In my previous post, I described a recent bad experience trying to stop credit card debits resulting from an inadvertent sustainer gift. The organization apologized and promised to resolve problems that led to my frustration. If you haven’t read the last post, please do so now, so what follows here will make sense.
I’m a happy donor again, but now look back at the dynamics of this sour experience:
– Fatal web usability on a fundraising site. The first order of usability is preventing donor frustration. An odd thing about the web: when people can’t achieve something, they say “I’m stupid” instead of “you’re stupid.” Better if they faulted you, because blaming themselves dramatically heightens the negativity of the experience and the damage done to the relationship.
The must hurtful issue I encountered was a string of web cues that all made sense, lulling me into a feeling that all was well and “I’m good”. Then a big “Oops” when I hit a huge disconnect between what I was told I could do and what I could actually do. I followed the path, hit the snag, though to myself “What did I do wrong?” … followed the path again … and again, with my frustration ramping up with each pass.
The email told me I could click through for info on my account. The account info page told me I could change status. A “help” pop-up told me exactly how to end my sustainer status, step by step. But the last step was “look for the ’stop payment’ button” when that button did not exist. I did this four times.
So my initial irritation was moving toward rage.
The folks at this organization told me they were addressing this. Hope they’re quick about it. Turning a sustainer into a nondonor ain’t the direction we’re looking for. Then there’s …
– Meeting donor expectations. That frustration headed for the stratosphere in a week due to a mix of expectations unmet and promises unfilled.
This wasn’t a website problem. It was a disconnect between my expectations of service on a website and response time. When I sent emails to the membership office, I didn’t hear back for four days. In 1980, when snailmailing a question or even phoning in, a four-day response time might have seemed fine.
No more.
A separate issue: phone message that promise “we’ll get back to you soon.” Most donors will take any indication of when you’ll get back as a promise. You gotta keep those promises. And “soon” means “today” or certainly “within 48 hours.”
This is largely about expectations, and today the bar is pretty high. If you’re ever unsure about your response time, you’d be far better off loudly disclaiming any promise. Or consider making promise that would be unacceptable by most standards …but a promise you can keep.
– A possible solution: Under-promise, over-deliver? A couple of weeks ago I had my wallet pinched in Sevilla, Spain, losing my passport, a debit card, and 200 Euro. I stopped transactions on that debit card with one email. Cool.
When my back-up debit card (from a different bank) didn’t work, I suspected that they’d lost my memo about travel to Spain, so the vigilant fraud division was blocking transactions.
With no mobile or other reasonable way to change this status, I went to this bank’s web site. Sending an explanatory email to the general customer service @dress, I got a bounce-back promising action “within three days.”
Whoa! This card was my only means of getting cash. Three days was very bad news.
I found a different bank @dress within a secure, customer-only part of their site, but got the same discouraging promise.
Angry and a bit desperate, I was wondering if the embassy would cash to only paper check I had.
Imagine my delight when, in about 24 hours, I got responses to both emails acknowledging the problem, apologizing, and assuring me that my card would now freely transact in Spain’s ATMs.
With their feeble under-promise, meeting reasonable expectations suddenly had a “wow” factor. Under-promising and over-delivering made me an even happier customer.
If this organization’s phone banks were totally slammed, and there was little chance of a quick response to an inquiry, why not say so … with an over statement that “we might not be able to back to you even in a week, but be assured that we WILL answer your question and address any problems.”
If the organization had lowered my expectations, I wouldn’t have had a week of rising bile.
I saw retweets of this, interesting Blog. However I must say you are awfully selfish for slamming an OCEAN CONSERVATION group in the midst of an unprecendented environmental crisis to which they are responding. You seemed to be really emotionally invested in this transaction (terms like boil over and gile?) . Did you ever stop and think that perhaps it wasn’t all about you?
I am enviromental activist/ fundraisier and it is upsetting when members of the public think their donation gives them carte blanche to be hyper critical. Of course thereneeds to be accountabilty, transparency and action but this goes beyond that. Often they are very out of touch with the reality of what is going on on the ground and want immediate “results” as if they are buying a product. Perhaps they are buying contrition from their guilt?
OC’s VP was on MSNBC recently and he was very impressive, plus their you tube feed shows the work they are doing in the Gulf– live from the scene. NGO’s are not Starbucks or Macy’s, Greenpeace, Sierra, Human, Ocean Conservancy, etc. exist to fight the good fight within the thier given scope– not to serve the donor.
Like is said very interesting blog– we will stay tuned.
I appreciate your feelings, Jonathan, but I wasn’t slamming the Ocean Conservancy or their great efforts in the midst of this mess in the Gulf. My intent — and the goal of this blog — is to try to help organizations attend to their donors in ways that cultivate long-term giving. This organization is great in the field, but slipped up in pretty critical ways in allowing donors to have a satisfactory relationship with them. An experience like this would drive anyone away from a retail outlet selling the a “product”, and nonprofits are held to, if anything, a higher standard. As well they should be, given the number of groups worthy of donations. I’d like to think my prodding will encourage this organization to eliminate a couple of barriers to continuing giving. They tell me this is happening. I hope so, and wish them, and you, all the best.
Thanks
Dan Shaw