Bose launches QuietComfort and SoundSport headphones, price starts at Rs 13,275

first_imgBose today announced new headphones in its QuietComfort range and also launched a new range of sports headphones in India. The company launched QuietControl 35 around-ear headphones and QuietControl 30 in-ear headphones in India for Rs 29,363 and Rs 26,438, respectively. Bose also launched an all new range for sports headphones. It launched SoundSport and SoundSport Pulse for Rs 13,275 and Rs 17, 663, respectively.The QuietComfort 35 headphones come with digital noise cancellation technology. The headphones utilises reverse sound waves based on the ambient noise to cancel it out. The QC35 promises to deliver noiseless music experience in all types of environment.The updated equaliser in the QC35 also balances sound according to the volume level. The company says it can deliver more 20 hours of music on a single charge. The around-ear headphones will be available to buy from today itself. It is available in black and silver colours. Bose’s QuietControl 30 is an in-ear headphone, which also utilises digital noise cancellation, however, it’s slightly different from its costlier sibling.The QC30 houses a controllable noise cancellation module. The wireless earphone, which can be worn around the neck, allows the user to control the level of noise depending on the ambience. This means the user can turn to low noise cancellation during a jog on the sidewalk, or to complete isolation while relaxing at home.The QC30 can deliver backup up to 10 hours. The in-ear headphone will be available to buy from September this year. It will be available in black colour.The latest SoundSport and SoundSport Pulse are built for workout sessions. Both the earphones are made of flexible silicon, and are water and sweat resistant. advertisementThe SoundSport Pulse has an in-built heart rate monitor, which works similar to a chest strap. The earphone can be paired with Endomondo, RunKeeper and other fitness apps. The SoundSport Pulse can deliver up to 5 hours of music, while the SoundSport can run for 6 hours on a single charge. The Pulse earphone will be available to buy from September this year. The cheaper SoundSport can bought starting today.All of the new wireless headphones support NFC for quick connectivity and voice prompts for caller ID and battery life information. “Until now, great wireless noise cancellation and better wireless workouts have been more of a dream than reality,” said Bernice Cramer, General Manager of Bose Wireless Headphones.  “Like the QuietComfort headphones before them, the performance of the QC30 and QC35 are way ahead of where the market is right now.  And for the millions of people who run, bike, hike or hit the gym, SoundSport headphones offer a new kind of alternative, because they’re not just named for exercise — they’re made for it,” said Cramer.last_img read more

Read More

Old vs. New Marketing Haiku

first_imgAnd the winner of the haiku challenge is…Lorraine. Not only is she good, she’s prolific. I loved them all, but she takes the cake (book, actually). Here’s my favorite from her body of work:Old Marketing HaikuSuch a big, loud adCosts your client a fortuneWith no ROI.New Marketing HaikuWant to sell your stuff?Stop shouting at your buyers.Try conversation.Lorraine, email me your address for your free copy of Robin Hood Marketing!last_img

Read More

How to Choose a Web Designer for Your Nonprofit Website

first_imgYou have less than eight seconds to create an impression on your visitor when visiting your website. Be very selective when it comes time to choose the web firm for your website design. Here are ten guidelines and pointers to help you choose the right designers:1. Do they have a portfolio? Make sure they have some experience under their belts and unless you want to be a designer’s test subject, make sure they have some experience behind them.2. Can they cater to any type of business? Look through the portfolio for variety. Do their client’s websites all look similar in format and structure? Make sure you are paying for a custom web design service, not a cheap template.3. How is their response time? This is vital to the success of your website. Take note of their choice of response (e-mail, phone, fax, instant messenger, chat) and how quickly they can respond to your inquiries. If you prefer to do business over the phone and the designer doesn’t, then it’s probably best to move on to your next choice.4. Do they have a contract? If it’s not written – it’s not true. Everything should always be put down in writing. Before you sign anything, make sure you read the entire contract, including all the fine print. If you have any questions on anything: ASK! Don’t sign a contract unless you understand everything in it. If the company’s representative makes you feel awkward or uncomfortable with your “bothersome” questions, then end discussions and find another designer.5. How reasonable are their prices? Make sure you get what you pay for and if you are on a budget, that the designer you choose won’t exceed it. But it is also important to insure you put plan for extras and have a plan to continually invest into the website’s construction. Your website is going to the link between you and your customers, so make sure it is the best it can be. Nowadays, you can find websites for $500, or “package deals” that will “save” you money. You’ll soon find that these kinds of deals are like going to McDonald’s when you should be going to the grocery’s healthy foods section.If you can’t afford for everything you feel your website should have then settle for a smaller website and create it in stages. Don’t settle for a cheaper designer. You get what you pay for.6. Can they help you market your website? Online marketing is key to your website’s success It is best to find a designer that knows how to promote the sites they work on whether it be through search engine optimization, pay-per-click marketing, viral marketing or another method. Ask your design firm what they feel is best for your company. You should feel comfortable in their explanation and reasoning, otherwise ask some other firms what they’d recommend.7. Are their clients satisfied? Can you find client testimonials on the site? Don’t hesitate to contact their clients to ask for opinions and get their feedback on how their service with that company went. It’s your money after all. It’s better to spend 15 minutes on the phone than months of hassle and pain with the wrong developer.8. Are they able to meet all your needs? Do you want an e-commerce store, Flash elements or a custom web application? Can they do everything you want? The last thing you want is different companies meddling with your website’s design. Choose a firm that has the full corporate solution for your needs – whether it’s Flash intros or database-driven websites.9. Can they deliver on time?Are they willing to meet reasonable deadlines? If you need your site done by a certain date, can the designer you choose get it done by then? Be sure to ask about delivery times when you’re on Step #7.10. Do they take a personal and friendly approach? Is the designer willing to help and suggest his/her own ideas, or do they robotically go along hoping they got everything you want? It’s always best to find a designer that has some ideas of their own, with fresh ideas and that knows their limits and won’t insist something be done a certain way if that’s not what you want.last_img read more

Read More

Social Media for Social Causes Study: The Results

first_imgWhile the social web has been a fantastic place for nonprofits to harness the long tail of giving with movements like Twestival and the Case Foundation’s Giving Challenge, high dollar donor cultivation has not been prevalent. The goal of our Community Philanthropy 2.0 survey one month ago was to determine whether there is potential for nonprofits to cultivate significant donors online (defined as someone who gives $1,000 or more), and how that can be accomplished.Tremendous opportunity for nonprofitsWhat we found was a tremendous opportunity for nonprofits to participate as trusted providers of credible information and ultimately cultivate the next generation of major donors through the social web.Between blog posts on Mashable, Social Media Club and the Society of New Communications Research, 426 people responded to our 30-question survey (commissioned by The Columbus Foundation, The Saint Paul Foundation and The San Francisco Foundation). Our analysis of these social media power users revealed the group was younger than the traditional composition of donors one would find in a charity’s database. Forty-seven percent were aged 30-49, 40 percent were under the age of 30, and only 13 percent were 50 or older. Almost two thirds (62 percent) were female. Trust in social media is significant among social media savvy would-be donors. Sixty one percent of those aged 30-49 trust social networks and blogs to provide important information, as is the case with 44 percent of those 50 years or older. Among 30-49 year olds, social media use is also very high with 91 percent of users participating in social networks, 81 percent participating in blogs, and 56 percent participating in message boards. Among those 50 and older, 94 percent participate in social networks, 78 percent participate in blogs, and 60 percent participate in message boards.Group social media preferred over personal efforts Not surprisingly, those 30 and younger were not a high dollar donor generation: Only 4 percent donated $5,000 or greater in 2008, and only 11 percent donated more than $1,000. In the same year, 20 percent of those between the ages of 30-49 gave more than $5,000 and 41 percent gave $1,000 or more, demonstrating potential for higher dollar contributions. Of the social media savvy age 50 and older, 47 percent gave more than $5,000 and 66 percent gave $1,000 or greater. The rest of this analysis focuses on the 30-49 and over 50 age brackets as they represent the greatest opportunity for online cultivation of high dollar donors. The social media savvy stated clearly that email is their preferred method of contact from charitable organizations. Seventy-seven percent of those 50 and older and 71 percent aged 30-49 prefer email. Additionally, 45 percent of 30-49 year olds prefer social networks and 31 percent of those over 50 also use social networks. This indicates a growing market for distribution of information via social networks. Social media power users of both the new 30-49 age brackets and the over 50 bracket have used social media to discuss philanthropy. In fact, 84 percent of the social media savvy aged 30-49 and 55 percent of those older than 50 used conversational media for these purposes. This confirms social media is a potential growth area through which major donors can be cultivated. Of all the forms of social media used by 30-49-year-olds, only social networks and blogs received greater than 40 percent rankings for “trust.” Specifically, 66 percent trust social networks and 50 trust blogs. In the over 50 bracket, 62 percent trust social networks and 42 percent trust blogs.PPerhaps one of the most interesting points that arose from this data was that both social media savvy groups prefer group social media, with the exception of blogs. Whether for personal use or trust in third party sites, blogs represent the second most viable source of information next to social networks (among both the digital rich and the traditional brackets). After blogs, message boards, forums, wikis and review sites were all deemed more credible than videos or podcasts (the terrain of traditional “personal” social media). Social media savvy respondents demonstrate a significant opportunity for foundations to provide social media. Among 30-49 year olds, 81 percent said they would participate if the information was highly credible and of strong quality, and 77 percent said they would participate if it came from a trusted source. Even more telling, a whopping 86 percent of those 50 and older said they would participate if the information was highly credible and of strong quality, and 84 percent would participate if social media came from a trusted source.Privacy was not much of a concern for the 30-49 year olds who said they look for in philanthropic social media:• 81% want information from a highly credible or quality source• 77% from a trusted organization• 59% would like to interact with other donors• 58% want to interact with philanthropic experts• 41% want to lead a public conversation• and 36% would like to lead discussions of their ownThe numbers were very similar among the 50 and older bracket:• 86% want information from a highly credible or quality source• 84% from a trusted organization• 56% would like to interact with other donors• 52% want to interact with philanthropic experts• 38% want to lead a public conversation• and 32% would like to lead discussions of their ownFurther respondents qualified the type of conversations for which they are looking. Those 30-49 wanted conversation about the following:• 80% organizational impact• 74% success stories• 71% learning more about the organizations they are participating with• 70% want information on causes they care about• and 43% want information on financial accountabilityAmong the 50 and older bracket, we see similar types of conversations are wanted:• 86% organizational impact• 80% success stories• 80% learning more about the organizations they are participating with• 78% want information on causes they care about• and 47% want information on financial accountabilityVerifying this opportunity for content sources, 71 percent of 30-49-year-olds directly looked to the charity they support for information, and 63 percent trust referrals from friends. In comparison, 78 percent of those 50 and older directly look to their charities and 72 percent trust friends.In summary, nonprofits and charities have a strong opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations (that may lead to contributions) with the social media savvy (30-49 and >50) – especially those who are uncultivated. Clear indicators reveal types of conversations the social media savvy are seeking, so, the rest is up to you!The full Community Philanthropy 2.0 report will be released later this Spring. In the meantime, join the Community Philanthropy 2.0 group on Facebook to to stay connected around this issue.This post is co-authored by Qui Diaz, Beth Kanter and Geoff Livingston, who are working on a special project, dubbed “Philanthropy 2.0? to provide non-profits the information they need to best serve donors and advocates.last_img read more

Read More

How Much Email is Too Much?

first_imgThat’s the 25 million dollar question, especially for an advocacy group like Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). We’re the nonprofit group that protects people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Talk about a broad mission.It’s no surprise then that when I first joined AIUSA as the Managing Director of Internet Communications, we were sending out 2, 3 or more emails PER DAY. Yes, we segmented, but trying to build suppressions, queries and code emails to send 2 to 3 emails per day was a nightmare and not always effective. The online team at that time was primarily seen as a group of glorified tech-monkeys who would take copy and email it to our list. The quality varied from downright embarrassing to just OK, but still really wonky and dry.I knew immediately a couple things needed to change: 1) the online team needed to be key decision makers on email; 2) our volume had to decrease; 3) the quality of the writing had to improve.Because we had the keys to the tool that actually sent the messages, I began acting like we had the authority to do things differently. The first thing I did was rewrite email copy sent to the online team, and I asked the other online staff to do the same. Programs didn’t like us rewriting their copy, but I was persistent, and told them that we knew how best to write emails meant to mobilize online supporters. Our writing at the time primarily focused on having great hooks that were timely, and focusing on individual stories that could humanize our issues. It probably took a year before other departments got comfortable with our expanded role.To address our email volume, I first measured how many emails our average subscribe received and compared it to other advocacy groups. We were at the very high end, sending most subscribers between 19 to 25 emails a month. Yikes!I used this comparison, along with some research from M+R that showed reduced email volume improved response rates. Admittedly, the research wasn’t so cut and dry, but it was enough to make a case.Then I put together a set of email guidelines that gave allotments out to the staff in charge of: fundraising (usually 2x a month), priority campaigns (up to 8x month), and non-priority programs (up to 4x a month). There were a few other emails that could get on the calendar (event invites, registrations) too.This approach forced the individual programs and campaigns teams to go lobby their supervisor, not the online team. I remember when we proposed the new structure for email communications, there were all sorts of predictions about how we’d no longer be able to do our work, that our campaigns would fail, and the world would probably end.A year into it, we found that most of the objections were exaggerated. However, there were some important emails that these guidelines didn’t allow, like sending super targeted actions to key targets during key moments, or thanking people after we achieved something. So we adjusted and loosened the guidelines to allows for these important types of emails.18 MONTHS LATER:Our first set of guidelines were probably more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel, but they were critical to changing the organization’s inaccurate view that high volume, low quality was an OK way to use this scarce resource. We’re now about to release our third iteration guidelines and these are much more strategic.Ben Brandzel, formerly with MoveOn, Avaaz and the Edwards campaign, conducted a 5 hour training with us on what makes a great email. The gist is that email really is only effective when you can clearly articulate a crisis, an opportunity (crisitunity), and a theory of change (how taking action now will resolve the crisitunity).Some examples of crisitunity and theory of change:Good crisitunity: Monks are being killed in Burma and China has the power to stop it. Bad crisitunity: Violence against women threatens the fabric of society.Good theory of change: China is Burma’s only real ally, and if they pressure the junta, Than Shwe will have to back down. It’s up to us to call on China and make sure that they do. So we’re launching a petition today and broadcasting your signatures through an ad in the Financial Times – with a huge circulation among the power brokers of Bejing.Bad examples of theory of change:Missing: “Global poverty is terrible, and we’ve launched a petition to stop it.”Impossible: “George Bush has staked his presidency on privatizing social security. So we’ve launched a petition asking him to stop.”Obscure: “Climate change threatens us all, and we’re working night and day to stop it. Please contribute to keep our campaign going.”Based on this model, I am now proposing that 80% of all our email be reactive, and 20% proactive. I’m not setting specific allotments but telling campaigns and programs that if they can show me a great crisitunity and theory of change, we’ll send it to the full list.Along with this reactive email, the programs will be able to choose about one moment a year when they can proactively push a major project via email, and we’ll send out alerts to the full list.Anyone who responds during these moments, or during full-list reactive actions, can be considered part of that issue’s segment. This segmented list can be occasionally accessed during other non-reactive times when they really need support.The biggest lessons we’ve learned on this journey is that emails that are highly opportunistic, that can clearly show the importance of the moment, in very specific terms, as well as a clear advocacy strategy, perform leagues ahead of other emails. My feeling is that every email needs to meet this bar, otherwise, email isn’t the right tactic to achieve the stated goal. Source: frogloop, care2’s nonprofit communications and marketing blog – http://www.frogloop.com/care2blog/*This article was written by Steve Daigneault who is the Managing Director of Internet Communications for Amnesty International USA.last_img read more

Read More

5 Tips for Dealing with Social Media Meanies and Managing Your Online Rep’

first_imgSocial media makes it easy to connect and be heard online in real time. But with all this freedom of speech and expression on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others, there’s one question that’s probably crossed your mind (or the minds of your Board members):“Why risk going on social networks when people might say bad things about us?”What if people embarrass your organization?What if they point out your flaws?How can you maintain your e-reputation without yanking the social-networking rug out from under these vocal online talkers (i.e. removing your organization from the online space entirely)?Learn how to be both pro-active and reactive to the conversations taking place all around you and your nonprofit. Here are five ways to keep your brand breathing even if a social media debacle strikes your organization:Be Listening for It: Be sure you have Google Alerts set up to monitor what people are saying about your organization online. Keep tabs on Twitter (via Tweetbeep, for example) and YouTube. When You Find Something Dreaded, Assess Who Is Saying It and Who Is Listening. Is this one crazy person with no audience? You may want to wait and watch. Or is it someone who talks to people in your audience? Even one noisy person can be a problem if they have or can rapidly build a following with people who matter to you. Or if the traditional media picks up on their diatribe. I generally err on the side of judging someone worth responding to rather than ignoring them. Act Fast on the Spot Where It Started: If you need to respond, do it now, IN THE VENUE where the situation started. Slow reactions are bad reactions. Things move at light speed on web 2.0 and you don’t want something to spiral out of control before you get in a response. It’s okay if you don’t have all the answers or every piece of needed information – just be TRANSPARENT about it. “I’m really concerned with this and looking into it” is better than radio silence. “I’m concerned our staff said that to you and am finding out what happened so I can give you the response you deserve” is better than nothing. By responding to a Tweet on Twitter, you ensure rapid communication as well as achieve the potential to keep the controversy within the community in question.Be Honest, Transparent, Friendly and Non-defensive: This is key. If there is misinformation out there, correct it in a helpful, non-combative way. Network for Good’s own crisis communications plan (hope you have one, too) sets out the following principles if we’ve made a mistake:– Be sincerely and profusely apologetic if we’ve done wrong.– Take responsibility.– Err on the side of open, frequent communication.– Be absolutely honest.– Ensure what we way is accurate – if we’re not sure, say we’re not sure.– Do all we can to fix problems and mitigate harm.– Say what we’re doing to ensure it doesn’t happen again.Remember It Is a Conversation: This isn’t a monologue by the critic or by you nor (hopefully) is it a war-it’s a conversation. When you respond, be open to reactions and answer questions. You can’t post one response and call it a day, you need to keep tabs on the situation and participate in the ongoing conversation.last_img read more

Read More

America’s Giving Challenge – why to do it and how to do it

first_imgJust a few minutes ago, the Case Foundation, Causes and PARADE kicked off the 2009 America’s Giving Challenge, a 30-day, national online competition that enables people to leverage their online and offline personal networks to build communities (“causes”) that raise money and recruit support for a nonprofit. These causes will compete to win cash awards, funded by the Case Foundation, that will total $170,000. There will be daily and overall awards for the top fundraisers. America’s Giving Challenge will be hosted by Causes through its application on Facebook. In addition, PARADE Publications will help launch the Challenge with cover story about the importance of giving by actor Matt Damon.As a partner of the Case Foundation and Causes, Network for Good (where I work) is the processing donations for the challenge.So I’m biased. But I like these challenges, and I’ll tell you why. In my experience with last year’s challenge and similar efforts at our site Six Degrees, I find they are worth your time because they provide:1. A good reason to experiment with social networking. It’s easier to sell an online experiment internally when there are matching grants and exposure at stake. If you’ve been encountering internal resistance to social networking, this may be something that gets naysayers more interested.2. Something measurable. By nature this kind of campaign is well-defined in scope with clear goals and measures of success. Those all happen to be key components of strong online initiatives.3. A way to harness the power of your supporters. Your biggest fans will enjoy a new way to champion your cause – spreading the word on social networks so you can win matching grants. Put your message in the hands of your best messengers – the people who love your cause and quite naturally enjoy recruiting others to it.4. A strong reason to give. I always say you need to answer four questions to get people to give money: why me? what for? why now? and who says? This kind of campaign answers all four well. You are proving relevance (why me) by putting your appeal in the hands of champions spreading the word among friends and family on Facebook. You’re answering what for and why now with the matching gift — donors dollars can go further if enough people give. This kind of campaign provides a great sense of urgency. And most powerfully, it answers who says — by asking your supporters to ask their friends for help, you gain powerful and persuasive third-party endorsement.So consider doing it – especially if you have staff, volunteers or supporters who are wildly enthusiastic about this kind of thing, which does take energy. From now until November 6 at 3:00 p.m. EST, participants will have the opportunity to compete for daily and overall awards – ranging from $500 to $50,000 – based on the number of donations to their cause using the Causes application on Facebook. Nonprofit organizations and individuals who wish to participate in the Challenge can get involved in one of two ways:1. Champion a cause – Individuals can become “cause champions,” individuals who are passionate about a specific cause and will compete to obtain the most donations for their cause through the Causes application on Facebook.2. Promote, donate or join a cause – all individuals are encouraged to take part in America’s Giving Challenge by joining, promoting and donating to the causes they care about. Facebook membership is not required to donate to a Giving Challenge cause.If you do give it a try, here are some tips:1. The more personal the messaging, the better.2. Donate yourself. It’s not inspiring to see zero donations on a cause when you’re asking others to give.3. Post links everywhere – on your site, blog, email signature, etc.4. Send a link to alll the people you know on Facebook and in your email address book.5. Ask others with a following to help. Go to technorati.com and search for blogs that are focused on your issue. Tell bloggers about your campaign and ask them to post on your efforts. They have a circle of active readers who are likely to care about your cause. Talk to Facebook groups that support your cause. Keep widening your circle of influence by co-opting those with their own followings.6. UPDATE: Don’t forget to focus on the people, not the money. It’s about relationships at the end of the day. More on this from Joe at Causes.More tips and training are here.Finally, here is some parting inspiration from last year’s winner – who proves offline tactics help, too:“Winning America’s Giving Challenge [2008] has energized the staff, the board, and thousands of members and friends of Engineers Without Borders – USA. The Giving Challenge inspired so many people to give – from the student members who handed out flyers in their college towns telling people how to make a donation online to the board members and staff who e-blasted their entire address books – all in just 9 days from when we first read about the Challenge in Parade Magazine.”-Heidi Dormody, Director of Development for EWB-USA, which raised $67,867 from 2,979 unique donors.Good luck!last_img read more

Read More

Online giving: A lively spot in the lackluster economy

first_imgWe just had a happy moment at my job. In a sign of the steady growth in online giving, even amid the recent recession, Network for Good has now processed over $300 million in online donations to more than 50,000 charities since we got started. This year, we’ve distributed money to 60% more charities than last year. The average Network for Good nonprofit is raising the same dollar amounts as in 2008, through more, smaller gifts. To illustrate, the total number of donations through Network for Good is up 92% year to date, but the dollar value of those donations is up 43% compared to last year.That is good news.My colleague Kate Olsen has observed the following trends:•The economy is fragile, but giving online is going strong. Network for Good is seeing double the number of donations this year, just at lower dollar amounts than in years past. The growth in online giving is particularly encouraging in comparison to offline giving trends.•Recurring gifts are a lifeline to nonprofits during a recession. A steady number of donors are setting up automatic monthly, quarterly or annual gifts that provide dependable and compounding cash flow for recipient organizations. At Network for Good, 1 in 5 gifts is a recurring donation this year, which is comparable to last year. •More people are giving the gift of charity to others. Year-to-date sales of Network for Good’s charity gift card (The Good Card) are up 60%, as more individuals and companies choose to say Thank You, Congratulations, and Happy Holidays with the gift of charity. Repeat after me: No more ties! No more scarves!•A rise in grassroots and peer-to-peer fundraising is driving more donation activity online. For any given charity, the most significant source of donations is its own website, but Network for Good is seeing ten-fold growth this year to date in donations made through social networking sites like Causes on Facebook, Change.org and others. •Corporations increasingly insert philanthropy into their marketing and rewards programs. Corporate giving programs like the Capital One “No Hassle” Giving Site make it easy use your card to give to any charity on your card or to donate rewards (with no fees taken out). You’re also going to see more and more so-called embedded giving, which inserts a charitable donation into a commercial transaction. This can be a mixed bag for the sector, as Lucy points out, but it is not going away.The even better news is the best is yet to come – annually, about 40% of giving occurs in December alone. So why is all this happening? Is this trend just cannibalized offline gifts?Not really. Steve from Blackbaud gave a great review of his data today via NTEN, and it tells a story that is consistent with what we’re seeing. Namely, online giving is growing fast (even though it’s still only 5% of overall giving), it brings in younger, wealthier and higher-dollar givers, and it’s a top source of new donors. So you can’t really choose to ignore it. But you also shouldn’t choose to ignore other forms of fundraising. Online donors often give offline after giving online. That raises an interesting issue – we talk a lot about online donors renewing at lower rates and switching to offline giving – while offline givers don’t typically switch to online. I’m not sure how much of this is the donors and how much of it is how and where we cultivate them. I think it’s a mixture of both – which is what Steve said today as well.1. You’re nuts if you’re not doing online fundraising, especially this December when online giving will peak for the year.2. You need to remember online donors are more loyal when they are cultivated through many channels – online and off. So be expansive when thinking about how to build a relationship with them in the New Year.last_img read more

Read More

Donate Now to Your Favorite Charities

first_imgDonate Now! Choose from over 1.4 million US-based charities*Donate to multiple charities in one, simple transactionAccess donation records for tax time in your profileSet up automated monthly givingDedicate donations in honor of loved onesShare your favorite charities with others…all through a BBB Accredited Charily. Why Give through Network for Good?center_img Can’t find your charity in our network? We are here to help!last_img

Read More

Six Top Philanthropy Buzzwords of the Year

first_imgPhoto art by ArtByChrysti on Flickr.Lucy Bernholz, president of Blueprint, Research & Design and author of the blog Philanthropy 2173, just relayed her buzzwords for 2009 on Marketplace. Here are her three – along with my own!1. Impact investing: Lucy feels people are looking to put their financial resources to work for a quantifiable financial, social and environmental impact. For example, foundations using their philanthropic resources to support affordable housing developments, or medical disease research, community loan funds. (I agree this is very true among foundations, less so with your average individual donor, who simply wants to know where they money went and what difference they made.)2. B Corps.: A benefit corporation — it allows any kind of enterprise to organize and incorporate deliberate public benefit right into their chartering documents. Examples Lucy cited are: Method cleaning supplies, NUMI Tea, and her own company, Blueprint, Research & Design. (Yes! And Network for Good where I work, while a nonprofit and not a B Corps, is a proud social enterprise. And full disclosure: we are a proud client of Blueprint.)3. Mergers: Lucy believes a lot of nonprofit organizations will merge or go out of business. That means they’re going to have to start getting strategic in looking for alliances with other organizations. (I think we may be in a more collaborative mood in 2010, if not overtaken with an urge to merge.)Those are Lucy’s. Here come mine:4. Ratings: Zagats for nonprofits? It is coming. In a sign collaboration (see #3) as well as ratings are in style, GreatNonprofits and two other organizations, Philanthropedia and GiveWell, just issued a joint press release about how to pick good charities. They all do their own ratings – and Charity Navigator is in the process of an exciting revamping of its own – and allowing anyone to chime in with their opinion. GreatNonprofits has a Zagat/Yelp-type Top Charity ratings.5. Freelance fundraisers: Social networking, online fundraising and charity widgets have meant anyone can not only rate a charity, they can fundraise for a charity. With 10x growth in giving on Facebook this year and the success of event-based and friends-to-friends campaigns, it’s clear that unofficial fundraisers are here to stay – and we need to empower them to take action on our behalf.6. Trust and transparency: This is more than a buzzword(s), it’s a permanent shift. 2009 was a year of big lies. People don’t trust institutions or organizations as much as they trust who they know. Third-party endorsement has never been so important for your organization – as well as showing transparency and accountability in all you do.last_img read more

Read More