December 2005

The Joy of Subscription Fees

By Laura Quinn, December 28, 2005

I’ve gotten a number of emails about my “four pillars of unfundability” post, and just wanted to clarify that we certainly don’t intend to support ourselves solely on foundation funding. We are looking for start-up funding, but our plan to be self-sufficient in the long run through charging a minimal subscription fee – somewhere in the $40/year realm. Not right away, but when we have a solid base of content that is clearly worth paying for.

There’s a lot of power in a model like this. The subscription concept has gotten a bad rap from all the subscription vaporware from the dot-com bubble, but there are a lot of examples of successful subscription email and online content resources, especially in the business-to-business world. And we won’t need hundreds of thousands of subscribers. If only 800 people subscribe – the number expected to pay $300- $600 for the NTEN conference – and each pay $40/year, that’s $32,000 per year. Not nearly our whole operating budget, but a lot more than pocket change.

To my mind, Idealware doesn't deserve to exist if it can't provide information that people feel is worth paying $40/year for. So it’s our job in the short run to prove that we can.

The Four Pillars of Unfundability

By Laura Quinn, December 7, 2005
I’m hard at work on a fundraising plan and prospects for Idealware, and it’s interesting going. There are a number of good possibilities and compelling ways to pitch the important work that we do, but it’s not an easy sell. It’s the bizzaro version of what they tell you in fundraising workshops: Idealware offers nearly everything that foundations don’t like to fund, all rolled up into one neat little package. It’s got it all:
  • It’s about infrastructure. Unfortunately, software doesn’t actually feed hungry people. It can only make it more efficient to feed them. Word has that it’s hard to interest some funders in these kinds of infrastructure expenses. And worse, Idealware is kind of a meta-infrastructure project. It’s infrastructure that allows other organization’s infrastructure to be more efficient. Yikes.
  • The end goal is a technology product. I hear that not all funders get things like websites or software packages yet, and the power they can bring. They’ve had difficulty with technology projects in the past are still nervous about internet stuff based on the dot com bubble. Though Idealware is at its core not about building a website, but rather about writing reviews which are then distributed through a website.
  • It’s an editorial model. Again, it’s indirect. It doesn’t directly make things happen, just suggests that things should happen with the hope that it will create change. Not as glamorous as hands-on stuff.
  • It helps nonprofits across many sectors at once. You’d think this would be a good thing, but several people have mentioned to me that it’s a classic Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. If Idealware isn’t useful specifically and primarily to a funder’s target audience, it’s not as high priority as something that does target them directly.

Honestly, the project has so many of the key funding challenges that perhaps it can be a selling point: “Look, if you think it’s a good idea, you better fund it, because who else is going to do it?”

Of course, it will probably work better to focus on the positive stuff. Software can revolutionize nonprofit work – by increasing innovation, information, and effectiveness– if nonprofits know how to put it to use. Idealware allows nonprofits to find the kinds of software and the specific products that can best help them achieve their mission. Sounds pretty useful, huh? C’mon, you’d fund us, right?

Blog Exchange: The Donor Power Blog

By Laura Quinn, December 5, 2005

As part of the Nonprofit Blog Exchange, I took a look at Jeff Brooks’ Donor Power Blog – and was really glad I did. With the proof-of-concept donation report done and released, I’m now giving serious thought to both a newsletter and fundraising – and the Donor Power Blog provides some great thoughts on both. The blog focuses on donor-centric fundraising, with links and commentary about raising money by providing donors with what they want to make them feel good about giving.

It’s a little sad that there’s a need to focus on “donor-centric” fundraising, just like we in the technology realm need focus on “user-centric” design. Really, what argument is there for not focusing your effort around the needs of the key people who make everything happen? But I guess in both realms there’s the tendency to get caught up in the techniques and lose sight of the goals.

But the blog itself obviously addresses at least my needs well, as I immediately went and bought a book recommended by Jeff. I bought it half for the title, The Mercifully Brief, Real World Guide to... Raising More Money with Newsletters than You Ever Thought Possible by Tom Ahern.

View the Donor Power blog here: www.donorpowerblog.com/donor_power_blog