查看原文
其他

艰难时期,给非营利机构的九个筹款建议 | 双语

SSIR 斯坦福社会创新评论 2021-09-05


"

新型冠状病毒横空出世,人类社会面临极限挑战,这引发了全球范围内的创新者们对寻找应对复杂公共危机和社会问题新方法的关注与热情。


《斯坦福社会创新评论》中文版拟推出“应对复杂公共问题新思路”专题。围绕自组织、集合效应、系统领导力、在线平台化等几个应对公共问题的主要工具,分享国际案例和实践指南,与读者共学同思,探寻新路径。
疫情期间,社会经济形势不容乐观,非营利机构亦面临生存挑战。对于筹款人而言,需要思考怎样才能最小化困难时期对组织的影响,同时又最大化收入。
众所周知,2008年的国际金融危机使全球经济遭受重创。非营利机构也一度深受影响,许多机构因为缺乏资金而倒闭,裁员或削减项目。本文即写于2009年春季,对非营利机构如何在充满挑战的经济环境中生存下去提出建议,特重发于此,希望给读者一些有益的启示。
作者马尔-华威克从1979年开始从事专业筹款,他认为,谨慎的中间路线是应对危机的唯一理性方法,而这一中间路线可归结为九个具体步骤。"
 

本文首发于SSIR英文网站作者:马尔-华威克(Mal Warwick)翻译:洪静澜校对:孙铭伟、刘新童、姚森

 

经济状况每况愈下。作为筹款人,我们怎样才能最小化困难时期对组织的影响,同时又最大化我们的收入呢?

 

首先,我们需要达成共识,无论是在慌乱中前后失据、对问题闭目塞听,或是对未来困境中蕴含的机会保持盲目乐观、认为只要敢于冒险、加大筹款力度就是万全之策,都不是可取且明智的选择。相反,我认为,谨慎的中间路线是应对危机的唯一理性方法。而这一中间路线可归结为九个具体步骤:

 

01重新评估一切:筹款、营销和传播。

问责机制和系统评估是必不可少的管理实践。不幸的是,非营利机构并没有普遍采用这些机制。但是,经济困境会迫使我们全面评估我们所做的一切。是时候建立一个常规的流程,让你的筹款、营销和传播项目以最高的效率效果运作起来了。
 
02强调筹款理由。

许多在社会部门工作的同僚们认为公众应当感激我们——毕竟我们高尚地接受了较低的工资和较长的工作时间。然而,筹款不会凭空出现,而需要我们去争取,没有什么比经济衰退更能说明这一点了。利用这个机会重新审视你的筹款理由。确保你的捐赠者明白,困难时期迫切需要你所提供的服务,并且清楚你正在采取许多具体措施来提高效率和服务效果。但值得注意的是,不要在筹款工作如何受到经济影响的问题上大做文章。请记住,你的捐赠者并不关心这点,他们更关心的是你的客户或受益人的情况如何。
 
03坚持行之有效的工作。

许多筹款顾问和非营利组织经理人都迷恋于“创意”。但是,当这个词等同于花哨鲜艳的图表文案时,所有人都会迷失方向。如果说市场营销者几十年来的经验对筹款行业有什么启示的话,那就是与众不同并不总是更好。经济不景气并不能证明抛弃过去行之有效的做法是合理的。事实上,是时候谨慎行事,削减成本了。
 
04精细化地削减成本,避免鲁莽和简单行事。

削减筹款成本有很多简单的方法。你可以停止寻找新的捐赠者,不再向捐赠者发送感谢信或礼物,你也可以终止电话营销、削减直邮预算,甚至裁员。但这种无所顾忌的后果便是,组织离破产不远了。
 
不管经济状况如何,事业还要运作下去。你不得不筹集资金。你不能把忠实而积极响应的捐赠者当作统计数据,也不能停止构建你的捐赠者数据库。不然,你的捐赠者名单会缩水,收入也会减少到零头。应对经济危机的唯一可行的、商业化的方法是认识到这一点:筹款需要持续的投入与关注。是选择削减项目还是削减筹款预算?如果选择后者,你可能是在搬起石头砸自己的脚。用不了多久,你就会毁掉一个有效的筹款项目,而你的项目又将何去何从?
 
05寻找有效的捐赠者。

对任何从事筹款工作的专业人员来说,很明显,大手笔的筹款通常比小手笔的筹款更划算。越是来自机构的资助或大额捐赠者的大额个人捐赠,筹款成本就越低。任何参加过一次筹款会议或研讨会的人,肯定都知道 "帕累托原则"(Pareto Principle),即二八法则。它告诉我们,相对较少却慷慨的捐赠者贡献了组织所获慈善净收入的绝大部分。这表明,我们应该把更多的时间、精力和金钱集中在慷慨的、反应迅速的捐赠者身上。
 
然而,非营利组织却很少运用哪怕最简单的电脑工具,依据捐赠者的捐赠历史将他们区分开来。如果你的组织习惯于以完全相同的方式对待所有捐赠者,那么是时候研究一下如何通过一个深思熟虑的细分计划来做出相应调整了。如果你已经对群体细分很熟悉了,那么是时候考虑将更多的注意力放在中层以及主要的捐赠者身上了。
 
06关心你的捐赠者。

2008年底,印第安纳大学慈善事业中心为美国银行进行的一项针对美国高净值捐赠者的研究显示,捐赠者停止向某一特定慈善机构捐赠的首要原因是 "(情感上)觉得与组织无关了"。这并不让人感到意外。所有的捐助者都需要感觉到被重视。他们需要感觉到自己有被告知。他们对慈善机构的信心需要不断加强。对于非营利组织来说,持有“无论怎样对待捐赠者,他们都会继续捐款”的有恃无恐的态度,在任何时候都是不可行的。
 
07做尽职调查。

任何一位大额捐赠专员拜访一位潜在捐赠者前,都会试图挖掘关于潜在捐赠者的捐赠历史和个人兴趣等信息的方方面面。那么,对于一个同时与成百上千的捐赠者打交道的筹款人来说,与潜在捐赠者接触之前通过邮件、电话或网络收集他们的个人信息,何错之有呢?可悲的是,大多数地推筹款人都不太认可这种行为。想想看,我们仅能从最基本的通用数据着手,发送的内容大多是无差别性的呼吁和请求,往往只能用 “亲爱的朋友"或 "亲爱的捐赠者"来开头,因为我们完全不了解对方的兴趣点与动机。当然,我们都明白,在新的捐赠者招募工作中,这种没有人情味的做法可能是必要的。但是,我们对捐赠者的了解难道仅限于这个人曾经捐钱给我们吗?
 
如果我们拥有比最基础的数据库更多的东西,我们就知道捐助者提供了多少钱,捐赠了多少次,已经给我们捐款多久了,最初捐赠的原因是什么:是一封信、一通电话、一封电子邮件、访问我们的网站,还是与朋友的谈话。即便这就是我们在动员过程中可以整合的所有信息,不过也肯定比一封简陋的“亲爱的捐助者”信函,能够获得更多支持!
 
08加大线上募捐力度。

互联网已经筹集到了数十亿美元的资金。这些钱的大部分进入了人道主义救援组织,如美国红十字会、救世军和联合国儿童基金会;或者是美国总统竞选活动,尤其是贝拉克·奥巴马的竞选活动;以及一些较小范围内的维权组织,如人权运动、大赦国际与绿色和平等。尽管数十亿资金看起来很多,但仅占一般慈善收入的一小部分(在美国大约在1%到3%之间,取决于数据来源)。
 
在经济困难时期,网上筹款对各个社会各界都可谓是解困之道。不过,线上渠道对非营利组织的筹款人来说,有多重好处,大部分与金钱没有直接关系:比如吸引年轻的支持者,为选民提供参与工作的机会,以及加强通过其他渠道发出的筹款动员等等。加大线上宣传投入有诸多收益,不仅能促进近期的筹款工作,还能为更繁荣的未来奠定基础。
 
09打破藩篱。

多数大学获取赞助的方式是这样的:联络部门给一名女校友寄来一份杂志,文理学院每年寄给她几份募捐书,大学的年度基金征集学生与她电话联系。历史系(她所学的专业)也在向她征集募捐。社会科学研究生院(她是在那里获得硕士学位的)和校友会也是如此,他们不断地在世界各地向校友邮寄跨越千山万水的小册子……以此类推。毫不奇怪,那么多大学都在为校友们每年的赞助 “参与率”不高而沮丧。

在某种程度上,成千上万非营利组织机构的情况也与之类似。因此,需要一个裁判员来尽量减少同源细分信息的竞争。在一定程度上集中整合安排所有这些相互竞争的筹款工作,必然会减少捐赠者的流失。事实上,当一个项目真正将筹资、营销和沟通方案加以整合时,即使在最坏的外部条件下,收入也会增加。
 
倘若你按照这条建议以及我的其他所有建议去行动,经济衰退就会消失吗?你的筹款工作一定会成功、涅槃重生吗?答案几乎是否定的。我之所以提出这些建议,是因为我相信,如果你明智地采纳这些建议,你会在短期内最大限度地提高你的捐赠收入,为经济好转后的复兴蓄力。
 
最起码,我希望我的乐观态度能带给你安心。
 

注:本文作者Mal Warwick 从1979年开始从事专业筹款。这篇文章改编自他的第19本书《如何在资金紧缺时筹集资金:艰难时期生存与发展的战略实用指南》。
 


英文对照阅读


《Fundraising in Tough Times》


Our economy is in bad shape and will only get worse. So what can we fundraisers do to minimize the impact of this difficult period on our organizations, and at the same time maximize our income?

For starters, let’s agree that panicking and crawling into a hole is not a reasonable option. Nor is pretending that economic troubles will create multiple opportunities for venturesome fundraisers, who need only invest more in raising money. Instead, I believe, a cautious middle course is the only rational way to respond to the crisis. And that middle course boils down to nine concrete steps:


Reassess the Whole Ball of Wax: Fundraising, Marketing, and Communications. Accountability mechanisms and systematic evaluation are essential management practices. Unfortunately, the nonprofit sector does not universally employ them. But economic distress has a way of pushing us to assess thoroughly all that we’re doing. Now’s the time to put in place a regular process that will allow your fundraising, marketing, and communications programs to function at the highest degree of efficiency and effectiveness.


Strengthen Your Case for Giving. Although many of us in the social sector believe the public owes us a living—we’ve nobly accepted lower pay and longer hours, after all—money doesn’t just materialize. It has to be earned. And there’s nothing better than a recession to drive this point home. Take the opportunity to reexamine your case for giving. And 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. Just be careful not to make a big deal about how your organization’s fundraising efforts are suffering. Take it from me: Your donors don’t care. They care about how your clients or beneficiaries are faring.


Stick with What Works. Many fundraising consultants and nonprofit managers are enamored with “creativity.” But when that word means nothing more than flashy graphics and splashes of brightly colored ink, everyone loses. If the decades-long experience of direct marketers has anything at all to teach the fundraising profession, it’s that different isn’t always better. An economic downturn does not justify throwing out what has worked in the past. In fact, it’s a time for caution and cost cutting.


Cut Costs with a Scalpel, Not an Ax. There are lots of easy ways to cut fundraising costs. You can stop prospecting for new donors. You can eliminate thank-yous to donors. You can cut out telemarketing efforts, slash the direct mail budget, and reduce the major gift staff . The only problem with this heedless approach is that it’s a prescription for bankruptcy.


Business goes on, whatever the economic conditions. You can’t not raise funds. You can’t treat loyal and responsive donors like statistics. And you can’t stop building your donor database. If you do these things, your donor list will shrink through attrition and your income will slack off to a dribble. The only defensible, businesslike way to respond to an economic crisis is to recognize that fundraising requires both continuing investment and ongoing care. If the choice arises between cutting back slightly on programs or slashing the fundraising budget, you may shoot yourself in the foot if you opt for the latter. It doesn’t take long to destroy an effective fundraising operation— and then where will your programs be?


Fish Where the Big Fish Are. It’s obvious to anyone professionally involved in fundraising that it’s generally more cost-effective to raise money in big chunks than in little ones. A grant from an institutional funder or a significant gift from an individual major donor rarely comes at a high cost of fundraising. And anyone who’s attended even one fundraising conference or workshop has surely become acquainted with the Pareto Principle, or 80/20 rule, which teaches us that a relatively small number of more generous donors account for the lion’s share of the net philanthropic revenue our organizations receive. All of this points to the wisdom of focusing more time, effort, and money on generous and responsive donors and less effort on less productive ones.


Yet how many nonprofits truly make use of the simple computer tools that allow us to take advantage of these self-evident truths by grouping donors into distinct segments based on their giving histories? If your organization has the habit of treating all of your donors the same way, it’s time to examine how you can fi ne-tune your program with a well-considered segmentation plan.


If you’re already well acquainted with segmentation, then it’s time to consider focusing more on mid-level as well as major donors and excluding your least generous supporters from expensive appeals by mail or phone.


Be Attentive to Your Donors. A study of high net worth American donors conducted late in 2008 by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University for Bank of America revealed that the No. 1 reason donors stopped giving to a particular charity was “no longer feeling connected to the organization.” This is no surprise. All donors need to feel appreciated. They need to feel informed. Their confidence in the charity needs to be constantly reinforced. At no time can a nonprofit operate as though its donors will continue giving no matter how they’re treated.


Do Due Diligence. No major gift officer worth her salt would dream of visiting a prospect without attempting to uncover every possible bit of intelligence on the prospect’s giving history and personal interests (among many other things). Why, then, is it wrong for a fundraiser who deals with hundreds or thousands of donors at a time—through the mail, by phone, or online—to gather personal information about potential donors before approaching them for gifts? Sadly, most direct response fundraisers act as though this is an unnatural act. We work from bare-bones databases. Generic appeals predominate. We write to our “Dear Friend” or our “Dear Donor” without any inkling of what might interest or motivate that person. Surely, we all understand that such an impersonal approach might be necessary in new-donor acquisition eff orts. But don’t we know more about our donors than simply that they’ve given us money once upon a time?


If we have anything more than the most rudimentary of databases, we know how much our donors have given, and how frequently. We know how long they’ve been giving to us. And we know what sort of appeal triggered their initial gifts, whether it was a letter, a phone call, e-mail, a visit to our Web site, or a conversation with a friend. Even if that’s all the information we integrate into our appeals, surely it’ll do a better job of securing additional support than a crude “Dear Donor” letter!


Step Up Your Efforts Online. Billions of dollars have been raised online. But the lion’s share of that money has gone into the coffers of humanitarian relief organizations such as the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, and UNICEF; the highest-profile U.S. presidential campaigns, most notably Barack Obama’s; and, to a lesser extent, the leading advocacy organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace. And all those billions, despite how large the numbers might seem, represent a tiny fraction of general philanthropic revenue (somewhere between 1 and 3 percent in the United States, depending on whom you ask).


Online fundraising for its own sake does not represent the salvation of the nonprofit sector in a difficult economy. And yet the online channel has multiple benefits for nonprofit fundraisers, most of them having nothing to do directly with money: attracting younger supporters, providing constituents with opportunities for participation in your work, and reinforcing appeals sent through other channels, to name just three. An enhanced investment in online communications will pay many dividends, reinforcing near-term fundraising efforts and laying the foundation for a more prosperous future.


Break Down the Silos. Here’s how fundraising typically goes at major universities: The communications department sends an alumna a magazine. The liberal arts college sends her its solicitations a couple of times a year. The university annual fund enlists students to call her. The history department (her major) is all over her for a gift, too. So is the graduate school of social science (where she received her MA) and the alumni association, which is constantly mailing brochures about exotic trips around the world. And I could go on. Is it any wonder so many universities cry about the low rate of annual fund “participation” by their alumni?


This reality, which also applies to some degree at thousands of nonprofits and institutions, cries out for a referee to minimize the midair collisions of all those messages. Some minimal degree of centralized scheduling among all these competing offices would surely reduce donor attrition. Indeed, a truly integrated program of fundraising, marketing, and communications would boost revenue, even under the worst external conditions.


Am I saying that if you follow this recommendation—and all of my others—the recession will go away? Will you achieve fundraising nirvana? Hardly. I off er these suggestions because I believe that if you apply them judiciously, you’ll maximize your income in the short run and preserve your capacity for renewed growth once economic conditions improve.


At the least, I hope you’ll find my optimism reassuring.



END



# 本文提供的筹款tips对你有何启发?##关于筹款,你有什么建议?#
欢迎留言交流
也可扫描二维码添加福娃微信“勾搭我们”






打开淘宝扫描二维码或复制如下口令到淘宝打开¥Wec81LXtKae¥进入【北京乐平公益基金会公益店铺】即可购书



关联阅读




1. 向死而生:新冠病毒倒逼社会创新


2. 后疫情时代,“为成功付费”正当其时 | 双语

3. 在恐惧和社交隔离中,需要更多的公民参与

4. 黄铮公开信:新世界正到来,新物种必出现

5 应对公共危机,我们需要“系统领导者”

6. 透明、灵活,中国民间社会在疫情中有闪光表现



: . Video Mini Program Like ,轻点两下取消赞 Wow ,轻点两下取消在看

您可能也对以下帖子感兴趣

文章有问题?点此查看未经处理的缓存