There's nothing average about it

I'm a big fan of Ted talks. The variety, the view points, the range of subjects, the expertise - all fascinating and thought provoking.

I stumbled across this one over the summer, The myth of average by Todd Rose.

If you have 18 minutes to spare, do give it a view - because it was fascinating both in relation to how the US Air Force approached fighter plane design in 1952 or how the structure of the education system  is often failing the brightest and most talented students in the US education system. But, at the heart of it, the point  was that thinking differently can nurture and harness potential - and that is by not designing for the average.

As I listened, it struck me that average is everywhere and decisions are made about it and because of it everyday, including in the not for profit sector.

So, the next time you use the term - the average supporter is...., have a think about what that means and also what it doesn't mean for the information you have and the judgement you make.

I am not saying on the basis of one very bright man talking about averages that it hasn't got value - but  it was a great  reminder that we can generalise because of it - and that could be to the detriment of what we do and what we decide to do next for the programmes we lead, the investment choices we make and for the experience of those that support and engage with our cause.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Not Goodbye, but when will we see you again?

Having recently come back from a lovely holiday, at a lovely resort where we received a lovely welcome and recognition that we had been before what on earth could my gripe be I hear you ask?!

Well  it is essentially this.  We often put so much more thought and effort into the welcome, that we forget about the goodbye. A goodbye which if you want people coming back to use your service or in our context make a gift, run an event etc. should in fact be a continuation of that wonderful welcome. Instead it has often become transactional and administrative with little thought to when we might see them again or expressing in no uncertain terms that we'd like to.

Now in the context of fundraising and supporter engagement, is there really an end point - not really, we want to build meaningful on-going relationships with people who want to have relationships but if you look at each engagement a supporter has with you, there is frequently a process that will operationally conclude a certain stage of that engagement i.e. a thank you letter thanking someone for their gift. Is this the fundraising equivalent of checking out of a hotel and paying the bill? Where you pay for the lovely experience and hand over the credit card and receive the reams of paper, and a thank you from the reception staff... and then ....you leave. Mulling over the experience and them hoping you'll return at some point or not?

Of course, my experience isn't a terrible one  by any stretch. People were nice, appreciative, asked if we had had a lovely holiday and wished us a safe flight and all that. All fine and appreciated. But I guess my point is that I think it could be better and I think at those critical stages of engagement - whatever they might be, I think more thought is required to ensure that the supporter's experience is a positive one laying the foundations for the next step.

So, what I am suggesting is that we look at all of those points, whether it be a thank you letter or a communication to a regular giver that has stopped their gift and ensure that we aren't saying 'goodbye' or 'goodbye forever' but instead asking 'when will we see you again? or at least demonstrating at that point that we'd love to see them again soon.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Amanda

Fundraisers - we are human after all

As I sat in the National Gallery looking at the fantastic art - impressed by the skill and trying to decide which Van Gogh I preferred, I then caught sight of a self portrait of a young artist.  He wasn't known to me (but I am in no way an art connoisseur), but as I looked at this young man who had been a pupil of a great master of the 18th century, I realised my mind was thinking about this person, their life, their motivation, how they may have felt being tutored by someone of brilliance and I realised that this was much more interesting and personal than me admiring the mere work on show.

As fundraisers, stories are our most valuable asset - we all know that. Obviously there is much more to fundraising than that but the stories we tell are what helps ensure what we do has a human face (or animal) and that in turns drives emotional connection and action.

Unfortunately, we are in a period where we are often judged on the techniques we employ to do our job - rather than the importance of what we do and the impact it makes. More so, when people have strong views on those techniques or indeed when they are wilfully misunderstood - but my point is that I think we need to tell our own stories a bit more.

There are clearly signatories on our communications and people at the heart of what we do, but the reality is we don't share our stories as fundraisers; of how we got here, why we are doing what we do, or why we are working for the charities we do. We don't necessarily put forward a human face of fundraising - that it is people ultimately working hard to build engagement with supporters and prospective supporters - not lots of machine's churning out letters.

On the odd occasion that we do, we tell those stories in the bubble of the charity world, not to our donors and supporter, the people who to my mind would benefit from knowing a bit more about the people working behind the scenes. My reason for this is because ultimately if our supporters understand why we do what we do and believe in it and see the impact of that, they may well start seeing us as people wanting to make a better world for people and animals, rather than sales people or amoral people that would do anything to get some money out of them.

So the next time you send a newsletter or letter for example, maybe test including a picture of a fundraiser involved in creating it, with a little blurb about why they do what they do, why they care.. why they are at the organisation. Allow your organisation to tell its fundraisers' stories or at least try it.

My short story ... and it doesn't have to be long

I grew up with a mum who was passionate about animal rights, and I remember the charity letters she received and the petitions she signed all through my childhood. My mum was a proud charity supporter. Later, I remember being moved to tears and anger by Ceausescu's orphans and still, to this day I can recall the horror and despair in the news footage.  Those are the things I remember most that motivated me to want to make a difference in some small way.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

We have to do better

Over the last while I have been sharing my experience of 'reactivating' my support to one of my favourite charities after a hiatus.  At the time I explained that although my financial support had stopped for a while, my belief and commitment to the cause itself had not waned.

My frustration for much of this process was in fact the lack of recognition for my past support, the missed opportunity to acknowledge what they already knew about me, to make my support feel valued. After all, I resumed my support spontaneously I wasn't called or mailed, I just took the opportunity to start my financial support again. A perfect example of volunteering versus conscription.

So my story continues. Three months ago I received a telephone call to increase my support. It was actually well scripted and they had obviously done some work to make it dynamic and relevant based on the answers I gave in the conversation. I was convinced and agreed to increase my support, which was about 9 months after I signed up.  I was happy to do it.

Over the last three months since the call I have been waiting for my increase to be actioned,  but this morning I received a letter. It was signed from the supporter care manager and though pretty innocuous and straight forward in its content it kind of annoyed me.

• The letter itself, though factual and apologetic lacked warmth and detail - the delay was caused by an 'external processing error' apparently. We've all been there when we have external suppliers handling fulfilment for our charities' processing - but it's taken three months to notice..
• A call would have been better than a letter .. or even an attempt to call.
• The apology was for inconvenience caused, which if I am being facetious I could argue that I am £15 better off as three months of additional payments have not been taken. That being said the main issue for me is that feeling that this additional support that was so vital and imperative in the call is no longer that important.  It certainly didn't factor in the letter message at all which I feel is a mistake particularly after this amount of time lag.
• The letter format itself - and yes, I am being picky now but the name and address is a different print density from the main letter, so it feels knocked up rather than specially drafted to apologise to me personally as a supporter. 
• Not even a 'Merry Christmas' or something suitably non denominational included (it's two weeks away from December 25th!).

This tale, though a bit of a saga is essentially meant to highlight something that we all should know as fundraisers and communicators. Which is that the stages after the fundraising is just as vital as the work that goes into the main campaign or activity.  All that work that went into a rather good fundraising call has been undermined by processes and now a lacklustre supporter care letter.

With even greater scrutiny on how we fundraise and communicate with our supporters and potential supporters which is making things much more challenging - supporter care should no longer be the after thought. It should be planned in upfront with the campaign itself, and done so with fundraiser input to ensure that the experience of elevating the thank you and supporter care around the campaigns is tight and of the highest quality as possible.

It's the time of year, and I could be being a little Grinch like about this - but it's a hard environment and in the coming year, support will be won and lost by the service that supporters and donors receive during sign-up, after sign-up and every stage after that.  So we should stop making our letters look admin like (even if they are), we need to ensure that systems are in place to limit mistakes (more so than ever) but if mistakes do happen that we ensure there is warmth and authenticity in the explanation and the apology.  I don't think that is too much to ask.

Thank you kind reader as ever for stopping by and wishing you a very merry Christmas!

What do you want, blood?

Currently there's lots of discussion about what makes a great donor experience, and equally greater discussion about how that is delivered.  So I thought I would share this, because I think it speaks for itself.

As with everything we do in fundraising, it isn't rocket science.  At its heart it is about being authentic, genuine and sincere and the fact that this was delivered by mobile also goes to show that all channels are a potentially great vehicle for delivery of feedback if the organisation genuinely has something to say to the donor. In fact for this, text was the perfect choice.

Clearly for the person who received this message, this text has made their blood donation and the impact of that donation meaningful and real.  What more could you ask for.

Hat tip to my colleague Carol who spotted this on Facebook.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Amanda  

Show me you know me...

Okay, so I was lamenting a little following my recent engagement with an organisation's supporter care team of which I decided to resume my support.

As I said at the time it wasn't a bad experience at all, but my disappointment related to the fact that as a previous, and dare I say generous supporter of more than a decade - I thought it would have been 'nice' to be recognised in that way.

You can read what I had to say about it all here

Practically I thought to myself afterwards, maybe the person just didn't do the research ahead of calling me or didn't have time - all very possible in a busy supporter care team. But, now that they are aware, I thought to myself I might receive the confirmation letter that does acknowledge that I returned to the fold and resumed my monthly commitment.

Okay, so I am here to tell you that no - that was not the case either.  There was nothing beyond the usual generated letter thanking me, confirming the details of my regular monthly gift and briefly explaining the difference it will make. Which I knew anyway as I had supported before!

So why am I so disappointed.  Am I disappointed as a supporter or a fundraiser - probably both.

I don't expect the CEO to knock on my door with balloons that say thank you - honestly I don't - but I think what this experience clearly demonstrates is just how much of what we do is automated and homogenous and that this is at the expense of genuine, tailored supporter care and relationship building.

I would have hoped that the person I spoke to would have taken note that I had resumed my support and that there would be a way to personalise the letter I received - or even if that wasn't possible (and I am giving some benefit of the doubt on that one), a post it note, a compliments slip or a even a PS. just acknowledging that fact and saying thank you for coming back.

Though my interaction with this organisation was paused transactionally, it doesn't mean that I wasn't watching in the wings, watching the progress. As much as some people question what they are lapsing from in the 'I didn't have a relationship with you in the first place' way, I can tell you from experience that just because I stopped my support for a while, I still felt like a supporter. I still certainly cared. And I don't think that is unique to me.

As a fundraiser I know how rare it is relatively speaking for supporters to resume their support, so as a supporter who has done just that I wanted to feel valued, special and have that fact acknowledged. It's there in my data, it was there in the conversation I had it was just no where to be seen when it came to the confirmation and to me that is another missed opportunity to make me, the donor feel special. 

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Don't neglect the people who want a relationship with you

Just the other day, I decided to resume support of one of my favourite causes. I had stopped giving a while ago and wanted to start giving again. It was the right time for me to do so.

I completed the form on-line, and in haste transposed some of my account details. As a result, I received a call from the organisation's supporter care team. 

I confirmed my details - now accurately.  I confirmed the amount. And I was even asked whether I had seen anything to prompt my giving.  All good. 

Now this is where it wasn't so good, I had supported previously for a long time, and made additional gifts on top of my Direct Debit, but there was no mention of that fact in the call - a lost opportunity to demonstrate they knew me - to welcome me back.

When I confirmed my details - I was not asked about Gift Aid. I mentioned it. The women on the phone said we probably have it from the last time - which she checked and that was the case. But it might not have been.

Finally, I am a previous supporter, who has just proactively signed up to resume my support and in the current environment I would have certainly asked about contact preferences.  Would I have opted-in to telephone - yes of course!  I would have opted-in to all of them - explicit agreement to receive communications from them, but I was not asked and the subject was not even raised. 

Yes, of course my previous preferences could still stand. But coming back to the point that I proactively resumed my support - there was an opportunity missed to market consent to me and to check that I was happy with what had gone before. Another opportunity to engage me in a positive way and elevate the call beyond one of mere transaction.

And there it is. It seems that as a sector we are so obsessed with the 'new' that we are not very good at dealing with and maximising on, the opportunities that come to us.  In this case in the form of an engaged, proactive supporter who likes the cause so much that they will probably do what is asked and so much more. But being mindful of these rare folk just seems to be an after thought - and that mind set really does need to change.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

 

The power of a donor promise

I was compelled to write this because in the current uncertain charity environment, I think anything that shows the positive impact that focusing on the donor and giving them a choice has, is worth sharing.

We recently sent out a mailing to people not currently donating to Sense - asking for £15 to support Sense's work with children who are deafblind.  On the back of the donation form was our supporter promise - headlined as  'Our Promise to you' - on which a kind donor had written the following: 

'I was going to give you £15 but when I saw this promise (I've never seen it before from anyone!), I decided to give you more!! But only write to me once a year.'

Donor promises are now ever present, and they have now become an integral part of many charity communications. For us it is now a standing element on all communications, whether to existing donors or to those we are looking to attract support from, so I think the fact that the donor hadn't seen it anywhere before is just our fortune. That being said the incredibly kind donor actually donated £100 in the end with the promise of the same each year. Amazing.

So if you think the Donor Promise is just words to our donors, it is clear they are not. I know we are taking them seriously as charities - and we need to ensure that we keep those promises - but there is something really heartening to see it having such a positive impact.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

It would be nice not to be asked!

As fundraisers, we balance our communications with asks, stewardship and feedback.  Of course essentially all of these things are basically making a case for what our organisations do and why we do it and vitally why we need their support to help us make the difference. But some communications are more direct i.e. an appeal while others are more about demonstrating progress such as a feedback.  Nothing surprising here of course most fundraising programmes would have the mix.

What is increasing noticeable to me though is how these are deployed for people that are no longer apparently giving to you.  Now obviously there is no scientific methodology behind this, but I have been monitoring over the last 6 months what I have been receiving from organisations that I have given to in the past but to which I wouldn't class myself as a donor. Equally data wise based on a RFV criteria I would certainly not be deemed as an 'active' supporter. But interestingly, out of 7 communications I have received, only one of them hasn't been a direct appeal for money.

Now in thinking about this, it appears that there is a prevalent approach that assumes that lapsed or lapsing cash givers just need another opportunity to give again to change their status back to active again, and I am not going to lie and say that there isn't a lapsed segment in the recent appeal selection, it's Christmas after all.  

However personally, from my little audit, I really appreciated the feedback, but wasn't overly moved by the appeals. And as much as I am a professional fundraiser and proud to be so, I am also a charity donor.

So what would happen if we tested including apparently lapsed supporters in our feedback selections? And monitoring their onward behaviour? My answer is I don't know yet, but am going to see what happens, because as a charity giver I was happy to receive the feedback, and I read it. Would it have had the same impact had it been 1 of 7 feedback communications? I can't say, but that isn't what is happening currently in my experience so I believe there is a real opportunity to see what difference a change of approach could make or at least mix it up a bit.

If you think about the donations you receive from supporters in response to feedback mailings in general, in my experience it's worth a test.  Last year our legacy ask mailing generated several thousand pounds of donations with no direct financial ask made, and similarly I have had the same experience with other feedback communications, I'm sure we all have. Feedback generates response, financial and also people genuinely pleased to receive it and who will tell you so.

So as a charity giver, active or otherwise, sometimes it would be nice not to be asked or at least not in a heavy handed way...let your great work do the talking and maybe I'll be motivated to give again if I can - but will certainly remember you for it.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Let there be (relationship fundraising) light.

It wasn't so much a light bulb moment, rather illumination.  Bear with me, the puns have a reason.

This week I received a little leaflet from a well known shop - it wasn't a full catalogue, just a few pages promoting lights, with a little inducement to buy .. the usual sales promotion.

Now as I flicked through the mini brochure, my husband made a comment, 'you bought one light and now you are on a list'. 'Yep', I replied,' that's how it...works'.  Oh dear, I thought - this is all based on rather large assumption or presumption.  As a colleague noted, a bit like going on one date and changing your Facebook status to 'in a relationship'.

And aren't we often very guilty of that presumption ourselves in the charity sector? 

Someone who donates once, we label them a donor or supporter or even differentiate and put 'new' at the start, but they are not are they? We then work tirelessly to appeal to these new people to inspire them (hopefully) to support with another gift - without understanding why they gave in the first place, what their expectation is of that gift and what that gift means in terms of inviting on-going dialogue?  But we've all seen the stat, the one that shows just how few people do actually go on to give again....

I did buy a light from the shop, it was a great light... and should I want another light I would think of the company because of how good their light was - It's still working and looks great, and not because they want to sell me some lights today.  The question they have not asked me, but assumed is that I am in the market for another light.

Some could argue that data protection ascertains this... well it might if for the longest time it wasn't hidden in small print at the bottom of the page.  But even then not really.

In reality, there will always be a % of people who have given to you once, that have no intention of going on to do so again - irrespective of what the data protection opt-in and outs say.  Then there are those that I am sure haven't really thought that far ahead but what that means is the thank you is a critical stage - this is not the time for an admin letter style no, this is time for real demonstrable gratitude and inspiration.  Wow them! 

So as well as building great relationships with supporters we need to make sure that people want a relationship in the first place - and we need to be braver about asking that. If they do - give them the power to dictate what that relationship is.  We can then work our hardest to ensure that this is the most rewarding and enjoyable relationship in the world!

And for those that don't?  Well these kind people have given to your cause, received a wonderful thank you and importantly been given a choice which may one day convert into a relationship and one of great value, but even if not, at least they will have had a wonderful experience and will be likely tell others about it.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

What you get if you mix a Direct Debit error, an apology letter and a conversation with a donor?

I caught up with a friend the other day, who, knowing what I do always has an opinion.  In fact he has an opinion on what I do because he is a supporter of charity - so his opinion comes from his experience and attitude to what the sector does from his experience.  

So, this was interesting.  He had just received a letter from a charity to which several months earlier he had upgraded his Direct Debit.  The letter,  detailed the fact that though he kindly increased his gift from £10 to £20 per month, that the previous direct debit had not been cancelled and thus the charity had been taking both amounts for the last 7 months.  They owed him £70.00.

As he handed me the letter he said 'If I was them, I wouldn't have done it like that.'  

So, I read on. The charity explained the error and advised that £70 had been credited into his account. Nothing too contentious and unusual there I thought.

'What wouldn't you have done?' I quizzed, 'given back the money?'.  

'Of course I would have given back the money, but I would have used the letter to highlight the mistake, check the account details were still active as a tactic (though of course they are), and said if we don't here back in xx days, we will refund the money into your account.' Was his reply.

Interesting I said, how would you have felt on the receiving end of such a letter?

'Fine, I didn't notice the £70 had been taken - so I would have probably contacted them and told them to keep the money.  Like maybe 1-2% of other people may have done.'

Me: 'You can still make the donation.'

Friend: 'No, that would require me to write a cheque or give my credit card details - giving to charity is actually quite hard and time consuming - so no, now I have the money back it would be a hassle to give it again.'

Now, as you read this, it might have caused you to cast your mind back to when there have been such mistakes in your own programmes.  What did you do?  What would you do? 

Yes, a % of those people, like my friend, could have said don't worry just keep the money - would those that received that letter with an extra stage felt aggrieved that the money wasn't automatically credited?  We could assume yes, but would they?

I am sharing this because for me a few things stood out:

• It would appear that in the face of errors and mistakes and to be honest quite a bad one in this instance, supporters can be quite relaxed and understanding about them. This is not to suggest that when mistakes happen we shouldn't treat them seriously, but there is a comfort to be had from the idea that people are quite understanding if the issue is communicated in the right way.
• Though I was personally not at all surprised by the approach the charity took in dealing with the error in this case - my friend genuinely thought this was a lost opportunity for income generation and would have been perfectly happy with an opportunity to decide whether he wanted his money back.  Do we too frequently second guess our supporters? 
• My friend may be unique in this but his point about giving to charity being difficult really stood out for me (another post for another time).  But are we doing enough to break down the barriers to giving - the emotional and the physical ones?  

As he put the letter away, I thanked him - I love the fact that someone wholly unrelated to the charity or not-for-profit sector has such a strong opinion - which is ultimately coming from a very committed charity giver perspective. Even more reason to harness that feedback and more importantly seek it out. 

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

A cash to committed campaign - and I don't mean Direct Debit.....

As a fundraiser one of my preoccupations is how we can engender the same 'commitment' from cash givers that we get with the regularity of the mechanism of Direct Debit giving.  

Now before any one comments on the over simplification of the concept of commitment or indeed possibly unfair comparison, the point is, we have all seen the slide that shows the second gift rates of cash givers.  They have pretty much lapsed before they have posted their gift or pressed the donate button on your website.

So a while ago I won an opportunity to 'test' an idea I had with Ethicall telephone agency. 

So, this is an update.

So, 1000 supporters were called, all of which would be in the 25+ recency bracket since their last gift.

The approach was to call them, and essentially ask them without any legally binding wording, whether they would be willing to commit or pledge to support  1,2 or 3 of the appeals Sense mails throughout the year. At best it would provide us with a baseline to monitor and at worst a great opportunity to offer a supporter care call.

So the findings:

• 291 people agreed to pledge - 255 to all three appeals 
• On being asked, supporters genuinely pondered the question and it was either all in most cases or not at all. Whereas I thought we'd get a lot of people saying they would support the Christmas appeal only, this was not the case at all. The call, offering a robust case for support, seemed to resonate with the supporters called. For those that refused they seemed happy with the call and could understand 'why' they were called but didn't feel they could commit. For those supporters it was a good opportunity to have a chat, offer thanks and reiterate the importance of their commitment.

For each appeal following the calling campaign, we included as a segment those that 'pledged' to give, as well as those that were contacted but refused and a segment of those that were non contacts to the calling.

Results from last appeal

• 12% of people who did pledge to the call responded to the  appeal - that was twice the rate of those that were not contacted during the calling campaign
• Those that were contacted during the call but didn't pledge were also 50% more responsive than those not contacted

Now, it is early days and some big caveats. This was based on a very small number of calls and beyond the recency - there was little further criteria applied in the segmentation.  However, the interesting things to me are:

• How seriously and considered people's approach was to the pledge - all or nothing and very little in between. People took the ask seriously.  Even when it was easy for them to say yes, I'll just give at Christmas, for example.
• The response rate of people to an appeal who received the call but didn't feel they could pledge at the time really reminded me yet again of the power of the telephone and the importance of just having a chance to have a positive dialogue with your supporters. 

We are of course continuing to monitor this group, and also looking to find ways to ensure that as many conversations with our supporters take place as possible.  Obviously to our finance team there was questions over the immediate return in that there wasn't one if we had to pay for all of the calls - that being said even if you don't have a huge supporter care team, making sure you try to prioritise supporter care calls is sure to have a positive impact. None of this is rocket science of course, but timely reminders always help to focus the mind I think.

Thanks as ever for stopping by and thanks again to Ethicall for the chance to try out the idea.

Are your Data Protection statements improving supporter relationships or hindering them?

Oh no, I hear you cry - a post about data protection.  Well, it is and it isn't. We have all heard about the EU plans to reform the current legislation, the outcome of which could be with us as early as 2017 and much of which could have a serious impact should it go ahead as is.

However, this post is more about how we can better frame data protection and what it means in order to strengthen relationships with potential and existing supporters rather than jeopardising them through a lack of understanding.

So, a short tale - with an happy ending.

Very recently one of Sense's supporters emailed to cancel his Direct Debit. He didn’t like being telephoned and had received a call recently. We let him know how much we really valued his support and of course that we would do what he asked but also let him know that we can communicate with him in the way he prefers. If that means no future telephone calls then of course. The supporter as a result decided not to cancel his direct debit. 

A big high five for good supporter care! 

However, what was interesting, was the supporter's understanding before we explained we would ensure that he wouldn't receive further calls:
    

"I didn't realise at the time I sent the e-mail that it was possible not to be 
contacted in this way."

Interesting really - the thought that some of our supporters who opt-in or don't opt-out of receiving various communications from us feel it is for life rather than that there is a control that is in their hands.

In this instance we were able to explain this to our kind donor who continued his support.  But how many are silently leaving without that dialogue?

So though the legal guidelines are set in terms of gaining consent to communicate, a simple line stating that you can let us know at any time should your wishes change should be a clear message alongside any data protection statements.

This simple message may very well help ensure that instead of a supporter leaving entirely because they decide they don't like a channel of communication after all, that they just let us know and allow us to adhere to their wishes and provide great supporter care at the same time.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

What we can learn from Where's Wally?

Creating something people will actively look at and respond to is what drives the communications we produce as fundraisers, and that is why 'Where's Wally' can offer such inspiration.  Mainly because that is the main point.  Visually arresting scenes, where readers scour the pages in pursuit of an array of characters as well as Wally (a traveller with a penchant for red and white stripes and bobble hats), while taking in the visual puns and humour that entertains us.

So relevance to us as fundraisers?  One is around the truth that very few supporters will be compelled to read our communications and if they do, not in same detail and possibly with the same level of interest or purpose.

Engagement with communications is easier if the format suits the audience and not the designer - finding Wally is much easier when you have the bigger books for example.

There's nothing wrong with repetitiveness of either the story or the ask within it. Where's Wally has been around since 1987, it's ultimately the same thing but in different contexts, yet it still doesn't get old.  The important things is relevance to the person reading.

On the other side of this though, is some of the things that are inherent in the success of Where's Wally, which we should try to avoid.

The characters are intentionally hidden and obscured, the challenge is to find them.  This is the opposite of what your copy and design needs to. Too clever, and you lose people. Too complicated people will not persevere to understand what you are saying. So be clear on the following:

Why are you writing now?
What are you asking them to do - exactly?
If it's money you are asking for it, then ask!

On this point Where's Wally is clear, you need to find him and his friends. Simple. And there is a lot to be said for it.  Now back to Wally, I am sure I saw woof's tail somewhere...

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

What Donors can learn from surveys

I am very much in favour of supporter surveys - ultimately if executed properly it can genuinely result in improving what we do as fundraisers and more widely as organisations.  That is of course the point - hopefully.  We learn new things about our supporters that can help us find other supporters, and it is a useful communication to provide supporters with other ways to engage with us.

On the other side of it though is the benefit that is passed on to the supporters themselves.  The opportunity to have an opinion, should they want to take it. An opportunity to feel that they are being listened to (as long as they are), and that in turn has a benefit for fundraisers because such opportunities provide great supporter care and often result in additional support.  All very positive.

But one of the less overt benefits for a supporter, which also has a positive benefit to the organisation is that of re-engagement or reconnection with the cause.  I say this from a recent experience.

I support Soi Dog Foundation - a great animal welfare organisation in Thailand concerned with the welfare of cats and dogs.  Very recently I was asked to complete a survey - which I did for two reasons. One because they asked and two, because they asked so nicely in a way that made me feel they valued my views.  A snippet of the email below:

Please, Let Us Know What You Think...

Dear Amanda,

I would like to personally thank you for your support of the dogs and cats who you help. It is you who are helping the animals. Your donations are what allows for this important life saving work to continue.

Soi Dog would like to know your thoughts about how your donations are used and how you feel we can best help dogs and cats working together.

Soi Dog runs a number of animal welfare programs and I'd like to get your feedback on how important you feel the various programs are.

Can I ask you a favour? Can you take a few moments and complete Soi Dog's Supporter Survey? Please take a moment and fill out the survey by clicking here or on the button below:


Much of the questions and the navigation were as you would expect - and it took the opportunity to find out what other ways I would be willing to support and also whether I was interested in Gifts In Wills (I am expecting a legacy follow up at some point), but what was more thought provoking was two questions asked towards the end.

1. What is it uniquely about Soi Dog that led to you becoming a supporter?
2. If you could summarise Soi Dog in three words, what would those words be?

I really needed think in order to answer them honestly and fairly.  Amazing really how difficult a question 'What led to your support of xx' is to answer instantly beyond 'I care about animals' for example.  Yet, we often start telephone scripts with such questions in the hope to build a dialogue.  

So, what was it about the charity that specifically made me want to support?  What three words would I use?  The process of recalling the when and they why brought back the feelings attached to my initial decision thus reinvigorating my support.  

Don't get me wrong, they were not deeply suppressed feelings, and I am not in the inertia marketing phase by any means but it was a genuinely re-affirming experience.

So much so, that when I saw a recent campaign and donation ask around the Soi Dog's work around the Dog Meat trade I signed the petition and donated to fund a billboard! (great campaign by the way).

Today, I also received a very lovely email, thanking me for taking the survey and how important my opinions are but also playing back my key support - which I thought was a nice touch. 

This is of course not rocket science, but I wanted to share it, because it is easy to focus on what we can learn through such communications, but may be forget the value they have for the person completing them and actually with a bit of thought could actually proactively remind supporters of why they support you in the first place.

Thank you as ever for stopping by.

When things get personal

Personalisation can and should by a key element of supporter communications - I say can be, as sometimes in an attempt to let supporters know that we know them, its use can sometimes be likened to a hammer cracking a nut. Heavy handed.

That is why I wanted to share this example. Because personally, and that is what it is about ultimately, I like how I CAN, the charity that help children communicate, have done it.

Simply. It fits with the actual creative of the pack - which opens with

"Can't was never a word I was prepared to accept when I was fighting for my son to get the support he needed to learn to speak."  A honest, heartfelt account of a mother's fight for her son.  And goes on to explain how I CAN has transformed their lives.

It is putting me at the heart of the solution for other families who may need I CAN in the future both in terms of the design and the narrative.

My name was used only once - not a hundred times unnecessarily. Back to my hammer and nut point above.

The negative is that the variable text was in a different colour to the letter - which is a shame but I assume a production or budget limitation and not one that I will hold against them.

So, can I support their work with another gift? Yes, I CAN.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

How are you making your supporters feel?

In an industry that should be about building relationships with the people who support our vital work, it strikes me that we do not leverage those relationships to their best effect.  In fact in some cases we seem to be oblivious to the opportunities or choosing to ignore the chance to turn every transaction into a positive interaction with our supporters.

A small thing, but a friend of mine recently increased their support to the charity they have supported for a while.  He increased his Direct Debit after a conversation with a telephone fundraiser who called.  He remembered the conversation and thought it was a good call.  He was happy to increase his support.

The next time I saw him, knowing what I do, he made a point of showing me the confirmation letter.  It was pretty standard to be honest but he seemed a bit disappointed.  I asked him what would improve it from his perspective and his response was quite interesting - "I didn't speak to the person who signed the letter, I spoke to someone else entirely.  If anything my relationship was with the person I spoke to - it didn't even reference the person I spoke with".

It made me smile. A simple observation, but would it be the hardest thing in the world to at least reference the person who makes the calls on our behalf or the street or door to door fundraisers that sign up the supporters for example?

I know some organisations do and it is something I have done in the past but why stop there, why not have the street or telephone fundraiser themselves or whoever made the contact as the signatory? We capture the information, or if not it is certainly available, so why not make use of it.  In fact there is so much more we could be doing to link up our supporter interactions.

Don't get me wrong, my friend isn't going to end his support or decide against the increase just because of the signatory of his letter, but after a positive experience - it all ended up a little flat.

This is not new and as I note, I am certain there are organisations that are already doing this.

My point is that despite the constraints on day to day operations, we need to do more to ensure that the overall supporter experience is as solid as possible.  Taking the opportunity to turn transactions into interactions.  So, it doesn't end with the thank you or confirmation letter being mailed - it's also about what the person who receives the letter/email thinks and feels about it and is it consistent with their earlier experience.  I certainly think that is worth thinking about.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

More on mobile - one charity's experience to date.

Following on from the absolutely refreshing post last week from Paul de Gregorio from Open Fundraising about mobile - I wanted to add my two pence worth.  We've been offering Regular Giving via mobile for just over a year now at Sense via Cymba, so still early days, but I wanted to echo and add a couple of other points from my experience to date. I stress this is just one experience of one charity.

• Yes, Mobile Regular Givers will give more if asked by way of another one off gift - and that response varies quite considerably depending on how they joined your organisation
• Previous Mobile Regular Givers who have 'lapsed' are also quite generous if asked for a one-off gift via their phone - again this varies depending on how they were recruited to your cause in the first place
• Retention rates on mobile recruitment are not a million miles away from what you would expect for direct debit recruitment. So attrition for RG by mobile recruited on the street is much higher than those converted from PSMS via the telephone for example.  No surprise really. 
• One of the barriers to click through on content is people feeling they are going to see more information that could upset or make them feel guilty - so being clear, and upbeat on what people will see when they click through has helped increase engagement or so it would appear.
• As does not holding the link to content to ransom.  When we first started we would send the link to a new update to those that successfully made a payment that month - now we send it anyway, and people can choose to make the payment or not after they have had the chance to view.  We are still reviewing the figures but that to me is the better thing to do.
• Regular Gift via your mobile is a great drop ask, there are genuinely people who don't want another direct debit and this does appeal to people who would not have other wise converted. I personally would not advocate a direct to Regular Giving via mobile campaign again for now for Sense - though many charities are having success I am sure. It's just not right for us for now.

This is just a year's worth of experience, and one charity example - so please take from it what you will and however many pinches of salt as well.  With anything, the best thing to do is test for yourself obviously - but I thought I would share one experience, albeit a limited one of mobile giving.  There's much more to test and much more to learn but so far it is has been a positive experience.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

How not to do Thank You letters, unless you are Steve Martin

I, like many I am sure, read this wonderful book over Christmas, and I did laugh at this letter from Steve Martin.

Steve Martin wrote this 'highly personalised' letter in response to the fan mail he received. Simple, entertaining, personal... well kind of, just what you would expect from Steve Martin.  But he could get away with it, as I dare say he was being 'funny' and the overt token and random personalisation probably made the letter for the people receiving them.  Many of the them were probably framed!

However, beware of a generic thank you letter. Those that are punctuated with a few merged fields - it is something we, as an industry do quite badly in my opinion.

The worst letters are the ones crafted to be in response to 'ad hoc' gifts where they are not identified as being in response to a particular appeal or campaign but just seen as a general unprompted gift.

These are the letters that are a 'catch all'.  The ones quite often written as an after thought, rarely updated with new and exciting information and frequently full of rhetoric about reaching xxx people and helping charity do x,y,z vaguely.  And when you read them, they look and feel as though little effort went into them.

As much as thanking and asking are about good manners and politeness - the 'thank you' as much as the 'please' needs to be heartfelt and genuine.  I am not saying we can physically write each and every letter on our PCs for our kind and lovely donors, but we can work much, much harder in making it look and feel as though we do and that starts from valuing every donation, whatever the channel and motivation and ensuring we are set up to do so with warmth and gratitude.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Donor recovery - is there a way back?

A while ago a friend of mine briefly explained her thoughts in relation to cancelling her Direct Debits to charity - and at the end she made the point that she had yet to be contacted by any of the charities.

To be honest I am a little hung up about reactivation because I do believe it is a neglected element of many supporter care programmes - I say supporter care, because we should care who is ceasing their financial support to us and also why.

So, I thought I would try this for myself and cancel some of the DDs that I have had in place for several years.  To these charities I am not a recent recruit to a high attrition channel so my behaviour is not expected statistically, no, I am a long-standing supporter - who gave generously and also for many years.  So what happened.

Charity 1:

Within a week of cancelling, I received a telephone call.  Polite, upbeat and very much leading with the fact that they could see that my DD was cancelled and whether that was a mistake?  It was a nice call but I felt it was interesting that the starting point was that it had somehow been an error - when I had actively cancelled the DD with my bank.

BACS error codes are numerous and quite granular - and cancelled at bank is a clear  and probably a frequently seen code.  So would it be rude to actually say what is seen?  I see that you cancelled your support to us - would you mind telling me why or if there is anything we could do to help you continue your support? Or something to that effect.

I say this as for many recovery calls and approaches - there is an inherent problem that unless you find out why someone has cancelled to ascertain if your organisation has specifically failed the person you are purely offering the same again. Whether good, bad or indifferent.  Is that really an approach that would engender reactivation for longer than the length of the telephone call?  I am not sure it is to be fair.

Charity 2:

I received a letter - probably 10 days after the payment was due - it was a standard admin letter - providing me with tick boxes of my intention - either to resume payment or to indicate that I did
intend to leave.

It was an okay letter to be honest....it contained a warm thanks for my support until now - and then gave me some tick boxes to tick to indicate if the reason for my cancellation was due to 'too many mailings' or that charity x had upset me somehow.  Again, all very useful but there was something quite fait accompli about the whole thing.  Almost as though they knew it wouldn't work.

So the question is, is it worth trying to win people back and the bigger question is if you do for how long will they keep giving?

I can't answer that for sure, but what I do believe is that we have more chance of success if we find out what the problem is and if we are ultimately at fault rather than blaming the bank or assuming it is an error. We may as a result learn some invaluable insight, and be able to do something about it.  Better than not knowing and carrying on regardless.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.