"W is for Worldview": Nonprofit Research & Seth Godin's Alphabet

In an August 3 Seth’s Blog posting entitled “post-industrial A to Z digital battledore,” marketing guru Seth Godin somewhat playfully suggested a kind of post-modern alphabet for those whose mission or professional responsibility is to communicate, persuade and “sell.”

Stimulated by Godin’s piece, Tom Belford, editor of The Agitator blog, in his own posting on the same day, drew the attention of nonprofit fundraisers to the alphabet entry “W is for Worldview.” Belford’s central point was to underscore that, whether in the profit-making world or the nonprofit sector, not understanding the worldview of those to whom you are trying to communicate, persuade and “sell” something surely will lead to failure of the effort.

Belford sets up his piece with a full quotation of the “W is for Worldview” entry from Godin’s alphabet:

“W is for Worldview: I first encountered this term via George Lakoff. Your worldview is the set of expectations and biases you bring to a situation before any new data appears. Some people hear a politician say something and hate it, while others are thrilled by it. Is it the thing that was said or the person who said it? Some people hear that Apple is about to launch a new product and they get out their wallets, others flee -- before they even know what it is. If you don't understand the worldview of the people you're selling to, you will fail.”

According to Belford, “Fundraisers should focus on the last sentence: ‘If you don’t understand the worldview of the people you’re selling to, you will fail.’”

Belford asks fundraisers: “What steps are you taking to really understand your donors … and, through them, your prospects?

He queries further: “Do you:

    •  Conduct surveys or focus groups?
    •  Talk to your volunteers and clients?
    •  Read your white mail and 800# logs?
    •  Engage donors and members face-to-face?
    •  Solicit feedback routinely in any way?
    •  Read “the literature” on your target audience?
    •  Analyze what they pay attention to on your website?”

Finally, says Belford, “Out of all this, you should be able to formulate a pretty accurate picture of your donors’ worldview … the lens through which they process whatever you’re throwing their way.”

I read Seth Godin’s blog piece on his “post-industrial A to Z digital battledore” and reacted as did Belford, making note of those items that carried wisdom for professionals laboring in nonprofit advancement. Clearly, Godin’s perspectives, while focused principally on the profit-making world, also have something of value for nonprofit organizations in their relationship and communication with clients and donors (“investors”).

Belford is right on the money in highlighting “W is for Worldview” for its significance to those in nonprofit fundraising, but the points he raises should not be lost on those who focus exclusively on marketing and communication for nonprofit organizations. In fact, that gets to this author’s personal “worldview” of the nonprofit advancement process -- that fundraisers also should be marketing- and communication-focused and the marketing and communication folks also should be fundraising-focused. It’s all part of the same fabric. Despite the specialization that necessarily characterizes their roles, these professionals all should feel they are integral parts of a single team.

To Belford’s point about understanding donors and prospects, there have been numerous past Agitator discussion threads in which the focus was on the importance of research in donor-file and prospect-list management. Commentary consistently made the point that not knowing what motivates the giving behaviors of those on donor lists is to beg for failure overall. The thought process in those past threads often was prompted by concerns about direct-mail fundraising outcomes. That makes sense, because the direct-response methodology long has played a major and critical role in nonprofit fundraising and has been the object of wide and deep research. Nevertheless, those in nonprofit advancement should remain dedicated to careful constituent/donor/prospect research in all methodologies, from face-to-face and online solicitation to planned giving and special events. To operate without such intelligence is to ignore the worldview --- and the more local view --- of the constituent and to accept the failure Godin promises in the “selling” effort.

In his queries to fundraisers, Belford covers much of the waterfront where research to “really understand your donors … and, through them, your prospects” is concerned --- from surveys, web-clicks analysis and focus groups to dialogue with volunteers, solicitation of feedback and face-to-face interviews. There are other such techniques, and all should be considered. None of this type of activity should seem burdensome or mysterious to nonprofit advancement professionals, because it can be carried out in a virtually seamless manner when it is woven into the substance of nearly all engagements, interactions or “touches” with constituents. Such contacts should, in fact, be the goal of all organizational communications and relationship-management initiatives --- with the aim of discerning the constituent’s worldview and more local view.

With all due respect to Tom Belford of The Agitator, there are at least two other items in Godin’s post-industrial alphabet that should have special meaning for those in nonprofit advancement.

“C is for Choice” suggests that nonprofit organizations always must strive to differentiate themselves from their competition (both within and without their particular mission focus) in their marketing/communication and fundraising case articulation to potential constituents and current donors. The differentiation message must always be based on fact and reality and not on fantasy and hyperbole. Otherwise, prospects (and currents) might decide to walk and choose to support another organization!

“D is for Darwin” suggests that nonprofits must be constantly and consistently vigilant where changes and evolutions in their external environments are concerned. As Godin points out: “the nature of information and a connected society means that 'everything' might change in just a few months. Ideas that spread, win and organizations that learn from their mistakes lead the rest of us.” Clearly, another vote for maintaining the good habit of well-executed constituent, donor and prospect research in the nonprofit realm.

DO WE REALLY NEED THE ANNUAL REPORT?

To publish or not to publish an annual report --- an age-old, much-debated question in the nonprofit world! And the verdict on the annual report has been "out to the jury" throughout those ages!

Long before there were anywhere near the kinds of “whiz-bang” technology we have available today --- the multiple means of electronic communication, the web-based channels galore --- folks in the nonprofit sector stroked chins, puzzled over and opined about the real value of the annual report as a tool for general communication and donor cultivation.

The reason for that puzzling about value is based on two factors: (1) the annual report can be a pretty costly collateral item (depending, of course, on how free you feel to spend money), so it’s always going to be called into question by somebody; (2) the organizational rationale and overall strategy and goals in producing an annual report are either missing or not well-conceived in the first place. And the issue of donor communication/recognition/cultivation obviously needs to be a critical component of that rationale and strategy.

There is no single, one-size-fits-all answer or resolution to this issue. The answer and resolution can be very different for differing nonprofit organizations. If producing an annual report seems to fit with the organization’s overall strategy for corporate communications, financial reporting, PR/positioning, measuring community benefit/impact, and, of course, informing, educating, recognizing and cultivating donors, then produce one. The more positive communication and reinforcement of the organization’s case for support the better! Be sure to integrate the annual report with all other communication and messages. Be sure the report looks forward, not just backward, tells positive stories, and recognizes donors for the differences their support makes.

Design and produce the annual report within a budget that fits reasonably and defensibly with the organization’s resources. Be creative with format and design, and look for ways to have impact without unnecessary “glitz and glamour.” Focus on stories about people helped by the organization and its benefit to its service area. Utilize all channels of communication to deliver the report, including as a PDF attachment to e-mail and web-based platforms. Print a smaller quantity of hard copies if there is a need to mail to selected audience members and stakeholders.

The bottom-line: figure out the best course of action for your own organization and produce a report that helps to cultivate, manage and sustain positive relationships. See that your annual report defines and validates your organization's positive impact on its service area while documenting performance promises made and kept.