Single Channel Is Dead
Boy, did Steve MacLaughlin at Target Analytics make today’s post easy!
Here’s the lead from his recent blog post:
“Direct mail is dead. Email is dead. TV and radio are dead. Face to face is dead. Telegraph is dead. Social media is dead. There are so many obituaries being written these days that it’s hard to tell what’s still alive. Is everyone just trying to be clever or are they auditioning for a role on CSI?
None of these channels are dead. Ok, telegraph is still dead despite rumors of a comeback. And there is a continual evolution within each of these communication options. Nonprofits are still improving their use of direct marketing, phone, email, and other channels.
What is dead is the use of one channel at a time to engage people. What is dead is operating in silos of data and systems that don’t play well together. What is dead is mindset that multichannel communication doesn’t apply to your organization. The old ways of planning and managing constituent communication are dead.”
Is this just Steve philosophizing? No … here’s the hard data. Target Analytics convened a group of 14 very large nonprofit organizations and reviewed their online and offline giving between 2005 and 2009. Here are some compelling comparisons of multichannel donors compared to online or offline donors:
“First year retention for multichannel donors was 51% compared to 30% for offline donors and 22% for online donors. Multi-year multichannel donors do even better with 75% being retained versus 59% for offline and 52% for online. The reactivation rate for multichannel donors was 16% compared to just 7% for both online and offline donors by themselves.”
As Steve says, the proof is in the numbers!
Steve preaches the multi-channel gospel fervently … I urge you to read his entire post.
Tom
2 responses to “Single Channel Is Dead”
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
This is so true! We have seen this in planned giving marketing for quite a few years now. As a planned giving marketing firm for over 48 years we’ve seen, firsthand, the transition from soley print to print & web then baby steps into print, web & email and now we’re seeing smart marketers engage in targeted print with interactive web, trackable email and other tools (purls, microsites, etc…). Those who do these things well are alrady seeing great results!
Ok, that makes sense, but what do you suggest is the best approach for reaching potential customers?