Marketing scholars had the chance to work with a local chapter of a national health charity.  This is their story.

The local chapter in Texas had limited funds and internal capacity and despite this, or perhaps because of it, the academics were able to experiment.

The academic’s situation analysis revealed the following challenges,

• An uninformed public that recognized the charity brand at a high rate (over 80%) but with only a third knowing (with the help of aided awareness) what the organization did.
• Declining returns from each of the previous 12 campaigns
• Lack of primary market research on donors
• Evidence the campaign materials produced by National didn’t fit the local situation.

In general, the National organization’s fundraising strategy was to view the potential market as basically undifferentiated.

(Sounding at all familiar?)

The academics dug in and…

• Analyzed historical direct mail campaign returns and found that five of the 24 census tracts (containing 20%) of the population had made 41% of the donations.
• They also conducted market research and found Parents were in fact the best audience for the charity and that roughly 45% of the market fell into this category.

Marketing 101 includes market and consumer level segmentation.  Check.

Marketing 102 requires a differentiated appeal or proposition.  Again, the academics returned to the audience that matters – parents – and did another round of research testing themes.  They used a semi-sophisticated tri-variant analysis looking at existing and past themes along with new ideas.

None of the existing or past themes won out.  These had all been internally conceived versus the new ideas that were based on the primary research.

Ok, how did the campaign do after this market analysis, SWOT analysis, segmentation, primary research and academic brainpower?

A 33% increase in gross revenue from the year prior, recognizing the trendline had been 12 years of year over year decline.  The costs did go up (research, segmented approach) but not nearly as much as revenue leaving a 15% improvement in the net.

Here’s a few of the summary comments from the academics:

• The National campaign pieces did not take advantage of what marketers know about market segments.
• As many as half of the census tracts could have been eliminated without substantially reducing net.
• The charity market has become increasingly competitive
• The National brand likely fits in the late stages of charity life cycle, characterized by declining growth and campaign receipts.
• The question is how long can National view basic market research as unnecessary and unwanted expense?
• Research should be used to go from ‘mass’ techniques to selective promotion.
• The need to apply other marketing management concepts is equally obvious, including redefining the “product” in a meaningful way.

Their big, final conclusion was this:

Marketing is really about sensitively serving and satisfying human needs.  Such a definition of marketing challenges organizations which specialize in the marketing of causes and ideas to ask themselves if they are truly consumer-centered and not simply self-serving. 

The big reveal in all this and teased with the post title?  This case study, reporting and observations about the sector is 50 year old.  1970.

The big national brand still exists today (but we’re not naming it to protect the innocent or is it, the guilty…).

The more things change…the more they remain the same.  Plus ca change…

Kevin and Roger