In praise of junk mail

It's not my practice to argue with my fellow nonprofit bloggers. But I'm going to argue today, with Hildy Gottlieb of Creating the Future for her recent post, Direct Mail Fundraising is Junk Mail.

Hildy's post is an extended rant about "charity junk mail." The reason I take issue is that she expresses a common view in the nonprofit sector: That there's something deeply wrong with direct-mail fundraising. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But the widespread anti-fundraising belief is self-destructive; it is a millstone around the necks of many nonprofits, and it undermines fundraising effectiveness more than anything but raw incompetence.

To summarize Hildy's argument (forgive me if I've mischaracterized):

• I hate direct mail.
  
• Direct mail fundraising is no different than ValPak (i.e., it's all about money)
  
• It's not working.
  
• If it were working, we wouldn't have to worry so much about the tactics of fundraising.
  

First, I beg to differ with the assertion that direct-mail fundraising "doesn't work." It's raising billions of dollars every year for the world's good causes. It is the engine that drives the explosive growth of nonprofits in the US and beyond.

True, it doesn't work as well as it could or maybe should. And it's fair to say that many -- most, really -- fundraisers are practicing a low-relevance model that really does make a lot of their mail pretty junky.

But let's get real: That low-involvement $25 check may be the best some donors can do. Many of our donors have fixed incomes, health issues, and big hearts. Responding to junk mail with smallish checks may be their main connection to the transformative power of charitable giving. And in many cases, their involvement doesn't stop with the check, even though it's the only action visible to us: They may tell others about the charities they support. They may say a prayer along with their gift.

In my book, that's pretty darn cool for direct mail that costs a few cents a piece. It borders on miraculous.

Painting all direct-mail fundraising as a big failure means you aren't paying attention to what's going on out there.

And when it comes to "techniques," think of it this way: I hope the hydrologist at work in the middle of Africa digging wells to help transform communities is well-versed in the tactics and techniques of well-digging. Just as important, I hope the fundraiser who makes the hydrologist's work possible is equally adept. More knowledge and competence in both of them will mean more changed lives.

There's nothing shameful about mastering the techniques of your profession. And it's no different when your profession is Good Deeds.

Finally, building your opinion about direct mail on how you feel about direct mail is a dangerously flawed way to arrive at a judgment. Your own emotions are almost never a good indicator of how others feel. (For more on this, see The pathetic fallacy in fundraising.)

All that to say: If you don't like fundraising, you probably don't belong in the nonprofit world. If you don't like fundraising the way it's done, put your energy into wisely changing it.

But please, please, please don't be part of the negative chorus that says Fundraising Sucks, Direct Mail is Harmful, Response Techniques are Dishonorable.

That harms everyone: The causes we work to support, the world we're trying to change, and the donors who make it all possible.

Thanks to The Extreme Fundraising Blog for the tip.

Technorati Tag: direct mail

Comments

[Marc A. Pitman]

Great response, Jeff.

And you're welcome for the tip. Thanks for the shout out!

[Michael Hoffman]

I don't hate direct mail either. If it works, you have to do it. And for many people, especially older people without a lot of discretionary dollars, small direct mail donations is how they give.

But... Direct mail prospecting is losing its impact. Organizations that have been totally reliant on new donors coming from direct mail are going to have to start trying new things. We also know -- a fact, not a feeling -- that online donors are better. They give more and more often.

So, the question we are grappling with here at See3 is, what are the most efficient ways of online prospecting. How can we find new online donors to cultivate over time, even if they come in at relatively low amounts.

This is partly the promise of social networks, but it remains to be seen how successful they will be. We are also working on video-centered microsites and landing pages, focused on a specific issue, topic or campaign.

[Cara]

Thanks, Jeff, for an excellent post. I completely agree that many non-profits don't make the most of their DM efforts. It always surprises me how few organizations seem to take the simple step of integrating the content in their direct mail with their Web sites.

This is real loss because most donors are very Web savvy these days. And one of the easiest ways to engage them further (and perhaps move those who are able beyond the $25 gift) is to connect the specific stories and themes in your DM to related and more in-depth stories on a Web site.

There are so many ways to incorporate mixed media (more photographs, podcasts, online slide shows, short videos)and really get to the heart of your accomplishments and your needs.

[Bob]

I don't hate direct marketing (except the junk that ends up in my mailbox). I don't begrudge charities that don't have a communication plan or an issue that will reach donors who " may tell others about the charities they support or may say a prayer along with their gift." I still disregard and recycle their envelopes unopened but I don't hate them or it.

The problem I see is that direct marketing actually distances donors from issues. It legitimizes the " I did my part with a $25 cheque and I don't need to think about this again" mentality. It doesn't connect with the supporters values because it is an artificial bridge to the cause or impacted populations.

I don't know if the public finds this charity mugging offensive but I sure know that our donors would send back a SASE filled with junk if I tried to approach them with a wide brush generic ask.

We are fortunate that we have hundreds of dedicated and engaged supporters that provide us with more than enough revenue to continue feeding children. We cultivate them specifically and respond to their inquiries and they do tell their friends (who ask questions) and pray for the day that we work ourselves out of a job.