"Figures don't lie, but liars figure." -Mark Twain
Target Analytics National Fundraising Index 2009Q1
There
is no worse combination of forces than statistically based studies and
our soundbite culture. Such studies are always based in a crucial
context that needs to be understood when interpreting results, and our
soundbite culture removes that key element.
Last month Target Analytics released their National Fundraising Index for Q1 2009 showing, of course, that fundraising is completely down across the board. Average gifts are down, new donors are down, and total dollars are down.
The report admits that Q1 of every year for a nonprofit is hard, following on the end of year giving cycle that most nonprofits experience. The real question to ask yourself though, is "does this even apply to me?" For example, small businesses and small nonprofits may not feel much of the impact of the recession, depending on their sources of revenue. If you're a nonprofit that gets most of its donations from financial industry employees, then yes, it feels like a hurricane.
If you have a small set of donors spread across all industries, then it may not seem so dramatic. Blindly applying the results of these surveys to your own organization and taking action without considering your existing context is problematic at best, and possibly destructive.
Where I do find these valuable is in terms of trends. If you look at Target data for the last five years, and it follows your own revenue, then it probably has some value. If your ups and down don't match it, then it's not particularly valuable.
Cone Inc. Nonprofit Power Brand 100
Another survey to come out (along with a built-in critic) was the Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100.
While it is not difficult to see why a PR firm that does nonprofit
brand advertising would publish a list of organizations that have
executed great brands, it seems somewhat superfluous at best,
especially when the report is described as "the first public ranking in the United States to value nonprofit organizations by more than financial standing alone."
Much like measuring websites in "visits" rather than in "donations" or "sales", measuring nonprofits by brand is great until the money runs out.
Considerably damning was criticism from Brian Reich, a former Cone Inc. employee (and a former colleague of mine at Virilion) who served as Director of New Media at Cone Inc. He says:
"The Cone study/ranking represents an old way of viewing what makes an organization strong and worth of support or recognition. And I fear that by celebrating the organizations on the list, and reinforcing the behavior (marketing, promotion, branding) that earned these groups high marks for brand, we are making it even harder for group to focus on the impact that is needed, or for groups who are being recognized for their impact to find the support they need to scale up." (The bold emphasis is mine -Shabbir)
In short, the value of brand is about who can "talk the talk", and it does not measure who most effectively can "walk the walk". I hope someone commissions that one someday.
Comments