You heard that — maybe said it — before.

It occurred to me as I was listening to this Ethan Boldt (Direct Marketing IQ) video reviewing a new carrier format he thinks will light up response rates. One example is from Obama for America 2012; the other is from Gettysburg Museum.

Now, Roger grew up in Gettysburg and belongs in the Museum, but I digress.

Ethan draws our attention to the carrier. Cool. But what about the letter … the reply card … the signer … the dollar string … an insert …  a premium … or any other component that one might test?

Roger has been arguing, with our colleague Kevin Schulman at DonorVoice, that package testing as presently carried out is pretty much a crap shoot. Too many variables are tested simultaneously, and on no basis other than somebody’s ‘conventional wisdom’ or a few hunches, with the result that no one can really tell which elements of the package might really have made a positive difference … and which didn’t.

“Oops … we didn’t beat the control.”

Meanwhile, lots of time and money wasted. And we’re still not sure why.

So Roger and Kevin have developed a methodology for pre-testing potential package components and variations in an affordable but empirically reliable way … before anything goes in the mail.

That’s the subject of their free webinar on this Thursday the 9th at 11:30 eastern. You can still get a seat here.

So before you rush off to test an envelope that uses “four-color, full-bleeds to the edge and in-line printing to the max” … you might want to consider what Roger and Kevin will demonstrate on Thursday.

Tom

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?!

There’s simply too much good stuff going on out there to spend time dithering about whether or when the economy will rebound, for boards to come to their senses … or whatever folks spend their time worrying about. Usually, things over which none of us has any control.

Agitator Readers are special and we sure don’t want them looking back on 2012 wishing “If I had only known” about this innovation or that innovation.

Equally, we have no desire to tout, hype or otherwise go overboard on the latest New, New Thing. Too much of that going around already.

Rather, our goal with the new Agitator Toolbox is to serve up innovations that have been tested and proven. And we’ll also focus on innovative approaches and processes that build on basic and sound fundraising and donor relationship practices.

Some of these tools, applications and case histories will come from our colleagues at DonorVoice, DonorTrends and TrueGivers. Others from serendipitous discoveries we make while attending conferences and reading mounds of research reports. Still others from alert readers. We hope you’ll share your discoveries with us.

Because a large number of Agitator Readers find themselves dealing with direct mail, our first entry for the Toolbox is about a proven tool designed to identify likely direct mail package winners and losers – without having to waste needless time and money on waiting for ink to dry and the postal service to deliver. It’s all explained by Kevin Schulman, the CEO of DonorVoice.

WARNING: You won’t find the Toolbox in your daily email feed; rather it’s a feature that will appear on the homepage of The Agitator’s website along with other features  we hope prove helpful. Features like our Jobs section … an Archive now Searchable by Categories … and some older favorites like Comments, a constantly updated listing of The Agitator Community, and our popular Blogroll.

We’ve added or rearranged others in response to requests and guidance provided by Agitator Readers in our recent survey.

We hope you’ll pass along any discoveries involving tools, applications and processes you think are innovative and helpful. Help us fill the Agitator Toolbox. Together we can explore a fundraising world that’s filled with opportunity.

Roger and Tom

P.S. A Webinar on the Direct Mail Pre-Test Tool will be held on Thursday, February 9 at 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time.  Registration is FREE, but attendance limited on a first come basis.  Sign up here.

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.

So we thought it fitting to give the last word of the year to an Agitator Commentator.

We picked this recent comment from Steve MacLaughlin at Blackbaud, who talks about the imperative for nonprofit fundraisers to embrace multi-channel fundraising. Use of multiple communication channels reflects the real world of donors … if not yet the real world of some nonprofits!

The bottom line: Different strokes for different folks (donors) is not just some ideal … it’s vital to fundraising success. And the chief obstacles to capturing its fundraising benefits are operational and data silos within organizations.

Here’s what Steve has to say:

“Is it channel conflict or cognitive dissonance? It is sometimes very hard to tell.

There is way too much philosophical debate on which channel should get the credit for the gift. This is mostly fueled by organizational silos or incentives that nonprofits have put in place.

Here’s the reality: Donors are multichannel. They receive messages across multiple channels and they give across multiple channels. They don’t care about your org chart or who gets credit for the donation.

The problem is that many nonprofits are still organized around single channels each doing their own thing, with their own strategies, their own data, their own donors, and their own systems. That’s broken and really costly.

Ultimately, you want to use the right number of channels to drive the right people to take the right action using the most effective and satisfying giving mechanism as possible.

If that means a direct mail piece and a check, then great! If that means a phone call and an online donation, then fantastic. If that if a tweet, an email, a QR code, a website, and a donation for, then so be it.

And if you’re looking at donor behavior across channels, then you will begin to see some trends in what channel mix works best for different types of donors. Oh yeah, did I mention that donors don’t all respond the same way to the same channels? One size fits all approaches are as doomed as single channel tactics.

Statistically speaking, online donors are much more likely to switch to become offline donors. About 32% of online donors will become offline donors compared to only about 3% of offline donors switching channels. Your results may very. Always be testing.

No one channel should get all the credit or all the blame. You succeed or fail based on how well you do these things together.”

Amen.

Happy New Year!

Roger and Tom

P.S. And here’s our New Year’s Resolution … Resolved: No Silos!

For the very practical …

12+ Tips for Creating Engaging Envelopes, courtesy of Direct Marketing IQ.

For social net addicts (one in every five minutes spent online involves social networking) …

Top 10 Need-to-Knows About Social Networking and Where It’s Headed, from comScore.

If politics and advocacy is your thing (not exactly a tip sheet, but plenty of illustrations of campaign use of digital media) …

Politics and Advocacy, courtesy of ClickZ Politics.

And finally, from Ad Age, if you’re looking for situations to avoid in the new year …

Marketing Muck-Ups: The Biggest Follies of 2011

Marketing’s Biggest Social-Media Blunders of 2011

Enjoy!

Tom

As we head for 2011’s fundraising finish line The Atlas of Giving on Friday reported that overall giving this year will finish 7.4% ahead of last year.

Key takeaways from the Atlas of Giving November report:

• In terms of sectors, ‘Education’ was the biggest gainer (up 9.3%) and ‘Religion’ posted the greatest decline (but still 6.5% greater than 2010). All other sectors remained posted gains in the 7% range.

• Corporate and foundation giving up 6.2% and 6.1% are forecast to account for the least growth, while individual giving will increase 7.7% and bequests +7.4%.

• There are some signs of weakening. Giving in November (+0.4%)  and the December forecast (+0.2%) are worrisome portends for 2012.

• We’ll know more when The Atlas of Giving releases its 2012 Forecast in mid-January.

Much like the CIA once monitored the wheat harvest in the old Soviet Union, Ethan Boldt over at DirectMarketingIQ reports the top 5 fundraising direct mail trends in 2011.

Using the remarkable database of direct mail contained in the Who’s Mailing What Archive  that includes 14 different types of fundraising mail, ranging from social action, through international relief, culture, health, politics, religion, sports, animal welfare and wildlife, Ethan summarizes the key trends as follows:

• Controls showed a slight uptick in 2011. This year 45% of all fundraising mail was with a control package (by his definition a package that appeared in the Archive for at least 1 year); that’s an increase of 1.8%.  This means that 55% of all packages were ‘new’—a hopeful sign that there’s considerable testing going on. [Or, asks Tom cynically, does this merely reflect desperation?!]

• Personalization and Variable Data Printing Hit Record Levels.  Today, according to Ethan, 60.3% of all fundraising mail is personalized either by copy or imagery—the highest point since the Archive began.  And, it increased by a full 8% over 2010, the previous record high.

• Surprising Increase in Larger Formats. Ethan examined all direct mail in the Archive and reports that the usage of envelopes smaller than 6″ x 9″s stayed constant over the past two years. “The only change was an increase in larger-sized formats (bigger than 6″ x 9″s), by 9 percent, with larger formats taking up a quarter of the mailstream with a big contribution from the fundraising industry.”

• The Self-Mailer is (probably) Out! In 2010 self-mailers accounted for only 4% of fundraising mail, but that represented a 12 percent increase over 2009. Bad economy? Bad thinking? Whatever the reason Ethan reports that the use of self-mailers declined by 21% in 2011, a trend also reflected in the commercial sector.

• Mailings with Premiums showed a 14% increase. In the commercial sector the use of premiums increased by 7% in 2011. Is the fact that premium use doubled in the fundraising sector significant? We’ll explore premiums in future Agitator posts, but the reality is that today 1 in 5 mail pieces contain a premium. [Again, Tom asks, a sign of pure desperation? He'd be more comfortable if he thought fundraisers were serious about measuring and evaluating the lifetime value of these premium responders.]

Your ‘premium’ for tomorrow?  Agitator posts that rang our readers’ chimes in 2011.

Meanwhile, what giving or technical trends caught your attention in 2011?

Roger

One was a short blog post by Jeff Brooks, Why it’s hard to raise funds online. Citing Smart Insights Digital Marketing blog, Jeff says it takes:

• 3 seconds to get their attention with your subject line and the from line
• 5 seconds, once they’ve opened your message, to draw them in.
• 7 seconds to get them involved, on the way to taking action

Jeff’s comment: ” If you thought the mailbox was a cutthroat place, it’s nothing like the inbox.”

What Jeff is talking about I would indeed term online fundraising. You initiate the pitch online and you close the contribution online. That’s the real deal.

On the other hand, I saw these survey results reported in the Chronicle of Philanthropy saying that ‘online giving’ was higher than most expect amongst older donors, with 51% of recent donors age 60 and over in this survey saying they had made ‘online donations’.

I wonder what was actually being said by these donors … Did they respond to an appeal delivered (one way or the other) digitally? Or did they merely use the convenience of going online to complete a giving transaction initiated via some other channel … most likely direct mail? I suspect what’s being reported as ‘online fundraising’ is more of the latter, and this I consider ‘online fund capture’, not online fundraising.

If you think this is just a semantic difference, I urge you to go back and read my recent post, Are Online Fundraisers Stealing Credit?

I note that the Chron item also reported that a quarter of donors said that at least once they had started to make a gift online but not finished the process. That’s leaving a lot of money on the table, however you regard the lost transaction!

If your direct mail team delivers 100 prospective donors to your website, but 25 fail to complete the online transaction, I hope the accountability for that disappointing performance is being placed on the right shoulders! Or should I say silo?

Tom

Done by Epsilon, the Consumer Channel Preference Study (registration required) focuses particularly on consumer preferences with respect to direct mail and email. But it also looks at social media and mobile. (One disappointment … nothing on telemarketing.)

Some findings:

• 50% of U.S. consumers and 48% of Canadians said they pay more attention to postal mail than email;
• 60% of U.S. consumers and 64% of Canadians said they enjoy checking the mailbox for postal mail, highlighting an emotional connection;
• The least trustworthy channels are social media and blogs, achieving only 6% trust among U.S. consumers and 5% among Canadians.

And specifically, as between direct mail and email, 30% of consumers prefer receiving solicitations for donations in the mail, versus 9% via email.

The reasons for preferring direct mail are (in rank order):

• More private if sent through through the mail
• Already get too much email
• Would prefer not to have to print the info
• A lot of online info can’t be trusted

The reasons for preferring email are (in rank order):

• I can print the info to keep if I want
• Can choose which info I want sent to me
• Can read the info when it is convenient for me
• To save on paper
• Can more easily share the info with others

Epsilon makes this recommendation (among others):

“Use personally addressed direct mail to provide information as well as an emotional lift for consumers. Recognize that more targeted communications are becoming the norm for consumers as they are engaging media on terms they prefer. Every opportunity to express more knowledge of the consumer in the channels they prefer is essential to building a relationship and driving action.”

Amen.

Tom