2010 Missions Leadership & Development Conference

Next week I’ll spend four days with more than 170 nonprofit executives and development professionals at Russ Reid’s 20th annual Missions Leadership & Development Conference. 

I’m looking forward to this for many reasons.  It’s going to be a great time of learning.  Sessions will cover topics like major giving, social media, digital fundraising, leadership, etc.  There will be 170 focused, dedicated ministry leaders who are eager to network,  learn and fellowship.  I’m looking forward to meeting new people, and re-connecting with old friends. 

And I’m looking forward to enjoying the beautiful Southern California sun.  The conference takes place in Newport Beach, CA, and it doesn’t get much better than that.

There should be some great sessions, new insights, and valuable fundraising and leadership tips to share.  I’ll do my best to blog from the conference (at the very least, I’ll tweet some relevant points).

Are You Asking Enough?

This article by Russell N. James III, J.D., PH.D., originally ran in the print edition of AFP’s Advancing Philanthropy (Jan/Feb 2010 Issue).

It’s a great piece discussing how frequent is too frequent for fundraising solicitations – everyone you ask will have a different answer.  Twice a year is just right.  Four times is best.  10 times.  More than once is too much – people will stop giving the more you ask.

As you’ll see from the research, the more often you ask, the more often you get.  And increasing the frequency of solicitations, while it may “annoy” some people, doesn’t actually depress giving.

Are You Asking Often Enough
By Russell N. James III, J.D., PH.D.

Three new research projects have looked at the role of charitable requests in encouraging generosity.  The results?  Asking matters, and you may not be asking often enough.

Professors James Andreoni from University of California, San Diego and Abigail Payne from Manchester University in Ontario investigated the problem of “crowding out.”  Crowding out is the idea that when the government gives new money to a charity, donors may see that as a reason to reduce their own giving.  When charitable gifts fall, the new government revenue has “crowded out” some charitable revenue.  [This offset makes the government grant less than 100 percent effective.]  Tracking the tax returns of more than 8,000 charities from 1985 to 2002, Andreoni and Payne found crowding out, with a $1 increase in government grants reducing charitable donations by about 72 cents.

Why did this happen?  Reduced fundraising.  Depending on the organization type, 70 to 100 percent of this crowding out effect came from reduced fundraising expenditures.  Organizations responded to the new government grants by shifting resources away from fundraising, resulting in a drop in charitable gifts.  By reducing fundraising expenditures, the organizations penalized themselves, reducing their future revenue and reducing the net benefit of the government grant.

In the Netherlands, professors Pamala Wiepking and Ineke Maas investigated how social connections influenced charitable generosity.  Analyzing a survey of more than 1,300 people, they found that social people who had many friends and acquaintances from a wide variety of backgrounds also made more charitable gifts.  Why?  Because of their large social networks, these people received more solicitations for donations.  Their greater generosity was due mostly to their being asked to give more frequently, not from any innate difference in their personality.

Clearly, being asked is important, but what happens when people are asked too often?  In an other study from the Netherlands, Professors Merel van Diepen, Bas Donkers and Philip Hans Franses looked at this question.  Past studies had shown that receiving too many charitable solicitations in the mail caused annoyance.  This study went a step beyond to compare this irritation with actual donating behavior.  For their experiment, the professors got the cooperation of the five largest charities in Netherlands, representing 30 percent of the country’s direct mail charitable revenues.  They picked donors at random from the regular mailing lists to receive up to five extra mailings during the same week (each from a different charity).  Afterward, they sent a questionnaire and also tracked actual giving behavior.  Consistent with previous findings, the substantial increase in mailings did cause a slight increase in annoyance.  However, this irritation did not affect actual donating behavior.  Asking too frequently created a risk of irritation, but not an irritation that actually reduced giving.

These research findings suggest the importance, and limited risk, of asking.  Making charitable requests is an essential part of encouraging generosity.  Who are you encouraging to be generous today?

Citations: International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 180-188; Social Forces, 87, 1973-96; “Is Crowding Out Due Entirely to Fundraising?” Journal of Public Economics [forthcoming].

Russell N. James III, J.D., Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the Institute for Nonprofit Organizations at teh University of Georgia in Athens, Ga.

Making an Impression vs. Being Impressed

While I’m sure John didn’t intend this article from GiANT Impact specifically for development professionals and nonprofit executives, his insights are highly valuable in our roles as professional connectors.  We can accomplish so much more by focusing on others rather than ourselves. 

By John C. Maxwell

Admired for her beauty, Jennie Jerome (Winston Churchill’s mother) glided through the loftiest social circles in Great Britain. Once, on consecutive nights, Ms. Jerome dined with England’s premier politicians: Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and his chief rival, William Gladstone. When questioned about her impressions of the two men, Ms. Jerome made the following observation: 

“When I left the dining room after sitting next to Gladstone, I thought he was the cleverest man in England. But when I sat next to Disraeli I left feeling that I was the cleverest woman.”

Perhaps you know leaders like Gladstone-confident individuals who exude wit, intelligence, and charisma. Whenever you’re around them, you cannot help but notice their charm…because they make every effort to parade their brilliance in front of you. However, I’ll wager that you’d prefer to follow someone like Disraeli, a leader who would rather draw out the best in you than strut his or her personal greatness.

In relationships, be impressed with others instead of trying to make an impression. Throttle back on the urge to make your presence felt, and instead look for ways to esteem those around you. By expressing genuine interest in the people in your life, you’ll win friends and gain favor.

The 30-Second Rule

I’ve developed a simple rule in relationships to help me shift away from a selfish vantage point. Within the first 30 seconds of a conversation, I say something encouraging to the other person. Giving out compliments focuses me on the value of the other person and prevents me from being self-absorbed. Here are a few principles I’ve found helpful in following the 30-second rule:

1) Give Others the “Triple A” Treatment:
o Attention
o Affirmation
o Appreciation

Gossips speak endlessly about others, and bores talk only of themselves. A brilliant conversationalist is someone who speaks to you about yourself. These thoughtful persons attract friends and reap the benefits of likeability.

2) Remember that the 30-Second Rule Gives Energy

People are energized and motivated when their leaders value them for who they are. On the other hand, they quickly disengage when they feel anonymous. Speaking encouraging words does wonders for a leader when it comes to inspiring a team and earning its loyalty.

3) Practicing the 30-Second Rule Positions You for Success with People

Benjamin Franklin realized this truth when he wrote the following note to John Paul Jones:

“Hereafter, if you should observe an occasion to give your officers and friends a little more praise than is their due, and confess more fault than you can justly be charged with, you will only become the sooner for it, a great captain. Criticizing and censuring almost everyone you have to do with will diminish friends, increase enemies, and thereby hurt your affairs.”

When we add to others, they are drawn to our side, but when we belittle others, they withdraw from our influence.

4) Spend Time Creating an Encouraging Thought for Everyone You Know.

Before I meet with people, I pause to think about something encouraging I can say to them. This practice isn’t complicated, but it does take some time, intentionality, and discipline. And the reward for practicing it is huge.

SUMMARY

Too many people, when in the presence of others, search for ways to make themselves look good. The key to the 30-Second Rule is reversing this practice. When spending time with people, search for ways to make them look good. Doing so uplifts them and ultimately raises their opinion of you as well.

Nonprofit Watchdogs Have Sights Set on Wyclef Jean’s Yele Haiti Foundation

Here we go again . . . just a few days into the relief effort to help suffering Haitians, and already, the watchdog groups are vilifying Wyclef Jean’s Yele Haiti Foundation for what they say are “concerning” expenditures on the organization’s tax documents.  The questionable expenditures, according to this Washington Post article, amount to several hundred thousand dollars paid to companies owned by Jean and another Yele board member for media buys, event entertainment and rental of office space.  All of this was done with prior consent of the entire Yele board (as indicated by their 2006 IRS 990).  Additionally, Yele received these services at below market rates (again, per their 2006 IRS 990).  Oh, and have I mentioned that these are all issues from 2006?  The organization is required to undergo an audit every year, file an IRS 990 every year, and have board approval of the audit and 990 every year.  But now because Haiti has become a hot button issue, the watchdog groups are up in arms about this non-story.

What’s the big deal? 

They (the “experts”) would have you believe that there is something fishy about 33% of Yele’s 2006 revenue being spent to pay for the items listed above instead of “providing benefits to Haitians.”   Maybe they’re right. 

$400,000 (33% of Yele’s 2006 revenue, approximately) can go a long way in Haiti – to “provide benefits to Haitians.”  I’m sure it could provide a warm meal or clean water for thousands of Haitians.  Once. 

But isn’t it possible that same $400,000, spent to purchase television airtime to run public service announcements about the plight of Haitians, and to raise awareness through charity concerts (featuring Wyclef Jean), would garner such significant public awareness that it could result in a long-term benefit of greater than $400,000 to the people of Haiti? 

Interestingly, just a day ago, I posted on The Cost of Restricting Long-term Advertising Investment by Nonprofits.  Had no clue this issue with Yele would come up when I wrote that entry – but this is just the kind of thing I was talking about.

Waking Up the Board – Warning Signs of a Dysfunctional Organization

Recently I was asked (and accepted) to join the board of a nonprofit organization that provides services for children who have been diagnosed with cancer.  My term officially begins in February.  In the interim, I’ve been doing some research into how I can best fill this role and help this charity grow.  During the process, I ran across this article originally posted at onPhilanthropy.  It’s worth the read for anyone who is currently on a nonprofit board, considering joining a nonprofit board, or who works in a nonprofit.

Waking Up the Board – Warning Signs of a Dysfunctional Organization
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
By: Lilya Wagner

Last month we followed the saga of the ISRE organization and the case of the board which was asleep on the watch. Over the period of time that it took for ISRE to fade away and end up missing in action, the board should have taken note of warning signs, some which were evident right from the beginning.

True, Bill Jones, the president, should have been a better administrator and kept his board better informed, but ultimately the board holds the responsibility for the organization, and they should have noticed what was happening. 

So, here is a checklist that board members might refer to as a reminder of symptoms which indicate some degree of hidden organizational dysfunction:

1. There is no strategic plan and therefore no clearly defined means by which a board can monitor and evaluate results and progress.  Proposals and reports are not sufficient to keep an organization on track.  In addition, plans generated by staff members for their areas of responsibility are rubber-stamped by board members, with little meaningful input.

2. The organization loses funding from a major source, and is unable to secure replacement funds.  A firm funding base has not been established.  Furthermore, there isn’t 100% participation by board members in giving to the organization, and they are reluctant to become involved in fund raising. 

3. Stated goals are not being met and not much is accomplished on projects.  Reports are too optimistic, with not enough data to support them.  Also, reports indicate the same results time after time.

4. Staff no longer requests that board committees meet with them.  There is less communication between members of a board committee and the staff member(s) assigned to it.

5. Change is accepted reluctantly.  Risks are not taken. 

6. Staff members feel they can’t speak out in meetings and therefore congregate in small groups afterwards.  They do not understand how and why some decisions are made.  They begin to complain and there is conflict and hostility among them.

7. There are apparent favorites among the personnel.  Consequently there is distrust and hostility among staff.  Complaints become more frequent, and people jump to unwarranted conclusions very quickly.  Staff becomes defensive and productivity goes down.

8. Decisions are made only by the CEO, or in consultation with a few staff members.  Other staff members don’t know about those decisions and feel left out, besides being unknowledgeable and therefore unable to answer board, constituent or media questions.

9. Budget problems become more frequent, and explanations more vague.  The organization begins to fall behind in its financial obligations.

10. Key board and staff members depart at an alarming rate.

11. Constituents begin to ask discreet questions, or issue complaints in public about rude staff, unanswered mail requests, phone calls that are not returned and unfulfilled promises.

Nonprofit organizations are established because they carry out the vision and mission of people with worthy causes.  If board members are committed enough to a cause to give it time and money, they undoubtedly want to be accountable for a healthy not-for- profit organization. 

A governing board must rely on the CEO and staff for its information, but a vigilant board geared for success is also alert to the danger signals, either overt or hidden, that hint of a dysfunctional organization, one which may eventually cease to exist.  So, board members, beware!

The Cost of Restricting Long-term Advertising Investment by Nonprofits

I’m reading Uncharitable, by Dan Pollatta right now.  As someone who has been inside a nonprofit, and now as both a consultant to nonprofits and a board member, I find this book very interesting. 

This morning I was reading a section of the book regarding the way in which nonprofits are discouraged from making long-term investments in advertising, in favor of allocating funds to current-year needs.  This book was written several years ago – but recently enough to include reference to the Indian Ocean tsunami. 

The author asserts that if nonprofits were free to spend significantly more money and effort on advertising, they could in turn, create greater demand, and ultimately generate more long-term revenue.  His cites disaster fundraising accomplishments, like that of the Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina as proof of this.  And I believe his claim has merit.

Pallotta says, “Before the tsunami, the cause didn’t exist.  It had zero contributions.  This sudden outpouring of compassion is not explained by the fact that people suffered.  Millions of people suffer every day under equally devastating conditions without any equivalent display of support.  It was not because people were left homeless.  God knows homelessness is a persistent condition in most American cities and we don’t see billions contributed to its alleviation in any given month.  It wasn’t because people died.  People die unjustly every day.  It was because people throughout the world were exposed to the suffering, the homelessness, and the death, over and over and over again, in newspapers, on television, on the radio, on the Internet, during prime time.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of media equivalents went into the fundraising campaign.  It was advertised.  It was marketed.  People gave because demand was created, or stimulated, by the massive engines of the national media.”

Lest you think this is hype, consider our current circumstances with the news coverage of the Haiti earthquake.  Turn on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and just about any local media outlet.  Haiti is covered at the top of the hour, mid-program, and the bottom of the hour.  You can’t miss a Haiti update if you try!

And the result?

The top article at Chronicle of Philanthropy today is: Donations to Haiti Exceed $150 Million, Chronicle Tally Finds.

So my question is this . . . why not?  Why do we allow charity watchdog groups to set arbitrary limits to what nonprofits can spend to get their message out?  Why is it ok for every consumer brand to spend billions to advertise their product, but we consider it immoral Red Cross or World Vision do the same?

And what if?  What could we accomplish if we allowed nonprofits to embrace commercial advertising the way that consumer brands do?  If, every time you turned on the television or surfed the web, you saw the harsh realities facing child soldiers in Uganda, or hungry, homeless families in your community, would you be compelled to act (along with millions of your neighbors)?

If nonprofits used prime time television, radio and Internet outlets to run daily ads urging Congress to act in Darfur, and displaying the brutal consequences of their silence, how much more quickly do you think we might be able to end that conflict?  How many lives could we save? 

So again . . . why not?

Major Gift Solicitation: Improve Your Chances for Success

This article by Bob Westfall was originally posted at Christian Leadership Alliance.

  

So you really want to be successful when you ask for a gift?

Practice makes perfect.

A friend of mine was hiring a national sales manager for a $3 billion division of his company. I asked him if the person he was hiring would ever approach a major sales presentation with an attitude of, “Listen, I’m just going to go out on a wing and a prayer and see what happens.”

My friend was aghast.

“Are you kidding?” he said. “We get one shot at these deals. We practice, we rehearse, we role play, practice again, role play, talk about the possible objections, discuss every single angle of our response, practice some more, videotape the role play, ask questions about body language and response—and after all that’s done, we really start practicing.”

“So you take these things pretty seriously?” I remarked, tongue in cheek.

“Bob, we get one shot, my friend, just one.”

I’ve never forgotten that.

Then I think back on all the fundraising presentations I’ve witnessed, and I chuckle—or cry. How many of those fundraisers or CEOs or Board members really took the time to prepare for an ask? I don’t mean a loose conversation 30 minutes beforehand, but how many took the stewardship of the opportunity as seriously as my friend’s company does? Granted, my friend works for a publicly-traded company that doesn’t give a rip about advancing the Kingdom of God. They have a vision, all right—to grow their business aggressively and, pardon the inference here, to take their sales very, very seriously.

So how about us? How about those of us in the most important industry in the world—advancing the Kingdom of God? How seriously do we take the one shot we have to “ask?” What kind of stewards are we? I’m afraid to report that, often, we approach such monumental moments haphazardly, without practice, without rehearsal, without role play, and without much thought.

If we’ve got one shot, and one shot only, let me invite you to consider approaching such an opportunity with more intentionality, more concern, more preparation, and a bit more Christ-likeness. How do I mean?

Moves Strategy

Here are some questions to ask as you build up to the strategic and vital invitation or “ask” of your donors.

• Do we plan the necessary steps to the actual invitation? Have we considered every dimension of the invitation that sets us up to be successful?

• Have we “ordered our steps” to include research that helps us ensure we are asking for the right amount?

I know of a man who was asked to consider a gift of $250,000 to a very special project. The total project would cost $2 million. “You obviously don’t know me too well,” the donor said to the fundraiser. “Go back to your office, spend some time really understanding me and my family. Do some research and call me back.” The fundraiser researched, studied, and confirmed that the project was an ideal fit for the donor, so he returned, but this time he asked for the whole $2 million. He also suggested to the donor that they name the building after the founder. The donor replied, “Excellent job! This project is exactly what our family would purpose to invest in.”

• Have we put closure to and properly acknowledged and given thanks for prior gifts/commitments made to our organization?

• Do we have a project/program that meets the heart and passion of the family we are asking?

• Have we involved other necessary people in the process of cultivation?

• Have we thought thoroughly about who should attend the ask/invitation event? Should the president, a Board member, or other donor be present?

Thinking It Through

• What financial factors may be in play in the life of the family to whom we are presenting the invitation? Have we factored those into the plan for our “invitation/ask?” For example:

— Is the family company going public?
— Is the family selling a business?
— Does the family have children in college?
— Are they part of a long-term commitment to a Church campaign that ends soon?
— Is there an inheritance involved?

• Have we presented a “test ask” along the way to ensure that we are on track with our project and amount? At least one test ask should be done, if not several.

• Leading up to the “invitation/ask,” do we have:

— The right timing?
— The right people on the ask team?
— The right project?
— The right amount?

• Have I done several role-plays and been presented with various objections and questions I might receive?

• Have I rehearsed how I will respond?

• Have I videotaped my presentation? If so:

— How was my body language?
— Did I look confused at any point?
— Was I confident or, perhaps, over confident?
— Did I stutter or use the word “Um” too much?
— Have I had others review my video? What was their reaction?

• What is the quality of my print and/or video collateral materials?

— Is the project clearly presented?
— Is a significant problem presented that we are trying to answer through this gift?
— Is our solution presented as a formidable answer to that problem/issue?
— Is our solution believable?

• Do we have experience in achieving what we are presenting in this invitation/ask?

— If so, what have our results been?
— Are our past results consistent with our anticipated results?
— Do we plan to present the outcomes we anticipate from this gift, such as:
>Transformational impact
> Emotional Impact
> Physical impact (if any)
> Spiritual impact (usually included in transformational case)

• Is there a specific timeline for execution?

— If so, do we present the timeline in an understandable manner?
— Is the timeline benchmarked?

The Invitation or “Ask”

• Have we bathed the meeting in prayer?

• Do we have all the resources we need at the meeting?

• Have we arranged for others to be praying while we are at the meeting?

• Have we planned to start the meeting in prayer?

• Have we referred back to the milestones we’ve achieved leading up to the ask?

• As we lay out our case, are we positive, confident, and assured of our solution?

• When we present the ask, do we do so in a professional, matter-of-fact style, that assumes buy-in from donors?

• After we have presented the ask amount, do we remain quiet and careful not to interrupt so the Holy Spirit can speak to donors’ hearts?

Resistance May Not Mean “No”

Have you ever made an invitation or ask only to feel a subtle pushback or resistance from your audience? Over the years I’ve learned those reactions do not necessarily mean “no.”

A CEO recently asked me to participate in an invitation to a donor for a $1 million gift. Just minutes before the “ask,” the CEO informed me that he had to leave for a minor emergency. I was on my own.

Seconds after I presented the $1 million ask, the donor dropped his fork and said, “I bet they want me to be the $1 million donor.” The room fell silent for several minutes. Finally, I said, “That was an interesting response to my question. Why do you say that?”

The donor said, “Every time they need money, I am the one they come to.”

“Let me ask you a question,” I said. “What is your desired outcome for this ministry?”

“I want the ministry to find more donors,” he said.

“What better way for that to happen than to create a matching gift that is used only to inspire new donors?”

At the end of the conversation he had agreed to provide a $500,000 gift for new donors that, when matched, would equal $1 million. His previous high gift had been $100,000.

The moral of the story?

Don’t be intimidated by the first response from the donor. Seek to understand their comments, concerns, and objections, and respond accordingly. Don’t drop your amount immediately. Discuss the terms first. It so happened that the full $1 million was simply not possible for the above donor. We discussed it and the conversation naturally led to dropping the ask to $500,000 and distributing the gift over two calendar years.

• Have a specific and agreed upon plan for follow-up if an answer is not given during the initial invitation/ask meeting.

Follow-Up & Donor Remorse

What’s more difficult, climbing up a mountain or down?

The fact is, more mountain climbers die on the climb down than the climb up. Why? All of their planning, attention to detail, and preparation was invested in the climb up, not the climb down.

Our natural tendency can be to focus only on what it takes to “get the gift,” with little or no regard to what happens “after the sale.” I know of countless donors who have been thoroughly cultivated and feel completely appreciated about their commitment, until after the fact, then they feel like the organization dropped them cold. In the donor’s mind what they feel matters most from most ministries—more than anything else—is their money. But the fact is, the donor is as much a member of your body as your staff, volunteers, board, and program recipients (1 Corinthians 12: 20-27).

It’s vital that we help make sure that each donor feels like part of the team, both all the way up the mountain, and all the way down.

Cultivation: Ongoing

If you will contemplate the points and tips highlighted herein, I think you will approach your next invitation or ask with a refreshing and totally different frame of mind. I’m almost certain you will find yourself much more confident, prepared, and genuinely invested in the invitation and the project you are presenting. In addition, I believe your success rate in closing significant gifts will increase dramatically. And, in the end, if all of us become more successful in our invitations and asks, the Kingdom of God will advance with greater acceleration.

Bob Westfall is President and CEO of the Westfall Group, one of the nation’s leading major gifts fundraising agencies. The Westfall Group serves/ed such key ministries as Moody Bible Institute, The Seed Company, Guideposts, Luis Palau, The Bible League, YWAM,, just to name a few. Prior to 2002, Bob spent nine years as Senior Vice President for Ministry Advancement at Walk Thru the Bible Ministries.

7 Tips to Help Your Organization Make the Biggest Difference for the Haiti Relief Efforts

If you’re a nonprofit org looking to provide help to those suffering from the earthquake in Haiti, check out Convio’s 7 Tips to Help Your Organization Make the Biggest Difference for the Haiti Relief Efforts . . .

The past 36 hours have been crucial for disaster relief organizations across the world as they reach out to supporters requesting donations, volunteers and general support for the efforts to help Haitians in need. And at a time when many organizations are moving quickly and may not have the time to outline a formal, full-fledged strategy for outreach, I wanted to share 7 best practices that can help any organization looking for guidance on how to make the greatest impact during such a devastating time of need.

1. Hijack your homepage to make Haiti the focus if it is a significant fundraising effort. Use clear calls to action to donate and share through social media or TAF.
2. Include a clear description in news articles and relevant forms of the role your organization will play in the relief effort. Particularly note any past work in Haiti or any teams already on the ground.
3. Make it clear what people are donating to.
   • Avoid sending people to a general form. There are two problems with this: 1 – savvy donors will question where the money is going and 2 – other donors will assume it is going to Haiti. However, without systems set up clearly designating it, your organization will not be able to fulfill the donor intent, which can also lead to a PR nightmare.
   • If they are donating specifically to the Haiti effort make that clear. Monitor how much you are raising and make sure the funds are designated to that effort – they cannot be repurposed elsewhere unless you make it clear that once the need it met additional funds will go to preparedness for the next emergency / wherever the need is greatest / etc.
   • If you’re concerned about the degree of designation you can or are willing to support for online giving, promote a general emergency relief fund but make your purpose clear. Use language like “Donations to this fund go to emergency relief work.” Cite examples where you will use the funds, e.g. in response to natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes. Make it clear where funds might be used: worldwide? Countries including….
4. Be careful how you’re using monthly giving now for the same reason – you probably don’t want it on a form designated to a specific disaster.
5. Best practices in form design are critical – above all right now, make sure forms are short (using the minimum number of fields) and display any 3rd party verifications of your effectiveness/legitimacy in the effort, including Verisign, Charity Navigator Ratings, Charity Watch Ratings, or BBB status.
6. If you have a social media effort, now is the time to provide relevant updates. Do retweet or post links to news articles that will provide value to your friends and followers, but only post when you have something of value and interest to say.
7. Do plan to send follow up email messages including information educating disaster donors about your broader mission and offering them the opportunity to become a regular member or monthly donor (within the next few weeks). Right now lack of supplies is a major obstacle in the relief efforts. If monthly donor gifts (or any additional gift) help your organization to prepare in advance for emergencies and ensure rapid response, make that part of the appeal.

The above 7 quick tips should help guide any nonprofit organization looking to help online in this crucial time in the right direction to connect with supporters, maintain proper communications and produce results online – both in raising needed funds and creating a groundswell of public support.

Helping Haiti

As just about everyone in the nation knows at this point, several days ago there was a devastating earthquake in Haiti.  Conditions there are horrible, and the people of Haiti need help right now. 

While my blog is primarily about fundraising and leadership strategies, today, right now, this post is about practicing what I preach. 

So please, if you can, make a contribution to the Haiti relief efforts (options below).  Whatever amount you can give will help aid and relief agencies bring much needed food, water, medical supplies and hope to those who are suffering right now. 

American Red Cross

World Vision

Save The Children

Feed My Starving Children

The Snyder 5: Helping Haiti  – This is a fun, low-cost way to get involved.  The Snyders are friends of mine, and if you visit their blog and leave a comment, they will make a donation to Haiti relief efforts.  If you become a fan on Facebook or follower on Twitter, they’ll make an additional donation. 

Thank you!

Uncharitable

I just picked up a copy of Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential, by Dan Pallotta. 

Looking forward to digging into it on my next business trip.  If you’ve read it and have an opinion on the book, I’d love to hear it.