Please let me tell
you a story.
One day,
the fundraiser (I will call him Bill) of a small
state based charity asked a consultant (Ulrika) to help his
charity with their tax time direct mail appeal to mailed in May.
“Of course”
said Ulrika. After all, she had helped them before and it had worked
well. She had written an appeal that raised more than
any appeal before from the 3,000 or so previous
donors. However, they had not done another appeal with her for a
couple of years after that because the fundraiser changed and they embarked on
another strategy.
Bill
explained that the other strategy (focused on building awareness) hadn’t really
done much, and their money was low. However, they had sent a Christmas
appeal in November and it had done well.
“Great” said
Ulrika – “that means that there are enough donors still with us, so we should
be able to do well with the tax appeal.”
“Oh no!”
said Bill. “The May appeal will be mailed to new people; we are worried
that we have bothered our current donors a bit too much and there is donor
fatigue. After all, the Christmas appeal didn’t do quite as well as the
Christmas before – even though we only mailed them once in between.”
Ulrika was
quiet for a bit. Oh dear, she was thinking, where do I start?
Can you spot
the flaws in Bill’s approach?
Right now I
am in San Diego a the AFP conference, with maybe 5,000 predominately American,
fundraisers. Chatting to people made me realise that Bill is not alone in
misunderstanding a very basic and fundamental, unbreakable 'truth' of direct
marketing. The truth is the recency, frequency, value rule (also known as
RFV or RFM where the M stands for Monetary value).
RFV is a
mathematical rule that gives you three clues about the likelihood of a positive
response from a donor who is mailed.
Recency -
the more recent a donor donated, the more likely they are to donate
again.
The chart below shows this in action on a warm appeal - this is real data. {By warm appeal, I mean an appeal sent to people who had donated before). Although it is broken into years, the rule holds true over months too.
Frequency -
the more times a person has donated, the more likely they are to donate
again. The chart below is from the same data as the one above, and just looking at those who have donated just once, and those that have donated more than once.
Recency and
frequency work hand in hand with the fact that charities that mail more
frequently - if they are mailing good stuff - have better 'life time value
rates'.
Value - the
value of a previous gift gives you the best clue as to the potential value of
the next gift. But even high value donors still follow the recency and
frequency rules.
The process
of acquiring a donor (getting them to give for the first time) is expensive, so
charity must maximise the life time value of a donor.
Bill is
falling for ‘common sense’ over ‘reality’. He thinks that most donors
don’t like to be bothered too much asking them for money. They probably
tell him that too. But the reality kicks in with a little direct
marketing concept that works across all products, not just charities.
Look at the data, don't make assumptions based on feelings. Generally speaking, mailing more frequently than once a year will INCREASE donor loyalty, not decrease. A charity like Bill's with 3,000 donors should be mailing perhaps at least four and probably six times a year.
Donor fatigue fatigue is when you get tired of people thinking that they have donor fatigue when it simply isn't the case.
Sean
1 comment:
Spot on Sean .... here is something about Donor Fatigue that I blogged about a few months back. http://ushamenonasia.com/blog/?p=37
Usha
Post a Comment