#NoMakeUpSelfie - What Should Your Charity Learn From It?

I'm usually sceptical of on-line 'like and shares', petitions and awareness raising campaigns. Not only do they achieve very little, but they can have a negative effect on donations as people feel they've 'done their bit'.

But I like the No Make-Up Selfie campaign - primarily because it's raised loads of money. As well as taking part, the friends on my Facebook timeline are also donating - I've never seen that before. I've never seen people actually post screenshots of their donation receipts. It's amazing. (And here's a nice post from Emma Hannigan).

But let's look at the dos and don'ts of what fundraisers can learn from this:

• DO have a mobile friendly donation page. It should go without saying by now, but around half of these donors are going to be on their mobile or tablet. If your donation page makes it difficult then they're going to give up.
• DO have a SMS donation facility. But only if it's cost-effective. They can be pricey to set up but more and more it's getting affordable or even zero-risk.
• DO engage. Thank everyone that takes part. Take part in the conversation.
• DO encourage your supporters to reach out to their friends and family. Coach them on how to do so. Some call it 'member-get-member', which is such a stupid name, but think 'refer-a-friend'.
• DO be ready to move quickly and make the most of these type of campaigns.
• DO follow-up. If you're fortunate to have received donations then make sure you show how you spent them. This will be the end of the story for many donors, but for some donors it's the beginning of your relationship.

• DON'T try to make your own viral campaign. You can't force viral. It'd be like buying a lottery ticket as part of your fundraising plan. Denisa Casement put it well: If it can't be reproduced with a degree of certainty it doesn't belong in your fundraising plan as anything but a contingency response.
• DON'T believe anyone who tells you they can make a viral campaign.
• DON'T entertain anyone that suggest you just do a #NoMakeUpSelfie campaign or something similar. You will hear this from your Board and other people with good intentions. It almost certainly won't work.
• DON'T forget staff costs. When we look at social media costs we pretend they're free - we forget to take in to account all the hours your staff or volunteers spent cruising Facebook and Twitter. You could have spent that time earning or raising money.
• DON'T forget that Irish Cancer Society (probably the biggest beneficiary of this campaign in Ireland) put years of work and money in to being the 'first choice' for people to donate to. If you're a small, young organisation you're not going to have that.
• DON'T believe the hype. We're probably going to hear conference speakers and on-line consultants cite this as proof that social media is killing everything else. For every #NoMakeUpSelfie there are a million efforts that raised nothing. Get the basics right first.

Anything else? Please feel free to comment!

Would You Fundraise To My Face?

When I think of all the people I love or have loved I think of their big smiley faces. I think of their voices and their laughing and their crying and the jokes that nobody else would understand.

You're probably the same. Yes, there are (really) memorable phone calls and e-mails and text messages. But they really don't compare. Face-to-face, one-on-one...those are the life changing moments.

That's why it works so well in fundraising. The impact you can have on someone through your voice and tone and facial expressions and body language is huge.

Your message is crucial, but if it's not delivered properly then even the most important message in the world will flop.

The obvious problem is that you can't deliver your message face-to-face, one-on-one, to everybody. And what we forget is that other medium were invented as substitutes for face-to-face: Mail, TV, radio, billboards, e-mail, SMS - they are all cost-effective substitutes but they all work best when they feel like a single human is talking to you, and only you.

We forget this all the time.

When we sit in front of a computer to type our message we start to write words we would never say out loud. When we create advertisements we try to be clever. Our mail sounds robotic and our TV ads have completely lost the plot.

We need to work to be humans. We need to personalise. We need to tell stories. We need to be emotive. We need to read our copy out loud. We need to show our appeals to our mothers and children. Street fundraisers are a great testing ground - if you can't say it face-to-face to a complete stranger then why would you unleash it to millions of readers and viewers?

Chugging As A Career?

I've written and spoken before about how 'chuggers' - or street fundraisers - changed my life.

This year it's 10 years ago that I worked as a chugger, and made the leap from sales and finance jobs in to professional fundraising. It changed my life - it indirectly helped me meet my girlfriend, it helped me sleep better at night, it started a career I love, led me to set up my own fundraising business, and prodded me to become an 'international speaker' (To paraphrase Bernard Ross: How do you become an international speaker? Get on a plane, fly somewhere, get off the plane.)

I was reminded of all of this again when fellow Beatles fan Sir Ian McQuillin sent me details of new research focussing on individuals who started their fundraising career as street fundraisers. The research aims to map these careers and show how some street fundraisers went on to become office-based fundraisers and fundraising managers in some of the world's most respected charities.

I personally have worked with chuggers who have gone on to be fundraisers and managers around the world at Amnesty, UNICEF, Barnardos, Greenpeace, Habitat For Humanity, and more. I've worked with chuggers who set up their own charities and set up their own businesses.

I genuinely believe street fundraising is one of the best jobs in the world and gives you skills and experience that serve you for life - not just in working in the charity sector but also in your day-to-day life.

Chugging teaches you how to talk to people. It teaches you that you can talk to strangers about anything and, when you do, you can end up interacting with amazing randomers and learn bizarre things.

Chugging teaches you what works in fundraising. Looking a person in the eye, face-to-face and asking them for a donation is a very quick way to understand what works and what doesn't. It helps you get to grips with how humans - totally irrational creatures - think.

Chugging teaches you how to listen. You have two ears and one mouth for a reason. I don't know why you have eyebrows.

Chugging teaches you how to deal with rejection. And life is full of rejection. Life sucks. It's really, really bad. But if you can get through the sucky, crappy parts of the world around you then you begin to see the amazingness. And then that's all you see.

Chugging helps you do good interviews and get good jobs. It helps you chat up women and men. It helps you deal with everyone around you.

Even if your career takes you elsewhere outside of fundraising I believe working as a street fundraiser will help you. If you want to work in charity fundraising I know it will really help you. And even if you're already working in fundraising, I believe a week or two on the streets would do you good.

If you want to read more about Flow Caritas' research or you're an ex-street fundraiser that wants to take part then read more here. I'll be following their progress.

The Problem With 'Charity Ratings'

We all want someone to tell us the best way to do things.

What to eat, where to shop, who to listen to, what to drive, what to play. That's why sites like TripAdvisor and magazines like Which? are so popular.

It's also why businesses like Charity Navigator and Guidestar exist (and why we're about to see them start launching in Ireland, a year later than I predicted) - charities are complicated beasts, it's hard to know where to donate. It's a hassle to do research. And so we want someone to tell us this charity is good, this charity is bad, and this charity is better than both of them.

The problem of course is that it's not that simple.

Just because you spend 90% on salaries doesn't mean you're not making a huge difference. Just because 99% of your income goes 'directly to those that need it' doesn't mean you're actually helping. You might have cured cancer, but if you don't have a website to publish your accounts then should you be written off?

You might judge Pepsi on it's taste as opposed to its CEO's salary. You might judge Apple on how cool their stuff is (as opposed to whether their factory staff are killing themselves or not). But the end 'product' of a charity is a bit less tangible and so it's convenient to cling to whatever simple figures we can find.

And the biggest mistake that's always made when 'judging' a charity is looking at last year and last year alone. What about the years before that, and what about the next 10 years? You might not 'waste' any money on fundraising, admin or wages...but then you might not exist next year.

William MacAskill put it best: "What we can learn from one of the worst charities in the world". As he beautifully argues, even if you tick all the boxes and get top ratings, it doesn't mean you're actually making the world a better place. You might even be making it worse.

More than that, these sites can be really damaging to great organisations. Right now we find ourselves trying to unravel the Overhead Myth that was perpetuated and encouraged by the very organisations that are now debunking it.

If we're going to have a charity rating website it needs to cover impact, transparency, finance and more (cue another blog post: The Perfect Rating Website).

But even then it will probably never be complete.

It's the same reason there's no 'best person to date' and no 'best business'. And no website telling you what company to invest in (I've said it before: donating to a charity is like investing in a business).

Would you invest in a business because they made a profit in the only year you looked at? Would you invest in a business because they have the cheapest staff? Would you invest in a business just because they're transparent? Just because it's right for me, is it right for you?

And undermining everything is the simple fact that we're driven by emotion...which is what makes us humans so interesting.

I can't help it - even though it's completely irrational. I'll keep donating to charities that make me cry. And I'll dream of investing in my kitten hotel and restaurant ('The Catz-Rarlton").

Last Thoughts On The Rehab CEO Salary

So there's the figure: €240k plus perks.

I've written about it before on this blog, but decided to do one last summary of thoughts on the subject:

• €240,000 really is too much for anyone to earn, whether you're a charity CEO, private company CEO, football player, movie star, inventor of Facebook, arms dealer or primary school teacher.

• "Anyone that earns more than me is overpaid." - Everyone, including me.

• Private company CEOs use your money to pay their salaries. It's not a donation, but it's still your money. Your food, electricity, medical bills, etc. would be cheaper if the CEO of these private companies earned less. I would argue that it's easier to stop a donation to a charity than to stop buying food and electricity and medicine.

• If we're going to overpay anyone why don't we overpay teachers and aid workers and nurses and cleaners?

• If we're going to compare people's salaries to the Taoiseach or the POTUS then let's remember that they get their accommodation, food, transport, etc. paid for along with lots of benefits, including probably never having to work again.

• CEOs don't choose their own salary - it's determined by their Board. In the case of charities, this is a voluntary board.

• Rehab is a supplier to the Government. Their funding is not a donation...it's outsourcing.
  I believe, without exception, that charities need to be transparent with their salaries, but so should other suppliers to the State, eg. telecoms, transport, catering, stationery, construction, contractors, etc.

• Are you happy with our Government outsourcing health and social care?

• If our Government (that we voted in) take exception to the CEO's salary as one of their suppliers they should...and could...certainly do something about that. Keep in mind they were aware of it in 2011, and probably earlier than that. Have you seen the process you have to go through to secure State funding?

• Rehab are not representative of the charity sector. It's like judging your local corner shop on what Microsoft's CEO earns.

• Again, without exception, charity salaries need to be transparent.

• Again, €240k really is too much for anyone to earn.

Don't Let Your Fundraising Get Jefferson Airplane-d

You remember the feeling.

The passion and emotion that drove you to join this charity - to start fundraising. You can almost picture yourself in a small music club in San Francisco with Paul Kantner and Marty Balin, throwing ideas around...getting excited as you realise you CAN make a difference.

You see a need. There are people who need your help...like in 1964 when anyone looking for the perfect fusion of rock and folk had to make do with the mindless 'golf classic' of Simon & Garfunkel, or the 5k fun run of the Mamas & Papas.

Your mission is reasonably clear. And you survive, albeit struggle, by relying on friends and family. But you struggle with your voice...your message...it all sounds a bit too Signe Anderson-y.

And then one day it hits you...your own personal October 16th 1966.

Your fundraising message has never been clearer...it is the powerful contralto voice of Grace Slick which washes over your supporters like water. It soothes, massages...but stirs. It IS emotion. And it drives people to give.

The pinnacle of your fundraising follows...your Surrealistic Pillow. Yes, there's the success of your Embryonic Journey challenge event. And every conversation seems to find you asking just the right questions - Don't you want somebody to love?

But nothing...NOTHING...compares to your own personal White Rabbit...your DM Christmas appeal.

It's risky, but calculated. It is straight from the heart...but surreal. Your donors can literally feel their minds expanding as they read it - as it oozes through their eyes and skin. They shiver...they're moved. And as they reach for their cheque book they know...in that instant...what the Dormouse said.

But it's downhill from there.

You clutch at celebrities. Too many events. Too big. Your voice becomes diluted by self-centred noise. Appeal after appeal goes unnoticed. You get too clever.

And then someone mentions a rebrand. Goodbye Jefferson Airplane, hello Jefferson Starship. You can almost hear a brand consultant spit, "Because you're moving to the next level!"

And then it happens...

Your sad, sad TV spot....your own personal "We Built This City".

You think it's edgy. You think it's different. You think it's what people want.

But it's not you.

"Marconi plays the mamba" - you don't know what it means but you think it sounds like...something. The truth is it's meaningless. You've lost your voice.

There's one last call to your loyal supporters. You tell yourself Nothing's gonna stop you. But you're wrong. Not even the delightful rom-com Mannequin can save you.

Income declines. Appeals flop. Heads of Fundraising come and go. The Next Generation of consultants cost you money.

You'll keep going...keep touring...keep helping people. But you're not what you could have been.

You've Jefferson Airplained yourself.

The Plumpy'nut Space Dive

A couple of years ago Red Bull put a man in space.

Felix Baumgartner, covered in private-company branding, skydived from the stratosphere. It was epic and historical and it continues to amaze.

It was a marketing department's wet dream. 8 million people (and I) watched it live. Red Bull continue to release YouTube videos of the event with 4 or 5 million views each time. Footage will appear in one of this year's Superbowl commercial.

The value of the event to Red Bull isn't measurable. Some say it was worth tens of millions of dollars, others say hundreds of millions. It will continue to be shared and watched and, presumably, more people will drink that little syrupy energy drink because of it. Felix's doctor undoubtedly told him to stay away from it, but someone out there is obviously buying those 4 billion cans of Red Bulls each year.

So what did it cost? There's no official word, but the rumour is $30 million.

The question very few people are asking is...Was it worth it? Possibly, yes.

So why didn't a charity do it?

Wait...what? A charity waste $30 million on advertising and PR...and fundraising? $30 million that could have been given to the homeless, used to feed starving children or put towards baby pandas?

Well if it increased income then why not? The larger charities of the world could have afforded it and I'm sure we could find a loose connection in the same way Red Bull did...I'm thinking 'The Plumpy'nut Space Dive'.

OK, back to Earth...

Of course a charity would never do it because they would have been crucified. Imagine. How much of my donation was wasted on that? How many kids could we have fed instead? How much did Felix get paid?

It's an "X-treme" example but fundraisers and charity marketing faces the same double standard every day. "Why are you wasting money on marketing and fundraising?" Meanwhile we accept that private companies know what they're doing.

Do we want to pose the same questions to companies like Red Bull? After all, they're still funded by us.

Was the campaign a waste of money? (Everyone says no, but a 1.6:1 ROI isn't that great)
How much do their top execs get paid? (The founders appeared on Forbes' rich list)
What percentage of the cost of my can goes on advertising and wages? (Your weekly shop could have been cheaper)

And...perhaps most importantly...who is swallowing this crap?

Personally I'd rather see the world give their attention and support to an organisation whose vision is a world without poverty, rather than a company whose vision is to "maintain leadership in energy drinks".