HARNESS THE POWER OF AN E-NEWSLETTER FOR YOUR NONPROFIT

Many not for profit organizations today have an e-newsletter or an email news update of some type, but few if any have succeeded in transforming it into a truly productive development tool.  Those who have attempted to do so have relied primarily on using it as another tool to appeal for contributions.  This approach simply substitutes email appeals for traditional postal mail appeals, and aside from the savings in postage, are likely to achieve no better results.  Because emails are easier to delete and can be filtered easily, I suspect the results become less satisfactory in the long run.

So the question becomes, how do we effectively use this medium to increase support? Here are four suggestions that should help:

1)   CONTENT IS KING.  Remember these words above all others.  No one opens an email because they wish to be solicited for a donation.  They will, on the other hand, open an email because they anticipate relevant information concerning their interests or their needs, either physical or emotional.  If you want your email newsletters to be opened you must remember this, and they cannot be effective without first being opened.  Forget this and your email newsletter simply gets deleted or filtered into the spam box.

2)   DON’T OVERDO IT.  Your email subscribers will quickly tire of weekly and perhaps bi-weekly communication.  They don’t want to be reminded that you need money every week or every two weeks.  Even the most devoted follower of your cause probably doesn’t want a blow by blow description of every program you’re conducting on a weekly or even bi-weekly basis.  Unless something phenomenal is going on that they absolutely will be ecstatic to hear about, monthly is probably the best way to go… It is far better to publish monthly and then increase frequency if demand calls for it, than to publish too frequently and irritate your subscribers.  Remember the old stage axiom: “Always leave them begging for more”, and use it to your advantage.

3)   BUILD RELATIONSHIPS.  Use your e-newsletter to build relationships with your readers.  Ask any performer why they perform and those that are honest will tell you in one word…“applause”.  Everyone has an emotional need for recognition.  To incorporate this into your newsletter you may recognize contributors, solicit ideas from your readers, or invite “letters to the editor”.  Make it THEIR newsletter.  Your staff should be recognized in a staff newsletter, your supporters should be paramount in their e-newsletter.

4)   MONETIZE YOUR e-NEWSLETTER – Ask yourself this question: Is your not for profit organization willing to accept corporate donations?  If the answer is yes then there is no reason not to accept corporate sponsors in your newsletter.  As long as advertising is kept “family friendly”, and is balanced with the content in such a manner so as not to take on the appearance of a “sale paper” there is no reason to forgo tasteful corporate advertising in your organization’s newsletter.  One company who offers free e-newsletter services to Nonprofit Organizations projects that, in their program, each subscriber represents a potential of approximately three dollars per year in shared advertising revenue for their clients.  That works out to $3,000 for every 1000 free subscribers to your e-newsletter.  Even in tough economic times, the 75% of Americans online can support their favorite nonprofit organizations by simply subscribing free to a monthly e-newsletter.

In today’s economy, those not for profit organizations who embrace new methods, new ideas and new technology intelligently and creatively will survive and perhaps even flourish.  Those who bury their heads in the sand of traditional media and methodology will find themselves increasingly falling behind.  In an atmosphere where demand for charitable services is increasing and financial support is shrinking, adhering to a strategy or tactics simply because they are familiar is almost guaranteed to be a formula for failure.  If what you’re doing is not working, change it.

Technology and social media are not magic wands.  Simply employing them will not open the floodgates of financial support.  Technology and social media simply provide more efficient ways of connecting with people.  Give people relevant content, build relationships and without overdoing it provide them with a simple means to support you, and the support you seek will come naturally.

November 25, 2009 | Rand | Comments Closed

The Economic Challenge for Nonprofits

Nonprofit organizations are experiencing a challenge today that hasn’t been felt in America since the economic downturn of the late 1970’s. The good news is that it has happened before and nonprofits should be better prepared to handle it than they were thirty years ago. The bad news is that the answers of thirty years ago are virtually irrelevant.

Many of today’s nonprofit leaders grew up so to speak in an era where traditional development methods such as direct mail, telephone solicitation, newspapers, and television provided the answers necessary to bring in more funds. Today direct mail has been replaced by email, fewer individuals have “land line” telephones, newspaper readership has plummeted, and many people are spending more time online than tuned in.

This leaves every nonprofit playing on a level field and looking for answers. Add to this the fact that in a poor economy, more people are dependent upon charities which due to the poor economy have fewer resources. Even the government has limited resources, creating more competition among nonprofits trying to access the pool of available funds.
New answers have to be found. “Outside of the box” thinking must be encouraged to find solutions. It is only logical that the solution of a problem requires more intelligence and imagination than that which was applied during its creation. During this economic downturn, many nonprofits will come to realize that traditional thinking is the problem, not the solution.

Take for example the traditional line of thinking regarding corporate partnerships. Over the years, some nonprofit organizations simply wanted corporations to hand them money and go away, trusting that it would be spent effectively. Now that corporate profits are harder to come by, corporations are becoming more selective about whom they support. This change re-defines the relationship between sponsor and charity. Those that recognize this change and play to it have a better chance of receiving continuing support. The simple truth is that there is an almost endless list of worthy causes and no company can support them all.

Another area is communications. Every nonprofit organization should have a newsletter for their supporters because they want to know what’s going on with their favorite cause. Because of the cost involved with traditional print and postage newsletters, and because 75% of Americans are online, e-newsletters are the most economical and easiest option. But avoid becoming a nuisance. They want to know what’s going on… but they don’t want to be solicited for a donation on a weekly basis. Your newsletter must have content that the reader will consider valuable or it will not be read.

One emerging trend is to combine the corporate partnership concept with the e-newsletter. One firm, Corande Publishing, offers free monthly email newsletter services to qualifying nonprofits as a corporate partner. The service is free, all inclusive except for your content, and supporters of your nonprofit can generate funds for your programs by subscribing free to your email newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.corande.com

In any case, those organizations which get outside of their comfort zone to embrace new technology, new trends and new relationships will likely pull through the economic downturn ready to take advantage of better times on the other end. Those organizations that adopt a siege mentality in their comfort zone of traditional answers, and time-worn approaches are likely to suffer for it, to the detriment of their cause and their organization.

Think about it…

November 23, 2009 | Rand | Comments Closed

Why is America Being Governed by a Minority Political Group?

The Question:
How did Liberals, who only comprise about 22% of America’s population, manage to take control of the United States government, when 78% of Americans (Conservatives and Independents) don’t really agree with the Liberal Agenda?

My Observation:
Political Activism. The Democrat Party is controlled by an activist Liberal core.  This core of activist special interest groups, provide financial and field support to the Democrat Party out of proportion with their physical numbers.  (Think ACORN, Labor Unions, etc.)  In exchange the party provides political power and financial support in the form of entitlements to those groups.  (Think Acorn Funding, Davis-Bacon Act, protectionist legislation.)  These Liberal special interest groups comprise the shock troops of the Democrat Party and they have taken over that party based upon their activism and willingness to intimidate opponents both verbally and physically.  (Think crowds shouting down speakers, ACORN Buses unloading in front of homes, Union strong-arm tactics, etc.)  There are historical examples of social radicals using similar tactics to take over political parties and extending their control into government  in early twentieth century Europe.  Activist Liberals control the National Democrat Party because Moderate and Conservative Democrats left a leadership vacuum.

Smart Politics. Most political observers will admit, the current Administration and the Democrat Party owe their victory in the 2008 election to their ability to sway independent voters in large numbers to their side of the aisle.  In truth the shift was probably less towards the Democrat cause than it was away from the Bush Administration.  It was no accident that Democrats campaigned on a platform of “change”.  The Democrat Party started running against the Bush Administration at the outset of his second term.  After four years of negative news reports and political mudslinging at George W. Bush, Americans wanted change so badly that, as someone noted, the Democrat Party was guaranteed to win as long as it didn’t nominate a child molester.  In order to close the deal and assuage independent concerns, the Democrats promised centrist change, an end to legislative entitlements, limits on lobbying, and transparency in government.  All noble promises to end practices that everyone agrees should end.  In the face of this moving rhetoric, voters conveniently forgot that Democrats were as guilty of those same practices as anyone in the Bush Administration.  Democrats also decried all connections with radical liberalism as false exaggerations, while at the same time quietly marshaling those forces to their side.  (Think intimidating poll workers, falsified voter registrations, untraceable campaign donations, etc.)

The Consequences
Now, after almost a year of the current administration’s definition of change, many Independent voters whose ballots shifted power to the Democrat party are beginning to wonder if they were hoodwinked by campaign rhetoric into backing an agenda they weren’t even aware of.  The centrist Democrat government they voted for has taken a Liberal path of uncontrolled spending, unhindered lobbying, closed-door crafting of legislation, and systemic entitlements.  America has a list of liberal activist czars with no voter accountability in appointed leadership positions working quietly to transform America in accord with their agenda.

Conservatives compose about 44% of America’s population and independents compose about 34%.  Both groups need to wake up, get politically active, put petty differences aside and unify to put an end to government by a minority with a socialist agenda.  There’s ample historical evidence of the dangers of allowing it to continue.

Think about it.

November 17, 2009 | Rand | Comments Closed

Nonprofit Organizations and the WADILT Virus

I recently attended a state-level conference of several hundred leaders of a well-known national service organization.

I attended this meeting as a representative of my company and during the course of the meeting had the opportunity to meet and talk with a number of leaders at various levels.  I came away with the thought that many nonprofit organizations presently facing financial and personnel support challenges are, as one of those leaders described it to me, “their own worst enemy”.  Here’s what I mean…

Background:
Without going into detail, my firm provides nonprofit organizations with free e-newsletter services that provide the supporters of that organization the opportunity to raise funds by the simple act of subscribing to the organization’s monthly email newsletter.  Under this free program, a nonprofit with 10,000 e-newsletter subscribers can help their organization raise approximately $30,000/year in funds by simply subscribing free to their e-newsletter.

For example, an organization with 20,000 members could potentially raise $60,000/year for their programs… at no out-of-pocket expense to the organization or their supporters.

A case study:
Based upon its membership, a client nonprofit organization could be raising an additional $100,000/year for programs through their e-newsletter.  In spite of this the leaders of this organization, with a few exceptions, refuse to actively promote their e-newsletter to their membership.  Even their staff repeatedly neglects to provide fresh e-newsletter content for their membership to read.  A reasonable person, seeing the opportunity for a nonprofit to raise $100,000, would ask the question, “Why don’t they?”

Here’s my diagnosis:
The only answer I’ve identified is that the majority of the leaders and staff of this organization suffer from an acute case of what I call “The WADILT Virus”.  WADILT = “We’ve Always Done It Like That”.

The symptoms of “WADILT” are obvious.  Leadership suffering with this condition is sluggish to adapt to change, indifferent to new ideas and increasingly unconcerned with the changing needs of the community they serve.   Leaders become more focused on preserving the status quo than in fulfilling the organization’s purpose.  In effect, their purpose has changed from serving, to being served and from promoting the organization and its cause, to promoting themselves and their position.  They see any change, regardless of its potential, only in terms of a threat to their position, authority or influence.  They resist any threat of change actively or passively as the situation demands.  Subordinates then follow that leadership.  The operational philosophy becomes “What’s good for me is good for the organization” in lieu of “What’s good for the organization is good for me”.  In the absence of reason for rejecting change, they adopt some version of “We’ve always done it like that” as their battle cry.

Treatment:
“WADILT”  is a pervasive malady which, like a cancer, must be treated seriously or over time the organization will waste away as its irrelevance among those it serves continues to grow.  Successful treatment generally requires a leadership transplant to return the organization to a focus on service to others, at which time a healthy recovery can begin.  Without treatment “WADILT” can be terminal to organizations and careers.

Note: Occasionally leadership suffering from “WADILT” realizes the seriousness of their condition and, out of a sense of self-preservation, embraces the change needed to save their organization.  In my observation, this happens infrequently enough to be classified as Divine Intervention.

Conclusion:
WADILT is not exclusive to nonprofit organizations, but can be found to some degree in virtually every business, trade and professional organization.  It is human nature to approach situations from the perspective of “what’s in it for me” or “how will this affect me”.  Eventually, without precautions being taken to the contrary, this perspective results in power struggles which tend to shift the focus off of service to customers (internal and external) and place it on self promotion.  “WADILT” sets in, office politics take charge and the shift towards irrelevance begins.

Think about it…

November 16, 2009 | Rand | 2 Comments »

The Conflict between Human Rights and Social Entitlements

I recently found myself engaged in a discourse regarding human rights…

In America our basic human rights were spelled out by the Founding Fathers as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Since that time political leaders, generally to attract political support, have continuously added to that list. Even the United Nations has gotten involved, expanding the definition further.  But the core question remains, among all these definitions of human rights, what is the essential difference between a right and an entitlement?

Here is the defining principle as I see it…

1)    Human rights are not provided by others, they are  God-given.  You are born with them and they are inherently yours as a human being.  In other words you don’t need a government to provide you with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, they are yours by right of existence.  They may require protection from outside parties, but they don’t require provision by outside parties.  They also don’t conflict with one another except in the extreme… (For example if your pursuit of happiness requires you to assault people).  The simple and effective guide is that one human being’s rights end, where another’s begin.

2)    Entitlements, on the other hand, are provided by others.  Education, Health Care, Jobs, Housing, Food, etc. are social entitlements.  They involve facilities and services provided, at least in part, at someone else’s expense and effort.  While a specific entitlement for those incapable of providing for themselves may be a worthy goal for a society, by their very nature they tend to conflict with core human rights.  Because of this they violate the rule of thumb that your rights end where someone else’s rights start.

For example:

To provide everyone with healthcare requires money to pay doctors and nurses, build facilities, transport patients, etc.  That necessitates taxation which is essentially the legal confiscation of financial resources from citizens through coercion.  (You can be sent to jail for tax evasion). Thus you’re denying those taxed the liberty to use their resources, the personal fruits of their labor, as they see fit.  Add to that provisions that require the purchase of medical insurance and you’ve denied liberty to those who don’t wish to for whatever reason.

To provide any entitlement you by necessity must deny others some degree of personal liberty.  This conflict exists for virtually every entitlement  touted as a “right”.  While a society may elect to sacrifice some degree of freedom to provide certain entitlements to those who cannot provide for themselves, an ever increasing list of entitlements will inevitably  overwhelm that society’s ability to provide.

At some point every society must decide between more personal freedom or more government entitlements.  At some point a line in the sand must be drawn.  Healthy societies usually base that line upon ability.  The elderly and children, the sick and disabled, and others who cannot provide for themselves are helped, while those who choose not to provide for themselves are allowed to suffer the consequences of that choice.

History indicates that societies that have chosen entitlements (socialism) over personal freedom eventually must revert to a free society or economically perish.  As evidence the Soviet Union couldn’t make Socialism work with total and absolute control over every aspect of its society at literally the point of a gun for the better part of a century.  Countries that have embraced personal freedom, on the other hand, continue to develop.  What further proof of inevitable failure is needed?

Observe the degree of personal freedom in countries where universal government health care, etc.  is provided.  Do they have the individual right to bear arms?  How much freedom of the press exists?  How much taxation does the population bear?

Think about it…

November 15, 2009 | Rand | 1 Comment »