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

Follow some of these accounts of how Komen is responding (or should):

From Holly Hall at the Chronicle of Philanthropy

From the Washington Post

From social media commentator Erik Sass

From blogger Kivi Leroux Miller, a play-by-play

I’m sure there will be more. This affair will become a classic  in the annals of nonprofit crisis management, in part because it’s the first such major meltdown to occur in the social media era. Forgive me for being clinical, but focus on what Komen did wrong (from a communications perspective) and what PPFA did right (from a communications and fundraising perspective).

What if a crisis of confidence and trust in your organization arose? How prepared would you be to acknowledge the facts, respond with alacrity and truthfulness, describe and implement with full transparency the needed changes, and get back to the mission of communicating the positive work of your organization to your donors, other key constituencies and the media?

Tom

P.S. Don’t forget the webinar Roger is moderating this week that will present a new approach and tool for pre-testing packages, developed by DonorVoice. Register here FREE for your seat at the February 9^th  (11:30 EST) Direct Mail Testing Webinar.

So I’m recommending you read Getting Attention’s Nancy Schwartz’s excellent analysis of the Komen vs. Planned Parenthood debacle from the perspective of what makes for effective (and ineffective communications) and smart fundraising (on Planned Parenthood’s part) in response to threat.

Tom

P.S. Stuff ‘em Planned Parenthood!

There’s an underlying phenomenon here that’s highly relevant, I think, to nonprofit fundraising.

Pew reports that more than half of adult cell phone owners used their cell phones while they were in a store to seek help with their purchase decision:

• 38% of cell owners used their phone to call a friend while they were in a store for advice about a purchase they were considering making;
• 24% of cell owners used their phone to look up reviews of a product online while they were in a store; and,
• 25% of adult cell owners used their phones to look up the price of a product online while they were in a store, to see if they could get a better price somewhere else.

What’s really going on here? Consumers are looking for reassurance … and they’re looking for it from the source they trust most — other consumers who are friends or who have written reviews based on their own experience. And they’re looking for comparison information, specifically with respect to price … seeking value for money.

In short, they’re realizing … “I don’t need to be on my own making this decision. Advice is just  a few taps away.” They are being trained to consult with others because it’s so easy and immediate.

So, now they’re home, having purchased a new iPhone or iPad, and your prospect mailing shows up. What might they do?

I wouldn’t necessarily say that they’ll pick up the phone and ask a friend … “Should I give to Worldvision or Save the Children?” Although indeed some might inquire of a friend if they support either. Or they might recall reassuringly that a friend has ‘liked’ one of the organizations on their Facebook page.

What I do think many (most even?) will do is go online for some form of validation. They’ll go to the organization’s website and poke around.

And, given the consumer shopping experience described above, where peer referrals are hugely important, what should they readily find?

I would suggest — above all — TESTIMONIALS!

Testimonials both from very satisfied beneficiaries of the organization’s work and from real donors who appreciate the organization’s accomplishments. Testimonials in a variety of formats, from short quotes to short videos.

Secondarily, but definitely not with the same weight as the testimonials, strong ratings from the charity raters (or some other straightforward reassurance/evidence about financial accountability and transparency). Price comparison isn’t really a relevant concept in the fundraising setting. But reassurance about money being properly managed and delivering big bang for the buck clearly is.

Few offers (or solicitations) are considered in isolation anymore. The best thing you can do to address that reality is make sure your online presence is your prospect’s reassuring friend.

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.

Yet the Agitator hardly ever sees any fundraising mention of the Hispanic audience.

So we were gratified to see this article regarding a charity that has built a Hispanic donor base of some 226,000 individuals. I’ll bet you think it’s a huge charity — maybe one of those health/disease or child sponsor behemoths.

Wrong … guess again. A religious organization? Now you’re getting hot.

It’s Priests of the Sacred Heart.

What this group does successfully is not brain surgery; nor does it require a blockbuster budget. They simply focus on relevance and appropriately nuanced communication. If they can do it … you can too.

Here is their approach. (from Dimensions, National Catholic Development Conference).

Tom

P.S. Thanks to ListenUpEspanol for the heads-up.

I’m serious.  Here’s why.

Moneyball, the 2003 iconoclastic bestseller by Michael Lewis  — now  a very popular and acclaimed movie starring Brad Pitt — is an entertaining and effective study in successful and counterproductive behaviors. I recommend it as ‘must reading’ or ‘must viewing’ for all fundraisers, development committees, boards and executive directors.

“It’s the biography of an idea,” says Moneyball author Michael Lewis. It deals not only with wins and losses, but also with the quest of a man who wanted to revolutionize a sport; someone who, in Lewis’ words was willing “to rethink baseball: how it is managed, how it is played, and who is best suited to play it, and why.”

That man was Billy Beane (charmingly played by Brad Pitt) the provocative general manager of the Oakland A’s with unconventional ideas about what a team with limited resources could do to compete with wealthy powerhouses like the New York Yankees. Billy takes on the system by challenging the fundamental tenets of the game. He looks outside the conventions of baseball with its cherished dependence on the intuition of scouts and hires a brainy young number-crunching Harvard-educated economist to help him figure out a better way.

Together they tackle conventional wisdom with a willingness to reexamine everything. Armed with computer-driven statistical analysis long ignored by the baseball establishment, they go after players overlooked and dismissed by the business-as-usual baseball world for being too odd, too old, too injured or too much trouble, but all of whom have key skills that are universally undervalued.

As they forge forward, their new methods and roster of misfits rile the old guard, the media, the fans. Using ‘sabermetrics’ (data analytics) the Oakland A’s found the good players they could afford, while successfully challenging many tenets of baseball’s hallowed conventional wisdom.

And just as in every other specialized field of human endeavor the detractors, the old-guard and the high priest experts argued that this focus on numbers dehumanized the game and ignored the intangibles that only ’trained scouts’ could see.

Although data analytics is an element in the story, that’s not really what Moneyball is about. More broadly it’s a real-life story of innovating to succeed, or as Billy Beane puts it in the movie, “Adapt or die.” Beane the entrepreneur innovating out of necessity.

And so it is in today’s world of nonprofit fundraising, communications and management. More than ever survival depends on innovation, the willingness to challenge old assumptions and, to no small degree, the ability to discover and use better measurements, benchmarks and other metrics that are based on more than myth and convention. Metrics that help us more strategically, accurately and competitively steer a course into a successful future.

It’s more than coincidence that Moneyball begins with a quote from Yankees star Mickey Mantle:  “It’s unbelievable how much you don’t know about the game you’ve been playing all your life.”

Ain’t that the truth. And for this reason over the next few posts in our “Flat Earth Fundraising” series, and with your help and suggestions, I want to focus on challenging some of the conventional wisdom and  fundamental tenants in our craft, while also introducing  you to some innovative approaches that might help us all change the game for the better.

What sacred cows would you like to challenge?

Roger

P.S. Interested in innovation? Then try the webinar I’m moderating that will present a new approach and tool for pre-testing packages, developed by DonorVoice. Seats in the February 9^th  (11:30 EST) Direct Mail Testing Webinar are going fast. Agitator Readers can register here FREE.

This article from The Guardian reports that 10% of prime time TV ads have been developed using neuromarketing techniques … reading the brain’s reactions to creative stimulus in real time.

So, I’m wondering … who will be first in the nonprofit sector to don the EEG headset?

My predictions …

1. It will happen.

2. The first will be a major health-related charity (because they have the money to experiment) or maybe even more likely, a child sponsor agency (because they have the money and they already use direct response TV to prospect for high lifetime value donors).

3. If this tool is akin presently to the mainframe of the ’60s and ’70s, soon there will be the iPad version … with one in every development office!

Other predictions?

Tom

What Rainie says, much of it related to the explosion of social media and mobile communications, applies to all messaging and communications, which makes these observations pertinent to fundraisers, and especially those in advocacy groups.

Some key thoughts:

• With hugely expanded networking capacities, there are many more — and new — civic actors, many operating independently.
• Four messaging opportunities — to traditional ‘paid media’ and ‘earned media’ now add ‘owned media’ (e.g., websites, customer service) and ‘shared media’ (e.g., social sites, YouTube) … all requiring communications strategies.
• Six stages of engagement — observing (Lurkers matter, he says), following, endorsing, contributing, owning, leading.
• Migration of authority away from organizations (like your nonprofit) to — traditional experts with new platforms (e.g., blogs), amateur experts who are avid contributors (some with tribes), new algorithmic authorities (e.g., Google, Bing).
• Different ‘attention zones’ — continuous partial attention to media streams, immersion in ‘deep dives’, info-snacking in free moments.
• All organizations under more scrutiny, where trust depends upon transparency — surveillance (powerful watch the ordinary), sousveillance (ordinary watch the powerful), coveillance (peers stalk peers).
• Age of big data is upon us, giving new power to analytics.

This is a powerpoint presentation, so you will need to fill in the blanks yourself. But it’s well worth the mental effort … a very stimulating presentation.

Lee Rainie, you deserve a raise!

Tom

I playfully asked “Why 23?” SOFII’s Ken Burnett responded with a Comment that I wanted to share, in part, more broadly:

“And why 23?  Well, we started with 21 (seemed like the key to the door or something, a nice handy number), and privilege of course decreases when shared. So we’ll probably keep it under 50, but we’d love to be able to showcase a small number of truly brilliant campaigns that by common consent are judged the best in the world.

This was our first attempt and isn’t definitive. The first 21 were not selected very scientifically (by regularity of use and popular request). Since then we’ve added only two, by recommendation. We’d love to have more great stuff coming forward but getting fundraisers to share their exhibits is like pulling teeth. [Emphasis added by The Agitator] Surprises me, of course, as I originally assumed fundraisers would want to show off their brilliance.

But no, collectively it seems we’re surprisingly shy. Or perhaps too busy. Or  people assume it’s harder to do than it is.

To any Agitator readers out there, if you have a campaign or a promotion that you think could join or even unseat any of SOFII’s current Best of the Best, do please send it in. We’ve made the process real easy – see www.sofii.org.”

So, one more time, we urge you to share your best work. There’s a lot of need out there … we all need to raise heaps of money to meet it. And SOFII is a great place to do your sharing.

Tom