fundraising

The direction of the unexpected.

I am currently reading The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, which had been recommended to me so often in the last four years that for a while I became irrationally opposed to reading it. But after two quarters of intense study of predictive analytics and econometrics, this seemed to be a good antidote.

An antidote to statistics it certainly is. Taleb systematically dismantles ​most of the suppositions underlying finance and statistics. A dense and sometimes rambling read, it is also practical and thought-provoking and utterly fascinating. I'm only halfway through and already the pages sit well-notated and dog-eared. This is a book I will read several times in a row, and -- friends, be warned -- one I will gift many times. I can't wait to hear what my professors think of this...

​Buy it.

There's lots to say about this book, and I'll never fit it all into one post. But let me pass along this succinct bit of planning wisdom I read tonight: "The unexpected almost always pushes in a single direction: higher costs and longer time to completion." 

I've written about this idea before, and we've probably all experienced it. The bill at Costco is always larger than you think it is going to be; it takes twenty minutes longer to find a parking spot than you anticipate. And in the case of fundraising, a program always takes longer to get off the ground than you hope it will. 

​Sadly, the counter-measure is not a tighter timeline and fewer resources. It makes sense to plan for things to be a bit more expensive than you'd like them to be. Because, they will be.

Back and better than ever...

Well, without meaning to I've let over three weeks slip by without a single post. I figured it was high time I posted an update lest you all think I was trapped under something heavy (When Harry Met Sally reference, yes you're welcome).

2013 is off to a great start for me, and I hope for you. Lots of more detailed posts to come but here are a few tidbits of what has me thinking and wondering:

  • First meeting of the Invisible Children board last week. What this group has done and continues to do is nothing short of amazing to me; more to come in the next weeks and months. I couldn't be more honored to be a board member.
  • Spending time applying non-linear regression models to fundraising data -- oh dear, this is really more interesting than it sounds. Hopefully I'll have some way to illustrate that in coming weeks! Stay with me people...
  • Speaking of fundraising data, I'm presenting at the annual Run-Walk-Ride Conference again this year. It's become an annual ritual I very much look forward to. If you're going to be down in Atlanta March 13-14, drop me a line so we can connect.
  • Speaking of fundraising data again, Chuck Longfield of Target Analytics/Blackbaud presented some helpfully alarming statistics about donor retention last week at the Nonprofit DMA conference that are worth your review. I say "helpfully alarming" because there have been people in the industry (like myself, ahem) trying to highlight the need for better engagement for years. Seems like no one wants to listen to the idea that engagement is hard work. Twitter is great for communicating but it ain't gonna magically create more donors for ya! Trust me on this. I'm hoping Chuck's presentation will rattle some cages. More here.
  • Switching the subject before I fall off my high horse, we've recently launched the 2013 Muckfest MS, a series of 18 obstacle races. Think Wipeout. With mud. And beer. You need it. Give it a look here.
  • Ulrich Schnauss, who has the best name in music, released his new album A Long Way To Fall today. I love everything he does and would recommend it without question.
  • Speaking of music, am I the only one who thinks the new version of iTunes is atrocious?

See, I'm back. :-) More soon.

Finding needles in the social media haystack.

It's a cold, blustery day outside so I'm huddled in my office with a hot cup of coffee catching up on a week's worth of reading. One article at the top of my list this week is  this short piece on Trends and Outliers, the blog of TIBCO's Spotfire data visualization software. In a nutshell, the post outlines efforts by researches to use Twitter information as the basis for predictive models. Professors at MIT have created a model that they say can predict hot topics before they go viral, while a researcher at UC Riverside is building a model that forecasts stock prices based on Twitter chatter about various firms. 

Interesting stuff, with potentially fantastic implications for fundraising. Imagine being able to shift through a pile of tweets to find donors more likely to give at year end. And at the same time, as seems to be the case with all applications of predictive modeling, I see sinister undertones as well. Do we want our global economic health, for example, to be dictated by the whims of millions of Twitter users? Although I guess one could argue that we're not far from that reality already...

In any case, worth a few minutes of your time. I hope you are warm and cozy wherever you are!

Another way to look at Hurricane Sandy donations.

Figure 1: Disaster giving over the last decade. Click to enlarge.

I wanted to follow on Monday's post about the fundraising results from Hurricane Sandy. If you remember, some observers have commented on the fact that the overall donations generated following Sandy have fallen far short of other recent disasters.

Let's first take a look at the fundraising results we looked at on Monday. Figure 1 shows the results of post-disaster fundraising from five recent disasters: the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Haitian earthquake, the Japan earthquake and tsunami, and Hurricane Sandy. The numbers estimate U.S. private giving three weeks after each disaster.

Setting aside for a moment the tragic thought that there seem to be an increasing number of severe natural disasters, we can see that yes, there does appear to be a downward trend in response. Note that I did not access primary data for the graph, and so there are likely to be inevitable inconsistencies in how the numbers were measured. In fact, I can guarantee we're not looking at a strictly apples-to-apples comparison. But we're interested in order of magnitude, and in that sense we can see that both Hurricane Sandy and the Japan earthquake and tsunami seem to have inspired notably less generosity from the U.S. than the other three disasters.

But is that the whole story? Is giving perhaps related to the overall scale of the disaster?

This is where we find ourselves on tricky ground both ethically and empirically. From an impact standpoint, scale is certainly a matter of perspective. Even one lost home, pet, or loved one is heartbreaking. How can we quantify physical loss and emotional pain? If your heart aches, it aches. 

On the data side, we're on equally rocky footing. I attempted to see if I could quantify the scale of each disaster in economic cost. Given enough time, I could probably find the correct sources and create normalized data -- but I can tell you it does not appear to be an easy task. For example, the economic loss from Katrina is estimated to be far higher than that of the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami -- in large part because of the amount of development on the Gulf Coast as opposed to that in rural India. But does that make Hurricane Katrina more tragic?

Figure 2. Disaster impact as measured in overall loss of life. Click to enlarge.

What if we turn to a more verifiable -- and macabre -- statistic: Number of deaths. These statistics are, sadly, very easy to find. And, without sounding crass, they do not need to be indexed for inflation. Figure 2 presents total confirmed deaths attributed to each disaster.

What do we see? Well, we see a different picture. It's hard not to be struck by the enormity of the crises in the Indian Ocean and Haiti. Again, this is not to say that the other disaster weren't crises; our attempt here is to find a way to compare the relative impact. The overall loss of life from the disasters in the U.S. was far less than the disasters in other parts of the world. 

Figure 3. U.S. giving as compared to loss of life. Click to enlarge.

Now let's go back to the giving numbers. We now have enough information to take our data analysis one level deeper. Figure 3 shows a basic scatterplot of U.S. giving as compared to overall loss of life. In this admittedly very small dataset we can see we have two groupings: A linear trend for overseas disasters, and a separate, very steep cluster for the U.S. disasters. 

All of which takes us to figure 4, which shows dollars donated per death. From this graph we can see that on a relative sense, the response to Hurricane Sandy is the most generous by far. It is a grisly metric, to be sure -- and let me say once again that I in no way mean to imply that some losses are more important than others.

What I am trying to do is show that the truth is often in the interpretation. In matters of giving data, as in most things, it is worth doing a bit more digging before deciding you have the whole picture. I don't contend that figure 4 is the whole story, either -- but it is a valuable addition to the discussion.

Figure 4. Donations per death. Click to enlarge. 

For my part, I do not believe that our country is less generous, or less responsive, or weary of providing relief. I believe that people give according to the perceived scale of the impact. At least on this  measure, the response to Hurricane Sandy has been laudable. At a time of political weariness, economic sluggishness, and sustained appeals for help, we continue to respond to the call. 

Is Giving Tuesday a bad idea? No.

As you probably heard if you spend any time online, which is everyone reading this, yesterday was Giving Tuesday, a day created by a consortium of nonprofits to emphasize charity during the busiest shopping period of the year.

Interestingly, in addition to garnering a great deal of attention (and from what I've heard from our clients, creating an actual spike in giving), Giving Tuesday has inspired criticism from some circles as being the exact kind of commercialized, homogenized pseudo-caring it has been designed to counteract. Notably, both Tim Odgen in SSIR and Jeff Brooks in Future Fundraising Now -- neither a slouch in the space -- have written with some cynicism about the effort. 

I agree with the point that Giving Tuesday has the potential to be hollow and trite, and obviously also with Jeff's point that December 31 is already the biggest giving day of the year. Further, there's no denying that Giving Tuesday was a dreamt-up idea, although to be fair it was created by marketers hired by nonprofits, not by marketers.

What I'd offer, though, is that there's really nothing good about the biggest giving day of the year being the LAST day of the year. I applaud any effort to try to shift that giving earlier in the year. I'm not sure I understand the downside.

Further, with the incessant drone of BUY-BUY-BUY that now starts weeks before Thanksgiving and floods every single media channel, I like the idea of trying to mesh in some other message -- if only for balance.

I get the cynicism, I really do. But isn't combatting that cynicism the whole point?

The State of Event Fundraising

Thanks to David Hessekiel and the wonderful folks at the Run Walk Ride Fundraising Council, I had a chance yesterday to riff for an hour on "The State of Event Fundraising." An overblown title, to be sure, but when David approached me several months ago about speaking I told him I wanted to steer away from my usual mix of strategy and analytics. Instead, I wanted to speak at a broader level about what I'm observing and thinking about.

In a nutshell, I think the dynamics in the nonprofit space are changing, and I'm not sure that we're reacting fast enough. I don't have many of the answers, and I haven't even articulated all of the right questions. But I know enough to know that I should starting talking it through with other thought leaders in the industry.

My fears of appearing overblown turned to performance anxiety when I learned that over 500 people had registered for the presentation -- a new record for Run Walk Ride. As it turned out, over half of those actually showed up and stayed to listen to my ramblings, which can be found on Slideshare here or at the bottom of this post. The entire hour-long presentation, with audio, can be found at Cause Marketing Forum.

I'm not sure what to take from all of that -- y'all don't have enough to do on Thursday afternoons, apparently . But I think what it means is that many others share my anxiety that the dynamics are changing, and many others share my hope that we can benefit from those changes. 

I look forward to sharing some of the observations, thoughts, cautions, and ideas over the coming weeks. 

An overused narrative.

Perhaps it is the fact that the 2012 presidential campaign is underway in earnest, along with its ongoing torrent of analysts parsing every word. Or perhaps it is because I find myself reading more and more business blogs that are really pseudo-marketing blogs. Or maybe it is simply that my subconscious vocabulary overflow meter has finally been triggered.

Whatever the reason, I find myself mechanically tearing clumps of hair out of my head whenever I hear what has to be the most abused, overused word of the year: “Narrative.”

We are told that the Romney campaign has to find a “narrative that resonates with Middle America,” while the Obama campaign needs to find a “narrative to respond to the Romney campaign.” Marketing leaders are looking for a “narrative that resonates with consumers.” The Olympics provided us with a “rich narrative of personal achievement.”

I finally reached my personal limit when I started seeing the word pop up in the nonprofit space. “We have to find a mission narrative that donors will respond to.” Honestly, when I hear nonprofit executives talking about a “mission narrative,” I want to scream. 

“Narrative” is a word for our times. It sounds grown-up. Sophisticated. But it is also, basically, meaningless. Is a narrative a story? A theme? A conversation? A pitch? A lie? It is a word that offers little but self-importance. It is a word designed to be deliberately vague. 

Call me old-fashioned, but I’m not sure where “narratives” fit in politics, business, or particularly, the nonprofit world. Campaigns need platforms — a worldview that is supported by policies, not stories. Businesses need strategies — unique, defensible positions supported by operational activities that fit together. And nonprofits need a mission — a specific way of changing the world. 

It is important to be able to talk about how you can help change the world. But it is much more important to actually have a way to change the world, and then to go about doing it. It could be that your problems in fundraising (or marketing or selling or operating or campaigning) have less to do with the way you’re telling the story and more to do with the actual subject matter. Are you making a difference? Does your organization actually help people, directly and impactfully? If the answer is yes, we can find a way to powerfully tell the story. If the answer is no, then no amount of marketing, writing, editing, or creative manipulation will help you grow. 

Leave the narratives to the authors. The world needs help — what are you doing about it?

Pareto's Principle in Fundraising: An Interactive Example

Over the last few months, I’ve presented and written quite a bit about Pareto’s Principle in fundraising. Better known as the “80-20 Rule,” the idea is simple: Most of the money we raise comes from a small number of donors. This dynamic shows up in nearly every campaign I’ve worked on. Even so-called “grassroots” campaigns are heavily dependent on a small number of donors; just because we ask for small gifts doesn’t mean all of our donors contribute equally.

What is just as amazing to me as the math, however, is the fact that many people have trouble getting their heads around the idea. Even though most of us use donor pyramids and gift tables every day, it is often hard to understand how even massive programs are really driven by small percentages of donors.

This interactive graphic, built from actual campaign data, is designed to help illustrate Pareto’s Principle. Click on any gift level to see how many donors contributed at that level — and how much of the total revenue those gifts represented.

All of this begs at least two questions: Are you trying to grow large numbers of donors or are you spending time finding and cultivating donors who are connected to you? And do you treat donors equally or do you talk to them differently based on how important they are to you?  

Click to interact.

Click to interact.

May 9th Webinar: Deeper Segmentation Techniques for Fundraising!

If you looked at the exclamation point in the subject heading and said, “Huh? That doesn’t look exciting at all,” you can just stop reading now.

But for those of you who get excited by the idea of fundraising segmentation (I know you’re out there!), I wanted to let you know I’m hosting a free webinar next week to explore practical fundraising segmentation techniques. I’m going to try some new visualization techniques that may or may not work, so that in and of itself will provide some excitement above and beyond the subject matter!

This webinar is a follow-up to my presentation at the Nonprofit Technology Conference last month, but will be a complement to it — attendance at that presentation is not a prerequisite. So for those of you who did not attend, I promise you’ll still get something out of the presentation.

It takes on May 9 at 1:00 Central, and you can register here. Hope to see you there!

My time is now your time! Let me help you change the world.

I wanted to share a piece of news that is an exciting step for me and I hope a great opportunity for you. Yesterday at the Run-Walk-Ride conference I announced that henceforth and forever more, I’m setting aside at least 5% of my time each week to offer free fundraising advice to nonprofits, social entrepreneurs, and world-changers big and small. 

Why? As we work with more and more nonprofits like yours, I’m struck by a few things. 

  • First, many of you only need a few quick pieces of advice or a dose of outside perspective. But you are reluctant to call either because you don’t want to impose if you don’t have a budget to hire us, or because you fear getting a sales pitch, or both. I want to eliminate the barriers to you reaching out for input.
  • Two, there are lots of you who work in small, passionate shops, and even a short consulting engagement might represent a huge portion of your budget. And so you don’t have the opportunity to work with us. But your work is some of the most important to me, and I want to help. Others of you work in large organizations but getting budget authority to bring on an outside agency can take months. I want to speed that up for you.
  • Three, I love talking about fundraising and helping people understand it! And I’m always so gratified when I get the chance to talk and meet with new people. You’re a neat person! I want to talk with you.
  • Finally, I’m a world-changer. I want to help you make a difference!

How does it work? Simple: Just email me at jeff@event360.com and ask for a time in the office hours schedule. I’ll commit that we’ll spend an hour on the phone with you talking about whatever issue or issues you want — without a sales pitch in sight. If you send over a dataset, I’ll even go through it on the phone with you. The only small print is that depending on what you need and our mutual calendars, you may speak with one of my consultants instead of me, and it may take us a couple of weeks to coordinate a time that works.

But that’s it. All you have to do is ask.

So, will you email me for a time to let me help you change the world?

RWR Preview: Where Should I Focus?

Tomorrow I’ll be speaking at the annual Run-Walk-Ride Conference in Atlanta. As is the case every year, our team will have a large presence at the event and will be leading several sessions today and tomorrow. I wanted to share a quick preview of my keynote tomorrow, reprinted from the Event 360 blog. I hope to see you at the conference later today!


Last month, I wrote about the link between strategy and focus for the Event 360 blog. Specifically, I mentioned that in an increasingly busy world, competitive advantage isn’t about being able to do more, but rather about being able to focus on those things that make a difference. We all have limited time and resources. Trying to be excellent at everything is the quickest way to guarantee you won’t actually excel at anything.

In the several weeks since we published the article, I’ve heard from many of you who’ve essentially said, “Okay – I believe you. I’m ready to focus. But, where should I focus?”

The answer to this question obviously depends upon your function within your organization and upon what your organization is trying to accomplish. No two specific answers are the same. That said, the general answer is always the same: You have to focus on what is going to make the most impact.

So the real question is, how do you identify what is going to make the most impact? And, how do you know what is going to deliver the most return?

Just like all questions of strategy, these aren’t ones that can be solved with a calculator. It would be great to plug numbers into a spreadsheet and find out where you need to focus your time. But of course, life doesn’t work that way. There’s more to what we do than math. Still, I want to share at least one mathematical property that can help you focus your efforts.

At the beginning of the 20th century, an Italian economist named Vilfredo Pareto was studying the distribution of land in his home country. He noticed something interesting: 80% of the land was owned by the wealthiest 20% of the citizens. A century later, we’ve inherited this observation under a few different names: Pareto’s Principle, the power-law distribution, or as it is most commonly known, the 80/20 rule.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that there’s nothing inherently magical about the numbers 80 and 20. It could be that 60% of your management headaches come from 10% of your team members. Or that 70% of your monthly income is spent on 15% of your hobbies. What the principle is really saying, in more general terms, is that in many situations, a large part of the result is caused by a small number of the inputs.

What is amazing about Pareto’s Principle is how many applications it has. You can find it in business (the bulk of the revenue of Fortune 500 companies is concentrated in a small number of the largest firms). You can find it in healthcare (the bulk of money spent on healthcare is directed at a small number of patients). You can find it in social issues (the majority of crime is perpetrated by a small percentage of criminals). And most importantly for our use, you can find it in fundraising, where it is very common that most fundraising revenue comes from a small number of donors.

In our consulting work we have seen power-law distributions in almost every level of every fundraising initiative we’ve studied. Most fundraising programs derive the vast majority of their revenue from a small percentage of constituents. Sometimes, programs that look to have thousands of donors are really powered by a handful of generous people. The bad news is that this means our organizations are dependent on far fewer constituents than we might imagine. The good news is that this means that to influence profound change we usually need to direct our efforts to a small subset of our total universe.

After working with dozens of nonprofits I’m convinced that Pareto’s Principle applies to our day-to-day activities as well. Most of what we spend time on does not directly impact our missions; and most nonprofit leaders I talk with can quickly identify what actually impacts their organizations and what is busy work. Answering trite emails, sitting in bland management meetings, reviewing work other people are supposed to do – these are activities that usually contribute little or nothing to our long-term goals and, yet, often occupy the bulk of our time.

To make significant change, we have to be willing to decrease or eliminate the time we spend on busy work, and shift our focus to those things that directly power our missions: meeting new people, sharing our vision of a better world, and asking others to join us in creating that world. All of the above is easier said than done. To learn more, I invite you to join me at next week’s Run Walk Ride Conference in Atlanta, where I’ll explore Pareto’s Principle, what it means, and how it can help us change the world.