http://www.polldaddy.com/s/CFAB7A90241B949B/

Monday, January 30, 2006

The Red Cross - more and more like Microsoft?

Who'd ever have thought I'd agree with the premise of an article in Slate that Michael Gilbert touted in his weekly e-newsletter? An article on activism, no less?

BloodSaves.com, of which the American Red Cross is a major player, has launched a series of TV ads which contrast the difficulty and conflicts of social activism with the simplicity and tangible results of giving blood. Are they trying to persuade hip young adults that blood donation is an alternative to social activism?

(You can view the spots at their very hip and low-usability site. You have to click the "Check out our TV Ads" button in the upper right corner.)

Naturally, it's not too likely that Michael and I would agree on what sorts of activism young people shoud pursue, but it gauls us both that the Red Cross thinks it needs to compete with other forms of activism. It seems that the Red Cross shares Microsoft's view of the market. Microsoft only wants its "fair share" of each market that it's in. However, it thinks its "fair share" is 100%. I think the Red Cross wants 100% of the philanthropy market in the US. They're not too far from it, and, coupled with the laziness of corporate America (see my earlier blog) they're making strides every day.

(Did I just slam corporate America? Look out Michael, I'm headed left-wing for sure!)

Contrast the incredible arrogance of the Red Cross with the decision of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) to stop fundraising for tsunami relief funds a few weeks after the tragedy. They had raised all the money they could spend and they encouraged people to give elsewhere. At the time I critised it as a dumb fundraising move. It's still a dumb fundraising move, but now I realize it might have been a smart, sensitive and humble strategic decision. (Not that I'm an expert in sensitive or humble!)

I'm a life-long blood donor. I've given a few gallons since I helped organize blood drives on my college campus. In fact, my worst injury in 25 years as a volunteer fireman was when a nurse moved a needle in my arm during the firehouse blood drive, and I couldn't use my arm for three days. I won't stop giving blood because of this stupid new campaign. But I won't sacrifice my other activism, either, including more rants about the Red Cross' fundraising strategies.

Now if only I could get Michael to agree with me about Tax Cuts for the Rich...

Philanthropies of the Rich and Famous

I received an email inviting me to a "unique" conference of "individuals of vision and commitment." The Quest for Global Vision II conference will be held in Bali in May and features Desmond Tutu, Walter Cronkite, and dozens of people no one has ever heard of but who have exotic sounding names and titles.

Here's their premise:
"In the midst of major world challenges, something profound is being born—a recognition by individuals that the wounds of the planet can be healed by individuals of vision and commitment."
Pardon me, but that's not exactly something new or profound. St. Francis of Assisi, Dr. Jonas Salk, Confucius and others have had the same idea. For that matter, so did Thomas Jefferson. None of them could afford to go to Bali, however.

Why Bali? Because they can.

If the media picks up on this, how much do you want to bet Bill Clinton will show up?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have the email list of attendees for our clients' fundraising efforts.



Wednesday, January 25, 2006

US to Nonprofits: You Can't Use These Words

We're giving this warning the added exposure of this blog because (a) we believe in a healthy debate on issues which requires free speech and (b) we believe that, if the government can object to direct mail packages with which it disagrees, it will soon start restricting what nonprofits can say in emails or on web sites. Liberals: discard this attack on nonprofit free speech at your peril.

Free Speech Defense and Education Fund (FSDEF) sent this email today:

WARNING! IF YOU ENGAGE IN DIRECT MAIL POLICY ISSUES, YOUR FREE SPEECH IS AT RISK. HELP NEEDED NOW ON SUPREME COURT LITIGATION.

BACKGROUND

Thanks to the financial support received from only a very few, and using some of our small reserve, FSDEF was able to file recently an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition for rehearing of United Seniors Association (“USA”) in the Fourth Circuit.

You may recall our earlier e-mail to you, and our description of how the Fourth Circuit panel denied USA’s petition appealing the $554,196 fine imposed on it by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for allegedly violating section 1140 of the Social Security Act by using the words "Social Security" on its carrier envelope.

Members of the nonprofit community were justifiably concerned with SSA’s apparently selective and arbitrary enforcement of the statute, and its interpretation of the statute in a way that should alert everyone to the danger of giving a government agency such broad enforcement power.

Nevertheless, USA filed a compelling petition for rehearing, and FSDEF (as well as two other “friends of the court”) filed separate amicus curiae briefs asking the Fourth Circuit to grant the petition.

FSDEF’s brief addressed, very persuasively we believe, what it considered two very serious defects in the Fourth Circuit’s original decision denying USA’s petition for review.

Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit has denied USA’ s petition for rehearing. This is not unusual, as most petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc are not granted. It was disappointing, of course, but such developments will not deter FSDEF in its continuing effort to help protect free speech in the United States.

The last avenue of recourse for USA in this matter would be a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. USA has filed such a petition. We feel it is essential that FSDEF file an amicus brief supporting the granting of certiorari.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

In McCain-Feingold, the Congress prohibited certain radio and television issue advocacy by nonprofit organizations in the period before elections.

But the new limitations on Speech and Press rights are not limited to radio and television. Congress has demonstrated that it wants to regulate the direct mail of nonprofit organizations. One of the first areas that it focused on is Social Security, but it will not end there.

If you engage in direct mail fundraising on public policy issues, your freedom to mail packages using state of the art direct mail techniques designed to increase the likelihood that the package will be opened and read by the recipient, is seriously threatened.

It sounds like 1984, but the federal Government already has declared certain words to be “forbidden” words which you may not use. For instance, it is currently against the law to use the terms:
“Death Benefit Update”
“Federal Benefit Information”
“Funeral Expenses”
“Final supplemental Plans”
“Medicare”
“Medicaid” and
“Social Security”

in a way that government bureaucrats could even THINK that a recipient might confuse the mail as coming from a government agency.

It doesn’t matter if no recipient has ever testified that they were, in fact, confused.

It doesn’t matter if the true identity of the sender is very clear on the carrier envelope and inside the package.

It doesn’t matter if a reasonable person can easily see upon reading the material that it did NOT come from a government agency.

It only matters that a government official has determined that someone MIGHT be confused about the origin of the letter. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110701452.html

It doesn’t even matter if your message is “Social Security Bankrupt: Congress at Fault.” Under the current law, the government can still fine the nonprofit which makes this statement, on the theory that seniors may be misled to thinking the letter came from the government. AMAZING!

The truth is that Members of Congress don’t like to get pressure from constituents (especially seniors) — and direct mail pointing out the strengths or weaknesses of legislative issues results in constituent communications to Members of Congress. Therefore, it is in their self-interest to find ways to curtail constituent communications. Limiting the use of trigger words on a variety of issues is one way to reduce the letters to Congress.

If your organization works in the public policy arena, it is your mission to get your members to express their opinions to members of Congress, either directly or through involvement devices you send. In order to do this, you send mail packages which explain legislative issues. In order to assure recipient involvement, you must use selected key words and phrases on your carrier envelope and letter which you know will pique the interest of the reader. That’s how you get the mail opened and read. It is not deceptive. It is a legitimate direct mail technique, somewhat similar to retail stores advertising sales in order to get you into their store.

If the USA case is allowed to stand, you can be sure the list of “forbidden words” will continue to grow. It is not far fetched to envision the banning of such words as:

“tax increase”
“gun”
“health threat”
“terrorism”
“illegal immigration”

and many more.
The government has a legitimate interest in communicating with citizens on all these issues and, following the USA case precedent, government officials can easily claim that more words need to be forbidden from use by direct mailers in order not to confuse the recipient into thinking the direct mailer was a government agency.

ACTION NEEDED NOW!

Your fundraising abilities may be in serious jeopardy.

USA filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 23, 2006. That means that our amicus brief will be due on or before February 22, 2006.

It is in the interest of the entire direct mail industry that this case be aggressively supported by a host of organizations, both nonprofit and commercial.

FSDEF must raise at least $12,500 to cover the cost of filing another amicus brief on this issue — including the expensive printing required of these Supreme Court briefs. We don’t have the funds. Therefore, as a matter of your self-preservation, I am asking you to send a check to FSDEF.

We would hope that other seniors groups would contribute $2,500. Other large groups should commit $1,000. Smaller groups can help with $500.

FSDEF is trying to protect your future free speech rights in the process of fundraising and issue advocacy. We must get financial commitments by February 1st in order to manage the legal work in a timely fashion. If we have the commitments, we will proceed, even if the checks arrive a bit later.

First, please e-mail your commitment to .

Then, checks should be made payable to Free Speech Defense and Education Fund. All donations are tax deductible.

It is critical that you act NOW. You cannot sit back and expect that others will meet the need. Your free speech rights are at stake. If you don’t act, you lose!

Free Speech Coalition, Inc.
8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1070
McLean, Virginia 22102-3860
Phone: (703) 356-6912
Fax: (703) 356-5085
< http://www.freespeechcoalition.org>

91 years of telecommunications

On Jan. 25, 1915, the inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell, inaugurated U.S. transcontinental telephone service. My father was seven years old.

Who wants to guess how we'll be communicating in another 91 years? For that matter, another 91 months?


Lazy Corporations Give to Mega-Charities

An article in the Jan. 15 issue of NonProfit Times explains that cell phone companies have approached CARE and the American Red Cross to offer text-messaging donation processing in the wake of the Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. Even Google started directing visitors to the Red Cross site after Katrina, until we pointed out to them they'd do far better to point users to the charities that buy Katrina keywords on Google!

Why do so many corporations only think of the Red Cross when they think of a charity to support? I think it's laziness. When I was young, there was a saying among data processing professionals that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." They meant that, while and IBM computer may not be the best, if there were problems, well, you bought IBM, who could blame you? That was when IBM's competitors were Digital Equipment, Univac, Burroughs, and other names you haven't heard in 20 years. Of course, all that lazy buying of IBM made IBM fat and lazy, and look where they are now (are they still in business?). It's not like the Red Cross is free of mistakes.

NetworkForGood is an organization that certainly knows its fat corporations -- it's funded by AOL, Yahoo! and Cisco Systems guilt money (back when AOL had both money and a concience). However, its technology and culture allow big and small nonprofits to compete on a level playing field.

So, we're gonna do our part. From now on, we may talk about the Red Cross, but we're only going to link to Network for Good or similar platforms that offer a true marketplace. Or, like we suggested to Google, to our own clients like Operation Blessing, USA for UNHCR, PlanUSA, Save the Children, or the Catholic Medical Mission Board.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

What's Wrong with Calling it a Discussion List?

If you swallow hype like "pre-owned" instead of "used" and "two-hour television event" instead of "show" then perhaps you'll like the Direct Marketing Association Nonprofit Federation's "e-Community" which was announced on Tuesday. It's an email discussion list, better known as a Listserv.

The announcement email was glorious. The reality was less. I clicked on the link and went to a page with no information, just the line, "Yes! I want to join the DMANF online community" and a box to check. I checked the box, clicked "update" and got a confirmation page. So far, uninspired but functional. I clicked the confirmation button and I was immediately returned to the first screen, with no check in the box I just checked. Huh? Was my attempt rejected? Accepted? Ignored? Who knows? I tried it again, conscious of the fear that I'd be subscribed twice, then I bailed out. The next morning I got an equally uninspired confirmation message (just one, fortunately). Maybe membership is moderated and the staff approved me this morning. I just sent a message to the list, so we'll see what it looks like and when it is sent.

We have enough of a vocabulary problem in this business, we don't need to muddy the waters by callling a discussion list an "e-community."

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

NPA declares 2006 The Year of Conversion

Here at NPA we talked about establishing some New Year resolutions or predictions for the coming year. We scrapped that idea, because raising money online will probably be harder this year, and expectations have been raised among senior management and boards.

Instead NPA is declaring 2006 to be the Year of Conversion.

Conversion, as NPA defines it, is a measurable
action taken by a web site visitor; i.e. donating, signing up for the email newsletter or signing a petition. Therefore, the conversion rate is the percentage of visitors to your web site that take such an action.

In 2005, Rick Christ was quoted as saying, "
Conversion stinks." That's true. Not only are the conversion levels dismal, few nonprofits are actually making online business decisions based on conversion data.

In 2005, most large nonprofits were in disaster fundraising mode – either because disaster relief is their primary mission, or because donations to non-disaster organizations suffered. A ton on money was raised online in 2005, yet the conversion rate still hovered under 2%. Imagine how much could have been raised if conversion was just 3%. (No, not 50% more, but the residual effects of 50% more from EACH campaign!) Nonprofits are spending big money on technology tools and integrated sites. They are increasing spending for online acquisition through keywords. They are sending regular email communications to ever increasing lists. Yet VERY few are actually testing what works online and what doesn't.


Conversion is about setting the goals for a particular campaign, creating copy and
landing pages that support that campaign, testing the variables, establishing and tracking the appropriate data to measure success, and then using that data to make your next decision.

So get ready, because for a whole year we are making life about
conversion. We are going to teach it, preach it, profile it, and practice it. No matter what topic we cover, our suggestions will be based on increasing conversion.

We want to know what you want to know about conversion. Send us your questions and comments, your ideas and your frustrations.
comments@npadvisors.com
January 2006