Messaging Impact
By Nell EdgingtonThere is a missing link, I think, in how many nonprofit fundraisers approach their work. And that missing link is effective messaging. Fundraising often uses the messaging of need. “We need $100 to provide our programs.” “We need $1,000 to meet our goals.” And many who counsel fundraisers continue to stress the messaging of need, for example Mal Warwick’s most recent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Mal encourages fundraisers to strengthen their case for giving, but, for Mal, this case for giving is about the organization’s need: “be certain your donors understand both the more urgent need for your services during tough times and the many concrete steps you’re taking to increase your efficiency and effectiveness.”
That’s not how to raise money effectively. To raise significant money you need to focus on impact. The messaging of impact is very different from the messaging of organizational need. The messaging of need gets you donations. The messaging of impact gets you investments. And the two are very different:
Donations:
- Focus on organizational needs
- Tend to be smaller in size and shorter in length
- Are a response to an apologetic ask (the “tin cup” mentality)
Investments
- Focus on the impact (the change in outcomes) that an organization makes in the community
- Tend to be larger and longer
- Are presented as an opportunity
To raise significant, sustainable revenue, nonprofits have to move towards developing investors. Here is how raising investments differs from raising donations:
A successful fundraiser looks for investors who share the organization’s values and theory of change, and then demonstrates to them how the nonprofit creates that change in the community. The organization is merely a conduit for investing in change in the community. For example, an afterschool program for at-risk children is translating dollars into positive outcomes for the children in their charge (increased student achievement, fewer high-school drop outs, lower crime rates, etc.). If the organization were to fundraise around the organization’s needs, “Help us reach our goal of raising $100,000 for our program,” they would raise far less than if they were to fundraise around impact, “Invest in our organization so that we can improve opportunities for children, which creates fewer burdens on our community, more contributing members, and a healthier overall community.” The first message is about strengthening an organization, the second message is about strengthening a community. Which is more compelling? Which would make someone give more and continue to give if the promised impact is actually delivered?
The recession is, no doubt, a difficult time to raise money. But within this structural constraint there lies an opportunity. By moving an organization’s messaging from need to impact, from donation to investment, there is the opportunity to raise much more money and in so doing, to deliver much more impact.
Related posts:
2 Comments to Messaging Impact
This is an excellent post, and holds true here in Canada as well, from my experience. The only addition I would make is that for some non-profits (like those who are involved in international issues of poverty alleviation, human rights protection and justice for war criminals) it is often difficult to generate a message that conveyes a sense that a donor investment is going to be able to address the enormity of the challenges. I believe that this challenge is what has lead fundraisers to messages of “buy a goat” or “sponsor a child” or “build a well.” These are perhaps facile, but they are measurable investments to which donors respond. Sadly, these sorts of message do not necessarily attract the donors who are interested in transformational change that takes time, multi-faceted (and multi-sourced) investments, and the perseverance of the international community.
Jonathan,
I agree that it might be difficult to craft a message of impact with enormous challenges like poverty, human rights and justice for war criminals, but it is not impossible. Buying a goat is great, but what is it really doing? To craft effective messaging you need to get beyond to reach the donors “who are interested in transformational change that takes time.” If an investor buys a goat aren’t they really enabling a person to create their own source of income, which makes that person self-sustainable, which then makes that community healthier and stronger which then helps to make that part of the world healthier and safer and less apt to dissolve into conflict and war. This is just an example, but my point is that effective messaging is about pushing the message farther and continuing to ask “so what does that mean?” “so what does a goat do for this person, and then for this community and then for this country and then for the world?” By continuing to push the messaging and the argument further, fundraisers can uncover the impact and thus uncover those donors interested in transformational change and multi-faceted, multi-sourced investments.
Leave a comment
Sign Up for our Monthly E-Newsletter & Receive a Free "5 Ways to Raise More Money" Whitepaper
Most Popular Posts
Recent Posts
- A Boot Camp for Young Social Entrepreneurs
- The Change.org Social Entrepreneurship Blog
- A Watershed for the Social Capital Market?
- Climb on Board, Austin
- Can PRIs Support Fundraising and Capacity Building?
- The Power of a Case
- The Social Side of Entrepreneurship
- What We Can Learn From Idealist
- Convergence Can’t Be Denied
- Let’s Take a Step Back in the Outcomes Debate
Links
- Andrew Wolk
- B Corporation
- Beth's Blog: How Nonprofits Can Use Social Media
- Change.org's Social Entrepreneurship Blog
- Chronicle of Philanthropy
- Dan Pallotta
- New Philanthropy Capital
- Nonprofit Harvest
- Philanthropy 2173
- PhilanTopic
- Philosopher 2.0
- Reimagine Money Blog
- Skoll Foundation Blog
- Social Earth
- Stanford Social Innovation Review Opinion
- Tactical Philanthropy
June 4, 2009