We’re Sorry Ben!
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), one of my alma maters, flubbed it last week, sending a message that graded its many online activists. One who contacted The Agitator received a ‘D’ … and wasn’t happy about it.
I’m not sure what interpretation of human nature would have led EDF to think that chastising its activists — “You’ve earned a D” — for not responding sufficiently to alerts would be an effective cultivation strategy.
On the other hand, awarding bad grades did get a response! So many — and so unhappy — that EDF felt compelled almost immediately to issue an apology.
That part EDF got right. They made a (rare) bad judgment. Felt the heat. And apologized — plainly, directly and quickly.
Lesson learned, I hope.
Here’s a softer approach to cleaning your email list of deadwood from NTEN.
Not that Roger is deadwood, exactly … well, you get my point!
Tom
P.S. The apology from EDF’s Heather Shelby said, in part: “…the wide variety of energetic responses we received forced our entire Membership Team to take a much closer look at the way we executed on this idea.” Energetic! I can imagine. Whoever at EDF came up with this characterization deserves a raise.
All in all, what this says to me is that someone was trying to think outside the box … and got burned on this one. Not a “cut off her hand” offense. The lesson here is NOT: Don’t take risks or try something bold … even sassy. The lesson is: If it does backfire, then learn, acknowledge, repent and try again.
6 responses to “We’re Sorry Ben!”
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 bigger message is not to expect your donors to be as focused on your advocacy issue as you are. Educate. Convey your integrity and sincerity. Ask for their help.
As a group, these people honestly thought shaming the donors signing their paychecks was a good idea. How dare those followers not contact their representatives like we told them to? They forgot the cardinal rule. You cannot be a leader unless people WANT to follow you. Reminded me of the ruler slap in elementary school.
I’d be interested to know if Ben was part of a test segment. Otherwise how did they mitigate the risk of sending this obviously volatile message? Outside-the-box experiments must be balanced with common sense.
And how did taking NO action put him the “top 66%”?
It makes one wonder: did EDF’s left hand (it’s advocacy programs) reach out to to its right (development)? If not, why not?
Well, they certainly got people talking and taking action…maybe just not talking or talking action on what they had hoped.
Apparently NTEN’s approach didn’t work so well either…
http://www.nten.org/blog/2013/07/29/confusing-emails-a-quick-story-of-failure-and-learning-from-it-from-the-team-at-nten
I applaud their transparent response though!
Well, I guess EDF have inadvertently told their 750k supporters that 2/3s of them are in fact “deadwood”.
I wonder how many people in the list have taken any action in the last 6, 9 or 12mths?