In his post Why Boring Fundraising Is So Exciting, our pal Jeff Brooks riffs off a Nick Ellinger piece in NonProfitPRO warning that although donors’ use of media is changing, this trend DOES NOT signal that direct mail is dead.

While it’s fine, in fact wise, to be alert to new channels, the successful fundraiser won’t abandon the proven, ‘old’ channel for some ‘amazing new’ channel.

And if you’re tempted to bury the exquisite corpse of direct mail or abandon any other proven channel in favor of the ‘new and shiny’ first ask these questions suggested in the article.

1. Does it [the shiny new channel] help you love those who support you more and/or help your supporters love you more?

2. Does it help you and/or your supporters express that love better?

3. Does it help new people fall in love with you?

In short, ask those questions then heed Jeff’s and Nick’s words of wisdom:

“Newness is not a reason to get involved in a channel. Having a reason to believe that it answers these questions — that’s how you know it’s worth looking into. If you really want to be there for donors, stay with them in the “boring” channels they’re still using. You can yawn all the way to the bank.“

Don’t Stop There

While we’re focused on the importance and value of being ‘boring’, I’ll add another major reason to be very careful when it comes to abandoning or changing the proven: Donor Retention.

The almost pathological desire on the part of many fundraisers to constantly ‘update’, ‘redesign’, ‘improve’ messages, copy and design that has already proven its effectiveness is a big culprit in driving donors away.

A chapter titled ‘Easy Retention Wins for Everyone’ in my book Retention Fundraising lists ‘Be Boring’ as one of the top three wins.

Most of us get bored with our organization’s messages long before our donors do. So we’re constantly fiddling with new copy, new creative, clever new ways to describe our mission and programs. Tinker. Tinker. Change. Change.

As a result we waste prodigious amounts of time and money on new creative. All this tinkering may relieve our boredom, but when we alter or deviate from our organization’s core message and proven approaches in delivering that message, we risk confusing donors and driving them away.

There’s a good reason why successful political candidates employ the same stump speech at every stop, boring the life out of their staff, the traveling press corps, the cable news pundits, and themselves: consistency.

There’s a good reason why successful consumer companies err if they deviate from the makeup of their core product (think New Coke): consistency.

The same holds true for nonprofits that are successful year after year: consistency.

(Hey, I know you’re bored, but believe me you don’t have a single donor who’s going to even notice that you’ve repeated that dynamite year-end appeal from 2015 again in 2016.)

Consistency counts. A lot. Or, In Jeff’s words, consistency helps them “yawn all the way to the bank”.

What steps do you take to insure consistency? What standards, metrics, guidelines do you use when deciding to make significant change?

Roger

P.S. Be especially vigilant about message AND channel consistency where new and first year donors are concerned. A donor who makes his or her first gift because of a direct mail package featuring a powerful story on rescuing abused dogs and cats isn’t very likely to make a second gift if thanked with a letter or email touting the organization’s work on saving porpoises.

To ensure consistency in both messaging and across channels, every organization should have one person in charge of reviewing all communications — mail, email, website, or phone.