Special Exhibits vs. Permanent Collections (DATA)

Special exhibits don’t do what many cultural organizations think that they do. If fact, they often do the opposite. Read more

Eight Realities To Help You Become A Data-Informed Cultural Organization

Is your organization integrating market research into strategic decision-making processes yet? Here are eight important things to keep in Read more

A Quarter of Likely Visitors to Cultural Organizations Are In One Age Bracket (DATA)

Nearly 25% of potential attendees to visitor-serving organizations fall into one, ten-year age bracket. Which generation has the greatest Read more

People Trust Museums More Than Newspapers. Here Is Why That Matters Right Now (DATA)

Actually, it always matters. But data lend particular insight into an important role that audiences want museums to play Read more

The Top Seven Macro Trends Impacting Cultural Organizations

These seven macro trends are driving the market for visitor-serving organizations. Big data helps spot market trends. The data that Read more

The Three Most Overlooked Marketing Realities For Cultural Organizations

These three marketing realities for cultural organizations may be the most urgent – and also the most overlooked. This Read more

donors

Why Donors Stop Giving to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Here’s why some people make a few donations to a cultural organization and then stop giving, according to the donors themselves.

Yesterday was #GivingTuesday! Though it’s a rather noisy day amongst nonprofits, I hope that your organization secured at least a few more dollars to help fulfill its mission – and added new supporters to your list of advocates!

As the end of the year approaches and cultural organizations work hard to attract and retain donors, it seems the perfect time to share this data on why folks donating between $250 – $2,500 annually to cultural organizations stop giving to the organization. That’s the focus of this week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video.

The reasons why donors stop giving may not be what you think. The good news, however, is that the top three reasons stem from the same – resolvable – issue. We’ve got the data on why some donors don’t renew their contributions – and it’s a wake up call.

Take a look at this data from IMPACTS and the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study. The study includes donors that had previously made an annual gift between two hundred fifty and twenty-five hundred dollars to a cultural organization – and then did not donate again within 24 months. See if you can spot what the top three responses have in common…

Why donors stop making donations to cultural organizations - IMPACTS data

Notice anything interesting here? The top three reasons why donors stop giving have something rather straightforward in common…

 

The top three reasons why donors stop giving are very basic communication/relationship management  problems.

 

The primary reason why donors did not contribute again is not being acknowledged or thanked for their gift. And with an index value of nearly 244, that reason is a very big, and very strong one. The second reason is also big and strong, according to these past donors: They simply weren’t asked to give again. Lack of communication about impacts and outcomes is third. And again, these index values are very high.

Interestingly, it is the reasons that we tend to blame that trail behind these big three, including unactualized intent (or, forgetting to give), giving to another organization instead, or a change in personal priorities. Perhaps these are the reasons that we tend to blame because they have to do with the donor – not with our own lack of follow-through or effort. Really, the top reasons why once-was annual donors stop giving and don’t come back is on us. 

 

While this data may be a bit embarrassing, we can fix it!

 

Online donations are on the rise – especially this time of year. One possible culprit here seems to be the misunderstanding that engagement over the Internet is more about technology than it is about people. A donor is a donor whether they hand a check to someone behind a desk, or they support you over the computer in polka dot PJs at home. A donor giving online is not any less deserving of a personal “thank you” or a follow-up than a donor giving by any other method. Remember, there’s a human being behind that computer screen – and it’s a human being who happens to support what you do.

With much of our focus on cultivating members at cultural organizations, there may also be a tendency to forget those important people who give beyond membership and thus deserve another level of care and attention. That said, data suggest the visitor-serving organizations could also do a better job making high-level members feel valued and respected as well. If we’re having a hard time with this audience, it makes sense that we might also have difficulties with folks who give between $250 – $2,500 and consider themselves to be donors rather than straightforward members alone.

At their very core, our organizations are all about people and connectivity. We need to be successful facilitators of shared experiences within our walls, we need to also be able to master connectivity with supporters outside of our walls and master proper communication with donors. If we want support, we need to carry out effective communication and relationship management. When donors stop giving, it’s generally not them. It’s us. 

Let’s make an active effort to show donors our gratitude and how their gifts are making not only our organizations, but our communities and even our world a better place.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my Fast Fact videos on my YouTube channel. Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting 1 Comment

What Annoys High-Level Members at Cultural Organizations? (DATA)

Here are the top-five things that visitor-serving organizations do that annoy high level members the most… And the interesting finding that ties them together. 

We cultural organizations love our members – and especially our premium members paying an annual fee of over $250 each year. They play an important role in our solvency, and some of them even go on to become our biggest, most valuable donors. This is especially true when they are mission-based (as opposed to transaction-based) members. As such, there’s a lot of pressure not to disappoint these folks.

So what does disappoint premium members paying an annual fee of over $250 each year? IMPACTS surveyed premium members (defined as persons who have purchased an annual membership to a cultural organization costing $250 or more within the past 12 months) to better understand the nature and hierarchy of member “dissatisfiers.” That’s the focus of this week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video.

The data comes from the ongoing National Awareness, Attitudes & Usage Study of 224 US Visitor-Serving Organizations. For this component of the analysis, 1,096 “premium” members to these organizations responded to open-ended questions to identify the most dissatisfying aspect of their member experience. A consequent lexical analysis process organized these responses by general consideration, and these same considerations were presented to the studied members who were then asked to rank from 1-10 the considerations in terms of relative dissatisfaction (with 1 being the most dissatisfying aspect and 10 being the least dissatisfying aspect). The Mean Value is the average ranking that the member respondents assigned to each consideration. The data suggests an interesting take-away. Let’s take a look.

IMPACTS- Premium member dissatisfiers

As you can see, solicitation telephone calls are the top-rated dissatisfier among premium members, followed by delayed access and not being treated as special on site. Showing IDs at the entrance also annoys these top-giving members. And also the volume of mail and renewal notices. Rounding out the top-5 dissatisfiers is family member limits for admission.

Really take a look at these. “They are necessary evils,” you might say. “We need to make solicitation telephone calls and we have to check photo IDs with membership entrance!” But do we really need to do these things in the way that we do them? Are there other methods that might be better for everyone – our members and (thus) our organizations? For example, data suggest that checking members’ photo IDs can do more harm than good for organizations and deploying a kind of “ID police” undermines some of the hard work that organizations do to keep members happy. When we really think about these findings, though, it becomes clearer to see what kind of picture is being painted and why premium members may be annoyed:

 

it seems that we may not walk the we value our members talk

Two things seem to be happening here that tie these five “dissatisfiers” together…

There is an on-site and off-site disconnect.

It seems that we know our members’ names VERY well when we call them on their personal cell phones and clutter their mailboxes with solicitations and renewal notices, but we suddenly don’t remember them or honor their contributions when they arrive at the door in person. That’s a disconnect. That’s a big miss. And, wouldn’t you be annoyed by that dichotomy?

 

And there is a communications opportunity.

There may be an opportunity here to change up our communications to focus on what our members want, rather than what WE want – and to be sensitive about how we communicate the support that we hope to continue to receive from these members. Of course, we want to ask for their continued support and we indeed want these folks to increase their giving and make their way up the support channel. That said, there are ways to frame our membership and donor benefits so that they match what actually matter to our supporters. When our communications solely make an ask, we miss the opportunity to tell our stories about how we carry out our missions and make a difference. We lose the opportunity to cultivate the best kinds of supporters. Moreover, poor relationship management and impact communication strategies are a leading reason why donors stop giving.

 

While, indeed, there are a lot of great things that members do for us, it’s important for us to remember what we do for them. Yes, exclusive events matter to some members, but that doesn’t mean that respect and appreciation fly out the window. Remember: we need these members more than they need us – so there’s incentive to listen to these folks and treat them well. After all, happy members are more likely to be renewed members!

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my Fast Fact videos on my YouTube channel. Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Sector Evolution, Trends 2 Comments

Audience Access: The Reality For Cultural Organizations To Embrace for Solvency

Audience Access - what cultural organizations must embrace - Know Your Own Bone

The first step in the evolution toward more sustainable cultural organizations is embracing the reality of “access” and reviewing the basics.  

We talk a lot about “access” within cultural organizations. For the sake of discussion on this topic, let’s strip this to its bare bones: Access is a means of approaching or entering a place. When cultural organizations talk about access, they often refer simply to something like affordable access. This narrow concept of “access” sets these types of organizations back, and prevents us from having more informed discussions about visitation, engagement, and financial solvency.

Every single person that makes their way through our doors has an access point and is part of “access” strategy discussions. “Access” in cultural organizations is not a conversation about minority majorities, or millennials, or folks making less than $25,000/year, or people with purple hair, or folks in wheelchairs, or people who like French fries, or pet owners with a dog named Rufus. Even high-propensity visitors must be considered in access discussions because access is a thing for every single person who sets foot in our institution. Access is not a topic about “underserved audiences” and it’s strange that we immediately assume this is so. Visitors, non-visitors, members, and donors all achieve access somehow. Why don’t we consider the entire, baseline topic of access for a change? And, if we do, can we learn something to strengthen BOTH mission execution and financial sustainability for cultural organizations? You bet.

This overview is oversimplified – and there are countless avenues for discussion embedded within this topic, but for the sake of improving the future of visitor-serving organizations, I’d like to provide a data-informed concept for a BETTER discussion about the hot topic of “access.” It’s only by considering how all avenues of access work together that we can optimize any part of the system – and cultivate healthier institutions.

The points below may seem very simple when you read them, but I haven’t encountered many organizations that regularly consider how these points of access work together and feed off of one another. Often, organizations tinker around with these different access points. When we meld these access audiences together – which we so often do – we get all of those bad business practices that hold us back. For instance, when we meld admission and affordable access programs, we get devalued brands, local visitor dissatisfaction, and we “leave money on the table” that we need in order to both survive and also to carry out our missions. When we meld admission with membership, we get transaction-based members that don’t much care about our missions and are less likely to renew, and we risk losing our most important supporters when we treat them like simple visitors.  Again, this framework is simplified, but my hope is that it brings about food for thought. If I’m lucky, it might even make you uncomfortable – and the best (good) data makes leaders uncomfortable enough to create change.

KYOB access drawing

For a broad overview, let’s dive into these three, primary access audiences one-by-one. (You know that I mean back-to-basics business when I add a doodle.) While you may skim these access audiences thinking that they are painfully obvious (they are), consider all the ways that we confuse them, conflate them, and ultimately threaten our own organizations. It’s simple (hence the doodle), but perhaps that’s why it is all the more important that we return to the basics and get this right.

 

Access visitor

1) LIKELY VISITORS:

Pay your data-informed optimal admission price

Likely visitors are called high-propensity visitors in my data world, and they are the people who have the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate an increased likelihood of visiting a cultural organization. These are the people who are most likely to respond, “Sure!” when someone asks “Do you want to visit a cultural organization today?” They are, essentially, where our bread is buttered. They are the people who choose to pay to visit cultural organizations – and they are also the people who go to free organizations and understand their value. At IMPACTS, we have a lot of data about these folks, and they are critical audiences to engage in order to stay alive. In short, they are your visitors. (Keep in mind: High-propensity visitors are not exactly the same as historic visitors. High-propensity visitors are LIKELY visitors and not necessarily past visitors. They are our potential!) Bottom line: a very vast majority of the people who go to museums, zoos, aquariums, symphonies, theaters, botanic gardens (and the like…) are obviously LIKELY VISITORS… because they are visiting… and thus actively choosing to visit.

Admission pricing is a science, not an art. When an organization’s admission price is too low, it “leaves money on the table” and is not securing optimal funds to aid in sustaining itself. When it’s too high, it means that your organization will need to invest even more in access programing to fill the gap (which is much more costly than we think because most organizations are doing “access programming” wrong – more on that in a moment).

Admission pricing is NOT to be confused with affordable access programming. Interestingly, bad things happen to good organizations when they deny their optimal admission price in favor of “being more affordable.” Likely visitors should be admitted based upon an optimal, data-driven price point. This money is required in order to fulfill our missions of being open and of reaching unlikely visitors (see below).

 

Access unlikely visitor

2) UNLIKELY VISITORS:

Visit through targeted programs that actually reach them

IMPACTS has a lot of depressing data about the cultural organization industry. (BUT we have great leaders with the will to evolve, and we’ve totally got this! Cultural leading people are the best people. That’s why I write and that’s why you’re here.) Large-scale data about how much we stink at creating access programs for unlikely visitors that actually work is among the hardest to swallow. In reality, free days attract visitors with higher household incomes and education levels than paid-admission days (Here’s that data). Generally, our entire industry’s affordable access programming is not reaching low-income audiences (And there’s that data).

We mess things up when we conflate affordable access programming with admission pricing, thinking that we’re doing everyone a favor (Here’s the data on that). Another problem that we willfully ignore is the reality that we don’t actually know who our underserved audiences are or what they want. And we sabotage the success of our access programs because we inadvertently market the programs to rich people. (This is a huge, overlooked problem.) In many cases, we simply aren’t investing enough (or intelligently enough) for access programs to be effective.

It doesn’t help that many organizations mistakenly believe that price is a primary barrier to engagement. It’s not. Admission cost is not a key barrier to engagement and it’s certainly NOT a cure-all. This is mostly true for high-propensity visitors, but it’s also naive to believe that all folks will flock to something simply because it is free. In order to create effective access programs for any underserved audience (low-income or otherwise), organizations need to get a better grip on why that audience truly isn’t coming.

Unless we have a data-informed, optimal price point, it’s difficult to get the funds to create access programs in the first place. And if we don’t have those funds, we cannot create access programs that effectively reach new audiences OR low-income audiences. (Both fall under “unlikely visitors,” but they aren’t the same. For instance, minority majority audiences are underserved, but they aren’t necessarily low-income. Both need types of access/engagement programs in order to become regular visitors – but sometimes for different reasons.) When we charge our optimal price-point, it makes effective programming for underserved audiences more important – and also possible in the first place.

 

Access member

3) SUPPORTERS:

Become your members and donors

Your supporters become your members and donors – and they are an important part of the “access” conversation as well. In fact, they may be the most important. These are the folks who care about why you exist. They promulgate your “so what?” They provide ongoing support by being your next level of likely visitors. That said, this is another area of “access” that confuses many visitor-serving organizations. Membership programs need to evolve, and many organizations –in reality – have at least two types of members: mission-based members and transaction-based members. Transaction-based members are often the result of organizations conflating “likely visitor” and “evangelist” audiences, but mission-based members are where it’s at. Transaction-based members think of membership more like an annual pass and less like being a part of a mission-driven community. Mission-based members are more satisfied with their memberships and they are more likely to pay more for their memberships in order to support the organization. (Here’s the data on this.)

Another way in which organizations regularly fail this important audience- thanks to a broader misunderstanding of different avenues of access and institutional priorities – is by simply failing to manage the relationship or treating these awesome supporters in not-great ways. Lack of relationship management is a key reason why many donors discontinue their support. Arguably, a reason why organizations may be not-the-best at membership communication may be because we treat all of our audiences the same way. Namely, we confuse them with regular visitors.

 

Organizations have at least three types of audiences and these three audiences have different access points. When we confuse these three audiences and their avenues of access, we threaten the sustainability of our organizations. They must be managed in different ways in order to be activated to choose behaviors that are in the best interests of our organizations and our missions. It’s arguably because we misunderstand this that we commit several crimes against our own futures.

We live in an increasingly personalized world. In order to thrive, organizations may benefit by realizing that these three spheres are distinct and separate, but that it’s important to have a plan to carry constituents from an unlikely/likely visitor into the evangelist category. We need to change our business model. This is very, very different than conflating these categories. Thinking harder about access in regard to our business strategies may be the first step in creating more sustainable futures.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my Fast Fact videos on my YouTube channel. Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Audience Access: The Reality For Cultural Organizations To Embrace for Solvency

What Wealthy Donors Consider Before Making a Gift Greater Than One Million Dollars (DATA)

It isn’t necessarily your organization’s mission that matters most to ultra-wealthy donors…

Some data sets are worth going over twice and making a video about them so that they sink in. This week’s Fast Facts video is one of those data sets. After all, what organization couldn’t benefit by better understanding what factors inform and motivate a gift of more than one million dollars to a nonprofit organization?

The results of this study are worth blazing into our brains. While you may have guessed that the items topping the charts would be on the list, you may not have guessed that they would be the MOST important factors when high net worth donors considering making a gift.

SO, how can organizations engage high net worth donors? To get to the bottom of this million-dollar question, we asked these individuals themselves. The answers might not be what you think.

We define an Ultra High Net Worth Individual as someone with net assets greater than $50 million. 38,000 such individuals reside in the US, and that’s the greatest number of UHNWIs in the world. The study below collected responses from 112 ultra high net worth individualsFor the study, undertaken by IMPACTS, individuals were asked open-ended questions to identify their most important considerations with regard to making a gift greater than one million dollars to a nonprofit organization. Individuals were then asked to rank considerations from 1-10 in terms of their importance.

Here’s what we found:

UHNWI donor considerations

There’s a tie for the first place consideration. Who else has given to an organization and how much other major donors have given are the most important factors when these folks consider making a major gift. Who is on the board is the next consideration, followed by the how much those board members have contributed, round out the most important factors informing ultra high net worth individual giving.

Interestingly, it isn’t until the fifth, sixth, and seventh considerations that the impact of a major gift, mission, and the organization’s commitment to that mission make an appearance.

To whom an organization’s mission matters, matters most when it comes to making a large gift.

These findings are not altogether surprising. Successful fundraisers know that money often follows money, and that social connections play a big role in securing gifts from very large donors. But what’s interesting is that simply being good at your mission often isn’t enough. You need to have demonstrated that your mission is worthy of investment among high-impact individuals.

These data also demonstrate the importance of having a connected board that is willing to put its money where its mouth is. After all, if the folks on an organization’s board don’t care enough about an organization’s mission to support it in a meaningful way, then why should someone else?

Mission and impacts are important. After all, data suggest that the mission and purpose of the organization play important roles in securing quality board members in the first place. That said, once the board is complete and it comes time to look for high net worth donors, having wealthy evangelists (or a group of them!) advocating for your organization may be critical for success when it comes to fundraising.

This information may be seen as a call to action for board members – the data underscores why organizations need them most. And, interestingly, studies reveal that board members often misunderstand their role as financial supporters within cultural organizations. It’s time for all of us on boards to step up. Again, if we’re not giving or championing the cause of our institutions, how can we reasonably expect someone else to do so?

It’s also a wake up call for staff members. The identity of donors and board members and their giving fuel major gift decisions. Certainly, staff may play a role in facilitating and supporting connections between board members and potential donors, but what matters most to donors are the philanthropic commitments of their peers. If board members don’t step up, then it is difficult for organizations to overcome this internal giving deficiency. And that’s exactly what board members who do not give adequately create – a deficiency.

For all of us on boards, let’s rise to the occasion. We’re in the most target-rich country for ultra high net worth individuals in the world. Our development staff can do great things, but they need our support when it comes to our most potentially impactful donors.

And nonprofit organizations: When you get a big donation from a key player, milk it. Shine lights on it. Celebrate it. Leverage it. Knowing what motivates giving for ultra high net worth individuals can only help us better reach our goals.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for more video fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Sector Evolution 2 Comments

Why Donors Stop Giving Money to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Why Donors Stop Giving to Cultural Organizations

Why do some people make a donation (or a few) to a cultural organization and then simply stop giving? The top three reasons stem from the same issue.

Cultural organizations exist to carry out their missions (which often relate to educating and inspiring visitors) – but they cannot achieve these missions if they are unable keep their doors open and their lights on. Simply put, we need our visitors and donors in order to thrive.

It would be wonderful to think of annual donors as fish that we can keep as trophies and mount on our walls. (As in, we catch them and then they are forever ours!) But donors are actually like fish that we catch and then throw back into the sea – hoping that we can use evolving tactics to catch that same fish year after after. This is especially the case if the fish is a $250-$2,500 donor. (That’s a fancy fish!)

While it’s great when we can “catch” and cultivate a $250-$2,500 donor, we all have observed that not every donor renews their gift on an annual basis. So, what gives? Why do some donors fail to renew their contributions?

Take a look at this chart, provided by IMPACTS Research and informed by the 98,000 person sample that comprises the National Attitudes, Awareness, and Usage Study. This chart represents the responses of previous $250-$2,500 annual donors who did not make another gift to the same visitor-serving organization within the past 24 months.

IMPACTS - Why donors stop making contributions

The reason that we segment by the $250-$2,500 range is because we noticed that the repeat giving rate was much, much, much higher for annual donors at the >$2,500 level.  We posit that this because (a) larger donors don’t have the same financial constraints in terms of affordability factors; (b) they are likely very committed to the organization/cause (as evidenced by their higher level of giving); and (c) higher level donors often receive a higher level of attention from an organization. In other words, they are less likely to slip through the development “cracks.” Of course, this still happens all too often…

Notice anything interesting about the top three responses? 

 

1) The top three reasons why donors drop out of giving are due to relationship management issues

Not being thanked for a previous gift, not being asked to donate again, and lack of communication about the impact of one’s donation all represent massive communication fails. Advances in relationship management technologies are supposed to make communication fails increasingly rare – but, the data suggest that many of us remain our own worst enemies when it comes to retaining donors.

CRM stands for “customer relationship management.” CRM is an organization’s approach to managing interactions with current and future customers (or – in the case of cultural organizations – constituents, visitors, and supporters). It’s a bit of a jargon term for “How your organization connects with people and manages relationships.” And it’s important – especially because giving money can feel very personal and, today, audiences want to support something meaningful. If your organization fails to reassure supporters of the impact of their gift – heck, if your organization fails to thank folks for their gift – than there’s definitely an opportunity to re-evaulate your organization’s CRM strategies and tactics.

The fact that not being thanked for previous gift holds the spot as the leading reason why folks stop giving to an organization feels a bit incongruous with the values of the types of organizations that we are supposed to be. We are doing good. And we want people to do good with us. Do we have an excuse for not even acknowledging precious folks who do exactly what we want them to do? I’m not sure that, “I’m too busy to write every $250 donor or member an email” counts in today’s world…

 

2) Expectations of personalization today are unforgiving toward forgetful organizations

This is a good segue to the next point: Personalization trends are affecting everything. We now live in a 24-hour world of constant connection. Most folks expect responses within one hour on social media, and all of our ads and even our newsfeeds are tailored specifically according to our interests. Personalization trends are altering long-held CRM and even programmatic beliefs within cultural organizations. Indeed, change can come slowly for nonprofits, and if there were only a single urgent (and perhaps obvious) need to adapt personalization into cultural organizations, thanking and communicating with donors may just be it.

Also, keep in mind that “not being asked to donate again” isn’t about collateral and messaging so much as it’s about personalized communication. Reaching out to folks to ask them to give again is an opportunity for connection and personalized interactions. If an organization sees “not asked to donate again” in this data and thinks, “Let’s send that form letter out 10 more times,” then that organization is missing the point.

A donor online is a donor off-line  – and lack of a personal touch just doesn’t cut it anymore.

 

3) Connectivity is king (and losing donors for CRM failures indicates lack of awareness of this reality)

Essentially, the top three reasons why people discontinue giving are because organizations are forgetting that today, connectivity is king. Content is no longer king for many reasons – but one of them is because many staff members “not my job” the word “content.” Similarly, CRM sounds like marketing jargon (because it is), but other departments – and especially fundraising and membership – “not my job” customer and community management today at their own expense. In fact, community and customer management may be just as – if not even more – important for development and membership teams as it is for marketing teams because big donors lead to big donors and word of mouth from customers drives all other avenues of engagement and revenue – including the gate.

 

The good news about these top three responses is that organizations can change them. These challenges to sustained giving may only be issues because they represent “growing pains” as organizations evolve to meet the needs of our super-connected audiences. But realizing the need to evolve and update our outdated systems is critical for change.

While this data may be a tad embarrassing, it’s something that we can control – and that’s great news! Let’s fix our development and membership communication issues and remove the top three barriers to our $250-$2,500 donors continued giving. After all, our donors want the same thing as we do: To make the world a better place.

Our donors are supporting us. Let’s support them back.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for video fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Digital Connectivity, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends 6 Comments

The Expensive Misconceptions Surrounding Membership Fraud for Cultural Organizations (DATA)

The Expensive Misconceptions Surrounding Membership Fraud for Cultural Organizations

Setting up ID checkpoints to spot “fake members” at your organization? Data suggest that you may be doing more harm than good.

Many cultural organizations treat “member fraud” as an urgent concern of the utmost importance. I’m talking about organizations that set up ID checkpoints at the entrance or membership deck and believe that their job is to find people getting in on their friend’s membership, and then do this. Data suggest that organizations that think this way may be doing themselves a grave disservice.

How big of a problem is membership fraud and guest pass fraud? How much is it costing organizations? We uncovered a data-informed line of reasoning that should make cultural organizations think twice before deploying the member fraud police (at least in the way that many have in the past).

 

1) Checking IDs is a top dissatisfier for members

This is a good – and obvious – place to start: What are the most dissatisfying elements of the member experience? IMPACTS surveyed premium members (defined as persons who have purchased an annual membership to a cultural organization costing $250 or more within the past 12 months) to better understand the nature and hierarchy of member “dissatisfiers.”

The data comes from the ongoing National Awareness, Attitudes & Usage Study of US Visitor-Serving Organizations, and contemplates the perceptions and behaviors of more than 98,000 visitors to 224 visitor-serving organizations of various types and sizes. For this component of the analysis, 1,096 “premium” members to these organizations responded to open-ended questions to identify the most dissatisfying aspect of their member experience. A consequent lexical analysis process organized these responses by general consideration, and these same considerations were presented to the studied members who were then asked to rank from 1-10 the considerations in terms of relative dissatisfaction (with 1 being the most dissatisfying aspect and 10 being the least dissatisfying aspect). The Mean Value is the average ranking that the member respondents assigned to each consideration.

IMPACTS- Premium member dissatisfiers

It makes sense that “proving identity” is among the most dissatisfying aspects of the member experience: “You know my name when you call me at home to ask for money. But you forget my name AND imply that I am trying to deceive you when I visit – a benefit for which I paid several times more than regular admission!” Exaggerated? Maybe (or maybe not), but let’s be honest: A premium member making this hypothetical statement would have an excellent point!

A reasonable person may consider showing a membership card and being asked to produce an ID to be excessive. And consider this: You’re openly asking for an ID in addition to the membership card because you believe that your members – the backbone of your organization – are conspiring to perpetrate a fraud against your organization. One need not be a philanthropy pro to realize that this is a pretty lousy way to treat current and potential donors. You know what they say in fundraising and membership development: “The best way to say ‘Thank you’ is to question a donor’s integrity!” Wait…people don’t say that?! Then why do so many organizations actually do it?

 

2) It is often more costly to AVOID membership fraud

“But if we stop checking IDs, won’t we suffer from member fraud and risk letting legions of non-members in for free?!” That’s a very sensible and intelligent question. Let’s look into it. The data below is from a 2014 IMPACTS membership study of 11 visitor-serving cultural organizations – seven of which have (or then had) ID check policies for members, four of which did not verify the IDs of members.

Market potential is a data-driven analysis that quantifies the number of people expected to annually visit an organization (and often at what price). Market potential analyses are the result of a modeling process, and enabled by the data typically acquired via the conduct of an awareness, attitudes, and usage study. The 2014 IMPACTS membership study further segmented the market potential by visitation type (e.g. admission paying visitors, members, etc.).

IMPACT - Membership ID validation market potential

Organizations checking IDs achieved 98.9% of their annual market potential (or 98,900 actual member visits per every 100,000 expected member visits). Organizations NOT checking IDs achieved 100.8% of their annual market potential (or, 100,800 actual member visits per every 100,000 expected member visits). Even if we attribute the entire member visit variance to member fraud (which is not a justified assumption), the maximum member fraud incident rate is 1.9% (or 1,900 fraudulent member visits per 100,000 expected member visits).

And, common sense suggests that attributing the entire variance to member fraud is, at best, a dubious practice. Why? Because at least two other, important factors may play important roles in explaining the delta: 1) It is extremely possible (if not likely) that some ID-checking organizations lose member visitation precisely because they check IDs and, as the data indicate, are dissatisfying their members. It is not hard to imagine a member being annoyed, offended, or inconvenienced by the ID check (or having a friend to whom they lent the membership card being turned away), and then not returning with the expected frequency to the organization. 2) Correspondingly, organizations that don’t check IDs may better satisfy their members with the relative ease of the entry process when compared to the ID police experience at other organizations. It is unlikely that the entire observed market potential variance has to do with member fraud when we know that checking IDs is such a strong dissatisfier, but let’s assume that the member fraud incident rate is 1.9% to be super safe. This begs the question:

Is a member fraud rate of 1.9% worth irritating your most closely held constituencies?

To find out how much money this amounts to for your organization, all that you need to do is plug in some numbers. As an (easy math) example, let’s assume that an organization receives 100,000 annual member visits and that the admission revenue per capita is $20. This would mean that member “fraud” poses a $38,000 annual risk to the organization (100,000 annual member visits x $20 admission per capita x 1.9% member fraud incident rate = $38,000 annual member fraud expectation).

(For easy math purposes, I chose a relatively large-sized organization for this hypothetical example. Extant data suggests that a visitor-serving cultural organization in the US with 100,000 member visits likely has a total annual attendance in the 400-500,000 range. The annual operating budget of this hypothetical organization is likely in the tens of millions of dollars – which may change the way you perceive that $38,000 if your organization is much smaller.)

Based on your own unique member fraud expectation, ask yourself: Is it worth this much money to risk alienating high-level donors and members? Or, here’s a better question: If you could invest that same amount to eliminate a major dissatisfier for members and donors, would you? The answer is probably a resounding “yes.”

 Also, when organizations use the word “fraud” they are making the assumption that everyone who is sneaking in using someone else’s ID would have otherwise opted to visit and pay full admission. These are flawed assumptions.  Sure – perhaps some of these “gate crashers” would have otherwise visited…but surely not all of them would choose to do so.  Some may argue that what we internally call “fraud” is, in fact, a bit like a trial program based on the most valuable kind of word of mouth – the recommendation of someone who is already an important constituent (i.e. the member who shared their ID with the “fraudulent” user).

Even if we assume that every single fraudulent visitor would have absolutely visited anyway and paid full price (which are both silly and dangerous assumptions…but let’s roll with them), checking IDs is still a bad financial practice. Organizations should consider the ill will that ID checks engender with their members (and what this means come renewal time), the onsite spending of “fraudulent” visitors at the gift shop and café, and the future value of these same visitors as potential endorsers! It may be reasonably safe to say that someone turned away at the door by the ID police may not offer a ringing endorsement for your organization. On the other hand, a person who visits at the express recommendation of a member who has shared one of their member benefits with this person may well thereafter visit on their own accord…and maybe even buy their own membership!

 

3) Guest pass fraud has been pre-paid and may be beneficial

But what about guest pass fraud? Many organizations report observing guest passes being offered for sale on Craigslist or offered as a perk for Airbnb rentals. Just how big of a problem is this?

The analysis below contemplates five nonprofit visitor-serving organizations in the US that offer transferable guest cards, tickets, or passes (i.e. the member need not be present for the guest pass to be redeemed) as a benefit of select membership categories. The purpose of the study was to assess if fraud was a major issue with this membership benefit. Here are some of the findings uncovered by IMPACTS:

  • People purchasing membership that included guest passes as a benefit spent on average $48 more than they would have for a similar membership category that did not include guest passes. The average premium paid by members of the five contemplated organizations to receive the guest pass benefit was $48.17.

 

  • Roughly four out of ten members who paid a premium to receive the guest cards didn’t redeem the benefit. 61.35% of eligible members who received the guest benefit actually redeemed the benefit.

 

  • People visiting using guest passes were worth 48.77% more to the organization then they would have been if they had bought a ticket. Explanation: Members who redeemed the guest pass benefit (i.e. shared passes for their guests to use), accounted for an average of 2.32 guest visits to the organization. In other words, of the 61.35% of eligible members who redeemed the benefit, the average usage rate per member was 2.32x. That means that overall, for every membership that included a guest pass as a benefit, actual usage of the guest pass accounted for 1.42 guest visits (61.35% redemption rate x 2.32 usage rate = 1.42 guest visits per eligible membership). At a price premium of $48.17, this equates to equivalent revenues of $33.92 per guest visit ($48.17 price premium / 1.42 guest visits per eligible membership = $33.92 per guest visit). The average per capita admission revenue for the five contemplated organizations was $22.80 – meaning that guest visitors were worth 48.77% more to the organization then they would have been if they had bought a ticket!

 

That said, guest pass visitors are likely worth even more than that. This math artificially demeans the value of guest pass programs as it includes the same, flawed assumptions that seem to plague many member fraud-related concerns: 1) The assumption that every person visiting the organization via the guest pass program would have otherwise visited the organization; and 2) The assumption that every person visiting the organization via the guest pass program would have not only visited but additionally done so on a paid basis. There are two critical factors to consider in assessing the value of a guest pass benefit for memberships:

  1. The people who choose to pay a premium to receive a guest pass benefit are likely among an organization’s best endorsers – they want to share the experience with other people and are willing to pay for it!
  1. If the guest pass program does nothing more than engender trial among new visitors, then this, alone, may be a benefit to the organization – organizations usually invest to engender trial. In the example of guest passes, a member is paying the organization to promote trial (and, these “trialers” likely contribute revenues to the organizations in terms of food and beverage sales, retail sales, parking (if you own that structure), and even potential additional admissions sold to accompanying visitors.)

Do guest cards contribute to fraud? It depends what you mean by “fraud.” Yes, there are likely folks visiting the organization that you didn’t intend to have a guest pass – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, when you think about it from a trial perspective (i.e. reaching new audiences), it may be a good thing.

 

I was recently visiting a large museum in Chicago with my colleagues. The woman in front of us at the entrance had several children with her and, before entering the organization, the ticket-taker asked to see her identification. We overheard the woman explain that she was the nanny and that she was given the membership card to take the children and their cousin to the museum. The ticket-taker turned the nanny and three children away with a look of pride and accomplishment on her face as she explained condescendingly that only the membership holder could visit the organization with the children. The nanny looked extremely embarrassed. Is this what we consider a “win” in the visitor-serving industry?

“That’s extreme,” you may be thinking. Perhaps. But, remember: The person whom you’re turning away is the member’s mother, father, neighbor, nanny, grandparent, sister, brother, coworker, etc. (Believe it or not, folks trying to “sneak in” aren’t likely to be culturally erudite pickpockets and wallet thieves. Seriously. Is that who we think that they are?!) When you annoy members (or embarrass their friends), you’re probably more likely to lose them altogether than upgrade them to a membership that allows for more member entrances or guest passes. In a way, members (and especially premium members) have paid for the right to “defraud” us.

If you’re wondering what your “ID police” should do now, here is an idea: Train them to interact with visitors – which data suggest is the single most reliable way to increase satisfaction.

The member fraud crisis? It’s kind of a (mild) thing – but we’re hurting ourselves both in terms of our mission and financial future thinking it’s a bigger issue than it actually is. The sooner that we stop choosing to dissatisfy our members, the sooner that we can improve our member and donor relations to gain the critical support that we need to both fund our financial futures and execute our missions.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my Fast Fact videos on my YouTube channel. Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution 1 Comment

Three New Realities for Cultivating Big Donors in the 21st Century (DATA)

Three New Fundraising Realities for Nonprofits in the 21st Century- Know Your Own Bone

Our world has evolved and so has fundraising. It’s time for organizations to embrace these three, new realities for cultivating bigger donors.

Our rapidly evolving, super-connected world has introduced new realities for visitor-serving organizations – particularly with regard to admission and affordable access opportunities. Similarly, the information age has created new opportunities for organizations to more successfully approach fundraising. Maximizing these opportunities requires that organizations embrace many of the challenges currently affecting how nonprofits operate. Fundraising is no exception to this need for evolution.

When organizations consider the evolved role of fundraising, they often seem to think of crowdfunding campaigns aimed to raise money from (often small) donations from a large number of people. No doubt, crowdfunding campaigns can be powerful! (And cultural organizations are benefiting from them, too!) But what about cultivating bigger donors and more directly building long-term affinity for the organization as opposed to a specific project? Well, those realities have shifted a bit as well.  Here are three fundraising realities- contemplative of the fast-paced, connected world in which we now live- that organizations should consider if they want to reach bigger donors:

 

1) Donor targeting can be done more intelligently than ever before (but this is not done often enough by nonprofits)

I’m big on the fact that optimal admission pricing for cultural organizations is a product of data sciences. While not exactly the same, donor targeting is becoming more of a science, too. There’s reason to consider that soon the days of casting the general “Make a donation today!” net to all audiences may be long gone.

Much like certain people profile as likely visitors to cultural organizations more than others, some folks profile as more likely donors than others. Increasingly, organizations can research current and potential donors (or members!) in order to identify the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate a likely donor. And, while the nuance of this profiling effort will vary by specific organization, extant data reveals terrific insight into the type of people who are currently engaging with cultural organizations as donors. The table below indicates a High-Propensity Donor profile based on member/donors annually contributing at least $500 to a nonprofit, cultural organization (e.g. zoo, aquarium, museum, science center, botanical garden, symphony, theater, etc.) If you’re a cultural organization, your $500+ donors will fit this profile, but the specifics of your organization may lend additional attributes to the mix.

IMPACTS HPV donor profile

Once an organization has an idea of what kind of people are most likely to be their respective high-propensity donors, then the organization can focus on identifying and targeting specific individuals who possess those same attributes and may have an affinity for the organization. And organizations can deploy the same targeting methods for potential donors as cultural organizations do for potential visitors. (Side note: Why don’t more organizations do this beyond the few at the top? From what I can tell, a contributing factor may be the fact that marketing and fundraising are often separate, siloed divisions that tend to consider their own expertise as singular and sacred. How can we do that “we’re better together” thing more often within the same institution?)

Data, analytics, and technologies allow organizations to identify, target, and deliver highly-customized messaging to high-propensity visitors and donors alike. Many smart organizations are already doing this to engage onsite audiences – it’s a natural extension of the same best practices to leverage these resources to support contributed revenue categories. It’s time to invest in fundraising data and intelligence… and then consider this information in the formation, targeting, and deployment of fundraising strategies. Data-informed audience identification and targeting are every bit as useful to development departments as they are for marketing teams.

 

2) Cultivating donors is a time-investment strategy with a new twist

Today, the speed of information sharing and the ease of connectivity allow for potential donors to hear about the work of organizations long before those organizations reach out to potential donors. It also becomes easier to form an opinion about an organization before an organization is aware of it. This means that fundraising departments are less able to “curate” a donor’s pathway of engagement with clear certainty than in a pre-digital era. In the past, a fundraising department could be relatively certain of a donor’s interactions with an organization. Today, a donor may check out an organization on Facebook, share a post, or even “hide” posts from an organization that is not of interest to them. Donor opinions of organizations can be formed earlier than they were in the past because of our increased connectivity.

This is important to note because a major gift (such as one that is seven figures or above) may require decades of careful donor cultivation. Fundraising big bucks is not like an annual advertising campaign – it requires a substantial investment of time. For more robust fundraising success, organizations benefit by investing for a sustained period of time and actively building a relationship on the potential donor’s desired platforms. (As you can see in the chart, high-propensity donors are “super-connected” via the web, so know what you’re doing with donors on social media.)

Many organizations measure giving amounts in years, not decades. It makes sense that we measure progress on an annual basis, but when we don’t look at fundraising over longer periods of time, we tend to promote a culture wherein we focus on this year’s giving and fail to prioritize long-term potential donors. If it takes ten years to cultivate a ten million dollar donor and fundraisers are primarily focused on the current year, then an organization may never receive that ten million dollar donation. Though the instant gratification of today’s society may be making us perpetually impatient, we must remember that fundraising and building meaningful relationships (still) cannot often be rushed. 

 

3) Competition for donor engagement has gone global

Competition for donors can now be more global and intense. Potential donors need not be more involved with or committed to organizations in their backyards. We live in a world where a donor in New York can be cultivated by an organization in Los Angeles. Being “local” matters less- or at least, it doesn’t necessarily make an organization a shoe-in for a potential donor’s support. In the past, it was more difficult to connect with organizations that did not reside in a donor’s community. There may be a bit of a lag in this development for cultural organizations, as many donors appreciate having the ability to attend these institutions. However, as cultural organizations necessarily focus more on their social missions instead of their existence as straightforward attractions, they may see the same fate as other types of nonprofit organizations when it comes to global competition for donors. Being a local organization can still be important to a donor , but in our world of increased connectivity, it isn’t necessary and may matter less than the efficacy of mission execution.

The fact that donor competition has “gone global” means that it’s even more critical for organizations to realize that if a donor is giving in a big way to one organization, he/she often cannot give big in the same way to another. This is true across organizations and causes. Big donations are often zero-sum games. A donor who makes a major gift to one organization has that much less giving wherewithal to donate to another organization. Is it possible that this same donor may reach further into their well of largesse to support your organization with a similar, significant, bit-time gift immediately after giving to another organization? Yes. Is this a good strategy to bank on? No.

Think about your own giving! You probably have a kind of overall, annual giving quota based on what you feel comfortable with and what you can afford. Once you max out, you max out. Again, that’s not true for everyone, but it’s probably not a good idea to build a strategy around an exception. Know that there’s competition, and be contemplative of the donors gifts to other organizations and causes as well. As much as we romanticize big givers, most are not – actually- bottomless pits of never-ending cash.

 

The digital era has changed more on the fundraising front than simply bringing us crowdfunding campaigns and social media communication. It’s increased opportunities for effective donor targeting, altered traditional donor engagement pathways, and increased global competition for big donors.  It’s time to get serious about evolving to more informed methods of fundraising – because if you’re not doing it, then another organization likely is. Let’s take these new realities into account and move forward with the important work of finding and connecting with those who have a passion-match with our mission.

Let’s update our thinking about finding and communicating with people who can help us make the world a better place.

 

Like this post? Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

 Please subscribe over on the right hand column to get KYOB posts delivered right into your email inbox. Interested in getting 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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Three New Realities for Cultivating Big Donors in the 21st Century (DATA)

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Trends Comments Off on Trends Report: Four Trends That Will Affect Visitor-Serving Organizations in 2014

Inequality: A Nonprofit Social Media Best Practice

stand out fish 1“All men are created equal.” No doubt you’ve heard that before, and no doubt I’d have a hard time finding a public-service motivated nonprofiteer who would disagree with that sentiment. I personally agree with it…except when it comes to social media. And if you’re a smart nonprofit organization, you may risk the efficacy of your entire marketing strategy if you don’t understand that inequality of social media followers should be a founding principle in your social media plans.

Simply put, your organization’s fans and followers are not all of equal value to your nonprofit’s relevance and long-term solvency – and treating every ‘like’ the same way means purposely sabotaging your ability to achieve organizational goals through social media. Some types of fans and followers are much, much more important than others in terms of increasing amplification, spurring visitation (if you’re a visitor-serving organization) and inspiring donations.

Like most matters of organizational strategy, social media is about “knowing where your bread is buttered.” Many nonprofit organizations misunderstand the distinct importance of unique online audiences or individuals, and instead, calibrate their efforts to the average “potential supporter.” Forcing striations of unique audiences to a “mean” misses opportunities for deeper, more meaningful engagement with higher-value individuals and wastes precious resources trying to attract folks that aren’t likely to engage with your organization beyond a status “like.”

As a reminder, many of the “rules” of real life (both social and business-related) generally apply to social media – perhaps foremost amongst these truisms being Pareto’s Principle (i.e. the “80-20” rule).  Applied to social media, Pareto holds that 80% of your engagement and support will come from but 20% of your audience. 

So what audience members should demand most of your social media attention? Pay special heed to these folks:

 

Members/donors

Sounds obvious, huh? Does it sound so obvious that the person running your social media channels has access to a list of members and donors right now? Probably not. (Quick! Email or print a list and run it over! It’s cool…. I’ll wait here.) If you’re like most visitor-serving nonprofits, membership and marketing/communications operate separately, and this separation often means that this critical (and very simple) little action item has been overlooked… along with several others.

In fact, this overlook is indicative of a necessary shift in how we think about the relationship between marketing and membership in the digital age. As I’ve mentioned before, membership increasingly needs the marketing department to function – not the other way around. However, your organization needs both departments to keep its doors open. Contemplating the role of social media in cultivating donors and members is a must for organizations. Knowing who these supporters are and where their interests lie provides the marketing folks with the information that they need to a) identify these individuals; b) pay special attention to their interactions on social sites; and c) utilize this information to inform content strategy to ensure that these high-value individuals remain actively engaged.

A goal of social media for many organizations is to inspire visitation and cultivate donors (and social media is pretty darn good for that). As a little hint: those who have already proven their affinity through membership or a donation are likely to be those who will support you again and potentially provide ongoing support. If you don’t know who they are and what they like (or you’re missing an opportunity to target specific content to these audiences), then you risk losing this valuable, precious market to a competitor (for-profit or nonprofit) who is paying better attention to their wants and needs.

 

Influencers

Influencers are bloggers or other content-creators with a high-perceived word of mouth value across a range of personal networks. This is the category in which the elusive and powerful “mommy bloggers” make their appearance for many organizations. If properly cultivated, content creators provide a trusted voice to share your mission messages.

Ample data support the importance of targeting Influencers as a key component of an organization’s social media strategy. For example, 29% of consumers trust blogs over other forms of digital marketing, and blogs are even more likely than Facebook to influence a purchase decision. Influencers aren’t just bloggers. They are also active on other social media platforms. But beware to judge the strength of an Influencer simply by their follower numbers. Influencers with smaller, more focused followings sometimes have more influence than those with a larger following.

A little bit of paying personal attention can go a long way in inspiring affinity.  On a personal note, I really like to run. Though my tribe on social media is generally nonprofit and/or marketing folks, Brooks (the running shoe company) pays special attention to me. They send me free running shoes and, in turn, I know that they want some link-love and positive word of mouth when I just can’t help but share a race-related update…and I’ll give it to them willingly. Why? Because they simply let me know that they are paying attention to me. They have mentioned this blog. They keep track of what I like. I feel like they know me. I have purchased far more of their gear as a result of these efforts than the cost of their investment, and just learning a bit about me could not have taken more than five minutes of their time. There’s both a lesson and an opportunity here for nonprofits.

Another personal example? My alma mater’s Twitter account sometimes converses with me and other alumni. Without being asked, I made an online donation last month simply because they occasionally remind me that they are paying attention to me and make me feel like part of a community.

Social media unleashes the same dopamine that is released when you physically interact with someone, and we get a physiological and psychological rush of this feel-good chemical when we share things on social media. Nonprofits may do well to capitalize on this phenomenon to build affinity among those Influencers who can amplify your messages and cultivate more/higher-level visitors and donors. The broad action items are rather simple: 1. Identify these people. 2. Uncover their personal points of connection to your organization. 3. Start a conversation. Good-case-scenario: you’ll have cultivated a potential supporter. Awesome-case-scenario: you’ll have cultivated a socially influential supporter.

 

Evangelists

Evangelists are folks who have a high level of affinity for your organization’s mission and brand. These people like you (they really like you, not just Facebook-like you) and pay close attention to your content. They think you’re cool, interesting, and just downright important. High-level Evangelists are often also members or donors – and they may be Influencers as well. Some Evangelists may be non-members who are likely to share your message or support your organization with a visit (if you’re a visitor-serving nonprofit), and are ripe and ready for another level of engagement – say, providing support by attending a special fundraising event.

There are varying levels of Evangelists, and this is a broad term that we use for “folks who like you and want to help you.” They do this in different ways: Some may provide financial support, but the most common method of support that I observe is via the re-amplification of your messages. At the risk of over-simplifying this audience, these are your Facebook “sharers” who promulgate your content to their networks.

To be clear, the vast majority of people who “like” you on Facebook or follow you on Twitter (or any other platform, for that matter) are NOT higher-level Evangelists. In fact, most of your audience on social media channels likely falls into a “low-to-mid-level Evangelist” category – occasionally engaging with your organization from time-to-time but without making the brand a clear part of their online identity. To be sure, these lower-level evangelists are important. Content should aim to spark a connection with them to bump them into higher-level categories. However, these folks are not nearly as important as those who speak out about you and consistently let their friends know that they “real-life-like” your organization. Organizations should focus on higher-level evangelists because they are your likely repeat visitors and have potential to lend real-life support – either through valuable word of mouth marketing or future financial contributions.

Among online audiences, real-life donors/supporters, Influencers, and Evangelists are the most important folks to target with your nonprofit PR strategy. The quality of your fans is far more important than the quantity of your fans on social media platforms. If your organization isn’t paying special attention to key audience members, then your social media strategy is likely leaving both money and mission-amplification on the table. And these are things that most organizations cannot afford not to lose.  Not all audiences are created equal.

 

*Image photo credit  belongs to nexlevelvision.com

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 Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Digital Connectivity, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Trends 2 Comments