8 responses to “I’m Perplexed And Confused”

1. Richard Radcliffe says:

   May 22, 2013 at 4:01 am

   Could we not talk about selling at all. Cross selling sounds like angry donors which is apt. Up selling is just awful, conversion is better it has a Damascus feel to it. Perhaps we can talk about improving opportunities which is what donors want. If converting from an occasional donor to a legacy giver some would call this bottom up selling which sounds disgusting and is! Richard

2. Mary Beth McIntyre says:

   May 22, 2013 at 8:58 am

   I’m glad you brought it up Tom. I too was perplexed. For me this appears to be an exercise in semantics. I did wrestle with it for a moment last Thursday (since our industry has often spent months discussing the renaming of activities and still implementing the same actions) and then I moved on. Hope that we can all spend more time focused on the desired outcomes for our organizations and clients… enhanced/recognized donor relationships, more active donors, more advocates, more dollars to mission… however we decide to name the strategies of getting there 🙂 Thanks for having the courage (and platform) to put issues on the table, even if its in the family. MB

3. Charlie Hulme says:

   May 22, 2013 at 10:26 am

   Hi Tom,

   Here’s a rough checklist:

   a) First what do we know about the person who took the action?
   b) If the answer is nothing how do we find out?
   c) How about instead of making our next contact with them an attempt to ‘Up’ or ‘Cross’ (or whatever you want to call it) sell them, try thanking them and make an effort to get to know them? Why did they do what they did? What was it about what they saw that moved them to action? How does it resonate with their own life? Why that action and not another?
   d) Let’s make our thanks specific/quantifiable; demonstrate outcomes in a way that motivate/inspire BUT at the same time signpost the wider need
   e) For future contact try matching what we know about their motivation and lifestyle with ways they can help solve the ongoing need in ways that we know work for them.

   The current ‘model’ is based on what works best for us. Which is counterintuitive; how can it work for us if it doesn’t work for them?

4. Claire Axelrad says:

   May 22, 2013 at 11:08 am

   This article had me rolling in the aisles. Sheesh!
   Didn’t we learn from Shakespeare that ‘a rose by any other name would smell as sweet?’ Who cares what we call it? Of course we should try to persuade (really, we’re all in sales — read Daniel Pink) folks who’ve demonstrated an interest and affinity to become even more interested and affiliated. That’s our job if we want to further our missions. Of course, if you’re content with one-time transactions then… say no more.

5. Janet Schutt says:

   May 22, 2013 at 11:12 am

   I agree that the up-selling / cross-selling jargon was confusing. However, I did take away a different way of looking at our constituents, especially those that attend events. We do try to “convert” these donor to mission (Annual Fund) donors with limited success – usually around 2% a year. We analyzed the results of our asks from 2012 at the beginning of this year and have already decided to cut back from 3 asks to 2 for this group – based on cost and rate of return. However, I had not considered the possibility of increasing the number of events that we invite this group to. We do 3 major fundraising events each year – 2 are targeted to benefit specific programs (a botanical garden and a CSA we run) and the 3rd is a general organization event. Many of the attendees at these events don’t overlap – mainly because we haven’t invited them to all 3. That will change this year. We’ll see if it has any effect.

6. Kim Silva says:

   May 22, 2013 at 11:15 am

   Obscurantism – I like that! And, I agree with Charlie.

   I think Kevin was trying to point out, in a provocative way, that we have to know our donors and their intentions. We don’t want to spin our wheels trying to force event donors into regular philanthropic donors, if they don’t wish to be such. That doesn’t mean we don’t try, but we don’t want to put all of our limited resources there. If someone only wishes to give via an event, just keep inviting them to an event (if you can bear to stand having events). Bottom line, we need to know our donors and how they wish to give, then provide them that opportunity. Yes?

7. Larry May says:

   May 22, 2013 at 1:34 pm

   In my experience, it’s a matter of degree. I’ve seen organizations use one approach for acquisition, such as premiums, then try to force all the donors acquired into a non-premium program, with disasterous results. This type of “conversion” might be reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. A percentage of donors and members in every category will “convert” to other types of giving, and generally their LTV will go up when they do. The optimum approach is to make a balanced effort toward conversion while also finding the most effective way to nurture donors in the tracks that attracted them in the first place. Access to low-cost, high quality transactional data can help target those most likely to convert from one track to another. In some ways, it’s getting easier.

8. Tom Belford says:

   May 22, 2013 at 5:09 pm

   In other (and far fewer) words, as noted by the comments so far, let common sense prevail!