Nonprofit Communications

This is the second in a five-post series on a direct mail make-over currently being tested by the University of California at Berkeley (Cal). Read Part 1 | This is Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

The fundraisers at Cal have decided to break away from their standard business letter appeal and try a bold, full-color brochure to convince alumni to become new donors to the university. From their focus groups, they know that Cal alums consider themselves unique and diverse – not like the cookie cutter graduates from rival private schools. They’ve also decided to speak directly to the audience by using the word “You” prominently in the piece. So the creative team went to work.

In early drafts, the simple imagery of the cookie cutter was meshed with too many complex messages about alumni, says Amy Cranch, a principal editor with Cal’s development communications department. It said, “You challenge convention. You have an independent spirit. You think freely.” The whole idea was that your life has been transformed by graduating from Cal, but in a way that left you your own person, explains Amy.

“It just wasn’t working,” she recalls. “There were too many disconnects, and the concept of the cookie cutter itself was a cliché and not very strong. The copy made very strong assumptions about people. It was not an invitation to agree with the ideas. It felt too forced.”

Virginia Gray, Cal’s associate director of annual giving and regional programs, agrees. “The whole thing wasn’t holding together. It wasn’t telling the kind of personal story we wanted.”

This is where many people would have given up and gone back to the standard form letter. When you are creating messages, whether they take the form of a tagline or design theme or epiphany at the end of an essay, you have to keep kneading the bread dough. At this stage, Cal had a nice lump of dough, but it was still a sticky mess. But they kept kneading it, waiting for that smooth, satiny finish to appear that tells you that you are done.

Amy’s boss had a middle-of-the-night brainstorm. Instead of telling Cal alumni what they were and sounding presumptuous – just what Cal grads hate – they would use famous alumni who are often described as innovators, free thinkers, and creators.

Everyone has the ingredients for good bread, but it takes knowing how long to knead it to produce something delicious.

Coming Tomorrow: How Cal designs a piece all about famous alumni without abandoning the “You, the Donor” ideal.

This is the first in a five-post series on a direct mail make-over currently being tested by the University of California at Berkeley (Cal), my alma mater. Read Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

The fundraisers at Cal had a problem: they needed to raise more money from alumni to support the diverse education and research programs where Cal excels, but their current direct mail program wasn’t increasing the size of the alumni donor pool. While the standard annual appeal in a letter format did a good job at renewing existing donors, says Virginia Gray, Cal’s associate director of annual giving and regional programs, the letters weren’t bringing in many new donors.

To learn more about these alumni who weren’t currently donating, Cal sponsored some focus groups. “We found that a lot of people felt like going to Cal was a big, impersonal experience and they didn’t have the same emotional connections and bonding experiences that you’d find at a smaller university,” says Virginia.

Cal must also contend with the misperception that as a state-funded school, it doesn’t really need individual donors. “At private schools,” explains Virginia, “you are educated about how the people before you are funding your education now, and that you need to give back so the school can go on. You don’t get that message at Cal.”

The alumni in the focus group also shared how they viewed themselves as a very diverse group and that the Cal experience enhanced that diversity, unlike other private institutions of similar caliber that churn out cookie-cutter graduates (the staid professionals that graduate from rival Stanford, for example, come to this Golden Bear’s mind).

The cookie-cutter imagery stuck with Virginia and her colleagues as they pulled together a creative brief for a new direct mail campaign centered on a full-color, multi-panel, graphic-laden brochure. While Cal had tried colorful brochures before, it would be the first time they had tried something as bold as they had in mind this time.

Coming Tomorrow: The cookie cutter concept falls apart, but an even better concept comes together.

One of the easiest ways that nonprofit communicators can go green in their operations is to use recycled paper all the time — in your office equipment and office supplies like folders and when you buy print. Long gone are the excuses about paper quality and, for the most part, price (or at least they should be, if you shop around a bit.)

There’s just one small problem. Lots of nonprofits like to include “Printed on Recycled Paper” on their documents to promote their environmentally sensitive behavior when they, in fact, have no idea what that phrase really means and aren’t actually using 100% recycled paper. Let me explain.

According to the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, which were published a decade ago, if you claim that your document is “Printed on Recycled Paper,” you are saying that it is printed on paper containing 100% recycled fiber. However lots of the office and printing papers on the market today only contain 30% recycled fiber. If you are using those papers, you should say, “Printed on Paper with 30% Recycled Fiber” or something along those lines.

I personally buy and highly recommend Staples® 100% Recycled Copy Paper, so I can include “Printed on Recycled Paper” in my documents without further details. To be technically correct about this particular paper, I could say, “Printed on 100% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper,” which is even better from an environmental perspective.

When something is called “recycled,” that material can come from two sources: Pre-Consumer, which is manufacturing scraps, and Post-Consumer, which is all the paper that we put in the recycling bin at home and work. Manufacturers commonly recycle their own discards for economic reasons, so that recovered paper isn’t as important for consumers like us to focus on as the post-consumer material. The post-consumer material is the paper that we are trying to keep out landfills and incinerators and want to be made into new products; therefore, we should look for post-consumer content when we buy recycled products.

When you are buying office paper or talking to your printer about paper choices, ask for the total recycled content and the highest amount of post-consumer content that you can, too. If price is a concern, look for paper that is 100% recycled, with 30% post-consumer content. Interested in learning more about environmental paper choices? Check out the Conservatree website.

This post is my contribution to Blog Action Day.

Michele Martin at the Bamboo Project asked about our favorite learning resources and what gets us excited about learning new things. I get tons of great information from reading other people’s blogs, but I saw that Rosetta Thurman wrote a great post about that already, so I’ll go with another favorite learning tool of mine: playing around with new software and online services via free trials.

As I’ve explained here before, I am a do-it-yourself nut and often try multiple solutions to a single problem. Free trials help fuel this habit. (Before you recommend that I enter self-employed consultant rehab, rest assured that I am getting better about hiring others to do the really important or really hard stuff, rather than trying to learn how to do everything myself.)

Still, I’ve found using free trials is a great way to learn about the abilities and limitations of various systems and how they could impact my clients’ work and my own business. By seeing what software and services can do, you also open up new possibilities you may not have considered before. Most free trials limit quantities, but that can match up just fine with a test run of a new campaign.

Along those lines, here are some free trials you might want to try, if you are considering ramping up your nonprofit communications, while learning something new along the way.

Hobbling along with Publisher or PageMaker?

Adobe is now offering 30-day free trials of all of the products in the Creative Suite line, including InDesign, which is the far and away the best layout program out there. I hung in there with PageMaker for several years because a couple of clients used it, but I’ve told them I’m done with it and going with InDesign 100%. It’s not cheap, but it’s worth it, and there are ways to get it for less (TechSoup has it right now for $60). If you want to test-drive the full CS line, which also includes DreamWeaver, PhotoShop, Illustrator and several other programs, you can get a CD for $9.99.

Still pondering an email newsletter?

If aren’t sending out an email newsletter yet, simply because you are afraid of the tech side, relax. It’s really quite easy these days. I use iContact for clients and some of my own newsletters. They have expanded way beyond e-newsletters to offer RSS feeds, surveys, autoresponders, and the like. Their free trial is for 15 days and you can send 1,500 messages to up to 250 subscribers. That’s plenty of room to test drive a new e-newsletter. Just make sure that you have your list together before you start the trial so you don’t waste free days.

I’ve also used ConstantContact and know several people who like their service, even though I’m not using it anymore (because I like iContact better). But since we are talking free trials, why not sign up for this one too and figure out what you like best? They offer email newsletter and survey services. They’ve got a 60-day trial offer.

Looking for a way to manage online photo galleries?

Of course, if you are simply looking for ways to share photos online, I recommend Flickr. But if you want more control over how your images appear in a gallery and you want that gallery integrated into your own website, I like Shozam, which I wrote about earlier this week.

Forget photo galleries — Do you need actual photos?

I highly recommend that you use photos everywhere, but especially on your website, in your print newsletter and in your annual report. My favorite site for stock photography, and it seems I use it almost daily lately, is iStockPhoto. They don’t have a free trial per se, although you can browse and download comps (photos with their logo on them) for free. You can purchase credits for as little as $12, so it’s close to free.

Considering a postcard mail campaign?

I use VistaPrint for business cards and also for postcards. They give away lots of free samples, customized with your logo, etc, including 250 business cards, 10 note cards, 100 postcards, one pad of post-its, and a rubber stamp. You pay shipping and handling. Why not get the postcards and run a small trial mailing for a campaign you’ve been considering? You could match it up with that new email campaign your test-driving too!

OK, that should keep you busy for awhile!

One last tip on the free software downloads . . . be sure to keep track of what you install and uninstall anything you decide you don’t want. I ended up with five different photo galleries on my computer and it was a mess to clean up.

I’ve played around with lots of different photo galleries, both free and for a fee, for both clients and for my personal blog, where I keep my far-flung family happy with lots of kid photos. I’ve decided that I like Shozam the best (formerly Web Gallery Wizard) and here’s why.

It gives me complete control over how the photos appear and offers several nice templates for the photo galleries. Some of them are a little cheesy, but most are tasteful templates that can work well with many website designs. It’s got a step-by-step process (Steps #1 - 6) that’s really easy to follow, so you don’t get lost in the process of moving your photos from your camera to the web. I don’t have to do anything to my photos before placing them into the program. It takes care of all the sizing, rotating, creating thumbnails, etc. Adding captions is simple and you can also add audio and video clips.

I also like that it comes in several different versions, allowing me to pick the version with the number of tools I needed, and not pay for the ones I don’t. I bought the advanced version for $99.99, and it’s the mid-range version. The Lite version (the most basic version) is $24.95. Naturally, I recommend that you start with the free trial. It will let you test drive the various options before you spend the cash, which is always nice. It took me awhile before I coughed up the money, but after trying several of the free or cheap solutions and being really unhappy in the end, I’m glad I spend the bucks to get the product that works for me.
If you know of a program that does all that Shozam does for the same price or less, let me know by leaving a comment.

When does a nonprofit need a model release? This is a frequent question from nonprofit communicators. Before I answer, let me share this true story (I swear, it really is true).

A nonprofit hosts a fundraiser that includes a dance band. The newsletter editor wants to include a photo of the band in the newsletter. A board member, who is also an attorney, reviews the newsletter and insists that the newsletter editor must get a model release from the band members before using the photo. Newsletter editor does her best, but can only get in touch with half of the band members before the print deadline. Rather than pull the photo or blow off the board member, she blurs the faces of the band members she can’t reach and prints the newsletter. In other words, her newsletter includes a photo in which it appears that half of the band is “innocent until proven guilty” on Cops.

I would not have believed this story had she not shown me a copy of the actual newsletter.

This is completely ridiculous and an excellent example of board members stepping in where they do not belong. Not only is this micromanagement by a board member, which is generally frowned upon, but the legal advice was a bunch of hooey. But I digress.

Why all the confusion about model releases? Because the whole issue of model releases falls into a gray area of First Amendment law. There are no hard and fast rules — every answer to a model release question is subject to any number of caveats. Here’s one right now: I am not an attorney. But as this example shows, even attorneys practicing criminal or family law will often get it wrong. If you feel you need a completely solid answer for your specific case, hire a First Amendment lawyer. If you are looking for the general rules of the game that can apply to nearly all nonprofit situations, read on.

If you are publishing a photo for information or educational purposes, not commercial purposes like product advertising, you can typically print it without a model release. The majority of nonprofit publications fall into this category. Model releases are all about the use of the photo, not the fact that it was taken. Do you think newspaper photographers get model releases from criminals on perp walks or the paparazzi chasing Hollywood actresses ask for model releases? Of course not. And they are selling the photos to magazine publishers and the publishers are selling magazines to you. Money is changing hands and yet no model release is legally required because these are considered informational or educational purposes, as would most nonprofit publications.

You are also fine without a release if the person is truly unrecognizable. You are usually fine if you are not hiding the fact that you are taking photos and you are in a public place and are not breaking any laws. You are also fine in private locations as long as you have the owner’s or event sponsor’s permission.

That’s the basic law. But that doesn’t mean following these rules, and therefore neglecting to get a model release in most nonprofit situations, is necessarily the smartest choice politically or professionally.

So what’s a nonprofit to do? Use your common sense.

For example, I wouldn’t give a second thought to a photo of a band playing at a party. They are probably thrilled with the extra exposure — until you blur half of the band members’ faces. That’s what I’d be mad about if I were in the band. Forget the model release in this case.

What about participants in your various programs? To be on the safe side, I would try to get a signed model release. It doesn’t have to be a huge ordeal.

Here is some sample legalese for a release from Hurwit & Associates, a law firm serving nonprofits, and here is the much scaled-down version used by the National Science Teachers Association. To make it easy on yourself, you can put something like this at the top of a sheet of paper and leave lots of rows below it where people can sign. I just put something like this together for a client who wants to do “man on the street” interviews to chronicle public opinion on their issue. Remember, you only need the release if you actually use the photo (and remember, legally, you probably don’t really need it then). You can go back later and get permission once you know what photos you want to use, but that only works if you can identify everyone in the photo weeks or months later.

If you make participants sign other kinds of applications or waivers, simply add this language to those forms. It’s my understanding that big events like conferences are considered public and since there is no expectation of privacy, you don’t really need a release from the hundreds of people at your event. If you were really concerned about it, you could include the release as part of your registration form or ask people to sign it when they pick up their registration materials.

I managed the photography and publications for a conference of about 1,000 people for several years. We didn’t get model releases, even though we posted hundreds of photos online and used last year’s photos in the current year’s conference marketing materials. I sorted through every photo to take out any that were clearly unflattering (eyes half-closed, food sticking out of the mouth, hands appearing to touch places they didn’t belong). We put a note on the website that said we would take down any photo if a person in the photo asked in writing. In four years of following this practice, we never once received a request to remove a photo. A few people complained about the photographer getting in their way at the event, but that was it, and those people complained about lots of things. People loved seeing the photos from the event afterwards and those who appeared in the marketing materials were flattered.

What about kids? This is the only place where I say without question, always get a signed release by the guardian for children under 18. When children are involved, you enter into a whole new realm of law and best practices.

Want more? These are the two best (in other words, clear and pragmatic) explanations I’ve found online:

Frequently Asked Questions about Releases from the American Society of Media Photographers
A Very Brief Model Release Primer from a professional photographer’s blog

I’m always harping on clients to add photographs to their publications and I always hear, “But we don’t have any good photos!”

So buy them online!

You can get high-quality, royalty-free stock photography for a few dollars per image (less if you want only web resolution). Lots of images available online were shot with advertising in mind, so they will often include areas that are perfect places for you to drop in some text.

I buy 95% of the images I use for clients and for my own websites and publications (including the images in the last few blog posts) from two sources:

iStockPhoto.com is my favorite, because their search engine is excellent. If you type in “black” for example, it will guess what you meant and then let you specify whether you meant “black as in descriptive color” or “black as in African descent.” It’s very easy to narrow your search to the photos you really want.

If I can’t find it on iStockPhoto.com, then I try BigStockPhotos.com. The search engine there isn’t as sophisticated and there is some overlap with other photography sites, but I have found great photos there that I didn’t see elsewhere.

At both sites, the more credits you purchase at once, the cheaper they are. I’ve been ripping through them for various clients, so I’m purchasing in the hundreds at both sites and I always spend them faster than I think I will. If you are trying these sites for the first time, I recommend getting 55 credits for $60 at iStockPhoto.com and 27 credits for $40 at BigStockPhotos.com. You can also find illustrations at iStockPhoto.com (no more cheesy clipart!). Web resolution photos cost 1-2 credits; high-resolution can be up to 15 credits depending on the size of the photo (for most print purposes, they’ll be in the 4-5 credit range.)

If you need city- or state-specific shots, try the convention and visitor’s bureau for the area. In most cases, you can register at their websites for free, agree that you’ll only use the photos to promote the location or an event there, and you can download high-quality photos at no charge.

A couple of times each year, when neither of these cheap site offers what I want, I get out my wallet and head over to Getty Images or Corbis. The photos cost more like $50 - $300 and there are more use restrictions, but you’ll find some incredibly beautiful and visually stunning photography and illustrations.

So what’s the downside to stock photography? The main problem is that others can use the same photo, so there’s a slim chance that someone else in your field or location will use the same photo you did. All the sites tell you how many times the photos have been downloaded, so if that’s a concern for you, pick images with few downloads.

And, no, the photos in my blog header are not stock. Those are my real kids and cats.

I have to admit, I am thoroughly sick of all the nonprofit branding talk, so when I saw “Branding Is for Cattle: What Really Matters to CEOs” in the MarketingProfs e-newsletter, I clicked on it immediately. The point of the article is that marketers who get all wound up in branding often forget why they are marketing in the first place: to reach the customers and to respond to their needs.

I am all for a unified look in nonprofit marketing materials and for updating that look every now and then. I constantly advocate consistency, so you won’t get an argument from me on that one either. What bothers me about all the nonprofit branding chatter I’ve been hearing is the near breathless anticipation that a cool color scheme, groovy graphics, and some Flash on a website will suddenly make people “get it” about an organization or issue. Anyone who makes you believe that branding will solve all of your communications problems is selling you nothing but Snake Oil 2.0.

Branding is good, but it’s only one part of the overall communications and marketing picture. You still have to know who your audience is. You still have to know what they care about and why. You still have to figure out how to reach them. Don’t give your branding (or rebranding) project more importance than it deserves.