Mango Chutney With a Hint of Burnt Hair. C’mon, Try It!
This 30 second spot inspired today’s post.
It reminded me of a question an Agitator reader emailed me some years back asking: “Why do you think most fundraisers are so resistant to innovation and change?”
A good question. An important question.
I attempted to answer that question three years ago when I first received it. My first response was to bat out a kneejerk and facile response — ‘risk adverse’ … ‘insufficient resources’ … ’lack of imagination’, etc. etc. But I couldn’t hit the ‘Send’ button. Deep down I sensed there’s a far more basic reason.
After thinking about that question over the years since I first received itl I’ve come to a better more fundamental 2-part answer:
- We resist experimenting with innovative tools, processes or approaches because we insist that ‘It’ – the ‘It’ being a predictive model, a new online tool, a new multi-channel process, you name it — be 100% correct, 100% of the time. Otherwise, forget it, we’ll just stick with the same-old-same-old, thank you.
And/or…
- We’ve heard some “conventional wisdom” or via some tribal fundraising myth that the “It” just doesn’t work.
In the words of the raccoon commercial, “If you think something tastes bad you want someone else to taste it.”
Of course in the real world of fundraising we arrive at such a silly expectation without the foggiest idea of what the ‘failure rates’ are on the techniques and technologies we’ve been using — without question — for years.
We reject the use of predictive models because they only work 80% of the time, not realizing of course that our old RFM segmentation processes may work only 50% or 60% of the time — if we only knew.
We reject the use of telemarketing for securing monthly donors because ‘it costs more’ and ‘upsets donors at dinner time’, not realizing or bothering to calculate that our ‘failure rate’ for acquiring sustainers by mail is 5 times higher than over the phone. And on and on.
When it comes to the ‘new’ or ‘innovative’ our expectation is that it must work better than what we’re doing 100% of the time, or we simply can’t be bothered trying it.
One important activity that often falls into the “reject” or “avoid” category is that of donor surveys.
That’s a shame because there are many ways that a properly executed survey can not only boost financial results, but also help us improve donor experience and long-term value.
In the 10 years I’ve worked with Kevin Schulman at DonorVoice I’ve seen first-hand the benefit that surveys bring to organizations. So, I’ve asked him to do a three-part Agitator series on surveys. The series starts Monday and deals with the myths, mistakes, benefits and ‘how to’s” of survey research when it comes to donors.
Kevin’s insights and recommendations are informed both by decades of hands-on, practical research, and his academic background in Economics at the University of Virginia and the University of Michigan/University of Maryland’s Joint Program on Survey Methodology.
Unlike the menu of the racoons in that commercial, I think you’ll find Kevin’s offering both spicy and helpful.
Roger
10 responses to “Mango Chutney With a Hint of Burnt Hair. C’mon, Try It!”
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
Good morning, Roger. I have another question … the opposite: Why do fundraisers get so EXCITED about the shiny new object and ignore the fundamentals?
Internet!! Online!! Forget Si Seymour, George Smith, Ken Burnett, Kay Sprinkel Grace, and on and on and on.
Facebook. Twitter. Digital. Over and over and over and and and … Never printing another letter or making a telephone call or or or and and and…
STOP IT PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Simone. We’re both asking the same question. In fact, your version better hits the nail on the head. When I write about “innovation” I’m not thinking about shiny new stuff that glows in the dark.
Rather, I’m referencing ‘innovation’ or “changes in mindset” that enable organizations to at least try some ‘new’ (for them) things that build on fundamentals.
For example, we know that direct mail returns and efficiencies are improved with properly executed predictive scoring available at low cost to organizations of any size.
Yet, most direct mail-oriented organizations never ‘risk’ trying it.
And for sure, we know that an accurate postal address is essential for delivery of that carefully crafted, award-winning package. No delivery. No response.
The average nonprofit has undeliverable addresses on 10% of their files and despite inexpensive automated daily updating, only one CRM (Bloomerang) provide this daily service without charge to its clients. Fortunately, more and more CRMs are beginning to make automated updating available at a reasonable cost.
Yet, our sector continues to lose millions of dollars each week because most organizations won’t employ the ‘innovation’ of data hygiene.
Same for that wild, new thing called a NEWSLETTER. I sent Tom Ahern’s book to an organization I support suggesting they try a newsletter. Their consultant told them that “newsletters aren’t best industry practice.” The organization overruled the consultant and today that newsletter is producing six figure income with each mailing.
Yet, too many organizations that will spend thousands on shiny new digital things avoid ever trying the proven power of a properly executed donor newsletter.
I could go on and on but you get my drift. Our sector has been blessed by the wisdom of some great practitioners whom you mention. Fortunately, technology amplifies and makes the application of much their wisdom available to all.
So, Simone, you’re absolutely right. Forget the shiny new thing. Change and innovation should first occur around fundamental and necessary functions all fundraising.
Roger
More information is so needed for the nonprofit world. Case in point, I was speaking in a large American city late last year and I asked the 200+ professional fundraisers how many had received a short survey from a commercial business, whether it was a car or tire company, hotel, Amazon or whatever in the last three months. The show of hands revealed a 99% participation rate!
I next asked how many had surveyed their donors anytime in the last three years. The show of hands revealed a 10-15% participation rate!!
Why?
Perhaps Kevin can shed some light. It has to be more than just that most commercial databases do not make it easy to do and are without a survey module or function…
Jay,
I always appreciate your reports on show-of-hand answers to questions given to conference audiences. I’m passing your suggestion/comment on to Kevin and I’m sure he’ll want to share some reasons ‘why” so few organizations survey their donors.
Roger
I think there is another factor too. CEO’s and boards who won’t let go of strategies, ie golf outings when resources can be better used. The resistance for new is strong.
You’re absolutely right Lauren. In situations like this it’s up to the development folks to share data and experiences from other organizations, make an estimate of how a particular innovation/technique can improve results, and suggest their CEO/Board approve a pilot project that will either prove or disprove the idea.
Roger
I’m so psyched for this Survey series! Thank you Roger! And yes! Fundamentals are fundamental for a reason! They work!
What a can of worms. First of all, you can bet that as sure as the Patriots aren’t going to win the Superbowl this year that Kevin has something to say about surveying.
My thoughts on the following points:
– Trying something new: always be testing. Once you can prove ROI, it’s much easier to make it part of the organization’s processes. Ignoring the “new” entirely may fit for some organizations, but eventually someone is going to eat your lunch.
– Abandoning the tried and true: put it in a box and keep an eye on ROI. Most “legacy” processes are there because certain segments require them for retention. Every channel has a place in every organization if the goal is to be relevant to every donor.
I have to handle both the subject of surveys and comparisons with the commercial sector with kid gloves – although in this instance the crossover is somewhat incomparable for a couple of reasons:
1 – The commercial space uses surveying to drive research, product development, [and] measure customer satisfaction. Surveying in the non-profit space is often executed without direction, any idea of what to do with the results, or simply to prove someone’s point internally.
2 – The commercial space uses a significant number of incentives, perks, and promos which don’t have a great history in the non-profit space. The same could be said about NET promoter score (Kevin just threw up), online reviews, and other “gaming” and social metrics.
Tim was clearly trying to butter me up with some polite Patriots bashing. it worked… That said, I wholeheartedly agree with his pt 1 and pt 2 (though yes, Net Promoter as specific measure is stupid, but conceptually on target). And I’d have said that without the gratuitous Patriot bashing though it helped.
Jay, I think Tim’s pt. 1 is answering your question in the “how” the commercial sector uses research differently. And, to be fair, anecdotally at least, we see a real shift towards research used for strategy, product dev and away from crude, DIY, self-serving, tactical (at best) application.
When that happens however you invariably move from a conceptual gap on how it gets used to a technical gap on how it gets done. The latter runs the gamut from lots of descriptive analysis (versus statistical) to statistical that lacks any theoretical underpinnings – e.g. cluster analysis with a random smattering of basis variables; technically competent but utterly useless. That remains the next big domino in the progression – going from doing it for the right reason to doing it well
But, you raise the other notion of ‘survey’ that we would call Voice of the Customer. This is the request for feedback that we’ve all gotten at least once in the last 30 days asking about our specific experience, post interaction (e.g. fly on plane, stay in hotel, online purchase, buying breakfast at iHop, you name it…). This is business process, not cross sectional sampling and point in time survey work. This is about measuring and acting on the thing we purport to care about – experience.
Part of the barrier to this not being done is mindset. In a world where your economic engine is tied to volume and you’ve been bringing in donors and money (hell, maybe even growing) for decades without knowing anything about these folks (at individual level) and without measuring supporter experience and doing user interface testing and without getting into root cause analysis then it can be a big mental hurdle to get behind the shift in approach.
This ain’t about money though. No charity needs to spend what the commercial sector spends in absolute dollars – just proportionate.
There is also a not insignificant crowd of the ‘often wrong, never in doubt’ variety that espouses lots and lots of nonsense about survey research and how to do it and why and what it can/can’t do. Some of that likely permeates. Hell, because of the skill gap in knowing how to do it, a lot of these folks who formed their point of view via experience with shoddy work have understandable reservations.
I think there’s also a lot of hesitation that new strategies will take up too much time to learn. When you already feel overburdened, “done” sometimes becomes the highest goal.
Another reason why working towards finding time – and resources – for training is so important.