There is a great write up in Harvard Business Review about an experiment to evaluate the sales lift from coupons – not just among the redeemers (the obvious part) but also, the non-redeemers.

How do coupons deliver sales lift among non-redeemers?  Most probably know or can guess the answer and it is the exact same reason exposure to online ads (forget clicking, NOBODY clicks) provide lift in the corresponding brick and mortar channel – exposure.   Mere exposure creates impressions.  Those impressions,

Here is quick recap of the lift the coupon study authors found:

• *Study had a test and control design.  Former received coupons as the treatment.

• *73% received but did not redeem.  27% redeemed.

•  *The per person spending lift (i.e. spend over and above the control) was $8 for non-redeemers and $12 for redeemers.  (Sidenote: it is well established that coupons result in greater total spend, not less, even factoring in the discount)

• *The non-redeemer group spent $9200 versus $5,208 since former is the larger segment.

What are the implications of this for nonprofit direct marketers?

That the non-responders get exposed thereby increasing, all other things being equal, their chance of responding the next time?  Sure, that is a fair statement but also really misses the point since drawing only this conclusion suggests keeping the current acquisition state of affairs on auto-pilot.  Hell, it maybe even argues for mailing more since there is latent value in the non-responders.

Again, missing the point.  Let’s see what the Harvard Business Review authors conclude for the commercial sector;

“If businesses realized how powerful this increased awareness can be, they would take as much care with coupons as they do with other marketing materials, striving to delight customers, not simply close the deal.”

This is precisely the conclusion non-profit marketers should draw too.  The reality of acquisition mail, as we’ve written before, is that it is treated EXCLUSIVELY as a “close the deal” exercise, often relying on the lowest common denominator, almost always written from the same worn script and without question, sent to the almost the exact same people as your competitive set.

This results in an unbranded, commoditized world where unique claims, differentiation and high relevance are largely absent and the only thing that wins the day is volume; more and more expensive volume on the same tired list with the same message as everybody else.

So, while in theory the impression created with today’s direct mail piece may result in future response, it is likely also true that is creates a generic impression (e.g. for the sector or an issue) that does increase the likelihood of future response but not specific to an organization.

Another shorthand way to interpret this study and its implications – fundraising needs a whole lot more brand in it.  We are not talking about logo or tagline or some internal machination to derive brand attributes that mean and say nothing to the prospect.

We are talking about a truly compelling, differentiated proposition – almost certainly done at a segment level and not some mass market appeal – that can still be emotional and urgent while also building long term brand value and yes, impressions that result in future response to your organization instead of your competitor just because they get into the mailbox next.