Telemarketers Rally
Like tennis pros coming back from two sets down, telemarketers have rallied back from yesterday’s Are You Embarrassed post to score big time! Some comments …
“Yes, some board members don’t like the phones (so don’t call them!) but they should like basic math.”
“TM helps our clients raise more money, renew/reinstate more donors, increase retention/enhance stewardship, engage donors in advocacy and the list goes on.”
“Too few organisations realise the main power of the phone, which is in promoting long-term regular giving. Far too often financial success metrics for the phone are set over too short a time period, and so the necessary investment in good-quality, decent length fundraising calls isn’t made … And of course you can’t package your calls up neatly and win nice shiny awards for them as easily as you can for direct mail or email.”
“We’ve been using outbound telemarketing since 2007, however not until 2010 was someone solely responsible for this channel to give the time and energy to enhance it. So 2010 was a VERY successful year for us with reactivating over 25,000 lapsed donors and generated well over $1M in net revenue.”
“Advance Voice Messaging … delivers a lift in response ranging from 25%-400%! AVM is a 30-40 second pre-recorded message that is placed within 3-4 days of our mail appeal landing in homes.”
“I’m work for a telephone fundraising agency – I’m not embarrassed but fiercely proud! But I completely agree that we’re pretty rubbish at championing our channel.”
Read the complete comments here. And ask yourself again … shouldn’t we at least be testing the telephone?
Well done, telemarketers … you deserve a raise!
Can anybody help me with this? How much money was raised in 2010 online versus telemarketing?
Tom
4 responses to “Telemarketers Rally”
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
I would LOVE to hear more about Advance Voice Messaging. Sounds fantastic!
Fact is, telemktg works, and works well. Case in point, SCA had not done any serious telemktg in over 15 years. We tested two campaigns this year (lapsed reactivation and sustainer enrollment) and both turned an immediate net return not to mention the LTV that increased sustainer enrollments provide. We also learned a lot about our donors and the external realities that many are facing (reality check if nothing else).
Our senior staff balked at the tactic and so did most staff, until the numbers came out. Proving once again, it doesn’t matter what you or I think about the way it looks, says or sounds if it works for our constituents.
I loved today’s post.
Your question about how much was raised online caught my eye. This assumes everyone still stinks at integrated fundraising. We work with a lot of orgs that recruit supporters online from Care2, cultivate them as online donors, but also ask them over the phone. In one recent case a client got a 7% conversion 10 weeks from acquisition, including 4.55% conversion to monthly donors. Channels work together and we’re seeing online acquisition partnered with telephone conversion crush street engagement in acquiring sustainers.
Can’t we all just work together? 🙂
I worked for a non-profit that started a street canvass in 2009 and built a list of over 100k new donors. They weren’t responding to email or direct mail appeals, so we tried telefundraising them in 2010 – and the money flowed in. With that success, we started calling all of our members who had never responded to an appeal before. We converted 25% into donors on a break-even campaign.