How to dish up Green Eggs and Ham

I love Dr Seuss's Green Eggs and ham and rereading it the other day made me think about (albeit simply) the job we have as fundraisers.

Like poor 'Sam the man' our challenge is to try and 'serve' up our cause and offer in a way that will get people to stop, listen and to take the desired action.

If we follow Sam's example then we should ensure we are:

• looking at various, but appropriate and relevant channels and more importantly going to where the people are, not waiting for them to just come to us


• using new and exciting ways to deliver our messages that will achieve cut through


• persevering - mainly because sometimes people don't know they are in the market for something until they are in the market for something

Of course the tale ends with Sam being thanked for his attempts to get his ham and eggs eaten by the nameless character - who loved what was on offer, and of course that is what we strive for too. After all, once someone has finally experienced our organisation we want them to feel that they are so very glad they did, feel that they made the right decision in choosing to support us, and to stay with us.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

What can we learn from Santa and A Miracle on 34th Street?

It's Christmas time and setting down to watch 'A miracle on 34th Street' is bit of a tradition - but what I noticed this year was the business strategy that was developed for the fictitious department store and all because of Santa's honesty.

"If we don't have it, we'll find it for you" - sounds a little Harrods I know, but the point is that Santa tells people where to shop and indeed where to buy the toys and gifts at the best prices and as a result the manager receives wonderful feedback from its customers.

"Santa's telling everybody where to shop. If you don't got it, it's too expensive, he's saying where to get it at the right price. Tell Santa he made me a Cole's shopper. I'm coming here for everything but toilet paper. Any store that puts the parent ahead of the buck at Christmas deserves my business. Tell Mr. Cole his Santa Claus ought to get a raise."

Now, I know it's just a film and equally, some could say a risky business strategy - but though a fictitious example, I think there is something that we as fundraisers and communicators can learn from it - not least to be a little more giving and dare I say more supportive of our 'competitors' and more mindful of our supporter's needs.

So, if a supporter calls to fund a certain project which your organisation doesn't have - would it be the worst thing in the world to refer them to organisation x, who you know do work in that area or on that theme? Would that be better than trying to create something that isn't best for your organisation and may cost more in servicing than the value of the contribution itself? It could work very well if you have reciprocal arrangements already established for example.

If there is a campaign going on from another organisation, that is working to do what your organisation is also trying to achieve - then what's the harm in actively endorsing the campaign within your organisation and amongst your supporters?

If you are an 'admirer' of a great campaign or initiative from another organisation (even if it doesn't match your mission and aims), what would the harm be in tweeting about it - or liking and sharing on Facebook to your organisation's 'friends' or 'followers'?

As a supporter I would find it bold and refreshing. As a fundraiser I may feel a little anxiety. Should I not be trying to protect my supporters?

But in truth we all know that our supporters support other organisations, (often several), not just our own so why should we not be the bigger organisation and be proactive in highlighting the good in what other organisation's are doing. As individuals we do - even as professionals, twitter posts are full of admiration and support of what colleagues and peers are doing. I am just suggesting something on a slightly wider scale.

Let your supporters see you as caring more about what you are trying to achieve, i.e. ending poverty, curing illness, stopping cruelty to animals and children rather than your income figures and the benefits could be great. I am not suggesting going over board but I think there are times when such an approach could be mutually beneficial and valuable.

After all in the film, Cole's Store found their income went through the roof and won some amazingly loyal customers into the bargain! So who needs Santa?

Thanks as ever for stopping by and Happy New Year!

A Christmas tale: Does it matter who signs your letters?

I am asking this question mainly rhetorically but also to serve as a reminder.

The reminder part is that, though we know that the signatory of a communication should be selected because of relevance: to both the supporter and to the issue being raised - I think we can sometimes fail to focus on choosing the right person to deliver the message and instead just go with what's gone before.

Does it matter, does it affect response? I am sure it does because ultimately it is what that message makes someone feel and do that is important and the signatory, though a mere name at the end of a letter is essentially the story teller at the end of the day.

I know this is all obvious stuff - but I was reminded very strongly of it recently.

I am having Christmas early this year because some of the people I care about most will not be with me on the day. I could have called them and invited them - but instead I sent a card, with the photograph of my beautiful son, Noah on the front and he invited them.

Would my family and friends have come anyway, sure they would. But the invitation coming from Noah was just more special. They all called to say yes, and to comment on the lovely invitation. It made them feel special and it engendered a stronger feeling than my call would have done.

So back to my initial question - yes it does matter. Will it affect response - not always (depends on the communication), but it will have an impact on how the people receiving it feel and that is just as important.

Thanks as ever for stopping by and a very Merry Christmas!

For your eyes only..or so it seems

I have seen a lot of charity communications recently. On trains, bus shelters, cross tracks, on-line and even mailings - and there have been several occasions where I have had to ask the question 'Was this tested in its final format and media before it was produced'?

Obviously by that question, I think the answer is in some cases NO - otherwise I would assert that the design, the fonts, the colours used would have been very different. Equally I know that for some media it is easier to do than others i.e. place your mocked up press ad in an actual newspaper to see how it looks. But my point is more about putting yourself in your supporters shoes and trying to view your communication from their perspective - quite literally view it.

So, what is the value of a piece of a communication if people are not able to fully engage with the piece being displayed because they can't read it without standing right on top of it, or with letter copy without squinting or holding it in front of your face? I would answer, in some cases not as much as the cost of it.

Of course everything looks lovely on the screen of a mac - and I know how much time and work goes into producing it - but the shame is more that that work comes to nothing if it doesn't have the impact it could of had in its chosen execution.

You then have to wonder about the assessment of this creative if it fails... are you disregarding something because the delivery and execution of that message is at fault?

And from a potential supporter perspective - if something is difficult to engage with i.e. read, or even see, your work isn't seen, and people won't be able to do what you are asking them to and then doesn't it just become more communications 'noise' in an already noisy market place.

And doesn't that make all of our jobs more difficult in the long run?

Anyway, it is just something to think about the next time you are getting some creative produced.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Do you know what you are selling?

I was struck by the headline of a recent commentary piece on the return of Oddbins off-licence to the High Street. Which stated "Staff need to know what they're selling" [as a prerequisite for any future survival], and this made me think of the importance of our own personal knowledge of our cause and organisation.

Each person that works for any organisation at some point is a spokesperson or representative for that organisation in the outside world. Thus it is probably useful to be able to speak with some knowledge on all areas of the organisation's work and not just the area you specifically work on.

So, as something that may help assess your own position, ask yourself this question - If your supporter care team (if you have one) passed on to you the latest supporter query to a recent fundraising activity or campaign ,would you personally be able to answer it?

And coming back to my original point, if you were given a more general query about your organisations work would you be able to answer it confidently ?

If you do not answer with an emphatic yes, then it could well be that you want to try responding to some supporter queries and see where your knowledge gaps may be.

As an aside, in a previous work life I was the supporter care function as well as the fundraiser, planner and a data person in one role. I know that in bigger organisations where there are supporter care departments that often that level of knowledge or skill is not specifically required from us. But whether it is part and parcel of your job or not - it probably should be a skill we all have.

In the end it can only be of benefit to you, your organisation and any future supporter you may well meet. It is nice to be prepared after all!

Thank you as ever for stopping by.

Aristotle, Einstein and Supporter retention

From what I remember from school, Aristotle thought that movement was propelled by motion and once the force 'pushing' ceased then the object would stop.

But Einstein's first theory of motion, proved that the opposite was true and that an object would keep going until forces acting against the movement stopped it. Though for many of us in our naivety, Aristotle could well have been accurate, particularly if you have had any experience of trying to move a large object!

Either way - it is worth thinking about both perspectives in relation to your Supporters (even if my recollection of the science is a little simplistic).

What are you doing to propel your supporters along their journey? Are you giving them choice? feedback, fulfilling on their preferences and asking them what they want and sending them what they need to stay engaged?

Conversely......

What are you doing that is potentially slowing down their journey, making their experience more laboured and slow? Are you thinking about what you are sending them - or could you just be sending and broadcasting because that's what you have always done? The results have been OK, good even but you haven't really reviewed them for a while? And more importantly you have not taken time to see what your supporters want or need and how this may have changed since they first started their support.

Ultimately in both cases it is the supporter that decides to stop their support, but the more barriers you create to their choice and experience the more likely their ceasing to support you will become a reality and a permanent one.

Thank you as ever for stopping by.

Can you have too much of a good thing?

In short - yes. Is that a bad thing? Again - it can be.

I think it is vital that supporters feel that they have had the choice in what they receive after all they are more likely to look at them if they are not wondering 'why the hell am I getting this'?


And with the sheer amount of communications people receive these days, I think that this mindset is helpful. The issue then is of course, 'I have agreed to receive this but are they relevant to me?' The other challenge is then I think getting the balance right in terms of frequency.

As a supporter of a charity that, put it bluntly, I adore and can do no wrong in my eyes... well sadly they are starting to and part of this is because I am getting too much feedback.

Yes - I know! It sounds mad - but it is true. For me the constant notifications that there is a new update waiting for me is actually making me feel.... guilty. Every time I look at my email and see the subject lines still bold as unopened emails it makes me recoil.

I know this is not their intention and in the past their off-line feedback has been wonderfully gratifying on all levels. But right now with a new notification of an update generally once a week, sometimes more it is getting to the point where I can't and in fact won't go and view it.

What is the damage I hear you ask? Is there any harm? Would I give more to the next appeal to assuage my guilt? Is it such a bad thing? Well to me it is. My relationship with this organisation is not based on guilt - it never has been.

Did I sign-up to receive the updates? Yes, I did. But what is interesting is how I am starting to change my view on how the organisation works. Whereas before, the feedback felt it was reporting on a success hard won and significant, now the constant updates feel merely like a churn of case studies.

Thankfully, the damage thus far is that I have changed my preference and have opted out of receiving these updates entirely. Partly because there was only those two options: to receive or not - which is a shame in itself.

Interestingly, as I was writing this I found this abstract about the under provision versus the overprovision of partner support in the success of marriages, and it reminded me that people's relationships with the causes they support are very similar to a marriage and it's probably good to bear that in mind.

Thank you as ever for stopping by.