[Attention Agitator readers elsewhere in the world: There’s plenty here that applies to you as well, but we’ll do a special opt-in/opt-out feature for you later focusing on opt-in/opt-out for newsletters, unsubscribes, etc.]

Regardless of the outcome of next week’s Brexit referendum on whether the UK should stay in or leave the European Union, fundraisers will continue to face the Opt-in/Opt-out Dilemma.

At stake is nothing short of whether a charity will be able to communicate with its donors or prospects without first securing the donors’ permission.

Thus, how effectively charities deal with these regulations may very well determine whether the vast majority of current supporters leave or not.

The stated goal of the EU reform is “…to give citizens back control over their personal data…”

The Etherington Review goes a step further: “We are equally clear that this right to ask is not unbounded. For the public, the right to be left alone, or approached with respect and humility, is equally strong. This is not simply a matter of public interest, but is also key to the long-term sustainability of charities.”

Consequently, the key question every charity in the UK and EU must ask and answer is this:

Why would a current or prospective supporter choose to receive communication from our charity? 

On the opposite side of the coin, the question is:

“Why would donors choose to opt-out?

These are not theoretical questions. The threat is real, and knowing the answer — or where to find the answer — may well mark the difference between a charity’s survival or not.

In short, this is not a good time to go whistling past the graveyard, hiding heads in the sand and believing that ‘this too shall pass’.

In fact, the early evidence is quite worrisome. Save the Children UK posted a 60% opt-out rate after sending a communication to donors alerting them to the existence of the ‘opt-out’ option.

Strangely, Save publicly advertised this rate as evidence opt-out “works”. Why? Because the organization firmly believes opt-in results would be even worse. Worse than losing 6 out of 10 donors?

Few or No Second Chances

Now’s the time the wise fundraiser will learn how to best operate in the coming regulatory climate. (Only a cynic or fool will delay believing some ‘gray area’ will emerge by which compliance can be avoided.)

And don’t count on many or any second chances to get it right. After all, how many times will a charity be allowed to send a communication asking supporters to opt-in before that very communication becomes prohibited by the same rules it is intended to work within?

Getting it Right the First Time

What is the best way forward? Our colleagues over at DonorVoice have just released a must-read white paper Opt-In/Opt-Out: How to Do It Well detailing their findings, insights and testing on this subject for the UK market.

They effectively ran 46,875 A/B tests (that’s right, 46,875!) with UK donors to identify which factors really matter and how best to implement or apply those factors for opt-in marketing.

In the world of nearly infinite possibilities for designing effective opt-in marketing, the chances of any of us guessing correctly is nearly zero. And in this case ‘correctly’ is likely the difference between keeping or losing most of your donors.

Probably, the only thing worse or more dangerous is taking whatever opt-in ideas you or your agency have, doing an A/B test or two and declaring  a ‘winner’ from that. (Well, on second thought the worst of the worst would be leaving the decision to a committee.)

At any rate, the Donor Voice Opt-In/Opt Out paper contains specific examples of what worked best in cracking the opt-in code and cites the methodology used.

I urge you to download it, read the details, test findings and methodology carefully and share it with others. 

What are you doing to deal with the Opt-in/Opt Out Dilemma?

Roger

P.S.    Here’s a  Summary Of Opt-In/Opt-Out: How to Do It Well

For starters, it [understanding the the opt-in/ opt-out dynamic] requires a recognition that donor, indeed human, preferences are not stable. The opt-in choice is not likely to be a fully thought out, mentally firm judgment about your charity or your communications. Rather, preference and choice — to opt-in or not — is highly influenced by the way the question is framed.

Let’s look at this example around organ donation. The graph  above shows the percentage of people who said they would donate their organs. You see two types of countries — countries on the right that donate a lot, and countries on the left that donate much less. Why is that?

Most people think it has to do with culture or maybe religion. But countries we think of as very similar are actually very different in terms of organ donation — like Sweden (86%) on the right and Denmark (4%) on the left.

Interestingly, of the countries on the left, the Netherlands is quite a lot higher at 28%. This is because they mailed every household pleading with them to donate their organs.

But clearly the countries on the right are doing something much better than pleading — what are they doing? A winning message? Some great persuasion effort? Maybe just repeated pleading? That is how direct marketing works, right? Just keep asking, over and over and over…

It turns out the difference between having opt-in organ donation rates in the teens versus nearly 100% arises from a very subtle change to the opt-in form.

The countries on the left have what DonorVoice calls a ‘default opt-out’, the top section of the illustration. People don’t check the box and they don’t join.

The countries on the right have a default opt-in form. People don’t check the box and they join.

We think we are rational actors, waking up in the morning and making deliberate, purposeful decisions along the way. What this example shows are many decisions we make don’t ‘reside’ within us — in this case they reside in the person that designs the form.

The implication is clear:

Opting in or out of receiving further communications may not reflect a stable, pre-existing preference, but rather, a choice based on situational factors that are under the organization’s control.

Said differently, the person designing your opt-in form has a lot of influence on the financial health of your charity. If they are expert in understanding why people behave as they do and what influences their choices because, for example, they’ve got a PhD in behavioral science, then you are in great shape.

If not, read on.

What situational factors may be at play in the donor’s decision to opt-in? What levers are under our control to influence this decision?

There is a significant body of knowledge on this topic and live, in-market testing to support it.

DonorVoice did a review of this knowledge base in partnership with the Decision Making and Behavioural Economics Research Group at City University London. This effort was led by Dr. Kiki Koutmeridou PhD, the chief behavioral scientist at DonorVoice (one less than a handful of behavioral scientists who specialize solely in charitable giving).

What follows is a summary of the different situational and contextual factors that likely determine why someone will opt-in (or not). In short, these are the missing ingredients from whatever internal ideas your charity (and ‘form-maker’) is or will be coming up with to ask your donors to actively choose to receive your communications.

But, this library of possible influencers or factors is only the start.

There are nearly limitless ways to execute on these factors and, as importantly, they can’t all matter equally to the opt-in decision psyche.

Therefore, DonorVoice took the next step of drafting specific marketing language or contexts (i.e. test executions) for each factor and conducted preliminary testing using the DonorVoice PreTest Tool, which is the equivalent of multivariate testing on steroids.

DonorVoice effectively ran 46,875 A/B tests with UK donors to identify which factors really matter and how best to implement or apply those factors for opt-in marketing.

Here’s the ending right up front.

This slide shows the ‘ideal’ opt-in/opt out communication.  But, ‘ideal’ in this case is a research term, merely the ‘winners’ for each row from the grid.

This is a great foundation for knowing which principles really matter the most and direction on execution.

The specifics, however, matter.

• Application — e.g. stand-alone opt-in request, opt-in as part of existing process, opt-in for new donor, opt-in for existing donor; and,

• Channel — e.g. phone, F2F, mail or digital (opt-in, avoiding opt-out of email); and,

• Donor Identity — their innate reason or motivation for support

You’ll find lots more details on the research findings, test results, an explanation of what ‘donor identity’ is , and what to do next with all this contained in the DonorVoice Opt-in white paper:   Click here to access the free paper.