Recently,
our local public radio station offered a challenge in their on-air fund
drive. It generated excitement and the
phones rang like crazy. But they fell a bit short. So they came back on the air, thanked
everyone for participating, and then announced that they’d need to offer the
funds back.
This
week, the lead story in the Chronicle of Philanthropy is about matching
grants and challenges. They question
whether the concept is running out of steam. They examine whether we’re being up front about the terms we present to the public.
And they offer some common sense advice for doing it right.
Our
experience shows that challenges and matches are a powerful way to provide an extra incentive to "give right now." And we don’t think they’re out of
steam yet, even as the technique becomes ever more popular.
Our
advice:
Keep it
simple. Be rigorously ethical and honest about what actually happens when a
donor contributes. Then follow up once it’s over. Tell people how it went, and what the impact was.
Beyond
connection to your mission, credibility is your number one asset.
Would you be pleased to see a story about your campaign on the front page of your local newspaper? As you make the most of a great opportunity to raise more money, be sure the answer is yes.
We, too, have found that challenges don't have the same punch they used to. Yet, they still are integral to on-air drives. We've also found that the "issuer" makes a difference. In our region, a Newman's Own Foundation is a super powerhouse. Oddly, the generic members' challenge from ad/RJ mail is flagging.
ReplyDeleteWe lost a challenge one evening, reissued it the next a.m. and it kicked REAL hard, playing up the "we don't want to deliver bad news to a good friend in the business community.."