You may remember a few months ago I talked about how Brown University got a 500% return on the proactive research they did for the Boldly Brown campaign.  One part of that was successfully integrating the results of several wealth screenings that they did.

Because some of the vendors are offering database screenings at a deep discount this quarter, a number of our clients are taking advantage of the savings … which means that it’s screening analysis season here at HBG!

Andrea, Jennifer and Maureen have been collaborating closely as a unit and with our clients on these screenings, and I’ve been really interested as I listen to them share ideas over lunch or at our afternoon tea breaks.

There’s a lot of delight and excitement when a screening is returned, but also some regret when they find an opportunity that was missed.

What I hear from their conversations underscores that how you approach a screening really makes a difference in the end result.

So I thought I’d ask them to share their top tips for making the most of an electronic screening so that we can all boost our return on screenings to Brown proportions.  If you have more tips to share with readers, we’d love for you to add them!

From Andrea:

I’ve become a big fan of wealth screenings lately.  I’d say my top three tips are:

• Include as much information as possible: middle initials and spouse names are particularly important in helping save time later.
• Don’t trust the database’s judgment: verify everything! Screenings are a good jumping off point but the human element of analysis is important.

• Once the data is returned, try several different sorts to see if there are any trends.  I generally start to look for patterns sorting by confirmed assets, then by identified assets and filtering by state, zip, and past giving.  It’s really interesting what you can find!

From Jennifer:

• Pay particular attention to high net worth individuals in New York City – chances are if they own a co-op apartment that the entire co-op building is being counted in their assets.
• Cleaning the data beforehand is well worth the time investment. Fix any typos and check to be sure addresses are consistently entered – bad data is the #1 way why matches aren’t made. Time spent on this in advance can save lots of time (which is money!!) confirming later.
• Don’t include anyone that only has a PO Box address.  Either leave them out or find their street address.

From Maureen:

• Purchase an address update (NCOA) as part of the screening if you haven’t done one recently – a significant match point for assets is address.
• If your budget is tight, don’t waste it on screening donors that you already know well.
• Depending on the size of your screening, make sure to allocate at least one staff member to do the analysis when the results are returned.  Screenings are expensive and you don’t want the results to just sit there gathering dust.
• Don’t screen if you don’t have the front-line fundraising staff to follow up on the leads that are produced.  Be strategic in the number of prospects that you screen and consider doing rolling screenings.

Let me tell you a short story:  Back in the 1980s there was a pseudo war, and it was a big deal at the time.  Named the Cola Wars, it was a knock-down, drag-out to decide which of the two mega brands of cola was better, Coke or Pepsi.  Both felt that neither could survive while the other lived, and you, the consumer, had to choose.  Which did you like better?  Side-by-side blind taste tests were done in supermarkets, on beaches, Main Streets and college campuses.  It was the Duke-Carolina and the Yankees-Red Sox of marketing wars rolled into one.  It was huge.

Then Coca-Cola, in a moment no consumer could figure out (and no company should ignore), decided they would ditch their cash cow and make a whole different product.  “Old Coke” was gone overnight.  “New Coke”  was the Coke to beat Pepsi, and it was no contest:  nobody liked it.

It was awful.  New Coke tasted terrible and there were practically riots in the streets.  People started hoarding “old” Coke when they could find it.  If you weren’t around then (and I suspect most of the Google decision-makers weren’t) I know it’s hard to believe that consumers actually rose up and made such a stink that a mega company completely reversed course about something, but they did.  In a matter of a few months, New Coke was gone and “Coke Classic” was resuscitated.

So now we’ve got the New Google and for professional searchers it tastes about as good as New Coke.  Here’s the vanilla article from Lance Ulanoff at Mashable, announcing its birth:  Google Merges Search and Google+ into Social Media Juggernaut.  He says:

“Now we know Google’s master-plan for integrating Google+ ever more deeply into the Google ecosystem: Pour the whole thing into Google search. Starting today, Google+ members, and to a lesser extent others who are signed into Google, will be able to search against both the broader web and their own Google+ social graph. That’s right; Google+ circles, photos, posts and more will be integrated into search in ways other social platforms can only dream about.”

Short version: when you type a search into Google, what you’re going to get for your first results are everything you or your friends have ever written or shared publicly on Google Plus on anything related to the item you’ve just searched.

If you’re on your mobile device looking for a restaurant in San Francisco, you’re treated to a gold mine of your friends’ and acquaintances’ recommendations.  Nice!

If you’re a professional 9-5 researcher like me using Google it’s another layer of non-relevant stuff to wade through before you get to what you need.  We’re not “social” searchers, we use these tools to provide reliable answers to others.  Relevant search is our job.  And Google has always had the largest database of legitimate, relevant resources that professional researchers need and use every day.

THE EXPERTS WEIGH IN

Here’s a professional searcher’s take on it:  Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land wrote an article in response to the flaws (and potential legal issues) he saw called Real-Life Examples of How Google’s ‘Search Plus’ Pushes Google Plus Over Relevancy.

Sullivan argues that besides making relevant search results harder to find for professional  searchers, the potential trouble on Google’s horizon is legal: if they highlight information (mainly) from their own properties – including Google+ and YouTube they could be charged with abusing their power as a monopoly.  Also, there’s that teeny little issue of privacy – what if something you thought you were posting privately to Google+ got shared without your permission publicly and then emerged as an answer to a search query?

FIXING WHAT’S NOW BROKEN

I’ve seen peoples’ comments saying “what’s the big deal, you can turn Search Plus off!” and yes you can, and here’s how.

And you can also turn Verbatim on, which forces Google to allow you to use your exact search terms instead of Google trying to correct them for you (in case you didn’t really mean what you meant).  Here’s how:  Do a search, go to the search options sidebar, click “show more search tools,” select “Verbatim” and Google will keep your search string like you wanted it to be.

And you can turn filtering off, too, so that your world on Google doesn’t keep getting narrower and narrower.  And yes, it does.  You don’t even know what you don’t know, but you will if you read this and watch Eli Pariser’s jaw-dropping TED Talk.

But all these turning offs and turning ons are a total hassle.  Just to do one search in Google the way I used to just last year, I have to turn off two things and turn one on.  Every. Single. Time.  This is progress?

I’ve read other comments saying, “Google’s free and they can do whatever they want to with their product.”  And that’s true, they can.  I’d argue that Google is “free,” but whatever.  We can vote with our feet.  And Bing’s the next logical choice for database size.

Mat Honan at Gizmodo has this to say: Google just made Bing the Best Search Engine.

Trouble is, Microsoft has always run hot and cold on search.  They kindasorta want to compete with Google, but Bing’s not their core business and it’s never going to be.  There’s no Coke vs. Pepsi thing going on here.  It’s Coke vs. Shasta.  Google’s still got the largest database lurking inside all that growing social stuff, and Bing just doesn’t.  It’s big, but it’s not Google big.

So will Google create two products – one for professional searchers and one for social searchers?  Or, in the words of the immortal SNL writers, is it just to be “No Coke! Pepsi!” for us?

Update:  More on this from Wired magazine’s Tim Carmody: Dirty Little Secrets: The Trouble With Social Search.

So let’s say you want to email a password-protected document to someone.  Or give them access to the back end of your website.  You need to send them the password to open it …but what if they’re half a world away, sound asleep?  Or they’re in a meeting, or just unavailable to take your phone call?  Emailing the word itself just isn’t a secure option, even if you are using your super duper top-secret spy subject-line code:

Trust me, the bad guys are going to figure it out – if they want to hack the document or your website, that would be the first email they’d look at.  And this is the second:

So here’s what you do:

Use a secret sharer.

One Time Secret

One Time Secret does just that – it allows you to share a secret just once.  It can be a word or a phrase that you want, or the site will generate a random password for you.  Just type in the word or phrase, click “Create A Secret Link” and an encrypted link is generated that you can cut and paste into an email.  You can set the period of time for the secret to expire – so when your secret is opened by your authorized person, it automatically disappears and can’t be accessed again.  Likewise, if it doesn’t get accessed within the allotted time, poof – it’s erased.

QuickForget

QuickForget does all the same things that One Time Secret does, but your secret doesn’t have to disappear after the first viewing.  So if you need to send the secret to more than one person, you can choose the number of ‘views’ the secret has as well as the number of hours it’s available for viewing.  There’s a handy email-it feature, too… (*cough*) as long as you don’t go with their suggested subject line…

He may be a marketing guru now, but Mark Schaefer’s background in journalism became clear to me a couple of weeks ago.

Despite the sudden blowout of power in the restaurant we were in and the three fire trucks that raced up outside shortly thereafter with alarms bwomping and red lights circling, Mark ran out to his car to get his video camera.  I say despite those thing because he wasn’t planning on shooting the smoke coming out of the bank across the street or the firefighters trying to figure out where the exploded power line was; he was listening to me getting animated about how – if you’re not careful – Google and other search engines decide for you what you want to see when you search.  And that’s what he wanted to film!

So despite all the hullaballoo, Mark started asking me questions that he thought the members of his loyal blog community might be interested to hear more about.  It’s a short video interview that Mark posted on his blog this morning – I hope you find it worth getting excited about too!

Next Wednesday, November 30th I’m going to be speaking at a conference sponsored by the Massachusetts chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

I mention this because it got me to thinking about what I like and don’t like about conferences. I like really meaty sessions at conferences, and I get disappointed when speakers are entirely theoretical or philosophical. I do like the theory and I do like understanding the context, but then I want you to show me how. Or at least give me a roadmap, inundate me with URLs, show me some first steps so I can figure out the rest.

It drives me crazy when the subtext of a session is if you want the real details, you’re going to have to buy my book / hire me to consult for you / buy my product.

Ugh. People come to a session to learn something, and to have practical take-aways that they can use when they get back to the office. Or at least that’s true for me.

So that’s what my seminars are – heavy on the take-aways. Sure, I’ve got a couple of the requisite cartoons and polls to get people chuckling, talking, and sharing. A lot of people in my sessions have cool tools and sites to share that I end up checking out when I get back to my office. Prospect research is like that: new tools are popping up every day, and we do love to share them! I think that’s what conference sessions should be about, too.

My session, Using the Web to Manage Information Overload is going to highlight handy web-based resources that will help fundraisers save time and get to the information they need more quickly. Prospect researchers are welcome too – come bring your best tools to manage information overload and be prepared to share and to take away.

Selected meaty take-aways if you can’t make it to the session:

A terrific research metasite from Northwestern’s prospect research department
Another one from Supporting Advancement
Prospect research Tweeters to follow

Jen Filla of Aspire Research Group and I have just signed a deal with John Wiley & Sons to write Prospect Research for Fundraisers; The Essential Handbook. We’re thrilled!

This book is going to be handy for every single front-line development officer, from the solo fundraiser in a one-person shop to the VP for Advancement overseeing a large university research department.

We’re going to highlight the successful partnerships, the innovative ground-breakers and the hair-tearing learning experiences, and our findings just may surprise you.

If you’ve ever wondered…

…then this book is for you!

We’re interviewing fundraisers and researchers to gain lots of perspectives, and the book will be chock-full of case studies and examples. We still have some space, so if you’d like to be featured for your great front-line/research collaborations, let us know!

With the publication of the always-worth-reading “World Wealth Report” last week, it reminded me that I wanted to mention to you a few white papers about high net worth individuals (HNWIs) that are well worth your time.  They are:

The World Wealth Report 2011.  CapGemini / Merrill Lynch.

• FREE with registration.
• Brief overview with additional links here; actual report in English here.
• The WWR details high net worth individuals worldwide: where they live, what they spend their money on, how they allocate their assets, etc. and they break the information down by country or region to achieve even more granularity.  A tidbit I found interesting in this report: women made up 27% of the global HNW population in 2010, up from 24% in 2008.  From under a quarter to nearly a third in two years – what does that make you think about your prospect portfolios?

The Wealth Report: A Global Perspective on Prime Property and Wealth 2011. Knight Frank / Citi Private Bank.

• Pdf version is FREE, click here.  Hard copy also available with registration.
• For researchers and front-line fundraisers specializing in international work, this is a must-read overview of already-hot and emerging high-growth regions, industries, and people with a focus on global wealth and real estate.  Contains interviews with experts such as Rupert Hoogewerf of the Hurun Rich List and discussions of topics including venture philanthropy.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch High Net Worth Philanthropy Study 2010.  In collaboration with Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.  Biennial.

• Pdf version is FREE, click here.
• The study is a survey of HNWIs to discover their attitudes toward giving and philanthropic behavior, how they make philanthropic decisions within their household, and their thoughts on volunteering and engagement.  In addition to the study, there is also a video at the site featuring a panel discussion with two members of the Bank of America team and the director of research from the IU Center on Philanthropy.

Not specifically about HNWIs, but certainly related is:

Giving USA 2011. The Giving USA Foundation / Indiana University Center on Philanthropy

• Hard copy; web-based version; powerpoint slides and pdfs; $75

• Subscribers can (at the moment) access Volume One: the Numbers.  Full publication to be released in July.
• Giving USA provides preliminary statistics on giving within the United States.  The resource comes as a hard-copy book or web-based version, and includes tons of charts, graphs, and statistics as well as information on historical giving and trends.

Lastly, and maybe most fun:

For an engaging, entertaining, and enlightening article that gives you a glimpse into what it’s really like to be ultra wealthy, read this some Friday afternoon at 3 when you still need to work but just can’t make your brain do anything.  From The Atlantic magazine, the article is called “The Rise of the New Global Elite.”

Do you have any other must-read white papers to share?

Here is a crazy-good story for you:

When Brown University began their “Boldly Brown” campaign in July 2003 they had 1,535 people identified as potential major donors.  That may sound like a lot, but they had over $1 billion to raise to support scholarships, attract and retain faculty and to upgrade their facilities and research capability.  The fundraisers, both paid and volunteer, had some serious work to do if they were going to reach that ambitious goal.

During the course of the seven years to follow, the Brown research team made sure that their alumni records were up-to-date and that the data was as free from error as possible.  They used sophisticated screening tools to find people with the means and interest in supporting Brown.  They segmented their data to identify new potential donors based on the characteristics of their current loyal supporters.  And they researched and fine-tuned the information they had to be sure not to bother people who weren’t likely to be interested in supporting Brown at a higher level.

Because in addition to using these methods to identify future supporters, the other thing we researchers are trying to do is eliminate (to the degree possible) annoying people with unnecessary mail, phone calls and visits when they don’t want them.  It’s good business to avoid irritating people, but it’s also a smart way to save money, trees, electricity, and peoples’ valuable time. To be good stewards of past donor dollars.

So what happened?

5,284 new major gift prospects were identified.

That’s more than a 500% increase in potential supporters!

Even more incredible, Brown University received $710 million in new gifts and pledges from those newly identified and upgraded prospects.  If you’re thinking “Hmmm, that number looks eerily like it’s nearly three-quarters of the total campaign goal”- you’re catching on.  That’s the impact of applied prospect research and analytics – it makes a huge difference.

What else?

Brown University reached their goal of $1.4 billion eighteen months early, and went on (during the worst recession of our lifetimes) to garner over $1.6 billion in total support by the time they stopped counting in December of 2010.

Can their success be yours?

Sure, Brown University is a huge organization.  And yes, they have a crack research and analytics team headed by Elizabeth Crabtree, a brilliant leader in our field.  But the techniques Brown used can be applied to your nonprofit and scaled to your needs.  What are the building blocks?

• A cause that provides measurable results and inspires loyal support;
• A multi-faceted prospect identification program that is funded to scale;
• Policies and metrics for prospect relationship management;
• Highly skilled prospect researchers/analysts who are both strategists and tacticians;
• Effective collaboration between the research team and frontline fundraisers;
• Inspired and engaging fundraisers and leadership;
• Inspired and engaged donors and volunteers;
• Stewardship that surprises (pleasantly, of course).

All of this takes time and money as well as a serious commitment of your heart to achieve the kind of success they had.  But the results are undeniable:

• Increased participation…
• Increased donations…
• And a solid foundation for future support.

Even if you’re a small organization with a staff of one, you can do this.  You’ll need help, obviously, but there’s no time like the present to get started.

I just finished Tony Hsieh’s highly-recommended book Delivering Happiness, and it’s gotten me thinking about resources for fundraisers/researchers that provide a WOW factor:  sources that deliver beyond expectations.

For me, that would be a metasite, or web page that has lots of links and resources of help to users.  Here are my top picks in three categories.  What are your favorites?

Best Overall Collaborative Metasite

First up I recommend SupportingAdvancement, a Mall of America-sized site with resources for every department in a fundraising office. The site has free templates, report formats, white papers, and training resources useful to everyone, as well as links to research-specific sites and much more. It’s updated daily and thrives on the generosity of its contributors of content and site sponsors. I could go on, but really, you have to see it to believe it.

Best Metasite Created as a Division-Wide Resource (update: link sadly no longer valid because they liked it so much they turned it into an internal-only resource)(!)

This next site is a resource created by the research team at The University of California San Diego for the entire development department.  It’s called the Development Office Toolkit and they created it using Google Sites (free!) and linked it to the university’s servers.  The site is chock-a-block with information for the whole development office: news of upcoming training classes, pdfs of internal (yet public) reports, how-tos, templates, university event calendars and lots more.

For prospect research specifically, there are pages on ethics and confidentiality policies, information about prospect management and links to lots of research resources, including some niche sources like BloodHorse for finding thoroughbred horse owners.

This is a fantastic example of an internal resource that isn’t just a research department resource, but one created with the needs of the entire division in mind.  And since they used Google Sites to make the resource, you can too!  It’s a great example for others to follow.  Bravo!

Best Metasite For Research-Specific Information

And last but definitely not least, Northwestern University has kept up a comprehensive Research Bookmarks list of several hundred links since the early 1990s, and it is consistently fantastic.  Updated monthly from recommendations within the NU research department and from the prospect research community at large, the list is particularly strong with links to international resources including hard-to-find offshore real estate listings.  It’s been on my bookmarks list for years and it should be on yours, too, if it isn’t already.

If you have other metasites that you’d like to add to this list, comment below!  Let’s crowd-source this!

Here at the Helen Brown Group we are constantly testing new tools and sharing them amongst ourselves.  I asked our team leader/director of research Rick Snyder to share some of the ones he  uses frequently.  Here’s what Rick had to say:

Read It Later (RIL)

The first is a browser add-on called Read It Later (RIL).  It works with all browsers and web-enabled phones.  I think of it as a way to save bookmarks that don’t really deserve to be bookmarks (RIL calls them bookmarklets).  It works across numerous devices, stays in sync, and allows offline reading by downloading pages before you disconnect.

When I first found RIL I was looking into buying a new HDTV.  It was all new to me and I was scouring numerous websites on makes and models, user forums and technical articles.  I needed a way to manage all of the information but I didn’t want to save all of the sites as bookmarks since my project had a discrete end, at which point I’d no longer need them.  Enter RIL.  I ended up saving twenty or more bookmarklets but within a couple of weeks I was done and easily deleted them all.  Had I added them to my regular bookmarks there’s a good chance that they would sit there for years before getting pruned out.

It’s easy to see how this is useful in the research world.  In the course of an average day any researcher will view dozens of websites.  Most of them merit a quick view and then you’re done.  You’ll want to come back to others but maybe it’s the end of the workday and you need to save them to return to the following day.  Or maybe you’re going to continue your work on a different computer and want to be able to access the pages from there.  RIL helps you to save your work without cluttering up your list of “real” bookmarks.

SearchTeam

Another tool that I’ve been playing with is called SearchTeam.  SearchTeam is a collaborative search engine.  It allows multiple people working on the same project to see the results of everyone else’s searches in real time.  You can create a SearchSpace and invite friends and colleagues to join the search with you.  You can share comments, chat in real time, upload files, and more.

As with Read It Later, I came across SearchTeam while working on a personal project and then brought it into my work life.  I’m planning a two-week motorcycle tour of Nova Scotia this summer.  My riding buddy lives in Brooklyn and I live in Maine.  By setting up a Nova Scotia SearchSpace we are able to see each others’ searches, leave comments and chat when we’re online at the same time.  It keeps us from duplicating efforts and by seeing each others’ searches it is spurring us to think of things that each of us may not have come up with alone.

Since much of the work we do in prospect research is solitary in nature, it might not be readily apparent how it can be used.  If you are a member of a research team there will be times when several of you are tasked with working together on a project.  SearchTeam may help you organize and coordinate your efforts.  A couple of years ago our group worked together on a white paper on industries that were faring well in the recession.  SearchTeam would have been a tremendous help to us then.  I’ll be curious to hear back from you about the research-related uses that you find for it.

Evernote

Another promising new tool is Evernote.  It is sort of like a combination of Read It Later and SearchTeam.  It helps you to capture websites, notes, screen shots, sounds, files or video and organize it all into notebooks.  It is accessible from anywhere and works on all platforms.

I believe this is the simplest way I’ve yet come across to capture information in one place from so many disparate sources.  As with Read It Later, it is a handy way to temporarily save sites.  Deleting a notebook with everything you’ve saved on an entity you’ve researched only takes a couple of clicks.  As with SearchTeam, you can share your notebooks with others so they can see the results of your work (read-only in the free version, read/write in the premium).

The free and paid versions of Evernote offer different levels of data storage, notebook sharing, searchability, etc.  The free version is all many of us will need but the added features at the premium level are well worth the $45/year if you become a heavy user.

We’d like to hear from you about new (or old) tools that you use to make your work easier or more efficient.  What is it, how does it work and what do you like best about it?  Shoot us a comment below, or email us!