Archive for February, 2009

What doesn’t work: Asking for too much money

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

I’ve run into a common problem across several premium-driven fundraising campaigns:

What appears to be the renewal ask is unreasonably high.

It’s happening because I’m entice to become a member, donate to appeals, and renewal, all enticed by a premium (plush animal, umbrella, windbreaker).

They’re always trying to upgrade me as a donor by ratcheting up the dollar amount I’m supposed to give to qualify for the premium.  Fine.

But now I’ve received renewals from a few organizations in which the renewal is not $HPC (highest previous contribution) but instead $1.5HPC (one and a half times the HPC).

With this, my previous $60 donation creates a $90 ask.  A tough jump.

The $1.5HPC is the dollar amount circled, with a callout saying “this much to get your XXX”.  This is the second number in the string.  I could give less.  But that is the ask, to my mind … me, the premium-motivated donor.

These groups are among the smartest fundraisers out there, so the numbers must work for them.

But I’m no longer a happy donor.  That’s too much!  And I’ve been premium-behavior-shaped to think that’s what’s expected.

Other groups renew with a premium at $HPC.  Which is always fine, never a stretch.  But I suppose I do demand stretching to good fundraisers, too.

I hope they’re still testing.  They could get me back with $HPC.  Or fast with $MRC (most recent contribution).

Posted in "happy donors", Mail fundraising | No Comments »

Of plush ocelots and sans serif fonts

Saturday, February 21st, 2009

I use GoStats to track how many hits I get at happydonors.com, a free service that tells me how many unique visitors, pages viewed, and what site led them here.

While this is not a super-trafficked site, I’ve stopped being surprised at how often happydonors.com comes up on the first page of a google search … nor at the reasons: the search words entered.

The leading search words are variations on “sans serif fonts on the internet.”  Happydonors.com is all about sharing information useful to fundraisers.  Spreading the net wide, I’ve posted quite a few times with tips on web usability issues, which shape the effectiveness of online fundraising efforts.  I also have an interest in fonts, which can make a significant difference in readability and response in any media.  Evidently not a real popular topic, I get hits.

“Plush ocelot” is a favorite. I’ve written about use of premiums in mail fundraising campaigns, including plush-toy animals used by wildlife group.  Hence, plush ocelots.  Not common words, so whenever the select few with interest seek plush ocelots, they find happydonors.com.

Once you’re on google, you’re international, and about 1/4 of my visitors are from other lands.  I write about fundraising in other countries, but not enough that these posts alone draw visitors from pretty much everywhere.

“Clear calls” is a rising search topic.  Happydonors.com gets picked up by google searches because I’ve written about the importance of “clear calls to action” in fundraising communications.  The largely Arabic-nation searchers must be disappointed, since they’re probably trying to become informed on some new telecom technology.

One post was about a “Fun Intro” to some technical concepts.  “FunIntro” is evidently a racy dating service in South Africa, so searchers are doubtless disappointed with my site.

“Search” isn’t so much about seeking as it is about finding.  A recent book, The Google Story by David A. Vise and Mark Malseed, provides some great insights into this broad phenomenom, as well as into the birth, growth, and operation of the corporate master of the search market.

Not quite so recent, The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid is a fascinating study of  “knowledge transfer,” education, the “information society,” and what could be seen as the evolution or devolution of knowledge itself.

Posted in email/internet | No Comments »

The future of Facebook

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Yesterday Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg posted that Facebook is backing off it’s new “Terms of Service” … some semi-outrageous legalese inserted in the user agreement earlier this month.

The now-revoked terms gave Facebook ‘an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license, to “use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute” every thing YOU and all the other 175 million users post on Facebook, subject only to your privacy setting.

Nobody reads this stuff before signing up for much of anything. But as they became more widely known, these terms could have knocked Facebook out of the Web 2.0 / user-created content world.

What’s this mean for fundraisers? Not much, for most. The only folks using social networking with real success have been relatively small efforts, usually individuals setting up a donation page on behalf of a cause, then directing friends to it, often in some sort of contest. The first to raise $1,000 on behalf of Greenpeace get a windbreaker.

But Facebook has been showing more potential, in two ways I notice anyway.

First, more and more folks adopt organizations in the “causes” section, and more and more causes have their own active Facebook sites, with links that actually allow online donations.

Second, the demo shift.

A recent iStrategyLabs study shows that older folks are picking up their pace in Facebooking.

About five million people in the age 35-54 segment joined Facebook in the last half of 2008.  Age 55+ doubled, to about 950,000.

Of the roughly 26 million US users, almost 20 million are age 24 and younger.  But the older segments — those already more inclined and able to donate money — are catching up. (And I’m here respectfully not counting the roughly 140 million users outside the US.)

Nobody yet knows how many people will vote against Facebook’s Terms of Service with their UHauls, perhaps like the abandonment of MySpace a couple of years ago.  I don’t know that anyone counts absentees.

These now rescinded Terms may draw more attention to permanence of Facebook content, something younger people are now more aware of.  Even if Facebook doesn’t own what you posted after you abandon, that doesn’t mean it’s not available to the world.  The Web has a way of archiving what we’d like to forget, eh?

In any case, this aging could be good news for fundraisers.

Posted in email/internet | No Comments »

A few notes on the carrier envelopes

Monday, February 9th, 2009

This continues the survey of 130 recent fundraising renewals and appeals started in the last post. Some observations…

As noted, I didn’t realize that Covenant House had sent me a crucifix on a chain until I’d opened and rummaged through the envelope. As also noted, the positioning of the premium was very likely done in order to comply with new postal regulations, providing lots of cushioning on both sides of anything that might shred in the automated sorting machines.

Compliance raises a real risk that recipients won’t even realize you’re sending something, so you might want to put a VERY prominent teaser on the envelope, alerting people to the premium’s presence.

Among the other upfront premiums I received in this lot, none were really noticable when shuffling through mail… the time when most recipients are standing over a trash container, dropping the unengaging.

Actually a primary reason for using these premiums is lost. Your package is no longer “lumpy.” You don’t have tactile engagement. This could really suppress response.

Defenders of Wildlife sent a metal ornament that I utterly missed. (I remember getting one last year, so this must be a proven control.) And they put a big picture of the ornament on the outer, on both sides, and told me “Enclosed: Your FREE limited-edition Defenders ornament…” Sorry. I missed it.

St Joseph’s Indian School sent a key ring with a sort of dream catcher webbing, leather strings and feathers. This arrived in a 9×12″ envelope, so I certainly noticed the kit, but didn’t feel the “freemium” at first and no teaser alerted me.

Noah’s Lost Ark got my attention with a live postage stamp paper clipped to the reply envelope. The clip was USPS compliant because it was at the top of the envelope, free of the shredder, and the stamp and clip showed clearly through a second window near the top edge of the envelope. A window designed to show a reply address, so the stamp REALLY stood out because it was simply odd to be in that window. The envelope was blind, no return address or any sender identification. Probably smart given the relatively low awareness of this group. Looks like a winning package to me. I hope so.

World Jewish Congress Foundation sent the pen, in a box designed for this purpose… a box that’s USPS compliant. This is quite costly, but I see this packages often enough that they must perform well.

One very nice touch that costs nothing and has to lift response: preprinting faux yellow highlight behind the address that flies the package. I’ve seen this before from World Wildlife Fund, some very smart mail fundraisers. As a side note, though, this “final notice” (I don’t know how many I’ve received) wants me to renew and get a plush rhino, but for a $75 donation.  I’m pretty sure my HPC (highest previous contribution) was $50, but I’m not being clearly asked for that as a renewal. Since 1.5HPC is a bit steep, they may be scaring off donors. Or scraping off those who renew only with a premium, which is now too expensive?

Posted in Mail fundraising | No Comments »

Learning from the ol’ mailbox

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

Between Thanksgiving and January 31, I chucked all incoming fundraising mail into a box, which I’m now going through, looking for learnings.

This is wholly unscientific analysis of course. Quite a few I know are controls because I’ve seen them often before. My box included a few tests to name variants. Many organizations don’t have adequate quantities to test, so some packages that are remailed repeatedly are just performing well in the eyes of the senders, untested.

130 packages received, including renewals, second renewals, and a fair number of appeals and acquisition kits. In many cases the outer envelope doesn’t tell me whether they are renewals, appeals or acquisition. So for now I’m going to look at all as a group.

Twenty three include membership cards.

None of the classic hard card I used to work on so frequently in the early 1990s — kraft carrier with some legalese… card is hard enough to have heft, to be felt, and doesn’t show through a window… essentially looking like a bank mailing you a credit card. These worked like crazy in their day, but hard (credit card weight or more) cards are expensive, particularly since they were all personalized.

So now, at best, they’re soft, even sometimes just perfed paper. All showed through a window on the carrier. A nice touch: a Defenders of Wildlife sent a second-notice “photocopy” of the first notice, and the membership card itself looked like a “photocopy.”

20 renewals included a premium, almost all personalized address labels, a couple of personalized writing tablets. One cross on a chain. One 6×9″ calendar arrived in late December.(I received several 8 1/2″ x 11″ calendars just before Thanksgiving, the usual timing.)

Only a few offered a premium back end — to be sent once renewal was received.

Nonrenewal premiums included address labels plus one pen (to sign the enclosed petition) and a Lakota key ring. (Last fall I received a “Dream Catcher” from one of the Native American organizations. Gawd I hope that wasn’t made in China.)

To me odd, 25 were mailed in closed face envelopes, none of which looked the least bit personal. I.e., they had teasers, even elaborate color graphics, on the outer.

I encourage clients mailing in quantities under a million to use closed-face carriers only when trying to simulate very personal correspondence.

A good general guideline: The more something simulates the conventions of personal correspondence, the higher the response and greater the gift.  A generality.

Closed face is costly because of match mail. (Except in large quantities when done inline.) So I don’t want to waste my investment in “personal” by adding teasers etc that scream “I am solicitation mail!”

This is my baseline position, knowing that some organizations send closed-face kits with teasers with great success, most particularly when mailing high-donor-circle names. Why else?…

Generally I’ll mention names only of groups whose packages I praise. That said…
One national “disease cure” group mailed me two #13 closed-face carriers with commercial graphics.  Not showing a premium.  Nothing that would induce me to open.  I can’t explain.

Several were groups small enough that they might be hand assembling the packages. One I know is for sure. And one small group personalized only the envelope, not the reply, so no match mail expense.

NARAL/ProChoice America has a control I’ve seen a number of times: a carrier window with a personalized label pasted over the window. Very official looking. Jumps out of the mailbox clutter. Cool.

A couple of animal welfare groups show animals with big sad eyes. Ok, but why not use a window carrier?

One national group sent a closed-face with a faux typewritten teaser: Loyal friend of XXthis groupXX. What would make this work is a corner card advising me that the people they help will know they have “a true friend in Richmond”. (I live in Richmond, Virginia.) That local touch could make this work. But I’d try the same approach showing the address through a standard window and that local message through a second window.  I bet that would work as well and cost less.

Only one organization made best use of match mail, sending me something that looked nice and personal: Covenant House.  If you don’t know this organization, go online and make a gift. They do great work … and great fundraising.   This was a roughly 4 x 6″ envelope, so it could be a greeting card, with a faux personalized address label and live stamp.  A small-format two-page letter.  A note paper for me to write on and send with my gift.  And, in a little brochure-weight fold, that small cross on a chain.

It would have been great if I could have felt that cross before opening the envelope. It was probably so hidden due to relatively new USPS regulations, driven by automation, which don’t allow many old premiums because the envelopes would be shred in sorting machines.  The classic coin showing through a window was squelched by this rule.  So, I speculate, was the visibility of this cross.  A wonderful package in any case.

Posted in Mail fundraising | No Comments »