queer ideas

Another way to measure supporter loyalty

I can't think of many charities that wouldn't want more loyalty from their donors. But as we all know, people can be very, very fickle.

Just because someone has set up a small regular gift or responded to an appeal, it doesn't mean that they are a supporter that you can depend upon.

You have to do something very special to build that sort of relationship.

That's why I was amazed to receive this photograph from a WSPA donor, who values their relationship with the charity so much that they have made it permanent with a tattoo of the Animal Protector logo!
It's probably one of the most memorable examples I've seen of what a donor focused loyalty campaign can achieve. And though WSPA are unlikely to get many more photographs like this, their new Animal Protector product has had a remarkable impact on all KPIs.

As a result, the Institute of Fundraising awarded it the Most Innovative Fundraising Campaign at this year's IOF national convention. As they said at the ceremony...

"Attrition has been halved and over 12 months the numbers of donors upgrading their monthly donation amounts has more than tripled.

This campaign was based on donor insight and WSPA built a new product around this data. They tried to change the mindset of donors to feel more engaged through a new product, and successfully increased the emotional engagement that donors feel.

The drop in attrition is excellent.

This sort of campaign could be replicated in other organisations and doesn't necessarily depend on the size or income."

I'm incredibly proud that it was Bluefrog that developed Animal Protector and that it was built on our uSpace donor feedback engine. If you'd like to know more, you can read about how it works here and here).

Protect the donor

We all know the old adage, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves, but it should probably be extended to supporters too. Because if we take care of our donors, we won't need to worry about income targets.

That might sound brave or foolish (or both), but following the launch of Animal Protector for WSPA, it should ring true.

Animal Protector has been built using Bluefrog's uSpace donor loyalty engine. If you'd like to know how uSpace works, I featured it in this previous post and others have mentioned it too.

Animal Protector was created in response to WSPA's desire to improve donor retention. It aims to build a relationship with regular givers by showing them exactly how their donations are protecting animals. Through regular updates, supporters can see projects unfold and get to know some of the animals they care so much about.

But more importantly, it gives people a chance to interact with WSPA and define themselves as supporters – in a way that works best for them.

Because if there is one thing we've learned as we've moved from the first generation of uSpace to the second, is that choice is important to donors. But not in the way that many people might think.

WSPA works with a wide range of animals in many different parts of the world, and it seems obvious that one way to enhance a donor's relationship with the charity is to allow them to choose to fund work that benefits a favourite species.

It's obvious. But it's wrong. Donors may have a preference, but that doesn't mean they want to fund work that only benefits that type of animal (if they did, there are many species-specific charities they could easily discover on Google).

By choosing one specific creature, donors have to say no to others. And that can make people feel uncomfortable, particularly when their primary aim is to stop cruelty to ALL animals.

So rather than ask people to choose just one project, we gave them the opportunity to align themsleves with their favourite animal in a different way – by customising their Animal Protector site.

When people sign up, they are presented with different menus, one of which allows them to choose their masthead...

 

 

I've chosen a cow, but if people prefer a bear or a dog, they can choose that header instead. All the time knowing that they are helping all animals...

 

As you'll see, the logo also changes to match donor choice. It's based on a human thumbprint, but developed to represent each animal through the use of the relevant paw or footprint. Donors can use this as their default avatar, but many are uploading pictures of their own pets or animals they have seen in the wild. We've examples of everything from dogs to bears, to ducks to tortoises. And, shock horror, some donors are even uploading photographs of themselves. It's going to be very interesting to look at how the type of avatar relates to giving behaviour.

But choice doesn't stop there. Supporters can also choose a travel wallet or keyring that publicly demonstrates their commitment.

And those people who don't think that donors are interested in these devices, might be interested to hear that over 90% of donors who are signing up are actively requesting them.

And of course, donors can share their opinions too. Each post is accompanied by a growing list of comments. This is perhaps the most exciting (and rewarding) part of the project as donors are showing just how much they value being an Animal Protector and the the insight that goes with it.

A comment from one particular supporter, that summed up the sentiment behind many of the thoughts being shared, simply said...

"Thankyou to those in the midst of this wonderful rescue work for their dedication to animals that come in to their care. The animals can't say "thank you" themselves so I will say it for them. They send you lots of love."

However, I've left the best to last. The site has only been live for a week or two, and has already attracted thousands of supporters. But one of the most interesting side-effects of offering this combination of self-definition and in-depth feedback has been the number of people who have upgraded.

When we launched the site, we simply wanted to get as many people as possible to join. But donors have been so happy to know their money is making such a big difference that almost 8% of current regular givers who signed-up have chosen to upgrade their gift without even being asked.

See what I mean about income targets looking after themselves?

If you'd like to know more, why don't you sign up for yourself and see just how rewarding being an Animal Protector can be? Just click here to find out more.

Mick Jagger ate my mail pack

The Resource Alliance has recently released a video of a presentation I was involved in at last years IFC in Amsterdam.

Together with Damian O'Broin from Ask Direct in Ireland and Sandra Cnossen-Albers from WSPA in The Netherlands (who now runs her own fundraising consultancy, Raising Results) we put together a presentation on celebrating the history of direct marketing. It also included a few of our thoughts on where the medium is likely to go next.

 

The whole session was about an hour and a half whereas the highlights video only runs for 19 minutes, so I've added the complete stack of slides so you can see some of the other examples of great (and not so great) fundraising ideas that we focused on.

Mick Jagger Ate My Mailpack

The original presentation also included a few short films missing from the stack. I've included these as links below. The one in my section highlights a particular theme of my part of the presentation – it doesn't necessarily matter what your charity does, if you focus on the needs of the donor you can still make a very effective case for support.

It shows how a US DM agency put together cold fundraising appeals for a serial killer and a convicted fraudster that generated response rates of between 1.5% and 2%. You can see the actual video (which is rather funny) and read more about the experiment here.

Damian's part of the presentation features features three different videos that thank donors. These can be seen by clicking the following links.

New Zealand Blood Service

Concern Worldwide

ActionAid

You can see another video from the IFC featuring Damian and Aline from Bluefrog Creative (along with some chap called Ken Burnett) on the theme of fundraising innovation here.

The nine ways donors filter your appeals

A few years ago my uncle set up a direct debit to an animal protection charity. He has repeatedly been upgraded and now gives them £60 a month.

He doesn't want to be upgraded any more. He values the work of the charity so has resorted to throwing all their communications unread into the recycling bin.

It seems the charity in question has used standard RFV segmentation and concluded he likes being upgraded. Their guess – no matter how educated it may be – is wrong.

His actions are not unusual. In research we hear donors tell us time after time that they don't feel valued or appreciated by the charities they support.

They, like my uncle, see the relationship as a one way flow of financial resources. As a result they develop their own methods of avoiding giving. In addition to the throwing everything in the bin technique, I've heard donors say they use...

• The hat technique. All appeals are saved up and put aside. Once a month they are drawn out one by one until a pre-set budget is exhausted.
• The first come first served technique. As above but this time it's down to the appeals that hit the doormat first each month.
• The rotation technique. One in n appeals will result in a gift. For example, every third appeal will receive a cheque. The rest go in the rubbish.
• The seasonal technique. As you might expect, this classifies charities according to season. Shleter gets a Christmas gift, WSPA gets a spring one and Care International gets a summer one. No matter how often you ask, you won't get any more.
• The boredom technique. Only the most entertaining appeals receive a gift.
• The topical technique. If it's in the news, a donation will be given, otherwise it's a no.
• The blame technique. If there is something a donor doesn't like such as the use of non-recyclable glassine windows in envelopes or the inclusion of a pen or stickers, the appeal gets rejected.
• The thanks technique. If a thank you has been received to their most recent gift, another donation will be considered.

These methods of managing giving (and others like them) are surprisingly common. What is most striking about their use is that a charity can't really control whether the technique will be implemented against them or not.

The only route to tackle and avoid them is to actively engage your donors. Write to them about what they want to hear – not what the latest manifestation of your brand guidelines demands – and give them choice in how they support you.

At Bluefrog, we recommend that charities offer committed givers the chance to opt out of receiving cash appeals. In their place we offer real feedback – letters, emails and videos from people who are being helped or actually doing the work that donors care about. The result is that donors significantly increase their direct debits and end up giving far more than we'd ever receive from the occasional cheque in response to cash appeals. And feedback shows that they feel closer to the charity too.

If you are still on the look out for a resolution for 2010, I'd recommend dropping the guesswork and asking your donors if they are happy with the way you communicate with them, offering them creative and attractive alternatives to the standard appeal cycle. It always pays dividends.

Happy New Year!