Welcome to my personal blog on Robin Hood Marketing—the concept of stealing corporate savvy to sell just causes—and my life as a marketer, from Washington DC to Madagascar to points in between.
The three traits with deceptive ROI
Posted by katya on Tue, April 08, 2008
It’s late, I’m tired and I’m philosophical after a death in the family. When you think about death, you inevitably think about your life. And that got me thinking. There are many things I have struggled to master in life, but let me share just three from a very long list of things I haven’t fully mastered but know to be worthy of the attempt. Before I die, I want to do them as perfectly as I can.
Why? I think the very things that seem most difficult are often the best possible things we can do. The things that we fear will bring us catastrophic loss are often those that have the greatest returns. It is the way marketing - and life - mocks our silly sensibilities.
So in that spirit, here are three things that seem risky but actually yield great ROI. And happiness. And marketing success.
1. Admitting you are wrong. This has been a hard one for me. Fortunately, I have ample opportunity to practice! Too bad 98% of politicians, 85% of corporations and a healthy majority of nonprofits are still finding this hard too. If you make a mistake, just take responsibility and say you were wrong. Don’t do this halfway. “I’m sorry if you were inconvenienced” is NOT the same thing as “I’m sorry I inconvenienced you.” True apologies don’t include the word “if.” While you may fear admitting fault will be the end of the world, usually people are so happy you did it - and quite forgiving. Remember this if you ever have to do “crisis communications.”
2. Doing what you fear. No one ever achieved anything extraordinary by doing what was safe or predictable or copycat. As hard as it is, I’m still trying to lean into fear the way my friend Jocelyn does. Marc Pitman talks about asking for money without fear. Seth Godin talks about being as truly different as a purple cow - which is hard when it’s easier to follow the conforming herd. Andy Goodman talks about zigging when others are zagging. It’s scary, but frankly, it’s far more frightening to blend into a sea of mediocrity than to stand up, do the scary, and stand out.
3. Being lavish with praise. I used to view praise as a zero sum game—if someone else was great, I was less. But being generous is being bigger. Praise great work, credit everyone around you and share the spotlight. Show extraordinary gratitude to your donors, your colleagues, everyone. Share information freely with other organizations. Being stingy with what you give out will diminish all that comes back to you.
What do you have trouble doing? I am sure it is on my list too…
Lately I’ve been hearing a lot about declining results for direct mail and flagging email open rates. Our outreach apparently is not sparking the passionate responses we want.
Don’t our donors and prospects love us anymore? Why don’t they take our calls?
If this is starting to sound like an “advice for the lovelorn” column, then that’s appropriate. As fundraisers, we’ve got a lot of the same problems as the people writing Abby. And I think our response-rate heartache is based in root causes that columnists like Abby or Amy or Carolyn so often cite. Really. The relationship we have with our donors and prospects is not transactional; it’s deeply human. When it goes wrong, it’s for the same fundamental reasons we may find strain in our other relationships, like taking someone for granted, not listening to their perspective, and neglecting to show them our feelings.
I’m going to prove it right in this column.
Dear Marketing Maven,
My email list isn’t what it used to be. People aren’t listening to me anymore, and each time I ask for their help, they are less responsive. Why doesn’t my list love me anymore?
--Despairing in Development
Dear Despairing,
I suspect you’re getting the silent treatment for three reasons. First, you could be a stalker. Do you have permission to email your list? Are these people who’ve said they want to hear from you? If not, don’t expect them to greet your spammy self with open arms. Second, I suspect you’ve probably been taking some of your list for granted. Just because some people were once generous doesn’t mean you can keep asking for more and more. You need to be giving back – thanking that list and showing it a great time with fabulous stories about the great things it has accomplished. Make it feel loved. Third, are you really connecting with your list and its feelings, or are you just talking about yourself all the time? Nothing turns off a list like narcissism, and nothing turns it on like showing your emotional side and appealing to its perspective. My advice? Only reach out to your list when you have permission. Treat your list with great care and gratitude. Start a true conversation with your list and be responsive to its feelings. Chocolates and flowers may help too.
--Maven
Dear Marketing Maven,
My teenage daughter has a pierced nose and I hate it! But she won’t listen to me when I tell her to remove it, or when I tell her what to wear. How do I get her to listen to me? Oh, and please tell me how to get all those young people on social networks to listen to me, too.
--Floundering on Facebook
Dear Floundering,
A family friend (let’s call him Dan) recently told me his daughter called from college to say she’d pierced her nose. She conveyed this news with defiant glee. Dan said that sounded nice, to which his daughter sounded disappointed. When she came home for winter break, he picked her up at the airport—wearing a big fake hoop through his nose. She removed her nose stud that night. My point? You’ve got the wrong message. If you have a rebellion on your hands, stop being the autocrat everyone is longing to overthrow.
Which brings me to a larger point: In addition to having the wrong message, you’re the wrong messenger. Social networks are no place for an autocrat – they are messy democracies and even anarchies. They are not places where you post your mission statement and expect everyone to flock to your page to await your orders. They are places where people congregate to be seen and heard themselves and to connect to each other. You need to listen to these folks, not talk at them. And you need to recognize that you’re not the primary messenger; all those other people are. Some of these people might already be talking about your cause or be willing to champion it within their own circles of influence. These are the messengers you want. You need to find them (easy with Technorati.com or Google.com/alerts tools), support them, and let them speak for you – in their own words, in their own way. Even if they have multiple piercings.
--Maven
Dear Marketing Maven,
I feel like I’m always playing catch-up with the cool crowd. First, it was those wrist bands. So I got one for my cause, but no one is wearing mine. And then it was blogging. Once I figured out what it was, I had my ED start a blog because this other ED had one, but no one is really reading ours. How does a poor org like mine get ahead of the style curve and stop feeling left behind?
--Can’t Catch Up
Dear Can’t,
You are falling into the most common trap in our sector: playing copycat. Stop it! You don’t get ahead by being like other orgs – you get ahead by 1.) focusing on your audience and what they want (instead of what other organizations are doing) and 2.) being your unique self in front of that audience. Don’t throw wristbands and blogs at your audiences unless that’s what they want AND unless those things are completely aligned with what makes you special in your audiences’ minds. We don’t win popularity contests by reacting to our competitors but rather by outperforming them in meeting our audience’s needs and wants. Focus on being cool in your audience’s minds, not in the marketplace. You do that by focusing on what’s important to your audience, what are your strengths, and what makes you – not the organization next door – truly special.
In honor of my fave colleague Mark Rovner’s call for posts on “how do you inspire people?” I post this wee excerpt from an upcoming column of mine coming out in a few days.
Dear Marketing Maven,
My email list isn’t what it used to be. People aren’t listening to me anymore, and each time I ask for their help, they are less responsive. Why doesn’t my list love me anymore?
--Despairing in Development
Dear Despairing,
I suspect you’re getting the silent treatment for three reasons. First, you could be a stalker. Do you have permission to email your list? Are these people who’ve said they want to hear from you? If not, don’t expect them to greet your spammy self with open arms. Second, I suspect you’ve probably been taking some of your list for granted. Just because some people were once generous doesn’t mean you can keep asking for more and more. You need to be giving back – thanking that list and showing it a great time with fabulous stories about the great things it has accomplished. Make it feel loved. Third, are you really connecting with your list and its feelings, or are you just talking about yourself all the time? Nothing turns off a list like narcissism, and nothing turns it on like showing your emotional side and appealing to its perspective. My advice? Only reach out to your list when you have permission. Treat your list with great care and gratitude. Start a true conversation with your list and be responsive to its feelings. Chocolates and flowers may help too.
One of the most common questions that I receive from nonprofits is this:
“Your marketing advice sounds very nice if you’re an organization that does exciting things, like saving children or planting trees or rescuing puppies. But how do you tell a story about a process-heavy organization? What if we’re about coalition building? Or legal processes? How can that be emotional or engaging?!”
Or put more simply: “Help! People think my organization is boring!”
I usually respond by applying the four questions or CRAM to reposition their cause in a new and interesting way to show it CAN be done—but this time, the Case Foundation has done the work for me very well. They took an extremely important but potentially dry topic - citizen engagement and civic participation (people meeting and talking) - and made it engaging and exciting. They did it with their Make It Your Own campaign, drawing on:
1. Good story telling
2. Dynamic messengers that make it feel personal
3. A sense of urgency via competition
4. Giving it some stakes - namely, potential money for their audiences’ causes
5. Giving it marketing juice
As for the marketing juice - in addition to doing their own work to promote the campaign, the foundation developed mini marketing kits for the cause advocates involved, so they could learn how to amplify their voices.
I can hear you say, I don’t have a video budget or the Case Foundation behind me. But you don’t need big bucks to tell your story better on your home page or in an email. A simple photo of a person holding a sign with their dreams written upon it is not expensive, but it’s powerful - because it’s personal, it’s real, and it tells a story your mission statement can’t.
What have you done to make process come alive? I’d love to hear.
(Full disclosure: I know, like, and work with many folks at the Case Foundation, and they have funded Network for Good before. But I wouldn’t plug this campaign if I didn’t like it.)
The economic news is sobering. Foundations are cutting back on grants as their endowments shrink. Corporations are reducing philanthrophic programs.
What’s a fundraiser to do?
One of my all-too-predictable answers, of course, is to look for new audiences online. That won’t surprise you - urging nonprofits to get online is part of my job and my belief system. There are younger, generous people online that you probably aren’t reaching in your other outreach. A typical online gift is over $100.
But wait, there’s more: A growing number of people are giving even bigger bucks online. A new study, “The Wired Wealthy” by Convio, Sea Change Strategies and Edge Research, looks at these major online donors in depth. Read the study here, or just check out these key points from the study:
Major and moderate donors are generous and online
o The e-mail files surveyed represent one percent of the membership but 32 percent of the revenue for this sector
o 80 percent of the wired wealthy made donations both online and offline
o 72 percent say donating online is more efficient and helps charities reduce administrative costs
o 51 percent said they prefer giving online and 46 percent said that five years from now they will be making a greater portion of their charitable gifts online
·
Most charity Web sites are missing opportunities to fully engage wealthy wired with their organization
o Only 40 percent said that most charity Web sites made them feel personally connected to their cause or mission
o Only 40 percent said that most charity Web sites are inspiring
o 48 percent felt most charity Web sites are well-designed
Email shows signs of lost opportunities to connect with various donors
o 74 percent said it was appropriate for the charity to send an email reminding them to renew an annual gift
o 74 percent said that an email from the charity about how their donation was spent, and what happened as a result would make them more likely to give again
o 65 percent said they always open and glance at emails from causes they support
Three distinct groups of donors emerged based on the extent to which the donor sees the Internet as a source of connection between themselves and the causes
o Relationship seekers (29%) – the group most likely to connect emotionally with organizations online
o All business (30%) – not looking for a relationship or emotional connection, but a smooth and simple donation process
o Casual connectors (41%) occupy the middle ground, showing some interest in sustaining an online relationship, but also wanting a smooth and simple process
Nonprofits should create and provide options that let the wired wealthy customize their online experience with the cause, says the study.
Last Friday, Mark Rovner and I presented at the Nonprofit Technology Conference on the 7 Things Everyone Wants and how to tap into these human and spiritual needs to do a better job marketing and communicating.
If you missed it, Britt Bravo has a nice summary here.
When I was presenting yesterday, I met Sherri Sager, a savvy and inspiring government relations officer at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. She turned me on to the hospital’s website for kids in response to my talk about the importance of an audience-centric approach online.
It is a beautiful illustration of everything a website should do:
1.) Engage with an audience from their perspective (this feels like Club Penguin, and that’s a good thing)
2.) Establish trust and authenticity - check out the great videos of kids talking to kids: the right messages and the right messengers.
3.) Provide something of value so it’s “sticky” - kids and parents will come back to this site over and over
4.) Organize navigation according to the audience’s mindframe and interests - you can find all you need
5.) Provide interactive components - kids can make their own avatars and participate
6.) Show, don’t tell: use story and compelling messengers to get your point across
I could go on and on. Bravo to the Children’s Hospital. Once again proving, it’s all about the audience, my friend.
I was in Miami speaking about social media yesterday at a conference of Children’s Hospitals, and today I’m in New Orleans for the Nonprofit Technology Conference. Tomorrow Mark Rovner and I are giving a session here called, “The Seven Things Everyone Wants: What Freud and Buddha Understood (and We’re Forgetting) about Online Outreach.” The gist is that all the technology tools on display here at NTC and all over the web are shiny and sexy, but they only work when harnessed to basic human needs, interests and desires. In other words, it’s human psychology - not the tools - are what ultimately leads to your success or failure online.
Or, as my colleague Jono quotes his friend Nicole, “Don’t be a fool with a tool.” I like that.
You must tap into what people want: they want to be seen, heard, loved, belong, find meaning. They don’t blog to blog - they blog to be heard. They don’t join groups because they like Yahoo! groups, they join groups out of a fundamental need to connect to others.
I have a new, simplified explanation for what constitutes web 2.0 or the world of social media. It’s about three human needs:
1. The desire to be heard
2. The desire to be seen
3. The desire to connect to others
That’s what drives everything from Facebook to Dopplr to Digg.
This is my latest column for Fundraising Success. I print it here to share it with you, but also in response to this week’s Nonprofit Consultants’ Carnival, which is hosted by Sam Davidson and focuses on “green” in honor of St. Patrick’s Day. I think this message is especially important for the environmental movement.
A few months ago, I saw a full-spread, anti-slave labor ad that featured shackled hands, one on each side of the two pages. Attaching them was a strip of paper that formed a chain holding the pages together. It was an arresting image that seized my attention.
Then it got even better. It got interactive. When you laid the pages flat, the chain broke.
But then it got worse. Underneath the broken chain was a message: “Ending slave labor is not this easy.” There was a tiny “ILO” logo in the upper right asking you to visit the International Labour Organization’s Web site to find out “how to help.”
I loved the handcuffs. I hated the message so much I blogged my disappointment. (Hat tip to osocio.org blog, formerly Houtlust Blog, for running the ad — that’s where I first saw it.)
Here’s why I hated it: I felt powerless to help because even the ILO admitted it was not easy to do anything about slave labor. How can I have faith that it will possibly overcome the problem? What in this ad makes me believe I could possibly make a difference? Nothing. I just felt weak and world-weary.
What if instead the message said, “You just took the first step to ending slave labor. Now take another one. Visit http://www.ilo.org … .” I would have felt inspired, not tired. I might have donated money or time.
If you haven’t guessed by now, I am not a fan of fear-based, gloom-and-doom messaging. I think it’s a downer; a downer as in diminished donations, dispirited advocates and doubting audiences. Feeling depressed yet? Me too.
That’s my point. In this edition of my forgotten fundamentals column, I want to focus on hope. And not just because my state is flooded with Obama ads — which I happen to think are very good, regardless of your political stripe. I want to focus on hope, inspiration and aspiration because they are the basis of a long-term relationship.
Here’s the problem with fear. It sometimes works — if we get scared into doing something quickly. But over time, our fear is going to erode, so we might not act again. (Think “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”) Or, the fearful, gloom-and-doom approach can backfire. It can make us feel powerless. It can make us feel helpless. It can make us feel a problem is insurmountable, intractable and just plain permanent. It can make us want to run away.
The more drama you give your problem, the more risk you take. If the apocalypse is coming, why bother trying to make change? If you scare with scale, you’ll lose. If you empower with feasible steps to set things right, you’ll motivate — and affect social change.
Environmental campaigns often focus on negative consequences. That’s not all bad — but you need feasible, corrective steps paired with the negative consequences. If you’re going to try to fundraise with melting polar ice caps, you’re going to need to convince people their donations can stop us all from drowning. You need them to believe their actions can change things. You want them to feel hopeful — and good.
This logic doesn’t only apply to a good cause; it also holds true for lingerie. A Journal of Consumer Research study from February covered in The Washington Post found that when people buy gifts at the last minute, they are motivated by fear — specifically, fear of being in the doghouse. The whole experience of going to Victoria’s Secret the night before Valentine’s Day in a desperate shopping spree for your honey is negative, and the doghouse-dodging shoppers in the store don’t tend to get warm, fuzzy feelings about giving or about the brand. By contrast, non-procrastinators aren’t motivated by fear, and they tend to feel happy and loving about their gift experiences — and the brand.
In other words, The Washington Post noted, fear rarely wins people’s hearts.
We should keep this in mind. Scaring people into giving is about as effective as a holdup: Someone will hand over his wallet, but he’s not going to feel good about it or you.
Here’s a good rule of thumb: Threaten dire consequences only when there is an immediate, specific and feasible recommendation for remedying them. Show need alongside positive results. Give people a way to channel the emotions you evoke into real change.
That’s what we all want. We want to be able to change what’s wrong. We want to set things right. We want hope that things can be better. We want to aspire to be something more.
The last thing we want to feel is helpless. Remember that, and tap into those human needs as much as you can. Sell, don’t scold. Pair negative consequences of inaction with the uplifting image of action. Show the solution. Convince people that, together, we can handle the challenge, not just hand-wring our way into despair. In other words, break those chains of negativity. We want out of them.
I scooped the New York Times. Not really - but I did post on why people give a few days before the Times published a fascinating article on that topic. And fortunately I was on the same philosophical page as the Great Gray Lady, who I think it’s fair to say has a bit more prestige than yours truly.
If you didn’t read the article, I recommend it. (Registration may be required to read it.) The article looks at rare research into giving through the lens of social psychology and the world of behavioral economics, and it’s fascinating.
Here are the key points:
-People aren’t very rational or clear-headed in how or why they give - it’s an emotional act.
-Because this “warm glow” theory holds, giving is not a zero-sum game. In fact, if a Warren Buffet gives $31 billion to the Gates Foundation, people don’t stop giving because they think there is not need - they are inspired to give because of the warm feeling the gift made. People want to do what other, good people are doing.
-In line with the above idea, people are likely to give toward a campaign goal if you have seed money or a start toward a goal that makes it seem attainable.
-Matching gifts elevate response, but the amount of the match makes no difference. So even though you’d think a 3-1 match would be more motivating than a 1-1 match, it is not. It’s the presence of a match that matters.
-Seed money may be more important than matching gifts in fundraising, because it outperformed matching gifts.
-People give more money if they think other people are giving more money—unless the amount other people are giving is so huge they it feels irrelevant. In other words, there is a donation sweet spot. If people think others are giving $300 on average, they may give more; if they think others are giving $1,000 on average, it will not have the same inspirational effect.
-People gave more when they were told their donation made them eligible for a prize.
Many people think marketing is a battle of products. In the long run, they figure, the best product will win. Marketing people are preoccupied with doing research and “getting the facts.” They analyze the situation to make sure that truth is on their side. Then they sail confidently into the marketing arena, secure in the knowledge that they have the best product and that ultimately the best product will win.
It’s an illusion. There is no objective reality. There are no facts. There are no best products. All that exists in the world of marketing are perceptions in the minds of the customer or prospect. The perception is the reality. Everything else is an illusion.
These are the words of Trout & Ries in their must-own, classic book, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing. And it’s a law that certainly applies to us more than ever.
I quote them today because there are constant reminders of this law around us. As well as cautionary tales about what happens when you do things to shake people’s perceptions in the wrong way.
Does Starbucks taste better that Pete’s or Caribou? Or is it the perception of its taste - fueled by the ambiance of their stores and their first mover claim to that perception - that explains why there are more Starbucks outlets around? Is growth slowing for Starbucks because the coffee tastes that much worse than before - or because it isn’t the perceptive experience that it used to be?
The great brands of our sector seek to own certain perceptions. Kiva.org is about directly helping another person with an hand-up. American Red Cross was about coming to our rescue - until that perception was shaken. They are still recovering.
The perception of former NY Governor Spitzer was that he was squeaky clean and ruthless in holding others to lawful and moral standards. When people learned something that flew in the face of this perception, he was finished - as a brand and certainly as a politician. The product - his work as governor - is secondary in most people’s minds to the more primary (and primal) issue of whether he lived up to what he projected and what we perceived.
So what do you do about it? You focus on your audience as much as your programs. You show why you matter to them rather than trying to convince them to listen to what you do. You seek to own a unique perception in the minds of your audience rather than trying to dislodge their perception of your competition. You can fine-tune your programs or re-brand all day long, but until you connect to what is in someone’s heart or mind and create a perception, your “product” doesn’t exist for them. If you do have a place in people’s hearts and minds, honor that perception with your actions. People don’t like to have their perceptions proved wrong. In fact, they hate it because they don’t like to be proven wrong.
I’m at the Social Enterprise Alliance Summit here in Boston, where I’m presenting this tomorrow. My favorite session today was by Jerr Boschee, who spoke about what makes a successful social enterprise. (For the jargon-averse, a social enterprise is an organization with a double bottom line - it yields both social and financial returns.)
He spoke about the importance of focusing on the one thing you do well - and getting rid of the rest. I’m a huge advocate of this approach. (My version of this advice is here.) Jerr says focus yields a lot of good for everyone:
1. Have a sharp focus: Be great at one thing. Contraction is good. Kill programs that aren’t core to what you do best. He calls this “organized abandonment.”
2. What happens when you focus? Expanded impact. You get more profound penetration into your area of focus - and greater social impact.
3. You also get a revitalized culture. Clear focus yields happy, productive and united staff.
4. Influence is also an important outcome. The more power you have, the more freedom you get to speak the truth and do what you need to do.
I like his list.
It is scary to focus. But like all things that require courage, it is powerful. Fuzziness and fear don’t make great organizations or significant social change.
It’s not always about what you should do. It’s also about what you should not do.
My daughters’ favorite book is a guide to being a princess - it covers dress, etiquette, conduct, etc. The funny thing is, a lot of it is good advice. It covers topics like “how to disguise you’re bored around others” and other tips that all of us could use in our work lives, particularly during long meetings.
So much of the advice on this blog is about good manners. And superlative marketing is often based in princess-level manners.
For example:
1. Be polite. Don’t interrupt or lecture imperiously at your audience. Seek permission to hold forth with your audience. In other words, don’t buy email lists and spam people. Contact them when you have permission, and make it a conversation, not a lecture.
2. Be gracious and generous. Thank those that help you, often and well. Don’t be stingy about sharing information or resources with others.
3. Be loyal. Keep up your relationships with others. Even if they haven’t given you money lately, you can still show people you care by reaching out with a kind update.
“We should do this because we’ve done it every year.”
This is how you end up with an Oldsmobile-style marketing strategy.
Not good.
A lot of people think new is good.
“We should do this because it’s new and different.”
This is how you end up with a “this is not your father’s Oldsmobile” marketing strategy.
Old and new are not ideas. They are substitutes for thinking. Don’t make decisions based on what you’ve done in the past or what looks good in the future. Make them based on what’s relevant to your audience now.
Posted by katya on Tue, April 08, 2008
(0) 
Syndicate
