Using Special Days to Share a Message, or "If I Can't Dance, I'm Not Coming to Your Revolution"

In 1976, Americans Bob Love and Rose Lehman (above) went to Haiti as Mennonite Central Committee volunteers.

Bob worked in the pharmacy, while Rose was a nurse.

Bob and Rose had never met before going to that country. But as sometimes happens when young people meet on an MCC assignment, they fell in love and married four years later.

Through 38 years of marriage, they’ve never forgotten their relationship’s beginnings with MCC in Haiti, or what service in that country meant to them.

Why am I telling you this? Because MCC cleverly found a way to use their love story to promote the idea of service and helping others by telling their story on Valentine’s Day.

Seeing that story made me think: What other annual special days can NGOs and non-profits use to get their messages notice by the public and the media?

And there are a lot of special days to choose from!

There are 36 special events for February alone, including things like Toothache Day (9), Umbrella Day (10), Make a Friend Day (11), Drink Wine Day (18), Love Your Pet Day (20) and Cupcake Day (27).

Not all days would be suitable, of course. But there would be ways to use some of them.

Take Groundhog Day, for example.

If a municipal, state, provincial or federal government fails year-after-year to make progress on a pressing issue (homelessness, the environment, foreign aid), you can invoke the famous movie of the same name: Here we go again.

What about Pi Day? (March 14). Maybe the math for a desired change just doesn’t add up.

For donations, can three people be helped, three trees planted, or three anythings be done by a donation of $14?

Those who are fans of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy could use Towel Day, May 25, to talk about the importance of hygiene in the developing world.

Of course, we also need to be sensitive; not every issue can benefit from a lighthearted campaign.

But many of these special, offbeat, fun and quirky days could also allow groups to hitch their causes and issues to things already in the news, giving them an extra boost—and maybe some additional donations.

They would also be great for social media; something fun for people to share.

And if we can’t have a bit of fun now and then, what’s the point? We can’t be serious all the time.

Or, as the paraphrased quote from the radical feminist Emma Goldman puts it: “If I can’t dance, I’m not coming to your revolution.”

So when it comes to special days, dance and share away.

For a list of international days about causes, click here. 

When it Comes to Foreign Aid, Are We Nuts?

Are NGOs nuts enough to collaborate more to engage Canadians?

On February 16 about 100 communicators from Canadian NGOs, Global Affairs and the Office of the Minister for International Development met in Ottawa for a one-day forum on communicating with and engaging Canadians about relief and development. I was asked to make some introductory remarks. I chose, as my inspiration, the words of Don Cherry, who I believe asked one of the most important questions facing NGOs in Canada today.

“Are we nuts?”

That’s the question Don Cherry asked on Twitter in 2013 about the over $49 million Canada gave to Haiti through foreign aid.

Cherry went on to say that he understands there are many needs in the world.

But, he asked, how can Canada afford to send money to other countries when people in this country are hungry, homeless and in need of medical care?

Tweeted Cherry: "We've got a guy dying in Toronto waiting three hours for an ambulance.

“We got people waiting 7, 8, 10 hours, if they're lucky, in a waiting room with one doctor for a zillion people.

“We nickel and dime our doctors, nurses and veterans plus a million other services.

“Yet we can send almost $50 million to Haiti."

Through his Tweets, which received extensive media attention, Cherry asked the question that is on the minds of millions of Canadians then, and now.

Are we nuts?

When I read his Tweets I thought to myself: That’s it. That is the question we, as NGO communicators, need to answer.

Are we nuts?

Of course, there are many other questions to answer and things to talk about—things like gender, equality, justice, peace, human rights and the best way to help people escape poverty, and many, many more.

Those things are all important, and deserve our best attention.

But those are not the things on the minds of most Canadians when they think about where the government should spend its money.

What’s on their minds are the many needs in Canada—and how we should be responding.

So when we say the government should provide more money for water projects in Ghana, Canadians ask: What about Indigenous communities in Canada with no running water?

When we say more funds should be provided for health care in Senegal, Canadians ask: What about growing wait times in hospitals in this country?

And when we say more foreign aid should be provided for people who are hungry in Africa, Canadians wonder: What about hungry children in Canada?

Or, as Don Cherry put it more succinctly: Are we nuts?

For me, there are two responses to that question.

First, Don, no—we aren’t nuts.

No, we aren’t nuts. Canada is a rich country. Of course there are needs here that should be met. But compared to the rest of the world, we are doing so much better than almost all other countries.

No, we aren’t nuts. Canada’s economic fortunes depend on a healthy global economy. When people in poor countries do well, Canada does better, too.

No, we aren’t nuts. If we want to live in peace and lessen the risk of terrorism, we need to address the issues that create conflict and terrorists—issues like inequality, injustice, and lack of employment and opportunity.

But yes, in other ways, we are definitely, completely nuts.

We are nuts enough to believe that Canada is rich enough and strong enough and generous to meet the needs of people who are hungry and poor in Canada—and in the developing world.

As we like to say at the Foodgrains Bank, using the image of the Great Banquet in the Gospels, there is room at the table for all.

Yes, we are nuts enough to think that we, as citizens of a wealthy country, have a human and moral responsibility to assist others—to extend a hand of help and kindness and solidarity to those in need—because we can.

It’s the most Canadian thing of all to do.

And yes, we are nuts enough to believe that we are all in this together—rich and poor, north and south, men and women, young and old.

The health of the planet we all call home depends on it.

And that brings me to our event today.

Today we are gathering for the first time as communicators from NGOs, Global Affairs and the Minister’s Office.

Today we have an opportunity to think outside our institutional and governmental boxes to find new and creative ways to engage Canadians.

Today we have a chance to set aside our various organizational plans, schedules and agendas—as important as they are—to focus on the larger collective goal of engaging more Canadians in our shared mission of creating a fairer, better, equal and more just world.

In saying this, I’m not saying it will be easy.

In fact, I’m sure it will be hard.

And yet, what is the alternative? To keep doing the things we’ve always done in the hope of a different outcome?

We know what that’s a definition for.

So today I would like to put Don Cherry’s question to you:

Are we nuts enough to believe we can collectively muster our supporters, and many other Canadians, to say to the government: Yes, we care—we care about needs at home, and also abroad?

Are we nuts enough to think that, together, we can come up with new and creative ideas, campaigns and ways of telling our story that will move the needle of public opinion just a little bit?

I hope so. I truly hope we are all that nuts.

Today we get a chance to see if I am right.

Let me conclude with the words of Daniel Burnham, the influential 19^th century American architect.

At a time when American cities were in midst of disorder and discord, it was Burnham who came up with a powerful new vision of what a city could be, and what it could look like.

"Make no little plans,” he said.

“Little plans have no magic to stir the blood and probably themselves will not be realized.

“Make big plans; aim high in hope and in work." 

So at the end of the day I hope we can say yes, we dreamed big, we made big plans, we aimed high.

And that we can also say to Don Cherry: Yes, we are nuts. And we want to invite many more Canadians to be nuts along with us, too.

Facebook Changes and the Rise of Newsletters (or, Back to the Future)

Remember e-newsletters? 

They were so early 2000s. But they are coming back.

Why are they coming back? Changes at Facebook have something to do with it.

As everyone knows, Facebook has decided to prioritize posts from friends and family over “public content like posts from businesses, brands, and media,” according to CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The goal, he says, is to give “more opportunities to interact with the people they care about.”

What this means, of course, is that news from media outlet will be downgraded—and so will posts from organizations like non-profits.

Already, Facebook had been pushing organizational and media content to its Explore Feed.

The impact of this decision will vary; news and organizational posts that get a lot of response from friends will continue to be seen.

But the general consensus is that groups that relied on Facebook to share information will suffer.

Back to the Future

Which brings us back to the future—of newsletters.

Back in the early days of digital, organizations sent newsletters by e-mail—lots of them.

But then Facebook came along, and we dropped them.

Why write all that content when you could just post them on the social media giant?

But along the way we forgot the golden rule of Facebook: Facebook makes the rules.

And now that Facebook has changed the rules, e-newsletters look attractive again.

Why? For one reason, groups control them—no more worrying about whether Facebook will change the rules again.

For another, people who sign up are inviting us in—no more just hoping they see it in their busy social media feeds.

Unlike with Facebook, an inbox is a personal and private space. By signing up they are saying: “Come on in. I want to hear what you have to say.”

Newsletters are also good for A/B testing.

You can send one version to half your list, a different one to the other half, and see which style works best.

Finally, we can know our reach through services like Mailchimp; every time we send out a newsletter, we can tell how many people opened them.

A Different Kind of Newsletter

But today’s newsletters need to be different than the ones we made in the past.

Previously, we sent the equivalent of a table of contents—a number of short summaries with links.

Today the feeling is that newsletters need to be more personal, more like a letter from the executive director to supporters.

There can still be links to the website, but it may not be important people go there.

Getting a letter from the executive director may be enough.

As Brodie Fenlon of CBC put it: “It’s not critical that people go to website. It is not a way to drive them somewhere else. The newsletter is the destination.”

Audiences, he added, “hate it when you try to push them somewhere else. If this is their only news source, that’s fine.”

Needs to be Useful

Of course, none of this matters if people don’t sign up.

And why would they do that?

“It has to be useful,” Fenlon says. “That’s why people sign up for them, open them.”

For groups that make newsletters, it means being “clear about their purpose, and who they are for,” if they are to succeed, he adds.

What’s your experience with newsletters? Are you planning to do more of them?

Image at top: Canadian Foodgrains Bank e-newsletter. 

What Makes for a Successful Blog?

A friend stopped me recently to ask about blogs: What makes a blog successful?

As someone who has three blogs, I am more than interested in that question.

I started my first blog in 2009. Back then, it is estimated there were 127 million blogs in the world.

By 2011, there were 173 million.

Today it is estimated there are over 300 million, but nobody knows for sure. Not to mention podcasts and video blogs (vlogs).

How many of those blogs are active? That’s also hard to say. But one estimate, back in 2008, was that 95% of blogs are abandoned by their creators.

Which doesn’t surprise me. Blogging, like anything, requires work.

After the first rush of passion to start a blog passes, people soon realize that keeping a good one going requires thought, imagination, research—and just plain dogged, regular dedication and commitment.

Which leads me, in a roundabout way, back to the original question. What makes a blog successful?

Consistency, for starters. If you start it, you have to keep at it.

Not every day; few of us are so smart or inspirational that readers will hang on our every word.

Plus, who has the time?

My own commitment is to update my blogs between 2-4 times a month. That seems about right for the amount of time and energy I possess.

Another thing that makes a blog successful? Good writing.

People may not know how to explain good writing, but they know it when they see it.

This means spelling and good grammar—the basics.

Paragraph structure is also key.

Writing for the web is different from other forms of writing. It’s more like newspaper writing: Short sentences and paragraphs.

Like what you are reading now.

One sentence per paragraph makes a blog easier to read. Two to three is maximum.

This is especially true for those many people who use phones to access the web. There’s nothing like a dense screen of text to push them away.

Length is important, too. Studies suggest the best lengths are 300-500 words or 800-1,000.

The area in between is known as the “dead zone.” (Which is where this post is at—gulp!)

My own take is that if your post is interesting, and meets a need, people will read it (as long as it isn’t too long).

And, of course, you need an audience. Who would want to read your blog?

Finding focus is key. That can be your own country, province or state, or community. Even just your neighbourhood.

Next: You need a way to let people know about your blog.

Facebook and Twitter can help with that. So can e-mail lists of like-minded people who might want to read your posts.

But even if few people visit, that doesn’t mean a blog is a failure.

Which is my last point: Change the meaning of success.

I started this blog because I had a need to understand the changing world of media, marketing and communications.

Since high school, I have lived by the dictum: “How can I tell what I think until I see what I say?”

By writing this blog I am able to figure out where things are going, what’s happening and what it means for me and the non-profit sector in general.

In other words, I write like nobody is reading.

If others find it useful, too—bonus!

This has the advantage of taking the focus off the number of views. Success isn’t if a post goes viral—although that’s never a bad thing—but whether it meets my expectations for myself.

As for my other blogs, one is just for fun. It’s about my hobby. The other one is where I post the columns I write each week as Faith Page columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press.

And this one, where I try to figure out what the heck is happening in the fast-changing world I work in.

As for you, the reader, I’m glad if you find an occasional helpful nugget.

If not, I still learned something by writing—including writing this post.

Giving in Canada Falling: Generosity Index

“The general trend in recent years is that a declining percentage of Canadian tax filers are donating to charity and they are donating less as a percentage of income.”

That’s the finding of the annual Generosity Index from Canada’s Fraser Institute.

According to the Index, which measures the percentage of tax filers donating to charity, and the amount Canadians donate per person, in 2015 (latest year of available data) 20.9% of Canadian tax-filers reported making donations to registered charities.

This figure is the lowest it has been in 30 years; in 2005 25.1% of Canadians claimed donations when filing their taxes.

Of Canada’s provinces, Manitoba had the highest percentage of tax filers claiming charitable deductions at 24.6%; New Brunswick and Quebec had the lowest (19.3%).

Manitobans also donated the highest percentage of their aggregate income to charity among the provinces (0.83%), while Quebec donated the lowest (0.26%).

Nationally, Canadians gave 0.56% of their aggregate income to charity.

Says the Institute: “What is most striking about these trends is that the extent of charitable giving fell in every Canadian jurisdiction. All of the provinces and territories saw a drop in the percentage of tax filers donating to charity.”

The provinces where the drops were most pronounced were Ontario and Prince Edward Island.

This comes as no surprise to many fundraisers, who over the past number of years have struggled to reach their fundraising targets.

Although the amount Canadians give has risen dramatically since 1984, the money is coming from an ever-decreasing number of people.

The question, though, is: Why are fewer Canadians making charitable donations?

Before answering that question, it’s important to note that while studies find that over 80% of Canadians say they donate to charity, many of those donations are loonies and toonies into a collection box at the grocery store—not donations requiring a tax receipt.

The Generosity Index, on the other hand, measures the donations people claim for income tax purposes—the kind of larger donations charities really depend on.

But back to the question: Why is giving falling?

One answer is the economy; as I have written about before, many Canadians today feel precarious about their lives.

A lot of people today operate in what is called the “gig economy”—contracts from year to year or less.

Others worry about downsizing, as is happening in retail, or off-shoring as jobs leave for countries with cheaper wages.

Then there’s the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots; a lot of truckers are feeling nervous these days, and Amazon just opened its first cashier-free grocery store.

Another reasons could be the decline in attendance at worship services.

Since religiosity is one of the best predictors of whether someone gives to charity, the drop-off in participation in faith groups could be having implications for donations.

Research shows that people who are religious donated three times as much as those who claim no religion.

Then there's the matter of modelling; kids give because they see their parents or others give. 

One of the best places to learn about giving is a faith group. Seeing the collection plate passed every weekend is a physical reminder of the importance of being generous, along with hearing prayers and sermons about needs in Canada and around the world.

Then there is my generation—the Baby Boomers.

Although more numerous than our parents and grandparents (the great and silent generations), we give less than them. 

More worrisome, the amount we give is falling, and the donation rates of the generations following us are lower still.

Which leads to my final reason: The best givers—the ones who gave regularly, and in the largest amounts—are dying.

As the silent and great generations pass away, their generosity is not being replaced (as the paragraphs above indicate). 

Anyway, read the report, and add your thoughts; why do you think generosity is declining in Canada?

And one other thing; if you do read the report, ignore the way the Fraser Institute contrasts Canadian so negatively with giving in the U.S.

First off, it’s often apples and oranges; Americans give so much more, I think, because there are so many fewer state supports for people in need as compared to Canada.

(It's rare for a Canadian to organize a crowd funder for a medical need, for example.)

Second, the Fraser Institute just seems to have a thing about the U.S.—everything is better there. 

Stick with the Canadian findings and you’ll be fine. 

Another great source of information about giving is this 2018 report titled Thirty Years of Giving in Canada by David Lasby and Cathy Barr of Imagine Canada.