Donor Power Blog

Fundraising and the Essence of TIME

 

Technology … what in the world would we do without it? As fundraisers, it’s supposed to make our jobs easier. It gives us more options for communicating with our constituents and for storing more “pertinent” information on their behaviors and motivations.  

 

The truth, however, is that technology has made our jobs much more difficult, and quite frankly, I’m not so sure it’s made our industry better. As marketers and fundraisers, we now spend more time analyzing data and trying to predict consumer behavior than we do raising money.   

 

If you think that’s bad, just look at what technology has done to consumers. It’s allowed us to inundate them with information – information they haven’t asked for, but which we want them to have. The average consumer today receives an estimated 3,000 marketing messages in a 24-hour period, as compared 650 about 24 years ago.   

 

The problem is that the one thing technology hasn’t been able to change is time.  Time is constant … only 24 hours in a day. Available shopping time has also remained constant. Yet, everything else around the consumer has changed.   

 

Consider that donors today are exactly like their grandparents. The amount of time they have to make a donation is constant. What’s different, however, are the options available to them and the amount of time they have to react. In 1985, a person had 2.12 minutes to consider each marketing message the received, whereas today they have only 30 seconds to decide.

 

Just think of how many hours we spend planning the next fundraising campaign … the countless hours spent analyzing the data, segmenting the universe, developing the offer, debating whether to write a 2- or 4-page letter, reviewing motifs for yet more name and address labels, designing and redesigning creative and producing the package. And yet, it could all be over in 30 seconds.

 

Successful fundraising today requires that we master the one thing technology hasn’t been able to do … slow down time. And, how do you that? … By capturing your donor’s imagination immediately and by becoming more relevant with your donors.  

 

For more information on this topic, you should read Stopwatch Marketing by John Rosen and AnnaMaria Turano.

 

-Greg Fox

 

Fewer Gifts Expected This Holiday Season

Some of the largest U.S. charities are bracing themselves for a disappointing Christmas this year, according to a new Harris Interactive survey being released today.

 

The study, which was commissioned by World Vision, found that less than 40% of Americans expect to give a charitable donation as a holiday gift this year, compared with nearly 50% last year.

 

While this is concerning news to all charities, it’s particularly worrisome to those that rely heavily on holiday and year-end gift giving. With only seven weeks left in 2009, there is little time to react or respond to this information.

But you still have time to reach out to your most valuable donors with an incremental request for a holiday or year-end contribution this year.  Target the top 10-20% of your active donor file and utilize e-mails, telemarketing and high-impact, highly personalized 1^st class communications to quickly reach your high-value donors.   

 

Chances are your most loyal donors will give an extra gift to make up for those people who aren’t giving, but you’ve got to be willing to be upfront and honest with them.   The key is to make this additional contact very relevant to the donor. 

 

Don’t be afraid to tell your most loyal donors that you are concerned about year-end giving, specifically that you could receive nearly 25% fewer gifts this holiday season than last, and how devastating that would be to your charity’s mission.  

 

-Greg Fox

A Name to Remember

Do you know SOFII like I know SOFII? If not, you might want to check her out. 

 

I was first introduced to SOFII by Tony Elischer, managing director of a UK fundraising agency called Think Consulting Services.  For me, it was love at first sight.   

 

SOFII is a “Museum of Fundraising”— a smorgasbord of fundraising innovation, creativity and excellence.  You’ll find more than 200 of the world’s most successful fundraising case studies in SOFII, as well as countless tips that you can use each and every day.  She’ll show you new tricks and tell you different ways to improve your performance.  You’ll master the art of storytelling and learn how to use power words to stimulate interest, create desire and to trigger a response.   

 

SOFII was originally designed as a place where people can share and gather great concepts that are indeed “worth copying.”  She’s free.  She’s unlimited and she’s ever-changing. On a scale of 1 to 10, SOFII is a 10! 

 

Why not check her out yourself. But be careful, you too may fall in love with SOFII.  Her address is http://www.sofii.org/.

 

 

-Greg Fox

LAPSED IN TRANSLATION

Two things irritate me more than anything as a donor. First, fail to thank me promptly. Second, imply, even in gentle terms, that my continued support is overdue or inactive when in my mind it is not.

 

As a fundraising professional, like most, I am diligent about ensuring the former. There is no excuse, ever, for a donor not to be thanked promptly and sincerely.

But I am struck how quickly the fundraising industry as a whole is guilty of the latter.

Perhaps this is because it is common, within the discipline of list segmentation, to label donors who have not given in a prescribed period as “lapsed”. For some non-profits, that may be as little as 13 months.

 

And that’s OK as a segmentation descriptor, as long as you don’t start speaking to the donors in that segment as if you consider them such.

 

The fact is, many donors think in terms of annual giving. They budget yearly gifts to select charities. And that means calendar years, not clusters of 12 consecutive months. Furthermore, they are not likely tied to a pre-determined time of the year to give, especially in a turbulent financial environment.

 

So, if Aunt Ramona gave in January 2006, March 2007, and June 2008, and not yet in 2009 (although she will as soon as she gets her tax refund), in her mind she is still giving annually. Once a year, for the last 4 years. Her charity, on the other hand, might very well describe her as lapsed in January 2007, again in March 2008 and again in June 2009.

 

It’s certainly one thing to point out to a donor that ”we haven’t heard from you” and “we want you back” if it has been several years since the last gift. But use that language on donors (like me and Aunt Ramona) who think they are regular annual givers, and you risk weakening rather than cultivating donor relationships.

 

-John Thompson

The Myth of Mad Men, Part 2

Unlike the days of Mad Men, today’s Great DM Agencies employ direct marketing professionals who happen to have an area of expertise. The expertise is a focus, but the larger understanding makes the focus relevant and successful.

 

Creative solutions begin with knowledge – perhaps it is historical performance data, perhaps research—and seek to implement larger strategies, which have been designed to achieve still larger objectives.

 

The creative director who doesn’t understand the objective, and hasn’t collaborated on strategy, cannot effectively lead a creative solution that will leverage the success drivers (described in the last post) to greatest effect. Neither can the art director, the graphic designer, nor the copywriter create the messages and images that resonate if they do not understand who they are speaking to, and how that segment of audience has reacted to similar messaging in the past or is likely to react to the offer in the future.

 

Direct Marketers with a Specialty

 

Great DM Agencies employ creative experts that can absorb the lessons that data has to teach. They can collaborate on and implement the strategies that analysts and strategists formulate, with tactics that support them. And they are engaged in, and reactive to, the subsequent performance of their campaigns.

 

And why not? Because the converse of those industry studies mentioned earlier is also true: solutions driven by analytic strategy are twice as likely to succeed as “blue-sky” solutions. And what creative professional wouldn’t want to tip the odds in their favor?

 

The days of Mad Men are long gone. We cannot view the profession through the lens of our individual disciplines. The stakes are too high. Cost increases are stunning. Client “loyalty” is an endangered species. Chasms separate the behaviors and attitudes of the generations of audience.

We must all be direct marketing fundraisers with specialties, but direct marketers first.

 

Fundraising creatives take heed: our words must sing, our images must inspire, the delivery of the offer must be compelling. But ignore the numbers and spreadsheets that our strategy partners wave at us, and we reduce our chances of success.

 

So you see, Don Draper, actually it is a science, of sorts.

 

-John Thompson

The Myth of Mad Men, Part 1

In one first season episode of Mad Men, the delicious AMC series about the early 1960s Madison Avenue ad men at the mythical agency Sterling Cooper, creative director Don Draper pitches a lipstick company executive with a compelling concept for a print advertising series. After the skeptical client is finally persuaded on the merits of the concept, he begrudgingly acknowledges that Draper “may be right about this thing.”

 

To which Draper responds with a smug chuckle: “Well, we’ll never know, will we? It’s not a science.”

 

Wow. Those must have been the days. Imagine creative with a capital C, a shining lightbulb idea that did little to put light where it was needed most, but instead shone down from its clear blue sky, indiscriminately illuminating everything.

 

Imagine a culture that held creative vision sacrosanct, with no one to counter a creative director’s proposed solution, other than a client’s gut feelings. Imagine no strategic analysis, no segmentation tactics, no performance metrics.

 

In short, no accountability.

 

As a creative director I admit to being, well, if not jealous perhaps a touch wistful. Still, multiple industry studies repeatedly confirm a simple fact:

 

“Blue-sky” marketing solutions, those untested or unsupported by analytically driven strategy, are more than twice as likely to fail as those solutions underpinned with fact and data based planning.

 

This is not to say that inspiration is dead – far from it. Originality and innovation abound, in ever more powerful media. But there’s no denying the value of strategically driven creative, by which I mean the strategic analysis of data that informs, in a highly collaborative way, the tactical creative implementation of a campaign.

 

Sibling Rivalries

 

The marketing profession bears a certain notoriety for competition among its family members. Each focus area protects its silo with a territorial imperative. Copywriters hunker down against art directors, strategists rail against creatives, account managers swear that shared services “Just Don’t Get It”, and of course everyone believes the client will put the kibosh on the proposed campaign that would otherwise surely win next year’s Echo Award.

 

However, the truth is that this type of reputation, while it may make for entertaining TV and movies (and YouTube clips), is not the rule at the great direct marketing agencies. Great DM Agencies understand the drivers of campaign success:

 

The right offer to the right audience, at the right time, delivered over the channel most comfortable and actionable for the customer (or donor), wrapped in a message and package that makes the offer meaningful for them.

 

It’s an integrated, interdependent chain, and a failure of one link undermines the others, no matter how well-crafted they are. Furthermore, the analytic, strategic, creative, production and account management professionals at the Great DM Agencies live and breathe the chain – these success drivers – on a daily basis.

 

The creative team at Sterling Cooper, pecking away at their Selectric I’s and pasting up on their drawing boards, couldn’t cut it today. Not because of their tools, necessarily, but because of their insular, “us vs. them” mentality, and the conviction that today’s blue sky inspiration will single-handedly solve tomorrow’s consumer behavior puzzle.

 

-John Thompson

 

(John Thompson is a Creative Director at Merkle, Inc., and a 30-year veteran of the direct marketing industry. He spends most of his day trying to figure out how that number got to be so large, so fast.)

 

Video: non-profits turning to social media during recession

Over the weekend, we came upon this segment from Current TV, discussing how non-profits are using social media in innovative ways to battle the economic downturn. Particularly interesting information on "aggregators." Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

“DONOR” A Title Earned … Not Given

I’m on a crusade to change the way the fundraising industry “labels” people who give to charity – primarily money, but also old cars, used clothing, outdated furniture, canned food, etc.  Regardless of intent or motivation, we call them our “donors.”

 

We also call people who give blood, tissue, organs or reproductive material donors.  In fact, there is a National Donor Memorial located in Richmond, Virginia that honors people who have donated an organ and/or tissue.   

 

Think about that … a person who is willing to donate blood, a kidney or bone marrow to literally save someone’s life is given the same title as the person who randomly gives $10 or $15 in response to charitable solicitations, often times because they included items such as name labels, cards and calendars. 

 

Don’t get me wrong.  My intent is not to belittle those who donate money to charity or de-value their contribution to society.  In fact, our world would be a better place if more people did so.  I’m just not sure this act of giving warrants the title “donor,” at least not yet. 

 

Becoming a “donor” should be a prestigious title (an honor) and should be reserved for only those who demonstrate through an extended period of time that they are “fully committed” to the organization, regardless of the size of the gift.    People who give contributions are not donors, but donors give contributions.  There is a huge difference between the two.

 

So how does someone earn the title “donor”?  There’s no rule, of course, but perhaps it’s those who:

 

• Are among the 15% who give 85% of the revenue
• Contribute 10% or more of their annual household income to only a few select charities
• Demonstrated a sustained pattern of giving over three or more consecutive years
• Give and who also advocate for your organization, or
• Have a personal relationship to the charity

 

 “Who is a donor?” – someone you can least afford lose.  Someone you’d go to great lengths and expense to retain.    Lots of people give to charity, but a precious few earn the right to become a “donor.”  

 

Join my crusade.  People don’t have to give an arm and a leg to earn the right to be called a donor, but they do have to jump in with both feet!

 

-Greg Fox

 

Plugged In, Recharged and Ready to Go!

After a short hiatus, the DonorPower Blog is back with some important news!   But before we get into that, let’s quickly get caught up on intriguing and somewhat relevant news from around the world …

 

Let’s see ….

 

Donating to charity is considered a “suspicious terrorist activity,” according to a video produced by The Center for Empowered Living and Learning and supported by the Department of Homeland Security.  It ranks right up there with buying gold, owning guns and using binoculars.  People are urged to report such behavior to the FBI.   Opens door for the next big premium idea – “Get out of Jail Free” cards. 

 

Please tell me billionaire investor Carl Icahn’s prognosis of “double dip” recession is actually a new Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavor and not another dark economic forecast.   

 

The drought continues in Somalia – even camels are now dying.  And, speaking of dying, the nation of Jordon is trying to revive the shrinking Dead Sea by refilling it with salt water.

 

You’re at a fabulous new restaurant, trendy bar or unique gallery and only want to let a few good friends in on the secret. Don’t use Twitter or Facebook; use foursquare – the fastest growing social networking service in America.  

 

Ring one up for Microsoft’s “Bing.”  It is the first search engine to offer search results from Facebook and Twitter as they’re posted, although Google is not far behind.

 

Now for some important news …we are sad to announce that after many years of sharing, listening and caring, Jeff Brooks has posted his last entry to the DonorPower Blog.   We at Merkle want to thank him for his commitment and passion over the years and will continue to socialize the conversation of how to acquire, retain and cultivate happy donors.   

 

Check back tomorrow and regularly thereafter as the DonorPower Blog continues providing unique thoughts, ideas and opinions that we hope will inspire and invigorate the future of direct fundraising.    

 

-Greg Fox

 

How to know if you're wrong about fundraising

Here's the easy test that could save you a kajillion dollars (that's a one followed by a bazillion zeroes). I'm willing to share it with you because I like you.

If your belief, or theory, or intuition about fundraising is based on your own personal experience, you are wrong.

That's right: Your own experience, preference, and wishes always lead you astray. Same with your boss, your consultant, your spouse, and pretty much everyone else who has an opinion about how fundraising ought to be.

That's because your conscious opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with the way real people interact with your message. Add to that the fact that you are not your donor (you're probably very, very different from her) -- and you have a situation where not only are your guesses wrong, they're very often diametrically opposed to what happens in the real world.

Get used to it. Form your beliefs from testing and learning, not personal experience.

Technorati Tags: direct response, marketing

The power of nice

Good post at Conversation Agent: Being Helpful is the New Black.

Seriously, being helpful always works. Never hurts. Be nice. Nicer than you have to be.

Is direct mail dying, or should we just kill it?

You hear it all the time: Direct mail fundraising is dying: HOORAY!

Read a recent example at the Sea Change Strategies blog: Direct Mail Isn't Dying -- But Sometimes I Wish It Would.

Starting with the belief that direct mail is "inauthentic," the post goes on to throw out some strong accusations about the way direct mail is, including:

• Direct mail fundraisers spend much more time thinking about the color or size of the envelope than they do the content.
• A huge proportion of direct mail includes mailing labels or other crap to make you feel guilty.
• It's a little bit cheesy and dishonest.
• The patois of direct mail is loaded with hyperbole and stilted language.

Every one of these is true. Sometimes.

Not always.

There's amazing, empowering, authentic stuff happening in snail-mail every day. Millions of pieces of it. And it's working. It's working a lot better than the crappy stuff.

It's a near-fatal error in your thinking when your starting point is direct mail is crappy and I wish it would go away. Think that way, and you'll make dumb decisions right and left.

If you want to make smart decisions, you must be medium-agnostic and look at facts, not your opinions, about the media. Like these ...

Facts:

• Direct mail response rates have been slowly and steadily dropping for several years now. Until last year, a general increase in average gift more than made up for the lower volume, leading to net growth every year. In 2008, many mailers got hit be dropping response and average gift.
• Email fundraising has been growing by double digits every year for several years.
• Still, direct-mail revenue dwarfs online revenue, and it will for years to come.

NON-facts:

• Direct mail by nature is cheesy.
• Online marketing by nature is noble.

For sure, the facts tell us things are changing. And we'd better get on board with that change.

There are no facts telling us that any medium should be rejected or embraced because of its moral standards or its style.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, nptech