happydonors

A couple of posts back I acknowledged my tendency to rate success based on Return on Investment (ROI). In saying this, I quickly want to contradict myself, acknowledging that response numbers don’t matter so much as life-time value of donors. And even that is too much an exercise in monetizing generosity.

It’s far more important to change how we think than to improve what we know. While wrestling with changing my own thinking, away from the numbers-crunching that comes naturally when dealing with large donor files, I came across the following on the SOFII site (register today and visit often), from an article by George Smith, of Relationship Marketing in the UK. Consider…

“The apparent science with which we surround our fundraising is indeed shabby. But our use of language underlines the extent to which we have stopped thinking. What do we call people who give us money? Supporters. What do we call them if they don’t give us money again? Non-respondents. What do we call them if they don’t give us money for a long time? Lapseds. How do we describe this process of apparent decline? Attrition. Every single one of these sloppy constructs is mendacious.

“Someone who gives you money has almost certainly done it impetuously. Many of them will not remember your name in a week’s time. To talk of these good people as ‘supporters’ is absurd. And, by the time these good people get to be ‘non-respondents’ or ‘lapseds’, we are implying a series of thoughtful, sequential decisions by that original donor. It is nothing of the sort of course. We sent them a number of boring formulaic mailing packs and they threw them away. Attrition, my arse!”

Almost all of the following were tested into control status for organizations I’ve worked with.  (Many were also subsequently beaten, almost always by others in this list.)

1. Resell membership:   Four-page letter telling your story, core mission, history, litany of victories.   This has won and held on the longest.  When beaten, it’s been on cost, not raw response.

2. “WHYFU”  — Usually late in the renewal cycle, a letter asking “why have you forsaken us?”   The appeal is highly personal, asking what we’re not doing as well as we used to, asking the donor to either renew or return the reply form with a note telling us “how we’re falling short.”   (I’d read these notes.)

3. Hard Card — Credit-card weight plastic card with name, year of renewal membership.  Best sent as first renewal.  “I’m so confident that you’re renewing I’ve already enclosed your card.”   You need pretty large quantities for the costs to shake out right.

4. Greenbar — Run the letter on old-style computer paper, alternating big stripes of green and white.  (Also sometimes blue and white.)   I’ve seen tested once with pinfeeds vs. without.  Pinfeeds won.

5. School pad — Print letter on yellow stock with blue stripes, like schoolchildren use.   Preprint handwritten without personalization.  Or use a large typewriter font.

6. 3×5″ Card — Enclose an old-style index card with the donor’s name, address, and recent gift history.  Ask donor to check info and return with renewal donation.

7. Invoice — Statements work great for big brand names like Red Cross, often for smaller groups, too.  The make me uncomfortable because our relationship is best supported by personal corresondence.  But they’re cheap and often win.

8. Voucher — The reply form looks like a voucher either: 1) extending membership an extra couple of months so your renewal month shifts, or 2) giving you an extra few months “free” when you renew now on an overdue renewal date.   (These are net the same proposition.)

9,  YES/NO — Ask donors to tell you clearly “Yes” or “No” on their renewal position.  A rationale: as a good steward of donated money, you don’t want to have to spend resources asking again.

10. YES/NO as above, only have pressure-sensitive Yes/No labels on the carrier.  Donors transfer the appropriate sticker to the reply.    I’ve not seen this tested but most techniques in commercial marketing transfer to fundraising.

11. Statement of Savings — For groups that protect tax savings or retirement benefits, show a statement with a CPA air about it summarizing the financial benefit to donors.  (Could this work with other missions, with an accounting of other achievements?)

12. State Specific — Personalize the overline and some of the message with state-based issues or number of renewed donors in the state.  Best if the state name shows through a second window on the carrier.

13. Certificate — Format so the donors gets a 5 1/2″ x 8 1/2″  personalized certificate of appreciation.  Example:  Use a 17″ form.  The second sheet has a certificate on the top, a perf, the reply on the bottom.  Mails in a 6×9″ carrier.

14.  Anniversary — Enclose a premium like a card or lapel pin with your logo and the current year.  Copy makes a big deal out of this being “you XX year anniversary commemorative” including that message prominently next to the premium.  (Not cleanly tested.)

15.  Decals are cheap and little used outside the political arena.  If they work in your renewals, print by the kajillions and mail as needed.

16.  Survey — “We want your opinion as we prepare for the new year.”   Ask donors to help set your agenda, establish your priorities, always framed in a nonbinding way.  This can be tweaked so donors feel obliged to give more when they ask you to do more, or “add $5″ for a specific task.

17.  Address labels — If label acquired, label renewals work.  Also you can time these to run with your acquisition, minimizing costs.

18. Proxy Ballot — Donors are asked to participate in votes before board of directors.  See “survey” above.  When your Chair has a prominent name, donors can participate in a “re-election.”

19. Computer Punch Card — Remember these?  Doesn’t matter.  (Remember typewriters?)   Not tested in fundraising, I saw one huge win in consumer marketing using an old punch-card format for the reply form.  A custom die, of course.

20.  Name Preference — Before issuing the renewed Membership Card, you want to ask/confirm the donor’s preferred first name.   With their renewal gift.

21. Two-Year Membership Offer

22. Test AFT monthly giving in one slot.  (Automatic funds transfer from bank account.)

23. Prestige Circle Club — Give them special status.  Start with that 20% who provide 80%, but first plan a good communication stream for these, you best donors.   Don’t take them out of the appeal cycle.  Add special communications.  Even easier/cheaper now with email.

24. Use a simulated overnight package.   Even a 9×12″, expensive as postage has become, can be a huge winner for Renewal One.

25. “Which would you accept” — A statement of urgent need, this survey variation asks donors what to drop if you can’t reach your fundraising goals.   (Done successfully but not tested.)

26.  “Cut up the card” — Best with a hard card, but even if soft, ask donors to cut up and return the card because membership (ideally with associated privileges) are nontransferable

27. Quick Decision — Tell Members at the start of letter to take out their renewal form and make a quick decision, “but be sure to consider what you have at stake …”   Not tested.

28. Signature Form — We need to know you received your official Membership Card and to have your legal signature on file related to right to vote on business matters.  You can leverage a calendar or other premium mailing by asking for a receipt.

29. Fast Fifty — Offer a premium for the first fifty who renew from that state.  Give it to all, of course.

30. Photocopy of previous renewal with “copy” stamp.

31. Urgent white mail — Laser a white piece of paper with a personal renewal appeal.  Carrier also has no logo, only a return address “typewritten.”

Do you have more?  Or success/failures with any of these?  Send an email to dan@happydonors.com

How many of the following describe your organization and your mail and electronic communications:

–Flat response to house-file appeal?

–Flat or declining response to acquisition off proven lists?

–You have identified groups/types of people who you think should be supporting your organization but who have not yet responded to the current streams?

–You admire your competitors appeals/aquisition/emails/web site?  (You don’t know if they’re working, but they sure look good!)

–You’d like to get more out of interactive/electronic media, but aren’t sure it’s worth the investment?

–You’re preparing for (aspiring to) significant growth in your programs, but aren’t confident resources can keep up?

–You wish you could get (and think you deserve) more attention from the media?

Any or all of these are symptoms that your creative strategies are going out of date.   Many groups plug away with these sad conditions for months or years because they don’t have the time or money to change things.   An answer can be a Creative Tune-Up … starting with an audit of all your communications to donors and prospects … every current and potential touchpoint.

Hiring a consultant is one way to go.  (And yes, I’m shamelessly available.)  Yet you can accomplish a whole lot simply with a serious self-analysis.

This requires a break from daily doings.  A retreat.  And participation by everyone from your board to your volunteers.

You’re best off starting with your CEO, because this won’t do squat unless overlaid with a level of seriousness, even emergency.   Without corner-office buy-in, it can easily be a combination of futile finger pointing and financial frustration.

But buy-in won’t be tough when the powers that be realize what you have to gain:

–New donors.

–New KINDS of donors.

–Greater frequency of gifts.

–Larger gifts.

Perhaps most important:  New energy in your staff and volunteers.  And if done right, in your CEO and board, too.

More to follow.

A Small Change, fundraising blog by Jason Dick, a campaign manager for a college in Redmond, largely offers tips for small orgs.   More interesting to me are his meditations on how we think about charitable giving, donors, and donor cultivation.

His All Donors as Major Donors post is prime.  Here he proposes that we think about the generosity of donors relative to their ability to give.  The $50 gift from a person of modest means is as “major” as the $500 donation from someone affluent.   All ARE in this real sense, major donors.  Perhaps we should cultivate them with this in mind.  Jason Dick even asks “why do we only personally cultivate donors at a specific level?”

When you visit All as Major, read the many posted comments, which reflect a good range of thinking on these matter, including some thoughts that I will echo.

I work almost exclusively with fairly large organizations, with donors numbering from 120,000 to several million.  We’re doing direct marketing, which is purely based on numbers, percentage response, with a hard focus on net revenue resulting from any fundraising effort.

In this world, treating all donors as major donors would seem to be malpractice, potentially harming the revenue flow and available resources the organization needs to fulfill its mission.

A heartless assessment, eh?

Now lets mitigate the number crunching and adapt the wisdom behind treating all donors as “major” … in the sense that they are, indeed, often being more generous than we give them credit for, and that that their long-term potential could be more “major” if we thought about them differently.

Let’s first recognize that fundraising via mail and electronic media is not really focused on the ROI of each appeal.

Good fundraising is founded on lifetime value rather than net revenue.   Any organization that thinks of appeals as “events” rather than touch-points in continuing campaign will never fulfill its fundraising potential.

When we look at longitudinal giving … donations over time … certain donor categories are clearly more “major” than they might otherwise seem.   Smart organizations treat them accordingly, at very least “treating more donors as major donors.”

Now factor in the reality that most bequest donors never appear as “major donors” in our files.

The statistical profile of the average bequest donor is a 72-year-old woman who responds to mail appeals, has never sent a gift larger than $20 (though  usually several times a year), and has given nothing in the last 18 months.  Bequests don’t “fall from the sky.”  They’re left by very generous people of modest means who remain below your radar until the six-figure gift arrives.

Both lifetime value and bequests dictate that we treat all donors well, the spirit behind “happydonors” and A Small Change.

The way we talk to donors is key to that treatment.   Delivering “Thanks” and acknowledgement of the donors’ generosity within all levels of all communications.

This is more difficult to implement than many imagine, because it involves much more than technique.  It’s attitude, your mindset when you writing an appeal.   (I can teach technique, but attitude is a change in how you think, rather than what you do.)

Appreciation for the generosity of those with modest means can help shape the right attitude for effective fundraising copy.

For some really provocative thoughts on how we think about and communicate with donors, check out Jason Dick’s earlier The Rich Young Ruler for some very provocative thoughts on how we too often “mediate meaning” rather than “make meaning”in our dealings with donors.

P.S.  I was led to A Small Change by a Nonprofit Blog Exchange “Virtual Event”.  The Exchange is in my Useful Links column.

– You’re not writing to all of the people on your mailing list. You’re writing to the 2% or so who are fully engaged with your organization’s mission at the moment they are reading. That realization will focus your communication and get your message moving much faster.

– Donors aren’t giving “to” your organization … they’re giving “through” you.

– You count only insofar as you fix a problem your donors worry about … sustain or expand a solution they already believe in… and make them feel like THEY have made a difference.

– Actually, you aren’t all that important. Your mission may be important, but only to the few who think they are affecting change with your help.

– You’ll gain gifts only insofar as you convince people you’re giving them what they want… a feeling of accomplishment because they made a gift to you.

– Anger is usually more compelling than compassion.  People give out of frustration that others aren’t doing something, convinced that they can (through you).

– Apply the “you” test to appeal letters:  Circle every “you” in red.  In the most effective letter, red will be splashed all over all pages.

– Cast out stats.  You can never reason anyone into going the unreasonable:  giving away their hard-earned money, getting nothing (concrete) in return.

– After you’ve made the case for your appeal, consider for one moment: What would happen if your organization did NOT exist?  If your donors don’t know the answer to that question with scared certainty, you may as well not exist.

In the recently published How Fiction Works, James Woods provides many insights that will make you a better reader and writer of fiction.  Worth your time, though be forewarned: his home library may be a bit deeper than yours and he seemingly thinks nobody every got things better than Flaubert.

That aside, I was fascinated by his discussion of consistency, credibility and voice of narrator and characters in exposition.  Particularly his comments on the reliability of the narrator and the importance of having the narrator’s voice maintaining some consistency or corelevance with the language and sensibilities of characters.

All of which is a long route to:  when I write in the “voice” of a letter’s signer, I never try to mimic and very rarely try to pick up characteristic phrasing, which can sound forced and signal “false.”    For one thing, that can lead to talking like the organization.  Something about apery forces formality.

Instead I seek the language and message of the mission — the “voice of the mission” as it were.   Then overlay the fervor of that mission’s leader … which can be more fervent (and conversational) than I hear from anyone in the client organization itself.

Which is not to say that ngo ceos aren’t fervent.  Most are very enthusiastic and exceptionally articulate.  (Though a second-tier person is sometimes yet more of both.)

It’s just that my own phrasing, pumped full of fervor, spewing out with enthusiasm, can actually grant greater verisimilitude of that individual.

More important, it can be more effective than trying to take on that person’s skin.  Because I at this point am subconsciously structuring the communication to be effective, asking early and often, building intensity, and other methods of making this wholly nonfiction communication do its job.

In a recent article in Web Marketing Today, Todd Follansbee makes a number of great points highly relevant to nonprofit web sites.

Read the article.    But here are a few excerpted points: