Everyone who wants to be there.

There!  That was simple!  Join us next week when we explain why water feels wet.  (It’s a liquid).

Yes, it sounds simplistic. But we violate this simple premise by not asking supporters how they would like to get communications from us.  This step has a few key benefits:

It saves money and stops annoying supporters.  I was asked recently at a conference what would happen to their telemarketing program if they allowed people to opt out from telemarketing.  (Or, put more accurately, if they made it easy to opt out from telemarketing and advertised the face you could.)

My question in return: do you think the people opting out of telemarketing are also the people giving through the channel?  Yes, your N will fall as you have fewer people receiving communications through that channel.  But if someone doesn’t like a channel, they are unlikely to give through it.  Thus, the people you are “losing” from the channel are of negative value to you in that channel.  You are spending money to annoy them.  Thus an opt out can make you more efficient and increase net revenue.

It increases deliverability.  You may think there are no marginal costs to email and thus you get no saving by curtailing to those who don’t desire it.  However, there are costs.  As we’ve talked about here, you pay for routinely unopened emails with lower deliverability.  That is, fewer emails will get through to those who might want them.  This creates a very real, if hidden, monetary cost.

Asking for channel preferences increases the likelihood someone will opt in.  DonorVoice has done two different tests of what causes people to opt in (webinars about them are here and here).  Both show that donor communications control is the single biggest factor in whether someone will want to learn more from you.

But wait, as the infomercial implores; there’s more!  In a recent study DonorVoice and the DMA Nonprofit Federation did together, allowing donors control of their communications happier to donate.  Yes, it didn’t increase preference as much as allowing donors to control their gift, but that’s not too surprising given that it fits the task better (control over donations wins for donating; control over communications wins for opting in for communications).

Donors who give you their communications preferences are worth more.  In case after case, people using mail codes are more likely to donate and to give at a greater amount. As reported here, The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare coded people who requested less mail and sent them half as many appeals as those who stated no preference.  Those donors who requested – and received – half as many contacts gave more than the group that didn’t express a preference.  Catholic Relief Services found that donors who requested a specific mail preference gave 6-8x more per year.

Granted, this may not be causal.  That is, CRS didn’t multiple the value of their donor by getting them to state a preference.  Rather, it may be higher value donors who naturally give you their communications preferences.  After all, they are the most engaged with you.

Think of the time and treasure you spend on figuring out who is a more valuable donor.  By asking for preference and honoring it, you not only identify those quality donors – you make them more likely to stay by listening and acting to serve them.

So let’s make an active effort to get people off your file who don’t want to be there.  Yes, you’ll have fewer people on your file, but you’ll be making them count for more.