Check your politics - and your big mouth - at the conference door.
By Jim Hussey

Something disturbing happened at a recent DMA Annual Washington Nonprofit Conference (not this year's).

It occurred at the beginning of the question-and-answer phase of a panel discussion titled “How to Beat a Long-Standing Control.” According to accounts, a member of the audience stood up and harangued the DMA for allowing one of the participants — who works for the national office of Planned Parenthood — to be on the panel.

He lectured the audience and the panel about the supposed evils of Planned Parenthood, and he upset many of those who attended.

When he finished, another person stood up to offer a countering opinion. Before others could jump into the debate, the moderator stepped in and did an excellent job of calming everyone and steering the discussion back to the session’s true subject.

This incident greatly concerns me. In this increasingly partisan world, conferences and other activities organized by the DMA and other industry groups should be a welcome refuge from the mudslinging that often can dominate discussions concerning sensitive issues.

Along with their coats, participants should check their politics and partisanship at the door. No one should feel threatened or open to harassment at these functions.

Like most people, I have my own opinions, but I'm not about to use this blog to argue the complicated issues of abortion, birth control and reproductive rights — or any other issue, for that matter — or to rail against those who oppose my viewpoint.

Industry events should be free of politics. Industry events should offer tools to help fundraising professionals improve their skills and raise more money for their organizations. No one will benefit by transforming industry events into debating societies - unless, of course, you’re debating analytical tools or the use of one direct-marketing strategy over another.

The effectiveness of these events would be greatly endangered if such outbursts become more common. These conferences provide educational opportunities for those seeking growth within our sector and a vital chance for all of us to network.

The next time you attend an industry conference, if you happen to sit in on a session that includes a panelist from an organization that really upsets you, keep quiet or walk out. If you don't think you can do either, pay attention to the information in the program you receive when you register. If someone's participation will be troubling to you, don't go to that session.

Voicing protest at these events will not win converts. Many attendees of the session in question were greatly angered by the incident, according to a source who read the feedback comments submitted afterwards.

If you’re really opposed to a panelist’s viewpoint, what better way to counter it than to attend his session, learn all about the successful strategies the organization is using, and then go back to your office and try to figure out how to apply your new knowledge on behalf of a mission that you do support?

That way, you’ve made a real-world difference without compromising the conference experience for your colleagues — all of whom, believe it or not, are as passionate about their beliefs as you are about yours.

Don't you agree? 

Properly leveraged, good press can power through a sea of
skepticism.
By Jim Hussey

I’m confident that few of my colleagues who’ve been in the business over the past two decades will disagree when I say that potential donors are far more skeptical about fundraising solicitations than they were 20 years ago.

The evidence can be found in numerous places:

• Comments noted on response forms or to telemarketers making calls; 
• Inquiries made to the Better Business Bureau or to state attorneys; 
• More and more additions to the National Do-Not-Call Registry and the Direct Marketing Association’s Mail Preference Service.

What are the causes? There probably are many.

• The increasing volume of solicitations in the mailbox and the increasing use of telemarketing over the past two decades certainly have taken a toll. 
• Internet users are inundated by spam. As a result, donors face an onslaught of fundraising solicitations every day via their mailboxes, telephones and e-mail inboxes.

Major scandals within the nonprofit community, which have drawn attention to irregularities concerning the use of funds, haven’t helped the situation. The United Way scandals, the American Red Cross’ post-Sept. 11 controversy and other hullabaloos have affected many nonprofit donors’ confidence. Unfortunately, the mistakes of a few have tainted all of us to some degree.

So what can you do about it? How can you combat increasing donor skepticism and protect your fundraising program? It's not practical to trim your own use of direct mail, telefundraising or e-philanthropy. If you pull back on your solicitations, some other nonprofit will fill the void with its own fundraising campaigns. Out of sight, out of mind… your donors and potential donors simply will direct their contributions elsewhere.

The best way to combat donor skepticism is by addressing the issue head-on. You need to illustrate your organization’s effectiveness and efficiency within your fundraising campaigns.

The importance of this concept was illustrated in a test conducted by my firm for one of our clients. The organization was favorably noted in an article in a well-known national magazine, which named the organization one of the most effective charities in the country. We developed a small insert that referenced the endorsement, and then tested it as a new component within that organization’s donor-acquisition control package.

The inclusion of this simple insert dramatically boosted results. This positive outcome led to other tests:

• A quote from the magazine was included in the letter, 
• A teaser that announced the favorable rating was placed on the envelope.

And this isn’t an isolated case. Many examples of similar tests with other organizations also have proved to be successful. Organizations that have received favorable comments by publications or efficiency ratings from nonprofit watchdog groups have used these flattering reviews to their benefit. Simple charts that illustrate the fiscal efficiency of an organization have proven successful, as well.

Ironically, the success of these tests also proves my original point that there’s a level of major skepticism on the part of at least some donors. Otherwise, why else would there be such a favorable response to efforts to tout efficiency? This must mean that they suspect many nonprofit organizations are not efficient.

To figure out how to reassure your donors and potential supporters about your organization’s efficiency, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Does my organization spend a majority of its funds on its mission versus administration and fundraising? 
2. Have watchdog groups given my organization good ratings? 
3. Have any magazines, newspapers or other publications given us good reviews?

If you have a positive response to any of these three questions, then you need to convey this information to your donor audience. You’ll be rewarded for the effort.

Do believe donors are getting more or less skeptical? Is your organization making use of these three tools? If so, in what ways?