The NonProfit Times - May 15, 2008 - (Page 8)

EXECUTIVE Session Continued from page 6 you “Pete,” we call you “logistics” or “water resources.” I think the organizational feedback loop has to be accelerated the way we now accelerate communications or data integration. Management is still on an annual basis, wishing they were on a biannual basis.And in reality, we need to be on a nanosecond basis. Carey: Even if you set just several discrete goals, you should be able to develop a pathway to get there. You should know whether or not you’re still on that pathway along the year. You don’t wait around until the end of the year to ask, “Well, did we accomplish our goals this year?” You have to have feedback mechanisms in the marketplace, and you also have to have the ability for the different components of the organization to be able to report back up. The reporting should be in a way that is relevant to how they’re doing their business. It also gives them the opportunity to get course correction because sometimes your commander in the field is going to say “Great, you’ve made progress on that, now move over here.” Hazard: To your point coming from the top, the measurement’s good, but also setting the expectations of getting everyone around the table and talking and sharing, I don’t think that happens a lot. You get so involved in the day-to-day that you don’t sit down. I worked for a nonprofit for a while, and on a quarterly basis, there was a meeting where you had program staff, development staff and communications sitting around a table to talk. If you don’t have that message coming from the top that you have to sit down and talk, it’s probably not going to happen. Deane: What I hear you saying, and I completely agree, is communication is essential. But then, that’s always been true in any organization. And the concept of how you get a discrete number of critical success indicators is the concept of simplicity.These are just a few, but they’re easy to understand. It’s not complex. It’s exactly what you’re talking about -- going down into the organization. You have to continue to, if you will, have it be very clear, very simple, easy to understand, easy to interpret into your own work reality. Otherwise, it isn’t going to work. So finding out the way to measure yourself along the path is as important as figuring out the critical success indicators. If you can’t, you don’t know if you’re moving forward. A once-a-year assessment is not good. In fact, once a year is way too late. Monthly is almost too late. Your nanosecond reality, unfortunately, requires that kind of management. Carey: Which also requires another principle to be mastered, and that’s span of control.Are you managing your people and departments effectively to deliver your critical indicators? Deane: Let’s take where we started.We talked about a communications, a marketing, and a development person, and how the development person could have this fabulous skill set and manage all three functions very well.But then that person leaves. And then you come back and you want to replace it, but here again, you don’t. Clolery: Being as we’re in Washington, we can use a Washington phrase.The joke is there are two things you never want people to see: How you make sausages and how you make laws. What does the donor see in all of this? Or, is this supposed to be just an interaction between a faceless organization or a faceless communication tool or this apparatus you’ve now put into place? Gaffny: Are you asking does the donor have a say in it? Clolery: Does he have a say and what does the donor say? Gaffny: The way you do that is you ask. I think it’s got to be more donor-directed as opposed to organization-directed. RICK CHRIST The Web exposes a lot of structural issues that nonprofits got away with in the past. We’ve all done it. We kind of push our ideas and our thoughts and our time and our place on the donor base, as opposed to letting them direct the dialogue a little more. I can give you a perfect example. I gave an online gift to 145 charities, $15 to each of them. And 73 of them also sent me a postal letter. The rest of them never did. Clolery: Wait, they sent you an email response plus a postal letter? Gaffny: Right, exactly. But half of them never even tried to reach out along a different channel to see what that was all about.Almost none of them asked me how would I prefer to be talked to. Clolery: Are they just assuming the fact that you talked to them one way, so that’s the way you wanted it to be returned without giving you a different option? Gaffny: That’s the message I got. Carey: You’re presuming that was a conscious decision on their part. Gaffny: Right. Carey: Well, there’s a bias in any organization, both for-profit and nonprofit, that if they have established a channel don’t try anything else.We work very hard in our organization to make sure all channels are open to customers, regardless of how they might interact with us at one time. That’s very important to continue to think about in the nonprofit space. Clolery: Let’s bring that back to your communication comments.They assumed that you wanted to be spoken to via email, while some responded through email and postal mail. Gaffny: And over the phone. Clolery: What happens if Donor X sends them $15 online and then decides to pop a check in the mail for $25 the next time? The third time, the gift is by phone. How do you talk to that guy without going crazy with all the different channels? Gaffny: Let’s start with the premise that you’ve just described, a wonderful problem. You’ve had someone raise their hand and proactively on their own indicate that they love you so much that they’ve reached out along three channels. That’s a good problem. Carey: At that point, it’s not a contact strategy issue really. It’s a segmentation issue. Regardless of the amount, they’re engaged.The person is an engaged donor. You should have a strategy already on how to deal with people who you think are above the median in terms of donations versus your regular base. Gaffny: And the simple answer is, maybe you just call them and say “How do you want us to do this?” Clolery: Gee, I don’t know, Mr. Fundraiser, just send me everything you’ve got. Meanwhile, the donor sends three gifts a year and you get a total of $75. Meanwhile, you’ve sent 20 pieces of mail, 15 emails, called them a couple of times. Carey: That’s why I think the measurement that you were talking about, Curtis, is an important component that is entering a lot of conversations now. It’s some form of donor satisfaction measurement. You integrate how much are they contributing and how are they participating in your organization, with their perception of the organization. Deane: Just so I understand. It was 145 emails.You gave them 15 bucks.You sent it electronically. Some of them called you because you sent them 15 bucks? Gaffny: Yeah, it was very interesting. I give National Trust for Historic Preservation a lot of credit. I gave them a gift last December, and my wife got the call Sunday night at home. And she said my husband’s not in, because I usually am ducking telemarketing calls. And she said the woman had asked, well, this is the time of year he usually gives his annual gift, and I’m wondering when would be a convenient time. Is this Mrs. Gaffny? I’m wondering, do you know when would be a convenient time to call him again? I was surprised that at the $15 threshold I did get a phone call. Deane: But I thought the call was purely an acknowledgement, a thank-you call. Gaffny: No, this was a solicitation.This was a perfect example of the left hand knew exactly what the right hand was doing. It was not only the fact I had given but the time of year I had given. It gave them a rationale to call and say that’s why we’re calling. It was very impressive. I didn’t give them any money. Christ: That’s what we preach, how to get a second gift when the first gift came online. And although there’s no one overriding answer, the big answer is call them. And many people take that one step further and say call them and ask them to become a monthly donor. Maybe you get a second gift out of it, but bring them on. Using all those channels is important. Gaffny: It’s funny, too, you mentioned the problem with three gifts and three channels. I would much rather deal with an issue of contacting someone too often than not enough. We all know the single biggest mistake, and we’ve seen every organization do it, as soon as someone becomes a “big donor,” then oftentimes what someone says is let’s take this person out of the direct marketing program. Let’s take them out of the telemarketing program. Let’s take them out of whatever, and we’ll instead handle that on a one-to-one basis.And invariably, it never happens, and that person never gets any contact at all. So if someone’s going to err, I’d rather they’d err on the side of it’s too much. Hazard: Who’s to say what too much is? Carey: I think that’s where the Web has really changed the game. Personally, I expect my charities to have a Web presence, to have an ability to interact with me via email, via newsletters, etc. Yet at the same time, as a marketer, I understand that there’s a lot of infrastructure that is underneath that. It’s a real investment. Nonprofits have to learn how to walk before they can run, because they can get in over their heads and just not be able to deliver to the expectations of this new Webcentric world. And yet, they need to be there.There needs to be a presence. It’s a challenge. Christ: The Web exposes a lot of structural issues that nonprofits got away with in the past. We get into issues, like which one goes first at the top of the Web page? And who moved it, how much? And then you end up with Web pages that my partner refers to as NASCAR syndrome, you know, with stickers all over the place.With no semblance of order. But everybody’s happy, or at least equally unhappy. And that’s not the point of either a Web site or of management. Cloler http://www.nptimes.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of The NonProfit Times - May 15, 2008

The NonProfit Times - May 15, 2008 Tying Multiple Sub-Brands To The Primary Idea Executive Session: Giving The Donor The Chance To Say Yes Blogging From The Top Contents Striking The Best Deal Don't Be Fooled Immigrants And Philanthropy Bringing In The Dough Good And Bad Organizational Evaluation Design Your Message You’ve Got Mail? Hybrid Power Calendar NPT Jobs Resource Directory

The NonProfit Times - May 15, 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.