When Fundraising Campaigns Don’t Ask For Funds
Would you consider me a supporter if I made a $100 contribution? Absolutely. What if I didn’t send money, but if I clicked my mouse a few times? If it leads to a grant, I suppose you would. Is the popularity of online giving contests redefining what it means to support an organization? If so, the change is about more than technology and delivery. Voting, a la American Idol, creates a very different kind of relationship between me, the supporter, and you, the nonprofit.
This year, Pepsi has been awarding $1.3 million every month through the Pepsi Refresh project. Nonprofits, individuals, and businesses submit ideas and compete for your online votes to win the awards. 32 awards totaling $1.3 million are granted each month in amounts from $5,000 to $250,000. This broadly promoted voting for dollars ties in with Pepsi’s brand building, similar to the Chase Community Giving Facebook campaign and the Sam’s Club Giving Made Simple contest.
Projects in the mix for Pepsi Refresh include nonprofits of all sizes, like Teach for America, which received $250,000, and small organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club of Schenectady, which won a $25,000 grant. The project is open to individuals and organizations that are either very new or loosely formed. Past winners run the gamut from Operation Sweet Dreams, which received $50,000 to provide new PJs to low-income kids, to helloCHANGE, a youth anti-tobacco campaign that won $250,000 in March. To win the monthly competition, submitted projects must mobilize forces and generate lots and lots of votes. After registering on the website, anyone can vote for up to 10 projects a day.
The communications strategy needed to win these competitions is different from what is needed for “traditional” development. In fundraising, nonprofits have learned the importance of reaching out to make a connection that will motivate a donor. For an online contest, the goal is clicks, not dollars. Have you ever been bombarded during one of these contests? An organization that I greatly admire was a finalist for the Sam’s Club grant. They sent me emails every day, and I wasn’t even eligible to vote (I’m not a Sam’s Club member). I wonder if convincing someone to take a few minutes every day for a month to click a vote button builds any kind of a lasting relationship. After voting a few times, am I likely to become a donor or volunteer? If I didn’t make a personal commitment in the form of funds, what kind of relationship was started?
On the one hand I’m happy to see good organizations receive funding. Wellstone Action! won a $50,000 grant in September for a great project with Native American leaders. I’m all for it. On the other hand, though, I prefer philanthropy that builds lasting relationships.
Charity contests are likely to continue as businesses learn how to capitalize on social networks to build their brands and web presence. How can nonprofits use them to build relationships that matter?
Kate, I enjoyed your post on these new, exciting on-line campaigns. I, too, believe that online giving and contests like these create a very fragile relationship. However, what is done to build on the relationship quickly and powerfully CAN be meaningful. Mostly people (donors) are looking to feel good about the action they’ve taken. If a follow up email can further the good feeling and inspire further action or simply conversation…then I believe a foundation may be built for longer lasting support.
Quick example: A few years ago I made an online gift to a local Twin Cities organization and within seconds I received an email saying: You helped a child today. I was moved enough by the subject line to open what I already knew would be the donor thank you email. The email was short, powerful, explained how my gift would help a child and a photo was included. I’ve thought about that subject line and the organization many, many times since and it firmed up my intention to give again.
Comment by Lori Jacobwith — December 13, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
I’m concerned to see the “public contest” grantmaking bleeding out of corporate marketing departments (where it is worrisome, but understandable) and into private philanthropy. Beyond the supporter fatigue that I think those contest cause, they also foster competitiveness among nonprofits that seems unnecessary. It’s hard to appreciate another, usually equally worthy, organization’s work when you are, in-fact, competing with them for money and support. That being said, I do think there are some ways to do it right – for example, the golden tickets and other prizes that GiveMN did on Give to the Max Day all rewarded people for actually becoming donors to an organization, which helps organizations cultivate new, smaller donors, which they can hopefully engage and retain.
Comment by laura zabel — December 13, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
Thanks, Lori and Laura.
I think that there is a big difference between online campaigns that ask for financial support (GiveMN) and online campaigns that ask for votes to direct corporate dollars. In the case of online fundraising, Lori shared an example of an organization who understood that an immediate contact to the donor would start to form an ongoing relationship. For online voting campaigns like Pepsi Refresh, the nonprofit doesn’t have direct contact with the voters, and the voters don’t make a personal gift. The only direct connection made is between you and Pepsi (Chase, Sam’s Club, etc).
Comment by Kate Barr — December 13, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Kate, Thanks for the thoughtful post. One problem that many nonprofits face is the tenacious nature of the economic crisis we are in. With “tenacious crisis” as the new norm, nonprofits are struggling to meet basic operating budgets and the thought of mobilizing supporters for a “quick win” offered by contests is very tempting. Unfortunately, the level of the nonprofit it keeps agencies *reacting* to the “tenacious crisis.” rather than reinforcing the *proactive* developing thoughtful revenue and capitalization strategies. Clearly one of the foundation stones of proactive revenue & capital strategy is the relationship that nonprofits maintain with its community. As you point out, focusing on “click through volume” comes at the sacrifice of relationship and engagement capital.
Conversely, to me, gaming nonprofits through online contests sponsored by corporate marketing departments is a brilliant marketing strategy. Nonprofits serve as a surrogate evangelist for the corporation by 1) providing a tacit endorsement for the corporation, 2) creating a disproportionate amount corporate good will (number of nonprofits engaging in the corporate brand versus actual awarded prizes), 3) driving consumers to a corporate website repeatedly for days on end, and 4) promoting the brand and brand image through the viral messaging of the nonprofits to create the click through volume.
Thanks for continuing this conversation. M
Comment by Mark Fulop — December 14, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
Thanks for the comment, Mark. This helps continue this topic to another level. The branding element of the contests also makes me very uncomfortable.
Comment by Kate Barr — December 14, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
Thanks for the article, Kate. Fundraising has definitely changing drastically with the popularization of the internet an social networks, and keeping up on alternative and new ways to raise money and attract donors is increasingly important. I agree with you that it’s all about engagement, and NPOs definitely need to factor this into their decision when deciding the best way to receive donations.
Comment by Jon Hearty — April 22, 2011 @ 11:52 am