Yesterday, I pulled my mail out of the box and found a solicitation from this organization. Really? I just gave to you two weeks ago and you’re asking again already? If I give again today, will you ask again in two weeks? I was annoyed and the letter went straight into the recycling.

Last night, as I was preparing dinner, I got a call from the advocacy arm (PAC) of a nonprofit I support. I listened to the caller’s spiel patiently while I chopped carrots and radishes even though I had already decided that I would not be supporting the PAC because I was focusing my gift on the nonprofit and couldn’t do both right now. When she finished, I explained why I wouldn’t be giving to the PAC and steeled myself for the inevitable, “But THIS effort is really important, too, and you should support both.” But you know what she said? She said thank you. She said, “Oh, you are? Thank for supporting our organization. We really appreciate your support. You have a nice night now.” I was taken aback. She didn’t push and ask for an additional gift? Yahoo! Thank you, organization, I appreciate you listening to me. Next time, I will consider increasing my gift.

AFP came out with a great story on this topic today. Read it here.

It’s tempting to add a couple of zeros to your next major solicitation and see what happens, isn’t it?  While we all wish we had prospects with that kind of capacity, it does seem to be a positive indication for overall giving in 2010.

The product is currently being tested at the Idaho Humane Society. Website visitors can click on the Kitty Kam link and be connected instantly to a live video feed into the Society’s cat room. But there’s more!  Viewers can download an application that will allow them to take one-minute turns actually controlling the camera and cat toys in the room. From across the globe, a visitor can entertain a kitten in South Boise Idaho – in real time. I’ll challenge even the coldest heart not to giggle at the site of the kittens jumping on the toys.

While the product is still in early development, the concept could solve a big problem – and one which many nonprofit organizations face. Simply, how does an organization give its prospective supporters an experiential moment, if it cannot get those supporters inside its facility?

Give it a try and let us know what you think. The fine print: you’ll need to use Internet Explorer and some firewalls don’t like the site yet. Some users may not have success logging into the program.

Ager’s approach to a “mini-feasibility study” would indeed be less costly and less time-consuming than a traditional feasibility study. Problem is, it’s not a feasibility study. It’s a glorified focus group. A fun setting, tasty food, and questionnaires are not the hallmarks of a successful feasibility study. What Ager suggests is a good recipe for a cultivation event, but falls far short of yielding the quality of opinions and data you get by employing a distinct methodology which would include an analysis of your organization’s internal readiness for a major campaign, in addition to focus groups and targeted one-on-one interviews. In the “mini” method, you’ve gathered opinions and can write up findings, but you haven’t studied anything.

A campaign feasibility study has two main outcomes: 1) it tests your organization’s preparation for and ability to carry out a significant fundraising campaign and 2) it evaluates the community’s potential leadership and financial investment in your project. No matter where your organization is located or what size it is, a “mini” study won’t get you where you need to be.

The Collins Group knows that well-executed feasibility studies help organizations find the best path forward for fulfilling their missions by strengthening donor and volunteer relationships and by finding creative approaches for meeting community needs. This requires a strong partnership between an organization and its consultants and a rigorous approach to assessment of potential, with solid research supporting every conclusion.

Feasibility studies are not a luxury that just some can afford; for a well-researched and well-run major fundraising campaign, they are a necessity. As many nonprofits will affirm, spending $35,000-55,000 on a professional feasibility study up-front to determine a realistic goal is money well-spent. If you are asking your donors, your board and staff, and your community to invest in your organization and your project, you owe them a thoroughly researched study and a plan to move forward.

Focus groups and an online survey (Hope Consulting conducted the research) tapped the opinions of more than 4,000 individuals, half of whom were from high net worth households. Their methodology, in Hope Consulting’s words, “investigated behaviors, not simply stated preferences” and “forced individuals to make trade-offs to mirror real life decisions and minimize pro-social responses.”  Based on this research, the report develops six different donor segments and provides advice for reaching each one.

The survey’s key findings overturn some conventional wisdom in fundraising:

• Donor demographics, in particular, age and gender, are not reliable predictors of high net worth donors’ actions
• While donors care about the quality and performance of nonprofits, few take the time to research them
• High net worth donors are not behaving differently from other donors

And some less surprising findings:

• Donors, once connected to a nonprofit, are very loyal to it
• Donors feel they are being asked for support too often

The Money for Good project is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aspen Institute of Development Entrepreneurs, the Metanoia Fund, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Click here to download the full report.