Is Your ‘Product’ Up To Snuff?
As we head into October, most fundraisers are probably focused on technique and implementation. After all, we’re entering the year-end feeding frenzy (i.e., peak donation period). This is the time to go with the tide — to rake it in, using proven tactics of the past, not navel-gaze over strategy or lifetime value or, god forbid, the ‘product’. Act, don’t think.
Indeed, do you as a fundraiser ever re-examine your ‘product’? I don’t mean your current website or prospecting package. I mean whatever it is you are marketing — your organization’s unique contribution to addressing whatever need it is that your organization exists to address … and in fact the need itself.
Dilbert puts the question in humorous perspective …
Granted, you need to be reasonably high on your organization’s totem pole to have the standing to raise questions about the vitality of your mission, your effectiveness at meeting that challenge, and your uniqueness in doing so. Unfortunately, too many fundraisers do not achieve that status in their organizations. They are consigned — or resigned — to selling whatever they are handed by the ‘program’ people.
But if you want to be a complete marketer, you need to feel and take responsibility for your product. At a minimum, watch your competitors and assess your organization against them … not simply in terms of how they market, but, more importantly, in terms of how well and how distinctively they achieve their mission. In those terms, how well does your product stack up against theirs?
Increasingly, donors are aware of options for achieving their giving goals. Fundraisers/marketers need to sense that, get a read on it, and process those insights back into the core strategies of their organizations. That’s part of what it means to be donor-centric.
So fine, take the next 90 days or so to execute your year-end fundraising template. But be mindful that the real constraint on your success won’t be your tactics, it will be your product.
Tom
3 responses to “Is Your ‘Product’ Up To Snuff?”
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
Ah the product. Back when I was a chief development officer, I raised the issue of the quality of our product to the senior staff. I had examined all our fundraising techniques/tactics. I had examined all that our donors were saying. Etc. etc. And my observations caused me to raise the issue of the quality of our product.
I was not quite ostracized. But I was told that my observations were not valid, that my expertise was not our mission, etc. etc. blah blah blah. About one year later, the same “thought” was in everyone’s mind.
It takes guts to raise issues. It takes a willingness to risk. Sometimes people don’t have the courage. And sometimes, some people cannot risk the risk.
Here, here, Simone!
I think we development officers are too often consigned to the Cassandra role as Simone points out. We HAVE to look at our organizations from the outside in. We have to report to funders on what really happens, what our actual success or failure has been. We see how the leadership and the board work. We live in that intersection between inside and outside. So we see the weaknesses. We often find it hard to just accept the inside view of what our organization is. I’ve heard well-meaning people tell stories that are at least 10 years old, not realizing that those stories aren’t really true anymore. But they’re happy with the illusion.
It’s a really good, healthy thing for everyone on the organization to take a hard look at the product. That builds a much better product as well as a stronger fundraising program.
Well put, Tom. Good programs need good fundraising, and good fundraising needs good programs. When I teach, I have the students present a short “elevator speech” about their nonprofit; it is amazing how many sound just alike and lack the “uniqueness” you mention. For more experienced fundraisers, I suspect the vagueness has to do with a poorly defined product or just a poor mission – being too specific “could be detrimental to your health,” to plagiarize the Surgeon General.