Jeff Brooks of Donor Power Blog has a thoughtful post on the tension between the actual work of a nonprofit, and the perceptions or messages that attract contributed income. His case in point is ”Old Man Eating,” a perennial fundraising photo archetype used among urban rescue missions. ”Old Man Eating,” or OME as Brooks and his colleagues call the class of images, is extraordinarily effective in eliciting passion and contributions. It makes for a successful campaign.
The problem is, Brooks suggests, that OME is not particularly representative of the predominant clients of urban rescue missions (women with children and young adults), and that staff and leadership are getting tired of a tactic that doesn’t quite feel true.
But it works. Says Brooks:
It’s fundraising dissonance. The image that touches people’s heart, that motivates them to give is Old Man Eating. Even though he’s not the real picture of the need. Even though these very same donors know that helping younger people is more needful and impactful. The fact is, the decision to give is an emotional one, not a rational one. Emotional triggers, not rational ones, are those that motivate giving. And OME is a potent emotional trigger.
Brooks’ response? Acknowledge the dissonance, and get over it. Says he:
Meet donors where they are — not where you wish they’d be. Put forth the need that motivates them to respond. Then, you’ll find, you earn the right to have the conversation with them about what you do, and who you (and they) serve. Those who are ready to move beyond the gut reaction to OME will do just that.
So, what image of your work are your donors buying? And does it have anything to do with the true picture of what you do? If not, do you have a problem with that?
Joan says
In the art “world” billions are given to Stars or “ersatz” people, who become the ideal Individuals of a democratic society, and real people are encouraged to live vicariously through them while they go homeless and hungry. Never mind the widening poverty gap. The gap between the acted lives on our Monitors and the life really lived is absolutely staggering. Artists have gone along with this route to their paychecks. But how to change it? My city is a fairly major “B” size Canadian tourist city, and it would profit from publishing real information about its own culture.
My own city newspaper only publishes TV and Movie reviews and Star gossip, so it is a real challenge in our city to present our own arts culture. Well designed Posters by real Graphic artists are too expensive for “B” size town arts organizations to afford; no newspaper reviews arts events anymore; kids aren’t being educated in the arts in public schools anymore. The result starves the real local world of the arts which should be married to the real indivual citizen’s life, and pours billions into the marketed one which elevates the very very very few. My conclusion is that it isn’t a matter that Marketing can address. It’s educational and it can possibly be helped using the Internet as a medium to review and market one to one without great costs.
..an aside. Two months ago under the umbrella of the Kingston Arts Council, I begun an email review project to address this silence which I call Common Wealth Reviews. I match local writers of good calliber with the arts forms each one is knowledgeable about and loves, and then with presenting organizations in town who want to be reviewed. They donate two free tickets to their event, the reviewer attends with a friend — both of whom are usually artists themselves and too poor to go otherwise! The reviewer emails me the review the next day and I email it out as a single review to our newsletter list (over 400 names) within one or two days of the event. You can see the result online here:
http://www.artskingston.com/cwreviews/cw-list.htm
Everyone seems to be happy so far.