Purple Patch Blog

What to do when people are talking about you, not to you …

By Dawn Varley

This week I had two very different customer experiences, one very good and one very bad. What was really interesting was how I talked about them (you know that a good story spreads, but a bad story spreads faster…), and how they then unfolded – all thanks to my new best friend, twitter.

On Monday I was working from home, in part because things just fell that way, and in part because I was expecting a delivery. One that had been due to arrive the previous Friday, but had failed to show. As a fairly recent convert to twitter (c 3months and loving it) I tweeted my annoyance, mentioned the company, and got a tweet reply saying ‘We will be in touch, thanks’. Wow, I thought, that’s fast, and was happy it was being sorted. But I heard nothing after that, and so went ahead and re-arranged delivery online. Slightly annoying, but all good so far, or so I thought.

Monday arrived, and although I had parcels to take to the Post Office for relatives in Australia (it was last posting day for Christmas) I duly sat and waited. And waited. Whilst I waited my mobile rang, and it was a very bouncy chap calling from Christian Aid, following up my text donation to their mosquito net appeal. He launched into his script, and was furiously thanking me for my support, so much so that I had a hard time trying to butt in. Thank you, I said, but I was called a couple of months back after the original text, and I said then I didn’t want any more calls. He apologised, said it would be noted, and rang off. I was a bit annoyed about being disturbed this way, as I think if I’ve told you how I want to be contacted you should record it and stick to it. And I used to work for Christian Aid, so I know the CRM system can and does record ‘Do not phone’ flags. Indeed I used to import them onto the system. So, guess what I did? Yep, I tweeted. It was a polite tweet, but it did name check Christian Aid, whilst pointing out how important it is to record donor preferences. And then I got back to waiting for my delivery (Post Office now closed, sorry Aus rels, your parcels will be late)… Monday evening came and went. No delivery in sight, so another tweet, and a big complaint email, sent to the company.

Tuesday arrived and all was quiet from the delivery company. But I got a lovely reply from Christian Aid, asking for my details so they could investigate the problem with the lack of call suppression. I was very impressed. Not only is that good customer service, it’s good customer service via a channel that they have to pro-actively listen too. After all, I was talking about them, not to them. But they still heard, knew it was important to resolve, and got in touch. A few direct messages later and the mystery was revealed – a duplicate record for me on the system. As a database person I can understand that – it happens. One record was my full supporter details with name and address, and the other just my name and mobile number. I wouldn’t let the system merge me on that basis  - it could be two different people. The nice folks at Christian Aid explained that, apologised, and set to sorting it. Fantastic. I of course duly name checked them and their great supporter care in a tweet, am likewise thanking them now, and may even use this as a case study for a future seminar. Good stories can go far.

The moral of this story I think is that, whatever your business, delivering parcels to customer, or selling your cause to supporters, these days you have to be where the conversations about you are happening. And that’s facebook and twitter as the headline social media arenas. And you can’t just broadcast, you have to listen. And if you hear your name you should reply, in the right circumstances, but ideally you should also record those interactions. If I’m talking about you on twitter then I’m telling people about you – that’s an important piece of information to know. Ideally you should record that on your CRM – but I don’t know many organisations who are. Are you? I wonder if Christian Aid is. I think they just might, they seem to be savvy folks.

As for my delivery, as I arrived home late Tuesday evening I passed a very annoyed delivery man coming out of my block, wheeling away my parcel. I managed to intercept it and all is now sorted. Not sure I’ll be taking my business back there again in a hurry though. Sometimes the corporate world can learn from the not for profit one, and this is a case in point.

 

 

 

That was the (fundraising) week that was...

by Dawn Varley (@nfpdawnv)

Sunday evening, and thinking about the new week ahead... Or rather, I should be but I feel I've only just recovered from the week that just was. Don't get me wrong, it was a fabulous week as I spent a full three days at the Institute of Fundraising National Convention, with over 2,000 other fundraisers, talking about all things fundraising (or rather, not quite all things fundraising*). But all the listening, pondering, agreeing, questioning, tweeting (I made it into the top 10 tweeters - 2 months ago I didn't even see why I should be on twitter...), networking, 'small world-ing' and more meant it took its toll on mind and body. So, if you didn't make it, or indeed even if you did, I've shared some learnings below that I hope will make you think - as they did me. And read on after that for how the week ended!

• Ken Burnett, Alan Clayton & Giles Pegram CBE (fundraising royalty - shouldn't be allowed in the same room at the same time) held an amazing 'pull no punches' session entitled 'Think BIG!' in which they told us all that 'fundraising is [currently] a very shallow profession'; that we have sub-contracted out talking to our donors; and that we should stop apologising for fundraising'. WOW. Alan Clayton encouraged us all to be a lion/lioness fundraiser, who isn't afraid to roar - and who certainly doesn't move around every 18 months. Fundraisers need to 1) Make Decisions; 2) Commit yourself; and 3) Invest long-term. A lot of what was said I fully agreed with, and look forward to roaring re fundraising strategy very soon.
• A session on 'Naked ROI' (no disrobing involved) looked at the oft-talked of, and little understood/defined, 'Lifetime Value' (LTV). John Baguley (IFC) and Charlie Keep (Freedom from Torture) gave a brilliant session on understanding the value of your donors (financial and non-financial, as campaigning/event activity counts!) , what is important and what not (organisation dependant) and how to calculate it. The maths blew the mind a tad, but real food for thought and a great reminder that to work all this magic you need good data, which requires a decent CRM system, and required joined up thinking with your fundraising strategy. Easy then...
• Two great sessions came from different angles on the new fundraising buzz phrase in town 'crowd-sourcing'. Nick Burne from Think, Ed Whiting from WeDidThis.org.uk, and Tamasine Johnson from the National Trust's 'MyFarm' project were out and proud about it, and Tamasine was especially honest about what has (as yet) failed to translate into a real success for the NT (a foray into social media, and on a topic which has done more to alter perceptions of the NT than raise money - Ken Burnett would call that a fail, as per the 'Think BIG!' session). Ultimately crowd-sourcing (or crowd funding) means going to wider public to support/fund/power projects and make them happen. This is micro-projects with people power, vs mega-projects run by organisations. Interesting take on things, but I may be with Ken on the effectiveness of it vs 'traditional fundraising'. Depends on how you value engagement in your LTV model perhaps (see what I did there?)
• The next day AJ Leon (LaC Project), a 'rogue fundraiser' from the US, held a session about 'unfundraising'. This quickly unfolded to me as a very closely related cousin to the 'crowd-funding' theme stated above - by involving & inspiring others to be evangelical about your project, spread the word, etc they then do the fundraising for you. The idea works on a micro-project model, reports in real time from the projects concerned (a $100 'back alley' phone was handed to village resident so he could blog - he did, and it so worked), and allows supporters to sign-up to a project and be part of a project community. Hmm, I see how it works, I see how it inspires, and I see how small projects are easy to move - but that vs the experience of organisations who have been doing this for years, with the infrastructure, the experience and the ability to get economies of scale? I think my gut tells me to stick with the old school method, in terms of maximising beneficiary reach. But if you're talking engagement and empowerment of supporters, then I guess you go the other way. Interesting indeed, in terms of what social media means for fundraising.
• The last session to mention here was from another fundraising guru, Adrian Sargeant, and Jen Shang ('Professor of Philanthropic Psychology' - only in America!), about using psychology in fundraising asks. So you call up to join/make a donation and you are told 'Mary joined last week and gave $300' - in the hope that this will make you up your game against a simple 'how much would you like to donate'. And it did increase uplift, giving an average gift of $112 against the no-prompt control of less than $100...But at what cost to the donors self-esteem? Maybe I'm a sensitive soul, but would it be better to let the donor decide rather than make them feel bad about not being able to give $300? Discuss. Prompts, communities ('symbolic social identity') and smilies (male response rates saw significant increase when a row of 'smilies' lasered on response form. No such uplift for the ladies!) all figured in this interesting, but to me, slightly manipulative, session. But hey, I'm sure you're just going to tell me that's what fundraising is all about...

* So, great convention. Lots learned, lots to consider and lots to take back to the office. BUT. One thing really stood out to me - and it's the * bit. Whilst fundraising was considered from almost every angle, what seemed lacking across all three days was time dedicated to the systems that underpin matters under discussion. Technology didn't get a look in, aside from social media and fundraising software/methods such as online & SMS. What about where your donor data resides? Does your CRM reflect your fundraising stategy? How do you tie all the streams of donor info together? Etc, etc. Still waiting for sessions on the above. Maybe next year. In fact maybe Purple Vision should start writing the session pitch right now.

To see how it all unfolded this year search for #iofnc on twitter.

Oh, and as for how the week ended after 3 full days of fundraising at the start... with the News of the World implosion - and subsequent offer to charities for free advertising space and/or donations of revneue to 'good causes'. How's that for a trustee challenge, ethical-dilemma, short-term gain vs long-term reputation, fundraising question? And with a response required in 24 hours. Twitter and online debate forums lit up like Christmas trees. Brilliant, but exhausting.

You simply can't take the fun out of fundraising. Love it.

Iris – The Next Generation (and no Klingons in sight!)

The IRIS NFP World conference this month was the Launchpad for software vendor Iris NFP to finally unveil its new-look range of CRM systems for non-profit organisations. And they look good, with potential to challenge strongly in the middle and upper end of the market. On the other hand, the cost to upgrade could prove to be too high for many existing users.

Having spent several years buying up various smaller developers, Iris has finally settled on a three pronged strategy. For the medium to large charity there will be IntegraNG and CareNG. Integra will deliver membership functionality with Care having a stronger focus on fundraising. Meanwhile, for smaller organisations who don’t have such complex requirements (or big budgets), there is Donor Strategy, which comes in various versions for charities, membership organisations and schools.

There has been much speculation about if and when Iris would choose to bring together its two main products in a single technology platform, and now we have the answer: the new NG product range is an updated version of the Iris Care. This decision is not a surprise since Care is already a more modern and flexible solution than the ageing Integra. So now, although they are the same behind the scenes, the two NG systems sport different features, depending on whether you are looking for charity functionality (donations, sponsor me, legacies, financial processing) or membership tools (CPD, subscriptions, examinations).

As many Iris customers know, support has been a problem in the past 12 months or so. The scale and simplicity of a single technology base and a vendor committed to development and support is an encouraging step forward. Martin Carter, the new Head of Support for IRIS, said he has been hiring staff and building capacity so that there is now a single integrated team handling queries for all of their products. Let’s hope things continue to improve. If you are an Iris user please let us know if you’re feeling the benefit of these changes yet?

For anyone interested in the technology, Iris has selected the latest implementation of Microsoft’s .NET framework – version 4. The NG software should be easily accessible via web services, which means that other developers, in particular web developers, should be able to access the data in the NG system and integrate it with a wide range of third party applications. Interestingly, by shifting further towards .NET Iris has followed their rival Blackbaud who announced their commitment to the same technology (their so-called Infinity Platform) back in 2009. However, don’t assume that the gap is as great as it may sound, because Iris has the advantage of many years of Care development in earlier versions of .NET, and Blackbaud has been slow to bring to market the new version of its market-leading product, The Raiser’s Edge.

So, this all sounds like good news. Iris has got its act together and the playing field has been levelled for anyone considering a new CRM system. But what about the options if you already have the current versions of Care and Integra? Happily, there is no charge to adopt the new versions of the software – they come for free, as long as you are up to date with Iris’s annual licensing and support scheme. However, the process of upgrading will not be free, with various costs (and risks) associated with planning and managing the migration to a new system. The migration path will be much easier for existing Care clients as they are already familiar with the .NET framework. For Integra users, it will be a much steeper learning curve, with a lot of work to translate, import and restructure. Estimates for the amount of consultancy time needed to upgrade start at around 30 days for smaller implementations, which is not a low cost upgrade!

With all the operational changes and retraining, for many users this will feel like an entirely new system, with all the associated headaches (and the benefits of course)! This may not be an entirely attractive prospect, but ultimately you have no choice! Iris has announced that their current products will be supported until 2015, but after that they plan to progressively withdraw support from the old Care and Integra, with clients expected to move across the new platform.

Overall, we think this is a welcome development. Iris NFP has staked its future on NG, which appears to be a much better product with vital improvements to integration and flexibility. New customers have an good option and existing customers can lok forward to the prospect of significant enhancements. We look forward to seeing the products in more detail and we will keep you posted here.

The new era: Social CRM explained

Can you answer the following questions?

• What is the online profile of your donorbase?
• What is the ROI of your new media budget?
• What are people tweeting about your organisation right now?
• Have you considered using an iPhone app?
• What % of internet statistics are made up?
• How do you know what to believe?

Apparently, there’s another e-revolution going on!  Are you up to speed?  Ahead of the curve?  On the bandwagon?  It’s easy to feel alarmed by experts with sensational claims and exciting ideas that don’t seem to relate to the reality of your next newsletter or fundraising event.

 

But, despite the hype and fads, we believe that online social media does represent a profound change in the relationship between supporters and non-profit organisations.  This is not because the internet is cheaper or faster or funkier than the old methods; it’s because your supporters can get what they need without you!

 

  

Despite the theory, under the model of CRM in use by most fundraisers today, relationships are, in fact, geared around the cause and not the supporter.  Think about it; who decides what the key issues are, which people might be interested, and when to launch communications?  But with social networking tools like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the balance of power has shifted to your supporters.

 

In the past, if your supporter wanted to find out about one of your fundraising events, they visited your web site.  If they wanted to complain about you, they wrote you a letter. If they wanted to find like-minded supporters, they phoned and you might direct them to a local volunteer branch. Now, they do all of these things without you even knowing!

 

  

Maybe you have already encountered social media and tried it out for yourself?  You probably have your own Facebook page or Twitter account? And perhaps you have identified ways to exploit it for your organisation?  But do you know how this affects all your other fundraising activities?  How does it relate to your events, your campaigns, your service delivery, and all that information in your CRM system?

 

 

See our full article at http://www.purple-vision.com/news-item.asp?Auto_ID=34

It's membership, Jim, but not as we know it ...

At the NCVO's Annual Conference last week, Matthew Taylor led a thought provoking workshop on the future of membership.

Working with membership organisations quite a lot, we see all sorts of clients with various kinds of stakeholders at different stages in their lifecycle (birth, growth, maturity etc) and most are struggling to work out how to relate to (what they call) their 'members' in light of new technology.

One client recently described our work to help introduce web 2.0 as 'giving the organisation back to its members'. Those that don't understand what he meant are beginning to lose out, their old momentum, thought leadership and influence is seeping away to spontaneous new spaces - like online groups, wikis and open media.

In this way, open source disempowers traditional membership organisations but also nurtures new forms of social capital. I agree with the conclusion in the workshop that "membership as we know it" is seriously under threat - but I regard this as refreshing not depressing.

I wonder what happens to organisations after they get to maturity in that lifecycle model? Is there a further stage? Could they disintegrate, regenerate, or regroup? I see parallels with the classic Boston Matrix. It's all rather interesting and I will be following closely the progress of the research project initiated by Karl Wilding and his team at NCVO.