Are You Embarrassed?
A particular reference in comments to our recent posts got me thinking.
One post referred to regaining lapsed donors. The other talked about walkathon and similar event -based fundraising.
Paul de Gregorio, writing from the UK, notes that he finds it effective to cultivate event participants via the telephone … and indeed convert them to monthly donors. He says:
“You need to know as much about the event experience as possible (location, number of participants, date, money raised by the event and individual etc etc). Scripting needs to take the participant back to how they felt on the day of the event and then explain how they can extend their support by giving in a different way.”
Kristen Smith from the US talks about successfully using the telephone to reinstate lapsed donors (and she means really lapsed):
“We also do both reinstatement (2-5 years) and deep lapsed (6-10 years) telemarketing campaigns; the names we bring back on via these campaigns also have much higher value than other names acquired via telemarketing.”
The telephone. Telemarketing.
Wow … there’s a concept! A global success story.
Hence the question in my headline … addressed to two audiences.
To nonprofit organizations … are you using telemarketing? If not, why not? Too squeamish to raise money?
To telemarketing vendors … Hellooo! Why are you not all over the pages of The Agitator boasting about the applications in which your channel makes a killing?! Consultants and agencies write The Agitator all the time talking about stuff they’ve found really effective. I don’t think we’ve heard from a telemarketer in years. Are you embarrassed by what you do?
Tom
P.S. Almost a year ago, The Agitator asked if anybody still telemarketed. Here’s what we heard. And check out the detailed views of Ken Whitaker and Matthew Guerin. They both thought telemarketing rocks … but that was way back in ancient history … July 2007.
10 responses to “Are You Embarrassed?”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the orgâs brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
Iâm not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, hereâs a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology â creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Hereâs another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
Thereâs just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they âseeâ and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
Iâm not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019âs charitable giving. The researchers didnât find a reduction. Actually, they observed an âincrease in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Hi Tom. Well as you know, since I responded to this topic last year, I’m certainly not embarrassed to be using telephone fundraising. After all, how much more direct response can you get? It’s happening live and you can tweak your approach as your campaign goes on, and you can hear what both the responders and non-responders have to say. You can’t do that with any other medium to such an extent.
I think the problem some fundraisers may have with it is that you have to be prepared to relinquish control to a certain extent, and really trust your callers/ the agency callers working on your behalf. You also have to go the extra mile to inspire and motivate your fundraising callers so that their commitment and enthusiasm for your cause will shine through over the telephone. They are you.
Also, still too few organisations realise the main power of the phone, which is in promoting long-term regular giving. Far too often financial success metrics for the phone are set over too short a time period, and so the necessary investment in good-quality, decent length fundraising calls isn’t made (i.e. paying your agency a decent amount per call, that will encourage them not to cut each call short in order to get enough volume to make it pay for them).
And of course you can’t package your calls up neatly and win nice shiny awards for them as easily as you can for direct mail or email đ
I was delighted to see an article touching on the importance of using outbound telemarketing as a reactivation and re-engagement channel. Like you mentioned, I searched high and far for some sort of “best practices” or “case studies” on this topic with only coming up empty. However I am in both agreement and disagreement with some of the points mentioned in the original article…”Fire Up the Lapsed-Donor Reactivation Machine!”.
We’ve been using outbound telemarketing since 2007, however not until 2010 was someone solely responsible for this channel to give the time and energy to enhance it. So 2010 was a VERY successful year for us with reactivating over 25,000 lapsed donors and generated well over $1M in net revenue.
We conducted various testing series to find what works best in terms of segmentation, schedule of calling, scripting format, and what messages resonate with our donors (as this may be different for every organization). In the original article which sparked this conversation, it stated to include language in the scripting to recognize the donor as being lapsed. I would have to strongly disagree with this since from the donor’s perspective, how do they know their lapsed? They don’t know what WE consider to be lapsed…they just may have forgotten or fell on hard times financially. Imagine receiving a call saying, “Hi. We realize you haven’t given to us in a while…can you now?” With this type of language you have to be very careful as not to come across as a bill collector. Instead, utilizing language of “You’ve given in the past, we still need your help.” sets a tone that the donor is in charge and we are counting on them to help support our organizations efforts and in turn makes them feel like they are part of our work (they very much are).
In terms of the segmentation…we are currently going back to 108 months (9 years!) and still breaking even. A lot of analsis went into determining the “best” segments to reach. We looked at how our donors are currently being communicated with by segment…so whether a donor was still receiving direct mail appeals, etc. This combined with actual measures of when our donors are dropping off the file was found to very beneficial when conducting the test series.
Outbound telemarketing can also be used in so many other ways than simply donor reactivation…we are currently testing a pledge renewal program to go back to donors who’s pledge has recently ended and asking them to re-up. It’s working wonderfully with a 40% RR.
Adrian (commenter) was right! The phone is THE most personal way to communicate with a donor – it’s not polite to hang up on someone but it’s not rude to delete an email or throw away trash. If your organization operates with a celebrity endorser or is branded by your org’s president, you’ll find optimal results in your telemarketing program by using their voice as a taped message to your donors during the call. Imagine getting a phone call from Alicia Keys or Bono to support their AIDS missions…chances are you won’t be able to say no to either.
To end – find the write mix for your organization – Frequency, Recency, Monetary, find what messages work best for your donors, analyze how you are currently communicating through other channels, and lastly have fun testing!
Allegiant Direct is not embarassed about Advance Voice Messaging and its impact on renewing lapsed donors. It’s much more economical than live telemarketing operators and delivers a lift in response ranging from 25%-400%! AVM is a 30-40 second pre-recorded message that is placed within 3-4 days of our mail appeal landing in homes.
I’m work for a telephone fundraising agency – I’m not embarrassed but fiercely proud! But I completely agree that we’re pretty rubbish at championing our channel. This post got me thinking and prompted a blog post of my own. Where ARE all the telephone fundraisers?!
No, we are not embarrassed (to be working the phones) about telemarketing or tele-fundraising because it works! TM helps our clients raise more money, renew/reinstate more donors, increase retention/enhance stewardship, engage donors in advocacy and the list goes on.
In our hyper-busy, information-overloaded era of texting, emailing and skim-reading, the âold fashionedâ phone call connects directly with donors â driving higher response rates than other media. (In this day of not talking and skimming text what better way to connect to a donor or member but by phone.)
Most organizations spend dearly to acquire new donors only to lose 40-60% of them after 12 months. Itâs been proven time and again that direct mail-acquired donors whoâve been contacted by phone have higher life-time values than donors with no phone contact.
Why donât organizations spend more on TM? Smart organizations (we wonât mention names) are âinvestingâ $3-$10 to reinstate donors they spent $20 or more to acquire three to five years ago. We see organizations spend big bucks to acquire donors, just to lose them and throw them back in the pond ( the mail pond that is) because TM is too expensive. But we challenge that assumption â isnât it better to have a reinstated donor or member at break even or maybe even for a few $s? (and some with the help of good data analytics make $)
Hereâs an integrated phone acquisition strategy SHARE launched a couple of years ago with a large national group: online activists were solicited by email a few times and then put into a TM program with a âmonthly sustainerâ ask. The program is still going strong with an ROI of 6-8 months.
For Lapsed donors â last year SHARE reinstated over 5,000 lapsed donors for a national museum. The icing on the cake — the museum generated net revenue of $3.61 per contact, approximately $18,000 from donors who hadnât made a gift in 2+ years! Howâs that for a telemarketing headline! (for more than one program while another client regained 2,800 members netting $9,600.)
Yes, some board members donât like the phones (so donât call them!) but they should like basic math.
I appreciate these comments tremendously. I have been in telephone fundraising for 13 years and every day our calls are having a positive impact on the organizations we serve. I want to reiterate how personal a phone call can be. For most donors on your file, this may be the only one on one communication they have with your organization. The relationship building opportunities during a call are incredible.
Just think of the donor who is ill and has no one to ask for prayer. The caller representing your organization can capture that request and share it with your prayer team. Perhaps that donor canât give during the call, but when they feel the power of your prayers they may be led to give in the future or perhaps even arrange to give from their estate when the time comes. There is something about having a person on the other end of the line hearing what the donor is saying and responding in a caring way. It can have so much bigger of an impact than other means of direct marketing.
Another benefit to using the phones is reaction time. In most cases, an experienced telephone fundraiser can be on the phones within days (or even hours) when an urgent appeal arises. Your organization needs to be the very first to reach your donors when a crisis hits. A mailer could take weeks. And speaking of mailers, once the mail is dropped, you have to wait and wait and wait to see how the piece performs and you canât change your messaging if itâs not working the way youâd like. The telephone allows you to react to what donors are saying and you can tweak a few words here and there, try a new ask approach, or change the appeal entirely. On the phones, changes can be made real-time so there is the opportunity to shape your messaging all throughout a campaign to ensure you have the very best message reaching your supporters. The flexibility of telephone fundraising is unlike any other development tool out there.
I also want to applaud Margaux PagĂĄn for her comments on how to approach lapsed donors, you are RIGHT ON! Why would you ever want to remind a donor they stopped giving to you? Remind them they are your supporter and sincerely thank them for that. Then, you can share why you need their help once again.
Finally, for anyone out there looking to start using telephone fundraising or those looking for a new vendor, I recommend you really interview the folks you hire. Meet their callers and listen to their calls. You want to make sure the communicators you hire can adequately and sincerely speak on your behalf. Ask organizations with a similar mission to yours and see who they trust to call their donors. Good chance their vendor will be a good match for you as well.
It’s great to see something about telemarketing fundraising in a marketing blog! I’ve been raising money by phone since working at NARAL in 1986 and I’ve been a client, represented a vendor and acted as a consultant.
Outside of major donor personal solicitation, telemarketing is the only true one-to-one conversation tool in our fundraising arsenal. You know immediately, up-close-and-personal, if your message is working and if your organization is well-regarded by your members and supporters.
But, stopping at using the phones to reinstate lapsed donors or recruit monthly givers is just leaving money on the table.
Integrated mail-phone or email-phone campaigns make an appeals program even stronger and more productive.
And, don’t stop there: I suggest calling $100-999.99 donors to upgrade to the $1,000 club level — whether by single gift, quarterly installments or even a recurring $83.33 gift each month by credit card.
When I was the Development Director at EMILY’s List, we regularly called our major donors to renew, contribute an additional gift or upgrade to the next highest level in the giving circle.
At the other end of the spectrum, using the telephone for donor prospecting, with the right lists (no money direct mail petition signers, online activists, less than $15 direct mail donors/tippers) can significantly increase the number of telemarketing-responsive donors and income for an organization.
Not all telemarketing firms can make all programs work — and having a dedicated staff person and/or experienced consultant developing and managing the campaigns will definitely make the difference between failing or succeeding.
As for comparing how much is raised online versus by phone — I’m guessing that most organization still fail to raise more than 10% of their total revenue online — and seriously underestimate their costs and ROI to do so.
As always, thanks for the thought-provoking entry, Tom. It’s the exact kick-in-the-pants we telefundraising service providers need! What’s particularly exciting about the phones is their ability to integrate with other channels that reach donors – active and lapsed and prospects. It’s a classic case of 1 + 1 = 3. The phones see a lift due to the mail and mail sees a lift due to the phones.
Can I share a case study on this topic?
Thanks!
As a tele-fundraising provider, I cannot tell you how many times I have approached or been speaking with a potential client only to have them tell me that they WOULD NEVER call their donors to ask for donations. They feel it’s rude, it does not work and in fact, many feel it will push donors away only to have them never make a gift again. Time and time again, I try to be persistent and explain the benefits of using the phone as a part of an annual campaign, as well as, show some case studies. From time-to-time one of these potential clients decided to give it a try. To this date I have never had a client cancel a campaign because of “negative feedback” from supporters. If you execute a tele-fundraising campaign properly that does not happen!
There is no shame in calling supporters to ask for donations. As so many responders to this recent post have mentioned, it’s a great one-2-one touch point. In addition, unlike the mail it allows a supporter to give their feedback and input……..and if done properly can raise lots of money! In fact using the phone can also boost you direct mail response rates.
No one should be embarrassed about tele-fundraising if they go about it the wright way! Much of the negative perception I have found towards this channel is due largely to this fundraising method being misunderstood or stems from a previous and negative experience (perhaps from a service provider who misunderstood this channel).
To help combat these perceptions I started a 6 part series on how to maximize a tele-fundraising program and how this channel can be used effectively. In todayâs increasingly competitive fundraising marketplace, the phone is a powerful (and almost necessary) fundraising tool. The key to success is to ensure you have the right approach and the right audience. To read our tele-fundraising newsletters and to sign up on our mailing list for future issues feel free to visit:
http://www.hcbcanada.com/keys.html
I’m not embarrassed in the slightest. In fact I’m immensely proud.
Telephone fundraising sharpens the skills required to be a great all round fundraiser. After all if we can’t directly ask someone to support or extend the support of our cause then we have a major problem.
I worked at Pell & Bales in the UK for close to 14 years and know that what I learnt there has set me up with solid foundations for the rest of my career.
I blogged about it here http://bit.ly/mdqvId – the number of unbelievably talented fundraisers that have been introduced to the sector in the same way as I was, makes me proud to have started life on the telephones!