Consent Dies in Your Inbox. But There’s Hope.
Let me guess. This month, your inbox looks more or less like mine below.
Your turn to guess.
How many of these did I give my consent to? How many did I read or even open?
My work relates closely to GDPR. Yet I didn’t bother with any of these.
As a sector we’ve been consumed by GDPR for the last couple of years. But not all supporters are aware of this change or what it means. And even if they were, how can we possibly expect anyone to pay attention to and read all these emails, policy updates, and consent requests.
It’s a sad irony that our sector’s reaction to a law designed to reduce the amount of spam has been to radically increase the spamming.
In our panic we’ve forgotten one of the fundamental truths of being human:
Attention is a scarce resource – a person has only so much of it.
Or maybe we haven’t forgotten. It could be that we’re optimistic about our email. After all, we spent money with an agency on designing ‘donor-centric’ copy and subject line, so ours will stand out, right? Wrong. Subject lines from organisations, for-profit and non-for-profit, were more alike than different (“your tick…” sound familiar?)
What’s worse? The email copy doesn’t vary greatly, and it’s completely uninspiring. Say someone decides to open one of these emails… most likely, she will be faced with something like this:
Yes, I realize you would love to continue to keep in touch with me but…why should I care?
The most basic premise of sales is lost: create a need, then satisfy it.
All these emails do is express the charity’s need. They’ve missed the opportunity to present this as something the supporter would want, which after all is true.
And perhaps this is the saddest thing of all; GDPR exposed how few charities have any idea why people support them. Sure, there’s plenty of well-intentioned rhetoric on ‘engagement’, ‘relationship’ etc. But it’s entirely based on guesswork, presumption or shockingly flawed methodology.
The worst example landed in my inbox this morning. It came from a well-known London tourist attraction and registered charity. I paid a visit on April 7th and had a great day out. Today’s email was the 14th I’ve received from them (yes, 14!) since then.
Not a single email attempted to discover why I paid the visit (was I on a date, was I taking my nieces and nephews, do I have a special interest in the work they do etc.?) so they could later reflect it back and show that they know me. Nor did they ever ask how my visit went; if I’d want to even go back, much less become a supporter.
Instead they’ve told me I’ll miss the chance to see exhibits I didn’t have any interest in visiting when I was there, and special offers that don’t match my reason for visiting.
Today’s last desperate attempt ended with “If we don’t get your okay today, this is the last email you’ll receive from us.” No more spam? That’s the most appealing offer they’ve made so far!
To be fair, there are some exceptions – mostly in the commercial but also in the non-profit world. Here’s one.
This communication starts by reminding me the difference I can make. Then, it emphasizes that this is something I love and that I might miss out on it if I don’t act. Not to mention the informal, easy to read language.
Isn’t this a bit more likely to get a yes response? Well, it got mine.
So, what now?
I understand that all the above isn’t very helpful. After all, the copy has been dragged through committee, tortured by brand, comms and legal and the send button’s been hit. But it’s not all bleak.
Here are 3 reasons to hope:
- Supporter Identities: Your email might not stand out but some supporters might actively look for it. Why? Because being your supporter is part of who they are; you help them express their identity and beliefs. Even if they miss the email, they might seek you out again independently. If they do, your job is to make sure they’re no longer invisible on your CRM; find out why they support you and show them you know them. This way, you won’t lose them ever again.
- Mail is still alive: Hopefully, you only asked for opt-in consent where it was necessary e.g. email while you kept an opt-out approach in direct mail. In which case, you can still contact your supporters via post and you also have another chance to capture email consent.
Of course, unambiguous consent means you can no longer bury the opt-out in the small print. From now on it needs to be prominent. In other words, you have to show them there’s a door. Success depends on how you frame this. You need to know (not assume) why they’d stay on your side and use it. You also need to be aware of the numerous biases that could nudge people to stick around.
- It’s not over: Maybe your consent communications worked out fine and the majority of your base is unscathed. But if you lost a substantial chunk of it, you still have an opportunity. Just because the existing supporters left, this doesn’t mean you can’t improve consent rates for whoever walks in the door after the 25th. If the current consent ask wasn’t effective, you can still adapt and improve it. The bonus: there are no more looming deadlines. You can test, refine and retest your consent ask until you get the one which will most effectively build your database again.
There is a science on delivering these, a science I studied for years and applied specifically in our sector for years more. If you’d like to improve your future consent rates with the help of behavioural science feel free to get in touch any time kkoutmeridou@thedonorvoice.com
Kiki
6 responses to “Consent Dies in Your Inbox. But There’s Hope.”
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
The spamming GDPR has caused is literally beyond comprehension! Ironically, U.S. charities with only a few dozen EU names in databases of of 20 or 30,000 are having to send the emails like the 14 you received from the London charity.
Do you think the EU governments are ready to jump in when numerous EU nonprofits cease to exist or need to cut back drastically due to fundraising shortfalls in the future?
Doubt GDPR will have such a disastrous effect. First, some channels can keep an opt-out status e.g. post. Second, highly committed supporters with a connection to the cause will actively keep in touch. Third, most charities disproportionately focus on acquisition than retention. Hence, losing existing supporters while acquiring new is something they’re familiar with. Finally, there are ways to build the database again. Charities just need to keep improving the consent ask so new supporters agree to stay in touch.
Of course that’s my take on this – or maybe hope.
Kiki, good stuff.
The problem with the London-based email campaign is that it’s bulk. You can’t possibly expect them to customize each message and then segment the responses – then repeat? They’re already probably putting your name in there (hopefully) – what more do you want? 🙂
From an organization’s point of view – do you have some real data? Do you know of a tourist attraction that has used the process you describe? What was the actual process? What were the results? How long did it take? What did it cost? Being more transparent and less anecdotal is the only way we can move this sector forward.
As far as GDPR goes, more than half the people outside the US don’t understand why they are getting these messages, and of those that do, about 80% of them think it’s just for email (re)opt-in. My question to organizations are:
– If you don’t already have a process in place to opt-in users/constituents then what exactly have you been doing?
– Do you not link website visitors to accounts that way you can prompt them for consent across all channels at once (separately of course)? Do you not have that information as part of your consent policy anyway?
– If all you have is email address + name and no idea of knowing where the person resides (yes, GDPR only applies those individuals who are EU residents), then shame on you. What relevant communication could you possibly be having with them? …other than knowing by last name that they are clearly Greek!
Ah Tim, I’m a dreamer. I want a lot more from them than just knowing my name and guessing my nationality – spot on btw :). I want them to show me they know me.
Of course I don’t expect customisation of each response but there are substantial segments that share the same motivation or reason for support. An easy and obvious example: health charities. Some support because they have the disease – or a loved one does; others have no idea what having the disease is like. Instead of one generic, bulk email, a health charity could send out 2 bulk emails to these two segments reflecting back their connection to the cause and hence making staying in touch a non-brainer. Is that too much to ask?
About the process of finding out supporters’ identities and hard data, we have done a lot of work ourselves. One example is when we tested this during a TM campaign. We included a question right in the beginning of the call which revealed the person’s motivation to give. Then we adapted the rest of the script and the membership ask to reflect that motivation. The result? The call was shorter, conversion to membership increased by 15% and average value by £10.
There’s a number of posts on Agitator around identity with more evidence. Here’s one: http://www.theagitator.net/uncategorized/channel-versus-identity-two-go-in-one-comes-out/
As per the rest of your comments, I couldn’t agree more!
TWO. 2.
That’s the total number of nonprofit organization I received GDPR notices from — One national, one world-wide.
Why do non-profits think this somehow does NOT apply to them!?
There was a great article in Forbes today about this particular subject. (Hope the link works) https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/05/25/what-does-gdpr-mean-for-u-s-based-nonprofits/#22c70a1120f3
Nice blog by colleague Kiki.
The irony of all this recent spamming in the name of GDPR, however is that GDPR does not require such a thing. It is some of the biggest myths circulating. In some cases even those opt-in requesting are illegal under GDPR.
What happened the last months were irrationally panicking marketers and fundraisers blindly copying senseless actions by other irrationally panicking marketers and fundraisers. Sadly the number of fundraisers who actually read original GDPR legislation of WP29 documentation are a minority.
Why are so many fundraisers and marketing people so afraid? There is no reason at all. GDPR just is good (not great) human rights legislation protecting our donors and customers. The only thing GDPR really requires from us is doing some serious thinking on the why and the what of how we do fundraising and being transparent about that towards our donors. Ethical and donor centred fundraisers have nothing to fear about GDPR – on the contrary.
While everybody gets crazy about consent, rarely people look at the real important issues in data protection. Look at that scandal The Agitator disclosed: donor data held hostage by software vendors. How many have a decent controller-processor agreement in place? This GDPR-obligation is not yet another piece of red tape, it is about protecting your donors privacy and your charities financial interest.