In her recent article in Fundraising Success, Angie Moore updated us on the strategy embarked upon in 2013 by the American Cancer Society. That strategy involved:

1. Stop all direct mail acquisition to generate new direct mail donors for the organization.
2. Stop all direct mail conversion to offer non-direct mail Society donors (online donors, event-participants/donors, information seekers, etc.) an opportunity to give a direct mail gift.
3. Remove the American Cancer Society direct mail donors from all exchange universes.

After all the explanation from the ACS folks, graciously interpreted by Angie, my sense of the bottom line is that ACS learned it was unsustainable to forgo direct mail acquisition.

Wisely, ACS has embraced a more sophisticated and robust view of their donors and how they bring value to the organization. That’s highly commendable. I suspect that will pay off in terms of higher retention rates. And it sounds like ACS has gone far beyond the mere lip-synching most nonprofits give to multi-channel or ‘integrated’ marketing. That’s highly commendable as well.

The American Cancer Society deserves a great deal of credit for its commitment to innovate — all the more so because of its brand risk, its fishbowl pursuit of a new strategy, and the huge revenue stakes at play. As Roger said when ACS announced its plans:

“The reason I’m so impressed with this decision, beyond the fact that it wasn’t made by whining board members, is that it recognizes that unless there is true integration (not the consultant, Power Point Puffery of Integration) there are better ways to spend money.

Plus, the decision was made at the time when response rates, average gifts and retention were at an all-time high. Most organizations would have said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. And certainly don’t challenge it.

I really have to applaud the thoughtful, gutsy top managers at ACS who are making this high risk, exposed-to-the-public experiment.”

But it does seem, at the end of the day, direct mail remains a vital channel for the organization going forward.

In her well done review, Angie observes:

“This decision definitely affected direct mail revenue in 2013, and the new donors who were not brought into the organization last year through the mail channel will represent a multi-year, mail donor loss. But, the Society is committed to its new vision and associated strategies, and the goal is to offset that original mail loss through other channels and bring greater revenue to the organization.”

Should everyone try this? Angie concludes:

“The answer is, “It depends.” There are multiple levels to “integration,” and if direct mail is a significant portion of your revenue, you should not tolerate a high level of risk to make sweeping change. However, the movement away from what the American Cancer Society considers a “single-channel approach” is a very important discussion to start. As an industry, we must be where our donors are, and as the donor population ages and shifts, one thing is for sure — they are not ONLY reading your mail.”

Should you innovate? Absolutely. Bet the farm? Nope.

Tom