http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/index.htmlDevelopment Software and Systems for Nonprofits!ensally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comCopyright 2009 Sally Funk2011-05-20T15:18:39-06:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:34:36 -0600sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comNone2011-05-20T15:18:39-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/d9592745c87de6f98fcf6c231939f6ba-11.html#unique-entry-id-11http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/d9592745c87de6f98fcf6c231939f6ba-11.html#unique-entry-id-11
Oh yeah, the same folks who thought a new web site would solve all their fundraising problems at once. Or e-mail. Or video events. Or telemarketing… Need I go on? It’s a bit surprising that after all these years there are still such widespread misconceptions about fundraising and development.

Don’t get me wrong. Social networking is a great new tool and will have an important part to play in accelerating organizational support. It’s just not the magical substitute for all other fundraising efforts. Expecting it to be such merely exposes a lack of understanding about the basic principles of development and confusion between giving methods and giving motives.

Fundraising is essentially the act of asking for and (hopefully) receiving a gift. It is transaction based and transaction focused. This often results in fatigue, discouragement, and a vulnerability to the enticements of “the next big thing.”

Development, on the other hand, encompasses the larger tasks of creating and keeping the right kind of donors. It is relationship based and donor focused. It recognizes tools and strategies as just that: tools and strategies to be applied as needed.

As our society becomes more technologically complex, we gain an increasing variety of methods for carrying out our charitable intentions. In the beginning, the only way people could give was face-to-face — one person helping another. Then came mail, followed by the telegraph. Then phones came along and the rate of change started to snowball. Each new advance has been hailed as either the replacement of all that has gone before or as the end of fundraising as we know it. Neither has ever been true.

What’s true is that people give to people, inspired by a cause. Nowadays, technology gives them a wider choice of how they give, which:
• Gives us more tools to help people expedite their giving
• Makes giving more convenient for many donors
• Complicates the planning and coordination of our work
• Increases the difficulty of tracking results and preferences
But mostly, the growth in giving avenues increases our ability to connect closely with donors and bring them into an interactive partnership.

The effective way to approach any new venue for giving (think SMS — it’s coming) is to look at it in the context of your current donor cultivation strategy first. Apply what you already know about building relationships and use the new tools as they fit your strategy and your donors. Then measure the results and adjust as needed.

Why your donors support you hasn’t changed all that much, just how they execute their giving.
]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comNone2011-03-31T12:38:23-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/a7694b6cab9ed822a0ffaf7e7fea1422-10.html#unique-entry-id-10http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/a7694b6cab9ed822a0ffaf7e7fea1422-10.html#unique-entry-id-10
We’ve all heard the statements. We may have even said them ourselves:

• “I don’t know why that letter didn’t work better. We worked so hard on it.”
• “We should have won that game. We practiced so hard.”
• “Of course it’s creative, we’ve been working on it for weeks.”
• “This mission statement seems so boring. It shouldn’t be, we’ve been working on it forever.”
• “I don’t like it much, but we’ve worked on it for so long, we don’t have time to come up with anything better.”

We seem to be suffering from a “mis-connect” of equating the level of work with effectiveness (or creativeness) of the project. Perhaps it comes from an over-reliance on the old adage of practice makes perfect. Perhaps we’re just in a rut.

It’s not like a lack of hard work yields the opposite result. More often than not, you just get a shoddy output.

It’s probably because we’re more confident of our ability to accomplish the “work” part than we are of coming up with the “good idea” part. Sometimes it’s easier to grab a mediocre idea and run with it than to turn against the dreaded production schedule and hold out for a better idea. After all, how do you know if that lump of an idea isn’t really a diamond in the rough?

If you’re not quite sure, try the energy test. Bad ideas are often more subject to the law of diminishing returns. They tend to take more effort and more time than seems reasonable, without any noticeable improvement. Really bad ideas are too much like shampooing a skunk – they just get worse the more you try.

In contrast, great ideas seem to generate their own energy, even to the point of appearing to grow on their own, sprouting additional ideas as they develop.

Let’s face it, the most limited resource you have is time. Spending it on a poor idea steals that resource from other projects that desperately need it. You can avoid at least some of the bad ideas that come along with a few basic steps:

• Have a plan – Work out a plan that includes goals and objectives. Compare the ideas that come up to how they advance those goals and objectives.
• Give yourself room to change course – Yes, you can produce an appeal letter (from concept to in the mail) in less than a week. You don’t want to do that very often. Schedule more time for production – four to six weeks for a letter. Schedule even more time for creative (six weeks plus). That does mean you’ll be working on your Christmas appeal in late September, but if the idea fizzles, you’ll have the breathing space to change direction.
• Take a break – If you find yourself thinking, “Well this is better than the other stuff we’ve come up with,” back away. Stand up. Breathe. Take a walk. Let it rest for a day or two. A good idea won’t suffer, but a bad idea will look worse.
• Shoot it down – Try reverse brainstorming. Get a group together, including the fans of the idea, and try to come up with all the reasons it’s a bad idea, all the problems that could arise, and all the ways it could be misunderstood. No judgment of the people behind the idea, but no holds barred about the idea itself. It’s also a good way to troubleshoot a good idea.

Remember, good ideas come from a deep understanding of your organization and you organization’s supporters. New isn’t always better. Different isn’t always better. Better is better.




]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comReports & Measurement2011-02-02T18:11:53-07:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/ad94533362b5decb96fbb18539d2490f-9.html#unique-entry-id-9http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/ad94533362b5decb96fbb18539d2490f-9.html#unique-entry-id-9
OK, the books are closed for last year and you’ve finished sending out the end of year receipts. But, before you dive into the activities for the coming year, take some time and review your end of year reports.

What’s that?

• You don’t run end of calendar year reports because you run on a fiscal year?
• Your only year-end reports are run by accounting?
• You’ve tried pulling year-end reports, but they don’t make any sense?
• You don’t know what (or how) to pull that kind of information? Or how you would use it if you could?

Three reasons why you should run calendar year end reports

1. Even if your fiscal year is different, your donors think of their giving in terms of the calendar year, so it just makes sense to measure their behavior this way. The only exceptions are schools, where people actually do think in terms of the school year.

2. Some trends, like continuity and frequency are best measured using a year-to-year comparison.

3. It’s an opportune time to look back at the year’s efforts (while you can still remember them) and evaluate their relative effectiveness. What worked? What didn’t? How could you improve on them?

What reports should you run – and what should you be looking for?

Don’t let the thought of year-end reports intimidate you. Start with the basics: productivity and progress. Productivity is taking a look at what you did last year to see if it worked, and how you can improve on it this year. Progress is the impact your efforts had on your support base. Simply put, are more people involved in supporting your work?

Productivity

Make a list of everything you did last year to raise funds and increase your base of support.

For each one, figure out:
• How much it cost
• How much it raised
• How many people were involved
• Did it achieve its purpose?
• Were there any surprises?
• How does it compare to what happened in the year before?
• What should or could be changed next time?

Progress

Compare this past year to the previous year (or several years for an overall trend).
• Do you have more donors this year than last?
• Did they give more, or less? (totals and averages)
• Did they give more often?
• Did you bring more people onboard? (Find)
• Did you get more new donors? (Win)
• Did more donors continue giving from the previous year? (Keep)
• Did current donors increase their involvement? (Lift)
• If not, what can you do to fix the problem?
• If so, what can you do to continue the growth?

What if you can’t get this information? Don’t give up. Make this year the year to make the changes needed so you can get the information next year. There are some common areas that create obstacles to getting the information you need.

Process – You have the software and the codes set up, but people aren't entering them properly. This is often because no one told the data entry people that this information is important. A little training and team-building may be in order.

Coding – This can be one of two problems: either the coding is improperly set up, or it is not being printed on response documents (or assigned to electronic response avenues). Either way, the data entry folks don’t have information to enter, so they enter whatever seems right to them.

Software – It’s possible that you’ve outgrown your software, and there are no available fields for the necessary codes. It might be that your software isn’t configured to fit your organization’s needs, or that the configuration and coding have been changed so many times that it no longer makes sense. In the worst case, your software simply might not be working properly.

If all this sounds like a good idea, but you don’t have the internal resources to figure it out or set it up, contact us at McConkey-Johnston International for expert assistance and solutions based on your organization’s needs.

]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comNonprofit best practices2010-08-30T12:47:36-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/0594a00ba00e0a73a7bf9b9a9acfbe2c-8.html#unique-entry-id-8http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/0594a00ba00e0a73a7bf9b9a9acfbe2c-8.html#unique-entry-id-8
I can see Pikes Peak from my window. At over 14,000 feet, it towers over every other mountain nearby. Yet, like many who live in this area, I’ve only been to the top once. Thousands more have never ascended its heights, although a handful do go up regularly. It’s not that it is particularly hard to do — in addition to a well-maintained hiking trail, there is a road and a train that go all the way up to the coffee shop (yes, coffee shop) on top. It’s just one of those, “one of these days…” goals.

Rather like “best practices” in our organizations. We talk about them a great deal, discussing how to define them, how they can be measured, whether they actually apply to the situation our organization is currently facing, and so forth. But surprisingly few organizations actually achieve the regular practice of “best practices.”

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with best practices. It’s more that, for most organizations, the step from here to there is just too big. When you’re out on the flatlands struggling to meet minimum requirements, it’s hard to imagine climbing the mountain.

Perhaps what we really need are intermediate steps.

Take receipting, for example. The IRS requires organizations to provide receipts for gifts of $250 or more, which provides an external definition of the minimum required practice. Best practice for sending receipts is a 24-hour turnaround from receiving a gift to the mailing of the receipt. There’s a huge chasm between those two benchmarks.

Wouldn’t it be more useful to step away from the “all or nothing” perspective and adopt a stair step of functionality levels something like:

1. Minimum requirement – what is legally required.
2. Marginally functional – the bare bones of what’s needed to make the effort work. In our receipt sample, this would be sending receipts to all donors monthly or annually.
3. Adequately acceptable – working at a level that allows a strategy to work mostly as designed, but not as effectively as desired. For our receipts, that would be a one-week turnaround.
4. Commonly effective – this is the difference between “working” and “working well.” For receipts, this would be 2 - 4 days. Most organizations should be able to reach this level and reap the benefits of the improved effectiveness.
5. Best practice – that “extra” — of innovation, excellence and ingenuity — that takes your strategy to the top.

This approach can provide a diagnostic tool for evaluating strategies and efforts in light of short and long term performance objectives. It also breaks down improvement goals to a manageable size.

Some might argue that his can encourage a mindset of settling for less than the best and giving up on the goal of excellence. But consider which is better: a choice between a seemingly unobtainable “best” and the wholly inadequate status quo, or an achievable small improvement, followed by others, building to a culture of innovation?


]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comDirect MailFundraising2010-03-08T12:54:28-07:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/62f05027f24dc13bd2a9ec90d95ceebc-7.html#unique-entry-id-7http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/62f05027f24dc13bd2a9ec90d95ceebc-7.html#unique-entry-id-7
Websites, social networking, e-mail, instant messaging, smart phones, video streaming, even telemarketing – how’s a slow, increasingly expensive media supposed to compete? A long time ago, in a very different world, direct mail was easily the most efficient, cost-effective method for reaching a large group of people with a compelling message. Those days are already long gone.

But is direct mail actually dying? Perhaps not.

After all, there is something satisfyingly tangible about holding that letter in your hand that the “virtual” world just can’t deliver. Some things just seem more real when they’re on paper – and there are some people who just like that feeling. Then there are the people (some are your donors) who are not yet online or who prefer to avoid the online world altogether.

The good news is that the sloppy, clumsy, one-size-fits-all, just plain ugly mail that earned the nickname “junk mail” is definitely on the way out. But the direct mail that will survive in the days to come won’t be at all like your Great Aunt Bertha’s direct mail.

Except that – in some ways – it will. Because the factors that made direct mail effective for many years still apply – not just to paper and ink, but to the newer avenues of electronic mass communication. The difference isn’t so much between an envelope and stamp versus the Internet as it between old and new ways of approaching direct response communication.

We used to think in terms of the organization controlling the message and inspiring response from our supporters. Today, it’s the donors and stakeholders who have the control. Thanks to the variety of media available, they can now choose both how they receive information and how they respond to it.

This means that you still have to master the details of delivering your message and managing the response for each of the various media avenues our donors use. Plus, you have to be able to execute your strategy along parallel avenues – both sending and receiving – and integrate them into a single message with multiple interaction points.

But competent execution is no longer enough. To be successful, you need to understand the foundational elements that have always been at the core of effective direct response communication:

1. Know your audience – Preferences, demographics, giving history, and interests all give you help in getting your message to your stakeholders. Yes, you may need to segment and personalize.
2. Tell your story – Who are you and what do you do? How are you changing the world? The neighborhood? What do gifts accomplish?
3. Ask! – Be specific. Tell them what to do: write a check, click on the ”donate now” button. Tell them how you’ll use their gift.
4. Make it easy to respond –Sometimes this comes down to making sure the response card fits in the envelope, or that the link to the web site actually works. Find the hurdles and remove them.
5. Measure and adapt – Folks will tell you what they like – and dislike – by their response (or lack of it). Really look at your response numbers.

• Compare groups.
• Compare different appeals. What works for regular donors may not work as well for lapsed donors or for new donors.
• Figure out where your “point of no return” is (when lapsed donors no longer respond) and stop spending money on people who are no interested.
• Figure out the unique characteristics of your stakeholders. (Hey, that sounds a little like #1…)

Each of these principles go hand in hand with solid execution. Whether the media is paper or electronic, it is crucial to take full advantage of the strengths and mitigate the weakness of each. This includes coordinating your message across multiple media and providing multiple response avenues. This type of integrated interaction is already possible – and appreciated. Tomorrow, it will be expected.

Direct mail isn’t dead yet – but it’s going to take more work, and more thought.




]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comDonor SoftwareSoftware Conversion2009-10-05T11:03:32-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/2524bb14c1d2fa9d2c19ed6ba51fad4c-6.html#unique-entry-id-6http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/2524bb14c1d2fa9d2c19ed6ba51fad4c-6.html#unique-entry-id-6
I just heard an interesting statistic: only 47% of organizations changing their donor software believe their data conversions were successful. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that number may be artificially high. I suspect that a good number of those “successful” conversions are really, ”We don’t have a clue, but guess it worked out ok” conversions.

When you think of the cost and time required to change donor-tracking software, wouldn’t you prefer to be better off after all that work? Having only an even chance of being worse off is just plain bad news. Small wonder so many organizations will do almost anything to avoid changing software.

If no one wants a conversion to go bad, why do more than half of them go sour? And how can you make sure you are in the lucky 47%?

Don’t Just Sit There, Do Something!

OK, your current software is driving you nuts. But if you change over to a different software package just because it’s different, you can trade one set of problems for another. To avoid this dilemma, look at what you are using now and write down what the problems are. What does your current system do that needs to be fixed? What does it do right? What does it not do at all? Figuring out the problem is the first step to figuring out the solution.

If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, Any Road Will Do

The frightening thought is how many organizations just don’t know if their conversion to new software worked simply because they didn’t know what to expect. So while you’re thinking about what problems you’re trying to solve, imagine what you want the solution to look like: “the new system should do this, and this, and this, and it would be great if it could also do that.”

This gives you two major advantages: you’ll have a much better idea of what you are looking for in a software package, and you’ll know when the job is complete.

Myopia in the Midst

You’ve crossed all the t’s, dotted all the i’s, brought in the experts, yet there you are in the middle of the conversion process with someone saying, ”So what do we with this weird bunch of data?” The temptation is to do something that will make the conversion continue on in a smooth way — which is nearly always a mistake. It’s odd, but this type of situation almost always happens during a conversion – even when you expect it.

At this point, any decision that starts with, ”Let’s just…” is usually the wrong thing to do. Stop. Breathe deeply. Instead of thinking about the conversion process, think about how you will use that data in the long run. It can be surprisingly hard to do this, but it prevents a lot of frustration.

One Size Fits None

Donor software is designed to be customized by the organizations using it. Code tables, user defined fields, and so forth are intended to be configured by you to meet your organization’s needs. The donor software companies do this to be able to sell more software. The default codes included are best used as hints for where to put your codes. They expect you to know what you want for those codes.

So what codes do you use? Start with your reports. What is most important for your organization? What results do you need to know? How will you want to sort and group your information? What lists will you need to pull on a regular basis? Create your coding strategy based on the answers to these questions and write it down so you won’t have to reinvent it later.

Garbage Out – Garbage In

If your data was a mess in the old system, it’s going to be a mess in the new system — unless you do something about it. You may need to clean up your data before you move it (sometimes in order to make it possible to move). You can also take advantage of the conversion process to fix your data as you move it. Plus, you can take advantage of your new system to clean up and enhance your data after you move it.

Once you’ve got your data clean, keep it that way. Write down how data should be entered, and give a copy to everyone who enters data. Use these standards to train your people, along with the training available from the software company. Training is not free. It’s not even cheap. But having data that is accessible and usable is well worth it.

Yes, it adds to the amount of work involved in converting your data. But wouldn’t it be nice to have your new software work as well as you hoped?



]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comDonor Software2009-07-15T15:55:41-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-5http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-5
Why "Development Systems?" Because it’s not just about fundraising software.

There’s a lot of concern in the non-profit arena about fundraising software:

But more often than not, the real issue is the overall infrastructure of software, people and processes that support your fundraising and stakeholder cultivation efforts. In short, it’s really about your development systems.

Development – Instead of the transactional alignment of fundraising where the focus is on the act of asking for and receiving a gift, development focuses on the cultivation of relationships with loyal donors/stakeholders. The goal is to grow a base of committed friends who support your organization for the long term.

Systems –software is only effective when it is installed on the appropriate hardware and is actually used by people. An ideal system is when the computers do what they do best, enabling people to do what they do best.

Development Systems – Therefore, “development systems” defines the combination of hardware, software, and people processes that creates an infrastructure to support the building of relationships between stakeholders and your organization.

Every nonprofit organization has development systems – the question is, “How well do they work?”

So, how do you know they’re working? Well, for a start:

• You get timely, reliable reports on a regular basis and whenever needed
• The content of those reports show the results of your top priorities, and they make sense
• The reports are also accurate
• You can pull a list of donors without a hassle and segment it as needed
• You turn around gift receipts in 48 hours or less

]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comDonor Software2009-07-08T14:54:15-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-4
People often ask me, “What’s the best donor software out there?”

It’s kind of like asking, “What’s the best pair of shoes ever?” Anyway, the answer is the same: the one that works best for you. The brutal truth is there is a lot of donor software out there, and it will take time and effort to find the right solution for your organization.

A better question is, “What’s the right donor software for us?” So, what will that look like?

First, you want software that works – when you pull a list, you get what you ask for, no more, no less. When you run a report, the numbers add up properly. Oh, and it doesn’t crash in the middle of an important task.

Second, you want software that fits – the large organization with 100,000 donors and a full-time IT department will need different software from the mom-and-pop non-profit with 2 part-time staff and 427 donors. Food banks have different parameters than multi-national teaching organizations.

In the same way, software solutions have varying strengths and weaknesses, even though they all say they are the perfect solution. One might have very strong Internet functions, but be weak on tracking pledges. Another might be very good for direct mail segmentation, but not so good for a capital campaign.

You need to start by thinking about your organization: what you are doing, what is your scope, and where are you going. How do you raise funds? What do you need to measure? How tech-savvy is your organization? What kind of training and customer support will your staff/volunteers need to use software effectively? What’s your budget?

Once you know what you need, it’s a lot easier to find software that meets those needs. Because the worst software is the stuff you spent good money on that sits on a shelf, unused.

]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comReports & Measurement2009-05-21T22:29:40-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-3http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-3
All right, you can live without reports, any reports. You just can’t build a strong, growing base of support for your organization without systematically measuring your efforts and their results. But what to measure?

Good reports answer questions:
➻ How much more do we need to raise?
➻ Is our plan to raise that on target?
➻ Is our donor base growing?
➻ Did the event work?

So first, measure what’s important. You’ll need to decide what is important for your organization, and set goals. Don’t just pull numbers out of the air, but think more of, “how will we know when we’re successful?” Some important things are common to all organizations, like the amount left to raise this year, the number of new donors acquired (win), the number of current donors giving again this year (keep & lift), and the number of lapsed donors reactivated (keep) — and their giving behavior. Others will be specific to your organization.

Second, measure what you can do something about. This usually means measuring your strategies — like how well did that last mailing work? You’ll need to know the main objective for each of your strategies and set goals accordingly. If the main point of your new donor program is acquiring new donors, measure that. If the objectives for that event include increasing public awareness, acquiring new members and getting large gifts from major donor attendees, measure those results. If you’re struggling with reactivating lapsed donors, measure the results of your remedial strategies.

The actual formats and content of your reports will probably vary from other organizations, due to the priorities, culture, and personalities in your organization. But in one form or another, you’ll need these reports:

Income to Goal Progress
Donor Base Growth (Win, Keep & Lift)
Strategy specific progress
Problem area progress

If you don’t currently have a reporting system in place, start out simple. Begin with the questions that keep you awake at night. Once you have those reports, you’ll find they spark additional questions. Use those questions to create the next level of reports, and so forth. Soon, you’ll have a system of regular, effective reports and wonder how you survived without them.

]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comDonor Software2009-04-26T15:49:19-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-2http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-2
Let’s face it. Changing your donor management software is just plain expensive. In addition to the cost of the software, there’s the cost for conversion, the cost for training, and the huge cost in time for the whole process. In short, it’s not something to jump into until it is truly necessary. So how can you know it’s time to change?

1. Your current software doesn’t work. You run a report and the numbers don’t add up. You pull a list and names are missing. You run a function and your computer crashes, or simple processes grind to a halt. That kind of “not working.” Not trusting the data coming out of your software might mean it isn’t working, but it’s more likely you need to clean up your data first. Cleaning up your data may solve the problem, and even if it doesn’t, it will make the future data conversion significantly easier.

2. Your current software doesn’t fit. You’re storing data in fields meant for something else. You have “extra” databases: Joe keeps contact information in his email software, Suzy is tracking mail results in separate Excel worksheets. Martha keeps a card file, and Fred wrote an Access program in his spare time to track his information. Double entry and the resultant errors are running amok. In short, your software doesn’t support your strategies. Keep in mind that some “software problems” are actually people or process problems in disguise. The problem could well be caused by poor configuration, lack of data standards, inadequate training, or non-productive work patterns.

3. Your current software is not going to fit. Your organization is upgrading it’s computers across the board, or reworking the network, and your current software won’t be compatible. Or, you’re planning a new e-mail newsletter strategy that links to your website, but your software doesn’t have a field for email addresses. You get the idea. Growth is a good thing, but it can have secondary costs that need to be thought through carefully.

Of course, you can change your software because the new Vice President wants to look like he’s on top of the “technology thing,” or because the second cousin of a board member has a friend who has heard of this new “really cool” new software. It might even work. But it’ll cost you.

]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comDonor Software2009-04-20T09:44:00-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-1
For some things, good fit is essential. A good fitting pair of shoes will take you a long way, but poor fit will ensure a long, dusty stay in the closet regardless of their style or expense. It’s just the same with your donor software—except your software costs a lot more. So, how do you evaluate the fit of your software—or prospective software?

There are four elements of your organization that relate to the fit of your donor management software: size, geography, strategies, and technical capability.

Size: There are two size factors to consider. The first, obviously, is finding software that meets your needs, yet is still affordable. The problem is that even small organizations have complex data management needs that often aren’t available in many of the cheaper software options.

The other factor is the number of donor records on your file. Some software is designed specifically for smaller organizations, and will grind to a painful crawl with too many records to process. (Yes, you can literally outgrow your software.) The opposite problem, having more computing capability than you need, occasionally exists, but is mainly an issue of inefficient resource allocation.

Geography: For some organizations where the physical location of the organization, staff and data are critical issues that define what type of software will meet their needs. Perhaps your organization has key staff in multiple locations, or multiple physical sites, so a web-based software might be an elegant solution. On the other hand, you might be in a location where Internet access is questionable and installed software is far and away the best solution. Security and access issues are major factors in evaluating this area.

Strategies: It seems simple, but the capabilities of your software should match up with your development/fundraising strategies. If you are dependent on pledges from your donors, your software should have strong pledge tracking features. Same thing for events, or grants, or mailings, etc. This is another area where your organization can outgrow your current software. As you consider launching new strategies, you may need to upgrade your software capability, as well.

Technical Capability: This area is usually closely related to organizational size – some organizations have a fully staffed IT department, while others have a “computer guy” who comes in for a half day each month. At the same time, some software programs need ongoing technical involvement for customization or maintenance, while others need a bare minimum of technical savvy.

]]>sally_funk@mcconkey-johnston.comNonprofit budgetingNonprofit measurement2009-04-15T21:38:58-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-0http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/SF/files/Sally_Funk_blog-posts.html#unique-entry-id-0
OK, there’s no avoiding it. You’re going to have to cut budgets. Your first thought is to be “fair” to everyone and cut an even ten, fifteen, or whatever percent across the board. The problem is that what seems fair to “everyone” is often harmful to your organization. For some of your strategies, a ten percent cut barely scratches the surface, but other strategies could be crippled for the long term by the same “fair” cutback.

Better to look at each strategy in light of your organization’s operational priorities. Look at each area’s performance to goal and at its long term effect on long term objectives. Some programs could be cut back more than ten percent, others could be put on hold until the economy turns around, while others might need to be increased to maximize income or ministry impact.

You won’t really know without measuring each strategy by its key performance indicators, and calculating the probable effects of different levels of cutbacks. For example, you may have a segment of your new donor follow up strategy that has consistently resulted in less than average response. Moreover, the donors that do respond from that segment tend to be lackluster over the long haul. Cutting that segment from your mailing strategy could save costs without a large negative impact.

Keep in mind, though, that the cost savings might be more or less than an arbitrary, “fair” percentage cut. Plus, cutting further could very well harm the growth of your donor base, and your income for years to come.

]]>