Which charity brand will be the first to jump on admin costs?

Several charity folks have already talked to me about this week’s Third Sector Women (TWS) networking and learning event and about how the conversation turned to the difficult issue of fundraising for expenses.

I didn’t attend but One speaker strongly suggested that the charities in the audience should all be braver collectively and just be honest about what it costs to run their organisations.  Yes, but do we need to be shouting about it specifically?

Within commercial product marketing it’s well-known that if a company or sector competes on price alone, then that’s all the target audience ends up paying attention to.  Think Easy Jet and Ryan Air.

So for charities to increasingly talk about their own expense ratios, we run the risk of raising the profile of this one, very singular and grossly misrepresentative aspect of what the sector actually achieves.  That said, if there is a misunderstanding around charity expenses amongst donors, we do have an obligation to clarify the situation in order to underpin the credibility of our future fundraising activity.

If we’re all in this together, what’s in it for me?

Sounds counter-intuitive doesn’t it?  Surely our selfless motivations, if  we really believe that “we are all in it together” should prompt us to ask “where can I help?”.

But we’re not all altruistic to the point of self-sacrifice because increasingly we can’t afford to be.  Perhaps the most realistic expectation is to ask “what’s in it for us?” where “us” means our nearest and dearest as well as our broader community and associations.

Why am I talking about this philosophical stuff, you may ask…?

Because if we as organisations want anything from other individuals or organisations, I believe we need to understand the distinction between the above positions very clearly.  There is a tried and tested marketing concept called the value equation which suggests that in order to elicit the action we want from target audiences, we have to offer something commensurateand meaningful to them in order for them to perceive value in doing it.

The art of good conversation (and still getting stuff done!)

I had a great conversation with the very affable Steve Bridger (@stevebridger) earlier this week about blogging and engaging with people online.  And it made me think about why this conversation seemed ‘great’ in comparison to others that you either try to rush to get finished or dread having to hold at all.

For a start we chatted about personal stuff without having to try to be personable.  We talked about work and shared a few topical stories which segued nicely into the meat of the conversation around blogging and engagement.  And here we talked about what we needed to achieve, some ideas on how to best move forwards and some short-term follow-up actions.

It certainly seemed effortless (to me at least) but experience tells me that having a productive and pleasant conversation doesn’t generally happen by accident so we must have done something specific for me to feel that it was time well spent.  So what will I be doing or at least thinking about sub-consciously to ensure all my conversations have this beneficial mix of fun, productivity and personality?

• I’m going to listen more to what’s being said and try to understand why before opening my mouth
• I’m going to talk about people and the world and shared circumstances or interests.  It’s not always appropriate to natter or gossip endlessly but I’ve reached a point in life where I consider it a failing if I can’t find 10 minutes to stop being a Director and be genuinely friendly with people
• If I need to achieve something I’m going to prepare ‘objectives’ in advance even it’s only one thing committed to memory so that I can be clear and not waste the time of the other party
• I will never be a power networker; sizing up someone’s use to me in the first 90 seconds and then turning my back on them if they can’t advance my plans for world domination
• I will always try to be me.  As a younger, ambitious corporate animal I would apply whatever persona I thought the other party wanted to see and hear.  I probably did the same when trying to impress new people (why do we do that?) and certainly when trying to amaze a young lady!
• I’m not going to pretend to agree when I don’t or fawn to curry favour but I will be civil, professional and polite wherever I can
• Lastly, I will try to get agreement to any actions if relevant and then get on and do them.

What do you do to ensure your conversations are enriching both personally and professionally?  And whilst I welcome comments and thoughts from everyone,  please don’t suggest that because ‘time is money’ we should not waste time with pleasantries… to many of us life is more than an opportunity to make money!

Even if you don’t comment, have a think about the conversations you really enjoy; if you could replicate some of that magic, wouldn’t life be just that bit better for everyone.

The secret to a great case study

Do you want to know how to easily write the ideal case study?  So would I.  Unfortunately, in my experience there are too many variables for it to be ‘quick and easy’.

I’m not going to name names here but in the last fortnight, in the process of helping charity clients to write case studies I’ve come across many articles, e-books and blogs that all suggest a magic formula to what should be included in a good case study.

Image from Brainstuck.com

To be fair, lots of what I found makes sense in that they should be succinct wherever possible, outcomes-focused and in today’s multi-media world should contain images and even video links to show your work or outcomes in action.  I found some particularly sound advice over at ngo media – if you appreciate an experienced view overlaid with common sense, this is a good place to start.

But here’s why I disagree with those who purport to having THE formula for a great case study – and it’s really obvious if you think about it…

Not all audiences want to see, hear or know the same things about us or our work.

Is timeliness the key to good charity (and marketing) campaign messages?

Honestly, no.  It’s certainly one of the key considerations but there’s more to driving action than timeliness.

After the UK Chancellor’s budget speech last week, the cost of petrol and diesel fuel is to rise even further.  One of the organisations I follow is the Fair Fuel UK campaign and I wanted to share with you – in it’s entirety below – the email message they sent out to supporters following the Chancellor’s announcement.

If I forget for a moment that along with everybody else who drives, I hate paying extortionate fuel prices, I think this simple, plain text email campaign ticks a lot of the boxes that good charity campaigning messages should.

• It’s linked to previous action taken on my part (ie; supporting the campaign) and therefore acknowledges me and my contribution as opposed to simply being on a mailing list
• It’s a planned part of a larger campaign programme and uses consistent themes that recipients will recognise
• The copy is personable and written from an empathetic perspective – perhaps we really are all in it together – appealing to the target audience

How not to do marketing 2 – shock and disruption

Being a bit harder-hitting in our marketing can be a powerful way to create an emotional trigger to encourage action.  That said, it’s also at the riskier end of communications techniques because there is a greater potential to shock or offend recipients rather than inspire them to action.

Anti-fur clothing campaigners like PeTA famously use shock tactics (and lots of stripped off celebrities) to get across their point about animal cruelty and appeal to the audience’s raw emotion.  But, as we know, this doesn’t always work in their favour as even sympathetic audiences can be turned off by communications they deem have simply gone too far.

Here’s a less extreme example.

How not to do marketing – exhibit 1

Marketing is simple in principle: deliver your message to an audience that wants or needs to hear it via a channel they pay attention to and in timely manner.

OK, there’s also engagement to think about but these core principles pretty much underpin that too. So, this week’s blog focuses on the first of a couple of cracking examples of organisations getting it wrong.

Exhibit 1

Here is a letter from my MP in response to my enjoining him to support the FairFuel campaign last month via an organised email campaign.

First up, in spite of my repeatedly stated preference for email correspondence, it is a letter. Sent through the mail, wasting paper and taxpayer money.

Second, the letter does not directly address the questions asked – missing the point of me contacting him in the first place.  It does contain a caveat sentence which explains that because so many constituents contacted the MP about this issue, the letter contained only a generic response.