How do we measuring effectiveness?
Michael Pollock
EFFECTIVELY. So what is effectiveness? This is an issue for all.
The for-profit interactive industry is abuzz today (again) about the
need for some sort of common measures - they don't have it set yet.
All the current projects I am doing with nonprofits are asking for
measured effectiveness - as they should. How is anyone doing this at
present? Are you setting communication goals and measuring against
that? Are you measuring things like - how many people showed up - or
how much money you raised and so on and attributing the total to the
effectiveness of communications? Or are there so many factors you
can't figure out how to assign credit? This is a real and
interesting problem. I ask for people's thoughts and experiences
here. This is not about whether "I liked the spot" or "what a cute
brochure" this is about what results they acheived and how we measure
them.
Feedback and thoughts please.
Robb High
like it or not it is the raising of funds that is always "mission 1"
because without succeeding at that, the good works won't happen. And
it is innately easier to raise funds when you have a clear go-to-
market message and an effective and efficient means of delivering it.
Laurie
work often resent having to grub for funds, no matter how necessary.
In theory, a clear message that is useful for programs should help
raise funds, too. Then effectiveness in programs and effectiveness in
fundraising is unified. Am I dreaming, or is there hope that this idea
will help the mission-driven rest easier?
Jose...@gmail.com
I think that the inherent value of mission driven non profits is that
they are filled with people who have decided that money is not as
important as their mission. But, the inevitable need for cash to keep
the boat afloat often turns the outfit into a "business" , but in the
worst sense.
What you wind up with is a whole bunch of people trying to do what
they are not good at, and stressing about exactly what they didn't
want to stress about when they got invovled in the first place.
Unfortunately, I've seen efectiveness in fund raising turn
organizations into fund raising machines, and there is less and less
focus on the mission. Asking people for money and running a program
are just different activities - different skill sets, different
personalities, different motivations, different incentives. But
earning money through successful completion of the mission, might get
the incentives all in a row.
The newest buzz in business is doing well, by doing good for the
environment and the communities in which they operate.
Successful business knows how to do well. Not so much doing good.
Some non profits are really great at doing good. Often terrible at
doing well.
So...maybe the model of a Social Enterpries helps.
According to The Social Entreprise Alliance. at .http://www.se-
alliance.org/
a social enterprise is an organization or venture that advances its
social mission through entrepreneurial, earned income strategies.
tamara
thinking towards money are: 1) competitiveness for $$, and 2) powerful
Board of Directors. Yes, it's true individuals entered the field not
because they want to raise money along with carrying out an
organization's mission. Yet, with trustees taking on an active, hands-
on role,, it has become their primary responsibility to raise money.
It is the trustees who demand that an organization be run efficiently
with an eye to cost-saving measures; it's the trustees who want
effective communications so that they can go to their friends with
good communication tools in hand. The tension between executive
director and board is legendary. Nonprofits are not a businesses,
there is no bottom line. As to looking at nonprofits as a Social
Enterprise, this will work for some, and not others. It really
depends on the mission. What makes nonprofit unusual, is that they
are so diverse in mission, no one rule can apply to all.
tamara
On Apr 12, 11:39 pm, Robb High <robbh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Robb High
personal experience. Many others join boards because they want the
stature that goes with it. Either way, and especially in the latter
case, being on a board carries with it the responsibility to
contribute "meaningfully." The ED's job is to ask them to come forth
with support. It's interesting that many board members won't do
anything without the request. But with it they often surprise the ED.
Laurie
be - maybe rich people in the past got on boards to burnish their
ethical reputations and didn't necessarily have standards of
effectiveness or care about metrics.
holding
tracking an individual or corporate donor over time or by a specific
campaign or event. But I'd go further (and risk censure) and say that
donors have to be the #1 target, even over the population that the non-
profit staff has signed on to support. Messages/positioning should
start with the donor group and then be adapted to audiences or aid
recipients vs the other way around as is done now. As Professor John
Welch of Harvard Business School says in his interview on "Nonprofit
Brands: Don't Waste Their Power," from Value News Network:
"People go into non-profit work because they're motivated by the needs
of recipients. But if we had a few more donor-motivated non-profits,
think of the potential gains.
"Of course the recipients would be there in the 'customer mix,' but if
you were adding value to donors, you would automatically be taking
into account the impact on recipients. The donor expects the
organization to take care of the recipients. But the donor expects a
host of other things - depending on who that donor is. Social
standing, recognitions - there are all sorts of reasons people and
organizations give beyond the obvious cause. If the organization
marketed itself more to the donors, the potential upside is enormous.
Recipients would, of course, benefit."
On Apr 12, 11:39 pm, Robb High <robbh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
SuzanneG
as DD, the fundraising committee of the board had already 'owned' our
one annual appeal (summer camp scholarships for special needs kids).
Only this year did I begin to see the wisdom of this process. Our
board raises 45%-65% of our charitable income through their associates
($1 mil, 1/3 of total operating costs), so of course their opinions
are important. They strongly resisted our ED's text describing our
children as 'disabled' as being inaccurate because of the image of
physical disability this implied. The phrase that finally worked for
everyone was the longer but more descriptive: "children with
emotional, behavioral and learning disabilities." To me, this is the
clearest message about our target service group that we've ever
published. The board as key stakeholders in fundraising had it right,
and I'd trust them again.
On Apr 25, 11:17 am, Robb High <robbh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Michael Pollock
board is raising the money from their own associates - and so they are
in a good position to understand what will work for that particular
audience. They know them. It really is important to know/learn all
you can about the people you need to persuade: the people who will be
receiving the message. It has to be effective for them. And be clear
to them. And of course it has to be accurate.
ste...@aol.com
could we please change the subject matter line of these interesting
emails so that it is in English?
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.