Sales is a transfer of emotion. That lesson was drummed into me early in my working life. If you want to make a sale, you’re going to have to make someone feel something and your job is to figure out the right emotion for the right person. It’s taken me a long time to accept the tyranny of that principle. I often want to believe that people buy/give for rational reasons – that they research, comparing objective criteria and make decisions on that basis. But that’s not reality and some recent online material as well as a research project in which I’m involved have made me think about the extent to which the heart rules the head when it comes to giving decisions.
A recent post from my Torontonian colleagues at Nyman Ink explored the concept of Emotional Branding, even citing a Wikipedia entry.
But isn’t all branding emotional? Seth Godin defines a brand as “the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another.” – or in fundraising terms to donate to one cause over another. How do you even begin to separate the emotional from the rational in that definition? And why bother?
Katya Andresen focused on analysis vs. emotion in a post earlier this week that presents data/studies that not surprisingly confirm that emotion trumps analysis – as I would say it does every time.
That led me to a really interesting post by consultant Tony Macklin and his “Grand Unified Theory of Donor Desire.” Tony says, "if you want to increase charitable giving, first, listen to a person’s story and hopes. He asserts that perspectives on effective philanthropy will always take a back seat to the “fundamental search for meaning and belonging.”
The last online piece is the Money for Good study recently released by Hope Consulting. Their research consists of over 4,00 interviews with individuals representing household incomes of more than $80K. These are the people that you might think are most rationally discerning about their giving. However, the study concludes, “Few donors do research before they give, and those that do look to the nonprofit itself to provide simple information about efficiency and effectiveness.” Moreover, they found that, ” While donors say they care about nonprofit performance, very few actively donate to the highest performing nonprofits.”
All of this is borne out by research in which I am involved based on interviews with Canada’s top philanthropists. One of the most often cited criteria in major gifts decisions is the passion of the person that is driving the organization or project. Hardly an empirical or rational measure. Even at the major gift level, emotion is the major determinant.
The implication for fundraisers and marketers is clear. If you want someone to give to your cause, you’re going to have to make her feel something – even at the highest levels. And while you can’t ignore the need for clear information and accountability, the more you pitch to the heart, the more successful you will be.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Reality trumps advice
If you ever wonder whether fundraising theory and advice really work in practice, you’ll want to read this.
This is a story about my friend Ephraim who is a fundraiser on behalf of an educational institution overseas. He has been coming here twice a year for the past six years to raise money for the organization. His appeal has always been for the unrestricted funds that will allow the institution to continue to operate. Over the years he has enjoyed moderate success.
On his latest trip however Ephraim’s case for giving changed. A project had emerged. The organization needs $2 million over the next three months to take advantage of an opportunity that has arisen. With the money, they will be able to secure permanent housing for many of their students.
They began their fundraising efforts in their local community, aggressively reaching out to previous supporters, families of current students and alumni. They met with success. They also secured financing from local banks. By the time Ephraim came to Canada, 75% of the needed funds were in place.
At each appointment he described the project, its benefit to the organization and the time constraints. Then he talked about what they had already done to raise money and detailed the success they were having.
This has been his most successful fundraising trip ever. The response has been overwhelming with donors adding significantly to what they have given in the past and a number of new donors coming on board.
While there are many reasons for Ephraim’s success, I would point to three in particular. Not only do they account for the success of this appeal, they provide an action plan for the messaging in any campaign.
Purpose – donors knew exactly what the money was going to be used for. More importantly they understood the benefit to the organization. In turn, that meant there was a clear value proposition for donors. They knew exactly how they could make a difference.
Urgency – there was a definite time frame in which the money was needed and a reason for that window of opportunity. Donors understood that these were extraordinary circumstances and that the organization needed the money now.
Momentum – donors wanted to jump on the bandwagon. The efforts that had been taken locally built confidence and were inspiring. There’s something counter-intuitive at play here. You might think that the organization’s local success would lead donors to believe that they didn’t have to give. But the truth is that everyone loves a winner and demonstrating success is in fact motivational to donors.
It seems to me that any time you can authentically represent these three factors – purpose, urgency and momentum – in an appeal or a campaign, you will improve results.
But don’t take my word for it. Take Ephraim’s.
This is a story about my friend Ephraim who is a fundraiser on behalf of an educational institution overseas. He has been coming here twice a year for the past six years to raise money for the organization. His appeal has always been for the unrestricted funds that will allow the institution to continue to operate. Over the years he has enjoyed moderate success.
On his latest trip however Ephraim’s case for giving changed. A project had emerged. The organization needs $2 million over the next three months to take advantage of an opportunity that has arisen. With the money, they will be able to secure permanent housing for many of their students.
They began their fundraising efforts in their local community, aggressively reaching out to previous supporters, families of current students and alumni. They met with success. They also secured financing from local banks. By the time Ephraim came to Canada, 75% of the needed funds were in place.
At each appointment he described the project, its benefit to the organization and the time constraints. Then he talked about what they had already done to raise money and detailed the success they were having.
This has been his most successful fundraising trip ever. The response has been overwhelming with donors adding significantly to what they have given in the past and a number of new donors coming on board.
While there are many reasons for Ephraim’s success, I would point to three in particular. Not only do they account for the success of this appeal, they provide an action plan for the messaging in any campaign.
Purpose – donors knew exactly what the money was going to be used for. More importantly they understood the benefit to the organization. In turn, that meant there was a clear value proposition for donors. They knew exactly how they could make a difference.
Urgency – there was a definite time frame in which the money was needed and a reason for that window of opportunity. Donors understood that these were extraordinary circumstances and that the organization needed the money now.
Momentum – donors wanted to jump on the bandwagon. The efforts that had been taken locally built confidence and were inspiring. There’s something counter-intuitive at play here. You might think that the organization’s local success would lead donors to believe that they didn’t have to give. But the truth is that everyone loves a winner and demonstrating success is in fact motivational to donors.
It seems to me that any time you can authentically represent these three factors – purpose, urgency and momentum – in an appeal or a campaign, you will improve results.
But don’t take my word for it. Take Ephraim’s.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Is storytelling the whole story?
Every “top ten” list in the fundraising arena talks about the importance of using storytelling but it would appear that using it well is another story. I recently read two online posts that demonstrate there’s a difference between good ideas and good execution.
In a recent post, M+R Strategic describes an amazing test they conducted to determine the effectiveness of storytelling in a direct mail ask. They created two random lists – each of 300,000 recipients – and mailed each list one of two versions of a direct mail letter. Version 1 was “written using a more general, institutional approach that outlined the organization's accomplishments and need.” And the second version was “written using a more personal theme based around the story of one young person diagnosed with the debilitating disease the organization is working to cure.”
Which one performed better? According to the experts, there would be no question. Version 2 with its storytelling approach should win hands-down. The reality? Version 1 – the boring organizational approach not only fared better; it raised four times the money of the storytelling letter.
In a similar test, Which Test Won (a great site to test your marketing intuition) reports on a split direct mail ask that was done for a hospital in Florida. One version of the letter briefly told the story of a patient that was successfully treated and included testimonial quotes from the patient. The second version talked about the advanced technology being used at the hospital, describing it in technical terms and advising the reader of the costs associated with acquiring equipment. To make it more interesting, both versions suggested specific donation amounts but the amounts in Version 1 (the storytelling one) were higher.
What would the experts say? No question – version 1 with its storytelling and higher suggested gifts. What really happened? Version 2 attracted a response rate that was over 40% higher and an average donation that was almost $60 higher.
So, what’s going on here?
It seems clear that just telling a story isn’t enough. Other factors must be considered. In fact the story in the Which Test Won storytelling letter isn’t particularly compelling. I actually found it a little confusing and the letter never really tells us what the money is needed for. In the end the suggested donation amounts seem unconnected to the rest of the letter. On top of that the non-story letter is easier to read and its layout is much better. Somehow there is a sense that my (smaller) suggested donation will make a difference. The M+R post doesn’t allow us to read or see the letters in question. So we don’t know if the story was well told or if the ask was compelling or the letter was laid out well.
Ultimately storytelling is a means to presenting a case for giving. It cannot be divorced from the strategy behind the campaign or the brand of the organization. The finesse of storytelling is to be moving and authentic while at the same time meeting marketing and messaging objectives. In addition, it must be incorporated into a letter that is well crafted and written with a target audience in mind. In the end, storytelling may be effective but doing it well is clearly not easy. And worse, if done poorly, it can have detrimental results.
End of story.
In a recent post, M+R Strategic describes an amazing test they conducted to determine the effectiveness of storytelling in a direct mail ask. They created two random lists – each of 300,000 recipients – and mailed each list one of two versions of a direct mail letter. Version 1 was “written using a more general, institutional approach that outlined the organization's accomplishments and need.” And the second version was “written using a more personal theme based around the story of one young person diagnosed with the debilitating disease the organization is working to cure.”
Which one performed better? According to the experts, there would be no question. Version 2 with its storytelling approach should win hands-down. The reality? Version 1 – the boring organizational approach not only fared better; it raised four times the money of the storytelling letter.
In a similar test, Which Test Won (a great site to test your marketing intuition) reports on a split direct mail ask that was done for a hospital in Florida. One version of the letter briefly told the story of a patient that was successfully treated and included testimonial quotes from the patient. The second version talked about the advanced technology being used at the hospital, describing it in technical terms and advising the reader of the costs associated with acquiring equipment. To make it more interesting, both versions suggested specific donation amounts but the amounts in Version 1 (the storytelling one) were higher.
What would the experts say? No question – version 1 with its storytelling and higher suggested gifts. What really happened? Version 2 attracted a response rate that was over 40% higher and an average donation that was almost $60 higher.
So, what’s going on here?
It seems clear that just telling a story isn’t enough. Other factors must be considered. In fact the story in the Which Test Won storytelling letter isn’t particularly compelling. I actually found it a little confusing and the letter never really tells us what the money is needed for. In the end the suggested donation amounts seem unconnected to the rest of the letter. On top of that the non-story letter is easier to read and its layout is much better. Somehow there is a sense that my (smaller) suggested donation will make a difference. The M+R post doesn’t allow us to read or see the letters in question. So we don’t know if the story was well told or if the ask was compelling or the letter was laid out well.
Ultimately storytelling is a means to presenting a case for giving. It cannot be divorced from the strategy behind the campaign or the brand of the organization. The finesse of storytelling is to be moving and authentic while at the same time meeting marketing and messaging objectives. In addition, it must be incorporated into a letter that is well crafted and written with a target audience in mind. In the end, storytelling may be effective but doing it well is clearly not easy. And worse, if done poorly, it can have detrimental results.
End of story.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Targeting Affluent Donors
The most recent daily post from e-marketer may be worth taking note of as it relates to high net worth donors.While I appreciate that it was brands/companies and not brands/non-profits that were the subject of this study, the results can still be instructive to fundraisers. Certainly those with financial means are going to be of interest to any charitable organization and understanding their online behaviour may help in building relationships.
While the most traditional and still most effective way of approaching affluent donors is in person, it would be a mistake to assume that social media can’t be an important tool in building relationships with this cohort. To that extent the study is very useful.
Some of the results were predictable. I would have assumed that “affluents” aren’t looking for bargains online so the differential in the responses to “I wanted to get deals/discounts” and “I love the brand…” isn’t surprising.
But the responses to the next four statements are far more telling. For the sake of analysis I would organize them into pairs. “I noticed someone following the brand/company profile” and “the social network recommended it,” both indicate the greater degree to which people in this category are influenced by the opinions of their peers and sources they trust. It’s not news to any major gifts specialist that the most important factor in any solicitation is the person doing the asking or who has brought the philanthropic opportunity to the donor’s attention. This is in fact borne out in interviews with Canada’s top philanthropists that I have been conducting as part of a book project.
The to do list regarding this factor would be to find ways to extend the influence of your current affluent donors. Perhaps consider setting up a Facebook page that reflects the interests/concerns of affluent donors. Make it easy for donors to convey information about your organization. Create giving opportunities targeted to affluent donors and strategically use social media advertising to create awareness and drive traffic.
The last pair that caught my attention was “An ad (print, tv, online) led me to it” and “It was mentioned in an article.” Both of these underline the need for cross channel marketing. It has been well documented that marketing and fundraising efforts that use multiple channels enjoy better results. In practical terms this may mean considering ads in targeted publications to drive traffic to an “affluent-focused” Facebook page. Perhaps the content of that page can be unique enough to attract media attention (with a little pr help of course).
There are undoubtedly many other practical ways to use these research findings to create and enhance your relationship with affluent donors and I’d love to hear some of your experiences and/or suggestions.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Walking the Mission Talk
Is your organization’s mission something you talk about or something you do? I think that was the essence of a recent brilliant blog post by Harvard Business Review blogger and author Dan Pallotta. And I believe the answer to the question is fundamental to the success of your fundraising marketing program.Through a number of examples and quotes, Dan establishes that organizations must not only have a mission; they have to be on a mission. Organizations much have a deep sense of purpose. While Dan’s post is great guidance for those setting organizational priorities, there is a clear (but unspoken) message for those involved in fundraising.
Commenters to the blog post pointed out the undeniable necessity of mission statements. But any of us that have had to craft a mission statement know that the related negotiation, compromise and intense wordsmithing can lead to that which is meaningless to anyone outside of the innermost circle of the organization. The cartoon above from Tom Fishburne and Marketoonist.com makes the point perfectly. What’s worse is that sometimes fundraising asks and associated collateral get gummed up by these mission-based mantras. We end up talking about what we stand for and not what we do.
Donors on the other hand are increasingly concerned about what results will be achieved with the funds they provide. To be successful, solicitations must speak to those concerns. While this may sound ridiculously obvious, I challenge you to review the copy on your website and in your last direct mail campaign and see whether it meets the “on a mission” test. Does it convey a clear purpose? Do you explicitly and unequivocally tell donors what you will do with their money? Even better, is there a way that you can be accountable to your donors? Is there an objective measure of whether funds raised are achieving the intended goals? Is all of this stated simply and directly? My guess is that the answer to every question will not be yes.
I understand that presenting what an organization does in the absence of what it stands for can be equally ineffective. There clearly has to be some balance. In addition, the reality is that marketing material also has to satisfy the needs (and sometimes demands) of those on the inside of the organization.
It's a fine line but Dan’s thoughts clearly provide a great rubric from which to evaluate our marketing material and to decide whether it walks the talk.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Maybe the Taggies are no Biggy
Nancy Schwartz, one of the best known bloggers, speakers and consultants in the not for profit world has just released the results of the 2011 Nonprofit Tagline Awards – or Taggies as she and her marketing material refer to them. This year she’s even created a slick video to announce the winners.
Remarkably, over 1700 organizations submitted a total of 2700 taglines for consideration and over 6000 votes were cast to choose the winners. That’s pretty incredible considering that the prize for winning is nothing more than being recognized.
Nancy deserves a lot of credit for coming up with the idea three years ago and developing it into something that 1700 organizations know about and want to participate in. And, through the contest, Nancy is making nonprofits devote at least some attention to their marketing efforts – which is a very good thing.
I think the contest raises some troubling questions.
The video proclaims the tagline to be a “vital marketing tool” and that a “smart tagline is a powerful tool for connecting with your base.” Not only am I not buying it, I think it sends the wrong message to nonprofits. The vital marketing tool is the strategic plan from which a tagline emanates. A well-crafted and implemented plan with a lousy tagline will have better results than the converse any day. Amongst the tools that a nonprofit can use to connect with its base, a tagline is probably one of the least effective.
The awards are distributed without knowing anything about how well they represent the mission, goals or stakeholders of an organization. The winner in the Fundraising category – Oregon Zoo’s “Bring Back the Roar” is smart but is it anything more than that? How did it fit into a broader plan? How did it relate to the target market? How did it contribute to results? On top of that a visit to the Zoo’s website shows no vestige of the tagline. So, while it may have been an award winner it clearly wasn’t a keeper (no pun intended).
The video also declares that a tagline will allow you to “build your brand in 8 words or less.” Brands are not built on 8 word taglines. They are built on thoughtfully considering and developing the relationship that your stakeholders have with your organization. There are many successful brands that – believe it or not – have no tagline. In the for profit world, companies like Apple and Starbucks come to mind. Here in Toronto, York University has just completed a $200M campaign marking the 50th anniversary of the institution. While the “York to the Power of 50” campaign name (is that a tagline?) is creative, I suspect the campaign would have been equally successful with a different – and less creative – name.
Too many organizations already want to skip the strategic steps that will lead to effective marketing. They just want the good-looking logo, the pithy headline and maybe now the award-winning tagline. Ultimately, I worry that the Taggies celebrate the end while ignoring the means.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Data That's Relevant to the Majority
There’s a ton of fundraising-effectiveness research available these days but is it relevant to the realities of the majority of organizations?
There’s been lots of buzz in the past week about a new study on email fundraising released by M+R Strategic and NTEN. What’s attracting attention is the study’s conclusion that organizations with smaller email lists are getting better results than those with larger lists. In fact in some data categories, the small list results are almost double those of the large lists. These are interesting findings but here’s what I was thinking.
The definition of a small list according to the study is under 100,000. But 100,000 is an astronomical number of email addresses. For most organizations, having 5,000 - 10,000 email addresses would be a stretch. So, let’s resist the inclination to be intimidated and see how the numbers play out if you are only sending let’s say 5,000 emails.
Based on the study’s findings for small list campaigns, you can on average expect:
I don’t have all the answers. Every organization will have to come to its own conclusion but it seems to me that for most, it’s not a slam-dunk. An informed decision can only be made on a careful consideration of the numbers. The good news is that the digital world can provide all the data necessary.
Make it work:
There’s been lots of buzz in the past week about a new study on email fundraising released by M+R Strategic and NTEN. What’s attracting attention is the study’s conclusion that organizations with smaller email lists are getting better results than those with larger lists. In fact in some data categories, the small list results are almost double those of the large lists. These are interesting findings but here’s what I was thinking.
The definition of a small list according to the study is under 100,000. But 100,000 is an astronomical number of email addresses. For most organizations, having 5,000 - 10,000 email addresses would be a stretch. So, let’s resist the inclination to be intimidated and see how the numbers play out if you are only sending let’s say 5,000 emails.
Based on the study’s findings for small list campaigns, you can on average expect:
- Open rate - 19.8% which means that 990 people will open your email
- Click through rate - 4.1%. OK, now 205 people will use any link in your email to visit your site
- Response Rate - .25%. That means that 12 people will make a gift
- Given the average gift amount of $100.65, your campaign will gross $1207.80
- And if you can do this – as small list organizations are – 2.3 times per month, or let’s say even 25 times per year, that’s $30,195
I don’t have all the answers. Every organization will have to come to its own conclusion but it seems to me that for most, it’s not a slam-dunk. An informed decision can only be made on a careful consideration of the numbers. The good news is that the digital world can provide all the data necessary.
Make it work:
- When considering an email campaign, do your diligence and use available research to project results.
- Don’t forget that there is a qualitative aspect to email campaigns. Effective writing and compelling design will always be more successful.
- Remember that the effectiveness of the donation landing page is also a key component. Make sure that once they get there, prospective donors are encouraged to give.
- Think long term and consider how you can increase the size of your email list and the cumulative effect of increased site traffic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
