What? Is Roger Wrong?!

February 24, 2015      Admin

Roger wrote last week about the new ‘opt in’ criterion being used by Charity Navigator to qualify nonprofits for its full blessing. His bottom line: “Here at The Agitator we’d advise you to not waste any energy or concern on this latest from Charity Navigator for the simple reason they really don’t matter. At least not when it comes to influencing donors’ behavior.”

His reasons for that advice:

  • A 2010 study 0f 4,000 plus donors by Hope Consulting titled Money for Good (you can download here) found that “few donors do research before they give, and those that do look to the nonprofit itself to provide simple information about efficiency and effectiveness”. In short, ain’t many donors checking Charity Navigator.
  • And for those donors who do some research, according to the Hope Consulting study, they look for “information on the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization … and donors typically look to the organization itself to collect information”. And this is true even among the givers of major gifts.

So Roger seems to minimize the amount of research donors do before giving.

But then today I came across this assertion in Consumers Like Direct Mail, an article in Target Marketing mag:

“So what do people do after they get a direct mail piece? (“Consumer study reveals ‘direct mail matters’ in connected world,” July 11, 2013):

44 percent visit a brands’ website
34 percent search online for more information about the product”

Granted, whatever this study was, it focused on consumer purchases, not fundraising pitches. But isn’t it unlikely that consumers trained and accustomed to readily researching online when they’re purchasing, would not do the same when pitched by a nonprofit … particularly in the context of prospect mailings, where the nonprofit might well not be very well known to the prospect?

Just saying, Roger!

Of course, that’s still not a reason to jump through hoops for Charity Navigator.

But it does mean that you should pay attention to your cross-channel consistency.

The pitch you make in your letter should direct your prospect/donor to a dedicated online landing page that’s fully replicates and supports the offer you’re making in the mail.

Furthermore, if your landing page is promoted uniquely by the mail piece (i.e., and not otherwise visible), you have a way of claiming more credit for the fundraising performance of your mailing!

Integrated Marketig 101.

Do you think donors do much research, or is it all about the emotional impulse?

Tom

4 responses to “What? Is Roger Wrong?!”

  1. Judy Levine says:

    Can’t it be both? They’re caught by emotion and then “check it out”?

    Having said that, looking at a website is only vaguely deserving of the term research. Actual research – I think that’s reserved for higher level gifts that are meant as “investments,” not “gifts.”

  2. Dan Kirsch says:

    Are we talking about what donors/consumers do or what they SAY they do?

    I’m doubting the stats in the Target Marketing article. We should be able to chart such a huge bump in website visits if 43% of direct mail recipients actually went online to check us out, no?

    I’m also no Charity Navigator fan but I think there are important benefits in terms of trust/transparency for offering opt in/out to constituents. In a time when opt in, actually double opt In, is the standard for e-mail communications, how do we justify not informing our donors of our policies about direct mail list sharing and not giving them the opportunity to opt in/out?

    Because that’s the way we’ve always done it?

    We owe it to our donors to make the most compelling case possible for list sharing and allow them to choose to participate or not.

  3. we we work w a lot of corporate partners (product, financial and cause marketing) and many of them look at CN. My own father in law checked us out before donating. so yes, i think it matters.

  4. David Himes says:

    I suspect as the size of the gift goes up, the amount of research goes up as well.

    I also suspect that research reduces the likelihood of a response to the promotion that stimulated the research … but the results of the research may increase / decrease the likelihood of a response to the next promotion (depending of course of what the research reveals).