My thoughts on Ken's blog.

What a good read, Ken Burnett's latest blog post is. And if you are remotely involved in street or door-to-door fundraising then it is a must read.

There was some great ideas and here are a couple of thoughts from me.

1. Righting what's wrong is the hard bit. The impression of street fundraisers rightly or wrongly has been tarnished. If you are not in the market to support charity or the featured charity then you feel you are running the gauntlet just trying to get a sandwich at lunch time.

However, if you are in the market to support a charity you often don't really have the time to 'spare a few minutes' when you are approached. So in order to provide some flexibility, how about the street fundraiser offering appointments. 5-10 minute slots where people can arrange to come back later and have a chat at a convenient time.

As with any thing, you will have some people just using it as a get out, but I think the offer could make a real difference to people who really don't have the time when they are approached but who could be interested. And also it could change the dynamic from a person feeling 'signed up' to them feeling they have made the right choice. The difference between conscription and volunteering.

2. The approach needs to recognise that not everyone is an auditory learner. An obvious statement. But I don't think it helps that much of the street approach is based on conversation and often actually a one way conversation. There were many ideas in Ken's 50 around livening the information up with use of ipod videos, sound recordings, street performance etc but at the start of this, I think there is something in trying to ascertain what type of person you are talking to in the first place to identify what mode of communication will best motivate them.

3. What are you offering? I really liked the ideas around tailoring messages so as well as by gender this could recognise regional differences, or localising campaigns around most generous supporters. The options are endless - and further proof that one size does not fit all and neither should it.

4. The other aspect around the offer is the urgency. Like any fundraising channel, if what you are putting out there is just another ask to support a worthwhile cause while not answering one of the most important supporter questions in fundraising 'why now' then it won't work any where near as well.

To me that is one of the big issues with Street fundraising it appears as a treadmill or conveyor belt - the urgency is just around supporting the on-going work. Great work it may be, but there is often no real urgency or imperative for the supporter. The one thing I do know is that most charities genuinely need support so relaying that case for support in a motivating and attention grabbing way should not be that difficult but is also vital as a point of differentiation.

Reflecting on the fact that I was signed up to an environmental charity around ten year's ago by a street fundraiser. As I wandered out for lunch I had no thought about the charity or wanting to support them. I was stopped by a guy who may or may not have looked like a model, but all I know is that he talked with passion and a genuine knowledge of the work. How did he get me to stop? He asked me if I had seen the news that day and talked about something that was topical. I had seen the news and that was it - I knew I wanted to help. It was relevant to me, it was current and it very much followed the news agenda. I am still supporting them.

Finally though, the importance of a retention model cannot be underestimated. And that should apply to any and all recruitment campaigns not just those with a perception of high attrition rates. Equally, it isn't about creating some elaborate communications stream for the first 6 months that everyone is breaking their necks to deliver only for supporters to merge into the standard programme. It is about making sure your standard communication plan for all your supporters is relevant and delivers on what they need in order to keep them engaged, motivated and supporting.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Cheque it out!

As someone who writes the occasional cheque - the news and debate around them being phased out was of interest. Mark Astarita's comments also struck a chord - many charities are hugely reliant on payments via cheques and considering the future without them should be something we all start investigating.

Now, I have credit cards, and most of my charitable giving is done via direct debit - but usually when I give additional sums to appeals, I tend to do so by cheque. I can't answer why exactly, but I actually like writing them.

So my own behaviour got me thinking about people's choice of giving mechanism - and also raised the question 'Does the method of payment options offered have an impact on what people will and won't respond to?'

For example, simply put if you are promoting an on-line offer to people who include supporters who predominantly give by cheque are you wasting everyone's time? I can't answer that with any facts - but it made me wonder. After all isn't this just about another layer of tailoring and understanding of supporter behaviour that we should know?

Obviously at the very least we should all know how our method of payments breakdown in relation to donations..5% cash 45% cheque etc. so we can all understand the potential danger presented by the phasing out of cheques. The next step be would be trying to find an alternative that offers some of the security and reassurance that many people feel cheques provide.

At the moment though, I am not quite sure where the debate is - but with the abolition of the cheque guarantee card already happened there is very little security or confidence in retailers to accept them..so the future of the cheque looks bleak - that is unless the fundraising community steps in?!

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

"Do you think they'll want my £30?"

I can't stress enough how important it is to get and use supporter feedback. And even better live feedback from people you know. As usually it will be more honest, free flowing and dare I say more useful.

At the weekend, a friend of mine was mid process of filling out a donation to a charity he supports regularly. He had barely skimmed the appeal letter before getting out his pen to donate. So far so good. Then across the kitchen I heard "do you think they'll want my £30?"

As a fundraiser, I was stunned by the question. I stopped what I was doing and walked over to him. I looked at the donation form and could see what he meant.

In bold black on the donation form was £100 and £150 and other. Now at that point a couple of things occurred to me:

• Obviously an attempt to upgrade the gift value (very valid and often very effective)
• Project featured in the appeal was £100 so hence the lead amount
• Could totally see what the charity was trying to achieve and have used such techniques many times

However, what this approach didn't take in to account was how the supporter would feel.

In this case, it could be that the approach was a little heavy handed?

Upgrades can be based on a number of hooks - a good strong project is one way, also basing the increase on what a supporter has given in the past with an incremental increase built in (my friend usually gives between £30 and £50 pounds to this charity - but every time they ask). Also, a combination of the two and these are just a few ways of doing it.

People may have differing views on this and I would welcome other people's thoughts. But to me though the case for support needs to be strong and thus overt, the tactics employed should possibly utilise a little more subtlety. After all, should the supporter realise what you are doing? Should the technique create such confusion / dissonance? These questions probably should be asked of all techniques we employ.

As for my friend - he continued to give his credit card details - but as he popped the donation form in the BRE, he joked "Well, I am sure they won't send it back!" "Of course they won't", I replied. "They'll really appreciate it." trying to reassure him. But I was a little saddened that a standard technique had been executed in such a way that had potentially made a generous gift feel like a lesser gesture. And I think as fundraisers, we all need to be a bit more mindful of that.

As ever, thanks for taking the time to stop by.

Are you assuming your supporters can't read?!

Of late I feel I have walked in to a phase of poor customer care (as you may recall from a previous post), and sadly it hasn't stopped! What is worse, it has either been (1) a disregard for me as a customer or (2) under the guise of 'rewarding' my patronage but not. Both can be equally as bad.

Thankfully, these examples are not from the not-for-profit sector, but I felt compelled to type away here mainly because it would be the easiest thing in the world for us to fall into such a mindset - you may even be doing it already without realising it.

Today, I will just talk about issue 1: The disregard for existing customers. With the constant obsession with recruiting new customers / supporters over caring about the ones you already have, I have been stunned by my ISA provider offering a fantastic rate on a new ISA only to learn that it is not available to me, just NEW customers only! Did they think I wouldn't notice? I did, obviously.

For me, the significant thing about this example is that as many charities are continuing to primarily focus on the recruitment of new supporters, I am not sure there is enough awareness and thought given to how these new recruitment campaigns or offers are being perceived - not just by the potential supporters but by existing supporters too?

So, if you think any of your recruitment offerings could provoke any of the following responses from your existing base - then it might be worth thinking about doing something about it:

1. That's good, but I don't receive that
2. I am not sure I like the direction the organisation seems to be going
3. That looks like a great project / work, but it's the first time I have heard about it. Why?
4. This looks like a complete waste of money. Is this how they use my donations?
5. I didn't think they did that.. I'd much prefer to support that...

My point is essentially any of the above thoughts could undermine a supporter's commitment to an organisation ... so just bear that in mind when new communications are being developed and maybe ask yourself some of these questions:

1. With in this is there anything new that we could use to proactively share with our supporters?
2. How could it be adapted to 'appeal' to our base? (not necessarily asking more of them)
3. Which of our supporters are interested in that area of work? How could we get them involved?
4. Are we offering an inducement in our recruitment that would be of interest to our existing supporters or will it potentially make them think we are not valuing them?

These questions are not exhaustive, but you get the idea.

Obviously where campaigns have been developed in an integrated way from the outset then the role of your existing supporters and how you will communicate to them will be a clear part of the plan. But I think the same exercise and thought process needs to be in place no matter how big or small the campaign. Whether it be a full on regional multi channel campaign or just a single insert.

Assuming that your supporters can not read and therefore would not notice what you are saying, could be quite a risky approach. Or put it an other way, by factoring in your supporters in everything you do, will make you see all the opportunities to enhance those relationships and potentially doubly benefit your recruitment activities too. That seems like a good deal to me.

Thank you for stopping by!

Does having a customer services department mean you're failing?

I am being a little provocative with that question, but after calling a customer service department of a well known bank and coming off the telephone more frustrated than when I initially called, I decided that essentially the fact that many organisations have customer service teams means that they are acknowledging that things will go wrong at some point with their product or services. That they will let someone down.

But rather worse that that, I realised that many 'customer service' departments in the event of service failure actually do not have the people, systems and policies in place that actually put the customer or supporter first. In short we have a long way to go with customer care.

Before I go on, I am not basing this on just one farcical experience but it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

So 4 principles that to me would make a huge difference:

• Actually listening to what a customer/supporter is actually asking for. Don't presume you know because someone starts a sentence in a certain way. From my recent experience I repeated the same thing several times, to several different people because the people I spoke to presumed to know what my issue was before taking the time to let me finish.

• Tailoring what you can deliver. A big bugbear at the moment is the total inflexibility of certain companies in the face of absurdity. Though on many occasions you may not be able to give people exactly what they are asking for - it shouldn't just be about what you want to give them. There has to be some flexibility and indeed some license for customer care people to use their common sense and discretion. The people dealing with your customers / supporters every day need to be empowered to do the right thing.

• If an organisation does mess up and someone calls to raise it, offer solutions to the customer or supporter. Far too many companies when they mess up then expect all the work to rectify the issue to be done by the person already inconvenienced. Even better if you know you've messed up proactively contact them and offer solutions.

• Finally and this could be a little difficult, but where possible you should have a rule that if someone causes the problem / complaint then they are involved in rectifying it. From past experience as the person responsible for mailings etc but also speaking to the people who called with complaints or just upset, it was an invaluable experience. As a result, I knew the reason behind every communication and message that we sent and could explain that to anyone who called. As a consequence many supporters who started calls irate and upset finished calls happy and with some understanding.

This is not meant to be exhaustive in any way. There are libraries full of books about customer care. These are just nuances which to me would make a huge difference to even the most efficient customer service outfit. Because it is about people at the end of the day, and being able to resolve problems so well that it isn't the complaint people will share but your fantastic service.

Thank you for stopping by :o)

A place in time

One of the biggest challenges we have as fundraisers is building empathy. Bridging the experience gap between the situation of our beneficiaries and that of our (potential) supporters. It is a hard thing to do particularly if you are highlighting scenarios so far removed from another person's day to day reality.

'Can you imagine...' only gets you so far because for many the mental stretch from where they are now to another situation is too much.

That's why I really liked the idea behind 'A place in Time' A short film produced by Angelina Jolie. The concept of which was to simultaneously film several countries at 12 noon on a set day for just 3 minutes.

Though the film reads like the who's who of Hollywood the idea of different people or communities sharing the same moment in time (or three), creatively, has legs particularly in raising awareness of the stark differences that exist. Whether in portraying poverty across the world or the disparity in just one country. The difference in the lives of women across the globe or showing the difference between someone living with a disability and someone who isn't. The options are endless.

It doesn't have to be a big budget production.. but could be one useful way of bridging the gap for new supporters and your work, and for existing ones, an interesting way to feedback. Or even a great way to get supporters involved by sharing their own moments in time to help others see the differences and thus helping us to make an even bigger difference in our work.

Thanks for stopping by. :O)

A walk in the clouds

It is always interesting to see whether people say what they really mean or really mean what they say and some times in order to do this we have to read between the lines. And that is no different when it comes to the letters received from supporters. Both those praising your organisation and those being critical.

That's why I like word clouds. Obviously they are not an exact science but what they do do is visually show emphasis or rather frequency of any string of words you choose to enter. As a result they can be useful tools.

• If you use them to scan your supporter comments each month. They could highlight some interesting trends: what supporters are liking, what they're not, themes, word's they are associating and using to describe your organisation and thus you will be able to see whether the prevalent words match what you think you are communicating.

• As a filter to see how supporter focused your own communications are. Is the biggest word that appears in the copy word cloud your organisation's name rather than those words relating to your supporters or the beneficiaries of your work? If so, your copy could probably do with a little bit of work.

• See whether your social media conversations are highlighting your organisation's priorities? or are multiple tweets and facebook posts concentrated on too many themes or one less than supporter engaging topic?

As I say, there is nothing scientific about them, but the clouds can show up some surprising things - things you and your organisation may want to act on or at least delve a little further into. Obviously, they are no replacement for a genuine supporter focused strategy or indeed a clear communications plan but they can help show how much you might need to develop those things or revisit what you have - which can be no bad thing.

Thanks for stopping by!