Are you investing in emotional engagement?

I read last week in one of those in flight magazines that the longer you have been in a relationship with someone the less time you are likely to invest in giving a massage. Essentially effort and time put in diminishes. 

Okay, so I appreciate that this is a little bit of an odd introduction but it made me think as fundraisers  how much thought and effort we put into looking after our longer-term supporters compared to the newly recruited, possibly fragile and attrition prone new ones?  

A couple of things though:  I am not saying that the focus on new recruits is not required - it is. And depending on the mix of channels, the retention strategy at point of recruitment is critical.  Also, regards the longer-term supporter.  It could be inferred that as they are still with you after 5, 10, 15 years - that you aren't doing too badly.

However, my point really is about keeping your eye on the overall. The longer-term supporters may be doing OK thank you very much - but could you be doing more to build a greater, more meaningful relationship with them?  And likewise do you understand what is actually being lost when a longer-term supporter decides to leave you?  That's why I am a big advocate of looking at attrition in actual numbers of donors leaving not just the percentage.

From experience, I know that though a retention rate amongst a group of supporters may be solid and strong and they may well keep giving month on month when it comes to recommending the cause to others or doing more they are less likely to and possibly as easily will be able to find a reason to stop supporting you.

You could ask that with a solid and seemingly solid base of income - do we need to worry.  I would say, potentially yes.  If the answer to the question 'Are you investing in building emotional loyalty?' is NO.

Other than reviewing people's immediate response to our communications - and I am sure many a (rash?) culling of house files have taken place because of it - we have little way of determining what supporters think unless we ask them.  Engage with them. Connect with them and that requires time and effort and a focus in your communications and on-going narrative.

There is a lovely piece on fundraising advice from Snoopy - and a lovely point about an appeal being "nothing but a love letter to the prospect". But the challenge is that a love letter is only effective if the recipient can be bothered to read it or wants to, or has a spark of interest in starting or continuing a relationship with you.  Someone asking you out who you don't fancy in return is actually quite a turn-off.  Or someone being impertinent  enough to assume you want the sonnets of Shakespeare quoted to you when you would rather be watching the Olympics again will not necessarily help the cause.  The work must go into ensuring that those supporter relationships don't get to that point where the romance has gone.

In short - we can't take our long standing supporters for granted. They may require little 'massaging' or may not want it at all - but ask them, speak to them along the way, acknowledge their support and make sure you put in the effort that they deserve and want.


Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Nice organisation shame about the personality

After the highs and lows of Wimbledon my take away, other than that Andy Murray is a great player and will one day win a Grand Slam final - is the value and importance of revealing your personality, revealing a little more of yourself.  It certainly did Andy Murray no harm and I think as a consequence he will go on to attract a legion of fans that he might not have had. And I think personally, maybe showing a bit more personality could be just as useful for an organisation.   

Some of you may say that I am talking about brand.  And I'd say no, that is not what I am talking about.  No number of descriptors or secondary fonts and colours can replicate what I am talking about and that is the human side of what you do and the why you do it. 

The reason why I say this, is that before Andy Murray's emotional speech on Sunday - he was merely a British sportsman who the nation had pinned their hopes on yet again, to do something that no other British sports man had done in so many years.  I am not sure he was loved as a personality, or even liked.  He was perceived as a little surly and a little distant.  His speech changed that and it made people see Andy Murray in a different light. 

So for a charity what does that mean? Well two of the charities I can think off that are often referenced for their great communications are charity: water and Childs i Foundation however, as well as the great cause and the great work being undertaken the organisational personality is very visible or rather the personality of the founders are out there for all to admire.

Most of us know the story behind the two charities.  Many of us have been on that journey from the beginning and that is a crucial thing. We have been able to be  on that journey - because we have been there from the beginning. Because  the passion and perseverance of Lucy Buck and Scott Harrison has in some way been as important as whether the supporter journey is right or whether there is a retention strategy in place.

Both of them feature on their websites and indeed on Charity Water there is a section on the founder and a lovely, heartfelt summary of what lead Scott Harrison to where he is now.  Interestingly, in many other charity websites I found the passion and raison d'etre of the organisation consigned to history - quite literally.  Interesting stuff sure thing, but in no way is it presented in a way that is something to latch on to or be propelled along by.

To many members of the public, charitable organisations are blurring into one, it is the provenance of your cause that could help make that distinction - so tell your story as if it is a continuing fight - things may have changed in how you work and the founders may have long gone - but it is about imparting that passion and single mindedness, the personality in a way that grabs people today and to them feels as though they have just joined something exciting, relevant and that will change the world.

Thanks as ever for dropping by.

Honesty is the best policy

The other day I texted £3 in response to an SMS ad for an animal welfare charity that I know relatively little about but a cause very close to my heart. It was easy, straight forward and I knew I would get called within a matter of days if not hours. And I did.

It was a perfectly fine call - a little obviously scripted for my liking - but then I asked a question about the charity that stumped the telephone fundraiser - and I found that interesting.

I have to caveat this by saying that It wasn't intentional - but when I texted in response to the ad I did so as someone who genuinely could be in the market to support them, therefore, the answer to my question was a 'deal breaker' as far as whether I would become a regular giver or not.   Not to mention that I have briefed and listened to tens if not hundreds of telemarketing campaigns in my career and I have rarely heard a caller slightly lost for a thread.  

In all fairness to Mathew (as I will refer to him here) - he did a good job. His response was honest - he said that he recalled something on this issue in his training and that he put me on hold to get some more information.  His supervisor was searching on the website as I waited.  Eventually he came back with a response - which for me raised even more questions.

At that point, I thought Mathew would close the call and cut his losses (in a nice way of course), but rather impressively he said that he was going to go away and find out even more about it and call me back... and you know what he did!  Yep - the following morning I received a call and though the news wasn't good from my perspective or his - he wanted to be honest and share the reality with me.

As I said upfront the response to the question was a deal breaker for me - and he knew that.  But he still took the time to call back to tell me the 'truth'.  So though he knew that the organisation was not going to get my £10 a month that day - I have to say both Mathew and the organisation definitely earned my respect.

And the lessons are:  1. Relationships are about going above and beyond the standard even when you know the result won't go your way. 2. Always prepare for the unexpected particularly in pre-empting what supporters and potential supporters may ask questions about.  Your Supporter care team is crucial to this as are your agencies as they are an extension of your organisation. How they behave and respond reflects on you. 3. Be honest with the response.  All information can be dressed up to look a certain way or to look better - but if you have a strong rationale for doing something then the honest facts can well be enough. Even if the answer doesn't please everyone. 4. Well done to all the Mathew's out there - you are a credit to your profession.


Thanks as ever for stopping by

Yes, but...No, but

I made an observation the other day (based on my own behaviour), that most people prefer saying 'yes' to something over 'no'. Placing this within the fundraising context, it means that probably a little more work should be put in to finding out why people would say no to us in the first place. 

So as well as giving people what they want and rightfully addressing and meeting their supporter needs. Would it hurt to ensure that at the same time we look at it from the other perspective, and actively think about and thus address the barriers to giving. Such as:

• It will cost too much money 
• It's too complicated 
• It will take too much time 
• I support other charities 
• I don't know your organisation 
• You've asked me too many times  (this is not an exhaustive list, it will also vary, and you'll know your supporters or potential supporters better than me, but you get my point)

Now, I know that in theory if we work on why people would say yes, i.e. by meeting supporter needs then why would we need to actively look at it from the other perspective? The short answer is because it can't hurt surely?

Covering off both sides of the coin and adding an extra section to your creative brief and just giving some extra thought to why they could say no to what you are asking them to do, will just go further in ensuring that people say yes to what you are asking.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

The red paper clip and supporter development

I stumbled across this the other day and it was a great reminder that certain ambitions and aspirations cannot be achieved over night.
In this case the guy took one step at a time to achieve his objective - 14 in fact to trade-up from a paperclip to a house! And I think that is a useful realisation when it comes to fundraising and developing supporter relationships.  In fact it is probably helpful logic to apply to most ambitions.  
Obviously, as a fundraiser the aim is to build supporter engagement and where possible to move supporters up the giving pyramid.  I think it is also fair to say that this pyramid and the stages will vary depending on a number of factors: recruitment method, the profile of the supporter, their reasons for supporting in the first place and so on.  For some it could take two stages for others 14 and I think it is useful to remember that when assessing your fundraising programmes or when implementing new strategies.  So some things to think about before you commence your journey... 

• Where are your supporters now? 
• What activities are driving growth in your programme?
• What are the gaps in the programme and what are the priorities to fill? Is it Middle Value or Legacy for example?

It's important to know where you are starting from to then decide where you are going to.

• What are the steps or new elements that will try to fill these gaps? 
• Will they make sense to the donor? i.e. if the next ask is a middle donor one?
• Is it worth the investment from your perspective (at this particular time)?
• How are you going to measure the success or impact of the new strategy, programme or approach? What are you going to put in place to determine whether taking approach A - would have been better than continuing with B?
• What are you going to do differently if these approaches don't work?

All rather obvious stuff - but some times in the heat of communications plans we are probably not as critical as we could be.

Just as importantly though - we need to ensure that we take time to celebrate success - no matter how small - and if you are measuring that against your overall aim then you'll know you are on the right track - and you are taking the logical next step.  Here's to the successes.  I hope there will be many!

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

No apology necessary..really.

To some extent I may be a little old fashioned - but I believe a thank you like an apology should never be caveatted with but....and should also be genuine.

Now it is sometimes difficult to say whether an apology is genuine but then you have to look at what the apology is for. However, as a fundraiser I don't personally think you should ever apologise for asking for money. Mainly because, the need for the support should be genuine, and in most cases is constant. That is why I was intrigued to see this land on my door mat.

Now when I first saw it, I must confess I thought it was an apology for some banking or admin error so I opened the envelope. However, it was essentially an ask for me to upgrade my support or rather a letter apologising for asking me to upgrade.

Please don't get me wrong, This is not a criticism of the teaser outer that actually got me to open the letter, neither is it a criticism for asking me to increase my support. My discomfort is actually with the tone of the letter itself because it was so apologetic that it detracted from the reason for asking for an increase and thus the letter was not more effective for it. In fact probably the opposite.

It was a very nice letter. It was warm, said thank you several times for my support and seemed to be genuinely appreciative of what I already do. But I am struggling to get over the apologising because I can't actually recall why they wanted more funding.

I have not ruled out increasing my support because I like Sightsavers and their work, but in my opinion there is a balance between acknowledging the current climate and its potential impact on your supporters i.e. 'I know these are difficult times and you are already doing so much, so thank you' versus a rather explicit apology for 1. possibly causing offence (should I be offended?) and 2. for asking for more to do more.

I appreciate this is a personal view point and would be interested in what you think. I also appreciate that I may not be their key audience and you can't please or appeal to everyone. But coming back to me with my fundraising hat on I just don't think there is any room for a sorry in an ask for support or even an additional ask for support.

If the case for support and/or the imperative to support is clear, focused and relevant then it should not be necessary. After all an apology would not be a reason for me to give, it would be the the WHY and the WHAT FOR that would.

As for the letter - if they removed the lines about causing offence and the explicit I'm sorry - the letter would have been no less polite or understanding of the possible situation I may be in because of the economy or the additional asks from other causes. In fact it would have been fine - and I may have been able to recall why they needed more support. As it is, I can't. I am sorry to say.

So when thinking about copy and messaging for supporters - though it is a challenging time and good to acknowledge that fact, my recommendation would be to not go over board with the apologies and focus more on the case for support, the timing and the relevance for the people you are writing to because from my experience you could go an apology too far and it can hijack the overall message of your communication. Save the apologies for when you mess up.

Many thanks as ever for stopping by.

When fundraising is child's play

Since giving birth to my son, children's media is a whole new world. A world of odd characters, gentle moralising, Yogo and Mr Tumble! Oh and Charlie and Lola of course.

Recently I was given a book for Noah - a lovely introduction to animal protection and sponsorship fundraising (yep, I am starting him young) and as I read through it I thought there is some useful reminders for fundraisers here.

1. We need to be clear on our message. Charlie (Lola's saintly older brother), does a fantastic job in explaining what extinct means - when Lola asks 'What's a stinkt?' Charlie replies 'It means no more of that animal in the entire world.' A very straight forward definition but one that has a sense of emotion. That is in contrast to the dictionary definition 'of a species, family or large group having no living member.' Or this . So, it may be worth asking yourself whether you could summarise your key messages or explain what you do as well as a nine year-old? Instead of looking at it as an elevator pitch may be look at it as a 'Charlie and Lola test'. Would a five year-old understand it and could a nine year-old explain it?

2. Sponsorship is a growing way to support. In the book. Charlie explains to Lola how sponsorship works. '...They'll give us money for doing difficult things like swimming five laps..' All very straight forward. But I think Sponsoring is increasingly becoming a mainstream way of supporting causes and I wouldn't be surprised if this is now almost as defining for some supporters as giving a regular gift via direct debit for example. Just to be clear, I am not talking about the people doing the run or the trek I am actually talking about the people offering their support for the person doing it.

Next time you do your supporter research it could be worth including a question on 'how have you supported charity over the last year?' Among the list there is usually via a regular gift (dd), appeals, taking part in running events etc - but it may be worth adding to the list explicitly 'Sponsoring friends and colleagues' or even celebrities.

With the increase of media, showcasing the wonderful achievements of people like David Walliams and John Bishop for Sport Relief - even the people texting their £5 could think they are doing it as sponsorship. As more people want to become part of a cause and the experiential side of fundraising - it is clear that they will be seeking more sponsors and in all likelihood will start with their family and friends first.

So your supporters and potential supporters will already be being asked for money but from people they already know. I think that is a useful piece of information and it may well go towards explaining changing trends in your responses, product take up, and also provide some useful insight in developing new ways for your supporters to support. I certainly think it is worth thinking about.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

PS. I am not sure of Charlie and Lola's actual ages - I am guessing based on extensive study of the materials available.