In pursuit of happiness

I was recently reading some information about Sense's supporter base in the context of attrition and was struck by the the length of support of some of the supporters.  Not because it was unexpected. I am sure many charities have cohorts of people who have been giving 5, 10, 20 plus years in the same way that we have people, (not using the word supporter here), who have not given at all or those that have lasted less than a year.

What it did make me realise though, is that as an industry we tend to focus on why people stop giving - not a bad thing - as we now have great insights as to what we can do to meet people's needs to keep them supporting for longer.  But still, I feel less focus has been on exploring why people are actually still giving. After all very few people start giving without reason there are various reasons and influences, conscious and subconscious. We measure net promoters scores and have satisfaction surveys but we don't proactively ask what has kept someone giving these past 5 years, the last decade, the last two decades and use this knowledge to inform the next twenty years.

Even from a supporter care perspective, acknowledging and recognising this amazing commitment is a good thing to do but phoning and having a chat and asking some of these kind people what has kept them giving to you despite recessions, changes in there life stages and possibly as a result, their financial circumstances, as well as changes in your organisation's brand for example would be brilliant to know.  After all, they are doing what you have asked of them - they have made the choice to act and are continuing to do so - even if this is through inertia. Though interesting article here on why inertia is no bad thing.

Of course some of this will be covered off in your own research - whether it be focus groups or in-depth interviews.  But I am not sure the starting point will be framed so positively i.e. 'what keeps you happily supporting xxx?'

So along with lapsed donor research, I will look forward to 'Retained donor research' as well and will start by doing some of my own.  After all we all are in pursuit of the state of the happy donor - and though we may be being a little presumptuous that they are - we should at least ask on that basis.

And of course I would love to hear if anyone has been exploring the happiness of their donors and what they found out.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Explain it to me...

As Robert Matthews says in this month's Science Focus Magazine:

"...even the most rock-solid phenomena can turn to mush when you try to explain them."

Now, I am sure Professor Brian Cox would have a great go at explaining the concept of magnetism or what time is and I would have a possible chance of understanding it... to a point. But if I didn't understand what he was saying whose fault would it be?

What the article went on to explain though and what really did resonate with me as someone who for a living has sent out communications to people about international development; disability, and war & conflict - possibly subjects that they have never had personal or direct experience of, is the point that it isn't necessarily the fault of the person explaining it - not entirely - it could be that the person / people you are explaining it to just doesn't have the knowledge to relate to what is being said to them.

This is borne out quite well by the fact that children will constantly ask' Why?' when you have answered their question or rather think you have!

Why am I banging on about the effectiveness of explanation is that it's our role often to relay complex information to people in a way that they will relate to - so we have to be even more aware of this point. Obviously.  Thus a timely reminder.

As fundraisers and marketeers - we should know the importance of understanding our audience.  The old adage of 'keep it simple stupid' is actually not patronising but actually helpful.  As Jeff Brooks points out, his approach is to write in a reading level of 4th to 6th Grade, he has this useful tool to help you - but essentially it is about helping your supporters to understand rather than building in barriers.

The other side of it is about us understanding our own causes in a way that it can be conveyed in a meaningful way to the people we are communicating to.  As fundraisers we need to ensure we spend time with our programme staff to gain an understanding of the work and then work to translate that in a way the person reading or hearing it will understand it enough to make the decision to do what you have asked.  

Obvious tips include:

1. Avoid jargon and acronyms
2. Don't worry too much about explaining the process - people tend to care about outcomes not necessarily how you got there
3. Read or share copy with family or friends to see if they understand it.  As much as we try to remain neutral and focused on our role as fundraisers, after a while you are commenting on copy or creative from a position of knowing.  Someone completely outside of your organisation will help be the objective voice
4. Get to know your donors and supporters - even if that is looking at the complaints, the white mail that comes back or call listening opportunities or taking supporter care calls - all are useful ways to get insight and certainly have value if you don't have budget for full research.
5. Try to build in something that could be familiar to the reader...even if it is the way you start the letter or leaflet or how you relay the story you are telling.


None of this is rocket science or quantum theory in this case - but the importance of communication and effective explanation and understanding relies on both parties. It would just be wise to not make too many assumptions. 

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

A quick lesson in how to get someone's attention - in the right way

I long bemoan the boring emails and communications I get from digital and creative agencies trying to sell their creative services and skills in what, to be honest is in the most dull and boring manner.  Emails of ridiculous proportions explaining their USP and attaching a 'creds' documents.  Not very creative.

I have already received several this morning - two to note but for very different reasons.

1 A mailing from a digital agency - quite lively creatively. A see through outer, interesting format, an offer of a free hour session - all good. But the the one thing that may make me more likely to actually get in touch at some point was the letter.  At the bottom handwritten in nice black pen were the words 'Hope all well post ActionAid.'

Now I have never worked with them before - I don't I know the Managing Partner signing the letter as far as I can recall - but I can honestly say that I appreciate the fact that they took the time to find out about me, the person they are writing to.  Simple as that.  Obviously it is a sales communication and I don't have the same expectations for personalisation as I would from a charity I support for example - so what I said here - still stands.  However, this actually set them apart.  And that is a good thing.

2 By stark contrast I received an email from an agency - telling me that they were not going to do the usual stuff (in an attempt to be different) and be 'to the point'. Great - love directness.  They then eventually go on to list some of their clients.  One of which was ActionAid. And I do recall them, though I never worked with them directly. 

There in lies the difference.  It is the small things that can get your attention. For good and not so good reasons.  Even more noticeable when your competitors are doing it better.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

How did you decide who to cancel?

Just the other day I was talking to a friend who had just reviewed her DD commitments to charities and had decided to stop quite a few.  The main reason was financial.  And she was quite honest about that.  So having the chance to quiz a professional woman in her early forties about that decision making process, I took the opportunity.  Not least because as my friend and in an unofficial non survey way, she'd be honest.

Q. How did you make the decision?

"Recency of sign-up i.e. last in first to go...."   Really - why?  "Well I know I haven't made any difference as yet so the loss to the charity is less."

Q. Is that the only criteria? "No - I like to see I am supporting a range of sectors. Animal, health, children etc. So if there are two that are similar then I will decide on how recently I signed up."

Q. What about what you have received from the charity?  "Some of the information and communication I have received more recently have been lovely.  More to try to engage me I guess - I just don't have time to be engaged."  

"Thinking about it I have  probably received very little from the charities I have been supporting since university days - I can't recall any off the top of my head. But my heart is with them I guess."

Q. Why? Now this answer was very  interesting to me. "When I decided to sign-up to charity x I suppose it felt more considered, I didn't have a huge amount of money but I believed in what the charity was trying to achieve.  Over the years it probably works out at several hundreds of pounds of giving but by leaving now I would be giving up on something that I believe and have invested in."

Q. But how do you feel about the relationship you have with these charities?
"Relationship?" 

Q. Yes, you know, on-going communication, how they make you feel, what they are doing and how they are letting you know?
 " I don't know.  I don't really want a relationship - a relationship suggests obligation on both sides.  I am giving my money because I want to and because I can and because of what they are doing with it not because of what I am getting back. I prefer it that way. My reason for supporting is my reason and and because of that I would feel less guilty if I stopped."

Q. Has any of them written or tried to call to win you back? 
 "No - not as yet. Should they have done? Have not heard a thing - but I guess that would be wasting their money to do that."

Now there is a huge caveat with this of course - it is one person, a busy person with a busy life.  I am not going to say that this is representative in any way.

But some key things I have taken away from this are:

• Not everyone wants to be engaged.  They don't have time.  Now I could take my friend at her word here - but I won't because in reality the level of engagement we need to offer supporters has to suit people's lives.  Engagement is a positive thing - not something that should feel like it is competing with the other demands on someone's life.  More needs to be done to understand and meet this need before we run off and develop complex welcome processes and communications plans. Find out what people want from you.
• What constitutes a relationship is interesting - not everyone wants to have one with you or rather not in the conventional way.  And I think we have to accept that this is okay. Just be clear on what relationship works for both the supporter and for the organisation.
• Control over the decision-making process to support in the first place is pretty vital and thus the level of 'investment' people feel they have in your cause.  How do we instill as much control as possible in the process for people? or at least that it feels that the decision is theirs rather than a default reaction to someone not being able to say 'no'.
• Who is leaving you? When looking at your attrition report - ensure it is broken down by years of support.  We can all get carried away with year one retention rates - but as I have always said I'd be more concerned with the fact that 2% of people that had been supporting my cause for 5 year plus, for example all of a sudden decided to walk out the door. So find out what your monthly attrition is made up of at the supporter level.
• This should inform what you do about recovery and reactivation.  At the very least with the supporters of the type mentioned above - it would be wise to have a system to identify them and indeed speak with them to find out what made them decide to leave after all this time and if possible to find out what kind of 'relationship' they may want with your organisation going forward.
• As regards recovery and reactivation more generally - the expectation of supporters could be quite low or may be that as organisations we are not very good at it.  On this basis though there is an argument and an opportunity attached with communicating to someone who has left you - just to have the opportunity say thanks and goodbye for now at the very least.  That way they are more likely to remember you well and positively if they ever want to give to your cause again.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Positive comments please..

I have just received the FRSB December e-newsletter reminding me that it is the time of the year for the 2012 annual complaints return.  I don't have any issue with this monitoring per se but the one thing it made me think was may be as an industry there should be a similar co-ordination of the positive feedback and comments that we as organisations receive from our supporters.  

In the same way that someone complaining can give a good indication of their commitment to you - particularly if they are an existing supporter, the same can be true of the nice comments. The congratulations for the lovely feedback or well done on doing something to raise x issue, or that is the best thing I have ever read - I am leaving you my house.  Okay - you get the idea.  But acknowledging that complaining takes effort, the same can be said of someone telling you that you are doing a good job - and I don't think that should be under estimated.

For me the obvious benefits of such an approach means:

• Automatically much focus on what you are doing well.  Which can be as useful in revising tactics or in informing a strategy as the less positive comments.

• Review of data capture. A possible revamp as to how such comments are recorded on your systems and databases.  From experience I know, unless you set it up, such positive comments may be not be selectable against individuals or even captured at all.  Where it seems that complaints always are.  This would change that.

• Organisational understanding. The organisation focuses on the good as well as the negative and if as fundraisers you have departments or other teams highlighting the negatives - then as an antidote you have some positives to share.  A way to possibly change how fundraising is viewed within.

• Opportunity to build relationships. In the same way that complaints should be seen as an opportunity - and indeed if handled well potentially a way to increase supporter loyalty.  The same can be said of positive comments. It is a perfect opportunity to build a dialogue with the person and share more or get them more involved.

So I think we should all focus on the positive as well as handling the complaints.  Even if this is out of the FRSB remit, it is useful to establish this yourselves with your supporter care teams. The process could completely change everyone's outlook.

Thanks as ever for stopping by.

Amanda

New year, new resolutions

For a gift, I was recently given this book. It was a fascinating read because to be honest when I think of Mother Teresa the word CEO is not the first thing that comes to mind. In truth she was a great business woman and in terms of what she achieved - taking a world-wide organisation through every phase of growth over 40 odd years, her accomplishment was quite something. 

Mother Teresa lived and led by several principles and because it will soon be the time of reflection and resolutions - these principles are definitely worth sharing.

1. Dream it simple, Say it strong - create a simple vision, communicate it clearly in words and actions. This could apply to a fundraising proposition or equally apply to how you choose to approach any objective.  More generally it could be your chosen modus operandi - but the idea of living your values is very inspiring.

2. To get to the angels, deal with the devil - this is about being clear on how you make decisions and how you evaluate them them against your own values.  We all have to compromise some times or make difficult decision, so it's about having a framework to deal with those decisions.

3. Choose your moment - I love this one, as it isn't about caution it is just about being ready and prepared, so get all your ducks in a row as the saying goes before you start.

4. Embrace the power of doubt - Again this is actually very positive. A need to apply some rigour in what you do and just constantly question what you are doing and ask if it can be done better.  Undoubtedly it can.

5. Discover the joy of discipline - take your work seriously but never yourself.

6. Communicate in a language people understand - this one really doesn't really need any explanation and applies equally to fundraising messaging as it does to how you interact with people day-to-day.  After all if people don't understand what you want or what you are asking for then how will you ever get it.

7. Pay attention to the janitor  - Obviously an American book by the term janitor but I think this is a really important point and one people can be very blinkered about.  Inspiration and insight can come from anywhere or anyone  and everyone has value so open your mind to it.

8. Use the power of silence - listen!  In a world of a lot of noise and in and industry of opinion and a lot of it, some times it is just wise to watch and listen and take away from all the noise what is useful to you.

I have of course paraphrased these principles and the book - but I found them refreshing and a nice check list going into the new year.  What you take from them is entirely up to you as with all things it is very much about interpretation.  But I hope you have found them interesting at the very least.

Wishing you all a very Happy New Year and thanks as ever for stopping by.

Need? Shall I just do it myself?

Recently, I attended the IOFs Fundraising session on unpopular causes and though I think 'unpopular' is possibly the wrong word, there were certainly some causes represented that you could fairly call 'niche'.

For me the session provided some interesting reminders and although directed at the 'unpopular' many were pertinent on a wider level - including the idea of 'keeping it simple'.

This refers to the message and the proposition of your organisation; you can't tell the whole story all at once and neither should you try.  Obvious stuff, as these things usually are, but it is amazing how often we can forget.

 A great example for me of an organisation that is really clear on what it is focusing on: the focus is prevention, the audience is Generation Y who are sick of family and friends dying from what is often a preventable disease and it has the fantastically unconventional if not direct name of Fu@K Cancer.  

Digging a bit more into how Fu@k Cancer came to be, here is this TEDx talk from the charity's inspirational founder, Yael Cohen.

The insight into her as someone affected by cancer and as a member of Generation Y was really fascinating (and warrants another post in its own right) - but what else was really interesting to me is what Yael's motivations to establish the organisation in the first place possibly suggests about how other such causes are relating to and empowering people to support them. 

Why do people feel the need to establish an organisation themselves rather than rely on already established charities to do their job? Are charities failing to show people that they are having an impact in what they were set up to do? Does it all feel too slow? Is this just applicable to Generation Y? Is there a real gap in the market?

This may be a little contentious and moving at a bit of a tangent but as I see more and more organisations set-up to do something that many others say they are already doing ......I can't help but wonder. 

What does this mean for how organisations are motivating the public? Okay so not everyone is like Yael and will establish a charity. But for those people who are affected by an issue your organisation is working on or who is a potential supporter - are we sending the message that we are doing a good job? Are we explicit about what we do and vitally what we are achieving? Are we showing our point of difference? Are we showing any need?

Or has the organisation become so concerned about being PC about their work, the beneficiaries and how they are viewed that the passion as to why the organisation was established in the first place is lost and thus has made them (appear) less effective?
Stephen pigeon recently highlighted some of the impact of this here. 

There is not a jot of science behind this but I asked a few people their views on the matter. One, a generous charitably minded person with a kind heart and a huge social conscience said of charities: 

"Many charities do not differentiate themselves well enough to encourage my specific support. It is oh that's just the same again. And then you have to ask what all of these charities have achieved on the issue.  You don't hear of many causes that have closed their doors because they have done what they have set out to do." - Janine Cusack, great human being.

Then I asked the founder of Awamu why she set-up a charitable enterprise: 

"There was a need which I couldn't afford to help myself. Because I wanted others to see how fantastic the people were, because I wanted to engage my friends in a way that would interest them and because I wanted to do something, more quickly than the slowness of a big organisation." - Emma Scullion, Inspirational founder of Awamu

At the end of the day it all comes down to need.  To see a need  and to feel able to do something about it, a need to know that you are helping that need to be met.  A need to know you are making a difference.  Some of us can act upon that by setting up an organisation - but for most of us we need to know we are making a difference and thus that the organisation is actually achieving its mission - no matter how slow the progress.  And we certainly need to work harder in making sure that message comes across.

Charity sees the need and not the cause - German proverb.

Thanks as ever for stopping by and Merry Christmas :O)