I’ll admit that I only open some of my mail. Like most people, I quickly sort out the bills and other “must open” things. Then I go through the rest.
One glance at the envelope is usually enough to tell me whether I want to bother opening it or not. (And that’s with my professional interest in seeing others’ good ideas!)
I recently opened an envelope because it came from an organization we’d been steadily supporting for years. And one that usually does a good job of communicating.
So I was disappointed to see an upgrade/renewal mailing disguised as a bill.
As you can see, the suggested gift amounts aren’t small ones. And we’ve been supporters for more than 20 years. But unlike past mailings, this one feels rushed and pushy. “Give us the money, ok? See ya.”
Now, I don’t know. Maybe this is working for them. I get that it’s cheaper to mail just a response form that looks like a bill. And I get that some people will react as if it is a bill and pay up right away.
I just can’t help but think there’s a much better way. I don’t want to feel that giving is a transaction. I want giving to be a joyful, conscious choice to help someone.
If anyone reading this has found a really good reason for mailings like these – in the long-term, not just as a one-off – I’d love to hear it.
In the meantime, hey, I did get a notepad.
I agree with you: This sort of thing would totally turn me off. I recall Agents of Good blogging about something similar, when World Vision automatically increased monthly donations (http://agentsofgood.org/2012/04/opt-inopt-out/). It turns what someone is giving as a gift into something an organization appears to feel entitled to — as you said, a transaction.
However, there’s a difference between what seems appropriate and what brings money in — it’s hard to reconcile the two, and I can’t help but feel this is what a good portion of distrust for fundraising stems from. For example, I was pretty horrified the first time I received direct mail from Smile Train: Essentially, “give us money now and we’ll never ask you for money again”. I thought: “Is this what fundraising has come to: Give us your money or else?”
And yet, at AFP Congress in Toronto last fall, Tom Ahern raised Smile Train specifically as an example. He hated it. But then he made a donation and decided to stay on the list because he wanted to know how his money would be used (to paraphrase, he basically said that after finally deciding to donate, he wasn’t going to opt out of learning how his money had been spent — fair point).
So whatever we think, however distasteful it seems to a lot of people, it seems to work. That said, I agree that it reduces gifts to transactions, and I think that’s a depressing view to take.
Since this is a big national organization, I’m assuming this was tested and worked. But I wonder what the terms of that test were – just responses to it, or any look at the longer term?
The Smile Train is interesting. Is it being solicitous of donors’ wishes by allowing them to opt out so easily? Or is it, as you say, making the whole giving idea into a transaction, and a one-off at that? To me, if feels like the second. But my “feelings” are probably not what matters! 🙂
Have you contacted the organization to provide some feedback?
I think with Smile Train, my reaction was also negative because I knew they obtained my contact information through a purchased list. Transaction focused indeed!
You know, I haven’t, Amy. Almost everything I’ve gotten from them has been really well done – “swipe file” material more often than not. So this was especially jarring because of that. Maybe I should…
This is a disappointing tactic, I agree, Mary. It looks like it’s borrowed from the world of magazine subscription mailings. Years ago, marketers used great copywriters like Bill Jayme + great designers to try to persuade someone to buy a magazine. you’d have a nice, 4/C outer, a 4-page letter with intriguing copy, a 4/C brochure that would shows spreads from actual issues, a lift note to answer any objections, etc. Then, the early 90s brought the “voucher” and mostly killed that off; the Meredith titles are a big exception to that.
For a non-profit to do that lowest-common-denominator thing – write your check like it’s just another transaction – is disturbing. But I guess it works.
Thanks Paul. I so agree! I guess there are at least two questions: what’s the long-term impact of this stuff? And are they testing this against something more donor-friendly and still finding it works? I’d be disappointed to learn that the answer to the second is yes.
Actually, we’ve found exactly that, and very recently, too. I ran invoice looking renewal notices versus more conversational letters, and the invoice outperforms it in every segment (current members, lapsed members, first year members, veteran members). I was surprised, as well, because I don’t love the invoice format, but it works really well for our members.
Thanks, Janelle. That’s really interesting. As I said to you on G+, I do wonder whether this starts us down a transactional rather than relational path with donors… and what the long-term implications of that will be. But we won’t know for years, will we?
If you learn anything more as time goes by, I’d love to hear it!