Trends: In Your FACE!
On-the-street fundraising can attract younger, more committed donors. But it’s not for every organization, and the only way to find out if it’s for you is to test it.
April 2007 By Owen Watkins
|
More commonly called “canvassing” in the United States, face-to-face fundraising engages a younger donor base than more traditional media, with the average age of new donors between 32 and 33.
In a world of aging supporter bases, the ability to bring on board the next generations of donors, and get them engaged early, can be a significant plus for nonprofit fundraisers.
Of course, face-to-face is the same as any other medium. To do it right, you have to test, review and modify — with “test” being the maxim. As with other media, face-to-face fundraising won’t work for everybody. But where it does work, it can work exceptionally well.
The direct, personal appeal remains the most powerful fundraising technique. Done well, it offers the opportunity to engage with your potential donor on a much deeper level. The technique is clearly persuasive, as it’s employed every single day with major donors.
Some missions lend themselves more obviously to this approach than others: Greenpeace has had significant success in scores of countries with its impassioned environmental demands, and Children International has recruited approximately 70,000 new child sponsors in the United States. Both organizations have used Main Street, USA, as their office and been successful in doing so. Crucially, they have been able to translate their complex goals into a set of compelling arguments as to why you should give them your money.
Consider your mission: How do you communicate your key messages? More importantly, can you communicate those messages effectively, in 30 seconds, in a snow storm in Chicago? Or under an umbrella in Seattle? Why should people offer you financial support after a two-minute conversation?
Don’t assume that a big brand is a route to success or that a small organization will struggle. It’s about the ask. What do you want people to do, and why?
Outsourcing or in-house?
Both work. Any organization that ultimately seeks to recruit a high volume of donors (1,000+ in a year) should consider using a specialist agency to minimize its risk. Agencies will work on some sort of guaranteed-return basis, and you should break even on a project between 14 and 18 months out.
The role of the nonprofit becomes that of managing the agency, rather than managing the canvassing staff. A face-to-face fundraising operation on any scale is a highly people-focused enterprise.
If your expectations of your program are more limited, then you could consider running an in-house operation. This approach has had a certain amount of success in the United Kingdom, but the cautionary word is to ensure you do not over-extend your operation. If you do, you’ll lose much of the benefit of doing it in this way and take on all the risk.
In a world of aging supporter bases, the ability to bring on board the next generations of donors, and get them engaged early, can be a significant plus for nonprofit fundraisers.
Of course, face-to-face is the same as any other medium. To do it right, you have to test, review and modify — with “test” being the maxim. As with other media, face-to-face fundraising won’t work for everybody. But where it does work, it can work exceptionally well.
The direct, personal appeal remains the most powerful fundraising technique. Done well, it offers the opportunity to engage with your potential donor on a much deeper level. The technique is clearly persuasive, as it’s employed every single day with major donors.
Some missions lend themselves more obviously to this approach than others: Greenpeace has had significant success in scores of countries with its impassioned environmental demands, and Children International has recruited approximately 70,000 new child sponsors in the United States. Both organizations have used Main Street, USA, as their office and been successful in doing so. Crucially, they have been able to translate their complex goals into a set of compelling arguments as to why you should give them your money.
Consider your mission: How do you communicate your key messages? More importantly, can you communicate those messages effectively, in 30 seconds, in a snow storm in Chicago? Or under an umbrella in Seattle? Why should people offer you financial support after a two-minute conversation?
Don’t assume that a big brand is a route to success or that a small organization will struggle. It’s about the ask. What do you want people to do, and why?
Outsourcing or in-house?
Both work. Any organization that ultimately seeks to recruit a high volume of donors (1,000+ in a year) should consider using a specialist agency to minimize its risk. Agencies will work on some sort of guaranteed-return basis, and you should break even on a project between 14 and 18 months out.
The role of the nonprofit becomes that of managing the agency, rather than managing the canvassing staff. A face-to-face fundraising operation on any scale is a highly people-focused enterprise.
If your expectations of your program are more limited, then you could consider running an in-house operation. This approach has had a certain amount of success in the United Kingdom, but the cautionary word is to ensure you do not over-extend your operation. If you do, you’ll lose much of the benefit of doing it in this way and take on all the risk.
Companies Mentioned:
 |
|
Hitting the Email Inbox
Email Marketing that Works (2nd Edition)
