Rejecting The One Acq Stand
In his post yesterday, Who Gets Fired?, Roger voiced his doubt that very many fundraisers, if any at all, are compensated on the basis of success at retaining donors. “Who gets fired when your retention rates drop?” he asked.
In a comment to that post, Lisa Sargent escalated the issue:
“…if an agency or consultant gets tapped to write a one-and-done ACQ pack, we should — each and every one of us — refuse to take on said job until we’re comfortable that the donors we bring into the organization will be properly stewarded post-ACQ — well beyond the thank-you letter that follows the pack. I, for one, refuse one-off ACQ pack jobs because I will not contribute to this jackpot mentality.”
Now there’s an admirable commitment to principle! And one that I hope — and trust — doesn’t send Lisa to the poor house.
That said, her position raised some questions in my mind.
I have to confess that in the past I’ve hired many a copywriter whose exceptional track record at delivering Acq packages that were uncommonly successful at delivering donors was exactly what I was after … and nothing more. A one Acq stand.
Now, I might have been pleasantly surprised if one of them had admonished me that I had better take good care of those donors they were responsible for handing over to me, but that insight and sense of stewardship would have been icing on the cake. Because I viewed it as my — and my team/organization’s — responsibility to build the donor relationship from there.
What would have surprised me even more would be if that copywriter showed me data indicating her Acq packages delivered donors who indeed were ‘stickier’ than her competitors’.
Yes, I’ll concede the framing of the package could shape donors’ expectations in helpful (i.e. deliverable) directions and draw prospects who might feel more ‘attached’ by responding in the first instance. And that would indeed be a great skill for a copywriter to have.
But really, the client would still have controlled virtually all the key variables that might bear more importantly over time on retention — appropriateness of list, the offer itself (e.g., who decided whether a premium was part of the deal?), and of course all future communication and interaction with the new donor, starting with their welcome and continuing through ensuring proper donor experiences and service thereafter.
And another surprise would have come if the copywriter had said: “I’ll only write the Acq package if you hire me to spec and write all donor communications leading to a second gift.” Now that would have really impressed me. No longer was I looking at a ‘mere’ copywriter; I had before me a fundraiser who specialized in copywriting.
Do they exist? Well Lisa’s one. But let’s hear from some ‘mere’ copywriters out there! What are fair expectations of you?
I do agree with Lisa’s comment about the likely inequity of blaming just the fundraising team for lousy retention performance. She argues:
“For successful retention-driven comms, management (and board) must be on board with that investment, i.e., spending money to engage donors after the acquisition (and not just once or now and then, but consistently, year after year, and not just to hit up donors for more money), AND getting staff trained in measuring results. If the C-suite is merely doing lip-service to retention, but not doing or willing to pay for what that takes, including finding good content and stories and worthy stuff to fund, it isn’t their (probably sadly siloed) staff that should face the heat.”
Amen to that. And I know Roger agrees … retention must be a priority of the entire organization in all its facets, not just one of numerous concerns of the guy commissioning the welcome package.
If the retention rate sucks in a nonprofit, it might be simply because its welcome process sucks. But it’s more likely to represent a broader organization failure … and one unfortunately tolerated in the ‘C-suite’, as Lisa puts it, or by the Board. Accountability should fall where it’s due.
Lisa, I hope the clients keep rolling in for you!
Tom
8 responses to “Rejecting The One Acq Stand”
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
Tom, thanks for spotlighting this. But I’m holding firm:
You got to the nut of it when you wrote, “Because I viewed it as my – and my team/organization’s – responsibility to build the donor relationship from there.” That’s exactly my point. I’m no acquisition specialist but I do have acquisition control packs mailing, and I still believe, whether ‘mere’ copywriters or fundraising copywriters, we should know if anyone’s minding the store before we open the door. It’s like hiring a surgeon to do the heart transplant, but nobody’s around to stitch up the patient and follow her to full recovery.
I suppose if enterprise-level nonprofit acquisition packs are your specialty, okay…BUT then that begs another question: if your so-called ACQ specialist doesn’t ask or isn’t given input around stuff like premium/offer, or list… how the heck is s/he an acquisition specialist in the first place? Offer and audience/list loom largest of all.
Daily some blog laments “the shrinking donor pool.” So if acquisition continues to be seen as a stand-alone function, how then is the shrinking donor pool not our problem? Retention and acquisition may be two separate wings on a bird, but it’s still the same bird: one without the other won’t fly for long. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.
Or am I being naive?
As to the poor house. I am, indeed, that weird copywriter who specs a full menu of donor comms almost from day one. There isn’t a Lamborghini in the driveway of the country estate. But somehow I still manage to put food on the table! Wonders never cease. 🙂
Thanks again Tom. So much better with rousing debate around these issues. I feel like I’m at a family reunion!
Just reading and applauding, Lisa. You are the best!
Hear hear!
Thanks Tom & Lisa,
Cheers to true fundraising copywriters! Strategy and fundraising go hand in hand so if you’re not putting your copywriter at the table for discussions around audience, offer, cadence, etc., that’s a big mistake. Our philosophy is that we’re always happy to bring our brains to the table. And, while it’s true, nobody’s getting rich in copywriting. . . we make excellent cocktail party conversationalists and you can’t put a price on that! 🙂
We copywriters need a line of cocktails, Kathy… The Vogele. The Flesch-Kincaid. The Teaser. The Full Stop. And of course, the Agitator! 🙂
Loving this dialogue. I applaud Lisa and Roger and all of you! Hear hear to planning ahead!! Taking it a step further, I recently began refusing to offer development (fundraising and communications) audits unless the organization agreed to keep me on for coaching at least six months following in order to assure that the recommendations were followed up on. Otherwise, what’s the point? It’s just a waste of the planet’s resources. My “gigs” may be down, but they’re so much more satisfying. We fundraisers need meaning in our lives just as much as donors do! Acquiring donors you have no hope of keeping is a bit like taking a shower; then jumping into the mud. Maybe the top of your head will stay clean, but that’s not much for all the effort you put into it. There’s a better way. Let’s get rid of the out-of-context, one-shot fundraising.
ADRFCO will soon resume a top-to-bottom review of its ethics rules, the first in over a decade. In doing so, one of the challenges we will face is how to fairly pass responsibility to our member firms for assuring that their work is compatible with the bedrock premise that, properly considered, direct response fundraising is “investment fundraising.” That is, without a constant and consistent eye on amortization (i.e., donor retention and cultivation) the very rationale for initiating a direct response program dissipates (if not altogether disappears). In my view (not one proposed to the membership — much less adopted), an acquisition campaign conducted for an organization lacking the resources, skill, and will to “amortize” is unethical on its face.
Hi Tom and Roger,
Fantastic post. I’d like to offer my thoughts on email or more precisly, multichannel.
The same idea holds true, of course, for digital. Two wings; one bird, as Lisa put it. My job is focused on the acquisition of qualified donor leads for nonprofits. I too, know how lopsided, short-sighted and simply unfair it is to think that acquisition isn’t actually about a long term relationship. Unfair to the organization and unfair to Care2 as the source of donor leads! Donor acquisition and donor-lead acquisition is, of course, ALL about the long term relationship. The first conversion isn’t the only metric that matters.
For that reason I explain very clearly to would-be clients that the acquisition is just the first step in the budding relationship and that this isn’t a Field of Dreams situation. You can build it, but they won’t just come. You have to go get them, hold their hand, and tell them where you want to go WITH them. Then ask if they want to join you. Like human beings talk to each other. I and my colleagues invest the time working with clients on their overall strategy, beyond the acquisition. I’m talking about lead acquisition, not donor acquisition, but the same principle applies. A conversation about acquisition = a conversation about the long term relationship.
I check in with clients a few months later and also 9, 12 and 18 months later to get insights into the donor conversion and also the retention plan. I’m happy to say that most of my clients understand that acquisition and conversion is just the start of the relationship. That the hard work of relationship-building and maintaining is necessary.
I don’t want to complain about why many fundraisers don’t seem to understand this or why many organizations aren’t institutionally organized to respect the dynamic of EVERY BASIC HUMAN RELATIONSHIP. I just want to add my perspective because I work in the trenches of online/multichannel acquisition. And I think – in the same vein as Lisa’s comments – we all have to take responsibility and change the damaging and short-sighted mindset for once and for all.
Thanks for always engaging!