Atonement At The Agitator
We really didn’t plan it this way, but fate intervened wondrously to help reinforce our yesterday’s post on Donor Experience.
Our good friend and veteran UK fundraiser Giles Pegram properly and quite publicly noted that his customer experience with yesterday’s Agitator was “negative”.
He’s absolutely right. We let him down. We apologize.
FORTUNATELY, Giles’ comment provides a perfect illustration on ‘customer experience’. For the fact is, The Agitator recognizes and practices what many or most charities don’t. And that is, despite the best intentions to provide a good product, process and experience, occasionally you fall short.
Sometimes these ‘fall short’ moments are seemingly ‘trivial’ or seemingly ‘user-error’ or seemingly ‘just boring back-end systems and process stuff’.
What is so important — and the point of this post and the one yesterday — is that all those ‘fall short’ moments matter and they accrue negatively to The Agitator ‘s (or whatever organization’s) ‘balance sheet’.
And because you recognize the realities of providing good service to humans — not ‘users’ or ‘widgets’ — with idiosyncrasies and preferences and expectations, you have to build in ways for them to tell you when you fall short.
Here at The Agitator, the Comment section is one way. And that’s the path Giles took. Our request for feedback (‘Rate the Agitator’) at the top and bottom of each post is another, as is our ‘Rate The Agitator’ feedback button at the bottom of every morning’s post as it’s delivered via Feedblitz.
We do this not just because we’re nice (although we really are) or because it’s the right thing to do (which it is). We do it because it’s critical to retention of Agitator readers.
The same goes for any fundraiser, organizer, or publisher who cares about maintaining the loyalty and commitment of those we serve.
Thank you Giles.
Roger and Tom
P.S. We’ve fixed the illustration in yesterday’s post. But to be sure …
2 responses to “Atonement At The Agitator”
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 org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m 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, here’s 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 – 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. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s 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 “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
More than likely, Gertrude and Mabel did not give online but wrote a check according to Blackbaud info for 2014. However, I’ve learned to never judge a woman’s age based on looks or anything else! Based on our experiences, it’s not a “web friendly” site but terrible gift acknowledgement processes and the lack of donor-centered cultures of philanthropy that forces Mabel to give to another charity.
As a customer, your CAPTCHA codes are funky to read:)
Mike,
I’d suggest that, as a sector, we don’t know “why” Mabel does not give again.
Lots of conjecture though.
Mabel and Gertrude, while of course literally fictitious, exist in abundance on every one of your client’s files.
I have no idea what “lack of donor centered cultures of philanthropy” means but my intentionally provocative statement is this: if you aren’t measuring the donor experience (by asking them) after as many interactions as possible and acting on that, with 1 to 1 follow up, then the culture should not be labeled “donor-centered”.
This is quite simple stuff, function of mindset over resources. The Agitator was up and running in less than a week with additional ways to collect subscriber feedback. It is already bearing fruit from what I hear by giving another outlet for folks to share the experiences they are having – good, bad and in between.
Acting on that feedback is about raising money in the form of retaining existing subscribers and allowing relationships to form with prospects. It has a far better ROI than say renting a list and mailing it to acquire new subscribers.
Process and metrics