Chuck Pruitt Is Mad!
Chuck Pruitt of A.B Data thinks the dire predictions of the death of direct mail are groundless. And he’s angry they seem to get such credence (though certainly that’s not the case in the annals of The Agitator … just Search our site using "direct mail’!).
Chuck’s been around awhile, and his firm directed the Obama campaign’s direct mail fundraising efforts. Many of us probably have the impression, from the breathless reporting at the time, that all of Obama’s money was raised online … but A.B Data raised $108 million for Obama throught the mail. I don’t know about you, but that number makes me pay attention!
Chuck argues that direct mail isn’t dead … or even dying. The evidence he presents in his paper here is compelling. In fact, I’d say it’s "must read." But here’s just the intro to give you a taste of Chuck’s take on the matter …
"For as long as I have been involved in the direct response fundraising world – now over two decades – the prediction of the impending demise of direct mail has been a recurring theme. With the advent of the Internet, this has taken on a new dimension. For now, according to the “direct mail is dying” chorus, online fundraising will step in and provide the mechanism to raise all the dollars direct mail used to produce and capture a growing share of a younger demographic waiting to give.
What has always mystified me about some (but far from all) of the online marketing community is their insistence that for online fundraising to rise, direct mail fundraising must fall. And what angers me about “studies” such as those offered by Borrell Associates and given legitimacy by blogs like Frogloop is they camouflage their underlying biases. Borrell Associates is, according to their website “a media research, consulting and project firm specializing in Internet advertising.” It should come as no surprise that such a firm would be predicting that the demise of direct mail is occurring while, according to Borrell, “email advertising continues to surge and is now the number one online ad category.” Quite frankly, the Borrell study has about as much credibility to me as the tobacco industry’s studies on the health effects of smoking in the 1960’s and 70’s.
This gets me to my second point. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a client of our firm for many years) was fond of saying, “You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your facts.” So let’s try to elevate the “direct mail is dying and will be replaced by email marketing” debate by looking at a few salient facts.
Fact: The direct mail donor universe is alive and well and actually shows little signs of rapidly diminishing – at least in the next decade.
Fact: The growth of online fundraising is happening but it is happening much more slowly than many predicted.
Fact: There are enormous multi-channel marketing opportunities out there for smart people with open minds."
Chuck offers ample evidence for each of these fact statements in his paper.
Well argued, Chuck … we’ll give you a raise!
Tom
8 responses to “Chuck Pruitt Is Mad!”
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
First off, thank you for this discourse on research and especially on predictions. Anyone who takes a critical approach to research should be given a medal, since too many people just accept statistics.
But let me also point out that we what we predict has always come true, though we often get the year wrong. That is, when we predicted the demise of newspaper classifieds back in 2001, our percentage estimates were almost exactly correct, but hit that mark in 2007, not 2005 as we had predicted.
And finally, regarding biases, I must point out to Chuck that a boatload of our clients back in 2001 were newspapers who reacted much the same way you did about our Direct Mail numbers. And in 2008 we had a lot of Yellow Pages clients who read our report entitled, “Say Goodbye to Yellow Pages.” How stupid for a research firm to slap around its client base! Today, we continue to have those customers.
I suggest that Chuck brush up on history. When a new medium comes along, other traditional media decline. Newspapers started their decline in the 1920s when radio came along. Radio saw a huge decline when TV came along 30 years later. And everything is in a bit of a decline in part due to the economy, but also due to the glimmer of the Internet as an efficient advertising medium. In the history of electronic media, which by the way is more than 100 years old, no medium (save the telegraph, which took 100 years to go away) has ever disappeared. But you WILL see a very significant decline in Direct Mail.
Chuck should stop being mad. It will increase his blood pressure and stress levels and cause his hair to fall out and veins to form on his nose. He should realize that projections are not facts, but merely opinions based on facts. Our opinions at Borrell Associates are based on an intricate series of facts and scenarios and proven mathematical models, and I welcome the opportunity to debate those facts at any time.
I couldn’t agree more … and I’ve got even more results to prove it.
I just mailed millions of pieces of direct mail in 2009—yes, direct mail—to acquire new members for our zoo clients across America.
Who was our target audience? It’s “young” women with children under six years old! And while I may be showing my age, I think that women under 40 constitute this younger demographic that we keep hearing are non-direct mail responsive.
The result?
On average, response rates to these direct mail acquisition campaigns are up 20%. Most zoos are netting money. In fact, two zoos are in positions to net over $500,000 from their spring direct mail membership campaigns this year.
Of course, where possible, we couple direct mail packages with email blasts. We also worked with our zoo clients to launch aggressive social networking campaigns, encouraging them to blog, post and tweet the offers to their own pages.
In fact, the offer went viral on a few local mommy blogs this spring. And we helped them spread the word by providing our clients with an email that had a special “Friends & Family” offer.
Our campaigns are also driving people to join online (and well over 35% are doing just that!).
Honestly, we don’t consider our acquisition campaigns to be mail-only. They are clearly multi-channel campaigns designed to get the message out in different mediums and allow for fulfillment in a number of ways. However, they are built on a strategic direct mail campaign platform.
Every year we test whether or not we can eliminate the mail component of these acquisition campaigns. It’s pretty clear; we can’t.
Our 25-40 year-old moms still respond, in big numbers, to direct mail packages. (As a matter of fact, we tested mailing postcards instead of full mail packages, but the traditional DM campaigns are achieving response rates two times those of the postcards.)
Now, I’m not suggesting that a zoo membership offer is the same as a pure philanthropic donation. There is real and perceived family value with a zoo membership.
What I do know, however, is that younger audiences read and, through one channel or another, respond to a great offer received in the mail.
Great point, it occurred to me that before their report on direct mail, I had never heard of Borrell Associates… It’s pretty clear their coffers are lined with interests that slant to “internet advertising” money.
We’ll be linking to you from thedirectmarketingvoice.com
thank you! thank you! Online fundraising is very exciting and needs to be put into context. Lets not overlook the fact that a majority of solicited nonprofit revenue still comes from mail.
We want to thank Chuck Pruitt for his excellent response to the tolling of the “direct mail is dead” bell – an old, old story indeed.
We too see that while direct mail continues to be the primary giving vehicle for most current donors, there is huge value in multi-channel givers, and that the rise in online giving, although it may not be as much as some people expected, is nonetheless exhilarating.
As we all know, recent studies show that if you have an email address on file for an offline donor it makes a positive difference in their giving. Reinforcing the need to synchronize channels, coordinate consistent messaging, and tailor content to each appropriate medium. Online fundraising doesn’t replace direct mail but reinforces the repetition of the message.
Our concerns about direct mail fundraising are less about any immediate generational behavior change than about technical problems, such as the financial health of the postal service, increases in list and printing costs, and continued media attention on the rare fundraiser abuses rather than the truly amazing work that most nonprofits accomplish, even in the midst of recession.
Judy Maneval, Harry Lynch, Paul Habig
[…] want to thank Chuck Pruitt for his excellent response, “Chuck Pruitt Is Mad!” on The Agitator to the tolling of the “direct mail is dead” bell – an old, old […]
I hope Chuck will take up Gordon Borrell’s challenge to a debate. It should happen and it should be televised, blogged, and vlogged.
It’s a year later, and I’m still waiting for that televised debate. I keep Googling, “Chuck Pruitt’s blood pressure,” but don’t get any results….so I hope you’re OK and still able to debate. Meanwhile, I’m watching our numbers come true. Down, down, down. Just like we predicted for our newspaper clients in the early 2000s, and our yellow pages clients in 2008. They’re still with us, and appreciative of our guts in giving them a head’s up on the bad news. Perhaps the Direct Mail clients you deal with can’t bear bad news. If you’re still feeling a bit protective of your industry, you might want to read http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/news/companies/US_postal_service_earnings/index.htm.