8 responses to “Stop Trying To Beat The Control”

1. John Genette says:

   July 18, 2013 at 12:51 pm

   If you don’t try to beat it, how do you know it’s the control? Also, I don’t understand the Snickers argument. Agreed, they don’t change the product itself, but they change the way they market the product all the time, constantly looking for the new hook or to create buzz. Snickers currently has a TV ad with Robin Williams. That’s new; someday it will get old.

2. Lester Zaiontz says:

   July 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm

   I’m not sure I would bet the farm on this theory of comparing Snickers to fundraising. These are two vastly different consumer “products.” I dare say that given the choice, a consumer will opt for the candy bar any day, while fundraising requires a bit more arm-twisting. If we keep sending the same package over and over and over, at some point our prospects are going to say, “I’ve seen this before and I know I’m going to be hit-up for money so I’ll just pitch this in the trash and go find my Snickers.”

3. Chip Heartfield says:

   July 18, 2013 at 2:17 pm

   I agree with John and Lester – the Snickers analogy is out of sync. Even an impressively branded and well-regarded nonprofit – St. Jude or Covenant House, for example – is going to test and mail different packages depending on a variety of circumstances and factors. It is very much like an ad campaign; these change all the time even if the Snickers wrapper is unchanged for decades. Nickel packages have been mailed by all types of groups for decades, and they either beat a control or they don’t, the same as any other technique, format or gimmick that is tested. And I am sure all nonprofits would like to have greater brand awareness, but that can cost a lot of money and opens up the nonprofit to criticisms about how donor dollars are being spent. It is a complex issue either way but if the nickel package is beating your current control, then, hey, it is your new control until you find something better! P.S. I have been involved in numerous programs that relied on gimmicks like the nickel and/or used full-on premium-based campaigns such as tote bags, etc. We routinely broke out the various types of donors in looking at retention numbers, and nickel-acquired donors stayed around at a much higher rate than full-on premium acquired donors. Provided that nonprofit direct marketers are looking back at the source mailings and avoiding those techniques that merely produce churn, than I do not see how the rest of us can condemn the use of one technique vs another.

4. Kevin Schulman says:

   July 19, 2013 at 10:08 am

   I certainly appreciate, as I’m sure the Agitator folks do, quality feedback and critique. So first, thank you and secondly, here are a few counterpoints to consider.

   1) If direct mail is the equivalent of advertising (i.e. the ad campaign for Snickers, not the Snickers) then what is the product? Is it the offer/program or the organization? Either way, why go through the effort of creating a program or organizational brand if the “advertising” for it is going to be so generic and look like everybody else’s mail/advertising?

   2) The fact is, direct mail creative and format decisions are simply not driven by anything having to do with the offer or the organizational brand – i.e. having anything to do with intentionally helping the product to stand out from the very crowded space that is non-profit.

   3) The further reality is that the direct mail package IS part of the product. That it is not thought of in this way is a missed opportunity for significant impact to the bottom line.

   4) Arguing that the commercial world is different and no analogy holds is a pretty limited view of the world. I’d argue that nothing is more impulse driven than candy bar (and gum) sales, evidenced by their location at point of sale.

   5) That said, if you believe that building a relationship with a donor in order to get not just the first gift but a lifetime of them starts with arm twisting then it is time to reassess.

   6) The idea that the same direct mail package does not, in fact, get sent over and over and over is to ignore reality. My assertion is more time and energy should be put into establishing this baseline control or product with an eye towards making it unique and consistent with the organizational brand. There are countless examples of control packages that have been in place for years and years. If those controls were built with the brand in mind the organization would be radically better off financially. It is a dangerous false choice to suggest a direct mail package cannot be a unique, differentiating product that ALSO raises money.

   7) If you are only measuring the value of a package by response rate and not the impact the “ad” has on the non-responders then you are doing a grave disservice to your clients. The commercial world spends plenty of time focused on the impact the ad has not JUST in immediate sales (think media mix models) but also, brand lift (which is a very real financial concept and value).

   8) I have no doubt that the gimmick of the nickel package can outperform the “full-on” premium gimmick on 2nd gift conversion or some other, longer term performance metric. This is however, a bit like saying the crack in the sidewalk is easier to navigate than the curb; neither is much of a baseline of anything.

   In a sector that has not grown since the 70’s in market share but has grown radically in the number of organizations going after the same or dwindling number of donors and dollars I’d say now is past time for condemning or at least critically evaluating current procedure. The clients we work with and will in the future do not buy into the now popular adage that “flat is the new up”. They and their donors are demanding far better and they are seeking innovative and new ways to do business.

5. Chip Heartfield says:

   July 22, 2013 at 11:59 am

   I understand you are trying to be provocative and get a reaction, but there are some pretty harsh and sweeping statements here. It would be great to see or hear about any specific packages or organizations that are doing things as you advocate? Or perhaps you could take someone’s long-running control and walk us through how you would change it to be more successful? In my experience, good DM fundraising writers totally understand that the package is part of the product, and they choose to add gimmicks such as address labels because it helps boost results. I have seen numerous instances over the past 35 years where making a package more mission or brand-oriented and/or doing away with the technique only resulted in it becoming lower-performing. I believe every copywriter out there would be thrilled to learn how to do what you are proposing – so a case study on an existing package or even a blow-by-blow on how you would do a make-over would be much appreciated!

6. Kevin Schulman says:

   July 22, 2013 at 3:23 pm

   Chip,

   We avoid our posts being overt sales efforts for DonorVoice or our products. But since you asked…

   We have a very specific, proven and empirical process for each of our products. This is not the forum for a detailed review but I will (briefly) share one example from Operation Smile, who has already shared this publicly.

   1) Using our empirical process Operation Smile developed a test (e-appeal in this case) that out-performed the control by 30% on revenue AND even bigger lift on other click-through conversion metrics. The control, which of course they tested into, was a gimmick, plain and simple, involving shopping tips from a celebrity. Remember though, they tested into this and that doesn’t make them or the agency evil or wrongheaded, just that things got wildly off the mark over time. Our test by comparison involved no such gimmick and to the outside observer would likely be the “mission/brand” appeal you hint at in your comments.

   Here is the real takeaway message – We have many examples of beating controls in these short-term, myopic looks at response rate and average gift and our process can do this all day, every day BUT the real provocative and man bite’s dog comment is that this isn’t even what matters.

   What matters is long-term retention AND value. We also have a product and empirical process to deliver on this.

   Winning the battle to lose the war is where many non-profits find themselves if they buy into some of what might be labeled “best practices” today:

   1) the control as a gimmick
   2) the false choice of mission/brand donor vs. premium donor and by extension, mission/brand package vs. not
   3) the business model of bringing them in by hook or by crook in order to “convert” them
   4) the need for a new “hook” on each appeal.
   5) evaluating success based on response rate and average gift of a campaign.

7. Chip Heartfield says:

   July 22, 2013 at 4:35 pm

   Thank you, Kevin, this way of saying it is making more sense to me! And it fits nicely with the previous posts about vanity metrics, which I thought were right on target. It is truly amazing how much more info we have today vs even ten years ago, and what companies such as DonorVoice, Integral and others are doing to show the way to more effective appeals. I am not comfortable with simply chucking today’s best practices – remember that is how we ended up with some of the really dysfunctional “modern” architecture of mid-last century! – but best practices should always evolve and take into account new information and perspectives while retaining respect for time-tested principles. Again, appreciate your time.

8. Chip Heartfield says:

   September 12, 2013 at 11:10 am

   Roger, thought of the nickel package discussion when I got this “hot potato” email from Peggy Hatch today!
   http://www.directmarketingiq.com/newsletter/insider#utm_source=directmarketingiq-insider&utm_medium=enewsletter_header&utm_campaign=2013-09-12/