The Devil Is In The Detail
OK, we’ve got a tested strategy. We’ve developed a great case. We’ve targeted our appeal carefully. We’re using the latest database-driven capability. We’ve got terrific creative.
But we flubbed it!
What went wrong?
Here’s a flub from KQED, public TV/radio in San Francisco. They were on the right track, but they screwed up the personalization attempt in this email appeal. Compounding the injury, this was addressed to a member of their ‘Leadership Circle’ … a prized donor.
The salutation was properly personalized … I’ve removed the name to protect the innocent. Unfortunately this “driving force” donor became “Samplename” in the body copy.
I’m not intending to pick on KQED. We’ve all ‘been there, done that’!
I suspect we all have a foul-up story like this to tell. What’s yours?
The devil is in the detail folks! Execute well.
Tom
P.S. Actually, the Agitator reader who forwarded this gaffe wasn’t too keen on the case either, commenting … “And, why it’s important to send them a gift — because they are spending $155,000 a day — doesn’t do much to encourage a gift.”
3 responses to “The Devil Is In The Detail”
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
The next and most important step? Sending a well-crafted, humble, and error-free follow up email. Acknowledge the mistake in its subject line and focus on the donor’s potential reaction(s)–from the cynic’s eye roll to the genuine hurt of a passionate, longtime donor you know personally (but didn’t get a personal email).
That follow up email may be the most important email of the quarter. Maybe the year. Get it right and it will be opened at a higher rate and will drive more traffic and generate more revenue than the original message ever could have. The best part? Donors will feel better. Because they’ll remember that your Organization is made up of human beings trying to do good for other human beings.
I once had a political client who attended to use a salutation of “Dear Association Member”. Something happened in the process, and everyone was addressed as “Dear Ass”:)
Neuroscience research says that when you experience a mistake — it is is corrected well — you experience a dopamine high. Dopamine highs are good. We all know that. So one interpretation is to intentionally make a mistake…then correct it…and give your prospects and donors a dopamine high.
Of course, since we all make mistake, the real answer is have a darn good way of “correcting” and apologizing and and …
We will continue making mistakes. Just have a great system to respond quickly, apologize well, etc.