Comments on: The Smallest Of Cues http://www.theagitator.net/communications/the-smallest-of-cues/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-smallest-of-cues Fundraising and advocacy strategies. Trends, tips ... with an edge Mon, 21 May 2012 15:58:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Raymond J. Mitchell http://www.theagitator.net/communications/the-smallest-of-cues/comment-page-1/#comment-22908 Raymond J. Mitchell Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:57:30 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1373#comment-22908 "Think about the "cues" your organization sends in its fundraising and communications materials. What are the words or images that send the strongest cues? What is the signal they actually send? Is it intentional? How do you know you’re "reading" this the same way as your recipient is?" ********************************************************************************** Tom, Great post today! Like you, I recall specific direct-mail packages and other collateral-communication pieces that I've received from nonprofits over the years, and I know they left an impression on me because of the "cues" that were sent from their messages. Regrettably, I must admit that this did not happen all that often, but where it did, they were organizations I still know and pay attention to today. I pasted the quote from your post at the top of my comments, because I think the last sentence --- the question you asked --- gets to the heart of the messaging issue and the "cues." My own answer to that question pivots back to another recent Agitator thread in which we discussed issues that demanded "intelligence" derived from RESEARCH where direct-mail and organizational communication are concerned. In my humble opinion, there is only one way you can know for sure that the messages and "cues" your organization sends in its materials are received and verify how they are received and whether they are read the same way on the recipient's end as on the organization's end. It requires research --- in the same way that any other market intelligence is gathered, whether for laundry soap, or automobiles, or entertainment programming. You talk to the recipient face to face, in focus groups or through surveys and other means, but you must try to get inside the head of that recipient to learn what "cues" got through and what they meant to him/her/them. “Think about the “cues” your organization sends in its fundraising and communications materials. What are the words or images that send the strongest cues? What is the signal they actually send? Is it intentional? How do you know you’re “reading” this the same way as your recipient is?”

**********************************************************************************

Tom,

Great post today!

Like you, I recall specific direct-mail packages and other collateral-communication pieces that I’ve received from nonprofits over the years, and I know they left an impression on me because of the “cues” that were sent from their messages. Regrettably, I must admit that this did not happen all that often, but where it did, they were organizations I still know and pay attention to today.

I pasted the quote from your post at the top of my comments, because I think the last sentence — the question you asked — gets to the heart of the messaging issue and the “cues.”

My own answer to that question pivots back to another recent Agitator thread in which we discussed issues that demanded “intelligence” derived from RESEARCH where direct-mail and organizational communication are concerned.

In my humble opinion, there is only one way you can know for sure that the messages and “cues” your organization sends in its materials are received and verify how they are received and whether they are read the same way on the recipient’s end as on the organization’s end.

It requires research — in the same way that any other market intelligence is gathered, whether for laundry soap, or automobiles, or entertainment programming. You talk to the recipient face to face, in focus groups or through surveys and other means, but you must try to get inside the head of that recipient to learn what “cues” got through and what they meant to him/her/them.

]]>