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.

Did you miss me?

Following on from a tweet I broadcast a few days ago - I thought I would just explain myself a little and caveat it by saying that just because I am in fundraising myself - it doesn't make me any less forgiving.

I received a 'reactivation' letter or putting it in layman's terms a letter asking me to resume my support. No bad thing. Getting supporters back is part and parcel of a fundraiser's role - though I have to say personally, more effort should be invested in keeping supporters in the first place. But proceeding with the assumption that 100% retention is impossible, what we do to try and get people to support us again or indeed convince them not to stop, is a very important activity because:

(1) If it is successful then you have another supporter giving time, money and hopefully word of mouth endorsements

(2) If it isn't successful but done well, you will have left your supporter with a nice, non-guilt inducing feeling and thus if they are able to support again in the future they probably will remember the lovely experience and you will be top of their list

(3) If executed well, you will have the chance to learn a great deal about what is pleasing to your supporters and in this case what isn't, so you can potentially fix issues any problems that are undermining the supporter experience.

So, back to the letter. In my case, At the heart of the problem was that the organisation was generalising. Now if you have a database of supporters in the hundreds and thousands then obviously this is a danger but one that needs to be considered as it could be ultimately detrimental to what is trying to be achieved.

"Miss Santer, it's not the same without you" - was pretty much the first line welcoming me as I opened the envelope. A lovely sentiment and one that I would hope to be true - but the fact that I had only made one payment before cancelling and the letter took several months to arrive just made me wonder.

And I think that is so often the problem with some reactivation / recovery processes. They are implemented as an admin function with computer generated letters selected en mass - and while they remain as such rather than being an intrinsic part of the retention strategy, the process will probably never be as successful as we want it to be.

So some suggestions:

• Dig a little more deeply into the data - it will tell you much of what you need to know. Who has supported for many years or just one month, the value, the frequency, what else they did during that time if at all... that way you can choose the appropriate messages and also the channel to contact them by.

• Accept that some supporters may not resume regular payments - however, do monitor their other behaviour because they could be supporting in other ways - nothing more damaging than sending a we've missed you letter when they have been campaigning and giving to one-off cash appeals all the while.

• Instead of assuming that someone cancelled by accident and didn't realise it (would account for a very small %) - start from the point of view that it was your organisation that somehow let them down. Which is more likely to be the case. And then try and establish dialogue to find out what the problems were and if at all possible try to address them.

• If you just try to get supporters back without understanding why they left in the first place you are essentially just asking supporters to return to the same unfulfilling experience as before. Why would anyone return for that? Just more of the same! And even if they do resume, how long will they remain giving before they stop giving again?

• Also look at extending reactivation process beyond direct debit non-payers - appeal givers not giving again is equally a big issue that should be better understood - yet reactivation processes in the main seem to focus on lapsing/lapsed regular givers rather than other types of supporters.
  

In short, use the data to send appropriate messages, if at all possible find out why they left and if it was a problem offer to resolve it, if the supporter doesn't resume regular support and that is their only support then send them a lovely thank you and 'au revoir' letter that way you leave them with a lovely sentiment. And if they have cancelled their support make sure you check their other history - communicate accordingly (mail, telephone etc) acknowledging that you know their support extends beyond a DD and how wonderful that is. That to me is a better use of personalisation.

Like any other communication - reactivation processes should be about segmentation. Who you choose to contact, by what method and with what message and caring why people are leaving you and taking the time to find out and address the causes.

Taking a little time upfront with the data will mean you can better focus your efforts and communications in the reactivation cycle and even if it doesn't result in better results immediately - the positive experience given to your departing supporters is more likely to secure their support in the future. You are just laying down the ground work now!

As an aside. The reasons for my cancelling in the first place will fill another post another time.

Thank you for stopping by and Merry Christmas!

What Christmas shopping has to do with fundraising.

I was struck by a small article in the The Sunday Times Magazine this weekend which asked the question 'Is it okay to recycle presents?'

Now, I can honestly say I have never done it myself - but then I am sure I have received a recycled gift at some point - mainly because you tend to know i.e. that feeling of 'what the..., they don't know me at all..' All the more annoying for someone like me who loves to buy presents for people and actually goes to a lot of trouble in selecting gifts that I know my friends and family will love.

However, despite this being a cautionary warning ahead of your Christmas shopping it also has a very useful reminder for fundraising too.

Choosing a gift should be about empathy, about how much we understand the person we are buying for. We should first start with the person NOT with what to buy them and the same can be said about our communications to supporters. Starting with the supporter and not the communication.

Find out about them and what they want. Their interests, their likes, their dislikes. Take time to tailor messages. Produce materials that people want to receive and you will be giving the gift of information, inspiration, education, and a sense of making a difference. And as a result we may get a wonderful gift in return: happy, committed and loyal supporters.

Happy Giving!!

Like a back of a bus

The other day I found myself running for a bus - which typically started to leave as I just got there. A back of a bus moment..

I decided to wait for the next one - it was cold, it was dark and I was a little early for where I needed to be. Time passed and several glances at the bus timetable later - 45 minutes had passed - I was now cold, a little peeved, now late and no closer to where I needed to be.

• Why did I decide to wait ?
  Why didn't I just start walking after fictional bus 1 and 2 failed to materialise?

As I pondered these questions, I was reminded of an article I had read some year's ago about the cognitive tricks our mind plays - how we reason and take decisions. Take bus stop lingering - the decision to stay rather than walk is often not just down to shoes or weather - but what you have already invested, in my case 45 mins of time.

So as I waited.. I realised that waiting for a bus rather than walking - was quite a good analogy for fundraising communications and the supporter experience.

My bus stop ponderings:

1. Bus timetables are both a wonderful and a terrible thing - on one hand you know there is a level of service in place (in theory) and that it provides a guide or estimate of the type of service you are likely to get. On the other hand - the sight of one, establishes expectations of the service being offered, which if not met will lead very quickly to dissatisfaction and frustration. So when people sign up to support your cause you had better be aware of what you are offering and what expectations are being raised - and be sure that you are delivering on them.


2. The journey for me started even before I arrived at the bus stop - and therefore judgement started before I even got on the bus - doubly compounded by the fact the bus was late. With any supporter relationship the same can be said of everything about your offer - therefore it is important to consider the quality of every aspect of your programme. Not just one part. Questions to ask include whether the rest of the communications a supporter receives are as good and relevant as the ones specially engineered for the welcome process? Or that the excitment and messages and content that recruited someone to your cause initially, are carried on throughout the relationship?


3. And then consider if you will finally getting on the bus only for you to be stuck in dreaded traffic because gas and water companies have dug up the same road again within days of each other. Another analogy this time for poorly coordinated communications internally from departments all wanting their share of the supporters in-box or door mat without any sense of what this may feel like to the supporters receiving them and just as damaging potentially conveying the lack of priorities in your organisation.


4. As a Londoner - gripes about fares and increasing travel costs are pretty standard - but this is more about value for money. Fundraisers frequently use Return on Investment as a measure of activities or campaigns - yet rather interestingly we rarely look at this in relation to returns of our supporters' investment into us - whether it be financial, time, emotion, commitment, reputation or all of them. We don't acknowledge their contributions as an investment - they have just 'given a donation' or 'taken an action' - yet investment is a word that really conveys a vested interest and any communication to them should clearly convey what their support has made or is making possible. Whether this could be approached creatively in 'investment' language could be interesting to test - particularly if someone is considering leaving you - but that is another post for another time.


5. My bus eventually arrived and the bus driver mitigated any grumpiness I had by being happy and cheery but apologetic. This leads rather nicely onto the importance of supporter care in all of this and more importantly, proactive supporter care. So, for example if a supporter is expecting a report or feedback that is going to be late - then tell them, and tell them before they phone you asking where it is. Simple philosophy again - but can make such a difference to a supporter's expectations but also how they view your organisation.
   

It's amazing what occurs to you while waiting for a bus - but some small things to think about that will go a long way to ensure much happier passengers in the longer term.

By the way, some clever people have actually worked out the maths of waiting for a bus (if you are interested).