Helping you change the world.

Sometimes in my world you go into a client meeting feeling confident and brash because you are convinced you are armed with the right stuff. You are going to knock it out of the park. Other times you go in feeling a little anxious and concerned because you know what you have just isn’t quite cutting it.

I got fooled this past week. Twice.

In both situations I walked into a client meeting feeling like we put together the smartest, coolest, cleverest concepts. I thought we would simply drop our ideas on the table and sit back and wait for the accolades. I found myself scrambling because in both cases the client was not buying what I was selling. The two situations are remarkable because they were so similar and happened so closely together. That’s what it took for me to learn the lesson. Both times we heard that yes, absolutely they were smart, clever and even cool. Both times we heard that they were too clever, too smart for many the donors who would be receiving them.

A great concept is not great because it is clever, greatest is found in simplicity and clarity. Whether online, in print, or at an event we have precious little time to make our point, grab our donor, and make an impact. We do not have time to make them think. If they have to think—we lose.

I found myself reflecting back on an advertising awards competition that I helped judge several years ago. There were tons of great complex, clever pieces in the show. There were multimedia pieces, Annual Reports, all kinds of cool complicated programs. Do you know what won the best in show award? An 8 ½ x 11 poster. There were three things on it: the name of the bar at the top, a large frosty mug of beer with a fly in the foam, and the words “Our patio is now open” at the bottom. It was simple. It was clear. It was funny. And admittedly, yes, it was even clever.

At the end of the day we do one thing for our clients, help them raise more money. Period. We will do this only if we deliver a clear, unvarnished, simple message. For charities this means giving up the desire to gratify yourself by portraying the complexity of your work. For us this means giving up the desire to create rich and complex creative pieces.

Just the facts, ma’am. Keep It Simple Stupid. Considered myself reminded.

Cam

Acquisition has been a problem of late, hasn’t it?

While there are still some great Direct Mail programs out there it feels like every few months there’s a new hot ‘it’ approach. It’s about your Social Media presence. Forget that if you want to raise money and new donors look to organizations like Charity:Water and their Peer-to-Peer model. How about events, events are working. The hot approach de jour seems to be Face-to-Face. In Europe it’s just about all they are doing, and North America is catching on fast.

So where to invest? What is right for you?

We’ve got answers. On May 8th we are holding our Annual Summit. We decided we would hold it every other year in Guelph rather than Sacramento and make it a shorter, one day, event. This year we are taking on the topic of Acquisition. Our speakers cover the spectrum from the way out there to the traditional. We also plan to spend time networking, talking and figuring out what is working best. Join us!

Our Keynote speaker is Taylor Conroy. The “Destroy Normal” CEO of The Change Heroes. I promise he will challenge your traditional thinking and inspire you to think differently. That is exactly what he does.

We have a series of other industry leaders also sharing their insights.

Invest in a day out of the office. Give your self the chance to be inspired and evolve your thinking. Be there or be square.

Let me know if you want more details.

Cam

At the recent International Fundraising Congress in Amsterdam several European colleagues were diving deep into Shalom Schwartz’s research on universal values. What makes a person act? A number of organizations have taken his research and used it as a starting point to help figure out what motivates people to give. Not surprisingly, while we may all share the same ten basic values, different values are more prominent for us depending on our age, education and other circumstances. It’s complicated. But as Brent Klassen my business partner at Blue North says, computers are pretty good at working through complicated equations.

Ok park this line of thought. I’ve been in three different meetings over the past two weeks where clients have been talking about the sectors or specific offers that their file responds to. “Our file loves water but doesn’t respond to malaria”, or “our file just doesn’t connect with literacy”.

Really?

Do we really think that our donors will give to one urgent need and not another? Maybe. But maybe, just maybe we are falling into patterns of framing certain offers specifically aligned to specific motivational values. A water ask is always urgent. A Micro Finance ask is always about value. Rather than assuming our donors don’t like a sector, should we be pausing and thinking about what values drive our file to respond and then frame all of our asks accordingly? More specifically, should we be segmenting our file by age and a few other basic factors and framing our offers according to each donor’s history and profile?

I’m not crazy about scrambled eggs. Does that mean I don’t like eggs? I like poached eggs and even like an over easy egg, heck I’ll eat a hard-boiled egg.

Let’s not give up on malaria and literacy. People care, and if they are loyal to you they want to respond, you just have to serve it to them properly.

A thought from IFC 2012 – Amsterdam

One of the interesting things about being at a conference like this is that you get to experience the ‘world of fundraising’ quite literally. This experience has been a bit of an eye opener for me today. While much of the session content was excellent it was the extra-curricular conversations that got me thinking at the end of the day.

I sat through a very well presented Major Gift session today. The leaders were from Canada and the US. The presentation all made sense to me and was consistent with the kinds of things we would have said if it were Gail giving a seminar for Blue North. As part of the session we did a breakout and I was with people from the Netherlands and Norway. They were shocked by the session and said it was not very applicable to their context. They went on to talk about tax rates and government support in their countries, and about how donors do not like to be recognized nor do they give very large gifts because it would be culturally insensitive to those unable to give in that manner. Hmmm.

At the end of the day I talked with Moustapha Mikaty the Head of Communications and Development for the Arab Human Rights Fund based in Lebanon. He told me that although Arabs give very generously to those in need as part of their faith (whether Muslim or Christian) giving to human rights charities is simply not done, and for many even forbidden by their faith interpretation. As a result he said he felt about 50% of the conference was applicable to him.

Two very different conversations, one very clear theme.

This got me thinking about our work in Canada and the US, two extremely multi-cultural countries. Donors in those countries bring their cultural traditions with them, yet we treat them all in a very ‘North American’ way. I think of my friend Jeff Lee from Wycliffe who is a major gift fundraiser that focuses all his efforts in the Asian community. He will plainly tell you that you are missing opportunities by treating all donors the same and ignoring cultural realities.

What percentage of our files are we missing, frustrating, shocking or offending but treating them in a monocultural way? There might just be something to think about there.

Cam