Model-T Fundraising: Pros and Cons

February 28, 2022      Roger Craver

“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black.”

–Henry Ford

The Model T Ford, America’s first mass production auto,  only came in black because the production line required compromise so that efficiency and improved quality could be achieved.

The service is provided by a score of agencies that syndicate and gather en masse the mailing lists, creative and production components to spread the cost and increase the cost efficiency.

The all the nonprofits in a particular sector that participate in this syndication process receive a good and fair price for sending out anywhere from 6 to 12 appeals a year and maybe a newsletter or two—usually the exact same copy where generally the only change made for the organization is in its logo and address.

Same schedule.  Same copy.  Same asking formulae.

Frankly, I’m not knocking the process because I’m sure there would be hundreds of organizations that would struggle to mail one appeal, let alone meet a more frequent schedule with decently prepared copy and execution at a reasonable cost.

What I’m curious about–and hope some Agitator readers with experience in these syndicated communications will weigh in—are answers to these basic questions that the process raises:

  • It’s clear that it’s cost efficient. What isn’t clear to me is what opportunities are lost because every recipient is swimming in the same sea of sameness?
  • Do the firms that provide this service use predictive modeling, donor identity or psychological information to create different tracks. For example, we know that when it comes to some types of organizations parents have different motivations than non-parents.
  • I’m not picking nits, I’m trying to understand how this sort of mass approach that has been around for years is changing to take into account contemporary research and technology to avoid the one-size-fits all downside.
  • Is there a process for suppressing or specially tailoring mailings to larger-gift donors, Board members and other special audiences? If not, and if the organization is putting its list into a common granary of names and addresses what are the downgrading or attrition risks?
  • For those organizations that participate in syndicated acquisition is there a process segmenting the lists for different content depending on the donor identity and interest? I ask this because if a particular zip code is being carpet bombed simply because it fits some demographic (income or other profile) this strike me as ignorant and wasteful. Why? Because it’s based on the faulty assumption that two families living side-by side are motivated by the same factors.

Again, I’m not condemning this practice that has been used for the 50+ years I’ve been in the trade.  What I’m asking, because I really don’t know, is how far and how sophisticated has the approach become? Has it moved toward Tesla or is it still stuck on Model-T?

I haven’t been able to find any cases where an organization tested their use of the syndication process against a more tailor-made approach customized to the individual organization and its donors.  I suspect there are some organizations that would like to find out, but are afraid to invest in a test that would provide some answers.

We’ve checked the copy from some of these syndications with DonorVoice’s CopyOptimizer  and the ‘readability’ scores are pretty good. There are no big words.  Unfortunately, they’re weak (devoid of) on individual stories related to the particular organization.  Understandable because that gets in the way of scalability and efficiency.  The ask strings are generally the same with a low-dollar bias.  And that’s understandable for the same reason of efficiency.

Virtually every organization I’ve ever dealt with believes their group is unique. Their footprint in their community is unique.  That the prospects and donors over on Maple Street don’t all think alike and behave alike.  Yet many seemingly abandon that set of beliefs in favor of the ease and efficiency of the syndicated approach.

I certainly realize that most of the time mailing something beats mailing nothing.  BUT…what is being sacrificed in the name of one-size-fits all efficiency?  In an increasingly competitive and difficult environment we need some answers.

What’s the experience out there?  Please share.  Thank you.

Roger

6 responses to “Model-T Fundraising: Pros and Cons”

  1. Erica Waasdorp says:
    February 28, 2022 at 9:56 am

    hi, what you’re not sharing is that the geographical areas tend to be different… so there’s not necessarily the same ‘sea of sameness’. This approach works because there’s typically no overlap between the areas covered by the different organizations… (or if there is, there’s a discussion about this within the consortium/between the participants). This approach is done either by certain agencies that work as a consortium so they can spread the expense, list cost etc. but it is also sometimes done by national organizations that have chapters or affiliates… the nonprofits save a lot of money doing it this way. Some chapters or affiliates still want to do their own ‘thing’ but it sometimes makes it much less cost effective. In this day and age of variable data and laser versions, it works well for some. Because of this, then the organizations will have more time (and money) to focus on the mid size and larger donors.

  2. Anonymous because I think our current agency reads this... says:
    February 28, 2022 at 11:49 am

    Echoing what Erica said about attempts to not overlap, although not every agency does that. We thought this was covered when we switched to our current agency, but found out later (by receiving nearly identical remits from other local organizations mailed back in our remit envelopes) that we were wrong.

    My organization is currently looking for a new agency to partner with and we are trying to move in the direction of being more tailored with our messaging to different segmentations–but we are finding nothing. Our full range of services don’t neatly fall into the traditional messaging of organizations most like ours, so we are forced to leave several of our larger programs on the sidelines to focus on just one main area. We definitely see potential to acquire and grow donors interested in these other programs, but without the ability to customize outside the syndicated language we can’t reach them.

    We don’t have the resources to bring the whole mail program in-house, so we’re currently trying to decide where to settle. This is frustrating when we are pretty sure we could do better with more opportunity for customization, but the cost to test it–let alone pursue it regularly– is prohibitive.

    • Roger Craver says:
      February 28, 2022 at 2:15 pm

      Thank you Anonymous and Erica,

      I appreciate both of you weighing in on some of the practices and some of the problems. I have no question about the cost savings and efficiency, my concern goes to what’s being left on the table with a one-size-fits all approach. Erica’s certainly correct that in this day and age technology (laser printing and sophisticated and proper use of date) may lower or mitigate against the sea of sameness where donors, regardless of geography, get the same thing. If in fact that’s being done, wonderful. But, as Anonymous suggests, that clearly is not always the case.

      This doesn’t have to be that way and Anonymous is right in seeking alternatives (I hope you’ll share what you find out) and Erica is right poining out cost savings and efficiency PROVIDED the effort doesn’t overlook the differences in donor needs and motivation.

      Again,

    • Dale Anania says:
      February 28, 2022 at 7:32 pm

      While no one wants their reply form to have the same wording or images as another nonprofit, one does wonder about the “Amazon effect” where many businesses adopted the same setup because it has become so familiar to buyers. That begs the question: would a common reply form serve the nonprofit world? Think about it from this perspective: we want the donor to react from their emotional brain, so not having to study the form is actually in our favor.

  3. Chip Grizzard says:
    February 28, 2022 at 3:17 pm

    I’ll jump in on this conversation since I spent most of my career working in the syndicated environment. I could probably write a book on the issue, but here are just a few thoughts.

    For decades, this was a game changer for thousands of local affiliates, chapters and “like” organizations. This model helped these organizations build strong donor files and expand their mission. As Erica points out, cost savings, efficiency and new technology has allowed the model to thrive for decades.

    Now the challenge is the fundraising environment is changing yet the agency model is still built on volume. The more segmentation and personalized communication the agency offers, the lower their margin. Agencies also seem to be stuck in their traditional lanes and haven’t adapted to the latest trends.

    For smaller organizations, the syndicated model still makes a lot of sense. But for mid-size and larger local charities, there are options. I’m mostly retired now, but happy to discuss this with anyone that might be interested in other options. You can reach me at chip.grizzard@outlook.com.

    • Roger Craver says:
      March 1, 2022 at 7:34 pm

      Thanks so much, Chip. Between you and your Dad there’s literally nearly a century of experience. I also know from your work over the years how much you adapted and kept up with changes in research and practices. So, I value your insights and sure appreciate your offer to discuss this issue with others. In addition I’ll be contacting you to find out how to become “mostly retired.” 🙂

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

    Behavioral Science Q & A

    The Agitator Tool Box

    Ideas, applications, tools, processes, and case studies of break-through solutions in fundraising, including: