Carl immediately got to the heart of the issue when he said “It’s a great way to keep your organization in people’s minds without the contact ALWAYS involving a solicitation.” I agree with that sentiment, but I think holiday cards are the wrong way to do it.

First, they are expensive (as Andrew and Jennifer mention). Second, processing a holiday card list takes time. Sure, one can set up a “holiday card” field in the database, but how well is that going to be kept up in May or June? Third, given that the vast majority of nonprofits do an end-of-year appeal, a holiday card is redundant and can send a subtle mixed message. Are they asking me for money or not?

The nonprofit that, in part, prompted this question got around the issue by sending me my solicitation along with the holiday card. Unfortunately, that doesn’t address Carl’s very real issue. Is all I am to them an ATM machine?

As Maya pointed out, “nonprofit organizations are just like any other business in that they need to maintain contact with their constituents.” I think the answer to this question lies in Amelie’s suggestion that “nice holiday emails that catch you up on the work of a nonprofit are good, though.”

Everyone who donates to a nonprofit should expect to be asked for money on a regular basis. On the other hand, they should also expect to be informed of the goings on with the nonprofit in ways that are not an ask. I think a lot of nonprofits assume that their newsletter fills this need, but I don’t think it does. Often, the newsletter is a thinly veiled ask. My alma mater does it right. It sends out a letter every fall from the college president letting us supporters know what is going on. There’s no ask, there’s no envelope. I’ve received this letter every year I’ve given, no matter what amount I’ve given.

And with email, there’s virtually no cost except for time.

If you’re dying to contact me or name your first child “Uneasy,” my email address is on the Rationale page, spelled out for you. I will try to talk you out of it, because I’m a nice guy like that.

Second, before I go, I have a question to ask in a vain attempt for linkage and comment whoring.

It is standard business practice to send out holiday cards to your customers and key vendors (often, this comes with gifts like bottles of wine or chocolate). Politicians sometimes send cards to key supporters. Some nonprofit organizations also send out holiday cards to donors, foundation funders, and the like. For example, I just received one from an organization I donated to this year. It was part of a solicitation, but frequently, they are just a “happy holidays” card.

My question is, should nonprofits be sending out holiday cards to any portion of their constituencies?

I’ll post my own thoughts in the new year.

Happy New Year, Peace, and Goodwill à tous.

If I had to say what was one other goal or vision that I have it’s to try to engage the younger Hilton generation so they become more aware of philanthropy and encourage them to give and be involved.

The Chronicle asked about Paris specifically, and Mr. Hilton (her uncle) pointed out that “regardless of how you view the type of attention she gets, she gets attention.”

I’d have to say that Paris has given quite a lot of herself. Dare we ask her to do more?

(The complete article, if you happen to have a Chronicle login)

That being said, I’ll be making a donation to the Red Cross, and I encourage all six of my readers to do the same (or to your favorite domestic aid charity – they’re all going to be there). Whether you can give five dollars or five thousand, your money will find its way down south and help out someone in need.

BoingBoing has an excellent reader comment explaining how money can actually work better than volunteers or donations of stuff. It also gives good advice for what to do if you insist on volunteering. Here’s an excerpt, but anyone thinking about volunteering should read the whole thing:

The single best thing Joe Geek can do is give cash. Not stuff, cash. Cash is portable, fast, and useful. Everything else has problems — even if it is something they really and truly need, because it isn’t there, and people and resources are needed to get it there.

The canonical example: Bottled water. Something otherwise useless that is critical in this sort of emergency. So you give a few flats to the ARC. Well, you bought them at retail, and now, the ARC has to put them on a truck (which costs money) and ship them down there (which cost money, and time.)

Let’s say you give them $20 instead. The ARC notes that they need water. So, they call a bottler in a city close to, but not affected by, the storm. They get wholesale or cost prices, as opposed to retail. For the same amount of money, they get far more water, far closer to where they need to be. In six hours, you’re delivering your flats to the local ARC office. In six hours with cash, they’re handing water to people who desperately need it.

Furthermore, for the two or three of my readers who I suspect itemize their deductions, a donation to the Red Cross is tax deductible.

Because of its popularity, everyone wants to podcast. The Center for Economic and Policy Research will be conducting a series of seminars in the coming months on “basic economics for policy analysis and self defense.” In the announcement of these seminars in D.C., CEPR says they will also be offering “podcasts” of each session. (I have not seen the announcement on their very messy website – when I do, I’ll post a link.) Update: The seminar series announcement is on the website.

What they mean is, unless I am mistaken, they will be putting up audio files of each session.

Why the distinction? Podcasting involves two components. The first is the audio file, which I guess we could call the “pod.” The second is the RSS/XML feed. You can’t have a “cast” without it. (You can, but it is a very narrow cast.) CEPR, as far as I can tell, does not offer any kind of syndicated feed on their site, for their main content or anything else. Update: the way the announcement is worded does make me wonder that maybe they do get it.

If you find a “how to podcast” website or article that doesn’t mention some form of syndicated feed, move along. It isn’t any good.

The CEPR seminars, if they ever are announced publicly, are exactly the kind of item nonprofits should consider podcasting. They will be of interest to a broad audience, most of whom will not be able to attend the live events in D.C., and some of the meaning of the content will no doubt be lost were it to be provided solely as an outline or a powerpoint presentation.

I try to make the hook fundraising because I think that’ll pull people into the conversation. But utilizing social tools on the web—wikis and blogs and RSS—participating in web-wide conversations, all of that, it’s not about the fundraising potential.

As a development director, at least I have an excuse for getting caught in that trap. But Marnie’s post brings up something I have to tell myself constantly: nonprofit development is not just about money in, not just about marketing. While it has much in common with sales, at its core, it isn’t sales. Ideally, a nonprofit is engaging someone at a psychic level far deeper than they’d get from purchasing a new television or a new car or even a new home.

Social web tools are a great way to engage people in our too-busy society. I marvel at the kind of dialog nonprofits could be having with stakeholders, except that many won’t and probably never will. Marnie, in expressing her hope for “Web 2.0,” actually gets at why many, many nonprofits will never realize the full potential of these tools:

[Web 2.0 is] about opening up your organization so that you can achieve greater impact and create the change you seek by allowing your constituency to take pieces of your organization and make something out of them. It’s making the ideas portable and actionable. In the language of David Allen’s Getting Things Done, it’s about giving your constituency the power to figure out their own next actions and the tools to do them.

In other words, its requires a level of trust and relinquishing of control that is beyond the comfort zone of “old media” types, and even many new media ones.

My favorite situation: nonprofit N asks vendor V to do a product within three months. V checks in at the two-month point and waits for the go-ahead to bring the task to completion. And waits. And waits. Finally, N, after three months, gives the go. In the meantime, V has scheduled new work and instead of taking one month it takes three months to complete the project. N is angry at the delay. Now, whose fault is it?

Second, the Curmudgeon offers some slogans for nonprofit professionals. My favorite:

Much will be gained if [our work] can succeed in transforming hysterical misery into common unhappiness. (Sigmund Freud)

Kari Chisholm posts about a question and its answer: must the CAN-SPAM law apply to a “tell-a-friend” email? According to the FTC, the official answer is no. Read the ruling.

This is a logical answer. People forward all sorts of email. If a real person is thinking about me while reading a missive from the ACLU, and decides to send it to me with a note saying “thought you might want to read this,” that isn’t spam. It may be true that I didn’t want to see it, but it still isn’t spam. Even if the organization includes instructions on subscribing to their email updates, I still don’t think that it’s spam.

However, if the organization captures my email address and sends me stuff, they’ve become a spammer because I have not explicitly requested that they send me information.

For many organizations, “address harvesting” is a time-tested method for building one’s mailing list. But that’s postal lists, and people still read their junk mail. Although we all complain about the junk mail we receive, junk mailers have not received either the attention or the level of ire that email spammers have, and this is probably because email spam often goes beyond the pale, advertising products and services one does not always see in one’s mail box. Also, there is a certain visceral satisfaction to having a full mail box and to throwing out junk mail.

In the absence of address harvesting, how should organizations build their email lists? There are many ways including but not limited to the following:

1) Make sure you have a tell-a-friend feature. Even if you only get a handful of forwards and one or two new subscribers, it’s worth it.

2) Every one of your staff members should be trained to plug your organization’s email update list. Constantly. To everyone and their dog.

3) Have a web-form for getting more information about the organization. Duh.

4) Remember to give people something to do. “Tell your representative you’re pissed off! And become a friend of the Organization of the Righteously Pissed Off and get email updates so you’ll know other things that will piss you off enough to tell your representative.” This works better for political organizations, but I’m sure there are other iterations for other organizations.

5) Don’t call people subscribers if you can get away with it. They are members or friends. Always. They are a part of your community.

6) Embrace RSS. Granted, this won’t get you new friends (subscribers) for your email list, but it will get you new friends (subscribers) for your organization. Don’t be afraid to include the occasional pitch in your feed, just don’t go overboard. Advertising is already starting to appear in syndicated feeds. And always make sure people know they can get even more information back on your website – which has all that membership (subscription) information on it. They can’t get more information? Shame on you. You get an F and a “please rewrite.”