“If ever there were a medium where nonprofits consistently get it wrong, it’s telemarketing.” That’s the way I began the post Ring! Ring! Telemarketing Mysteries and Case Studies two years ago.

Two years later both Tom and I revisited the subject of telemarketing in Telefundraising Reveals the Pulse and Hanging Up on Your Donors. Both pieces outlined why telemarketing is so important. And also wonder why it’s so abysmally employed by most nonprofits.

Tom praised telemarketing’s effectiveness as a first rate donor relationship tool, quoting from an excellent piece by Colin Bickley in NonProfitPRO.

“As anyone with experience in telefundraising for nonprofits will tell you, the donor conversations are typically 
engaging, inspiring and positive. Results are real-time and exciting. And the channel is dynamic, fast-paced and on the front-lines of fundraising. Even aside from the dollars and positive donor cultivation, telefundraising is also an immediate, laser-focused marketing research vehicle. Telefundraisers know the pulse of your donors like no one else.”

Roger, reporting on Stanford’s decision to cancel its student phonathons, noted:

“…effective telemarketing is still a first rate way to build donor commitment and to learn about donor preferences. Sure, the marked increase in mobile phones, and blocked or non-existent land lines make it more difficult, but still well worth the effort.

“The problem with the medium is that most organizations won’t spend the time or develop the skill required to get the most out of it in. Nor will most demand top quality reporting on donor comments and preferences that every telemarketer is capable of collecting — and be willing to pay for that critical reporting.”

Tom and I are not alone. Here’s a sampling of insights from some highly experienced Agitator readers who make a powerful case for investing in effective telemarketing.

Michael Rosen

“I don’t know if killing the Stanford phone program is good for Stanford. However, making a decision about how to contact ALL alumni based on what SOME alumni say is just plain stupid. We need to engage people in the way they wish to be engaged. In other words, this is a fine example of how segmentation of the database could make a great deal of sense. By way of example, I’ll just mention that my wife actually looks forward to receiving an annual call from one of the students at Smith College. 

“I have more to say about the Stanford story. Readers can check out my blog post here: “Stop Pretending that You Work for Stanford!” http://wp.me/p1h0KY-Vr.”

Adrian Salmon

When I was head of client services for a telephone fundraising agency, we would discourage potential clients from using the phone for this purpose – it’s a really expensive way to use it!

The phone truly comes into its own when it’s used as a vehicle for securing multi-year sustainer gifts, and is evaluated in terms of lifetime value, not just Year 1 ROI. In the UK, around 1/3 of universities’ donors give this way, and 85% of these gifts come via the telephone.

Plus, charities should be prepared to treat it as a *premium* communication channel, giving it the appropriate resource, and staff the appropriate training. Another big learning from the UK – and I think the US is feeling it too – is that if you commoditise a phone contact based on the lowest possible cost per decision maker contact, you will end up making the kind of calls donors don’t want to answer. Think of it as ‘voice to voice’ and consider what resource you would be prepared to put into a ‘face to face’ solicitation from a gift officer.

Joe White

[We] use TM as an integration tool/strategy to broaden donor communications & raise more targeted funds — similar to what is suggested by others. We use it in our monthly Loyalty+ programs to thank donors & maintain sustainers. We’re still using Canadian call centers for US clients — managing currency differences.

We focus more on TM-responsive $50+ donors to raise boost net revenue. Integrated appeals usually include 1 or 2 advance emails to capture online-responsive donors & follow-up mail to capture DM-responsive donors.

We use recorded Thank You calls that land in voicemail without the phone ringing — so donors aren’t bothered. We target donors who’ve not remitted their TM pledge or given to the DM portion of the appeal. It’s a “thank you” call, no mention of pledge or making a gift. We see a good bump in revenue. MARY — we’ll leave you a warm, fuzzy thank you msg & you’ll never hear the phone ring.

[Editor’s Note. I cited some of Joe’s work in that Ring! Ring! post two years ago and it’s very much worth studying. Here’s the main paper, with back-up material here and here.]

Serious fundraisers take telemarketing seriously. They understand its use and potential as an important building block in forming strong donor relationships, offering better donor experiences and learning more about why a donor gives and what she needs and expects from your organization.

Great telemarketing takes work, money and time.

It’s not as simple picking up the phone, calling a telemarketing firm and demanding a price quote and schedule for ‘renewals’ or ‘reinstatements’. Those who denigrate or dismiss the potential power of telemarketing to the “let’s test every vendor” speed-dating approach are doomed to disappointment.

And so are the donors.

Are you investing enough time and money in understanding the power of telemarketing?

Roger