Donor Power Blog

LAPSED IN TRANSLATION

2009-11-05T10:06:41-05:00

Two things irritate me more than anything as a donor. First, fail to thank me promptly. Second, imply, even in gentle terms, that my continued support is overdue or inactive when in my mind it is not.

As a fundraising professional, like most, I am diligent about ensuring the former. There is no excuse, ever, for a donor not to be thanked promptly and sincerely.

But I am struck how quickly the fundraising industry as a whole is guilty of the latter.

Perhaps this is because it is common, within the discipline of list segmentation, to label donors who have not given in a prescribed period as “lapsed”. For some non-profits, that may be as little as 13 months.

And that’s OK as a segmentation descriptor, as long as you don’t start speaking to the donors in that segment as if you consider them such.

The fact is, many donors think in terms of annual giving. They budget yearly gifts to select charities. And that means calendar years, not clusters of 12 consecutive months. Furthermore, they are not likely tied to a pre-determined time of the year to give, especially in a turbulent financial environment.

So, if Aunt Ramona gave in January 2006, March 2007, and June 2008, and not yet in 2009 (although she will as soon as she gets her tax refund), in her mind she is still giving annually. Once a year, for the last 4 years. Her charity, on the other hand, might very well describe her as lapsed in January 2007, again in March 2008 and again in June 2009.

It’s certainly one thing to point out to a donor that ”we haven’t heard from you” and “we want you back” if it has been several years since the last gift. But use that language on donors (like me and Aunt Ramona) who think they are regular annual givers, and you risk weakening rather than cultivating donor relationships.

-John Thompson

The Myth of Mad Men, Part 2

2009-11-02T18:29:52-05:00

Unlike the days of Mad Men, today’s Great DM Agencies employ direct marketing professionals who happen to have an area of expertise. The expertise is a focus, but the larger understanding makes the focus relevant and successful.

Creative solutions begin with knowledge – perhaps it is historical performance data, perhaps research—and seek to implement larger strategies, which have been designed to achieve still larger objectives.

The creative director who doesn’t understand the objective, and hasn’t collaborated on strategy, cannot effectively lead a creative solution that will leverage the success drivers (described in the last post) to greatest effect. Neither can the art director, the graphic designer, nor the copywriter create the messages and images that resonate if they do not understand who they are speaking to, and how that segment of audience has reacted to similar messaging in the past or is likely to react to the offer in the future.

Direct Marketers with a Specialty

Great DM Agencies employ creative experts that can absorb the lessons that data has to teach. They can collaborate on and implement the strategies that analysts and strategists formulate, with tactics that support them. And they are engaged in, and reactive to, the subsequent performance of their campaigns.

And why not? Because the converse of those industry studies mentioned earlier is also true: solutions driven by analytic strategy are twice as likely to succeed as “blue-sky” solutions. And what creative professional wouldn’t want to tip the odds in their favor?

The days of Mad Men are long gone. We cannot view the profession through the lens of our individual disciplines. The stakes are too high. Cost increases are stunning. Client “loyalty” is an endangered species. Chasms separate the behaviors and attitudes of the generations of audience.

We must all be direct marketing fundraisers with specialties, but direct marketers first.

Fundraising creatives take heed: our words must sing, our images must inspire, the delivery of the offer must be compelling. But ignore the numbers and spreadsheets that our strategy partners wave at us, and we reduce our chances of success.

So you see, Don Draper, actually it is a science, of sorts.

-John Thompson

The Myth of Mad Men, Part 1

2009-10-29T13:09:54-04:00

In one first season episode of Mad Men, the delicious AMC series about the early 1960s Madison Avenue ad men at the mythical agency Sterling Cooper, creative director Don Draper pitches a lipstick company executive with a compelling concept for a print advertising series. After the skeptical client is finally persuaded on the merits of the concept, he begrudgingly acknowledges that Draper “may be right about this thing.”

To which Draper responds with a smug chuckle: “Well, we’ll never know, will we? It’s not a science.”

Wow. Those must have been the days. Imagine creative with a capital C, a shining lightbulb idea that did little to put light where it was needed most, but instead shone down from its clear blue sky, indiscriminately illuminating everything.

Imagine a culture that held creative vision sacrosanct, with no one to counter a creative director’s proposed solution, other than a client’s gut feelings. Imagine no strategic analysis, no segmentation tactics, no performance metrics.

In short, no accountability.

As a creative director I admit to being, well, if not jealous perhaps a touch wistful. Still, multiple industry studies repeatedly confirm a simple fact:

“Blue-sky” marketing solutions, those untested or unsupported by analytically driven strategy, are more than twice as likely to fail as those solutions underpinned with fact and data based planning.

This is not to say that inspiration is dead – far from it. Originality and innovation abound, in ever more powerful media. But there’s no denying the value of strategically driven creative, by which I mean the strategic analysis of data that informs, in a highly collaborative way, the tactical creative implementation of a campaign.

Sibling Rivalries

The marketing profession bears a certain notoriety for competition among its family members. Each focus area protects its silo with a territorial imperative. Copywriters hunker down against art directors, strategists rail against creatives, account managers swear that shared services “Just Don’t Get It”, and of course everyone believes the client will put the kibosh on the proposed campaign that would otherwise surely win next year’s Echo Award.

However, the truth is that this type of reputation, while it may make for entertaining TV and movies (and YouTube clips), is not the rule at the great direct marketing agencies. Great DM Agencies understand the drivers of campaign success:

The right offer to the right audience, at the right time, delivered over the channel most comfortable and actionable for the customer (or donor), wrapped in a message and package that makes the offer meaningful for them.

It’s an integrated, interdependent chain, and a failure of one link undermines the others, no matter how well-crafted they are. Furthermore, the analytic, strategic, creative, production and account management professionals at the Great DM Agencies live and breathe the chain – these success drivers – on a daily basis.

The creative team at Sterling Cooper, pecking away at their Selectric I’s and pasting up on their drawing boards, couldn’t cut it today. Not because of their tools, necessarily, but because of their insular, “us vs. them” mentality, and the conviction that today’s blue sky inspiration will single-handedly solve tomorrow’s consumer behavior puzzle.

-John Thompson

(John Thompson is a Creative Director at Merkle, Inc., and a 30-year veteran of the direct marketing industry. He spends most of his day trying to figure out how that number got to be so large, so fast.)

Video: non-profits turning to social media during recession

2009-10-27T15:46:00-04:00

Over the weekend, we came upon this segment from Current TV, discussing how non-profits are using social media in innovative ways to battle the economic downturn. Particularly interesting information on "aggregators." Enjoy!

“DONOR” A Title Earned … Not Given

2009-10-23T14:11:36-04:00

I’m on a crusade to change the way the fundraising industry “labels” people who give to charity – primarily money, but also old cars, used clothing, outdated furniture, canned food, etc. Regardless of intent or motivation, we call them our “donors.”

We also call people who give blood, tissue, organs or reproductive material donors. In fact, there is a National Donor Memorial located in Richmond, Virginia that honors people who have donated an organ and/or tissue.

Think about that … a person who is willing to donate blood, a kidney or bone marrow to literally save someone’s life is given the same title as the person who randomly gives $10 or $15 in response to charitable solicitations, often times because they included items such as name labels, cards and calendars.

Don’t get me wrong. My intent is not to belittle those who donate money to charity or de-value their contribution to society. In fact, our world would be a better place if more people did so. I’m just not sure this act of giving warrants the title “donor,” at least not yet.

Becoming a “donor” should be a prestigious title (an honor) and should be reserved for only those who demonstrate through an extended period of time that they are “fully committed” to the organization, regardless of the size of the gift. People who give contributions are not donors, but donors give contributions. There is a huge difference between the two.

So how does someone earn the title “donor”? There’s no rule, of course, but perhaps it’s those who:

Are among the 15% who give 85% of the revenue
Contribute 10% or more of their annual household income to only a few select charities
Demonstrated a sustained pattern of giving over three or more consecutive years
Give and who also advocate for your organization, or
Have a personal relationship to the charity

“Who is a donor?” – someone you can least afford lose. Someone you’d go to great lengths and expense to retain. Lots of people give to charity, but a precious few earn the right to become a “donor.”

Join my crusade. People don’t have to give an arm and a leg to earn the right to be called a donor, but they do have to jump in with both feet!

-Greg Fox

Plugged In, Recharged and Ready to Go!

2009-10-22T12:06:29-04:00

After a short hiatus, the DonorPower Blog is back with some important news! But before we get into that, let’s quickly get caught up on intriguing and somewhat relevant news from around the world …

Let’s see ….

Donating to charity is considered a “suspicious terrorist activity,” according to a video produced by The Center for Empowered Living and Learning and supported by the Department of Homeland Security. It ranks right up there with buying gold, owning guns and using binoculars. People are urged to report such behavior to the FBI. Opens door for the next big premium idea – “Get out of Jail Free” cards.

Please tell me billionaire investor Carl Icahn’s prognosis of “double dip” recession is actually a new Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavor and not another dark economic forecast.

The drought continues in Somalia – even camels are now dying. And, speaking of dying, the nation of Jordon is trying to revive the shrinking Dead Sea by refilling it with salt water.

You’re at a fabulous new restaurant, trendy bar or unique gallery and only want to let a few good friends in on the secret. Don’t use Twitter or Facebook; use foursquare – the fastest growing social networking service in America.

Ring one up for Microsoft’s “Bing.” It is the first search engine to offer search results from Facebook and Twitter as they’re posted, although Google is not far behind.

Now for some important news …we are sad to announce that after many years of sharing, listening and caring, Jeff Brooks has posted his last entry to the DonorPower Blog. We at Merkle want to thank him for his commitment and passion over the years and will continue to socialize the conversation of how to acquire, retain and cultivate happy donors.

Check back tomorrow and regularly thereafter as the DonorPower Blog continues providing unique thoughts, ideas and opinions that we hope will inspire and invigorate the future of direct fundraising.

-Greg Fox

How to know if you're wrong about fundraising

2009-09-24T08:59:00-04:00

Here's the easy test that could save you a kajillion dollars (that's a one followed by a bazillion zeroes). I'm willing to share it with you because I like you.

If your belief, or theory, or intuition about fundraising is based on your own personal experience, you are wrong.

That's right: Your own experience, preference, and wishes always lead you astray. Same with your boss, your consultant, your spouse, and pretty much everyone else who has an opinion about how fundraising ought to be.

That's because your conscious opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with the way real people interact with your message. Add to that the fact that you are not your donor (you're probably very, very different from her) -- and you have a situation where not only are your guesses wrong, they're very often diametrically opposed to what happens in the real world.

Get used to it. Form your beliefs from testing and learning, not personal experience.

Technorati Tags: direct response, marketing

The power of nice

2009-09-23T08:31:00-04:00

Good post at Conversation Agent: Being Helpful is the New Black.

Seriously, being helpful always works. Never hurts. Be nice. Nicer than you have to be.

Is direct mail dying, or should we just kill it?

2009-09-22T08:29:00-04:00

You hear it all the time: Direct mail fundraising is dying: HOORAY!

Read a recent example at the Sea Change Strategies blog: Direct Mail Isn't Dying -- But Sometimes I Wish It Would.

Starting with the belief that direct mail is "inauthentic," the post goes on to throw out some strong accusations about the way direct mail is, including:

Direct mail fundraisers spend much more time thinking about the color or size of the envelope than they do the content.
A huge proportion of direct mail includes mailing labels or other crap to make you feel guilty.
It's a little bit cheesy and dishonest.
The patois of direct mail is loaded with hyperbole and stilted language.

Every one of these is true. Sometimes.

Not always.

There's amazing, empowering, authentic stuff happening in snail-mail every day. Millions of pieces of it. And it's working. It's working a lot better than the crappy stuff.

It's a near-fatal error in your thinking when your starting point is direct mail is crappy and I wish it would go away. Think that way, and you'll make dumb decisions right and left.

If you want to make smart decisions, you must be medium-agnostic and look at facts, not your opinions, about the media. Like these ...

Facts:

Direct mail response rates have been slowly and steadily dropping for several years now. Until last year, a general increase in average gift more than made up for the lower volume, leading to net growth every year. In 2008, many mailers got hit be dropping response and average gift.
Email fundraising has been growing by double digits every year for several years.
Still, direct-mail revenue dwarfs online revenue, and it will for years to come.

NON-facts:

Direct mail by nature is cheesy.
Online marketing by nature is noble.

For sure, the facts tell us things are changing. And we'd better get on board with that change.

There are no facts telling us that any medium should be rejected or embraced because of its moral standards or its style.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, nptech

Seth zeros in on our third-worst problem

2009-09-21T09:18:00-04:00

Seth says the big problem with nonprofit organizations is they resist change. I know I'm among the last to comment on The problem with non, but I beg to differ.

Fear of change is only our third worst problem.

Our #1 problem is hatred of fundraising and donors. Hardly any nonprofit was founded in order to raise funds. But most depend on fundraising to exist. This seems to fuel a sort of resentment of the craft and of donors that blocks effective, donor-focused communication. Organizations with this problem yearn for "better" donors that don't need the "demeaning" tactics of effective fundraising. They spend needless millions on this failed alchemy experiment.

The #2 problem is group-think. Nonprofit culture is so consensus-driven, that decisions can't be made until every possible stakeholder is satisfied. Which, of course, almost never happens.

(#4, if you're interested, is free and cheap services. See Stupid Nonprofit Ads.)

Yes, fear of change hobbles us. But it's entirely possible that some (maybe most) organizations shouldn't be using Twitter or whatever whiz-bang fad is amazing everyone. If you have the first two problems, you want get Twitter right anyway.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, change

Fun week: Award-winning stupid nonprofit ad raises eyebrows (but probably no money)

2009-09-18T09:14:00-04:00

This is one stupid doozy.

Done for the World Wildlife Foundation by DDB Brasil, this ad won a prestigious One Show award. WWF, to their credit, has denounced the work. One Show also stripped it of its honors.

(Read a good account of the fiasco in Fast Company: In Advertising, Stupidity Can Win You Awards.)

The real difference between this and all the other stupid nonprofit ads I present here is this: Everyone noticed. (Check out the blog buzz on Technorati.)

The ad is like so many others in its class: inept, abstract, and disengaged from reality. But it raised an uproar because of its shocking poor taste in the bizarre and illogical connection it draws between the 9/11 attacks and the Indian Ocean tsunami.

It also uncovered the agency award scam system: Agencies will approach nonprofits, offer to do free work for them. The work is specifically geared to win awards, not help the nonprofit. They actually place their ads so they're eligible for awards, but usually in out-of-the-way places. Then submit the work, and sometimes win awards for it.

So remember: Just say no to the agency award scam! I'll bet WWF is wishing they'd done that right now. Stupid nonprofit ads can do grave damage. But only if you allow it.

Just in case the print ad isn't horrifyingly stupid enough, there's also a TV version. Watch with care -- it's stomach-churning awful:

Technorati Tags: fundraising, advertising

Fun week: Postal Service shines in research

2009-09-17T09:12:00-04:00

Ever get frustrated with the Post Office and their persnickety regulations? Maybe they're just a bit more flexible than they let on.

The very cool journal Improbable Research did some amazing postal delivery research, reported at Postal Experiments. Here are just a few of the items they sent through the US postal system:

Rose. Postage and address were attached to a card that was tied to the stem. Delivery at doorstep, 3 days, beat up but the rose bud was still attached.
Hammer. Card was strapped to hammer handle; extra-large amount of postage was attached. Never received.
Feather duster. The card with postage and address was attached by wire to the handle. Days to notice of delivery, 6.
Helium balloon. The balloon was attached to a weight. The address was written on the balloon with magic marker; no postage was affixed. The balloon was refused.
Coconut. Fresh green coconut containing juice, mailed in Hawaii. Delivery at doorstep, 10 days.
Lemon. Never received.
Deer tibia. 9 days.
Large wheel of cheese. The cheese was already extremely ripe (rancid) at the time of mailing. The cheese had oiled its way through the bottom of the cardboard box by the time of pickup, 8 days. The box had been placed in a plastic bag.

I'll never look at a pre-cancelled bulk-rate stamp the same way again.

Thanks to the Direct Creative Blog for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, USPS, direct mail