They already support, Now What?

You’ve just done the best pitch, only to find out they already support your organisation, now what?

Firstly, shouldn’t you have talked with them and ascertained if they already know you and/or support you?

Fundraising, supporter acquisition time is precious – you need to be making the most of it and to not “qualify” who you are speaking with, pitching at the outset can waste precious resources.

But, having said that; when we do end up speaking with someone who already supports, we should be taking the opportunity to thank them, to encourage them to continue their support and, to also ask if they could help spread the word about the work being carried out.

If you haven’t qualified who you are talking with, you’re most likely making needless pitches; which are most likely taking time away from nurturing new supporters, but yes, you can’t afford to neglect current ones either.

It can be a fine balance – how much time and effort is needed for both segments ?

We know supporters don’t stay forever, well mostly they don’t; so you do need to be out and about, being proactive to replenish your supporter pool. In my experience nurturing new supporters is about 40 percent of your work, the rest is on maintaining the relationships you already have.

If you are spending time (some of the 40%) talking to people already on board, that’s eating away at the time you have to spend with new prospects.

So, next time you set about trying to gain new supporters, ask if they know your organisation; if they do, move them to the donor nurturing quadrant, and move on to the next cold prospect.

What are you doing to ensure your energies are being focused in the right direction?

How have/do you handle it when doing a donor acquisition campaign and discover that some of the people you’re trying to get on board are already supporters?

What Constitutes a “No” and when does “No” mean “Never”?

Great article well worth reading …

“I Won’t Give You Anything – Ever!” by Brian Saber on Asking Matters

What constitutes a “no” and when does “no” mean “never”?

After the great enigma of determining what to ask for, figuring out when to stop asking must be the next greatest enigma. Do we stop if our donors don’t call us back? If they tell us they won’t give this year? If they say they are supporting other causes? What constitutes a flat-out, permanent “no”?!

My golden rule is to never assume I know what the donor is thinking. We know the old adage about assuming, and while it won’t necessarily make us asses in this case, it will keep us from getting at the truth and maximizing giving.

I start from the premise we’re all adults here, and we understand the rules of engagement; open communication, honesty, and mutual respect. Within that context, I believe donors have a moral obligation to respond openly and honestly. And we have to take what they say at face value.

Read full article here

Automated Charity Calls – Good or Bad?

When you receive an automated call from a charity, how does it make you feel? Some may say it’s ok, that it’s good use of technology, others may say it’s icky.

Having missed several calls from the same charity using an automated system, I listened carefully to the message that was left “You have previously shown interested in XYZ, if you no longer wish to receive calls from us, please press 1.”

Ok, that seems like a fair thing for an automated message system; but, how many people are “unsubscribing” who would otherwise continue to support, simply because the only options are to either ignore the message and do nothing or, take the easy way and press 1?

I’m sure there is a high risk that this, and any other charities using this system will find that they are losing valued donors.

I didn’t notice anything in the call that said how I could press an alternative number to make a donation; an option I think would make sense to have.

When this charity phoned the next time, the person wasn’t aware of the automated system, which I felt sure they would. The callers for any charity are typically on the front line, they are the people who donors have the most contact with; so surely it would make sense for them to have knowledge of what systems were being used.

Are you a charity who uses this type of system, is it beneficial or are you noticing that you’re losing donors though its use?

If you donate to charities, what reaction would you have to automated calls?

Personal Information – Given for One Reason, Used for Another

You walk down the street and get confronted by an organization asking you to sign their petition; you do so only to find out down the track that they have used your information for other purposes – how do you feel?

Recently an organization was “outed” for using names and contact information to add to their calling or mailing list; and when the organization was asked about this practice they simply said something on the lines of ‘people know there’ll be communication from us’.

Is this right? Remember you only gave your contact information so as to sign a petition, you didn’t, or most likely didn’t do it to be added to a phone or mailing list.

Is this another form of “chugging”?

When the NZ Privacy Office says people who give their information it is reasonable to assume they would be used to contact you, one has to wonder if this is the right attitude from a body set up to protect people’s privacy and to ensure information supplied is used for the purposes for which it is given.

In signing a petition, name, address etc are given mainly for the purposes of ensuring all names collected are bona fide.

If an organization then uses this information for other than what you supplied them for, from a personal perspective this surely must be in breach of the Privacy Act.

If you were to receive letters, emails or phone calls from an organization through this practise, would it put you off supporting them further?

Personal Information – Given for One Reason, Used for Another

You walk down the street and get confronted by an organization asking you to sign their petition; you do so only to find out down the track that they have used your information for other purposes – how do you feel?

Recently an organization was “outed” for using names and contact information to add to their calling or mailing list; and when the organization was asked about this practice they simply said something on the lines of ‘people know there’ll be communication from us’.

Is this right? Remember you only gave your contact information so as to sign a petition, you didn’t, or most likely didn’t do it to be added to a phone or mailing list.

Is this another form of “chugging”?

When the NZ Privacy Office says people who give their information it is reasonable to assume they would be used to contact you, one has to wonder if this is the right attitude from a body set up to protect people’s privacy and to ensure information supplied is used for the purposes for which it is given.

In signing a petition, name, address etc are given mainly for the purposes of ensuring all names collected are bona fide.

If an organization then uses this information for other than what you supplied them for, from a personal perspective this surely must be in breach of the Privacy Act.

If you were to receive letters, emails or phone calls from an organization through this practice, would it put you off supporting them further?