Integrated fundraising strategy - what does it mean?

It means using all the latest technology,doesn’t it? I asked myself this question at the the annual conference of the Institute of Fundraising London Group. This was weeks ago, but two ideas have been going round my head in opposite directions ever since. I spent two days listening to a selection of the capital’s most with-it fundraisers, and although the sessions offered a wide range of topics, coherent and consistent themes emerged. An integrated campaign can yield great dividends, but the direct approach is still the top earner.



What do we mean by ‘integrated fundraising’? Just as there is a recognised need among database specialists to keep revisiting the definition of CRM, so it can be helpful for fundraisers to spell out what they mean by this phrase. Speakers at IoF London made clear that it is much more than running campaigns across multiple departments and multiple channels, as modelled in the table above. It is, (like CRM actually) a cultural paradigm requiring campaign managers to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the fundraising mix. The Battersea rehomer with a story to tell about dogs give new homes after months in solitary, and the visually impaired volunteer rattling tins for the GLFB were just two examples on the day of how the direct experience of the charity’s work can create an emotional connection with the donor that elicits the highest and most frequent gifts.

Of course, it’s not just about the next gift. It’s also about the range of ways that an engaged person can support the charity and ensuring that they have every opportunity to do all of them. I would say ‘cross marketing’ in old speak, but is can also be indirect, so it’s about ‘maximising touch points’ and being ‘demand led’ not ‘supply lead’ encouraging and facilitating ‘pull’ not just old fashioned ‘push'. Now you should be thinking about websites with video stories, mobile apps with incentives to go viral, not just Twitter and Facebook but and Yammer and Sprout.

But here’s the thing.
Along with the widespread agreement that integration is key, there was another story – the real revenue earning activity is still derived to a very great
extent from the warm list. You may say, isn’t online giving up very strongly?
Well it is, but even in the US, 92% of giving still offline and online is still
only really strong where it is supported by mass news media. For most charities, last year’s volunteers, last year’s participants, the regular donors – these are still the bread and butter.

Every cause needs new donors, and new technology is a great way to
attract new segments, but the foundation is still the direct approach to the
warm supporter. Yes, do as Guide Dogs do – get your lottery ticket purchasers thinking about legacies and your volunteers thinking about regular gifts. In other words, practise careful nurturing and growth of the contacts on the fundraising database. Key-note speaker Mark Astarita said it too in another way, when he asserted that

UK fundraising will ride out the tough times better than most countries (especially the US where the main model is still the annual pledge!) because UK fundraisers understand regular giving.

Well I would say that wouldn’t I, working for a database solution company as I do?

Has the IT industry got its head in the clouds?

This year has been all about ‘the cloud’, or perhaps it has been about all about hosting by another name? Like Camberwell in the property market, electric cars in the world of travel, or Ireland as a holiday destination, hosting has been the ‘next big thing’ for a very long time now. The cloud on the other hand still seems new, though it has changed from being a simple analogy for the internet, to the hosting of an application somewhere on the internet, (but you didn’t need to know where), to being used with the addition of the prefix ‘private’ to describe any hosted application. So,it is hosting, but we’ll come back to that later. Anyway, however you label it, as IRIS starts to roll out ‘IRIS Open Hosting’ in earnest, I have been asking myself if this concept is really relevant to my clients, and if so why.

Well, this is a blog not a crime thriller, so I’ll tell you the answer straight away – it is relevant. As to why, that takes a little longer but here goes. Firstly, it’s not just about cost. For a long time, hosting didn’t get off the ground in some markets because to make it work, you probably had to slim down staff in order to recoup the cost of externally managed services, and organisations naturally try to avoid this. Now that is not necessarily the case. True, it shouldn’t cost any more, but there are so many hidden costs that don’t equate directly to staff numbers that it can pay for itself without having to ‘make difficult decisions’. The best evidence for this is from the IT departments themselves. As recently as last year, I would have hesitated to approach a client boasting a large IT department with a hosting proposal, on the basis that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. Yet this year some of the largest IT teams we work with have been taking the initiative and raising the subject. There are a number of reasons for this, but I will limit myself to just three.

Firstly, we now all accept that we need a permanent connection to the internet to function for so many reasons, using possible down time to a remote location as an excuse not to do it makes no sense any more. Secondly, clients want stakeholders, (donors, members, customers etc), to be able to interact with them via websites or email at any time of day. That means ensuring that all key servers, i.e. those running email and the CRM database have to be available 24/7 as well as the main web site server. Thirdly, as is so often the case with IT issues, we can’t ignore Microsoft. The men from Redmond are encouraging us all to host all our generic applications – Office, Email, Sharepoint , and why not, when you think of the pain an organisation goes through each time it upgrades to the next version of Windows or Office.

To come back to the hosting/cloud issue, it is useful to talk about the cloud, because it reminds us that we are talking about so much more than moving your key server out of the office, because we are already moving away from local area networks to a world in which everything is online. As the IT Director of a major UK charity remarked to me recently – ‘Hosting has to be the way to go for us, as far as I am concerned, we would be mad not to’. Head in the clouds? I don’t think so.

Are 19 CRM databases really better than 1?

This is the thought-provoking debate prompted by the latest blog by Richard Boardman who styles himself on Twitter as @crmadvisor. As is often the case with provocative statements I found I reacted to this in a number of different and contradictory ways. Firstly, as a leading supplier of Enterprise Wide CRM solutions to the charity sector: “19 CRM systems! What a nightmare!” followed by, “Only 19! We come into contact with charities all the time who say they have hundreds of CRM systems”, and finally “Well 19 may be too many, but you can rarely reduce all the complex relationships in a business to one single over-arching system.”

I can recall more than one instance of implementing a database alongside a team of consultants poring over many-coloured spider diagrams representing every known contact and relationship, only to learn that the [insert catchy name] single CRM project had lost out in the latest organisational re-shuffle.

Richard makes the point that many companies achieve great success with no CRM system at all, although he believes that this is because they never had a senior level business sponsor? He explains that by saying ‘..many organisations simply don’t have the right senior level staff with time on their hands’. I wonder however if the real reason is business need. There is, and should be, a Darwinian element to the rise and fall of systems. If a business, or charity, really needs a CRM it will create one. If that system costs more effort to maintain than the benefit it delivers, it will not succeed.

A core CRM system is an absolute essential for non profit organisations, because commercial accounting and ERP systems are just not suited for the main fundraising or membership application, i.e. the processing of high volume cash transactions with the only deliverable being a highly tailored communication or welcome pack. Cash books and sales ledgers and sales order processing systems just won’t cut it.

As an NFP, there is no doubt, you need a CRM system, but to return to the original question, do you need 19 or should you strive for just 1? At IRIS NFP Solutions, we take a pragmatic approach. On the one hand, many systems that have grown quickly in response to an urgent need, have natural marketing cross-overs with the core system, and should be amalgamated back into a single central system. The much sought after 360 degree view can, and does, provide exponential growth in activity by facilitating carefully targeted cross marketing. However, there may be good reasons in some organisations why even the most obvious candidates (event management, web databases, legacy marketing, regions, sales order processing, etc etc) should not be merged.

Our view is that we should encourage and support the move to an Enterprise-wide system that promotes the 'single supporter view', and we are uniquely placed to support this, but that we should only do this where the synergies are obvious, and the benefits outweigh the risks. Leaving aside the desktop databases, 19 is far too many CRM systems, but equally, one may prove to be an unobtainable mirage.