Fundraising That Makes A Dog Sick
I’m somewhat amused by the debate over volume. How many appeals make you ‘donor-centric’, how many not. My frequency schedule is better and bigger than your frequency schedule. Plus, I use more ‘you’ pronouns.
I think ‘you’ pronouns and all that ‘donor love’ stuff is great, but it’s beside the point. I do want to point out that of course ‘volume’ is a meaningless metric and shouldn’t have been married with donor centricity in the first place — other than when it’s meaningful in driving away donors.
The logic invoked in this whole debate is nuts: If 27 appeals work better than 14, then why not 60 or 150? The ‘therefore’ in this crazy syllogism is volume doesn’t matter. Send ’em as much as you want as long as you make a buck; forget about future damage. Of course it’s nonsense, but that apparently is the state at which our trade finds itself in. Emotional and financial justification rather than fact. Sad.
Let’s just take a video break and watch this great suggestion from Pam Grow. If colleges and universities can be accused of anything, it’s not asking their donors frequently enough. But just look at the reaction this meagre bit of (probably) poor contact has produced. Just imagine a video spawned by a national charity blasting their donors with 20, 50, 60 appeals a year.
My point is that which Grandma Craver made to me 65 years ago: “Roger, enough is enough. Too much will make a dog sick.”
‘Volume’ and ‘frequency’ are metrics of a failed and dying system. Let’s move on.
When’s the last time Amazon bombarded you with direct mail or email? Probably never. Yet you still buy from them. Right? And they have the best customer retention record in the business.
Are you making your donors sick and driving many away for sake of the last drop of net income with your latest appeal 25th or 67th appeal? Do you even know or care?
Roger
10 responses to “Fundraising That Makes A Dog Sick”
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
My Rogare blog this week is relevant here – I suggest that the challenge for our sector is less about getting volume right and more about stopping copying each other and instead producing communications that are genuinely differentiated, innovative, engaging and value generating:
http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/criticalfundraising/2016/05/25/opinion-share-and-share-alike-until-were-all-doing-exactly-the-same-thing/
Okay. Ummm. Wow…. That was pretty darn spooky.
Hey Joe, read your blog yesterday at Rogare and wanted to thank you for so eloquently broaching a tough topic which is bound to get you a bunch of pushback. As Pixar’s Ed Catmull said in his wonderful book Creativity, Inc., if you “merely cut up and reassemble what has come before…you doom your [work] to being derivative.” This isn’t to say that best practices aren’t worth adopting, or that successful ideas aren’t worth adapting, or that grand controls/banker’s packs aren’t worth studying, or that neuroscience discoveries aren’t worth incorporating, my God we’d be complete idiots not to. But we must use those things, and more, to avoid becoming cookie-cutter craftsmen (or craftspeople, craftswomen, whatever is politically correct). Otherwise we’ll all drown in a sea of sameness.
Thanks Lisa! And completely agree. I certainly don’t think we should all be making things up as we go along. But if we all just do what’s always been done, follow the same templates, replicate the same ideas in the same ways, then we’ll struggle to individually distinguish ourselves and continue to provide our supporters with one homogenous charity blob!
The video is scary, but maybe not scary enough to cause any change, thanks for sharing Roger!
Am I the only one Amazon emails CONSTANTLY? Not a day goes by without at least one, somewhat creepy, email from them.
But yes, I still buy on occasion.
In answer to one of the questions: yesterday. We went to look for a mattress on Amazon and, for the past week, we have been stalked across search, display, social, and email (got the fourth email in a week yesterday). My guess is that since mattresses are a big ticket item (at least for us).
But I would say this is the exception that proves your point. I’ve been an Amazon user for almost two decades and had almost unanimously positive experiences with them. So when something like this happens, I catch myself thinking “I hope Amazon’s OK — they don’t normally do this.” I’m worried about them — a major corporation that cares not for my worry.
On the flip side, I also dealt with a telecommunications company yesterday that for the sake of anonymity I’ll call BT&T. It took me four calls to get a human who could in theory help with my internet connection (at one point, I got the ability to request a Yellow Pages. I didn’t know one could request a Yellow Pages; I just thought they showed up, like zits.) The only thing that is keeping me “loyal” to BT&T is that 1) we have no alternative here and 2) there’s no better company that I know of.
I think we in nonprofits have been in BT&T’s place before and now there are alternatives. If you want to hope to someone in need, you don’t need to go to a charity — you can pick out your person and donate/loan directly.
The reason I’m not mad at Amazon is that there’s a wealth of good will and good experiences there. Their algorithms know what I want and when I want it.
So we first need to get through Donor 101, which seems to be:
1) correct cadence. This has to be done sensibly; to flip the argument – if 10 pieces work better than 17, then wouldn’t 3 pieces work better than 10? Then one better than three? Not really. There’s not a Platonic ideal number we should shoot for.
But the evidence suggests that many have been overmailing and that there are changes we can make with channel, frequency, and seasonality that make a ton of sense both for donors and bottom line.
2) you focus. You laugh, but I just read an e-newsletter that was all about an organization. I got to the end and wondered not only why I read it, but why they thought I should. I had answers to neither.
These are table stakes, but not enough of us are paying. Volume and frequency may be the metrics of a dying system, but it’s not dying quickly enough.
But beyond that lays the real goal — the experience. Like you say, it’s what the journey looks like; it’s thinking about the donor(s) and not the piece; it’s figuring out at a more fundamental level why people give to us and why they stop.
Because we’re going to make mistakes. I just had a DB error that thanked long-time members with a welcome series. When I called them to apologize, to a person, they understood that stuff happens sometimes.
When Amazon emails me too much, they get a pass because they usually get me. How do we get there?
Maybe I’m warped but I LOVE the video. Wonder what all the CASE people think about it!!
Makes a killer point tho. 🙂
Agree about amazon. I get emails every day – and am, coincidentally, an amazon Prime junkie. I don’t think frequency has nearly as much bearing as content – and conditioning. So agree with Joe on ‘producing communications that are genuinely differentiated, innovative, engaging and value generating.’ You’re going to have greater success with that when you go beyond our rather insular world and check out how a business like Zingerman’s, or an individual like Mike Dooley (notes from the Universe) maintain regular outreach in fun, engaging ways.
Thanks for this, Roger. The amount of email sent depends on the amount of quality, relevant content you have to share with your subscribers. This needs to go beyond appeals and focus on building genuine relationships with your community of support. Being donor-centric means making the efforts to give your donors what they are looking for, not just asking for money. The questions should not be how many emails should we send. The question should be how much quality, relevant content do we have to share. Then base frequency on your answer that that question.
The horror story of the recent grad disappears if instead she receives communications from her University about a favorite professor of hers, or a fellow alumni, or asks her to share her story with them. There is so much more that can and should be done with email than just appeals.