On demand content is the way of the future and we need to produce something thats worth watching. So why not a gameshow? A documentary? or a sitcom? Jesus used parables – so why can’t we use a comedy? or a home-improvement show?

It’s time to take off the blinders and look at this whole thing in a NEW WAY. If we keep doing the same thing, we’re going to reach the SAME people, and those that aren’t being reached need us more than ever!

I think your predictions are essentially sound.

Media ministries have been traditionally personality based.  I don’t consider that wrong, just a reality of what have been the dominant mediums, television and radio.  But, even if we look at ministry in the distant past there has always been a focus on individual leadership personalities.  The fortunes of a church usually rise and fall depending on the person serving as lead pastor. 

For an organization to become attractive to donors beyond the personality stage (like American Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.) requires a careful transition.  First, the existing (but aging) loyal donor base needs to be kept intact.  The organization should look to this group to be high in average giving but with the census decreasing due to aging, retirement, etc.

New donors have to be attracted, often with different messaging than what appealed to the long-time loyal group.  For instance, the core group may need to receive communication that is more based around the personality that drew the donor to the organization.  But, the next wave of donors often need to be attracted on the basis of the charitable work of the ministry, with a central personality present but not necessarily the focus of the relationship between the donor and the ministry.  Also, it is important to talk about the long-term goals of the ministry/organization that subtly communicate the intention of the organization to live beyond the life of the founder.  (However, there are probably some organizations that should plan to eventually liquidate after the death of the founder).

The newer group of donors will at first likely be lower in average gift and therefore it will take more numbers to begin to build a contingent to replace the current aging donor base.  So that’s the trick for “mature” media ministries, messaging that attracts a new group of donors in large numbers alongside messaging that speaks to the current group of larger and loyal donors.  The new group must be growing in numbers, frequency of giving, average size of gift, etc., while the long time donors gradually shrink in their impact on the organization and its mission.

There are of course a lot more issues that affect the future, many of which you have discussed in your books and on this blog.  There is such a thing as an industry life cycle (Google for graph) that affects all organizations.  Those who survive the decline phase after maturity are those who find new markets, new products, new services… those organizations that “re-invent” themselves.  And an essential part of that process is adjusting to a culture that is undergoing seismic shifts affecting how brands are viewed, how media is consumed, how donors/buyers are motivated, etc.  Add to that the massive economic tsunami and its after effects and it’s not hard to see the possibility of three things happening –

1. Some established media ministries will fail to adapt and will go the way of the dinosaurs with the current economy providing the catastrophic event to finish them off

2. Some established media ministries (a minority I think) will adapt to the changing culture, prudently find their way through the economic malaise and emerge on the other side changed, but strong and growing

3. There will be newer ministries emerge who don’t have the baggage of the established ministries but who also don’t have the core of support.  Some will find the new “sweet spot” with donors and will be the growth ministries of the next cycle.

I am with you in part…but I think Rick Warren just proved that a crisis that is real will cause people who care to dig deep and give.  If a ministry REALLY is in crisis, then the donors not only should be told, it is a disservice to them not to tell them.  They deserve to know and be able to make a difference if they want to.

You are right that things are changing; this generation wants to engage with media, not follow it blindly.  The media ministry of the coming years had better take note of that and create those opportunities now.

To do that requires all of what Phil says and more: It requires a database that contains the donor information that every single decision maker in the ministry has ready access to (related to their area of concern) and can run simple queries and understand the reports.

If a ministry does not offer that to their leaders, they have them doing their job blindfolded.

Having one person filter and present data to leaders puts far too much burden and weight on one person’s view.  If that person has a bias (and don’t we all?), the data is less than objective.

Because of that limitation, in the past three months I have seen smart ministry leaders, trying to make decisions when they didn’t have a full picture of what their donor’s were trying to tell them through their giving.  Each of them had their data at a database house that was not user-friendly and up-to-date, or there’s was a self-written in-house database that only its keeper could manage.

Here are some of the situations that led to:

One organization was ready to invest in more media — not knowing that at the pace they were acquiring donors, they would be bankrupt in six months.  Literally.  They needed to fix the front end; they needed a Phil-type to come in and help with the program itself before investing in more airtime.

Another was ready to stop doing one of their outreach programs.  They didn’t know that one program was the pet project of 80% of their current file.  Change the offer, lose the donors.

Another was ready to launch a new partner program (monthly givers) without knowing what partner program in the past had rung the bell the best with their viewers, giving them partners who renewed and fulfilled their pledges.

Another was spending 80% of their media budget on an outlet that generated less than 5% of their response.

Another was flat for five years straight because they didn’t know how to keep a donor.   They did an amazing job of attracting donors, but they didn’t create a communication plan that kept them engaged.

None of the things Phil talked about can happen unless the investment is made first in the database.  None of it.

As a creative person, I wish it was not so.  I would like to say that the next big idea will solve it all.  It won’t.

Investing in your database is investing in knowing your people, what the like, what they want, what they need, why they support you.  Then you and your leadership team can give them more of what they want—and the donors will in turn support you.

“Without knowledge…”