With another batch of primary elections behind us and more still ahead…with the future of Roe v. Wade and reproductive rights hanging in the balance…with heartbreaking scourge of mass shootings at schools and shopping centers…there’s barely time to ponder the ultimate fate of life as we know it either by pandemic, famine, flood, locusts, or nuclear war.

However, of one reaction I’m certain. As we head into the Memorial Day weekend here in the U.S. there will be a fusillade of unsolicited email appeals blasted to our email boxes  in hopes of triggering a donation quicker that I can say, “Give by midnight to get a 10X match or we will lose our democracy (the climate), (our rights), (the panda), (our forests), forever.

Of course, in an equal and opposite reaction, there will be the rising revulsion and consequent attrition among an already-declining number of  donors who suffer under this bombardment.

A good portion of this unwelcome deluge is due to promiscuity, questionable ethics, scum-bag techniques, greed, good fortune, brilliant insight – you choose the descriptor – behind the creation of co-op email data bases.

 Digital Spawn 

Like their ancestor –the direct mail co-op acquisition data base—these digital spawn aim at making it easier, cheaper and faster to acquire names from whom a donation can be shaken loose.

Sadly, most cooperative databases –postal mail or email – have one trait in common: they thrive in an industry that routinely rents and exchanges its donors’ names and addresses to other nonprofits with little or no notice or permission whatsoever in order to create what many donors consider a nuisance.

At the unethical end of the digital acquisition spectrum are shadowy consulting firms and  brokers who, for example, buy the donor or volunteer email lists of political campaigns that have ended.  Or acquire lists in even a far less transparent way.  These are the firms that advise the buyer to ‘sprinkle’ these new names among the organization’s names that have already opted in.  This minimizes the chances that the organization’s delivery rate or reputation will be compromised.

At the opposite and positive end of the  spectrum are those firms that help organizations build lists and acquire donors and have clear privacy and opt-in polices.  Policies and practices that let recipients who sign petitions know their names are being acquired for additional use.  These firms – like Care2, Civic Shout,  Daily Kos, The Juggernaut Project –provide options for opting-out and/or an opt-in option.

Somewhere in the middle are efforts like the newly launched digital co-op data base created by the recently merged  MissionWired (formerly Anne Lewis Strategies) and Chapman Cubine Allen + Hussey. In their announcement of the new co-op (called ‘AdvantageAI’) they proclaim:

“When our partners needed another acquisition source, we developed it: looking at the direct mail co-op model and seeing ways it could be reimagined for email growth, an effort that resulted in the first-ever digital list growth co-op – and the best-performing acquisition source on the market.” [Emphasis added]

As best I can tell the “direct mail co-op model” they partly copied is the catalog hotline model developed years ago by mail order merchandisers who quickly and productively exchanged names of recent buyers with each other. Buy a Williams-Sonoma product today, get a Bed, Bath and Beyond catalog next week.    The new AdvantageAI plays heavily on that old hotline feature by serving up names that have shown some online engagement in the past 30 days.

It looks to me as though this latest entry suffers from the same curse that infected and still infects most direct mail co-ops – lack of notice or permission from the buyers or donors for the unrestrained use of their names. The operators of AdvantageAI are apparently aware of this privacy minefield because buried in their FAQ is this advice:

“Is my organization allowed to share our data with the AdvantageAI co-op?

If your privacy policy allows it, you should be able to share your data with no problems. But you may need to update your privacy policy to make sure you can use and share data you collect with AAI. For example, if your privacy policy contains language such as “We will not share your email address with any other organization or business” or “We will not sell, rent or trade your email address to a third party,” it will need to be updated.

https://advantage-ai.com/faq/

If You Can’t Resist Temptation At Least Be Alert and Aware

If you can’t resist the temptation of dipping your acquisition beak into a digital acquisition co-op here are a few guidelines:

• Campaigns and organizations should insist on only acquiring contact information from people who intentionally and explicitly provide that information.
• Ask the question: Are the new contacts explicitly opting-in to receive your emails? If not, this is both an invasion of people’s privacy and a major risk. Emailing people who didn’t sign up to receive your emails is considered spam, which is frowned upon by email service providers like Gmail.

(Note:  It’s also  explicitly prohibited by some technology providers like NGP, EveryAction and Action Network. If someone pitches you on joining a co-op like AdvantageAI  mentioned above,  or on acquiring supporter contacts through another mechanism with no end user opt-in – ask if it is allowed under the terms of the software you use to send emails to your donors or members. Odds are, if you’re using reputable software, it isn’t.

• Providing your donors’ or members’ contact information to other campaigns and organizations – either directly or through a co-op– is a blatant violation of your donors and members trust and right to privacy. That’s why I noted above that co-ops like AdvantageAI explicitly recommends  you “update your privacy policy to make sure you can use and share data you collect with AAI.”

Most likely they make this recommendation because they know most campaigns and organizations have a policy of not sharing supporter contact information. While changing your privacy policy may make sharing member contact information legally viable, it doesn’t change the fact that it is unethical and an awful way to treat your supporters.

Clearly, here at The Agitator  we’re no fans of co-op databases that are built by blindly ignoring the privacy and preference interests of the donors by failing to give them the chance to opt-in or opt-out. Beyond the question of ethics why would an organization genuinely concerned with building a relationship with a new donor toss that newly acquired name into an open prospecting pit only to have the new donor be tempted or snapped up by another cause.

Why would any thinking advocacy or political fundraiser want to torture their own donors with exposure to as many as 348 times?  That’s the average number of times political organizations and campaigns made their email lists available during the 2020 election cycle according to The Princeton Corpus of Political Emails

For those of us who care as much about retaining donors as acquiring them this message from Barry Cox, one of my favorite copywriters, put the issue of too much email from too many sources perfectly:

“I conducted a small-sample survey of email appeals being received by my wife. She’s a civilian, so not seeing quite as many “match” “last minute” “countdown clock” messages as I do. But  nevertheless a shit ton.
“Here’s the alarming part: Couple hours later, formal survey concluded and me supposedly out of earshot I hear her punch <Nonprofit Name Witheld>’s DONATE button with “Here! I give up. Stop already!”

“This doesn’t seem like the basis of an enduring relationship. “

Amen.

Roger