Direct response fundraising is all about connecting with the donor via various mediums. Of course with the invention of the “world wide web” and email, we now have more channels than ever. And yet, I am slightly surprised by charities who say we only communicate to our donors through email. Or – ‘direct mail is the only thing that works for us’.
I was reading an article in this months publication of Advancing Philanthropy called “Direct Response Fundraising” by Beth Isikoff.
Last year she sat down and did a little secret shopping of her own (a hot topic these days) during the busiest week for fundraising – the last week in December.
In her experiment she gave $35 to six charity’s – none of which she had ever given to before.
Nonprofit No. 1: Direct Mail acquisition appeal, No. 2: Viral email message, No. 3: DRTV spot, No. 4: Unsolicited call to Information Hotline, No. 5: Personal cheque with a note to a federated headquarters and No. 6: Online donation through a website.
She goes through all of her findings in detail (you can likely buy the magazine by clicking through the link above) but what she found was – although some of them were very slow to thank her or even acknowledge a gift had been made – one thing was certain, they all wanted a second gift.
She writes, “… I found it fascinating how each group attempted to engage me to give again. Some kept me in the original channel I gave in (online received online solicitations), but others quickly tried to pursue the offline/online intergration strategy. I received a total of 51 requests from the six nonprofits I gave to for an additional gift within eight months of my first donation. I received another 54 appeals from 37 competing nonprofits after my charitable rented/exchanged heart was exposed. The only problem is that I felt as though my heart had stopped.”
Ouch.
But the point that stood out to me was her interest in the fact that in all cases, the organization that received an online gift have made efforts to communicate with her offline. Alternatively, none of the offline channels have attempted to reach her via email, even those that have her email address.
The point: I think it is unwise and irresponsible to assume that donors will only want to communicate/give to your cause one way. Especially based on demographics. Yes, we know that older donors like direct mail and we believe younger people love to give online. But by not reaching out via different mediums, you loose many opportunities to connect with your potential constituents.
It’s not always about getting another donation. It’s about making and maintaining relationships.
That being said – who will be the first person to say – “but donors don’t want relationships with charities, they just want to feel good about themselves”?
My heart stopped too! Great post, John. I’d write more, but it would only restate all that you’ve already written.
Thanks Laurie.
Thanks for a thought provoking post.
There appear to be different schools of thought on multichannel marketing.
One is that people show channel preference with their initial response. Others believe in the synergy produced by marketing to the same responders using multiple channels regardless of how they were acquired.
One direct marketing forensic analyst believes that channel use is driven more by zip code (i.e. geodemographics) than age. For example suburbia and exurbia prefer online communications. But urbanites prefer direct mail.
And using email or outbound` telemarketing risks alienating donors or any customer unless permission is given.
I hate getting unsolicited calls from anyone. And I get many phone calls from bogus fundraisers. So I insist on direct mail from such suspect callers. Direct mail seems to weed out the fly by nighters. At least, I get an opportunity to investigate them.
So test into multichannel efforts before assuming that it automatically yields a good return. Treat each donor as an individual. And ask for permission to contact them by phone or email. Otherwise, the relationship could sour before it has a chance to grow.
Great points Ted – with a nod to the great truth in direct response – all things are unknown until you test!