Learn about your donors by changing one thing

Congratulations!  A constituent joined your organization!  Now what?  

Welcome series!  Then what?

Well, of course, you drop them into the communication channel of their origin right?

As our Direct Marketing Master Yoda* would say:

6a90683cc161c525f9fbc01036b2c5b6

No. No. No.  Quicker, easier, more seductive.

But in this case, not ideal.  It’s not ideal for the constituent and it’s not ideal for learning more about what this person actually wants — you may be freezing what this person “is” before you’ve had a chance to find out.

The person has already told you that they are responsive to three things:

  • Medium: If they respond to a mail piece, for example, they do not hate mail pieces. It may not be their only, or even their favorite means of communication, but it is one to which they respond.
  • Message: Your mission probably entails multiple things.  Your goal may be wetlands preservation and you work to accomplish this through education, research, and direct conservation.  If someone downloaded your white paper on the current state of wetlands research and your additional research goals, you know that they are responsive to that research message.  It may not be their only or favorite message, but they respond.
  • Action: If someone donates, they are willing to donate.  If they sign a petition, they are willing to petition.  You can guess the rest of this about them perhaps being willing to do other things.

Other than welcome series, which I’ll talk about at another time, you are trying to sail between the Scylla of sending the same thing over and over again and the Charybdis of bombarding people with different, alien messages, media, and asks.

Thus, I would recommend what I’d call the bowling alley approach in honor of Geoffrey Moore, who advocated for a similar approach to entering new markets in his for-profit entrepreneurial classic Crossing the Chasm

The idea in the for-profit world is that you enter with one market with one product.  Once you have a foothold, you try to see that same market a different product and a different market your original product, in the same way that hitting a front bowling pin works to knock down the two behind it.

Here, we play three-dimensional bowling**. The idea behind the non-profit bowling alley, or change one, approach is that you should change only one aspect at a time of your medium, message, and action.

Let’s take our wetlands organization as an example — they work to educate, research, and conserve.  They have people who download white papers and informational packets, people who take advocacy actions, and donors.  And their means of communication are mail, phone, and online.

Let’s further take a person who downloads a white paper on research online and provides her mail and email address.  The usual temptation would be to drop her into the regular email newsletter and into the warm lead acquisition mail stream (and maybe to even do a phone append to call her).

But this would not be the best approach: you would be taking someone who, for all you know, is interested only in one medium, message, and action and asking them for something completely different.

Rather, it would be better if at first you probe other areas of interest.  Ideally, you would ask her:

  • Online for downloading additional information about research (same medium, message, and action)
  • Online for advocacy actions and donations related to research (same medium and message; different action)
  • Online for downloading information about education and conservation (same medium and action; different message)
  • In the mail and on the phone for getting additional information about research (same message and action; different medium)

Obviously, this last part is not practical; mail and phone are too expensive to not have a donation ask involved. However, you could make the mail and phone asks specific to “we need your help to help make our research resources available not just to you, but to policymakers across the country” — tying it as directly as possible to where their known area of interest.

Over time, you should get a strong picture of this person.  Maybe they are willing to do anything for your organization by any means as long as it is focus on your research initiatives.  Maybe they are willing to engage with you about anything, as long as it is only online.  And maybe they like research and conservation, but not education; online and mail, but not phone; and getting information and donating, but not engaging their representatives.

Taking it one step at a time not only helps you learn this over time, but also helps you learn it without culture shock.  If someone downloads a white paper and you ask them to take an advocacy action on that same issue online, they may not be interested, but they likely see the throughline to the action they took.  If they download a white paper and get a phone call for an unrelated action, they likely will not.

It’s the difference between a donor response of “I can see why you’d think that, but no thanks” and “what the hell?” (followed by the constituent equivalent of getting a drink thrown in your face).

It’s also why I recommend going back to the original communication mechanism for lapsed donors in the lapsed donor reactivation post.  In that case, it may be literally the one and only thing you know that works.

You may say that you don’t have the resources to do five different versions of each mail piece or telephone script.  But you can do this inexpensively if you are varying your mail messages throughout the year.  For a warm lead acquisition strategy, simply make sure the advocacy people get the advocacy mail piece and not the others for now.  If you find out some of them are responsive to a mail donation ask, you can ramp up cadence later, but for now, your slower cultivation and learning strategy can pay dividends.

This also helps prevent a common mistake: creating groups like “online advocates,” “white paper downloaders,” etc. and then mailing them without cross-suppression.  If you send each of three groups a monthly mail piece and someone is in all three groups, they may end up getting 36 mail pieces if you don’t cross-suppression (so that these groups are prioritized into like packages instead of everyone in a group getting everything).

Tomorrow, we’ll talk about how to get this type of intelligence from what you’ve already done.

* Don’t believe me?  Check Yoda’s outstanding donor newsletter here

** Science fiction always has people playing three-dimensional chess, but not three-dimensional bowling.  Why or why not?  Discuss.

Learn about your donors by changing one thing

Getting to the Truth of one database

the-one-ring

One Database to rule them all.
One Database to find them.
One Database to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them.*

A beloved former boss of mine once asked the best question I’ve even heard and may ever hear about databases: “Which database is going to be the Truth?”

Others may call this the database of record, but the Truth is far more evocative.  It encompasses “which database will have all of our people?”, “which database will have all of our donations regardless of source?”, and “which database will be the arbiter and tie-breaker for all constituent record issues?”

This is a necessary pre-condition of donor knowledge.  You will not have true knowledge of a constituent of all of your data isn’t all in one place.  And working on donor information without the backend systems to back it up could be a waste of time and effort.

If you are like most nonprofits, you are either laughing or crying at the discussion of one database.  You likely have a few different donor databases by donation type.  Then you have records of people you serve, your email list, your event attendees, and so on.

And, sadly, some of them are necessary.  Some databases do things that other databases will not do.  You may not be able to run your direct mail program out of your online database or vice versa.

So here are some steps you can take to get all of your information in one Truth even if there are multiple databases behind it:

Purge unnecessary databases.  And I mean purge them. Ideally it should be as if your unnecessary database displeased Stalin: it just disappears from history, incorporated into other people’s stories.  To do that:

  • Ask whether another database can do what this database does.  If so, bring the data over and train the relevant parties.  The good news is that often the rogue database in question is just an Excel spreadsheet that can be directly imported into your database of choice.
  • Ask whether another database can do what this database does with modifications.  Rarely is something perfect initially.  You will likely have to create reports for people that they are used to running, but if you are bringing them into a good database, that’s a matter of business rules and set-up, rather than technical fixes.
  • If not, ask if the person can do without what the database can’t do.  You’d be surprised how many things are done because they have been done rather than for any rational reason.

Assuming that you have some databases that can’t be replicated in one big happy database, decide what database is going to be the Truth.  This should have the capacity to store all of your fields, run reports, and do basic data entry.  If you are keeping your direct marketing database, it doesn’t need to be able to run a direct marketing program.  But it does need to have the capacity to do the basic functions.

You may say that you don’t have a database that can fulfill this function.  In that case, I would recommend what I call a Traffic Cop database.  This is a database that you can inexpensively put in the center of multiple databases and get data to and from the other databases.  It’s job is to make sure every database knows what every other database is doing and existing to pull out duplicates and host change management.

Now, sync the databases to the Truth database.  Sometimes you may be fortunate and be using a database that has existing linkages.  For example, if you have decided that SalesForce is going to be your Truth, there are some pre-existing syncs you can get from their apps.  If not:

  • Start by syncing manually.  That is, export a report from one database and import it into the other.  Then, reverse (if you keeping a database, syncing it has to go both ways).  This will allow you to figure out what fields go where and more importantly how to translate from one database to the other (e.g., some databases want the date to be formatted 01/18/2016 and woe be unto you if you forget the zero before the one; others may not having a leading zero or have month and date as separate fields or the like).
  • After you have your process down, you can automate.  This can happen one of two ways: through the database’s APIs or through an automated report from one database that uploads to a location followed by an automated import from the other database.  Both are viable solutions — you would generally prefer the API solution, but you do what you have to do.
  • Make sure you have an effective deduplication process.  It almost goes without saying (and if it doesn’t, check out our PSA for data hygiene here), but data can get messy quickly if you don’t have these in place.

Here are some of those common objections and the easiest replies:

  • Cost: “how can we afford to take on a database project?”  Answer: how can we afford not to?  The lost donations from people calling you up asking for a refund and you have to look through five different databases to see where they donate.  The extra time to try to reconcile your donor database and financial systems.  The data that you won’t be able to get or use for your direct marketing and the lost revenues from that.
  • No direct marketing constituents: “I don’t want X (usually the people we serve) to get hit up for donations.”  Answer: We won’t be able to guarantee they won’t get a solicitation unless we know who they are.  We rent acquisition lists all the time and these people could be on there.
  • We’ve already invested in this other database: Answer: point them to this Wikipedia page.  It’s easier than trying to explain sunk costs on your own.
  • Provincialism: “We have database X and it works fine for us.” Answer: actually there are three answers for this one.  First, start elsewhere.  Usually, someone will have a database that isn’t working for them and better you start with them, who will then start singing the praises of both you and the Truth, than with the people who like where they are currently.  Second, usually, there is an “I wish we could do X” list somewhere that will make it worth this person’s time to switch.  Third, go to the highers-up with your business case.  By this time, you hopefully have some happy converters and some results from your direct marketing program (e.g., “we can put the year someone started with us on their member card now!”) to share.

Hopefully, this helps you get to your own version of the Truth.  Now that you have it, let’s talk about what to put in there.  That’s our charter for the rest of the week.

* Since we started with Game of Thrones yesterday, we have to do Lord of the Rings today…

Getting to the Truth of one database

Why know about your donors?

Winter is coming to nonprofits. Unnamed, faceless, cold, sparse, biting, relentless, gnawing winter. And not all of us will survive.

sean-bean

There are more nonprofits than ever before and that number is increasing.

The pie of charitable giving is expanding, but not as a percentage of GDP and not as a much as the number of nonprofits are expanding. Thus, the average nonprofit’s funding will be going down.

Retention rates (when controlling for lifecycle as advocated here) are at best flat and often down. Online donor retention rates are particularly alarming.

And it is becoming more expensive to retain donors. In order to hit net revenue budgets, nonprofits increase the number of communications sent. Communications increase in quantity and decrease in quality of results for each piece.

As retention drops, the need for additional acquisition increases, further increasing donor-by-donor pressure to give broadly and shallowly.

Nonprofits flee to what they believe is quality, recapitulating what has worked for others. Donors see the playbook, whether it is address labels or a compelling story.

Everyone has a story and most can be told compellingly. So we do. But it’s enough less and less of the time.

Most nonprofits do most of their acquisition from lists of people who give to other nonprofits. Few bring in new people to the idea of philanthropy, considering it is easier to get the philanthropic to give more.

The tragedy of the commons plays out in a million different households. Maybe ten million. To give to one is to be solicited by that one and by the many.

The donor pool is now an apt analogy, as we are polluting and overfishing these same waters without restocking.

Winter is coming. So what needs to be done first?

One might say let’s prevent winter. One would be correct. It is necessary for our long-term survival. We will talk about converting people into the idea of giving at another time — it would be called stimulating primary demand in the for-profit world.

But one must survive the short term to get to the long term. And thus, there is something we need to do first.

One might say to be donor-centric and to love our donors. One would be correct. The ones who will make it through this winter will be the ones that have stood out from the crowd. Their envelopes will be opened, possibly partly for the free gift, but mostly for the joy they create and reinforce. Their emails will be read possibly partly for a nifty subject line, but mostly for a human connection that they forge. Their calls will be answered because they thanked and thanked well.

But there is a precondition for donor-centric treatment. And thus, there is something we need to do first.

The first thing is to know. We must know who donates. Yes, we need to know their demographics, but also far beyond that. We need to know the world they dream of creating. And we need to tell them about how they are helping to create that world.

These wonderful people are planting seeds. They are planning them so kids have a place to swing, so there is shade, so that people can breathe easier, so we can have apples. We owe it to apple people to know they in it for the apples. We owe it to them to tell them about neither the tire swing nor the shade if they don’t care. Our story to them will be the deep moist flesh that children will pick from their tree and the juices that will stay on their cheeks until banished by a shirt sleeve. We will speak of shade to shade people and breathing to those who value breathing most.

To do this, we need to know.

This week will be focused on how to know. I’ll go into the sausage-making that is gaining donor intelligence. But it’s important we start with the why.

It’s because winter is coming. Only those provisioned with true friends will make it through.

The good news is that we are nonprofits. We face down demons worse than winter.

Why know about your donors?