Tell your story!

I just read about this resource in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, and I can't wait to share it with all of my great nonprofit pals!

It is "a web platform to help organizations gather, curate, and use stories to effect change." Check it out here:

http://www.stori.es/

Storytelling is having a moment. For years, research has shown that people (i.e. potential donors) respond more, and more generously, to the story of ONE person who is being helped by a nonprofit's work, rather than a barrage of statistics - even if those statistics are really impressive. 

Now, it seems like storytelling is everywhere:

The Meyer Foundation and the Georgetown University Center for Social Impact Communication just released Stories Worth Telling: A Guide to Strategic and Sustainable Nonprofit Storytelling.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy's November 6, 2014 edition included a major spread on nonprofit storytelling (sorry, most content is currently limited to subscribers, but that will likely change).

A Nonprofit Storytelling Conference in Seattle earlier this month was completely sold out.

NPR correspondent Shankar Vedantam (yes, I'm a superfan) recently told us "Why Your Brain Wants to Help One Child in Need - But Not Millions."

Through Consumer Union's stori.es, your organization can gather stories through the use of questionnaires, curate the answers, and develop meaningful stories to share with your stakeholders, including potential donors.

All nonprofits know that they have to do this - gather and share stories - but they don't know how, don't have the staff to devote to the task, can't get organized, etc. Hopefully, this new resource will make it easier to tell the world about the great work you do!

My own resources on creative grant writing, which can help you tell your organization's stories in more compelling and impactful ways, can be found HERE. Check out Grant Writing for Creative Souls.

Happy storytelling. Once upon a time...

The creative genius sitting four cubicles away

There was a great little (4 minute long) story about creative ideas on NPR this morning. In a nutshell: people rate ideas as more creative when they come from far away sources, rather than nearby sources. An idea that came from halfway across the world is perceived as more creative than an idea that came from the guy sitting four cubicles away... even if it’s the exact same idea.

University of San Diego researchers ran an experiment that showed that where the idea comes from influences, in a significant way, the degree of creativity that people assign to the idea.

When things are nearby, they are more concrete, and we are more likely to think about the details. The detail-oriented mindset is more likely to shoot down a creative idea because, among other things, we focus more on the risks of the idea.

When considering ideas that are generated from a far away source, the ideas seem more abstract, and we are less focused on the details and the risks. The first question we ask is not “will this work?” We are more open to the creative possibilities.

In the story, they say that managers more often shoot down ideas from close subordinates rather than ideas that are generated from far away, less familiar sources.

What are the implications for nonprofit fundraising generally, and grant writing specifically? (My own bias is that grant writing, in order to be successful, must be a highly-creative pursuit!)

1. While this trend seems to be shifting, there still are many foundations that would rather fund the “new and exciting” idea, rather than supporting current programming that works. If a current grantee reapplies for support of a great program that is having measurable success, is that program seen as less creative or innovative as compared to the new idea from a new applicant that the foundation has not funded before (even if the new idea from the new applicant isn't all that creative)?

2. Do funders ask tougher, more detailed questions about an initiative that is more familiar to them, versus an initiative or field that is less familiar or less “close to home”?

3. The research highlighted here demonstrates that a more “abstract mindset” (versus a detail-oriented mindset) allows people to perceive ideas as more creative. As grant writers, how do we provide the high level of programmatic detail that funders want in grant proposals while still enabling the abstract mindset that allows potential funders to view the idea as creative or innovative?

And, finally – what is the difference between “creative” and “innovative”?

You can hear the NPR story HERE. What are your thoughts?