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.

What would possess you to walk a 1000 miles?

"But I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more  just to be the man who walked 1,000 miles.." Now no offense to the Proclaimers, it really is a great song but other than the fact that a man struck with a  romantic notion is willing to walk 1,000 miles for love - what does it really mean?  I know 1,000 miles is a very long way - but it is difficult for me to put it into context and that is often the issue with using big numbers.

I like Sightsavers.  I like what they do and I never fail to be moved by a charity that helps overcome sight loss in some of the poorest communities in the world.

Anyway,  in the post this week I received a mailing and it was worthy of comment for a few reasons.

I am a fan of 'thank yous' and as an industry (in my opinion) we do not do it well enough. Often 'thank you' letters are an after thought, churned out at the last minute and merely recap on the last appeal they read and responded to.  So a mailing dedicated to offering 'thanks' was very nice to receive.

To be honest though when I saw it, I thought 'oh no'.  It introduced lots of statistics that I have little chance of fully appreciating the scope but more than that I struggled as to where my contribution totally fits in.  After all we are more likely to buy-in to supporting someone in need than we are to support a statistic?

It also started down a route that frequently worries me, whereby the feedback tells you that you achieved huge change when you know you only give £5.00 per month for example.  Not to say that the £5 is not adding value - but 'huge change' although difficult to qualify is a stretch. Accumulated with other £5.00s then the potential is indeed huge!

I am sure there is a mathematical equation illustrating the gap between 'suspended disbelief' and 'feedback satisfaction' directly relating to the value of gift given and the claims made of its impact. I am no mathematician but there must be a point whereby the over zealous personalisation claiming that my generosity has built x in deepest darkest y can feel like too much of a stretch of reality to become a negative experience. Anyway, another post for another time. 

Okay, so back to the mailing, I read it.  Now obviously this is not what all supporters will do but I read the bits I was meant to, the underlined copy, the PS, skimmer style and I found some wonderful sentiments that mitigated my negative feelings and some elements that packed a punch in delivering understanding of the issues faced by the visually impaired in the developing world and actually made me want to give.

I was particularly struck by:

It was wonderful to be able to do so much, and we're all so grateful to you for your support.  But while those figures are exciting to us, you might be wondering how much your contribution could really have done to help.

This was actually what I was wondering - and I do constantly - so I thought this addressed the issues very well and how nicely written.  Lovely. Of course you could argue that if that was the question left hanging then why execute the piece in this way - but that would be churlish as I thought how they addressed it was really nice.
 
 And then the underlined text that followed.

So let me assure you that you've helped boys and girls, mums and dads, grandparents, aunties and cousins in some of the poorest countries in the world.  And their stories aren't about big numbers - they're about the small miracles that your support is making possible every day.

Lovely sentiment once again and the power was in the juxtaposition created and reminding me that they are all those things to their families.

So I am feeling a little bit more reassured that my small gift has made a genuine difference - but will that be enough to make me give?  This is, as I read on a thank you with an ask.

The answer is YES! And the main reason was this one sentence:

'....Among them are mothers who have never seen their children's faces.  Fathers who can no longer work to support their families.  Boys and girls who are shouted at for being 'stupid' and 'lazy' and who struggle to get the education they deserve.'

It is amazing what grabs us as individuals, what presses a button that generates a visceral reaction and this was it, partly because I think such sentiment and honesty in presenting the situation for some 'beneficiaries' is seldom seen and because it takes some bravery from the organisation to be that honest. The words 'stupid' and 'lazy' rang out in my ears - the injustice and the cruelty stirred me.

I am obviously commenting based on my experience of portrayal of service users / beneficiaries - where the focus is more on not portraying the problem.  This not only successfully portrays the issues but with very few words encapsulates the prejudice, the tone and attitudes that many blind or visually impaired people can face.  Simple as that for me really.  In that moment they had my gift. And with pleasure.

So all in all well done Sightsavers - I am still not convinced by leading with numbers but the right balance was struck for me - and I will happily accept your 'thank you' and you can do even more good with my donation.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Just some feedback..

I received a piece of feedback recently and though it ticked a lot of boxes: apparently inside track, lovely photograph, personalised, acknowledging my role in its success - I still didn't feel inspired and I asked myself, why not?

An obvious assertion could be that I am a jaded fundraiser who has seen so many pieces of feedback that nothing could inspire me? Nope - that's not it. Quite the contrary.

Or may be it was because it was made to look 'inside track', had a lovely photograph, it was personalised - in short - it looked and felt like every other piece of feedback I have received in recent times because every one is now doing the same thing to the point where the execution has become generic rather than special. That indeed could be it.

Or It could also be that no matter how great the production values, the story, the enclosures, the photographs - if you have no real connection with the people being featured then at the end of the day it is merely a broadcast - possibly a very good broadcast - but a broadcast none-the-less and we need to get beyond broadcasting and get connecting with the people who support us.

Our on-going communications are a key to the relationships we are looking to forge - as good as your stories may be, or that internally they are seen as a shining example of your work in practice - if there is no connection established very early on - no on-going narrative then there is a good chance your feedback will not get beyond the recycling bin.

There it is, just some honest feedback.

Thanks 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.