We packed up and headed to New York this weekend with my wife and daughter to visit my family who all reside in the Buffalo area. We went to the Italian Festival which is a great experience. This is something I've been attending since I was a child and I have some incredible memories. The town is a small town about an hour outside of Buffalo, but the Festival is big and people come from all around to attend. It's nothing fancy, just lots of food, drink, performances by Frank Sinatra impersonators and a bocce ball tournament of course.
I haven't been to the Festival in several years and it's funny the things you tend to notice the older you get. That being said, this thing makes more money year after year. We can't get enough of it...hell, we basically went up to visit family around this weekend so we could attend. I ran into a great fundraiser there who now resides on the West coast but is originally from the area. We had a great conversation about fundraising in the world today, the challenges faced with it and how to thrive in an environment like this. Basically, we solved the worlds problems over a cappuccino and a cannoli. What it comes down to is staying aggressive, doing so in creative ways, but doing your homework and staying aggressive. The Italian Festival is a great example, they continue to ramp up their marketing efforts and realize that it pays off year after year as their profits rise. Granted, there are things they can do to create more revenue, but it works for them and no one is arguing with that.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
A Classic Case of Founder's Syndrome
I have a colleague that runs a small nonprofit organization that is on the verge of bringing their programs and fundraising efforts to a national stage, but is having issues with Founder's Syndrome. For those of you who are not familiar with Founder's Syndrome it occurs when a nonprofit is shaped by a strong founder and loses track of a more general mission. Transitions can be difficult when the founder moves on, even with good intentions on all sides. He's worrying about bringing in board members with national stature, deep pockets and incredible connections and the few founders are concerned with local public image and reaching out to the next county, not keeping in mind the ultimate goal. He is playing his cards correctly, keeping them close and continuing to constantly bring up discussions about a national outlook, but as you can imagine it's extremely difficult. He has also worked through setting up a new strategic plan for the organization with the founders, keeping their minds on a broad reach which has been successful.
We constantly bounce ideas back and forth off of each other and one topic that came up is how to effectively "plaque and pack" a founder that has lost focus. After a lengthy talk we kept circling back around to the fact that these men and women have been around the block before. They know when they are being asked to leave but don't know how to, or simply don't want to do it to preserve the integrity of the organization when doing it. So the question remains, how do you get around that? Carter McNamara addresses a lot of these issues in an article he wrote titled Founder's Syndrome: How Corporations Suffer -- and Can Recover . It's written well and answers a lot of questions if you ever find yourself in that situation. Not a fun place to be.
We constantly bounce ideas back and forth off of each other and one topic that came up is how to effectively "plaque and pack" a founder that has lost focus. After a lengthy talk we kept circling back around to the fact that these men and women have been around the block before. They know when they are being asked to leave but don't know how to, or simply don't want to do it to preserve the integrity of the organization when doing it. So the question remains, how do you get around that? Carter McNamara addresses a lot of these issues in an article he wrote titled Founder's Syndrome: How Corporations Suffer -- and Can Recover . It's written well and answers a lot of questions if you ever find yourself in that situation. Not a fun place to be.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Paper or Pixels
I wrote an article for the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) back in 2007 about the emerging argument over written newsletters vs. e-newsletters. At the time I was working for an organization that didn't have too much money to spend on development and constituent relations (a mistake made by several organizations these days). It's interesting to see where we were just two short years ago as we dawn on the age of social networking, a world I'm diving into head-first these days. Thought it would be interesting to share....
It occurred to me, after an extensive and lively discussion with my colleagues that there still remains a gap about the Information Age’s eternal question: What gets your message across better—print or electronic newsletters?
I think it is fair to say that the pronouncements on the death of paper are premature. To be sure, there are “pure-play” web and e-newsletters in existence, but it’s equally true that several pure-play Web publishers have added paper-based newsletter distribution as well, for many of the reasons to be spelled out in this article, including customer preference.
I found that the question of paper-based delivery versus electronic media is less about the “value” of the information than it is about tangibility. Paper provides a tangible reminder of the information and its source. If you think about the ability to loan out the information (think libraries—yes, even in the Information Age, they still thrive) and the casual pass-along opportunities paper provides, its value grows further still. I have worked with organizations that have done research on business-to-business newsletter subscribers, and it shows that 83 percent of newsletter subscribers retain back issues of newsletters (69 percent save the ones that come in paper format, and 22 percent save electronic ones). It also turns out that the best way to build a subscriber base is through distribution of sample print newsletters. Surveys show that 34 percent of prospects became subscribers after receiving a print newsletter sample, but just 6 percent of prospects who received sample e-mail newsletters subscribed. Interestingly, six in 10 newsletter subscribers still prefer to receive a print newsletter mailed directly to them. That said, the number of subscribers who would prefer to receive their newsletter electronically is growing. Of those receiving print newsletters today, 47 percent said they would prefer e-mail delivery, representing a 10 percent shift from paper to e-delivery.
I also found that our colleagues working with smaller trade association whose members are social and community economic organizations where the average member is 55, male, socially conscious, moderately computer literate (though many think they have a higher acuity than they really do) are dealing with a unique situation, or maybe not so unique.
Most provide a weekly or monthly e-newsletter that grows in subscription and readership rates. An analysis of who is opening the electronic newsletter shows that an average of about 50 percent are executives and 50 percent are mid- to low-level management. The overall open rates tend to hover around 67 percent.
But there has recently been a call to return to the “old-fashioned” printed newsletter. So many have started to snail mail a bimonthly newsletter. It seems the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The printed format allows them to provide more in-depth coverage. Preliminary reader polls are showing that an average of 89 percent of the print-newsletter readers are executives or CEOs, but only 50 percent of the same e-newsletter readers are high-level executives.
What does this tell us?
The popularity of the printed newsletter surprised me, as I too thought that most would prefer to get quick information through an e-newsletter. But I was not considering my whole audience or these subtle nuances that can make a printed newsletter desirable:
• It is tangible. It can be held and felt.
• It is portable, since you can throw it into a briefcase and take it home or read it on the train. Research shows that constituents are annoyed at the idea of printing out an electronic newsletter.
• The e-newsletter was getting lost among the myriad of electronic information members receive. The “old-fashioned” approach actually made organizations stand out more.
Now, after being force fed those numbers, this is not to say that the electronic based newsletter doesn’t have its place in the non-profit world. Simply putting something on paper rather than using much more efficient and cost-saving e-mail doesn’t make your message more valuable. This may have been true years ago, but not in the world as we know it today. My colleagues working with grassroots organizations may have budget issues that the larger trade associations don’t have to deal with. For some organizations, sending out a biweekly newsletter via snail mail is simply out of the question, but doing it via e-mail would be a no-brainer. The savings are considerable, but are the constituents satisfied? Most say yes, that they are spending their money wisely, and polls show that they are overwhelming satisfied with the way the organization is using their donations. The consensus is that even if they have a rather “old-fashioned” constituent base, at the request of many of their members, they are more often switching from paper to strictly e-mail because it portrays a more cost-saving way of spending their money.
I guess this is a long way of saying that whether you choose electronic or print delivery really depends on your audience, or what you can afford. If you can afford to do both print and e-newsletters, you have a considerable advantage in the market by covering both preferences. Otherwise, you have to weigh the cost involved with the production, postage and time spent the print version against taking a risk in reaching constituents who do not find the electronic version as valuable as the print version.
So have we truly answered the burning questions here or does the argument continue? In my opinion, it comes down to knowing your constituents. As with many issues in our world, if you turn your attention to the individuals and organizations you support, only then will you truly get your answer.
It occurred to me, after an extensive and lively discussion with my colleagues that there still remains a gap about the Information Age’s eternal question: What gets your message across better—print or electronic newsletters?
I think it is fair to say that the pronouncements on the death of paper are premature. To be sure, there are “pure-play” web and e-newsletters in existence, but it’s equally true that several pure-play Web publishers have added paper-based newsletter distribution as well, for many of the reasons to be spelled out in this article, including customer preference.
I found that the question of paper-based delivery versus electronic media is less about the “value” of the information than it is about tangibility. Paper provides a tangible reminder of the information and its source. If you think about the ability to loan out the information (think libraries—yes, even in the Information Age, they still thrive) and the casual pass-along opportunities paper provides, its value grows further still. I have worked with organizations that have done research on business-to-business newsletter subscribers, and it shows that 83 percent of newsletter subscribers retain back issues of newsletters (69 percent save the ones that come in paper format, and 22 percent save electronic ones). It also turns out that the best way to build a subscriber base is through distribution of sample print newsletters. Surveys show that 34 percent of prospects became subscribers after receiving a print newsletter sample, but just 6 percent of prospects who received sample e-mail newsletters subscribed. Interestingly, six in 10 newsletter subscribers still prefer to receive a print newsletter mailed directly to them. That said, the number of subscribers who would prefer to receive their newsletter electronically is growing. Of those receiving print newsletters today, 47 percent said they would prefer e-mail delivery, representing a 10 percent shift from paper to e-delivery.
I also found that our colleagues working with smaller trade association whose members are social and community economic organizations where the average member is 55, male, socially conscious, moderately computer literate (though many think they have a higher acuity than they really do) are dealing with a unique situation, or maybe not so unique.
Most provide a weekly or monthly e-newsletter that grows in subscription and readership rates. An analysis of who is opening the electronic newsletter shows that an average of about 50 percent are executives and 50 percent are mid- to low-level management. The overall open rates tend to hover around 67 percent.
But there has recently been a call to return to the “old-fashioned” printed newsletter. So many have started to snail mail a bimonthly newsletter. It seems the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The printed format allows them to provide more in-depth coverage. Preliminary reader polls are showing that an average of 89 percent of the print-newsletter readers are executives or CEOs, but only 50 percent of the same e-newsletter readers are high-level executives.
What does this tell us?
The popularity of the printed newsletter surprised me, as I too thought that most would prefer to get quick information through an e-newsletter. But I was not considering my whole audience or these subtle nuances that can make a printed newsletter desirable:
• It is tangible. It can be held and felt.
• It is portable, since you can throw it into a briefcase and take it home or read it on the train. Research shows that constituents are annoyed at the idea of printing out an electronic newsletter.
• The e-newsletter was getting lost among the myriad of electronic information members receive. The “old-fashioned” approach actually made organizations stand out more.
Now, after being force fed those numbers, this is not to say that the electronic based newsletter doesn’t have its place in the non-profit world. Simply putting something on paper rather than using much more efficient and cost-saving e-mail doesn’t make your message more valuable. This may have been true years ago, but not in the world as we know it today. My colleagues working with grassroots organizations may have budget issues that the larger trade associations don’t have to deal with. For some organizations, sending out a biweekly newsletter via snail mail is simply out of the question, but doing it via e-mail would be a no-brainer. The savings are considerable, but are the constituents satisfied? Most say yes, that they are spending their money wisely, and polls show that they are overwhelming satisfied with the way the organization is using their donations. The consensus is that even if they have a rather “old-fashioned” constituent base, at the request of many of their members, they are more often switching from paper to strictly e-mail because it portrays a more cost-saving way of spending their money.
I guess this is a long way of saying that whether you choose electronic or print delivery really depends on your audience, or what you can afford. If you can afford to do both print and e-newsletters, you have a considerable advantage in the market by covering both preferences. Otherwise, you have to weigh the cost involved with the production, postage and time spent the print version against taking a risk in reaching constituents who do not find the electronic version as valuable as the print version.
So have we truly answered the burning questions here or does the argument continue? In my opinion, it comes down to knowing your constituents. As with many issues in our world, if you turn your attention to the individuals and organizations you support, only then will you truly get your answer.
Bullsh***ing With the Best of Em
I realize that in my world you have to be a good bullshitter, plain and simple, at least to a certain degree. I also realize something else, something that at times gets me in hot water with the circle of professionals I run with. This economy is truly doing wonders for the nonprofit world. You see, here's how things break down for any good fundraiser. a few years ago when everyone was fat, rich and happy it wasn't exactly difficult to raise money for a worthy cause. Every little start-up nonprofit in every little small town in America was not doing so bad. Even the ones that were duplicating services seemed to at least be able to keep the lights on. Then it happened...we all knew it was going to happen and it did, things went belly-up. Nonprofits around the globe are closing their doors and any organization that was duplicating services have now begun to merge. This means that these organizations are no longer competing against each other for the same dollar, but they are joining forces and competing against another organization that provides different services or represents a different portion of the public sector for that dollar. The programs that are surviving, I dare to even say thriving are the programs that spent time, brainpower and some funding on building the infrastructure from the ground up. Anyone can hire a development officer to come in, go through their list of philanthropist, raise some money over the course of a couple years and the program comes to an end...BUT, the smart organizations already invested in their programs and will come out of this on top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
