Is Tele-Fundraising Dead?
Thanks to Don't Tell the Donor, we saw a news report recently that the Republican National Committee had fired all 65 of its in-house telemarketers. Figures given by one solicitor indicated that 2007 phone contributions might be down nearly 40% from 2006.
We wondered, “Is this just the result of a lousy political climate for Republicans, or is it really a sign of the fading effectiveness of tele-fundraising?”
After all, isn't all the buzz these days about online fundraising?
So we interviewed Ken Whitaker, President of Public Interest Communications (PIC), a nearly 30 year institution in the tele-fundraising biz, to get an update on the channel everyone (especially board members) loves to hate.
PIC's clients include a wide swath of the best-known brands in the cause and charity worlds — ACLU, Metropolitan Opera, DNC, WWF and Audubon, and public broadcasters like WETA and WNET, and many others. So it appears that tele-fundraising is alive and well … perhaps in more selective circumstances.
Among Ken's observations:
- Telemarketing is an effective way to convert online leads;
- Applications like recruiting for monthly giving and surfacing prospects for planned giving work well;
- Typical contact rates top out these days at about 60% of those with available phone numbers (and for an active house file, phone numbers might be available for 65% of names);
- The economics no longer permit cost-effective calling to folks giving at the $20 or less level.
For more, you can get Ken's interview here, or simply download from our Agitator home page in the White Papers section.
We'd be happy to publish some telemarketing success stories if you'd care to share them with us.
Roger & Tom
Disclaimer: Roger Craver founded PIC, but no longer has a financial interest in the company.
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