How did you decide who to cancel?

Just the other day I was talking to a friend who had just reviewed her DD commitments to charities and had decided to stop quite a few.  The main reason was financial.  And she was quite honest about that.  So having the chance to quiz a professional woman in her early forties about that decision making process, I took the opportunity.  Not least because as my friend and in an unofficial non survey way, she'd be honest.

Q. How did you make the decision?

"Recency of sign-up i.e. last in first to go...."   Really - why?  "Well I know I haven't made any difference as yet so the loss to the charity is less."

Q. Is that the only criteria? "No - I like to see I am supporting a range of sectors. Animal, health, children etc. So if there are two that are similar then I will decide on how recently I signed up."

Q. What about what you have received from the charity?  "Some of the information and communication I have received more recently have been lovely.  More to try to engage me I guess - I just don't have time to be engaged."  

"Thinking about it I have  probably received very little from the charities I have been supporting since university days - I can't recall any off the top of my head. But my heart is with them I guess."

Q. Why? Now this answer was very  interesting to me. "When I decided to sign-up to charity x I suppose it felt more considered, I didn't have a huge amount of money but I believed in what the charity was trying to achieve.  Over the years it probably works out at several hundreds of pounds of giving but by leaving now I would be giving up on something that I believe and have invested in."

Q. But how do you feel about the relationship you have with these charities?
"Relationship?" 

Q. Yes, you know, on-going communication, how they make you feel, what they are doing and how they are letting you know?
 " I don't know.  I don't really want a relationship - a relationship suggests obligation on both sides.  I am giving my money because I want to and because I can and because of what they are doing with it not because of what I am getting back. I prefer it that way. My reason for supporting is my reason and and because of that I would feel less guilty if I stopped."

Q. Has any of them written or tried to call to win you back? 
 "No - not as yet. Should they have done? Have not heard a thing - but I guess that would be wasting their money to do that."

Now there is a huge caveat with this of course - it is one person, a busy person with a busy life.  I am not going to say that this is representative in any way.

But some key things I have taken away from this are:

• Not everyone wants to be engaged.  They don't have time.  Now I could take my friend at her word here - but I won't because in reality the level of engagement we need to offer supporters has to suit people's lives.  Engagement is a positive thing - not something that should feel like it is competing with the other demands on someone's life.  More needs to be done to understand and meet this need before we run off and develop complex welcome processes and communications plans. Find out what people want from you.
• What constitutes a relationship is interesting - not everyone wants to have one with you or rather not in the conventional way.  And I think we have to accept that this is okay. Just be clear on what relationship works for both the supporter and for the organisation.
• Control over the decision-making process to support in the first place is pretty vital and thus the level of 'investment' people feel they have in your cause.  How do we instill as much control as possible in the process for people? or at least that it feels that the decision is theirs rather than a default reaction to someone not being able to say 'no'.
• Who is leaving you? When looking at your attrition report - ensure it is broken down by years of support.  We can all get carried away with year one retention rates - but as I have always said I'd be more concerned with the fact that 2% of people that had been supporting my cause for 5 year plus, for example all of a sudden decided to walk out the door. So find out what your monthly attrition is made up of at the supporter level.
• This should inform what you do about recovery and reactivation.  At the very least with the supporters of the type mentioned above - it would be wise to have a system to identify them and indeed speak with them to find out what made them decide to leave after all this time and if possible to find out what kind of 'relationship' they may want with your organisation going forward.
• As regards recovery and reactivation more generally - the expectation of supporters could be quite low or may be that as organisations we are not very good at it.  On this basis though there is an argument and an opportunity attached with communicating to someone who has left you - just to have the opportunity say thanks and goodbye for now at the very least.  That way they are more likely to remember you well and positively if they ever want to give to your cause again.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Why family focused functionality could create more supporters

I’m a big fan of micro-finance sites and more recently Lendwithcare has captured my imagination.

However, while on my ‘family is important in fundraising' crusade - it made me think about the functionality on such sites and why currently they don’t allow for a family to sign up i.e. Family Fortunes style 'The Santer Family' with each individual member then having their own portfolio of lending.

I am not sure what technically would be required to see this (and it may be financially prohibitive) - but I think it would be a lovely thing to have a family record of the contribution, while offering a great way to promote individual giving to younger family members - even if it is them just being initially motivated to donate their pocket money to one of these wonderful entrepreneurs, and seeing the impact being made.

Obviously some causes and products offer more of an educational element than others in terms of a family context - Child Sponsorship is a great example - but then maybe that is another area of development for charities to build on so that their cause or products will appeal family wide and sites like lendwithcare and other such models could be a perfect mechanism and platform.

A fundraising tale of two cities...

Whilst on the metro during a recent trip to paris, a couple got on. Nothing odd in that. At first they looked like any other 60 year old couple that you might see across the world and all seemed to be just so. Then the tambourine and the violin started up.

The reaction that followed was no different to what you would see on the London underground. So as the first rendition started - something from Carmen - I noticed a lot of people shift uncomfortably, avert their eyes and just looked desperately for an escape route. For me, my first reaction was to actually check to see whether I had any spare Euros.

Now, of course a huge assumption was being made by the whole carriage. The assumption being that this couple were playing music for money and it was a fair assumption. For me, what was quite interesting was that despite how lovely the music was, I couldn't enjoy it or engage with it until I knew I could afford the experience.

By the time the couple performed 'La Vie en Rose' the people on the metro were much more receptive and as the hat went around our Euros went in.

Back in London and on the 'misery' line just yesterday, I had a similar experience. This time it was a man in his mid twenties, a little scruffy and dirty in appearance got on. This time no music was played, just a heartfelt plea for some 'change' to help him with a hostel for the night. For many the reaction was the same as in Paris; no eye contact, uncomfortable glances and ipod volume up.

Now just a few observations from my Paris and London tales in relation to fundraising:

• With so many communications coming at supporters these days - there is probably an assumption that everything is an 'ask' of some kind. Now this is all very well if it is, but if the communication you're sending is a feedback or just a plain old 'Thank you, you are fantastic!' Then unless we do more to make that clear at the outset - the likelihood of these vital communications being seen is very small.
  
• Likewise. If we are asking for money, we need to be more upfront about it and not cloak it as something else. People who support you know you will ask them for money at some point and if done correctly and well it isn't a problem.
  
• Be relevant - now this is an obvious point - but it was made even clearer to me when discussing the French buskers with my sister, who said that she was moved to donate just as much about the music choice as the quality of the music being played. Not to say she wouldn't have given if they were playing Pachebel's Canon or whatever, but actually the music was a motivating factor. So we can't underestimate the worth of finding out as much as we can about our supporters and going to them with information and areas of work in which we already know they are interested.


• The London experience showed a bit more of the 'we've seen and heard it before' cynicism so whether this man was genuinely in need or not, for many it was nothing new and many remained unconvinced. I think often we are guilty of doing this with appeals. For our supporters it is probably all too frequently what has been seen before. The challenge therefore for us is about making these 'asks' more innovative and dare I say genuinely urgent - after all putting urgent on something doesn't make it so.


• The other difference between Paris and London was also around the concept of knowing what your money was for. In Paris people were paying for the entertainment, the music and even if the couple were as in need of the money as the man in London, that's not really why they were giving. For the man in London faced with the cynicism around homelessness etc his case for support was not enough to reassure the many that the money was going to where he said it was needed. Donor fatigue? Just not an original case for support? all these things need to be considered in relation to your communications plan.


• Finally the biggest observation from these underground travels is that people really don't seem to like being put on the spot to make such decisions as to whether something justifies a donation or not...of course people still do - as I did, but it is about control and choosing when and how. People are much happier with that.

And just because it is such a great song and it reminds me of Paris - enjoy!

Happy Easter!