Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts

9/15/2024

ASPCA: Dedupe for the Dogs

 I recently received on the same day two of the exact same solicitations to donate to the ASPCA

ASPCA Solicitation Mailer
Make the puppy happy.
Clean up your mailing list.

This is a classic Fail for Targeting. All mailers should go through list cleansing steps, including removing duplicates. I like this advice from Strata: double check your mailing list by hand. This is also known as eyeballing a list -- sometimes that visual inspection will reveal something that the most sophisticated software will miss.

Lessons:

  1. Dedupe your mailing list.
  2. In addition to systemic steps, review your mailing list directly.

6/09/2021

Charity Mail Deluge

When COVID hit last spring, I thanked God that I was fortunate enough to stay healthy and safe when so many people here in NYC were infected. I wanted to give back but, like many others too frightened to help in person, I chose to donate money. I donated to several charities, including some I had not given to before. That was April, 2020.

Then, starting in October, 2020, this happened:

102 Charity Solicitations
102 mail fundraising solicitations
October - December 2020

I received 102 mailed fundraising solicitations from charities to which I had never donated. Most of them were related to feeding people -- in Africa, South America, and Manhattan. Others were for: environmental causes; providing medical care to people in faraway lands; building houses; preventing people from being born with disabilities; helping people born with physical disabilities, orphans, wounded veterans, Native American children, Native American senior citizens, "inner city children" who can't afford a Catholic education, and one that appeared to have something to do with housing recovering drug addicts in hotels.

Many of the classic direct mail fundraising techniques are included: blind envelopes, pictures of children near death; envelope teasers reading "URGENT NEED NOW", "EMERGENCY APPEAL" or simply "PLEASE"; envelopes a layperson might think had been hand-addressed and stamped; tear-jerking letters; promises that my donation would be matched by a mysterious benefactor; business reply envelopes; blessings by nuns; Christmas cards; a decade's supply of return address labels; pens; baby socks; and so on. If you have created or supported direct mail fundraising solicitations, you know these packages.

It appears to me that one or more of the charities that received money from me in spring 2020 chose to make some more money by including my name on a rentable mailing list. I was included on a Hot List of new donors or a timely "COVID Giving List" of sorts.

There is a part of me that feels negative about this experience. I could go into a rant about how the federal government subsidizes charities with lower postage rates, or how many of these organizations are charities in name only because they pour more money into soliciting donations than they do actually supporting their supposed cause. But, hey, that's the nature of the medium.

(Personally, I'm a bit disappointed at myself. I typically research charities, preferring to contribute to those that have low administrative costs and can demonstrate how they are effectively using the money given to them. I didn't fully vet the three that potentially had actualized additional funds from my proactive donation. That's my personal lesson today.)

I looked back at my donation history and narrowed down the list of charities that broke my heart to three. I won't name them here, but I know who they are and I know I will never donate to them again. That type of charity merits a type of Fail for List.

Direct response marketing guru Joan Throckmorton taught me something I wish I had recalled last year: When doing business with a new organization, consider using a fake middle initial. When you see that middle initial show up elsewhere, you know where it came from. So, that's my direct marketing lesson today.

OK, that and including baby socks in your fundraising solicitation is pretty crass.


Lesson:

If you want to see how information about your personal activity is shared and sold, use a fake middle initial. You have 25 of them to work with, so go at it.

3/01/2020

American Red Cross: No longer blind


A little over two months ago, I wrote about receiving a solicitation from the Red Cross in a blind envelope right in the middle of the traditional giving season. Last week, I received a similar solicitation but with a corporate envelope.

Where the envelope in December had no hint of branding, this envelope is unmistakably from the American Red Cross. The teaser message reminds me that my donation helps the Red Cross respond to more than 60,000 disasters a year.

American Red Cross
Red Cross Solicitation:
Fully Branded Outer Envelope
The letter inside is exactly the same as the December letter. The only update is the mailing date.

Red Cross Charity Solicitation Letter
Donation Solicitation Letter front
multichannel engagement
Donation Solicitation Letter back
Request for email address circled

As a direct marketing professional, my gut tells me that the blind envelope was part of an A/B Test and this is the Control, but that is just a hunch. Perhaps the plan was for the holiday solicitation to be blind to differentiate it from the multitude of charity mailers that typically arrive in December. The mailbox is not as busy in February, the thinking would go, so now is time to show that logo again.

I wonder if it is also time for increased multichannel engagement. This is a direct mail letter requesting a mailed-back, completed response form. There is also an online donation option; however, the mention of that is in small type.

No one wants to mess with a successful Control package (if this is it); however, it may be time to consider that the internet is useful for many things, including donor engagement. Buried on the back of the form  below the input field for credit card information  is a request for email address. Instead, why not, on the front of the form, ask all donors for their email address to share stories of the Red Cross coming to the aid of disaster survivors? Rather than treating this solicitation as solo mail in a vacuum, include a link to the American Red Cross YouTube channel or the local Red Cross as a means of encouraging engagement?

Business Reply Envelope

Perhaps that could be their next A/B Test.



Lessons:

1.      Test your most successful direct mail packages. Let new presumptions challenge your assumptions.
2.      We live in an omnichannel world. Don’t use direct mail in a vacuum – integrate it with your other engagement channels.

12/18/2019

American Red Cross: Is a Blind Envelope Prudent?

You are one of the largest charities in the United States, with over $3 billion in annual expenses. According to Charity Navigator, only one other charity is followed more. When there is a natural disaster, you are there. Your logo is considered one of the most recognizable, one of the best in the world. So why are you hiding your logo?



Blind Outer Envelope
Red Cross Solicitation:
Front of Outer Envelope

That’s what I’m asking myself after receiving this charity solicitation from the American Red Cross. Every other charity solicitation I have received this holiday season included a message on the envelope -- what is known in industry jargon as a teaser. However, this Red Cross solicitation not only did not include a teaser, the envelope was completely blind. There is no indication that this is from the Red Cross, not even a return address.
Back of Outer Envelope
Is this a Fail for Creative? I don’t know. Intuitively, I think so. But I can’t be a focus group of one because I'm so enthusiastic about direct mail marketing, I open and read everything I receive (besides, the concept of being a focus group of one is dangerous). 

There are several schools of thought on whether teasers make sense. Some POVs from people with non-profit direct mail experience include this blog post suggesting that, because most teasers are simply not very good, a non-profit is better off without one. A similar POV from Mary Chalane suggests that, if a non-profit uses a teaser, it needs to be worthwhile. 
Donation Solicitation Letter front

Donation Solicitation Letter back
I agree with these opinions conceptually -- a bad teaser is worse than no teaser -- but couldn’t Red Cross creatively develop a good teaser? If not, shouldn’t Red Cross at least include its well-known, appreciated logo in the outer envelope return address area? 


BRE
Front of Business Reply Envelope
includes branding in color


Back of Business Reply Envelope

Perhaps Red Cross A/B tested the blind envelope against one with a teaser. Perhaps it tested against several teasers and an envelope displaying only their logo, and the blind envelope kept winning. If the test took place in the summer, perhaps it should try testing against a holiday-themed envelope in December when consumers’ hearts and checkbooks are more likely to be open.

My creative intuition could be right, or it could be wrong. The only way to know for sure is to test. Happy holidays.


Lessons:

  1. Know your strength of your brand.
  2. Maintain a Control package, but test against it at times relevant to your audience.