Minced Pie And Fundraisers
The memory came flooding back last week as I read Tom’s post on telemarketing …
… I had just made what I felt was a mighty effective case for a major gift from the CEO of a major American company and was absolutely startled when he said “No, I won’t give!”
Shocked, I asked him, “Why?” His response: “I won’t give because of minced pie.” Dumbfounded, I just looked at him, then found my tongue. “What in the world does minced pie have to do with giving to our alma mater?” I wondered out loud.
“Absolutely nothing,” he said. “But when you don’t want to give, one excuse is as good as another.”
And so it goes with telemarketing, Face2Face, long letters, bold messaging … you name it. For the pathetic reason that all too many fundraisers lack the knowledge, energy, skill, discipline and guts to effectively employ proven techniques, the techniques themselves are now savaged and dismissed.
Minced pie rationalization takes over. Funds are lost. Missions fall short. Shame on us.
I’m not arguing with the points Lisa Sargent, whose work I admire, made in last week’s post. Poorly prepared and executed telemarketing harms, not helps. But as Mary Cahalane pointed out in her comment to that post, it can also “do a lot of good for an organization”.
What worries me is not the dismissal of telemarketing per se, but the fact that many techniques — effective and proven when applied with the appropriate training, monitoring and evaluation — are dismissed out of hand because they make some fundraisers, CEOs or boards uncomfortable. Or worse yet, because fundraisers themselves “personally don’t like” the technique.
Is it because our ranks are filled with the faint of heart? Have we given in to the bottom line plague of artificial good taste and self-important dignity? In short, have we abandoned ‘active’ channels in favor of the safe and passive?
Or is it because we haven’t invested nearly enough in briefing, training and monitoring. When’s the last time you or your CEO gave an inspiring briefing at the call center, or stood on a street corner cheering on a Face2Face canvasser? My guess is that the answer is ‘never’ or ‘seldom’. Too many fundraisers and their consultants order up telemarketing and Face2Face donors just like they buy printing or envelopes, and then wonder why the techniques fall short.
Properly executed ‘active’ channels like Face2Face and Telemarketing are mighty powerful and, in fact, reinforce the urgency and importance of many causes. As my friend and Canadian fundraiser David Love points out, “No one has ever made a wet dash out of the bathtub to open a letter, but they have to answer a ringing telephone.”
Heaven help our sector if the timid and slothful prevail. By failing to properly employ proven techniques simply because they might be criticized, or by failing to invest the time and energy in the proper training and monitoring that holds vendors accountable, fundraisers will have earned the poor performance we all bemoan.
Roger
P.S. Tomato vs. Tomatoe. Mince Pie vs. Minced Pie. For our UK readers this holiday treat is ‘Mince’. For the editors, ‘Minced’. Either way, delicious.
P.P.S. To further hone your pro and con arguments for or against telemarketing you might want to revisit a few of our past telemarketing posts, here and here and here (especially the postscript sources), proof positive of the evergreen nature of this debate.
4 responses to “Minced Pie And Fundraisers”
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
“When’s the last time you or your CEO gave an inspiring briefing at the call center?”
Well that would be pretty much every other day we are ‘in campaign’ with our team of student fundraising callers. My colleague Adam and I make a point of alternating our visits to our call room, and sharing good news, nice stories, email replies we’ve received, and appreciation for what our 70 strong student calling team & 6 highly capable student supervisors make possible for us!
And it comes back loud and clear in the donor feedback – so many answers to ‘What prompted you to give to the University of Leeds?’ are along the lines of, ‘the student who called me – they were so enthusiastic and engaging.’
Adrian: that’s just what we found years ago. The smart manager of the telemarketing staff asked for all kinds of people to come and talk to the staff. Not just pep talks (though those are good), but information.
I completely agree with you – it matters, a lot!
(And thanks Roger, for the nice mention.)
Thanks Roger & Tom for all your comments and shared wisdom. Much of what I learned about telemarketing was from a consultant doing “phonathon” seminars for New England Telephone and from my first business partner, Mal Warwick.
Things are really different & yet the same since we started our company back in 1986. Now working with veteran Steve Hubley in our Canadian/American consulting firm, left bank international, we’re helping clients figure out how to integrate telemarketing into their direct response programs. But we don’t lose sight of the human content, the personalization of telemarketing — because that’s needed even more today.
For example, we’ve brought back the “sorry letter” that Mal & I invented to sway board members & staff who “hate those damn calls.” We understand that “saying sorry” and “thank you” are disarming. Why are we not sending “sorry letters” to donors who decline to make a phone gift, especially donors with strong direct mail giving history?
Steve & I help clients chose the right TM firm for specific programs (sustainer,lapsed, etc) and for operational capabilities like being able to process gifts through your organization’s website — your online prospect/donor gets the same experience they do when they make their gift online.
The call center world is complex. Clients can improve long term donor value by demanding more from their TM firms — more & better strategies to retain & cultivate donors. Telemarketing is not going away but there is huge room for improvement.
Joe, the sorry letter to donors is genius. It speaks to the heart of what I was trying to convey in my guest post — because it meets people like my John Q. Donor where they are: frustrated by endless marketing calls, wanting to stay involved, but not wanting to give on the spot to a paid solicitor or during a call that comes at a less than convenient time.
In a similar fashion to your sorry letter, CARE recently overcame two of these problems, for me: if they call when it’s inconvenient, they ask if there’s a better time, and call back then; and, they follow up via direct mail if you request it. Again, meeting donors where they are vs. demanding the gift on the spot.
There is valuable info to glean from this entire comment thread, imho: callers who are knowledgeable about and involved w/ the organization (or educated about it beforehand); personalization of the call itself; using direct mail follow-up communications; strong online component.
This is the kind of thing that would build trust in donors, not tear it down… and that’s precisely what I was talking about. A great conversation. Love these! Thanks Mary, Adrian, Joe, Tom and Roger.