Why online giving platforms and your own fundraising database are not best friends

 

The IoF/CFG recently published a new report, "A practical guide to selecting and using online giving platforms" and I was pleased to see that the data collected from such platforms and, to a degree, the integration with your fundraising/CRM databases was acknowledged as a factor. However, I think such integration is sometimes promoted as being easier than it really is; and sadly, integrating or importing said data into your own fundraising database is often much more awkward, time consuming and costly than charities realise.

There are therefore a number of things I think you should consider if you do want to get the data from your online giving platform into your own fundraising system:

First, the data basics
Just because a platform provides a file of donors/donation data in an Excel/csv format doesn’t mean you can import it quickly into your fundraising database; e.g.:

• You need to consider duplicates - how will you identify if an online donor is already on your fundraising database? And even if you can, can you easily update data correctly? i.e. if you do find a duplicate then is there any data which you should update on your own database? Or should not overwrite?
• Some fields in your downloaded file may need to be split (or even concatenated); e.g. name, address fields.
• Some fields may exist in your downloaded file but not in a way which can directly be added to your database (e.g. Gift Aid declaration data/flags, opt-in/out flags).
• Other fields not in the downloaded file may need to be added to a file before you can update a record on your database (e.g. source, fund/campaign codes) etc.
• Gift Aid flags need to be carefully updated so there is no double-claiming in the future.
• Then you have regular giving and how to distinguish/code/incorporate these, and match income when it comes in...
• And you have the issue of Soft Credits and how to apply those to who…

There are also sponsored events to consider, which are of course where so much data comes from the online giving platforms. It's all very well including sponsors who have ‘opted in’ to receive more information from you, but if it takes more time/effort to import then what are the expected benefits? Are those people really interested in your organisation or just the person they sponsored? What is the real likelihood of getting a further donation from them?

And the reason all this is important is because if you do need to manipulate and change the files you are downloading from the online giving platforms, then someone in your charity (i.e. usually someone in your database team... if you have one...) has to do that. Some charities are better than others at doing that and some do automate such processes in Access/Excel macros etc, but I know many who still do at least some manual work, and some who do considerably more than "just a bit".

Some (potentially) better options
There are of course more automated ways of importing all this data. e.g. JustGiving provides an API which means you could import such data much more efficiently. And some of the fundraising packages and some of the fundraising templates now provided for Salesforce/Dynamics even have 'out of the box' functionality written for you to do this. Which is definitely a good start. But remember that even those pre-defined processes might not always do exactly as you want.

And if any online giving platform says “oh, we have an API so you can integrate us with your database…” then, well, just be aware - it ain’t necessarily as easy as it sounds! If you have internal programmers and techies then great, that’s an option. If not, it will cost you money.

The benefit and curse of multiple online giving platforms
Of course, the kicker is that for all the above points, you need to consider all of them separately for each online giving platform because each platform's data and file format will be different… That's why database teams groan (inwardly) when they hear about the "next, great online giving platform", because they know where the buck will stop in terms of getting that data into your own fundraising database.

And talking of bucks, this final step of getting the data into your own system is sometimes not considered when looking at the total cost of different systems. Sadly, it does seem to be assumed by some charities that if a database team can do one such solution then they can do another without any additional cost/work. And as I am saying, this is not the case.

Don't get me wrong: I love the fact these platforms exist and it has revolutionised fundraising. But to maximise future fundraising benefits, you need to get data from those platforms into your fundraising database and use that for future marketing. And that is not always as easy as it sounds.

Which database is best for a Solo Fundraiser?

Following on from my previous post about What is the best database for a small distributed charity or a solo fundraiser? this post considers what the difference might be for a charity who only has a solo fundraiser. However, my previous post addresses the fundamentals of any such decision even for solo fundraisers, so if you haven't read that yet then do so first.

The main additional points for a Solo Fundraiser to consider are as follows:

• Are you working for a small charity who does have an office and, if so, then do you already have an on-premise server? If so, then you can look wider for any system which might meet your needs as it doesn't have to be hosted/SAAS. You might still of course want one of the hosted/SAAS systems already mentioned in my previous post, but additional examples of such systems you could consider compared to the ones from my previous post are Donor Strategy, KISS Software and Harlequin Software.
• Even though you are a solo fundraiser, is it likely that the charity could grow in future? If so, then most databases should still be sufficient for such instances, but just don't forget or assume that.
• Even though you are a solo fundraiser, do you actually work for a larger organisation with more complex requirements? In which case, it might be that the very simplest fundraising database might not be applicable to your needs. Hard to quantify, but don't just assume therefore that a low-cost option is best for you. For example, I do know of some charities who have even bought The Raiser's Edge for a solo fundraiser, but in this sort of instance, that is more when they have good in-house IT support, when a fundraiser knows that sort of system and often when they are planning to grow later. (NB Clearly, other databases similar to The Raiser's Edge have also been installed for solo fundraisers - I use The Raiser's Edge as an example because of its wide awareness and to emphasise the point that it does need more support and consideration when implementing it).
• As no-one else is going to be using the database initially (although I realise some places might have the odd, additional manager also viewing it at times), you really do need a system which does not require complicated management. The difference here to the 'small distributed charity' is that that charity might very well have a few people using it and might be able to justify better the input required to manage it for the whole organisation.

And do remember the other advice I gave before: I'm afraid it isn't as easy as just plugging in the system - it will take time to set-up, even if there is only one of you!

What is the best CRM Database for a Small distributed charity or a solo fundraiser?

 

A couple of questions I am regularly asked are: "I am looking for a CRM/fundraising package for a small charity with no central office. So, no server and we probably need something to work across Windows and Mac." And it must be simple to use... Similarly, "What is the best database for a solo fundraiser?" So, I thought I should try to answer these questions here. I will address the 'small distributed charity' first as much of that applies to solo fundraisers too, and then add a shorter, second post with additional details on databases for solo fundraisers.

First: Get your main IT infrastructure sorted out
This is important. Especially if you don't have a central office, and the route you take may partially influence your decisions on which is the best fundraising/CRM system for you. So, first of all, if you haven't done so already, make sure your email system, file access, website etc are all part of a solid strategic approach.

Second: Remember, it's still important to know your fundamental database requirements
This is the same for any database procurement and just because you are a smaller organisation doesn't mean you should completely ignore it. So do document what you want the system to do, even if it's just in a brief Word document. That will help you focus on what is most important to you and you can then weigh-up the system options later. And remember, whatever database you buy, the data you put in it, the business processes and training you put behind it, and the fundraising strategy it is supporting are all more important than the software itself. You can have the best database in the world but it won't help if your data is rubbish, you don't adapt your processes and so on.

You also need to bear in mind just how much time and effort you can or want to allocate to managing your CRM/fundraising database. Remember that all systems will require some initial work, regardless of what the salespeople say! You will have to consider the configuration, maybe data migration, how and where you are going to store your data, how external data files will be loaded, how training will be done, how you will maintain look-up tables to ensure good data consistency and so on. And even though you are a small charity, there could still be a number of people who might well want to access and use your database, especially if it is not just for fundraising. In which case do remember the need to have someone who is data/database savvy so that they can manage these issues.

All that said, I do realise that for many small organisations, your requirements will be similar and comparatively fundamental, so I will use that assumption in the rest of this post. Plus, I am restricting examples of systems to those which should be within the budget of a small charity.

Oh, And it Must Be Simple to Use...
This is possibly one of the most frequently used statements which small (and large!) charities use. So it is important to realise that CRM and fundraising databases are not as simple conceptually as Excel, Outlook etc. They will take time to learn, they will need some looking after and the likelihood is it will cost money to do all that. Sorry. There is no easy answer to that. Software is getting easier to use and more intuitive but at the end of the day some of that is still down to individual preferences and interpretation. Just don't under-estimate the work involved in getting going if you haven't used a CRM system before.

Two technological approaches: Hosting and SAAS
Fundamentally, you have 2 technology approaches which may influence which databases you consider, and which technology is right for you will partially depend on your IT infrastructure. ¹

SAAS stands for Software-as-a-Service, where a supplier provides a database which you can access as simply as gmail etc, and from any browser without the need for any additional software. Most such solutions are only offered this way (with a few exceptions); i.e. not with an alternative "on premise" option.

Hosting is similar but one-step removed, where your database will be "hosted" on a remote server in a secure data centre somewhere (i.e. you still won't need a server in your own office to make this work). This is usually done for software which has not been written specifically to run directly through a browser and thus it still needs to be stored on a specific server somewhere. Thus for hosting, a supplier will most likely host the database on the supplier's own server and you access it remotely from your office/home. (Additionally, most such suppliers will also offer clients the option of letting you install their database on your charity's own server).

In theory, you could take any fundraising database and host it on your own server anywhere - but to do that, I would recommend that you need to have taken the IT infrastructure route which already supports that. i.e. you are already using a company to do this for some/all of your other files/software applications.


Examples
Examples of SAAS databases are Salesforce, Microsoft CRM Dynamics, Workbooks and companies offering 'templated' versions of these. Plus, fundraising systems such as eTapestry or DonorPerfect.

With hosting, you have a wider option of solutions. As I mentioned, you could look at almost any database, but some companies already offer Hosted solutions as part of their portfolio, mostly through third-party partners; e.g. CiviCRM, Advantage NFP, thankQ. (Remember these are products more applicable to small charities - there are many more options for larger organisations).

And if as a small charity you have more severe budgetary issues, then the following posts I have written before might also help you: What should you do if you really have zero budget for a new CRM or Fundraising database? and Why Free Software Doesn’t Mean Zero Cost.

---

1. More technology-savvy readers will no doubt realise I have greatly simplified these descriptions, so please forgive any gross over-simplifications! If you feel I have really misrepresented anything then please let me know by email or in the comments below - thanks.

Does it matter if a Fundraising database supplier doesn’t understand Fundraising?

The more I work on fundraising software procurement and implementation projects, the more I ask this question: how much does the supplier's experience of fundraising matter?

For years, this hasn't been such a relevant question, at least when purchasing packages as opposed to bespoke systems, because most new fundraising database systems were supplied by companies who either specialised in the sector or who at least had a dedicated department who did so. Of course one would find companies and individuals with more or less knowledge or experience but nearly all had some. And also you could see the evidence of some of their claims with their software.

But now with the prevalence of the newer CRM systems, this is a more poignant question. Now, in theory, any company who sells Salesforce, MS Dynamics and the like, can at least promote themselves as a partner who can provide a fundraising solution. So does that matter? What are the problems with that? Or actually, are there even benefits of using a supplier with less sector knowledge?

The reasons that a supplier's knowledge does matter are comparatively easy to identify:

• Charities are different to commercial organisations. That might sound an obvious thing to say, and in some ways it isn't 100% true for fundraising - after all, we're managing contacts, building relationships, running events and "selling" in the same way as a business is, just philanthropically. But there are of course many distinct differences and approaches - and one of the most significant is that several commercial CRM suppliers I have worked with have been amazed at the sheer breadth of activities which charities manage in comparison to their size. And thus their internal complexity increases. This isn't always a good thing of course, but it's a fact.
• Any supplier in any sector who can bring experience of working with your peers will surely add something to the project. They won't just be implementing software, but should be able to suggest ideas and approaches that have worked for other charities.
• You don't have to explain what Gift Aid is, how direct debits work, why relationship fundraising is important, who JustGiving are and so on. They will know that already. And why should you have to pay a company to teach them all that?!
• They won't try to take you down a route which isn't right for a not-for-profit organisation, or overly try to enforce their concepts from other sectors which they might believe are right but which they don't actually have experience of doing in the NFP sector.
• Many of the traditional fundraising database suppliers have ex-charity employees in their implementation and support teams, and that can be a great benefit as they can bring real-life and hands-on experience of using that system.
• All this should hopefully increase benefits, reduce risk, reduce the project timescale and as a result, keep costs down.

That said, one would hope that any company who understands CRM, has good business analysts, can empathise with your organisation and bring great technology skills should be able to manage a lot of the above even without specific fundraising sector knowledge. And in some instances that can be true. Sadly not always, but sometimes.

On the other hand, I also have to say that one of the great things which has happened primarily as a result of the newer, generic CRM systems now flooding the charity sector, is that we are getting a whole new view and different insight into charitable activities. I have been saying for years how insular we can be as a sector (myself included on occasions!) and so surely I should celebrate newer entrants with fresh thoughts and ideas?

So what can a company with less fundraising experience bring to the table?

• They can challenge a charity's pre-conceived ideas that the only way to do something is how they do it now. Okay, a fundraising-knowledgeable supplier should be able to do the same, but as more of an outsider, a company with less knowledge can ask what might seem like basic questions - and some may well be! - but some might just make us think that little bit differently and hence start to get a whole new advantage in an area.
• They will bring good business practises which some of the sector may not have followed before.
• They could bring commercial ideas to the table. This may be something of an anathema to some organisations, but for others, it might even help fundraising.
• They will have a wider knowledge of multiple sectors and industries, and be able to provide input in all sorts of ways which we might never have thought of before. I have always thought that the fundraising technology sector should be able to learn more from other businesses so this is an opportunity to do so.
• They should - the ones you invite as a possible supplier - "get CRM". And that's definitely a good thing.

My Conclusion

I am a bit torn. I already embrace new CRM systems into the sector and I really want to embrace the suppliers with them. And some are good - some very good. But some have their issues too.

Not that the traditional fundraising database suppliers are perfect - I've worked with enough to see holes and problems with their approach, fundraising knowledge and understanding of technology.

But on balance, I still need to be shown by any "non-sector" supplier that they do know, have knowledge of or can learn about fundraising and the charity sector. I will always remain open and encourage suppliers to provide that to my clients and me, and if they can do, fantastic, they're in the melting pot. But if they can't then I need to question if working with them is going to help or hinder the fundraising database implementation.

CiviCRM: A great example of Open Source Benefits for Charities

CiviCRM is almost certainly the NFP sector's leading open source CRM system. And if you want an example or two of why this is, then, aside from its standard functionality, the following should explain a lot: Just recently, Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research, who use CiviCRM, wanted to integrate Civi with JustGiving and so they developed an integration piece to do this - and they have made that available for free for all other users of CiviCRM. Prior to this, the recent HMRC Charities Online gift aid update meant that changes were needed to the existing CiviCRM Gift Aid functionality, and again, Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research developed the changes required and made them available to the Civi community. And even before that, when there was no Direct Debit processing or Gift Aid functionality available in CiviCRM, a third-party Civi partner, NFP Services, developed these features - although they did this as part of a paid-for development - but thereafter, those functions are now available to all other Civi users.

And if a CiviCRM user wants a new function which hasn't yet been developed in the core software then, although they can of course enhance the system in-house as Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research did, or pay a developer to create that for them - and there are a number of CiviCRM approved service partners here in the UK as well as worldwide - they can also add it to the 'Make it Happen' campaigns on CiviCRM's website where ideas can be put forward and multiple Civi users can contribute in order to fund the development.

This shows the appeal and benefit of CiviCRM to some charities: collaboration and joint development (as well as good software). And shows the all the great things about the Open Source community - and yet it also highlights some of the dangers too.

The benefits are clear: open source is free software, although please remember that it is just the software which is free; the implementation, developments, training, data migration, any consultancy/project management etc, and of course the hosting or in-house servers, all cost money. And it has a great ethos for charities, and an ever-growing and broadening community using and supporting other users. And by its very nature it tends to attract developers who believe in not just the software but the whole approach.

But the fact it is not driven by a commercial organisation means that when statutory or regulatory requirements change (as highlighted above), then a user and/or the community needs to get the software updated to manage that. And although the software is constantly being developed and enhanced, it doesn't have the same financial clout which some of the larger commercial CRM suppliers have and as it isn't a dedicated fundraising database then there is a different incentive to the 'traditional' fundraising database suppliers. Of course, this approach is the very thing which encourages some organisations to use CiviCRM (!) and as it states on Civi's website, "CiviCRM’s development roadmap is primarily generated from the ground up".

CiviCRM has a lot going for it. It is one of those systems where it feels there should be a natural, cultural fit with the NFP sector. It has decent functionality and it is growing its user-base here in the UK. It isn't a "traditional" fundraising database system, but neither is it a "generic" CRM solution (a la Salesforce, MS Dynamics etc). What it is is a "CRM" solution which has been created specifically for the nonprofit sector, and as such, with in-built functionality specifically created for charities. And because it is not oriented at just one "type" of solution for charities (i.e. not just service delivery, not just case management, not just fundraising, volunteer management etc) it has a degree of flexibility similar to that which the CRM solutions also offer, if maybe not quite so in-depth. (It's unlikely, of course, that CiviCRM will ever be as big as the major CRM players because it is sector-focused).

And all this on a platform which is flexible and where even non-technical users can create reports, add features such as new fields (and tables), adapt forms and so on. Try that on some other systems…

When I discuss different database options for charities, I often pigeon-hole software suppliers as "traditional fundraising database solutions" or "generic CRM solutions" - CiviCRM is neither but that is no bad thing, and if you are considering a new CRM system or fundraising database then putting CiviCRM on your radar could be well worth it.

Salesforce and Microsoft Dynamics for Fundraising: Are We Nearly There Yet?

It's been over 18 months since I last gave my 'state of the nation' view on the shape of the (now not-so) "new" CRM systems in terms of their applicability to fundraising technology needs, and a lot has happened since; so here's my latest opinions:

Who's using Salesforce and MS Dynamics for Fundraising?
It's noticeable that even in the last 6-12 months, there has been a shift in the mindset of some mid-large UK charities which, for the first time, is starting to pay dividends for the CRM suppliers. It's well known that Barnardo's are the first large UK charity to be implementing Salesforce for fundraising, Greenpeace International are now doing so too, another national UK charity is implementing Microsoft CRM Dynamics for their supporter relationship management system with another to start soon, and Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research have been using CiviCRM for a while (as have MSF outside the UK). And there are more in the pipeline for all these systems. Plus, of course, there are many more NFPs using these solutions for non-fundraising applications.

So why now for larger charities?
Although Salesforce, Dynamics et al have been adopted by charities for several years for non-fundraising solutions, and although smaller charities have been using the systems for their fundraising needs, why are we now seeing the mid-large charities start to take this route? There are probably a number of reasons:

• There are naturally less such projects for the larger charities and those organisations that are/have been looking have taken until now to have made decisions - equally, such projects are not cheap, so there are of course fewer of them.
• It has still taken until recently for the sector to truly believe, and to have it really shown to them, that these CRM systems can provide the fundraising functionality they need - for too long, suppliers had just been saying "yes, we can do it" without any real supporting evidence or suitable background to make the larger charities comfortable. They aren't all there for all areas of fundraising but there's been huge steps.
• Inevitably, some charities have waited until someone else took the initial leap into this space, but with Barnardo's, Greenpeace and others now doing so, it makes it that much easier to see the benefits and possibilities.
• It has taken some time for the resellers and business partners (implementers) - not the software suppliers themselves - to show their credibility in being able to sell and implement these systems for fundraising. Not in terms of technology but in terms of showing the charities that their in-house fundraising knowledge, and how technology can be used for fundraising, is good enough to support such implementations. That said, I think this is still a challenge.
• The acceptance of the cloud is growing every day in the NFP sector, and there is less concern over security than there used to be. This has probably never been such an issue for IT staff at charities, but it did un-nerve trustees earlier in the cloud's evolution.
• Amongst the "templated solutions", the functionality itself has improved.
• The CRM software vendors and their partners are darned good at marketing!
• And last but possibly not least, some charities have grown tired of waiting for some of the traditional fundraising database suppliers to provide viable, cost-effective new releases and versions which they need for their fundraising. And there are definitely a lower selection of viable options now from such suppliers than there were some years ago.

So are the CRM suppliers having it all their own way?
Certainly not. The traditional fundraising database suppliers for large/mid-size charities, companies such as Blackbaud, thankQ, ACS (ex-IRIS) etc, have also been selling their software, some with good volumes, and so although the CRM systems are denting their sales they still haven't overtaken them. At least not here in the UK. And on the lower end, AdvantageNFP Fundraiser, Harlequin, even KISSS still sell plenty of systems.

Similarly, it is not just Salesforce and Dynamics who are selling 'CRM' systems. CiviCRM, a "CRM" system created especially for NFPs, is definitely growing in popularity here in the UK and even more so worldwide (and I'm going to be dedicating a blog to CiviCRM in the weeks to come); Workbooks.com are becoming an interesting option having recently made several sales to the membership sector; and I hear occasional things about Zoho and vTiger, but not that much. Sadly, SugarCRM doesn't seem to have made the inroads into the sector which I thought it might do (unless anyone can tell me differently?).

What's Next?
So what does all this mean now to other charities who might be looking to replace their existing fundraising database? Is it really any different to a few years ago in terms of what they can get or expect from 'generic' CRM systems?

Well, yes and no.

Yes it is different in that they won't be trailblazing (so much) any more, and they can hear and learn about other charities' experiences. Yes, in that (some of) the resellers and partners implementing these systems are more fundraising savvy now and should offer better professional services. And yes in that the cloud (which many CRM suppliers are tied to) continues to grow in acceptance and popularity.

But No, in that, at the end of the day, it still comes down to what is right for each charity depending on their needs, and the technology is just one aspect of any such decision. As I have expounded many times, there is no point buying a cloud-based solution or a whizzy CRM database just because it is that if it can't deliver what you need to support your fundraising operations. And that hasn't changed. There are still good, solid options for fundraising packages and there are good, solid reasons for charities to buy those, as well as CRM solutions.

I'm going to be blogging a lot in the coming weeks about some of these considerations, and some of the lessons I've learned when helping charities procure and implement both CRM systems and traditional fundraising databases, and those lessons are equally as important - more so? - compared to the software you ultimately use.

Finally, one last thought for now: I think the number of viable, good fundraising database solution suppliers has shrunk in recent years, especially for larger charities, and one great benefit the CRM providers have done is given charities a whole new approach which they can at least consider - and that is definitely a good thing, whatever they end up actually buying.

15 Questions Fundraising Managers Should Ask About New CRM Projects

 

Too often, fundraising managers are not close enough to the implementation of a new fundraising database or charity CRM system; sometimes (incorrectly) by the nature of procurement and sometimes (incorrectly) by choice. But for a fundraising system, they are more likely than not going to be the key reason for why it is being implemented, so why wouldn’t they want to get more involved?

So if you are a fundraising manager and there are plans in your organisation for a new fundraising database, then what questions should you ask during the procurement process and before the project kicks-off?

1. How do I know it will meet my requirements? When do you need my input? How will it be documented?
   The most basic of questions. What is the process to capture your requirements and how can you be assured that it will capture all your needs? The latter point may be very difficult but you need to ask. Is all the reliance going to be on you and your team, or is the database/software supplier or a third-party going to be more heavily involved?
2. How will it help my [DM team/Major giving team/etc]?
   Although this goes hand-in-hand with (1) above, there is no harm in asking specifically about how the new system will help your different teams and aspects of fundraising. What are the actual benefits you will get which will have an impact on your fundraising and income?
3. How is the project being managed? What input do you specifically need from me and how often?
   Has the project got a project manager – part-time or dedicated? If not, push for one! And don’t rely on just the supplier being the project manager – that isn’t the same as your organisation having a PM. And will there be a Project Board or steering committee? If so, how will you be involved and when? You need to be involved somehow – at the end of the day, it will be “your” system, so don’t think it will just magically happen without you needing to be involved.
4. What fundraising experience does the software supplier have?
   And not just the supplier as a company, but the staff who will specifically be working on your project. Most “traditional/dedicated” fundraising packages should have staff with plenty of experience, but for the newer, “generic” CRM systems, is that definitely the case? If the answer is “not a lot”, that doesn’t mean you still can’t work with them, but there could well be more dependency on you.
5. Will we need to change our business processes? How will that be decided and when?
   It is highly likely that you will need to at the very least review your business processes. In fact, if the answer to this is “no – you can keep your existing processes”, then this may sound beneficial, but ask yourself, are your existing processes actually the best processes you can have? Why do you have them? Is it because your current fundraising software has forced you into a certain way of working – in which case, why would you necessarily want to carry on with them?
6. How can the software interact with our website? How can we load data from JustGiving/VMG etc?
   This may result in a technical answer so try to get someone to explain (as much as possible) in layman’s terms. At least find out what the options are, the benefits for each option, the different costs, the level of complexity/sophistication and timescales.
7. How will it impact on our other systems and suppliers?
   You are bound to have other software systems which interact with your current database (e.g. PAF software, banking software, Word/Excel etc) and you may well have third-parties who provide you with data files, such as fulfillment houses, data cleaning companies, online websites etc.
8. What training will my team need?
   Ensure you ask this and if in doubt, ask again. Training is often perceived as a double-edged sword by fundraising teams: everyone seems to want it at the start of the project, but when they are later told that they will need 3 days out of the office, this suddenly becomes less attractive/important. Find out, break it down, insist on it, plan for it.
9. What reports/dashboards come as standard with the database software? What skills do we need to create more?
   At the end of the day, if you can’t get the data out of your new system in a meaningful way to show you reports and appropriate information, then why are you using it. Are there any standard reports and dashboards which come with the software, and if so, how flexible and appropriate are they for your needs? And you are bound to want other reports, so who will be creating those? Will you have to rely on the supplier, or can someone in your organisation (your team?) create them?
10. How will testing be done? What input will you require from my team?
    Another thing which everyone knows is essential but somehow gets pushed under the carpet if you are not careful. Find out what the training plan will be and what will be needed from your team and when. How will they be supported. And do you have any “business critical” processes which you will need to be 100% assured of working (e.g. direct debit claims) and if so, how will they be tested and what will the fallback plan be in case they don’t work (even after testing!).
11. What input/time will you need from my team during the implementation and at what stages of the project?
    This should incorporate much of the above (i.e. requirements gathering, testing, training) but it’s very useful to get an overall understanding of the sort of work you and your team will be needed for. Is there going to be any need to back-fill any positions for any part of the project?
12. Do we have a contingency for the budget?
    Sadly, projects do go over-budget, so has this been considered? How was it decided, and how will any contingency be approved during the project?
13. What happens if the project over-runs?
    Again, it is quite feasible that the implementation will take longer than initially envisaged. If this does happen, what will the impact be? Can you carry on using your existing database, and for how long? What are the cost impacts? Will there be any impact on your fundraising or planned activities?
14. How will you keep me updated during the project? How will you keep other stakeholders updated?
    A key thing is to ensure that you – and the other key stakeholders in the project – are continually and regularly kept updated. This doesn’t mean you have to meet every week or receive a 10 page technical report, but you need to know how often you can expect updates, how and what will be in such updates. This does go hand-in-hand with point (3) above on project management, but is one of the most crucial parts of that.
15. What will the supplier’s involvement be after we go-live?
    Once you do go-live with the new system, what will the supplier do. Will they just walk away and let you get on with it? Will they be around for a period of time? What other input and help can they provide over the subsequent months (and years).

And having limited myself to 15 questions, there are in fact many more which now spring to mind. But I hope the above provides a solid base for you to start from.

Anyone else got any more questions which they think are useful for fundraising managers to ask? Or has anyone had any experience of when fundraising managers did/did not get so involved and thus when a project did/did not succeed?

Fundraising Software for arts organisations: Software Options

In part one of this blog, I considered if Arts Organisations needed a different approach to incorporating and using fundraising software compared to “classic” charities. If you haven’t read that post then I would encourage you to do so now – this second post will still make sense without doing so but you’ll get more understanding of my thoughts behind some of it if you do read it.

What are the Pros and Cons of an Integrated Database for Arts Organisations?

This may sound like a slightly stupid question – I mean, what could be the downside of having a single system?! And isn’t it obvious why a single system is better?

First, the benefits:

• All contacts are in one, single database. Fantastic! And this of course is the core benefit. You don’t have to transfer data between systems (and no matter what anyone tells you, that does take time, technical knowledge and money), you don’t have to ask someone else to check if a donor is already on the membership database. All your staff can access all the key data about each contact – it is easy to look someone up and find out their relationship and history with your organisation.
• You will avoid the embarrassment of one of your staff contacting a prospect for £50 when someone else is about to ask them for £50,000 (etc). You can manage all your data protection needs, opt-in/outs, mailing preferences et al all in one place.
• Your staff will only have to learn the user interface of one system. Very nice benefit.
• You can do cross-marketing far more easily. With all contacts in one system, you can analyse, segment, target and contact groups of people far more easily than you can do if you have the records in different systems. You can of course extract records from multiple systems into one “marketing database” but that still requires time, effort, usually a fair degree of technical nous and the ever-recurring need to identify duplicate records across the systems.
• And thus, you have the foundations for an achievable, central contact strategy – a real “CRM” strategy. That’s amazing.
• With a few exceptions, most of the suppliers of these sort of systems are not the large (sometimes multi-national) companies which can be found in the charity sector. So if you are not a large arts organisation, then if you buy an integrated database from a mid-size supplier, you may well have a closer relationship with them. (And before all the large suppliers scream, I know this isn’t always the case! But I do know that some small-mid size arts organisations I have worked with like the smaller suppliers. Plus, read my final downside below…)

But, there are possible downsides:

• I still have yet to see an Integrated Database for an Arts Organisation where the functionality, ease-of-use, reporting and so on is equal to or better than the functionality, ease-of-use, reporting and so on in the best, stand-alone fundraising, membership, ticketing, event or CRM systems. And this is therefore probably the biggest decision you need to make: do you accept that you may not get all the wonderful and highly sophisticated features which you would find in a dedicated fundraising database and you may not get the beautiful interface of some of the online CRM/event software systems – but you will get a single system with all your data in one place. This, I believe, sadly, is the compromise. (Suppliers – you are welcome to challenge me on this! And I would love to be proved wrong! But at the moment, that is my belief and experience).
• Change Management. Implementing an organisation-wide system requires a serious and structured approach to change management in the organisation. Do not under-estimate that! It will force people to think about things they have never had to think about before because, before, they only had their team to worry about. Don’t forget this.
• Security. If you have a single system, then you might find that there is some data on some records which some staff should not have access to. Some systems will be able to manage that, but not all.
• You may need a Database Manager. Ironically, if you have previously had separate systems, then you may not have needed a person in your organisation to act as the “database manager”. A single system will almost certainly mean you do need such a role. Not necessarily a technical person, but someone who can centralise data integrity rules, add codes to look-up tables, create policies and procedures, understand the more complex parts of the database for “cross-marketing” etc, and be the “go to” person for all the other staff for when they forget how to do something or want to know how to set-up a new event or campaign.
• There may be other costs you didn’t have before. E.g. does the new system require a larger, dedicated server? Does it require additional, third-party software? Will you have to re-vamp your web site?
• With a few exceptions, most of the suppliers of these sort of systems are not the large companies which can be found in the charity sector... So you may run the risk that a small supplier will go out of business or cannot invest enough to create newer systems for newer technology as that comes along.

And what about a Stand-alone Fundraising Package?

Not surprisingly, the pros and cons of dedicated fundraising databases are primarily the opposite of above. There are some great, extremely sophisticated fundraising software databases available and you should be able to do all your development on them. They of course vary a great deal in price, functionality and quality, but they do come in all sizes and price ranges from £100 upwards. (See more below on the Resource Listings). And it is “simpler” to buy in that you only have to worry about one team, one set of requirements, one budget etc.

But of course if you implement a dedicated fundraising package (or any other stand-alone database within your operations) then it will primarily only provide benefits to that department. If one of your prospects or donors is also on the box office system or email list held on the web database, then you will only know if you look or try to synchronise data between systems. And you can’t stop someone else in the organisation from contacting your key prospects because if a prospect happens to “enter” your organisation through a different route, then your other staff cannot always be expected to ask you every time they meet someone if they are an important prospect or donor.

Of course, this is not a problem unique to the arts but, as I mentioned before, because of the likelihood of multiple operational databases existing in an arts organisation, it tends to be more common and the problem more pronounced.


So Should You Buy an Integrated Database?

I personally believe in single, central databases. Not just for arts organisations, but for all not-for-profits.  I think the benefits usually outweigh the downsides. And if you have the option, then I would always at least consider this possibility.

As I say above, you may well need to compromise on some functionality, some ‘look and feel’ or some ease of use. But if you can do this then, as I say, at least consider them.

And if you find one which is right for you then that’s great. If not, then at least you looked. And if you cannot compromise on a specific requirement and you don’t think that any integrated system can meet your needs then of course you shouldn’t necessarily buy one. I am not saying buy a single system above all other considerations. But do look.


Resource Listings

• UK Integrated database software for arts and cultural organisations: www.itforcharities.co.uk/artssw.htm
• UK Box Office Software: www.itforcharities.co.uk/boxoffic.htm
• US Ticketing Software: www.technologyinthearts.org/?page_id=474
• UK Fundraising Databases: www.itforcharities.co.uk/fundrais.htm

In addition, for very small arts organisations who really do just want a simple, low-cost fundraising or membership database, then the following are options as well:

• KISS Software Solutions: www.kissoftwaresolutions.com  Lots of fundraising functionality, membership too, but slightly aging interface; but for £100 you can’t even make a database more cheaply in Access.
• ITSorted (ContactLink): www.itsorted.org.uk £400 upwards. More for membership and events but lots of nice additional features too.
• Ravensdowne: www.ravensdowne-software.co.uk/membership/membership-software.aspx £295 upwards. Membership software.

And because they offer an alternative approach to the traditional packages listed above, some organisations might also find it useful to consider a “generic” CRM solution, especially as they are being implemented by the not-for-profit sector more and more and with increasing support from suppliers specialising in providing “templated solutions” for fundraising and membership requirements. Note that the real costs for these systems comes more in the implementation than the software.

• CiviCRM: http://civicrm.org/ Open Source constituent relationship management system with membership, event management and more. Great system but probably not for the beginner in terms of set-up.
• Salesforce: www.salesforce.com/uk/ Salesforce is a “generic” CRM system which is gaining plenty of users in the NFP sector because it is free for the first 10 licenses and reduced pricing thereafter. And it is web-based so lots of benefits from that.
• Microsoft CRM: http://crm.dynamics.com/en-gb/ MS CRM is also a “generic” CRM system, and again with lots of NFP users. Cheap Microsoft pricing for charities.

A Final Note to Suppliers

If any suppliers want to add Comments below on any of the above then by all means please do so. All constructive comments are welcome (and a link to your site is fine) – any blatant sales pitches will be removed!

Fundraising Software for Arts Organisations: What Can You Buy?

With the Arts Council announcement last week of cuts in funding for many organisations, fundraising is going to become more important in the years to come. So what options to arts and cultural organisations have when it comes to database/CRM technology for fundraising?

To answer this, I am splitting this blog into two posts: first to consider the background to how fundraising software fits in to an arts organisation’s structure and secondly to examine the pros and cons of different approaches and provide some resources which list specific software which organisations could consider.

And why am I doing this, instead of just simply listing software options? Because that is often one of the fundamental mistakes that arts and not-for-profit organisations make: just looking at fundraising software in isolation of other data, other operations and contacts, and other requirements. And as that is where so many organisations can go wrong, I wanted to address that first.

Is Fundraising for the Arts different to other Charities? (And Does this Matter When Buying Software?)

My experience is that the answer to this is Yes and No. Yes in particular because the arts audience is very different: most prospective donors will either have come to an event, visited an exhibition (or sponsored an exhibition), bought a ticket for a show or have a very close link to the arts organisation; and so on. I know that is a slightly sweeping statement but my point is that I don’t find many arts organisations doing large individual giving campaigns, street fundraising etc.

And of course the fundraising for a theatre or arts centre is therefore a different “type of ask” compared to “classic” charities. You are not asking someone to help cure cancer or care for an abused person; you are asking someone to give money to something they have enjoyed (aesthetically) or believe in or want to support for wholly different reasons to health, child care etc.

And Yes-ish in that the type of fundraising is often mostly oriented to big gift fundraising, corporate revenue, trusts/grants and lots of events of all sorts. This isn’t specifically different to other charities, it is more a sub-set of other fundraising.

But of course No, in that the sort of work an arts fundraiser is doing will still be the same as a charity fundraiser: building relationships, recording contacts, making proposals, asking for gifts, claiming gift aid, writing mailshots, using the web and so on and so on.

So does any of that matter when it comes to databases and technology? Only so much in that some elements of the CRM will need to be strong for the key arts requirements and other aspects may not be so critical. But the fundraisers still need good and specialised software of some sort…

But there is one other key point within Arts Organisations which can impact software selection/solutions and that is the Other Areas of Business which an arts organisation is more likely to need to manage.


The Different Areas of Operation in an Arts Organisation

It is highly likely that an arts organisation will have different areas of operation outside the fundraising or development office. For a start, the box office/ticket sales. Then they may do event/room hire; press and PR of course; individual membership for many organisations; corporate membership maybe; patrons. Then there are the lenders, the artists, curators, key funders… and more. And as I mentioned above, many such interactions revolve around events.

Now of course some charities will have “other operations” as opposed to just fundraising, but my experience of arts organisations is that their “operational requirements” in terms of the need for IT/database/CRM systems are wider than most charities of a similar size. And yet, and here is one of the key issues for arts organisations, even though so many of those constituents I list above may be inter-linked and cross-over between different areas, and even though organisations would like to “cross-market” and create an organisation-side CRM strategy, historically, many, many arts organisations have created data silos (i.e. separate databases and systems) for each team and each area of operation.

And that is therefore a key thing which should affect and impact on the decision process in how an arts organisation approaches their fundraising and fundraising software requirements.

The Different Technology Approaches an Arts Organisation Can Take

In the second parts of this blog, I will go into more detail as to what options an arts organisation has in terms of fundraising database/CRM technology, but briefly, here are my two main categories:

i) An integrated database specifically designed for arts organisations (theatres, museums, arts centres etc): this encompasses a single database with multiple functions, usually incorporating features such as fundraising (development), membership, patron management, ticketing/box office functionality, event management and general contact management.
ii) A stand-alone fundraising database. i.e. a system only used by the development office with no functionality for membership, ticketing etc.

There is also a third option which is a “hybrid” approach to the above, whereby you might have a dedicated box office system with a separate “CRM” system for fundraising, membership, event management etc, and then, ideally, a link set-up between the two to share key data. (By the way, if that sounds easy then trust me, it really may not be!) For the purposes of this blog post I am not going to pursue this third option.

And a Final Note: Stop Using Excel!

If you currently use Excel for your “database” then stop! Don’t do it any more! There are packages I am going to list in the next blog posts which cost from £100 upwards. Use them instead! Please.


In the next post,  I will discuss the pros and cons of the above approaches and provide some resources listing different software packages.

Microsoft CRM for Charities: Where Are We Now?

18 months ago, I discussed how I thought Microsoft CRM Dynamics was about to cause a stir in the charity sector. So was I right? Well, yes and no - it has certainly started to be used within the NFP sector and adopted by some sector software suppliers as well, but maybe not as quickly as I had expected it to. But now with the recent announcement from Microsoft that they are launching a specific version for charities, and that this will be released in the UK later this year, does that mean that now is the time that it will truly expand into the sector? Here's a few new thoughts on that:

So far, MS CRM has proved mainly beneficial for small to medium size UK NFP organisations and primarily for one of two scenarios: either where there is a specialist need and where CRM is a heart of that need (e.g. outcome and performance management, registration requirements), or where it could be implemented across the whole organisation for multiple needs but where sophisticated fundraising functionality is not a requirement or the central need (e.g. contact management, events, volunteer management). Similarly, in a few instances I know of, it is being implemented at larger organisations for all their contact management except fundraising. All this is being done in-house at some charities but often it is with the assistance of specialist MS CRM suppliers, some of which are carving a niche with their NFP sector experience.

This is mainly because fundraising - and membership in many instances too - has specific requirements which either take time and money to implement or which can simply be better served (at the moment) by a dedicated fundraising/membership software package.

This is not to say that MS CRM cannot achieve the same functionality or benefits, it is just that to get to that point takes time, resources, knowledge and money. In particular, requirements such as Gift Aid management (not over-complex these days but still a niche requirement), direct debit processing, some income processing requirements, membership management, payroll giving support and so on are needed for most fundraising/membership charities with a high enough income or advanced requirements, and many organisations still see the traditional fundraising/membership software packages as providing better solutions for these needs. Microsoft's original press release announced "support for online payment solutions" but I don’t know yet whether this initial implementation will be suitable for UK organisations at this time. And, of course, there could be all sorts of other issues which need addressing for UK charities for it to be truly suited to them.

That said, an alternative approach is emerging, with CRM resellers now creating 'templates' for MS CRM with built-in fundraising and membership functionality. Organisations such as Touchstone Systems, Pythagoras and IMMIX all now offer such solutions, and this may well create a new market for the product. And in some ways, these sort of offerings are an excellent concept: a good, solid system which will continue to grow and be enhanced over the years to come, with fundamental support for charities' requirements, but with the ability to customise it to an organisation's specific needs as well. It's a nice approach.

So is MS CRM really appropriate for UK NFP organisations yet? I personally believe that MS CRM (and similar offerings such as SalesForce) are still mostly suited to small to medium size charities who can and want to implement a single database for all their supporters and contacts. If they have a larger fundraising/membership constituency then it won't have the advanced fundraising oriented functions of the traditional fundraising packages (e.g. Blackbaud, IRIS, ESIT etc), but if an organisation wants to manage all their contacts in a single database with a wide breadth of functionality then Dynamics CRM is definitely an option. Maybe just not yet if there is a need for specialist fundraising and income support (unless they use one of the companies listed above) but I believe that will come, either from Microsoft or their partners/resellers and when that happens, that will put the cat amongst the pigeons for the traditional software package suppliers to the sector.

Finally a word on cost: MS CRM software license is very cheap - whether it is the price in the Microsoft Press Release or through the UK Microsoft resellers such as CTX or through a special offer such as Caltex provide, but organisations need to be aware that the major costs in implementing it will be in configuration, customisation, implementation et al - whether they use an external company or internally. And that can add up. Interestingly, Microsoft's Press Release actually says "Customizations for nonprofits and NGOs are offered free of charge". That’s some statement! I wonder what sort of flexibility and limitations that has?

Don't Shoot The Database (Or Me, Please)

There are only so many times that I can take being told that a database is rubbish when actually it has nothing to do with the poor database, and everything to do with how an organisation is working. This was brought home to me again recently when I was asked by two organisations how they could improve the usage of their databases.

The first was a small charity who were using a good, industry standard package for their fundraising operations, but, they said, "it just isn't helping us". So what sort of fundraising do you do, I asked. "Well," they said, "we don't really have a plan as such. Last year the chief exec's daughter did a door drop to a few hundred houses in Hampstead, and this year we thought we might do some DM, but we're not too sure yet."

And you think the database is rubbish?! Please. If you don't have a fundraising strategy, if you don't know what sort of fundraising you will be doing, then how can you blame the database for not helping you? Yes, I know that part of my job as a consultant is to ask questions and dig deeper and find out if there really is more to it than they are initially saying, and of course I should help explain what a database can do; and I have no problem with anyone who says "I don't know exactly what I want from the database because I don't know what it is capable of," - that is indeed my job to help elucidate - but don't attack the database if you don't even know what sort of fundraising you are going to be doing in the first place!

The second case was a mid-size membership department in a larger organisation. They too told me their database wasn't supporting their operations and to be fair to them, it isn't the best system I have seen. But when I started to ask questions as to how their operations worked, it soon became apparent that there were distinct political issues between the membership and development departments. Not only that, but membership income was dropping, the benefits system they offered was in a bit of a mess and even their IT department was refusing to help because the membership department were buying their own equipment regardless of the organisation's overall strategy.

But, again, it was the database's fault! Now, yes, I realise that this was probably as much a frustrated rant on their behalf as opposed to necessarily a real belief that the database wasn't supporting them, but it doesn't help them or me if the IT systems are blamed when it is the underlying organisational system that really needs addressing first.

What both the above cases help emphasise is one of my most fundamental beliefs about why a database is or is not successful for an organisation: unless you have got a sound fundraising strategy, membership strategy, IT strategy, communication plan, organisational structure, solid management and so on, then it doesn't really matter if you have the best database in the world – it won't be able to help you in any meaningful way, or at least as well as it could be doing, until all these underlying factors are put in place. I know (at least I hope) this sounds obvious, but clearly it had slipped the mind of the above two organisations.

So go ahead, slag off your database if you want to, but, please, have a good look around you just before you do...