Neither will ordering your copywriters, no matter how talented, to “beat the control” be of any help.

After 40+ years as a copywriter, I’m certain the only way to systematically “beat the control” is to stop searching for silver bullets and start addressing the THREE BIG PROBLEMS that plague almost all nonprofit testing. Problems that contribute to the same poor results year after year.

These problem — and more importantly the solutions to them — will be addressed in a Webinar on February 9^th, where we explore and explain a ground-breaking process undertaken by, among others, The American Heart Association, Production Solutions and DonorVoice. I hope you’ll join us. Registration is free for Agitator readers and you can sign up here.

First a confession. For years I’ve been as guilty as everyone else for not facing and addressing THE THREE BIG TESTING PROBLEMS.

PROBLEM #1: Incrementalism to Nowhere. Whether because of aversion to risk or simply out of habit, most testing involves tiny changes (color of envelope, one type of label vs another type, different ask strings, etc). While it’s true that small changes in response can yield meaningful changes on the top or bottom revenue line, it’s equally true that even with these, the vast majority of tests do not beat the control.

PROBLEM #2: The A/B Path to Infinity. The traditional bread and butter testing methodology is the A/B split test. Problem is that neither you nor I will live long enough, nor have enough testing budget, to find a winning combination of elements among countless possibilities. As an oversimplified example, take a direct mail package with 3 components —outer envelope, letter, reply form — and 6 variations for each component.  That’s 729 possible combinations. If an organization does 15 tests a year it will take 48 years to test all the possibilities!

And when you consider a more realistic and complex example that also includes a front or back-end premium (or both), and additional inserts or involvement devices, the possible combinations, for all practical purposes, are infinite. With A/B testing it’s the equivalent of looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.

PROBLEM #3: Lack of Wisdom in Conventional Wisdom. Almost every direct response fundraiser I’ve met will acknowledge that the process of determining what components and variations get tested is anything but empirical, rigorous or efficient. Typically, the process borders on the haphazard, with an abundance of caution and conventional wisdom thrown in.

It doesn’t have to be this way. As you’ll see in the Webinar, there is a proven, math-based methodology nonprofits can use to pre-identify solid test ideas — those most likely to compete with and beat the control — and greatly reduce time and cost by not mailing test packages likely to perform poorly, and at the same time increase net revenue by increasing volume on likely winners.

The sophisticated direct mail fundraisers at The American Heart Association have been testing this methodology and have uncovered a solution to one of the most aggravating and wasteful practices in direct mail — the mailing of a test package with not one, but numerous test elements.

The practice of giving thumbs up or thumbs down to the entire package, with zero guidance as to whether individual components were well received, happens all the time. Mea culpa!

Certainly some groups may try to read the tea leaves and infer or guess — based on years of experience and past testing — why a package did poorly and what might be salvageable. But clearly, this is a flawed process fraught with layers of personal bias.

If you’re concerned with direct mail — whether in acquisition or on your house file — I hope you’ll join us for an hour in understanding more about the process, while hearing case studies from The American Heart Association and others.

Roger

P.S.  Registration in the Testing Webinar is free to Agitator Readers.  Sign up here.

Each comes with a link describing or illustrating the campaign.

I have two favorites on this list …

The UNICEF card that launched that’s organization’s fundraising in 1946 — just because it’s so iconic. [A little tricky to navigate ... but the card drawing is there!]

The Station WDCN, Nashville “thank you” to a donor — because it exemplifies the best of donor stewardship.

But also read the disheartening results of legendary fundraiser Ken Burnett’s ‘mystery shopper’ test for America’s PBS stations, from which the WDCN response was extracted — nearly half the stations tested didn’t acknowledge the donation at all! That was in 1994 … hopefully things have improved!

Have they?

Tom

P.S. My only question … Who ever heard of a “Top 23″ list?!

But of course the core message — you must re-inspire your donor — doesn’t just apply to new donors … it applies each and every time a donor makes a gift.

Most nonprofits have banked their biggest chunk of annual contributions in the last few weeks. How effectively have you thanked those donors? Would your ‘thank you’ have given your donor a thrill?

Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now excerpts what you should NOT do in a thank you from an excellent ‘must read’ post — How to Craft a Killer Thank You Letter by Gail Perry at Fired-Up Fundraising.

I do agree with Jeff (who disputes Gail) … you should always keep selling. That’s not inconsistent with the first purpose of the ‘thank you’, which is to express genuine gratitude and rekindle the emotional charge that inspired the donation in the first place. It’s a matter of having the right touch.

Tom

P.S. Keep those responses to our 2012 Agitator reader survey coming in. Takes only five minutes. The better we know you, the more relevant we can make our content.

Boy can I identify with drooling over those comic book offers when I was a kid.

I never tried to order the seven foot Polaris sub big enough for 2 kids (after all, who wouldn’t want to take along their best mate?!), but I did send away for the fishing kit that came with 500 ‘guaranteed to catch the big ones’ lures (or was it 50?). The kit never did arrive, but it has only been in recent years and after much psychotherapy that I came to blame my mother for not sending the money … as opposed to the vendor I wrongly assumed as a kid had stolen my money.

What does this have to do with fundraising?

Mark realizes now (I’m not sure when he came to his realization) that the Polaris sub was made out of cardboard and would have turned into a “pile of sodden pulp” after a mild drizzle.

He would have been terribly disappointed. And so he says:

“I’m a little older now, but I still have dreams. And, like many other people, I try and make those dreams come true by supporting charities. A cure for cancer, the end of poverty and prevention of animal cruelty are all on my list, but just like buying a submarine, the result of giving often leaves me feeling a little flat.”

He’s talking about the mediocre, uninspiring response most of us get when we contribute to charities. He continues:

“Fundraising isn’t just about asking. If it was that simple, charities would be awash with money. It’s about giving something to your donors that they need and value.

That doesn’t mean simply telling donors what your charity does (yet again) in a welcome pack.

It’s about grabbing the one chance when you are virtually guaranteed that a donor will open your communication and read it. You can then give them just what they want…

• Recognition for what they’ve done.
• The opportunity to demonstrate that fact to others.
• Authentic, personal treatment.
• A reason to smile (or cry).

If we do that, we’ll find people will actually want to open our appeals. And though they might not get as excited as I did about the thought of my own personal submarine, it will go a long way to encourage a one-off donor to become a long-term supporter.”

Well said, Mark!

Sit down and take a look at your org’s welcome or acknowledgement package … does it meet Mark’s test. Would it rekindle the excitement your donor enjoyed in giving their gift? Or is it a pro forma ho hum toss-away?

Tom

P.S. Keep those responses to our 2012 Agitator reader survey coming in. Takes only five minutes. The better we know you, the more relevant we can make our content.

He’s talking about a sin I know I’ve committed in the past.

He warns that as a marketer you can become so focused on differentiating your offering from your competitors that you forget the need to address your prospect’s first option … which is to do nothing.

So, don’t forget. First things first … why does your cause need help in the first place … right now, today? Never take for granted that your potential donor has already crossed that bridge.

And one critical place to check whether you’re making the mistake is in your renewal series.

Tom

As many a long–suffering Agitator reader knows, I’ve long been a fan of the BBC. In fact, some of the tamer times of my misspent youth were devoted to listening to Neville Marriner and the chamber orchestra of the Academy of St. Martin’s-in-the–Fields.

This Trafalgar Square beauty, built in the early 18th century, is one of my favorite places. Glorious neo-baroque architecture, housing an active social ministry serving both reprobates and the pious. In short — a human zoo serving as a glorious way station on the way to heaven.

St Martin’s is open to all and that’s a very good thing, because today, a group of largely British fundraisers and creatives will gather someplace inside St. Martin’s, crack a jug or two with their confederates — and hopefully the reprobates as well — to honor a most Amazing Curmudgeon — George Smith.

My Personal Pantheon of Great Fundraising Creative Curmudgeons is limited to three. (Those offended by not being included — yet — are simply too young). My Three: Jerry Huntsinger, Denny Hatch and George Smith.

Let me explain why today I want to focus on George.

In addition to my stolen Gideon Bible, I now carry in my overnight bag a wonderful bedside book containing 30 years of dastardly, wise, cutting and simply truth-filled writings of George Smith. Lovingly and skillfully edited by Ken and Marie Burnett of White Lion Press and sponsored by the folks at THINK Consulting Solutions in the UK, his book, Up Smith Creek, is not only a must-read of great fundraising and creative advice, but a treasure to keep in your permanent collection.

Fine writing is always in short supply in fundraising, particularly in these days of e-mails, Twitter and such. AND … Fine Writing coupled with Fine Thinking is as rare as a sincere envelope salesman or sober consultant at a DMA, IFC or AFP conference.

So, as North American Agitator readers sip their morning coffee and as the rest of the Agitator community out there heads toward lunch, these are just a few of my favorite (sorry, “favourite”) morsels from George Smith’s parallel universe, neatly encapsulated in Up Smith Creek.

On the need for passion:   “I did a four-minute rant in Birmingham on the need for passion. …[My] rants are based on my fear that we are becoming technicians and not advocates, that we are measuring opportunities and not creating them, that we are beginning to settle for suits and dresses ambling around conference halls.”

From an Advert of a Mock Ransom Note for WWF:  “Give us your money or the panda gets it.”

On a changing world (written in 1992—nearly 30 years ago).  “We’ve got a newly impoverished society, we’ve got a younger generation who are going to have to build their lives via totally new economic mores, we’ve got an apparently endless recession and we can begin to talk about growth, about the end of growth through consumer spending. And in the middle of this apparently apocalyptic state of affairs, we have millions of rich people getting richer. Many of them married our mother, or fathers.”

On the value of meetings: “I always used to say that meetings were what you were doing when you weren’t working. They remain the regular ceremonial of the client/supplier relationship and a terrifying abuse of everyone’s precious time. The average fundraiser now spends most of his/her time in meetings. Everyone knows there are too many meetings, no one does anything about it. This is why commuter trains are now full of people working – they have been in meetings all day.”

Thank you, George.  Well done.

Roger

P.S.  You can – and should— order Up Smith’s Creek from White Lion Press. They not only deliver to the colonies, but their list of titles has some of the best fundraising advice available.

P.P.S.  For a quick checklist of what other classics belong in your professional library, here’s an Agitator Reading List of suggested goodies.

The truth is, his post — apart from being absolutely correct about fundraising — is truly mouth-watering. But I can’t be at the Greek Festival he’s talking about; I can only imagine it.

Here’s the appeal, delivered as an insert in the St Demetrios church newsletter …

And here’s what Jeff so rightly comments:

“This isn’t the work of a fundraising expert. Just someone close to the cause who knows what the festival requires and needs to get the job done.

If more fundraising were built around specific realities like that, we’d be raising a lot more money. Can you find ways to connect your donors so directly and specifically to your cause? Give it a shot.”

Amen!

Tom

Last week, writing in Fundraising Success, Pamela Barden offered three wonderfully simple cautions regarding fundraising copy. I thought they deserved further airing now that we’re all back at our post-summer desks. Here’s what to avoid …

Writing to the wrong person — you’re writing to your relatively uninformed and distracted donor, not to your board of directors.

Writing about the wrong person — you’re also writing about your donor, in the sense of ‘what does this mean to him or her’, not to the organization.

Writing from the wrong person — it’s a person-to-person communication, not an institution-to-person memo. Put some personality in your copy.

Very simple and very sound.

Tom

She writes:

“Too often, we assume that the potential donor knows what we’re talking about. Take for example the current famine in the Horn of Africa. It’s massive. People are dying. But I have heard about it exactly one time in the media. I’ve received e-mails from several international development agencies about it, asking me to support their relief efforts, but between the economy, the country’s debt rating, fears about our retirement portfolios and early attention on the many presidential hopefuls, it’s easy to overlook a famine thousands of miles away.”

Pamela makes a good point.

Even your organization’s more dedicated donors have many distractions, and aren’t likely to be following every last bit of news or information about your issue or current priority.

Sure, you can assume a greater degree of awareness and ‘up-to-date-ness’ amongst existing donors when preparing special appeals, renewals and other house fundraising mailings. But be careful not to assume too much knowledge even then.

And especially with prospecting — even with the most exquisitely targeted prospecting lists — don’t assume recipients are up to speed on the problem you’re putting before them.

There’s no golden rule — at least none I’m aware of — that distinguishes ‘too much’ background from ‘too little’. But here’s one way to help find the sweet spot — try your copy out on someone who fits your target profile, but isn’t a current donor.

What questions are they left with? What didn’t you tell them that they wanted to know?

Tom

But today’s Tutorial 35 — Mistakes that Brenda doesn’t need to make — is truly a treasure chest … a collector’s item … a ‘must-read’ … what more can I say?!

Jerry responded to a young woman interested in entering the direct mail fundraising field, who asked him about mistakes he had made, that she could avoid. He came up with 35 mistakes.

Here are some of my favorites, and I’m just extracting some bits and pieces …

#4: assuming that a fundraising letter will change a person’s opinion.  You rarely change people’s thinking … you are most likely to get a response if you get them excited, or curious, or angry, or apprehensive.  But change their minds?

#10: failure to read TV Guide and Reader’s Digest.  Sigh.  I wish it were not so.  But this is what works.  You may enjoy The New Yorker but, if that is your style model, you are in trouble.

#12: being ashamed to ‘sell’ in the letter copy. A fundraising letter is not an essay, or news story, or a case statement.  Instead, it is a persuasive marketing device, and how you handle the persuasion and the emotion will be the hallmark of your success.

#14: failing to understand the real reason for consumers’ anger about ‘junk mail’. Unsolicited mail is junk mail only if it fails to interest the reader. Junk mail is a by-product of list selection and has nothing to do with your package.

#19: failing to make your copy ‘you and I’ friendly.  Write to an individual, one to one, eyeball to eyeball.

#24: expecting your boss or associates to really like your letters.  Brenda, most of the time you are going to be a martyr.  If a campaign raises money, it’s because of their programme. If the campaign fizzles, it’s because of your letter.

#26: believing that your donors think of you as often as you think of them.  The only time they think of you is when a letter arrives.

#30: rebelling against the current formats that are working.  Go with the flow.  Yes, you can test new formats and, obviously, that’s how old formats are retired.  But as long as a technique works, don’t hesitate to use it.

#33: failing to quickly discover that 80 per cent of your money comes from 20 per cent, or less, of your donors.  Give this 20 per cent loving strokes … Without them you won’t have a job.

#35: pulling your large donors out of the communication flow, so that ‘we won’t be putting so much pressure on them’.

These are just my ten favorites. Believe me, the rest are just as good.

Tom