Words or Numbers?

One of the enduring debates in the not-for-profit world is what I loosely label words versus numbers or  qualitative versus quantitative. It can take many forms.

I hinted at it in my last blog about the two organisations in India that connect donors with nonprofits. In this blog I aim to look at it further.

This argument has its parallels in other fields, including in the social sciences where it is framed as an argument between positivists and ethnographers. I blogged about another aspect of it under the title Whiteboards and herbal tea. In that I was alluding to an important debate about foundation funding criteria between two leading thinkers in contemporary American philanthropy William Schambra  and Paul Brest .

However, my mind at present is focused on making your case for support and how you might construct appeals. My contention is that words and stories (i.e. the qualitative elements) are far more powerful than numbers and statistics (the quantitative). Another argument might be that pictures are vitally important: but that's an argument for another day.

The argument could also be framed in the heart versus head rubric. Of course, I am not arguing that some numeric data may not be important. For example, when you are making a case for support for a capital campaign it will be important to explain the costing which your campaign is based. It may also be important to provide some information about your organisations overall finances and its balance sheet. Those potential donors who may be considering making very large gifts might (and I emphasise might because it is far from always the case) apply their ‘investment logic’ before they commit to a gift. Supposing, for instance, that they come from the world of business investment decision-making? 

However, it is my belief that for major gifts decisions, in particular, donations are more often made for moral, ethical or even emotional reasons. Donors support medical projects because of a personal history touched by health and medicine. They support educational institutions, again because of a personal history touched by education: and, often as an alumna/us of the institution that they are supporting.

In less biographically touching appeals, I still believe that the emotional, 'heart' pulling effect of stories and the words are far more convincing than statistics. This is true even when the statistics are grim. It is shocking to point out that more than 10 percent of the world lives on less than a dollar a day or, that 17,000 children under age five die every day. 

However, if you can really tell the story, or paint the picture of  a child born in a village in sub Saharan Africa to parents whose every waking moment was devoted to scouring for such miserable sustenance that the harsh environment provided. And that even this survival was everyday threatened by effects of climate change and political upheavals. And then your story continues, that the future of that child can be met  with appropriate help and that they will survive and even thrive. Or better still,  you can show how existing funding is changing the ecosystem and infrastructure in the community where that child lives. In summary, tell a story or paint a picture showing there is hope. Isn't that far more compelling than bare statistics?

The great advantage of storytelling over fact-telling is especially reinforced in these examples from the SOFII website *, each of which uses various combinations of media and technology. Another advantage of making your case with stories is that they lend themselves to being retold in multiple ways (and there's only so much you can do with numbers!!)

• Every day in developing countries thousands of women (mainly) face the difficult task of fetching and carrying water from its source to their homes. It's a grueling daily duty most donors would find very hard to imagine.  This is the story told by WaterAid 

• Martin was volunteering in Afghanistan with when he met a young girl called Hadisa. At eight months old, she was carried hundreds of miles by her father to receive treatment after the village elders tried to stone her to death for the shame they thought she brought to their community. The medical facilities in Kabul were not equipped to deal with the severity of Hadisa’s condition. This was the story that led to  Martin founding Facing the World.

• It’s easy for you to ignore a homeless person as they walk past them on the street, but  if you had a homeless person telling their story on your phone for three days you would see that the issues behind youth homelessness are complex and varied.

Please add your own examples of compelling stories, well told (or even the compelling use of numbers!)

* BTW Here also is the story of SOFII told by its founder - himself a master of storytelling.  

One must travel, to learn (Mark Twain)

 "If the passenger visits better countries, he may learn to improve his own", wrote Samuel Johnson,  in 1755.

As I have spent the past two weeks in India a thing that has struck me as I read my morning news has been the number of stories about local nonprofits. 

It has led me to think afresh about the importance of nonprofits (NGOs) and social enterprise in the space between what government and the for profit sector can do. It is in this space where change can happen, a difference can be made and humanity can be found. What would the world be like without all the various organisations in that space where you live?

There are said to be around 200,000 nonprofits in India more than one for every 600 of its 1.2 billion people. In India, as in much of the developing world, the ability of governments and the for profit sector to deal with the huge demands of extreme poverty and a fast growing population has limits. Here are some examples of how Indian nonprofits are stepping up to the challenges. 

Keshav Srushti in a bid to spread awareness on solar cooking, will be recruiting students from 500 schools across Mumbai to cook solar-powered dishes. This solar cooker is a rudimentary piece of plastic foam that can reach a maximum temperature of 120ºC and can save up to 10,000 units of electricity on a daily basis and is functional for a year.

Salaam Balak  is trialing solar powered school bags for the poor. This idea came to its designer when she was talking to her domestic help, “She told me about the problems her children faced while studying at night. There are frequent power outages in her slum". The backpacks look like regular schoolbags but turn into a lamp when their front pockets are unzipped.

GOONJ  responded to the problem that 68% of rural women cannot afford sanitary napkins. When women cannot afford sanitary pads they resort to using cloth pieces or nothing. This causes infections and can lead to cervical cancer. GOONJ decided to act on this issue and started a movement of making sanitary pads out of waste cloth for rural women.

Sewa Trust  provides free meals to city slum and street dwellers admitted to hospitals who are unable to afford their own. Many of the beneficiaries are migrant workers drawn to the cities from rural India by the opportunity of work and separated from family support during their time of need. Says one beneficiary, “I regularly come to this organisation and am offered free food by the members. I live on a footpath and do not have enough money to buy food for myself". 

Sangama, an NGO for sexual minorities, sex workers and people living HIV has been asked by the Kerala Government  to conduct a socio-economic and situational survey of transgenders in the state through an NGO with a view of formulating welfare measures for them.

To celebrate Indian National Day on 15 August, the Times of India ran a feature that highlighted several more NGOs and social enterprises:

Basic school skills

The focus of in-school programs has always been on children achieving basic skills. The depressing fact is that of children enrolled in class 1, about 40% drop out before class 8 and a total of 70% drop out before class 10, makes basic literacy and numeracy an urgent social goal. Akshara’s effort began in Bangalore when remedial programs were implemented with volunteers, trained to identify children with learning deficits and give them specialized inputs. 

Microcredit and crowdfunding

Rang De combines microcredit and crowd funding to help people achieve freedom from poverty. It acts as a bridge between people who want to help the under privileged and those who need money to invest in small businesses. People living in cities can choose from a huge database of borrowers on rang these websites invest as little as Rs.100 into their business.

Out on the streets

Started in 2010 by an anonymous group of volunteers Ugly Indians are out on the streets fixing pavements, fearing a garbage, removing unauthorised posters, painting walls and planting saplings all over India. The regional initiative in Mumbai has been to document all the filthy and rundown parks and playgrounds and lobby the city council to remedy these.

Femininity and Fearlessness

The Fearless Collective are artists, activists, photographers and filmmakers who use art to speak out against gender violence. It was formed in response to the Nirbhaya rape and murder. The collective aims to redefine fear, femininity and what it means to be fearless.

Pay from your heart

Seva Cafe is a pop-up restaurant run entirely by volunteers. At the end of the meal  diners don't get a bill, just a little note which says "Pay from your heart!".  A hundred percent of the restaurant profits is used to support social service projects.

See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0V1XVzD7ik

Is the Death of Corporate Philanthropy Exaggerated?

The end of corporate philanthropy was predicted in a post on the Forbes Leadership Forum. I reckon not and  the answer lies in stirring the alphabet soup.


Paul Klein, who heads business and civil sector consulting group Impakt, encourages any corporations who are giving away their hard-earned dollars to charity to stop.

Klein, admittedly, doesn’t go as far as Milton Friedman famously did, saying that the only responsibility of a business was to make a profit, or as Jamie Whyte implied even more stingingly in the Wall Street Journal, “Corporate philanthropy is theft.” However, Klein spares no punches when it comes to charities. He recommends they “can address the loss of 5% of their revenue by reducing costs, improving efficiency.” (Those who argue that charities should spend more on overheads will wince at that uppercut.) The five-percent figure quoted is the corporate contribution to nonprofit income.

The Giving USA statistics from which the number is drawn also show that corporations’ giving to charities declined during 2013. Yet there has been a steady flow of reports and articles pointing out that companies who do good in the world do well. A 2013 Cone Communications/Echo Global CSR Study says companies are “expected to be an active participant—if not a driving force—in solving the most pressing social and environmental issues.” Cause marketing—such as Toms’ “One for One,” (Product) Red, and Patagonia’s “Common Threads”—has been highly successful. Millennials, we are told, choose to join and stay with companies on the basis of their volunteer programs and social commitment.


However, it might just be a matter of semantics. Aren’t all the above types of doing good by companies forms of corporate philanthropy? Or are they corporate citizenship? Or corporate social responsibility? Impakt on their website extends this lexicon with yet another label: corporate shared value.

Might it be possible to take a contrary view that has corporate philanthropy is alive, well, and kicking—and adopting many different guises? I have always argued that the best thing for corporate fundraisers to do is to decode then rearrange the letters in the corporate alphabet soup. As well as CSR other acronyms in the soup are  CP (Corporate Philanthropy or Partnership), CSI (Corporate Social Investment), CSV (Corporate Shared Value) and more. The solution is to rearrange it as a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is the hard edged advertising and marketing related type of corporate partnership at the other softer gentler fuzzier community, social and political objectives.

Your job as a fundraiser is to understand what opportunities your organisation can offer and where it fits in the spectrum. Once you know that, you are a better position to identify whom or what department to target. If you have opportunities that are going to drive sales, or enhance corporations product brands then you're at the hard edged and and you need to be talking to sales and marketing executives. If your organisation offers opportunities for corporate volunteering, then you probably want to be investigating the company's human resources Department.  If your organisation has good government connections then you might offer opportunities for companies government or public affairs relationship building. If you are doing good in a particular community, especially one that is linked geographically to companies activities then you will probably be wanting to talk to corporate affairs.

Of course, one of the advantages your nonprofit may have is that you may have benefits at several different places on the spectrum to offer  a company. Take for example a health charity that stages a public event, such as a marathon, that offers branding and product placement opportunities for a business partner.  As well your nonprofit may have strong links  with government health or welfare departments. Such links offer opportunities for business partners to be seen supporting a government backed initiative and may offer networking opportunities to develop  relationships with officials. A major arts festival by which I was once employed offered both these opportunities.  We worked alongside brand and product managers to achieve outcomes at the hard end of the spectrum and with corporate affairs directors and the CEO's office to facilitate networks and contacts at the other more subtle end.

The secrets to developing successful corporate partnerships is to understand your corporate partner. If you can get inside the company's skin, that is see and hear through the corporate executive's eyes and ears then you have a good chance of pitching an opportunity.

Note: Some paragraphs of this blog were first published as a NonProfit Quarterly Newswire on 21 July 2014

Is crowdfunding the new new?

Crowdfunding is quickly becoming the new shiny object in the world of social change. 
(This blog is by Nell Edgington one of my favorite thinkers and writers on financing nonprofits and reproduced with her permission)


From Giving Days, to new giving platforms, to lots of articles and studies (here and here to start), it seems that crowdfunding is everywhere lately.

I’m all for innovations in the funding of social change, but I’m not convinced that crowdfunding is really creating anything fundamentally new.

Under “crowdfunding” I include efforts like Kickstarter [or Pozible in Australia] where a creative effort (a film, art exhibit, library) can garner small investments from a large number of people. And I’m also including Giving Days, at the city and national level, where nonprofits try to raise as much money as possible in a 24-hour online “event”. What these efforts all have in common is they raise money, from a large group of people, over a short period of time.

I earned my fundraising chops working public television pledge drives, one of the earliest “crowdfunding” efforts. The technology was different (TV screens and telephones, instead of CRM systems and social media), but I’m not sure much else is.

So I would like to see us separate what is potentially exciting about crowdfunding from what is just hype. To help in that effort, I offer some questions:

How much is truly new money?
It’s unclear to me how much new money crowdfunding brings to social change organizations. For example, nonprofits participating in Giving Days encourage their annual donors to give on that specific day so that Giving Day dollars are higher. But that’s not new money. True innovation in social change funding comes from efforts to grow the 2% pie  [giving as a share of America’s GDP has stayed at 2% for the last 40+ years]. I’m not convinced that crowdfunding uncovers money that would not have otherwise ended up somewhere in the nonprofit sector.

How many new donors are being retained? 
The point of crowdfunding is that it’s a one time deal. There is a message of urgency that encourages donors to give NOW. So the numbers on a specific Giving Day or with a crowdfunding campaign may be good, but is the funding sustainable? Are nonprofits or social change organizations actually growing their donor base? Are they able to go back to these investors later and encourage them to give again? And if the funding isn’t sustainable, is it really worth the effort it took to get it?

Is crowdfunding reinforcing the “Overhead Myth”?
The destructive idea that donors shouldn’t support nonprofit “overhead“, or administrative costs, is slowly dying, but crowdfunding might just be bringing it back to life. Nonprofit crowdfunding darling charity:water has been taken to task for reinforcing the idea that 100% of the dollars they raise go “directly to the field”. And crowdfunding projects are often specific and “sexy,” which means that the money is not being raised for boring things like the staffing, technology, and infrastructure that most organizations desperately need. Are we perpetuating the overhead myth by encouraging donors to give to specific projects, instead of to overall issues, organizations or teams?

What’s the return on investment?
A lot of time and effort can go into crowdfunding campaigns. If the benefits are shortlived, donors aren’t retained, and the majority of the funding is not new dollars, while the costs (staff and board time, technology investments) are high, then what is the true return on investment? I’m not arguing that it can’t be positive, but I would like to see more critical analysis about it, both at the aggregate and the individual organization levels.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I’d like us to dig a bit deeper to understand what the real effects of crowdfunding are so far and what it’s true promise is. If there is already research out there that can answer some of these questions, please let me know in the comments below.

About the Author: Nell Edgington is President of Social Velocity (www.socialvelocity.net), a management consulting firm leading nonprofits to greater social impact and financial sustainability. Social Velocity helps nonprofits grow their programs, bring more money in the door, and use resources more effectively. For more information, check out Social Velocity consulting services and clients.