interests even more.

Before soliciting large gifts, be certain to involve your prospect in the formative stages of the project. Consider providing more information about the funding details and results expected. Include information that shows your fiscal effectiveness and long-term plans. Major-gift giving is common among Asian-Americans and may represent a large life event as well. When celebrating these more public gifts, recognition is welcomed and provides community awareness as well as a desire to prompt others to make similar gifts.

The face of America’s philanthropist is changing. Nonprofit leaders who want to engage a fuller representation of their communities must begin to recognize and invite involvement from these emerging philanthropic ethnic groups. It’s well-known that people respond to people who are similar in look, economic status and values to themselves. Take time to assess the makeup of your leadership and staff; determine if your donor base would benefit from greater involvement with these generous donors; review the visual components of your organizational communications to find out if they represent your community’s changing demographics; and above all, be flexible and welcoming in your fundraising efforts. Be the changing force behind your organization’s open invitation to a new group of affluent emerging philanthropists.

Statistics have been collected from leading sources including GivingUSA Foundation, The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and the 2008 Mendelsohn Affluent Survey.

Katherine Swank is a consultant with Target Analytics, a Blackbaud company.

View Source

Automated Phone Messaging Makes A Difference

Do you find yourself chasing the promises of social media and other new tools to boost your fundraising?  Are you disappointed by the impact on your fundraising?  For the forseeable future, these strategies will not appreciably increase your results.  Work on them … yes … but  I feel you should continue to explore and develop currently effective tools and techniques.

In annual giving, direct mail and phonathons are responsible for as much as 90% of annual giving.  In this blog post, I’d like to suggest you consider a tool that has elements of both direct mail and phonathon and can boost the results of your existing campaigns. 

You can use automated phone messages to increase event attendance, raise membership levels, thank donors, boost direct mail campaigns, recruit more auction participants, lift pledge fulfillment or introduce new leadership to your constituents.

Automated messaging does these things better than almost any tool you may have tried.  Alone and in combination with other tools, this technique typically boosts results 15% to 50% and clients have reported exceeding fundraising goals by 20% after employing simple campaigns.

Sample Impact on a Direct Mail Appeal

Summer Appeal

- Received Lead 30-Second Message costing $0.10– 15% response rate, $33.25 average gift

- No Message – 10.3% response rate, $23.16 average gift

Christmas Appeal

- Received Lead 30-Second Message costing $0.10 – 11% response rate, $44.59 average gift

- No Message – 6.2% response rate, $23.15 average gift

You will be able to review the impact on any of your programs because you will receive full reports on who receives the calls and whether they receive the calls live or as a record voice or answering machine message immediately following the campaign.

 I encourage you to call and speak to me about these programs now.  There are many benefits:

• Working with a leader in automated messaging
• We have completed thousands of programs
• No project too big or too small with programs starting at $650
• Deliver different message live or to machines
• Redirect calls to a call center or your office
• Marketing advice including script writing
• Record message 24/7 and schedule message deliver when you want
• Observe all legal requirements

 We have many satisfied clients including:

Arthritis Foundation

ALSAC / St. Jude Hospital

Penn State University Alumni Association

Ohio State University

University of Arizona

Bennett College

DesMoines Area Community College

Salvation Army

American Red Cross

 

Call or email for more information.

Sincerely,

Brian

  

Brian Lacy

Brian Lacy and Associates

3122 Gannett Street

Houston, TX  77025

 brian@brianlacy.com

(860) 478-9291

Fax:  (713) 667-8352

Tags: Auotmated, Messaging, Phone, technique

Why is Annual Giving So Important?

Last week I was fortunate to spend time and engage in conversations with many dedicated annual giving professionals.  I was at an excellent conference that had me thinking again about why annual giving should be important to all non-profit development programs.  I have thought a lot about this lately.

If you are an annual giving professional, or if you have ever been one, you might be thinking I have been pondering the obvious … but over the past three years I have spoken to an organization which discontinued its phonathon, another which closed its annual giving program, and a large university which actually ceased development operations.

Today, I can happily share that the closed development program reopened, that the annual giving office recently hired not one but three development professionals, and while the phonathon isn’t yet calling even 20% of the available prospects, it again calls thousands of individuals annually.

In these challenging times I’d like to give any of you who need to speak out for your annual fund a little supporting information.  When debating the importance of annual giving and its value to our non-profit organizations, we must consider the following:

1) Annual giving donors have a lifetime value that far exceeds any one gift …  so even if we are down because of the economy or identifiable fundraising mistakes and don’t break even in a given year, our organizations will almost certainly be strengthened over time

2) Our annual giving is marketing of our non-profits to broad audiences … in effect our marketing is subsidized by fundraising and this must be considered an addition a return on our investment

3) More than 75% of $10,000+ donors, in one Target Analytics study, gave six or more annual gifts before their first $10,000+ gift … highlighting that indeed annual giving cultivates donors for even greater support in future

4) 88% of those the same $10,000 donors took three or more years from their first annual gift before making their $10,000+ gift … suggesting that for many, annual giving could be a necessary step before some make major gifts

5) Annual giving solicitation vehicles and tools often tell us more about the condition of our databases for all of our organizations activities … indeed mailing and conversations about annual giving often collect more information updates than any other activity of the non-profit

6) Meer and Rosen reported that a college graduate that has given $20 each of the first five years after graduating, will give eight times as much as the graduates to give one $100 in those five years … so it is not enough for us to have a fund for people to give to, we must have a program that actively seeks support and then a repeated renewal of that support

For more on your annual giving efforts, please give me a call or drop me an email.

Brian Lacy

(860) 478-9291

brian@brianlacy.com