Over the holiday season, I received 2 compelling email messages. One was actually an 11-email campaign on the “10 ways you can end poverty now.” The other is entitled “Donating Just Got Easier.” Both are persuasive and well designed, with great landing pages and execution. Neither is from a nonprofit that conducts programs directly.

• Global Impact has pulled out all the stops, listing and further explaining 10 different ways to end poverty. The email messages contain no disclaimers or confusing language caused by concerns of restricted vs. unrestricted money. They didn’t ask people to “help” end poverty because the communications or program people are afraid to make strong assertions. Instead, they told me that I could do it now and then gave me 10 ways. Better yet, they actually labeled the web pages as the 2007 End of Year Appeal. To see the campaign online, click here.
• Guidestar sent an email with a single message – Donate Now! Their email contained 2 buttons and two text links all with the same message. Now, donors can research a charity, click the button beside the charity name and give through Network for Good.

These groups are 501(c)(3) organizations and the donations they collect are passed along to implementing charities, but they have two advantages over the nonprofits that they help.

1. fewer internal politics – no arguments over messaging between fundraising and communications.
2. no direct service implementation costs. Rather, their program dollars are spent on the mission of helping nonprofits, which includes fundraising for them.

These advantages put them in direct competition (if not giving them the advantage) for donor dollars.

Be honest. How many great in-house fundraising efforts have been tanked or corrupted or watered down because you couldn’t get the information, had to include caveats to accommodate big donors and foundations, or because protection of the brand demanded diluted appeal language. (For ideas on how to smooth the process, see this article.

Groups like Guidestar, Network for Good, and Global Impact cut through the clutter for donors. They make it simple to give, but they also take a sizable administrative cut off the top. Network for Good charges a $10 fees for online checks and Global Impact passes along only 88% of gifts. Apparently, the cost of cutting through the bureaucratic red tape is significant.

It comes down to value. Do nonprofits value their donors enough to eliminate the internal obstacles to good fundraising and relationship-building? Or, are they so set in their ways that 12% administrative costs and donor relationships with 3rd parties are acceptable?

January 2008