Charity Apps Love 'em and Hate 'em

As nonprofit professionals, we're always interested in ways to increase giving and reach new donors. Several new websites and mobile apps also seek to do just that. Some for better, some for... well, let's just say that sometimes even the folks who want to help us don't quite get it.

Let's start with what I find to be the best of this set, CharitySub. The premise is simple, and just an updated spin on giving circles. Rather than a small group of friends pooling their resources to make a sizable donation to a local cause, it's potentially thousands of like-minded strangers pooling their resources online to create an impact.

CharitySub is short for Charity Subscription, and the subscription fee is $5 per month. At the start of each month, all subscribers are presented with background information on three different nonprofits working on a particular cause. Subscribers then select where they want their $5 to go to. The next month, three more nonprofits are presented.

For the new (younger?) donor, who would like to learn more about nonprofits and various causes, and be reminded to try to give a little each month, CharitySub could be a great door-opener.

The folks at Johnson & Johnson have entered the mobile photo market with their new Donate A Photo app. Rather than encouraging direct philanthropy, as CharitySub does, Donate A Photo seeks to harness the power of "slacktivism" to fuel Johnson & Johnson's corporate giving.

Users install the app and use it to share their photos to twiiter or facebook, just as they would with most any other photo app, but with the added graphics promoting Donate A Photo and Johnson & Johnson. In exchange, J&J will donate $1 for each photo you post (one photo a day limit per user) to your chosen cause.

Finally, we come to Budge. What can I say about Budge other than, with friends like this, who needs detractors. Yes, if people use this app, it will result in donations to charities. But it hardly encourages philanthropy. Quite the opposite. In their own words, "charity can be a bit of a drag" and "drain the bank account." But they also believe people are "fundamentally good" so they devised the Budge.

With the Budge app, users challenge their friends to contests and games. The loser of the contest "has to" make a micro-donation to a charity (no explanation of how small a donation "micro" is given). That "winners" don't give to charity - charity's only for losers - is simply not the message I think any of us want to promulgate. Thanks, but no thanks.

By the way, the apps reviewed above all came to me through a technology newsletter I get each day called Netted. Each day they send new sites and apps; yesterday's just happened to focus on charity apps.

On another note, I will be teaching a free lunchtime workshop, "Can Crowdfunding Help Your Nonprofit Raise $ and Supporters?" at the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County on Thursday, August 1st. I've got some great research into the preferences of young donors, and how to reach them through crowdfunding. Yes, I'll be talking some about Benevolent.net, but that's only part of the story.

Simple Answer: Boredom and Burnout

I was just checking Twitter, and saw a question from @GailPerrync: "In general, only 1 in 10 donors keep on giving indefinitely. Why?"

Well, I'm sure Gail has her own well-researched reasons why, but the answer that popped right into my head was, "Boredom & burnout; not being shown how their $$ led to progress."

Think of it, year after year, you've been giving a particular nonprofit. And, year after year, their appeal letters have been pretty much the same. The children are still hungry, the water is still filthy, and they're still asking you for another $50. When does it get better?

It's been said a thousand times before, by many more famous nonprofit consultants than myself, but donors prefer to invest in success than to be guilted into giving, yet again.

Do the appeals your organization is sending out make these mistakes? Or are you first explaining what progress you made since your last ask, the results that money led to, and what exactly you'll be doing with the next donation? Did you remember to thank the donor, and let them know how instrumental they are in your continued success?

Or did you just tell them how awful everything has gotten, and expect them to still be paying attention?

Join the conversation over on Twitter - I'm there as NonprofitKenG.

Shooting The Fundraising Dog

Way back when I was barely a teenager, National Lampoon magazine was the utmost in risque humor. One famous and classic example of their pushing the limits of the acceptable was their January 1973 cover featuring a dog with a gun pointed at his head and the text, "If you don't buy this magazine, We'll Kill This Dog."

It was distasteful, it was outrageous, it was offensive, it was shocking, and it was, ultimately, just plain funny. It's also a great example of the fundraising strategy used at one time or another by nearly every one of us in the nonprofit sector. Don't believe me? How about this email subject line that just landed in my inbox: "Urgent Request: More than 24,000 children will die today but you can help."

This is what we've all been taught to do: Illustrate a need and create a sense of urgency! Buy the magazine or the dog gets it.

We all know the importance of our organization's mission, and understand our dependence on the good will of others to fund the work, but don't you think it's time to put the guilt trips aside?

Perhaps I just contributed to the death of 24,000 children, but I deleted that email. I didn't even read it first. Now, had the headline told me about 24,000 children saved (fed, clothed, housed, schooled...), I would have been curious.

Lead with your success and your strength, and I will want to be a part of that. More bad news and guilt, I really don't need right now. I'll bet a lot of other donors feel this way as well. Let's put that poor dog out of his misery and put the gun down, once and for all.