What the heck is a “donor experience” anyway?
Our friends at the Agitator picked up on a DonorVoice riff about donor experiences with a post making the point that the non-profit sector ignores the commercial sector obsession over customer experiences at their peril.
The lack of brick and mortar storefront is no reason to discount a focus on experiences being served up to donors. This range of experiences is far more diverse and frankly, similar to the commercial sector than might be obvious at first blush.
We’ll wrap up with a litany of experience examples but first it is probably worth a brief recap on why this latest buzzword has emerged.
There is data and plenty of it suggesting that service level experiences – versus “product” experiences – contribute as much as 50% of the decision to buy again or not. This means for a company selling tangible product – e.g. mobile phones, computers, cars – the actual thing being purchased is only driving half of the re-purchase decision. In this context, service level experiences include all manner of direct and indirect experiences with any and all customer facing staff, the in-store experience, the parking experience, the post purchase follow up (if any), the problem resolution experiences, the word of mouth about the product from friends, etc…
To translate this to non-profit requires only a slight shift re-orientation of terms. In our view, the product is the brand/organization. The brand is the mission (or should be) and all the “experiences” should either be serving up the brand/mission (e.g. the fundraising appeal) or supporting it (e.g. the call center).
In theory, the strategy/marketing/brand message delivered creatively can be as or more important than donor service level experiences that often occur in the call center, the merchandise fulfillment center, the walk/run event or the mail room.
However, there is data we’ve analyzed to suggest a complete lack of brand differentiation in many sectors. Having done work in the commercial world and in some very unsexy sectors like domain registrars, it is surprising to see even these commodity based sectors with more well defined brands among their customer set than what we’ve witnessed in many a non-profit sector.
This lack of brand differentiation is, we’d speculate, the result – at least in part – of a highly generic set of strategies/messages/brand/creative delivered to donors and potential donors. This is certainly not the only reason; many nonprofits are struggling with a clear articulation of mission and brand that is unique and different and therefore, burdening fundraising staff with an impossible task of creating a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
The larger point however is that if one accepts that brand and mission in the non-profit space are only partly responsible for the decision to stay or go then the other “stuff” has to be making up the difference (setting aside the rare, rare case of serious change in circumstance for the donor).
What is the other stuff you ask?
Here is just a sampling of the range of “boring” service areas that are ignored at your peril when it comes to donor retention and value.
- Donor Service centers (inbound calls and email response) – This is far more important than even Tom suggests. First off, most non-profits actually have a donor service/call center, either in-house or outsourced. Secondly, the volumes over time – especially when you add up phone PLUS email – are such that a sizeable minority actually experience this part of the organization (by the way, an important sub-point here, is donors don’t consider this a different, separate part of the organization.)
A small smattering of the service level experiences include first call/email resolution or failure, knowledge of agent, friendliness of agent, helpfulness…Again, the volumes in these inbound centers are such that many organizations wind up having large chunks of the donorbase exposed to great, good, or bad experiences.
- Events. Walks/runs/galas. The number of “service level” experiences here are almost too many to count – registration process, ease of donating process, event day parking, event day logistics, event day experiences, post event follow up. A veritable parade of potential opportunities – or disasters.
- Premiums. If a nonprofit gives away or ‘sells’ premiums for upgrade or incentive purposes it is in the merchandise business. This opens the nonprofit up to product quality experiences, selection or variety experiences, delivery experiences, order accuracy experiences, order resolution experiences…
- Advocacy events. See walk/run/gala opportunities and challenges above.
- In-person fundraising. It’s not all power lunches, breakfasts and tea and crumpets. Don’t forget the follow-up moves to chase down a pledge, the need for accurate gift processing and the acknowledgement/recognition experience to name but a few.
Listing all these out is a worthwhile exercise for any nonprofit. But don’t stop there. The other “non-service” level experiences like all the fundraising and stewardship “touches” should be included too.
The next task is to determine which of these matter ( (and trust us, they don’t all matter and those that do, don’t matter equally).
You’ll find for yourself that these boring service level dimensions contribute plenty to the donor’s decision to stay or go – as much and in most cases, more than your next appeal or newsletter.
Kevin,
You’re raising a really important point.
However, I don’t agree with your nomenclature and the differences aren’t just semantics.
First, I think the product, particularly in a fundraising environment, is not the organization but rather the experience of making a donation. I explain more in this blog post – http://marketingthatworksblog.blogspot.ca/2012/02/fundraising-and-4-ps-of-marketing.html
In addition, my standard definition of brand is Seth Godin’s – A brand is the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer
Chuck,
Thanks for the, as always, thoughtful comments. I agree with the gist of the Godin definition of brand and may have been sloppy in this most recent post in conveying that agreement. I do think we have a different take – neither necessarily right or wrong – on the 4P’s. In fact, I see 6P’s and laid those out awhile back in this post, http://www.thedonorvoice.com/?p=477. Regardless, glad to see others in agreement with the larger idea that non-profits can and should apply concepts and frameworks largely conceived of in the commercial sector (or more accurately, academia first but with an eye towards B2B or B2C) to really evolve as a marketing organization.