Infographics – like any other tool, channel, idea, etc. – have their place when used correctly.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy made a good point in an article about a month ago: Infographics can make data fun and informative.  I agree.

But there’s a catch.

The infographic has to be readable and tailored for the audience. That’s why I decided to share a few points for you and your graphic designer to consider when creating an infographic.

The Good – what I like about infographics for nonprofits

◊ They’re intriguing, partly because they’re relatively new to the communication mix.

◊ They tend to get people’s attention. (But can they keep it?)

◊ They lend themselves to scanning. People can quickly find what interests them the most.

◊ Done right, they can be fun. The graphics – drawings, pictures, cartoons – can lighten the reader’s experience as they engage with your valuable information.

◊ They work especially well for presenting data, statistics, and other mind-numbing figures in a more digestible fashion.

◊ Another possible use is as a story board. With clever drawings (or possibly photos), and the compelling text for each illustration … you could tell an engaging story. Use a child’s story book as the concept for the design.

Two examples:

1) In your welcome package this story board could highlight the history of your nonprofit. Or it could show all the different ways donors make a difference. But I recommend you also have the same info in a traditional letter, pamphlet or other print piece.

2) In an appeal it can outline how donors have helped a specific program grow and why you need them to upgrade their giving for the next need (but you still need the letter).

The Bad & the Ugly – what I don’t like about infographics

◊ Far too much of the information is hard to read.

- Tiny font (even after enlarging the web image; but if it is in print then we don’t even have that option).

- Poor color choices; especially for the copy. For example: white font on a light blue background, or orange text on a black background.

◊ Too much jammed into one infographic!!!!! It take 3 – 6 scrolls to read it all and if printed, it doesn’t fit on one page plus it’s still hard to read (e.g., small print and/or graphic).

◊ Confusing and poorly organized. This is closely related to the previous bullet. Have people in different age groups – unfamiliar with the topic – read your infographic before you publish it. Can everyone get the gist of your key message in 5 seconds or less?

I often think developers of infographics focus on artistic creation instead of how to convey a clear message. This is BAD, BAD, BAD.

◊ One-size-fits-all mindset. You don’t send the same letter to a prospect as you do a 10-year supporter. Nor do you send the same copy and tone in a letter/email to a 30-something as what’s sent to a 70-something. Infographics are no different.

Tailor the design and the content for different segments of your donor or member database. This doesn’t mean an entirely different infographic in every case. But tailored and personalized communications are a must in today’s fundraising market.

◊ Not everyone likes infographics. For critical data, messaging, etc. you must use an integrated approach. Yes you send the info out via direct mail, email, social media, mobile, etc. But here integration also means sending it in multiple formats such as video, audio, readable text, illustrations, and so on. Give people choices on how they “consume” your content.

Infographics have their place. But please don’t risk annoying your donors, members, advocates and other supporters by churning out a poorly designed graphic that can’t be easily read or understood.

That means the fundamentals of clear, compelling, relevant and personalized communication still apply – even to infographics.

Don’t lose sight what the infographic is supposed to accomplish. What is the ONE prime message? What is the ONE thing it must achieve? With that written down, you can proceed to create infographics tailored for all your file segments. Finally, take care to avoid all of “the bad and the ugly” and focus on “the good.”

What do you like or dislike about infographics? Any nonprofit examples to share with us in the comment block?

Related posts:

How color impacts donors and members

What makes a compelling and memorable nonprofit story … storytelling

The risks of letting images dominate your nonprofit messaging

In this post the “team” I’m referring to is which marketing channels you join together to form a more powerful result.

In other words: Integrated or multi-channel marketing.

Supporters want nonprofits to use multiple channels for all marketing communications

Each channel is a team member working with other team members (channels) to achieve together far more than what any single one could achieve.

Why is this so important? Few of today’s donors and members (of any age) limit themselves to one channel. For example:

• Today Martha Do-Gooder might prefer reading your direct mail appeal yet she donates online. Next week she’ll love receiving your email with breaking news on her favorite topic.

• Today Sam Joiner might prefer browsing your association website for professional development webinars. Tomorrow he might appreciate receiving a text message asking him to send an urgent message to Congress.

Not only that but supporters are fast becoming platform-agnostic. And they also demand more and more control over your communications with them.

Integration is the solution

You can quickly meet more of the expectations of your demanding supporters by integrating every message. Sometimes this gets complex, but most of the time it’s straight-forword.

For example: Later today (11am EST, Jan 10th) my newsletter will be published. Subscribers will find 25 fundraising and marketing trends, tactics and strategies essential to their work in 2012. (Subscribe here to receive this premium issue.)

The channels I’m using are my blog, my Facebook page, and I’m tweeting about it. Simple, right?

I integrate because I want to reach as many people as possible ... and I know you pop in and out of different channels. I need to be in multiple places to meet the preferences of you and all my readers. That’s just one example of how I integrate to make it easier for my readers and prospective clients.

Charities and professional associations must also integrate. Not once in awhile, but every time.

The escalating importance of integrating your communications is just one of the 25 topics for 2012 that I cover in the today’s issue of the Zapp Nonprofit Leader newsletter. (Subscribe before 11am EST to receive a copy. Or send me an email and request a copy.)

Team up as many marketing channels as possible each and every time for happier supporters … and for better results than you could hope to get with just a single channel.

Related posts:

4 Direct Marketing Nonprofit Trends for 2012

5 Ways to make your direct mail more social

Online giving isn’t just for “30-somethings” … study shows over 50% of donors 60+ have donated online

By the end of the year I’ll probably come up with more … but for now I’ll focus on four trends for nonprofit direct marketing in 2012.

And they all have one thing in common: Your readers – donors, members, advocates, volunteers, etc. – will respond less and less to messages produced for the masses.

Based on my research and indications from the marketplace, your readers want more personalized and tailored communications from you. More and more they demand to be recognized as an individual … to receive content they view as relevant … to receive content they value.

The effectiveness of the one size fits all letter (or email) is rapidly diminishing.

These changes in reader attitudes and expectations are due largely to the changes in how we communicate with each other. Plus our tolerance for shifting through mountains of letters and emails to find something of interest has all but disappeared.

Therefore, get right to the point and do your best to only send readers what they want. You’ve only got a couple seconds to prove each letter or email is worth more of their time.

Four direct marketing trends nonprofits ought to prepare for in 2012 are:

1 – Integrate traditional channels with digital.

This isn’t new per se, but the trend and the need to do this more and more is escalating. It includes using quick response (QR) codes in letters, brochures, event signage, etc. to make it interactive and more instantaneous for your readers.

In addition, also recognize that integrating with mobile text messages is a powerful way to send personalized messages.

2 – Quality data is paramount; know your supporters.

Direct marketing is perhaps best defined by data and metrics. A growing source of data on your supporters is from social analytics. More and more you can use social data in your research to develop strategies and targeted messages.

3 – Direct mail.

First, recognize that this channel isn’t getting simpler either. And with the rising costs of mail – plus the uncertainties of our postal system’s future and service offerings – it becomes mandatory for you to use this channel as efficiently as possible.

Direct mail packages have to get more sophisticated. Specifically: Send versions for different segments of your file. You’ll need to target your supporters with messages tailored to their interests and preferences. Sending the exact same letter to everyone on your list hurts response and retention.

Direct mail is on track to become a niche-oriented channel.

And this channel must continue to be more extensively integrated with social, your website, and other digital channels.

4 – Email.

Similar to direct mail, email must evolve because conversion rates – overall – continue to decline. A blast email to the masses won’t cut it.

Segment your file. Send future communications based on what they have responded to in the past. Use data from social analytics to tailor messages. Send content your supporters value. Integrate with other digital channels.

Give people choices on how they respond and connect with you. This means consistently sending out integrated campaigns with targeted messages.

Compared to even ten years ago, our fundraising and marketing world isn’t merely changing fast … it’s practically evolving at light speed. And the expectations and demands of your supporters are keeping pace.

Repeating what I wrote above: Your readers want more personalized and tailored communications from you. More and more they demand to be recognized as an individual … to receive content they view as relevant … to receive content they value.

The future of your nonprofit depends on how well you meet the expectations of your evolving supporters.

Related posts:

One size hurts all … this approach to fundraising hurts response

Wanted Dead or Alive – Direct Mail

Donors respond just like Teddy Bears … Why they give and give

Email and direct mail work so well together that I believe it can be viewed as a partnership. 

Yet like any partnership, to reap maximum benefits (think optimizing response, conversions, and funds raised) … there are procedures, techniques, and strategies to pay attention to.

Consider the following when creating an integrated campaign of email and direct mail:

◊ Donors who receive the direct mail letter AND the email(s) …

- Send a super short “heads up” email

- Send a “follow-up” email within a week of getting the letter that reminds them to give. Include an online giving option.

- Test email subject lines similar to your envelope teaser copy and/or letter headline.  The subject line needs to be short.  This is one reason it may not be identical to your envelope copy (more help on writing subject lines).

- The follow-up email can use some of the same copy found in the direct mail letter.  But don’t send a duplicate of the letter via email!

- If there was a strong photo in the letter that reinforced the story, you might consider using it again in the follow-up email; or use a new image to freshen the email a bit. Just make certain to include copy that directly ties the image to the copy. 

- Include a SHORT caption with the email photo that’s clickable to the unique landing page on your website. The caption should reinforce your offer (i.e., case for giving).

- All links must be trackable and send donors to the unique landing page.

◊ Online supporters not yet on your direct mail list.  For these emails …

- First email is a shorter version of the direct mail letter.  You can reuse chunks of copy from the letter; however, you must revise this message for the online reader. 

- Follow same points as above regarding trackable links, unique landing page, use of images, subject line, etc.

◊ The direct mail letter …

- Have a special, trackable URL to the unique landing page for this campaign. This allows you to identify many of the direct mail recipients who decided to donate online after reading the letter.

- You may also want to consider printing a 2D bar code (on the letter and on the reply device). Make certain it takes donors to the landing page for this campaign. Remember: Each bar code (e.g., QR code) is unique to each campaign.

◊ Unique landing page …

- Create a donate form template that allows you to have copy at the top of the page.  This way you can easily edit the page and give it a different URL and title tag for each new campaign.

- The copy at the top of the page is a headline that reinforces the key message from the direct mail letter and emails.  This is followed by a short paragraph or two where you reinforce why they want to donate, the offer (the action you want them to take).

Those are the basics of an integrated email and direct mail campaign.  Done correctly, email and direct mail form a strong partnership that will help your nonprofit gain more supporters and raise more funds.

One of the sessions I attended at the 2011 Bridge Conference was, “Donor Acquisition in the New Normal.”  The speakers shared ideas, methods and strategies on how they’ve created and/or maintained successful acquisition programs during the recession.

Here are the highlights from one of the session speakers who was from The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA).

First and foremost: DO NOT CUT BACK ON ACQUISITION.  The NPCA wanted to cut costs in 2003 so leadership slashed their direct mail acquisition program.  It took them until 2011 to recover from that decision.  This meant that when the last recession hit, NPCA never considered cutting back on the program.

General lesson learned: Mail each month (NPCA mails about 8.5 million pieces per year).  Their revenue is approximately 4% higher than two years ago and they gained 32% MORE acquisition contacts in the past fiscal year while keeping their costs down.

Test, test, test:  Read the graphic above to see what the wise owl Athena liked about NPCA’s testing tips. (Athena the owl is just a pal I found online; she isn’t affiliated with the association.)

In addition, NPCA uses a survey in one of its control packages.  They tested varying the tone of that survey to inch up response.

And with regard to what to test on premiums … test whether to include them or not … test freemiums versus backend fulfillment … and test different premiums with different controls.

NPCA also found success in testing different channels to convert online activists to donors. 

They sent a direct mail package to their online activists.  The campaign included a pre-email, the DM letter, a telemarketing call after the letter was received, and a follow-up email.  This occurred over 4 months.

I regret that I couldn’t copy all of the data fast enough, but the telemarketing calls got the highest response, 2.35 – 2.65% response (considerably higher than the emails; but remember that each “touch” positively impacts the overall campaign results).

Finally, they stressed that telemarketing works great for their acquisition program.  These are WARM calls to online activists, event participants, visitors, and ticket buyers ― prospects and supporters they’ve found in other channels.

Wrap up:  It’s essential to have a strong acquisition program (that includes direct mail) regardless of the economy.  Include plenty of continuous testing to tweak your packages and campaigns.  And integration improves overall response because multiple channels reinforce each other.

Why integrate your marketing and fundraising?  What is this “other” reason? 

It’s wise to integrate because if one channel collapses – even temporarily – you’ve got backup.  You’re still reaching some of your donors and members.

For example: Last week HootSuite was down for a day.  Granted you could still access Twitter directly or use TweetDeck to send tweets.  But if you had some scheduled and in the queue on HootSuite before the outage occurred, you couldn’t access those tweets in the queue.  Your messages didn’t go out.

Also if you’re accustomed to using the tool HootSuite and had to resort to other methods … well, you lost efficiency.

However, you could still reach prospects, donors, and members via your website, email, Facebook, direct mail and other print, radio, TV, mobile, and telemarketing.

For example: The Internet is down in a region of the country.  Usually this is an ISP having trouble but nonetheless subscribers and followers are offline.  No email, social media, or anything online.

However, you could still reach prospects, donors, and members via mobile, direct mail and other print, radio, TV, and telemarketing.

For example: Your email service provider suffers a catastrophe.  For a period of time you can’t send out emails. 

Or an on-going challenge is people changing their email address and not notifying you of the change.  And naturally all this happens right before a major appeal is sent.

However, you could still reach prospects, donors, and members via mobile, direct mail and other print, radio, TV, telemarketing, your website, and social media.

The point I want to stress is . . .

With correctly timed and integrated campaigns … you’ve got backup.  Instead of silence you’re still connecting with people and sharing your vital message. 

In other words, your email is timed to go out right around the time your direct mail package is reaching supporters in their homes.  So even if email is down, the direct mail package gets through.  Plus supporters are also receiving a text message from you, and reading your tweets and Facebook updates.

Granted, it may not always be the same set of supporters receiving your messages across the different channels.  For example: You may have email subscribers who are not yet in your direct mail file (but hopefully you’re working aggressively to change that).

Nonetheless the point is that your cultivating, marketing, and fundraising efforts don’t screech to a halt when one channel is out of commission.  Your work continues.  The funds keep rolling in.

It pays to integrate your nonprofit marketing and fundraising.

Related posts with more reasons on why it pays to integrate with multichannel marketing:

There are several levels of integration – across channels and within each channel … Make a connection … Generate a spark … Get a donation  

Benefit from increased response from integrated campaigns … Donor Choices and Integrated Campaigns 

Direct Mail + Email + Mobile + Social Media = Great Fundraising

First let me say that I know telemarketing works for fundraising. 

For example: It’s a great way to renew donors or members, especially lapsed ones.  I’m glad to see that many organizations use it.

It’s just that when I receive these calls at home there are a few frequently used phrases that annoy the bee-geebers out of me!  I hang up the phone and wonder, “Who the heck writes these telemarketing scripts?”

In fact, I view one of them as misleading and downright dishonest.

Now if your nonprofit has tested these and the market proves that they work, please add a comment in the block at the end of this post.  I definitely want to hear from you.

Meanwhile here are the opening scripts I personally dislike:

1) “Hi Karen, how are you today?”
At this point I have no idea who is calling.  I’m already annoyed.  I don’t want to chit-chat with a stranger; just get to the point and begin by telling me who you are. 

By the way, my parents are in their mid-eighties and get even more annoyed than I do by this approach.

2) “I’m not calling to ask for money today.”
This is the one that really gets me. 

The charity most certainly is going to ask for money!  Getting me to agree to receive an envelope that I send back later with money is the same as asking me for a donation on the spot.  I see no difference! 

Perhaps “technically” they’re not asking for money because they’re asking for the committement.  But the way donor Karen sees it the person has just lied to me … technically, that is. 

Oh, and my parents respond with something like, “Oh yes you are. And if you can’t be up front about it then I’m not going to give you anything.”

Again, I’m definitely in favor of telemarketing.  It’s just a few phrases from the scripts that I don’t care for and these phrases annoy me as a donor.  Annoyed donors are less likely to give!

Anyone else annoyed by these opening telemarketing phrases?  Or has your charity tested them extensively and found they work more times than they don’t?  Please share your comments below.

Yesterday I had a delightful phone interview with Jenifer Snyder, executive director of The mGive Foundation. She is very passionate about her work in helping nonprofits raise awareness, raise funds, and cultivate relationships with donors and prospects through the mobile channel.

mGive Foundation report on donor mobile behavior

Earlier today the Foundation published a press release announcing the results of a survey that examined the behavior of mobile text donors and how they like to use this channel: Text Giving Donor Survey Report.

It’s the first of its kind.

The Text Giving Donor Survey was commissioned by the Foundation; researched and written by CCS (consulting and management firm for nonprofits).

As Jen Snyder said during her interview with me, “There’s a lot of conjecture and speculation in the marketplace, but no authoritative metrics behind that data. We consider ourselves a leader in this arena and felt it was time to conduct this survey; to get some authoritative data.  Now we understand more about the demographics of donors and we can answer questions from nonprofits in an educated fashion.” 

Today I share highlights of the survey, insights from the discussion I had with Jen Snyder regarding the data, plus you can also listen to an excerpt of my interview with her.  I encourage you to take a few minutes to listen because we talk about aspects of the survey and how nonprofits can benefit from mobile that you won’t find in the report.

Highlights of the “Text Giving Donor Survey Report”

- “86% of respondents who give via text are willing to consider giving larger amounts via other channels.” In other words, a $5 or $10 text-to-give donation won’t keep them from giving more online, via direct mail, or other channels.

- Closely related to the previous bullet is this result: “79% of respondents who give to a nonprofit via text have also given to that same nonprofit via email, website or direct mail.”  They’re reporting what they have actually done as opposed to stating what they might do.  As surveys and research go, that’s an important distinction.

   This result also emphasizes the importance of integrated multi-channel campaigns.  And intetration applies equally to fundraising, advocacy, and cultivation.

- 66% are highly educated with undergraduate or graduate degrees

- 62% of respondents give to 2 or more nonprofits via text; and 12% give to 4 or more!

- The top two reasons cited for giving by text: 1) convenience, and 2) the giver was already connected to the organization’s cause.

Speaking of convenience . . . “Donors today are more sophisticated than ever. Donors want options when it comes to charitable giving, and they want to see the organizations they support incorporating new technologies to reach them more effectively,” shared CCS Operational Vice President, Peter Hoskow (firm that researched and wrote the survey commissioned by The mGive Foundation). 

Make it easy for the donors.  Give them choices.  Donate via direct mail, email, website, mobile, etc.  Remember, with mobile you’re part of a donor’s private world.  Mobile devices are how they communicate with friends and family, as well as look up where to eat and what to do (there’s an idea – make your nonprofit museum, concert hall, theater, wildlife refuge, etc. easy to find via mobile). 

Join donors, advocates, members and all your supporters in this very personal space known as mobile.

And don’t assume that only the teens and twenty-someones will engage with you via mobile.  Jen Snyder and I talked about this at some length.  First the data:

35% of respondents were Millennials (ages 16-33)
24% – Generation X (34-44)
23% – Boomers2 (45-55)
14% – Baby Boomers (56-65)
 4% – Seniors (66+)

Granted the majority of respondents were Millennials, but look at how evenly matched GenX and Boomers2 are (24% and 23%, respectively).  Here’s what Jen had to say about this:

“Having a better understanding of who mobile donors are – education levels, ages – I think that’s going to be critical.

Nonprofits are having a very difficult time attracting new donors, including Millennials.  Mobile is an excellent way to engage a different generation and needs to be part of a holistic strategy.

Our study confirms that mobile is most effective (at this moment in time) with Millennials.  But you’ve got GenX and Boomers heavily engaged as well.

The fact that this technology [mobile] is somewhat ubiquitous among all the different generations is critical and important going forward.”

And while we’re on the general topic of “engaging donors,” Jen and I also talked about cultivation during the interview.  For those of you who follow my blog and my newsletter, you know that using mobile for cultivation is the soap box I’m often on. 

Snyder agrees that, “Mobile is such an easy way to keep donors and constituents engaged.  Cultivating relationships and keeping them alive is critical so they stay with you over longer periods of time.  Use mobile to keep them feeling happy, connected and fulfilled.”  Yes, mobile is a tool/channel perfectly suited for cultivation.

I’ll publish more on my interview with Jen Snyder in future posts – parts of our discussion that went beyond the pure results of the mGive Foundatin survey.

But now you get the chance to hear for yourself some of Snyder’s comments from the interview.

Questions you’ll only hear answered in the interview are (i.e., this recorded discussion isn’t part of the Text Giving Donor Survey Report you can find at mGive.org):

1 – What’s the #1 question nonprofits ask about mobile; and how does the survey dispel the myth surrounding this question?

2 – Over 56% of survey respondents “rated their experience with text giving as excellent or good.”  I asked Jen Snyder how it can get better.  Any idea what’s missing that could raise that great number even higher than it already is?

3 – What do you [Jen Snyder] believe is the most important concept for nonprofits to understand about mobile?

Finally, I’ll close with another quote from CCS (mGive Foundation’s research partner in this survey): “Mobile giving can be an excellent vehicle for nonprofits to diversify their fundraising programs,” says Hoskow. 

Whether you want to add to your current understanding of mobile, or you need a tutorial to guide you from A-to-Z on what it is; how it works; and ALL the ways mobile can benefit your nonprofit . . .

Mobile for Nonprofits – Connecting to Donors Through the Power of Mobile

How do the results of this survey change your thoughts about nonprofits including mobile in the marketing, cultivation and fundraising mix?

Ever had to rake up the leaves in your yard?  If so, have you noticed how the task goes much faster with far less effort when you’re not working alone?

This holds true for integrated fundraising, membership drives, and other marketing campaigns.  No one channel is as productive or effective as 2, 3, or more channels working together.

And this also ties in with donor (or member) choices.  Some people prefer to respond by mail yet read your emails and visit your website.  Others will read your direct mail letter and then go online to respond.  Still others sometimes respond to mail and sometimes to email.

The vast majority of donors and members regularly use and respond to multiple channels.  The article below gives you valuable insight on this donor behavior:

On Sept 7 I published a post with highlights from the “Heart of the Donor” study, “How and Why Donors of All Ages Give to Charity.”  The study shows that NO CHANNEL stands alone.  On average, donors use 3 out of 10 channels.  In the post there’s a list of the most popular channels which you ought to review.

Other choices donors seek are payment methods.  Few examples include . . .

Online
- credit card
- debit card
- monthly, quarterly or other frequency choice for your sustainer giving program

Direct Mail
- send in a check
- pay by credit card using form on reply device
- go online to donate; ideally provide them a simple, unique URL for tracking

Integrated fundraising
doesn’t have to be complicated

The combination of email and direct mail is an example of a basic integrated campaign.  They compliment each other nicely.  And the data from the “Heart of the Donor” study shows why this combo is so effective.

Here’s another study I reported on that is also extremely relevant to our topic today: “More Boomers and Seniors in the Online Groove,” (Aug 31st post with data by Pew Research).  This study shows how Boomers and Seniors are actively online.

The statistics show that you can reach a LARGE segment of seniors (and even more Boomers) via email.  Another reason to integrate direct mail and email.  And as it states in my post, Boomers are the “young donors” most charities ought to be targeting NOW.  Learn how to reach them.

I’ll wrap up with two quick examples of nonprofits using this integrated approach to their fundraising:

1 – A foundation I work with is sending out their annual appeal letter.  Their reply device gives the donor the choice of check, credit card, or instructions on how to donate online.  Plus they have valid email addresses for about 58% of their file.  So they will send this group a reminder via email: “Still time to give . . . year-end tax-deductible gift . . . etc.”

 An example of a very simple yet effective integrated campaign.  And by leveraging two channels they’ll enjoy a boost in their overall response by sending the email reminder.  It’s a comparatively easy integration technique and low cost too.  It’s well worth their effort.

2 – A university I’m working with has a 3-email series to raise donations.  And they’re also testing a direct mail letter to a segment of their file.  The letter gives donors the choice of donating online via a unique URL and landing page, or to drop a check in the enclosed return envelope.  Again, the combination of email and direct mail supporting each other and reinforcing the message.

You’ll leave money on the table if you don’t integrate your campaigns and also give choices on payment methods.  It doesn’t have to be complicated to be effective.  You’ll work harder for fewer dollars raised unless you integrate and use multiple channels. 

Today I share some highlights from a terrific study by Russ Reid Company, Heart of the Donor.  They unveiled the results of their 2010 study during the DMANF Conference in New York in August.  The report will be available soon.

I was taking notes fast and furious as Lisa McIntyre (Senior VP of Strategy Development, Russ Reid Company) spoke.  Here are some of the highlights I captured:

Parental involvement trumps any other activity in terms of WHY and whether people give to a charity.  These six parental behaviors – and how many of them your parents did – have the greatest influence on your behavior toward charities:

- Gave money to their place of worship
- Gave money to other charities
- Talked about nonprofit organization in front of children and why they gave
- Take children to place of worship
- Parents volunteer for a nonprofit
- Parents take the child along to also volunteer

As I understand it, 80% of the children from parents with this behavior become donors.  And the more parents exhibited this behavior . . . the more generous the kids are when they grow up and start to give.

If donors are under the age of 40 . . . they’re seeking to get an “impression” about you through social media, talking to friends, and visiting your website. 

If donors are over the age of 40 . . . they’re checking for information about you; checking your credibility; they read the annual report and look at your overhead; and they check your website.

People over the age of 70 are still among the most valuable donors – most generous and most loyal.  Focus most of your resources on the donors giving you the greatest value.

NO CHANNEL stands alone.  On average, donors use 3 out of 10 channels listed to give:

64% – collection box
61% – mail
34% – online
29% – workplace
26% – place of worship
22% – telemarketing
18% – TV/radio
15% – automatic (auto-pay / sustainer)
14% – gift catalog
8% – text (mobile)

Website is your single most important communication vehicle at your disposal.  When people investigate charities . . .

62% go to the charity website
56% search the web
46% talk to a friend that already supports you
44% check your overhead
etc.

What do they want to find on your website, in your letters, everywhere?  What factors have the greatest influence on whether you receive that first gift?

- Is there evidence you do what you claim?
- How do you do it?
- What have you done so far?
- How much do you spend on overhead? 

If you want an illustration related to that last set of bullets, this post will help you see what you need to change on your website: Cartoon Shows Disconnect in Nonprofit Websites  

What donors want more than anything is VALUE.   And if you need to spend more on salaries to do it right and provide value . . . that’s okay.  And if it means you need to spend more on fundraising to give value and do a good job of helping others . . . that’s okay.  Lesson here is that IF you provide value (as perceived by donors), and you communicate that value CLEARLY, they won’t criticize you for spending more money wisely.

If you want to become a donor’s favorite charity you must accomplish three things: First and foremost you must be trustworthy.  And your mission must be relevant to the donor personally and through any experience they have with you.  Trust coupled with how relevant you are to them personally, and their experience with you all leads to a very loyal donor.

I recommend you get this study when it’s published.  It correlated exceedingly well with a study by Convio also shared during the conference.  I think that says a lot for how safely you can take this data and apply it to your nonprofit.