When Authenticity Gets Lost in the Mail
I get it. You want engagement. You want donors to feel heard. And someone, somewhere convinced you that a faux-official looking survey with a registration number and a barcode was the way to do it.
But here’s the thing: Your donors aren’t idiots.
We recently ran a study looking at donor reactions to these “surveys” – you know the ones. They arrive in official-looking envelopes, have urgent response dates, and somehow only ask questions where the correct answer is “Very Important.”
The results?
Well, they’re about as pretty as a bear-proof storage locker being seen as manipulative, disingenuous and an obvious ruse.
Let’s dissect what’s happening here. The survey includes all the greatest hits of manufactured urgency:
- A fake survey registration number because nothing says “we value your opinion” like a randomly generated string of characters
- A “respond by” date pulled out of thin air
- Questions that make “Have you stopped beating your wife?” look nuanced
The tragic part? This approach isn’t just ineffective – it’s actively harmful. You’re burning trust and trust is the only real currency in fundraising.
So what’s the survey alternative?
- Use progressive profiling by asking 1-2 meaningful questions at a time
- Tag responses in your CRM and actually use them in your segmentation
- Follow up to show donors how their input shaped decisions
- Ask about donor experience with your communications and use the data to improve
- Share donor feedback with program staff
- Try a “Voice of the Donor” panel approach
- Use donor advisory councils for major donors
- Create feedback loops through your acknowledgment process
And what about that mailing? This is an iconic, touching infinity piece of Americana. A take your breath away moment, not a barcode. The DonorVoice lead for this package:
Last month, I watched a father lift his daughter onto his shoulders at Valley View. Half Dome was catching the day’s last light, and the Merced River was singing its ancient song below. The girl gasped – that pure, unfiltered sound of wonder that only children can make. “Daddy,” she whispered, “the mountain is on fire.”
Your donors don’t need or want a gimmick to care. They need to remember the first time they rounded that bend into the valley and felt their heart stop.
That’s the story worth telling. That’s the connection worth making. And that’s what your next mailing should be about.
Kevin
4 responses to “When Authenticity Gets Lost in the Mail”
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
Kevin,
I wrote about exactly the same thing two months ago on LinkedIn to a digital survey I received. This approach, while admittedly effective, doesn’t foster long-term relationships. What’s more, virtually no one reports back on these surveys. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . not likely.
Hi Mark – great minds and all. Direct response failure rate is paradoxically either grossly exaggerated or grossly underreported. That 95%-99% don’t do the thing you want at the time you want it is pretty clear cut. But what % the non-responders were exposed (i.e. saw it, processed it) and of those, did it help or hurt likelihood of future giving.
If the faux survey mailing beats the control by some very tiny amount then we declare victory because we only measure “success” that we see and take no time to understand the impact on the non-responders. The faux survey, the gimmick is not a win even if your direct response test/control spreadsheet says so.
Kevin, these are really, really terrific ideas for donor engagement. We don’t spend enough time getting feedback from our donors about their “donor experience, for sure!”
I am curious about these two:
– Try a “Voice of the Donor” panel approach
– Use donor advisory councils for major donors
Since my consulting company focuses on capital campaigns and major donors, we are always interested in personalized engagement approaches for HNW individuals. Tell me more about the panel approach and Donor Advisory Council idea! Sounds quite promising.
Thanks! Gail Perry
Hi Gail – thanks for your note and question about these two approaches. They serve different but complementary purposes.
The Voice of the Donor panel can be more qualitative or quantitative. I’ll detail out the more qual approach here. It’s typically 30-40 donors and unlike those faux surveys we’re all tired of, this is genuine, iterative engagement.
Here’s how we structure it:
-Twice/thrice annual qualitative sessions – 10-30 respondents recruited from the larger panel Quarterly virtual sessions (60-90 mins). It’s a mix of discussion topics and specific feedback requests
-Pre-session homework/materials review
-Follow-up showing how input shaped decisions
-Rotating membership to keep perspectives fresh
The magic happens when donors see their fingerprints on your work. Maybe they helped shape a new planned giving brochure or how you report impact.
For Donor Advisory Councils, which align perfectly with your capital campaign focus, we take a different approach. These are typically 8-12 major donors who meet 2-3 times annually. The key differences:
–More strategic involvement (program direction, growth planning)
–Often tied to specific initiatives or campaigns
–Higher touch with senior leadership
–Clear term limits and expectations
–Specific expertise recruitment
The critical success factor? Making it real. No manufactured urgency, no rubber-stamp committees. Your major donors didn’t get where they are by not spotting authenticity gaps.