Why Social Media Is The New Force Empowering Giving Decisions

Nonprofits recognize that being on social media is good for public relations, but it’s increasingly driving innovation in the Read more

Sharing is Caring: 4 Reasons To Focus on Facebook Shares (Instead of Likes)

Forget the number of “likes” on your Facebook posts for a moment and look at “shares" instead. Shares are Read more

Five Things I Have Learned As A Millennial Working With Baby Boomers

I am a millennial and I work almost exclusively with baby boomers. My responsibilities require collaboration with many CEOs Read more

The Relevance Test: Three Key Concepts to Future-Proof Nonprofit Organizations

Ivory towers are proving fragile. Many visitor-serving organizations benefit from “outside-in” thinking and have ceased depending solely on experiential intuition Read more

There Is No Mission Without Money: Why Cultural Organizations Need To Get Smart About Pricing Practices

This article concludes a four-part series intended to help visitor-serving organizations understand and respond to emerging trends that will Read more

Audiences Are Changing on Social Networks. Is Your Nonprofit Ready?

Here's help to make sure that your social strategy can hold up to inevitable change. This article is part of Read more

Community Engagement

Sharing is Caring: 4 Reasons To Focus on Facebook Shares (Instead of Likes)

facebook meaningful communication

Forget the number of “likes” on your Facebook posts for a moment and look at “shares” instead. Shares are more indicative of an effective Facebook community and will result in greater ROI from your social media efforts.

Facebook is decreasing organic reach for organizations in an effort to become more “pay to play.”  As organizations scramble to adjust to this change, it is essential to remember that the quality of your fans is more important than the quantity of your fans – especially when it comes to utilizing social media to drive visitation or secure donations.

Speaker and author Sam Davidson reminds folks that “what matters is not the amount of people in your community, but the amount of community in your people.” Sure, that sentiment makes us feel good as organizations trying to foster connectivity with our many constituencies, but Sam’s words hit the nail on the head for the very practical matters of engaging visitors and raising funds as well. Organizations will likely struggle with issues of vitality and solvency if they aren’t relevant…and relevance is a beneficial outcome of focusing on “the community in your people.”

Likes on Facebook are seductive but represent a relatively meaningless “vanity metric” when taken out of context (as they often are). Boasting about your number of fans is also a common (and dangerously misleading) practice among those organizations that have difficulty quantifying the efficacy of their respective social media efforts. Now, organizations are rightfully worried about decreasing reach…but organizations should actually be worried about Facebook decreasing reach to the right people.

Let’s take a very simplified look at how Facebook decides what to show in someone’s newsfeed (with a hat tip to Techcrunch):

Techcrunch

While this tactical information is certainly relevant, I challenge smart organizations to take this one step further by focusing on their strategyor, rather, focusing on “news feed visibility and engagement with the right people” instead of simply “news feed visibility.” After all, what good is thousands of people seeing a post that does not serve to actually elevate your reputation or build affinity for your organization?  (And P.S.- Reputation helps drive donor support and visitation.)

As your organization plays with boosting posts and other promotional opportunities on social platforms, be particularly mindful of the “shares” on posts that you promote. While “likes” indeed increase reach in Facebook’s algorithm, a “share” suggests four terrific things that other metrics do not:

 

1) A share is generally more indicative of quality content than a like

Take a look at your likes and your shares. I’ll bet that you have a lot more “likes” and that makes sense: a share is often harder to achieve than a like because it is much less passive. It takes a higher level of perceived interest for an individual fan to share your content with his/her broader network – an explicit act of endorsement – than to simply click the “like” button. In short, a share is significantly more indicative of active engagement with your community (potential patrons) than a like – and should be weighted appropriately in your assessment of your social media engagement efforts.

 

2) A share is indicative of a quality fan

The person who shared your post cared enough about your content to promulgate it on their own page as part of their virtual identity, and this can be used as a diagnostic metric to help measure how well you are cultivating affinity. Check out these findings from a recent The New York Times Customer Insight Group study:

  • 73% of people process information more deeply, thoroughly, and thoughtfully when they share it
  • 68% of people share to give others a better sense of who they are and what they care about
  • 84% share because it is a way to support causes or issues they care about

 

If your content sparked a share, then that individual is more deeply processing your content, making that content a part of their individual brand identity to others, and more actively supporting your brand. In other words, the people who feel this way may be exactly the people that you want to further engage. Arguably, this is why you are on Facebook.

 

3) Shares have a higher word of mouth value than likes

When people see your content shared in their newsfeed from somebody else, this counts as a credible endorsement. What people say about you is 12.85x more important than what you say about yourself when it comes to driving reputation, and reviews from trusted sources make a big difference in the market’s decision-making processes when it comes to visiting a museum, zoo, aquarium, arts performance, etc. In other words, when you secure a share, you generally amplify your message. However, there is a catch: Just as there are folks with high imitative values, there are some people with low imitative values. We all have a friend or two whose recommendations we truly value…but most of us generally know (and let’s be honest) a person who, if they recommend a brand, you’re just NOT going to touch that brand with a ten-foot pole.  A way around this issue of word of mouth backfiring? Target market makers and early adopters to help make your message stick. These are the people we want to share our organization’s message.

 

4) Shares increase reach directly to potential fans that may have similar values with the high-quality sharer

Sharers help do some intelligent targeting for you as they increase reach. Let’s go back to that The New York Times study on the psychology of sharing: 73% of people share information because it helps them connect with others who share their interests. Let this work to your advantage. Also, 94% of people carefully consider how the information that they share will be useful to others, and 49% say that sharing allows them to inform others of products they care about and potentially change opinions or encourage action. In the end, people share with thought to the actions and perceptions of folks with whom they are sharing. Yes, Facebook offers targeting for posts, but social connectivity may be more valuable than a demographic-informed algorithm. For as much as things are digitized, there’s still something to be said for real-life relationships and loyalties.

In my observation and experience, organizations focus disproportionate attention on “likes” because shares are often harder to achieve…and nobody wants to look bad. But when utilizing social media, it is important to consider why you are using these platforms. My guess is that your organization isn’t simply investing in social media for social media’s sake. You want donors, a strong community, and to generally increase your impact, relevance and, in turn, overall sustainability.

Facebook is trying to get smarter about making money. Let’s get smarter about how we use ours by remembering that in the end, social media is less about raw numbers and more about people, identity, and connectivity.

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page (or ) Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter

Posted on by colleendilen in Community Engagement, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, The Small Stuff, Words of Wisdom Leave a comment

Audiences Are Changing on Social Networks. Is Your Nonprofit Ready?

social media party

Here’s help to make sure that your social strategy can hold up to inevitable change.

This article is part of a four-part series intended to help visitor-serving organizations understand and respond to emerging trends that will impact their financial and mission-related goals. Learn more about the series here. 

While many professionals conceptually understand that audiences and behaviors on specific social media platforms shift over time, there seems to be a disproportionate concern among organizations about how to react to these types of changes. This concern may indicate a need for a broader, more integrated online strategy to best communicate your unique brand attributes to your audiences.

There seems to be a general sense of worry among organizations about Facebook’s evolving demographics in particular (younger audiences may be spending less time on Facebook in favor of other networks) and what this means for an organization’s engagement strategy. Facebook, with over 1.23 billion active monthly users as of January 2014, remains the most utilized social media platform – and, yet, somewhat shockingly, I’ve overheard leaders at multiple organizations frustratingly say things along the lines of, “This whole shift means we need to really reassess our strategy and reconsider if we should be on Facebook.”

Really?!  Did organizations think that all audience segments were only on one platform and would forever only be on one platform? Organizations should be prepared for both changes in the number of platforms that audiences use, and shifts in the ways that audiences actually use them.

Here’s how smart organizations approach these (and other inevitable) demographic shifts and social media evolution that we are sure to see in the very near future:

 

1) Make change a constant in your digital communications strategy and adjust accordingly (and accept that this approach may contrast a more traditional, slow-moving nonprofit mentality)

 

Shifts in platform usage are entirely expected, and if your organization finds itself surprised by evolving usage patterns, then that surprise – in and of itself – is cause for concern. Organizations should anticipate changes in who is using specific social media sites and how they are using them.

Social media platforms are constantly changing (which are utilized and how). This understanding is a cornerstone of an effective social strategy. The rapidity of social media evolution is the genesis of many organizational tensions, including: difficulties in measuring true key performance indicators related to social media; ever-increasing staff needs related to digital engagement; and the perils of “writing in stone” an engagement plan that becomes functionally irrelevant weeks after its publication. Digital engagement simply doesn’t work this way. To be effective, tactics must evolve to best meet audience needs while serving your organization’s broader strategies.

If your organization is paralyzed by the concept of shifting demographics and the evolving uses of specific social media networks, then it may indicate that your organization’s social media strategy is too focused on tactics and not sufficiently thoughtful of overarching marketing goals and strategies. For instance, a strategy may be to utilize content to improve your reputational equities as an expert on mission-related topics with a goal of increasing financial support. Posting a specific status on Facebook that is related to your mission (but also relevant to your audience on that platform) is a tactic. If you need to change that specific status to best serve a different audience than that which may have been on Facebook a year ago, then that specific tactic has evolved. When considered this way, can you see how extreme preoccupation (rather than acceptance) of the need to evolve tactics may be indicative of a lacking or unclear overarching strategy?

In short, updating your strategy may be difficult but updating your tactics should be expected. If it’s too hard to update your tactics, then you may have tactics standing in for your strategy…and that’s no strategy at all.

 

2) Keep tabs on where your market and supporters are/are going as social media networks evolve (and they will). Be present at those parties.


Remember: you need your community of supporters more than they need you. Act accordingly by making it easy and by providing compelling reasons for your audiences to connect and engage with you…or they won’t.

Stick with me here (because I love bad metaphors): Let’s say that your potential supporters hang out at a reoccurring, weekly party. Things are going great! You totally hit it off with the early adopters drinking a microbrew on the lawn, you spend time talking long-term goals with the preppy, high-achievers on the porch, and you also make time to bond with folks who are already your good friends in the kitchen. You’re building and maintaining relationships. This party seriously rocks!

…Until the early adopters decide to start spending time at another party…and the preppy folks from the porch attend a different party yet. You’re torn (and, because you’re a nonprofit, your resources are limited, which makes this even more frustrating).  Suddenly, your potential reach has lessend because you are no longer building relationships with key market segments who may profile as important influencers and supporters.

Because the market is the arbiter of your organization’s success, it’s generally best for you to keep on top of where your audience is and what they are doing and go to them.  As we head into the madness of March, at IMPACTS we offer a quick tip familiar to any basketball junkie: “Beat the market to the spot.”  In basketball and business alike, it’s the difference between shooting free throws and fouling out of the game.

Go with your key stakeholder or target audiences to the new parties and, once you’ve determined which parties are worth your energy (more on this to follow), then be ready to greet “old friends” as they arrive.

 

3) Understand that digital platforms are not mutually exclusive and multiple (thoughtful) presences often allow for more effective influence as platforms evolve


If your organization can only be in one place at one time, then consider expanding your resources because you may be missing or mishandling too many “touch points” to be effective. There may not be a single “magic pill” social media site that allows for the most efficient or effective influence on all of your audiences.

Let’s go back to my earlier party metaphor: Thanks to the web, it’s possible for an organization to have a presence at more than one party (or, on more than one platform). That said, we still need to make a decision: Knowing that having a presence on additional platforms takes resources, being on which platforms will be the most efficient use of our resources?  Nonprofits don’t need to be on every social media platform – especially if they cannot put proper energy into that platform. (If you go talk to those hip folks on the lawn, but you come off as a true outsider or barely make an effort to communicate, then you’ve done yourself more of a reputational disservice in being there then you would have been simply staying away.)

Decide which platforms are worth your time and energy based on where your market is most heavily influenced and you will have the most effective “touch-points.” But know that – increasingly – this is likely more than one platform (though 73% of adults focus on five social networks, sometimes certain platforms may be ripe for more targeted audiences). When demographics and uses change, respect the communities that you’ve already formed online. The quality of your fans is more important than simply pursuing reach, and be very cautious about abandoning one platform for another without careful consideration of how this will affect your current community. (Preempting the assumption: No! Many current users will not immediately follow you to another platform.)

The increasing fragmentation and micro-segmentation of audiences – such as young users spending less time on Facebook and more time on other platforms – may indicate that your organization should be prepared to be in more than one place at one time.  In turn, this may necessitate re-allocating resources to maintain connections and foster engagement with your online audiences.

In sum: Yes – millennials (or others market segments) may leave Facebook or other platforms, but, NO – it shouldn’t be something that strategic marketers necessarily need to worry about. Right now, Facebook remains a primary engagement tool for a majority of the market that is active on social media. That could (and likely at some point will) change. If your organization 1) has a solid strategy and identified goals, 2) thoughtfully continues to consider the value of each platform while making execution decisions, and 3) understands the possible need to cultivate extra resources to engage audiences on multiple platforms, and then your organization will not only easily adapt to changes without a hitch, but it will thrive.

 

*Photo credit: ed Social Media

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page (or ) Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter

Posted on by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Generation Y, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, The Future, Words of Wisdom 2 Comments

Trends Report: Four Trends That Will Affect Visitor-Serving Organizations in 2014

Big Data

2014 is off to a speedy start – and it is already clear that there are some big, data-informed trends that are likely to hit organizations this year.  I will be posting weekly for four weeks (in what I’m calling a “Trends Report” series) regarding key trends that may help your organization make sense of some big data so that you can be best prepared this year. In short, I’ll help make four predictive, data-informed 2014 trends accessible and explain what they mean in a way that’s (hopefully!) easy to understand. 

But before I do that, I want to put on my “business cap” and give you a quick summary of the four trends I’ll be covering. Want the below information as a .pdf white paper? It’s right here:  IMPACTS Trends Report Summary on Know Your Own Bone.

Data and analysis indicate four trends that promise to influence market perceptions and, in turn, audience engagement strategies for visitor-serving organizations in year 2014. In an effort to share this intelligence and spawn impactful industry discussion, I will be I will be posting articles here to Know Your Own Bone offering both in-depth analysis of these key trends and their respective implications for visitor-serving enterprise.  This series of articles will debut on Wednesday, 5 February, and continue thereafter on a weekly basis as a four-part series.

Summarized below is a preview of the trends that I will explore in the upcoming Trends Report series on Know Your Own Bone:

1) The increasing importance of social mission in driving attendance

To be posted on 5 February: Data support the increasing importance of highlighting an organization’s social mission in order to maximize contributed and earned revenues alike. An analysis of financial performance for many visitor-serving organizations reveals an interesting empirical observation: Generally, organizations perceived by the market as the most credible, authoritative “social good” actors also achieved better financial performance indicators (e.g. higher earned revenues, more contributed income) than would-be peer organizations that promote themselves primarily as “attractions.” The observation of this perceptual and performance delta attests to data concerning the evolving purchase/giving motivations of the US population…and especially millennials (a “sector agnostic” and “super-connected” generation heavily influenced by social mission). 

 

2) Utilizing social media to cultivate donors and promote giving

To be posted on 12 February: In 2014, successful organizations will understand the need to look beyond “vanity metrics” (i.e. fan and follower count), and focus on the quality and strength of the varied relationships formed on social platforms.  The days of “one size fits all” social media practices are officially over. Fundraising and donor engagement initiatives will continue to evolve in the online space (in addition to in-person and other, more traditional engagement methods), and this evolution will necessitate more informed, personalized donor cultivation leveraging real-time digital platforms. Instead of viewing “online giving” as a donation conveyance channel, organizations will realize that it is an increasingly important (and expected) component of a broader donor cultivation and retention strategy, and that it – like all other fundraising communication methods – is more about the people than the platform.

 

3) Adjusting strategy for changing audiences on social platforms

To be posted on 19 February: Many professionals understand that audiences and behaviors on specific social media platforms shift over time; however, IMPACTS has identified a disproportionate concern among visitor-serving organizations about which platforms are “in” and “out” in terms of efficiently engaging their respective audiences. Specifically, there is concern about Facebook’s evolving demography and the correlative impact of this shift on organizational engagement strategies and tactics. This article will propose a framework for contemplating ongoing social media platform evolution that underscores the need for a broader, more integrated online strategy based on reputational equities and how to best communicate these brand attributes and differentiators to your audiences.

 

4) The need for more informed, data-driven pricing practices

To be posted on 26 February: Austerity measures and the loss of heretofore “reliable” funding mechanisms pitched many European cultural organizations into a tenuous financial state and catalyzed a conversation concerning the sustained solvency of visitor-serving enterprise worldwide. In an increasingly competitive market where volume-based increases are less likely remedies to the new economic reality that emphasizes earned revenues, 2014 will mark the year when organizations will need to “get smart” about leveraging data to develop intelligent, efficient price indices. In turn, analysis of an organization’s pricing structure will likely – and necessarily – foster additional discussion concerning the creation of more effective affordable access programming.

I hope that you will find the analysis of these trends and topics helpful to both you and your organization! If you want to follow along with the weekly series without fuss, please subscribe to Know Your Own Bone on the right hand column of this site to have them delivered to your email inbox.

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page (or ) Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter

Posted on by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, The Future, Words of Wisdom Leave a comment

New Data Reveals How Your Organization Can Improve Its Online Advertising

Marketoonist rather be earned media

Data suggest that landing your online audiences on peer review and social media content rather than the e-commerce (e.g. ticket sales) portion of your website is now one of the most effective ways to maximize online conversions.

Because how the market uses websites has changed with the widespread use of social media and other word-of-mouth inspired outlets, the way to optimally utilize websites to inspire desired behaviors has changed as well. Namely, the frequent and oft-cited “rule” that the best online ads lead only to direct conversion sites (or your own website for that matter) is now… well, irrelevant.

In the not-too-distant past, the prevailing wisdom was to “land” your online customer on the web page where they could transact business with you with the least number of clicks (i.e. land them on the “buy tickets” page).  Today, the data suggest that a more informed customer – one who has availed him/herself of the information and reviews of third-parties such as those found on many social and peer review platforms – are more likely to complete a transaction than a customer whose primary online experience with your organization was an ad.

Consider the chart below – chosen as it is generally representative of customer behaviors for many visitor-serving organizations (e.g. museums, aquariums, zoos, performing arts centers, etc.) with online ticketing capabilities –  quantifying the “abandon rate” (i.e. the percentage of persons who initiated but did not complete an online behavior) segmented by the representative organization’s landing page (i.e. the web page where the customer was routed after clicking on an ad): 

IMPACTS ad abandon rates data

 

Immediately, you notice that the abandon rate for customers who land on a “buy tickets now” type landing page is 19.6% higher than the abandon rate for customers who are first routed to a web page featuring third-party reviews.  Similarly, the abandon rate is 15.8% higher for a customer landing on a “buy now” page when compared to customers first routed to a social media channel.  In fact, the data indicate that in terms of actually translating a click to a conversion, that the absolute worst thing that an organization can do is route its online advertising to a “buy now” type of landing environment.

In today’s world of heightened connectivity and increased empowerment of potential customers to make informed decisions based upon perceptions of reputation and brand transparency, your customers expect access to product information, reviews from trusted resources, and reliable customer support.  (Is it any wonder that the most admired and successful visitor-serving organizations – and, for that matter, the most rapidly growing brands from most any sector –  invariably have the most robust reviews and social care/social CRM functionalities?)

For those who do not have many dealings in abandon rates and may be shocked that abandon rates may be high at all, here’s some background: Abandon rates for all types of e-commerce hover around 74% – in other words, on average, three out of four persons who click on an item to buy online don’t actually end up completing the transaction.  Consider more broadly: It’s often only after proceeding to the “checkout” page that a customer can learn the shipping costs, the delivery timeframes, or even if their preferred method of payment is accepted  In the case of many visitor-serving organizations, compound these factors with cumbersome website navigation and outdated e-commerce functions, and it’s no wonder that abandon rates for some organizations approach 90%.  The point is: Overcoming abandonment issues is a very real part of an organization’s online strategy, and any finding that moves the needle even slightly on this front has potentially huge implications in terms of visitor engagement and earned revenues.

At IMPACTS, we leverage “big data” and sophisticated technologies to deliver highly-customized, micro-targeting online advertising…and we have a LOT of intelligence on what works and what doesn’t. (For my regular readers thinking, “But Colleen, I thought you worked in active, digital engagement?” I do. I specialize in the Coefficient of Imitation realm of brand perception (reviews from trusted sources) while IMPACTS, more broadly, takes on the Coefficient of Innovation (paid media)). These two functions (paid advertising and earned media) serve as a relay team handing the baton (i.e. the customer) from one runner to the next – the advertising function can be a “conversation starter” that attracts the attention and interest of a wide audience; the social media and other digital communication tools are the functions that manage the relationship with the customer across the finish line (i.e. the conversion). This may be a helpful way for organizations to think about the often necessary interactions between word-of-mouth and paid media-related methods of cultivating desired affinities and behaviors.

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page (or ) Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter

Posted on by colleendilen in Community Engagement, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, Words of Wisdom Leave a comment

Why Your Visitors Are Not Buying Tickets Online (And Why It May Be Your Fault)

Ticket sales cartoon

“We added online ticketing to our website…so why aren’t more people buying their tickets online?”

This question seems common among certain leaders in museums and visitor-serving organizations (generally, because it’s true). Unfortunately, it also seems to have found a life as a shortsighted, defensive rationale for not investing in web-based platforms to engage visitors. Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to these leaders that the market is no dummy – simply deploying online ticketing doesn’t necessarily mean that the market will be inclined to actually use it.

Museum high propensity visitors profile as being “super-connected” with access to the web at home, work and on mobile devices. They use social media and online platforms to make visitation decisions. So why aren’t a vast majority of visitors buying tickets online to most organizations?

Because while you may think that you’re making life easier for your potential visitors by selling tickets online, many organizations actually make the act of purchasing a ticket a more expensive and/or more cumbersome process for their would-be visitors. While it’s inarguably “better” and more efficient for an organization to have the market avail itself of online ticketing, until the benefits of buying tickets online outweigh the costs (in terms of both convenience and currency) most people won’t do it. Here are four common conditions that may create needless barriers to your market purchasing a ticket online:

 

1) It is impossible (or exceedingly difficult) to purchase tickets via mobile platforms

Mobile web is among the fastest growing communication channels.  According to Pew Research, 56% of American adults have a smartphone and 29% of cell owners describe their phone as “something they can’t imagine living without.” 34% of mobile users go online mostly using their phones (as opposed to another device such as a desktop or laptop computer). On top of all this, more than 5 billion people will use mobile phones by 2017.  This is all a long way of saying that smartphones play an increasingly critical role in motivating and facilitating museum visitation decisions. If your potential visitors cannot easily purchase tickets on a mobile platform, then you’re missing a critical opportunity to act in your visitors’ interests…and you’re making it hard for them to act in yours.

 

2) Purchasing tickets online is time consuming, and perhaps more cumbersome than applying for a mortgage

I’m exaggerating…kind of.  Have you ever tried to purchase a ticket on your own website? If yours is like the ticket buying interfaces of many visitor-serving organizations, then this is an elaborate, multi-click process that requires digital maneuvering between websites and a seemingly never-ending array of repetitive requests for personal information.

I’ll quote myself from a previous post on the matter: For many organizations, selling admission is a critical component of their financial plans. We live in a world where you can buy an airline ticket from San Francisco to Tokyo on a smartphone in less than 60 seconds, but it frustratingly requires five long minutes to purchase a ticket to some museums on the same device.

Some organizations have entered into long-term agreements with ticketing providers and are apt to shrug their shoulders and excuse their bad practices by saying, “Well, there’s nothing that we can do about online ticketing. We have a contract.” As a reminder: To the market, this is a “you” problem. The market doesn’t know that you’ve signed a contract with a company that doesn’t meet your needs – only that you’re not meeting theirs. (Which is especially strange when you consider that in this situation, their interest is to act in your interest!)

 

3) It costs more to buy tickets online than at the gate

Speaking of entering into long-term agreements with ticketing providers, many of them take a cut of online ticket sales or require a fee that is, in turn, imposed upon your visitors so that they must (quite literally) pay for your organization’s decision to engage with the ticketing provider. To organizations perhaps less concerned with their customer service standards, this may sound like a problem for the visitor (“Hey, this is what happens if you want to buy tickets online”). Smart organizations, however, realize that such fees present a significant barrier to entry.

Many organizations are very deliberately priced so as to maximize revenue without “leaving money on the table.” The market is very sensitive to pricing. The market reacts differently to a price point of $19.95 than it does to $21.95 – and the fees charged by ticket providers may well exceed the threshold at which your market finds value in your admission price. Organizations that charge additional fees for online transactions may unintentionally undermine their otherwise sound, research-based pricing strategies.

 

4) Your museum has likely trained people to buy tickets at the door

Thanks to newly designed (or renovated) facilities, improved wayfinding, and efficient entry procedures, visitor-serving organizations have become quite good at enabling hassle-free onsite access…and this relative ease of access also erodes one of the potential incentives of buying a ticket online (i.e. the convenience of buying online as opposed to waiting in line).

Many visitor-serving organizations have actually trained visitors to simply show up with a reasonable expectation of buying a ticket and gaining access to facilities with a minimum amount of wait time.  Think about it: If you’ve visited a museum time and again and never encountered a significant wait or been denied access due to a sell-out, would you alter your behavior without reason?  Now, add to this learned behavior the various disincentives of higher ticket prices due to online fees and the inconvenience of trying to purchase a ticket on your smartphone, and it is no wonder that some organizations struggle to meet their online sales goals.

The good news? If your organization wants to increase online ticket sales, these conditions are subject to improvement. You absolutely can increase online ticket sales – if you are willing to consider the transaction from the perspective of your audience. The big takeaways: Executing strategic initiatives on online platforms aren’t simple IT functions, and certainly don’t operate on an “if you build it, they will come” basis. Like absolutely everything else related to your organization, if you aim to inspire action online, you must consider overall market perception, behaviors, and incentives. 

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page (or Google+) Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter

Posted on by colleendilen in Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Technology, Words of Wisdom 2 Comments

Three Ways the Role of Your Website Has Changed. Is Your Nonprofit Keeping Up?

all the info now cartoon

Recently, I have had several conversations with leaders of nonprofit organizations concerning the management of their digital assets. Unfortunately, I’m sensing a disturbing trend: There seems to be a misconception that nonprofit websites are immune to the evolution attendant to all other digital platforms. Specifically, the misconception that the “strategic” role that websites play in the visitor and donor decision-making process is exactly the same today as it was ten years ago.

The market’s use of social media and online platforms changes so quickly that it seems silly to expect the role of an organization’s website to remain unaffected by the “moving parts” of digital advances occurring all over the web. Here are three, outdated ways that some organizations still view the role of their respective websites – and how that old role has long since evolved:

 

1. Some organizations still view their website as the optimal landing spot to get audiences to act in their interests

(FYI: The homepage now generally functions as a repository for unassailable facts)

Let’s say that there is a new movie coming out and you’re thinking about going to see it. If you’re like most members of the digital age, then you’ll likely search for a review in The New York Times (earned media), or check out the movie’s score on Rotten Tomatoes (peer review)…but you probably won’t look to the Warner Bros. website to determine if the movie is actually any good (Here’s the model behind why that is).

However, you may visit the Warner Bros. website to learn matters of unassailable fact (e.g. cast and crew information, run time, rating, plot overview, etc.) On factual matters, the producing entity is considered by the market to be the expert.  On subjective matters relating the quality of the experience – or, even, if the experience is worth the investment of one’s time and money – the market generally does not consider the producing entity to be as credible of an attesting source as impartial third-party endorsers.

The same is true for the websites of nonprofit (and most other) organizations. These pages often serve as repositories for unassailable facts – they are the places audiences go to learn more about where you’re located, what you do, and about your mission and social impact. Indeed, this information plays a critical role in the decision-making process, but it is hardly the active role that some organizations still ascribe to websites from the pre-social media era.

 

2. Some organizations still believe that their own website analytics hold the key to understanding digital behaviors

(FYI: Social media platforms often play a leading role in informing visitation and donor-related decisions)

At IMPACTS, a significant part of what we do is leverage data to deploy “intelligent” digital advertising.  Often, when we share online campaign-related data with an organization, they are challenged to reconcile the quantity of impressions being delivered with their website’s Google Analytics (or like application) data. This is because we refer persons with a propensity to be influenced by social media to social media sites instead of an organization’s website.

We do this because we possess significant evidence (proprietary to each client, but generally applicable across the board) that there is a large segment of the market more likely to “act in the nonprofit’s interest” when they are sent to social media sites. (Remember: Not even close to everyone who looks at your Facebook Timeline or Twitter account is necessarily following you.)

This leads to widespread-website-strategy mistake #2: Thinking that your own website analytics tell anything more than a small fraction of the story concerning digital engagement. Unfortunately, we cannot control Facebook (and when it comes to our relationships with our online audiences, Facebook controls us (see the cartoon under #3)). Moreover, from an optimization perspective, analytics are only capable of partially informing existing content preferences – they fail to diagnose if the existing content is optimal in the first place!  (So, these numbers have always been diagnostic metrics, NOT key performance indicators).

Strangely, many organizations that fancy themselves “data-driven” proudly invest in back-end, retrospective assessment tools (e.g. analytics). And, yet, these same organizations don’t seem seem to think twice (or even once) about first benefiting from even the most basic of front-end evaluative tools (e.g. A-B testing) before spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a new website.

In the overall scheme of things, your organization’s website analytics play a very minor role in indicating the efficacy of your overall digital engagement strategy.

 

3. Some organizations still prioritize bells and whistles

(FYI: If acting in your nonprofit’s interest isn’t easy, online audiences have neither the time nor inclination to figure it out)

What is the single most important action that you want online audiences to do in the interest of your organization? Now consider: How easy is it to tell from your website that this is THE most important behavior that you are requesting of your audience? And even more importantly: How easy is it to carry out this action? What about on mobile platforms – where more than 50% of a zoo, aquarium or museum’s high-propensity visitors access information?

Perhaps making a donation is a priority to your organization. If so, is it the single most important thing on your website?  Many organizations bemoan their lack of success engaging online donors…all the while relegating a donation request to a tiny button in the top right corner of their home page competing for attention with all sorts of digital “noise.”

Organizations interested in maximizing their online effectiveness don’t create virtual games “because they’re cool,” chase industry awards, or develop super-sexy widgets as a display of their technological prowess; instead, they unrelentingly focus on making it easy for online audiences to act in their interest.

For many organizations, selling admission is a critical component of their financial plans. We live in a world where you can buy an airline ticket from San Francisco to Tokyo on a smartphone in less than 60 seconds, but it frustratingly requires five long minutes to purchase a ticket to some museums on the same device.

Some organizations have entered into long-term agreements with ticketing providers and are apt to shrug their shoulders and excuse their bad practices by saying, “Well, there’s nothing that we can do about online ticketing. We have a contract.” As a reminder: To the market, this is a “you” problem. The market doesn’t know that you’ve signed a contract with a company that doesn’t meet your needs – only that you’re not meeting theirs. (Which is especially strange when you consider that in this situation, their interest is to act in your interest!)

We easily accept that social media evolves and even platform uses change – but, to some organizations, there seems to be something sacred and untouchable about the role of their websites. Like all digital platforms, its purposes, strengths and weaknesses change over time. Organizations that recognize these changes will be best able to utilize this valuable tool to support both their business and mission objectives.  Those that resist the inevitably of change will continue to witness the decline of their online audiences. In sum, organizations will benefit by developing a digital strategy and evolving their websites to meet changing needs and expectations – rather than building strategy around the outdated role and “rules” of a website.  

Did your content change cartoon

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter!

Posted on by colleendilen in Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, The Future, Words of Wisdom 1 Comment

Social Media Degrees: The New Fool’s Gold for Companies and Nonprofits

twitter degree

In my line of work, I frequently get asked to review job descriptions for social media-related positions. At the onset of the search process, my feedback is very straightforward and my recommended “edits” to the job descriptions are invariably very similar: “Take off ‘5-7 years professional writing experience.’ There is no faster way to kill brand transparency than to hire a stilted, ‘professional’ writer. It’s harder to ‘un-teach’ experts in one-way communications than it is to teach a PR pro from scratch how to approach social media.”

But when candidates start responding to these job descriptions, things become more difficult for the organization. In a world in which seemingly everyone with a Facebook profile calls himself or herself a social media guru, it can be hard to identify the folks with the foresight and talent to transcend simply utilizing social media tools to strategically leveraging social media to ensure the sustainable relevance and solvency of an organization.

In the not-too-distant past, I’ve struggled with trying to explain the deep-rooted difficulties of weeding out those who just want to find something “hot” in which to be an “expert,” and candidates who may genuinely prove valuable in moving organizations (and the sector) forward.  This difference was very hard for me to explain…until I saw the recent buzz about universities offering graduate degrees in social media.  Suddenly, separating the qualified wheat from the wannabe chaff became a whole lot easier:

The kind of person who gets a graduate degree in social media marketing is exactly the type of person that your organization should not hire to guide your use of digital platforms and content marketing. Though it is unclear how popular this kind of degree (or even related certification programs) may currently be, my aim is to provide a framework to identify the attributes and skills that suggest a truly qualified candidate to help maximize your organization’s social media opportunities.

Beware the social media community manager whose primary credential was earned in an ivory tower – these people are dangerous to your brand. Here are the five attributes that organizations should try to avoid like the plague and that, quite remarkably, seem inherent to the type of person who may choose to pursue a degree or “certificate” in social media:

 

1. Beware of social media managers who underestimate how quickly social media tools and market trends change. (They will tether your organization to the past.)

Facebook is notorious for frequently changing its status-delivering algorithm and just about anything else every few months. And that’s just within one platform.  Usership statistics and demographics for various digital platforms – and even (especially) market expectations of brands are constantly evolving as new platforms and trends in media alter the digital marketing landscape. Vine was a big deal …until Instagram rolled out video and Vine’s links began to tank on Twitter in just one week.

vine tanks in one week

Things move fast in this here li’l social media joint. An organization’s ability to succeed in this space often depends on its agility, willingness to evolve, ability to utilize new tools, and a market-centric priority mindful of audience expectations.

Getting a degree in social media is incongruent with the revolutionary pace of change in the industry. Imagine how out-of-touch your skillset would be if you graduated today from even an expedited graduate program that you walked into 18 months ago: You’d have missed Vine and the rise of Snapchat. You’d have had no-longer-relevant Facebook 101 classes without hashtags and an understanding of evolving algorithms. You’d be without acknowledgement of the move to a more visual web, and be desperately playing catch-up on the critical rise of social CRM (“social care”). It’s a little bit like getting a graduate degree in “the state of the world in January 2012.” Unfortunately, you would commence into irrelevance and obsolescence – all of your efforts studying a then-today would only make you expert in yesterday.  And social media doesn’t evidence much need for a rearview mirror.

Smart social media managers understand that the digital landscape changes and what makes these real-time, two-way platforms so powerful is their ability to connect with an evolving right now.

 

2. Beware of social media managers who emphasize their ability to use specific tools. (Their value to your organization has an expiration date.)

As a friendly reminder: We live in a world where people can print edible hamburgers. People can print hamburgers from a printer and then eat them! This may be particularly impressive to those interested in the physical evolution of the sharing of information, but the inevitable march of technological progress looks a lot like death for someone who majored in, say, ink.  There is a world of difference between someone who understands the theory and application of evolving ideas, and a person who sole mastery is of a tool.

Social media helps your organization achieve a greater goal like visitation or donor support…and the best tool for the job often changes. If you’re trying to build a cabinet, hire the best builder/designer – not the person who has majored in turning a screwdriver.  To be clear, the builder needs to know how to use a screwdriver, but they need to do so in a broader, holistic context that contributes to the overall goal.  Successful social media efforts have infinitely more to do with strategy and integration than the practice of any specific “tips and tricks” (AKA “the tools of the trade”).  And, just to completely beat my bad metaphorical references to death, we live in a world wherein screwdrivers are being replaced by power tools on most every job site.

Smart social media folks are eager to learn how to use new tools…but they are wise not to invest more time learning techniques than the length of time that those tools may be relevant.

 

3. Beware of social media managers who undervalue strategy and public relations/communications skills. (They directly misunderstand how social media advances organizational goals.)

A person who chooses to obtain a master’s degree in social media (specialized, single-purpose) has actively decided not to pursue a master’s degree in communications, management, or even the humanities (degrees that generally focus on how to think). And the reason may be indicative of a quick-fix, instant-expert mentality. (“I see this opportunity and it’s good for me right now” instead of “I’d like to develop my strategic capabilities in order to meaningfully contribute in the long-term.”)

If one thing is for certain about social media, it’s this: Tips and tricks for specific platforms or even entire systems aren’t long-term. The need to clearly communicate with stakeholders with transparency and respect? That’s likely to stick around.

 

4. Beware of social media managers who are not capable of thinking critically about how to apply societal developments to strategic decisions. (They have a blind spot to greater, market contexts.)

I understand that many of you reading this work in universities and formal learning environments – but for those of you who may appreciate the reminder: universities, like other organizations, need to make ends-meet, too. Here are two things that are rather prevalent in the news: 1) universities currently have strained budgets, and 2) there are a whole bunch of people looking for a shortcut to a job. Potential solution? A degree in social media in a hopeful attempt to offer a program to boost university revenue. (Hey, universities need the money and people “need” the shortcut.)

At best, your organization probably doesn’t want a person who capitalizes on self-oriented shortcuts running your most public form of public relations. At worst, your organization probably doesn’t want a person incapable of identifying current happenings in the news and putting them together running platforms that center on one’s ability to assess news and think critically about how they apply to that person’s job. 

 

5. Beware of social media managers who are willing to make shortsighted investments of time and money. (These are especially valuable resources in the nonprofit world.)

This may sound sassier than I intend it to sound, but here goes nothing:

We nonprofit folks (myself included) – and especially museum folks – tend to love higher education. And, if there’s one thing we’re arguably pretty good at it’s hiring substantive experts instead of social entrepreneurs to run our organizations. But as audiences become more sector agnostic, there may be an increased need for business (or nonprofit!) savvy in addition to academic pedigree.  As mentioned above, some university programs exist solely as revenue centers for the school…a degree in social media might be one of them. Getting a “degree in social media” may, in some way, seem to speak to us academic-loving folks in our language. And it just might be a ploy.

For the reasons listed above, investing in getting a degree in social media may be a questionable investment of time and money. Your organization probably wants someone who makes thoughtful, considered investments for good reasons…

Here’s an idea for your good thinking and hopeful discussion: Excluding short-term seminars, conferences and defined, discrete courses to help keep abreast of evolving social media strategy and market trends, what value do you think obtaining a graduate degree in social media would afford someone looking to ultimately rise to a leadership position or elevate the sector in the long-term?

 

Photo credit goes to iJobs.

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter!

Posted on by colleendilen in Education, Generation Y, Graduate school, Jobs, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Social Media, Technology, Words of Wisdom 4 Comments

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Nonprofit Social Media Data Dilemma

marketing and sales cartoon

Everyone seems to be all about the world of “big data” right now. And – as a data nerd who gets her professional kicks in that same space – I’m not (even a little bit) complaining. I’ve found in my work with IMPACTS that nonprofits are placing an incredibly strong emphasis on data collection and analysis. Ostensibly, organizations paying careful attention to their social media data may seem an encouraging trend, but in our age of information overload many organizations are misplacing emphasis on the wrong metrics – or misinterpreting the meaning of these metrics. In essence, social media metrics are becoming nonprofit (and even business) fool’s gold. 

Social media data is critical to understanding how your organization best engages with the market – and this knowledge is critical to achieving your goals. However, social media data are diagnostic metrics and NOT key performance indicators (KPIs). They inform how your organization is doing on social media…NOT the overall health of your organization. (They are related…but not the same.) Confusing the meaning and rightful application of this data can put organizations on a very arduous, frustrating path. Is a healthy organization active and engaging on social media? You bet. But high engagement numbers on social media mean absolutely nothing if your organization isn’t getting more people in the door, increasing membership renewal rates, facilitating donor-related conversations, or achieving any number of the goals that indicate the solvency and relevance of an organization.

Am I getting too jargon-y with all of this “KPI” talk? Here are some clarifications:

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): KPIs are used to evaluate the ongoing success of an organization or a particular initiative. Success is often defined in terms of making progress toward achieving the strategic objectives that optimize the solvency of an organization. In other words, KPIs have a direct correlation to desired outputs (fundraising, visitation, etc.). For instance, for our nonprofit visitor-serving partners at IMPACTS, we measure items related to market sentiment that include metrics such as reputation (e.g. top-of-mind metrics), educational value, satisfaction, value-for-price perceptions – and other items that correlate directly to the “health” of an organization and its ability to achieve its bottom line objectives.

Diagnostic metrics: Diagnostic metrics are data points that contribute to KPI performance and aid organizations in pinpointing specific opportunities. In the online space, these metrics allow organizations to observe how effectively they are engaging audiences. However, these metrics cannot “stand-in” for KPIs because they are a sub-measurement of assessment criteria (i.e KPIs) that lead to desired behaviors. For instance, on the surface, certain social media diagnostic metrics may look positive, but if they aren’t elevating your reputation (a key driver of visitation), then…well, a “like” is just a “like.” Diagnostic metrics are also helpful for “listening” to audiences, and informing organizations of opportunities for improvement.

Here’s how they work together (flow chart style):

IMPACTS - KPIs and Diagnostic metrics

And here are three, critical points to consider concerning social media metrics:

1) Social media metrics do not directly measure your bottom line (so keep them in perspective)

A measurement indicating online reach, for instance, only measures online reach. Just because your organization reached a large number of people with a social media status doesn’t mean that anyone paid attention to it, that it was the right message, or that it strengthened any individual’s connection to your organization. Is does mean that the message had the opportunity to build a bit of affinity among a certain number of people. This is not your bottom line. More meaningful metrics include donor giving, membership acquisitions and renewals, and attendance.

2) Even when social media metrics are high, they can still be at-odds with KPIs (making it HARDER for your organization to achieve its goals)

This is a big one. If you are evaluating the efficacy of your digital strategists and social media community managers strictly by Facebook Insights numbers – knock it off (please). These metrics can be purposefully and even accidentally inflated to the detriment of organizations.  “Gaming” this system is child’s play for even the most neophyte of social media professionals.

To cut to the chase: If you’re measuring social media efficacy strictly by social media numbers and rewarding staff based on these metrics, you’re actively setting up your organization to fail. Your team may feel pressure to offer discounts or post superfluous updates that will artificially increase engagement rates (i.e. good for them in terms of their performance evaluation), but these practices will ultimately increase visitor dissatisfaction, devalue your brand, marginalize your mission, and demean your perceived reputation as “expert.”  Have you asked yourself this question: If we’re so popular online,  how come nobody is coming in person?  Chances are that you’ve created ineffective, misleading evaluation criteria based on social media metrics and not true KPIs.

3) You do not control the platforms providing key social media metrics. (They actually control YOU)

TANSTAAFL (pronounced: “TAN – staf –ful”) was a common “word” on campus at my alma mater. It stands for “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (though it came from science fiction writer Rober A. Heinlein, the term was popularized by Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning University of Chicago professor – hence, the popularity on campus).  Sometimes organizations get so caught up with the ability to report numbers that they forget to think critically about social media metrics. Specifically, they forget about the concept of TANSTAAFL as it applies to social media.

Facebook and You - Product being sold

Over 15 million businesses, companies, and organizations have Facebook pages and sometimes Facebook metrics have bugs. Actually…a lot of the time Facebook metrics have bugs. At IMPACTS, we attempt to correct for bugs by gathering insight information from several organizations and normalizing it, comparatively…but if you’re a single organization, you likely don’t have this opportunity and you are, well, a wee-bit stuck with whatever information or misinformation Facebook shows you. Organizations that run more than one Facebook page likely know first-hand how common system-wide bugs are for individual pages. If you notice a bug in your Facebook Insights, the best that you can do is contact Facebook and hope – over the course of several months – that they will fix the bug. Here’s a thing to remember: Your organization is using Facebook for free or at a low cost (if you aren’t constantly buying ads, or promoting or sponsoring posts) and there isn’t a direct incentive to fix your Insights bug (that you may or may not know that you have). In short, these metrics should not be the MOST important metrics or the ONLY metrics for your organization.

There’s no doubt that social media measurement is absolutely and increasingly critical to effectively engage audiences and remain relevant with the market. These metrics are NOT unimportant. But with social media metrics being relatively accessible to non-expert evaluators, and absent the considered interpretation and analysis of their “true” meaning, organizations risk confusing isolated data points with KPIs.

Bottom line: Social media is a tool for achieving your organization’s goals. Social media metrics help organizations assess how well they are using these tools.  However, these metrics are not the end-all-be-all assessment tool in your organization’s toolbox…and organizations that misunderstand how to evaluate these metrics in terms of larger organizational goals risk confusion, frustration, and may jeopardize their long-term success. 

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter!

Posted on by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, Words of Wisdom 2 Comments

Minding Your Ps and Qs: The Importance of Early Adopters in Marketing Your Nonprofit (DATA)

Early Adopter

Nonprofit marketers increasingly understand the importance of reach and remaining top-of-mind when it comes to building affinity with potential visitors and donors in the digital era.  In a perfect world – one with unlimited resources – we would simply throw money at our marketing channels until everyone heard our message. However, in the real world of finite marketing budgets, many organizations mistakenly target the broadest swath of their market under the misguided notion that maximizing marketing efficacy depends on a “target the majority” strategy.

Instead, the modern nonprofit should understand that the number of people who see your message (i.e. how many) is significantly less important than the imitative value of the people who see your message (i.e. who).

Savvy marketers understand the critical importance of targeting “Market Makers” (as opposed to the broader market) to efficiently generate and sustain sales velocity…and the reasoning behind this strategy is undeniable.

As a friendly heads-up: I’ll warn you all that this post is a little wonkish (bear with me!), but for those of us who don’t have a degree in economics, here’s the play-by-play from an English major with a master’s degree in public administration (read: not math) who gets to see these items in action every day in her work with IMPACTS.

 

1. No amount of paid media (“P”) overcomes a lack of reviews from trusted sources (“Q”) when it comes to elevating reputation, driving attendance, or securing donations

IMPACTS - Diffusion of messaging

This model (which I’ve shared before) also demonstrates how dramatically marketing has changed in the last twenty years. Paid media (“P”) used to be the fastest way to reach the most people. Now – thanks to technology – we have more real-time access to reviews from trusted resources (“Q”) than ever before…and the ability to promulgate these views with the press of a touchscreen.

While some organizations seem to be afraid of harnessing the power of “Q“, sophisticated organizations may view this shift as one of the best things happening in the marketing world. We’ve flipped the influence potential from outlets controlled by third-party publishers and broadcasters to one primarily influenced by our own relationships with our audiences! Now, marketers have the opportunity to reach people and foster relationships via a much more effective and influential method (i.e. word of mouth from trusted sources).

 

2) Certain people have higher “Q” values than others (and thus serve as more trusted resources for spreading your message)

IMPACTS - importance of Q value

We all have a friend who, when they make a recommendation, we listen. These are the friends whom we consider to be “in-the-know.” They’re the first ones to go to the new, cool restaurant, and the first to sport the season’s best fashion.  In marketing-speak, they have a high “Q” values (AKA “high imitative values”). Like positive reviews in The New Yorker or The New York Times, reviews from these high “Q” value folks can make a world of difference for an organization. These folks are likely your “Market Makers” – the trend-starters and experts that get your organization’s ball rolling…and keep it in motion.

Similarly, we probably all have a friend (erm…or two) who, when they make a recommendation, we smile and nod but won’t touch that product with a ten-foot-pole.  These people have low “Q” values and, unfortunately, many organizations target these folks just as much as high “Q” folks with their broader marketing strategies.  Worse yet, without endeavoring to identify and target  “Market Makers,” an organization may be wasting valuable resources on “Laggards” who only adopt a product when it is on the precipice of being passé.

 

3) The “Q value” of the individuals you target determines the “velocity” of your message (how sustainable it will be over time)

IMPACTS - Q velocity

Imagine the adoption model above as a roller coaster. Now imagine that your organization’s goal is to engage the maximum amount of the audience.  As anyone who has screamed their lungs out while plunging down the big hill surely knows, the higher up the roller coaster starts, the more velocity the roller coaster has available to propel itself up and over other obstacles. If the ride starts at a height that is insufficient, the cart will not have the requisite velocity to reach its desired destination (i.e. your maximum audience).

In other words, if you start your marketing effort by “marketing to the middle” (i.e. the early majority), then the models suggest that your efforts will only gain the necessary velocity to carry your message through the late majority.  Sure – this strategy stands to reach 68% of the audience…but it ignores the most influential Market Makers who promise long-term relevance and sustainability.  Perhaps this explains why many visitor-serving organizations have essentially flat-lined their levels of visitation in spite of growing populations levels.

 

Bottom line: To increase reach and promote your brand most effectively, it is critical that your nonprofit targets Market Makers.

The web and social media allow for personalization. Taking the time and energy to identify and target high “Q” individuals (content creators, online critics) is among the most efficient, impactful, and valuable type of market research available to an organization.

Does this mean that the only folks who should matter in your nonprofit marketing strategy are Innovators and Early Adopters? Of course not. Your organization must be ready to engage other audiences, as that is – of course – the goal of targeting Market Makers: To leverage their imitative behaviors to help you reach broader audiences.

Clearly, not all online audiences are of equal value, yet organizations regularly (lazily?) develop strategies for their online audiences as if they were a single, homogenous constituency.  This is akin to developing “a targeted strategy for all things that breathe.” It is time for organizations to think of their online audiences with the same degree of segmenting sophistication that they lend to donors.  Identifying your Market Makers, targeting these highly influential persons with your messaging, and trusting their imitative values to amplify your message to the balance of the market are the hallmarks of an efficient and effective marketing strategy.

Who knew that your mother was such a prescient marketer when she told you to mind your Ps and Qs? (Sorry, guys. I had to…) :-)

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter!

 

Posted on by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Public Service Motivation, Technology, The Future, Words of Wisdom 3 Comments

6 Sad Truths About Fundraising That I Have Learned as a Millennial Donor

millennials-360

Hi, nonprofit executive leaders and board members. My name is Colleen Dilenschneider. I am a Millennial donor and I exist.

 

First, let’s be honest: I’m not a crazy-huge donor that is going to make-or-break your nonprofit operations (yet…). That said, I’ve made a personal decision to prioritize charitable giving as I’ve grown in my career. We are a little over four months into 2013 and I’ve already made a few five-figure gifts this year, as well as several four-figure and three-figure gifts. They don’t quite yet add up to six figures annually but, someday soon, I’d like to reliably give that much on an annual basis. (Hey, I’m a millennial – realistic or not, I’m optimistic about my financial future. And, no, not a single penny of that came from my parents (who data suggest aren’t as long-term financially supportive as we millennials may think they are). Like my peers, I am public-service motivated and I care about making a difference.

I learned an awful lot about nonprofit solvency through the pursuit of my Master of Public Administration in Nonprofit Management degree, but one thing’s for sure: I’ve learned a LOT more about fundraising as a donor than I ever could have dreamed of learning while studying fundraising.

Millennials – those roughly between the ages of 21 and 35 – represent the single largest generation in human history. Come 2015, Millennials will have more buying power than Baby Boomers, and then this massive demographic will have a stronghold on the market for the following forty years at minimum. Thanks in large part to the web and social media connectivity, we function and think very differently than the generations that came before us. Nonprofit organizations that are not targeting this population right now in terms of building affinity and creating personal connections may find themselves suddenly irrelevant within the next decade.

Here are six sad truths that I’ve uncovered about the realities of nonprofit fundraising as a millennial donor:

 

1) Nobody thinks you can give any money so nobody asks you

I’m not complaining about this one as a donor, but I absolutely want to call attention to it as a person working to strengthen the nonprofit sector. Aside from our colleges and universities (efficacy of their methods aside), not many organizations are earnestly prioritizing folks under 35 as donors or even cultivating the relationships required to secure future gifts from millennials. Yes, a great number of millennials are in debt and our unemployment rates are high, but there are nearly 90 million of us, and common sense should tell organizations that out of a population so large, surely some of us are capable of supporting those organizations that we care about.  More simply put, donors are generally the exception and not the rule for many organizations, so why do organizations tend to focus on the “average millennial” as a rationale to not actively cultivate their support when they apply an entirely different standard to every other donor segment?

 

2) Nobody likes a millennial donor

This one has been my single biggest detour in making donations. When you’re a millennial donor, two very important types of people directly associated with the organization really, really dislike you…and don’t hide it even a little bit:

Board members don’t like millennial donors: In at least two cases, I’ve made donations similar to or larger than those made by over half of the board members of some notable organizations (and I’ll remind you that I’m no multi-millionaire). Though I thought about neither board at the time of my giving (and didn’t intend to do anything but give), it became very clear through consequent communications with the organizations’ CEOs and my own connections to specific board members that…well, if I was hit by a bus, there might be a select group of “public-service motivated” Baby Boomers that wouldn’t mind.

This hurt at first, but I get it. My giving as a non-board member (let alone someone their children’s age) makes them accountable for their own “age and stature-appropriate philanthropy” and forces them to honor their implicit obligations to get or give meaningful funds. Or, more directly, it makes them look bad – especially because board members of mid-to-large sized nonprofit organizations (“status boards”) often try to keep young folks out of sight for other reasons. We millennials are indeed innately threatening in many ways (sheer size and our different methods of connecting with other generations and the world around us, etc). But when a new generation knocks on the door and enters society’s living room, there is no ignoring the new tenants. After decades of simply talking about it, older generations begin to suddenly understand that they may need to fit more, different people on the couch at some point. And they get mad. It is not easy to fire yourself for your own underperformance. That couch is pretty comfy.

Millennial fundraising and major gift officers don’t like millennial donors: While one could argue that millennial giving is good for nonprofit organization board members because the associated dislike is simply a symptom of necessary evolution, they aren’t always the biggest barriers to giving…sometimes those are millennial fundraisers and major gift officers.

We millennials are a connected and “equal” bunch. On our soccer teams growing up, everyone was a MVP (watch this and laugh…or cry). We are also very socially connected and generally care about being liked by our peers. When a CEO asks a millennial fundraiser to “court” another millennial, the interaction that ensues is usually NOT what the executive leader probably envisioned. In one-on-one conversations, our colloquial millennial nature takes the conversation very quickly off of the “let’s talk about how you can help the organization and/or strengthen your connection with us” track to a “prove yourself” narrow-eyed inquisition of what I’ve done with my life to be sitting there. (I simply prioritize giving!) My sample size is disturbingly high in encountering this situation and it seems to be more rule than exception.  Once I even received a very direct and condescending, “So tell me why our CEO asked me to speak with you today.”

In the history of the planet, I’m pretty sure that nobody has ever talked down their own achievements and apologized for their “available funds” faster than a millennial donor in front of an unnecessarily-personally-threatened millennial fundraiser. I nearly always walk away feeling like an awful traitor to my generation.

That said, I have also had fun and valuable conversations with a select few millennial major gift officers who have themselves strengthened my relationship with an organization. One thing that may be the difference? The millennial fundraisers who have made me feel good about potential giving seem to be the ones that feel good about themselves and understand the value of their skillset. I know firsthand that these specific individuals have access to their CEOs and executive leadership, and that leadership looks to them as experts in fundraising. Bottom line: value millennial employees and you’ll have a better chance of attracting millennial donors. (I cannot stress this point enough. Also, to be honest, a vast majority of millennial fundraisers that I’ve encountered seem to unfortunately fall into the first category – not the second – so please don’t write this off.)

 

3) You will probably be asked for large funds via snail mail

My first ask for a five-figure gift was delivered to me via snail mail. For years, I’d been looking forward to the moment when I’d be seriously courted by an organization (nerd alert), and this was my very first little donor heartbreak. The broader market increasingly mistrusts direct mail and its overall efficacy as a communication method. It should come as no surprise that this decline is far more drastic for millennials and younger generations. To be blunt, older folks: what we millennials receive in the mail is mostly bills. When millennials give, they are looking for an emotional connection and to be a part of something. We aren’t emotionally connected with a high level of affinity to our bills. A thoughtful, hand-written thank you after making a donation? Well, that’s a personal touch and a completely different story.

 

4) Even though you could not possibly be more findable on the web and giving money feels very personal, the person who asks for support will know NOTHING about you

Even though details like what you ate for dinner last night may be all over your social networks, the person who asks you for money and the person who thanks you (if you get a personal thanks aside from your form letter for tax purposes – even with bigger gifts it doesn’t always happen) will know NOTHING about you. Amazingly, many haven’t even taken the time to figure out where you live or what you do for a living.

Here’s just one example in my collection: A coordinator for an organization that I believe in contacted me to ask for support from IMPACTS (where I work) on a project that I think is particularly valuable for the nonprofit sector. She sent us a general proposal for funds that was obviously not intended for a company like IMPACTS. When I asked her to please write out a less boilerplate request (read: something actually contemplative of anything about the company and its giving priorities) so that I could in turn recommend a gift to our founder, she sent me another generic letter that still did not acknowledge the company, our potential “fit” with the project, or even my own work as an employee within IMPACTS (which related to the project). I was then reminded several times of the upcoming “deadline to give.” When I explained both my passion for the project and my disappointment with the generic, thoughtless asks, my company CEO said, “Let’s wait and see if they notice our silence now. If they mention anything specific to us at all, we’ll give them $25,000 on the spot.” Needless to say, it never happened.

 

5) Pick only one: Giving online (convenience) or receiving any real acknowledgement of your gift (dignity)

Online giving (an option that nonprofit leaders often seem to think they’ve taken their time and energy to do just for us) is another big no-win for larger-scale millennial donors. If you give online, you get an automated email of thanks and rarely receive a more personal follow-up – if you receive a follow-up from a real human being all – which can be even more heartbreaking than the automated response (see item #4). This is true even if you make a five-figure gift online (true story, folks). It seems that because you’re not handing a check directly to a human being who feels responsible for saying thank you, you generally won’t get one.

But to digital natives, this “worthy/unworthy of attention” differentiation doesn’t exist between giving methods – except that giving online tends to work best for us. Millennials believe that technology makes life easier (a win for online giving), but that it also makes things more real-time and personal (a lose for online giving follow-through in most situations). Thus, the way that online giving is currently carried out simply doesn’t adequately suit our needs (or arguably, anyone’s). Providing online giving mechanisms may be seen by millennials as a way to provide real-time thanks and connect on multiple platforms to retain donors long term…not as an automated system to remove the responsibility of human touch from the giving equation.

It’s a textbook example of pandering to out-dated legacy systems. Traditional fundraising mechanisms have been around for years, but organizations seem to treat the web as an “add-on” to a broken system, rather than letting market behaviors drive the development of something that should already exist. Even our most national nonprofit organizations take a “Blockbuster Video” approach, fearing evolution so severely that they resist anything but baby-step adaptation until they are nothing but a memory.

 

6) You will be courted lovingly until they get into your pants (pocket), but then you are just a booty call.

As I mentioned before, millennials want to feel like they are a part of something and making a difference. Smart organizations do a great job of letting you know how your funds will help move their missions forward, and it’s truly exciting to hear the statistics and feel like you have the opportunity to help! However, my experienced truth is that after you make a donation, there’s a good chance that you won’t soon again feel this involved.

Unless I work directly with the organization, I tend to be “forgotten” after I give…until it’s time to raise more money. As a donor, I understand the statistics about low donor retention rates.  As a millennial, I also have expectations (that are rarely realized) after I make a donation that the organization knows who I am and recognizes when I amplify their messages on social media channels. (Most don’t. Fundraising and marketing are very similar departments but they don’t often seem to communicate regarding donors). I’m a donor and proven evangelist after I give, and it seems that several organizations miss that I (and my peers) are good targets for encouraging other donations.

I am fiercely proud of the organizations that I’ve chosen to support financially, and I hope to support them well into the future. I don’t think I’m abnormal. There are a whole lot of millennials out there and we want to make a difference. I hope for the sake of the nonprofit organizations that I love and those that my peers and I may come to love in the future, that they start speaking the same language as their evolving audiences. And that they do it fast. At some point in the rapidly-approaching future, a majority of nonprofit donors will have to be millennials, or the organizations that we love simply won’t exist. 

 

*Photo credit belongs to philanthopicintelligence.net

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter!

 

Posted on by colleendilen in Big ideas, Community Engagement, Generation Y, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Service Motivation, Social Change, Social Media, Technology, The Future, Words of Wisdom 20 Comments