Finding opportunity in bad news

After doing a workshop with some great Florida nonprofits today, I am in Fort Lauderdale airport trying to fly back to DC on a very delayed flight on USAir.  The agents promised mechanical status updates on our broken plane for over an hour and then made no announcements.  They did not even say to the 70 people in line, “We don’t have more information, bear with us.”  Then the situation deteriorated to such a degree that people in line (not me, though I thought about it) started screaming to the agents, “PLEASE give us an update.” 

It seemed near riot-status when they finally made an announcement—that we’ll leave in two hours because they found a part.  From JetBlue.  Thank you JetBlue for getting my USAir flight out of here.  Great marketing for JetBlue and lousy marketing for USAir.  If you’ve got bad news, just tell it and apologize.  If you have no news, explain that too.  Silence is not a good strategy.  Even bad events can be a good opportunity if you handle them right.  Southwest was so charming during my last flight delay, it was a net postive for them from a marketing perspective.

Given the highly negative vibe emanating out of Gate E3 right now, I thought I’d post on the concept of the power of positive thinking.  It is enjoying a lot of new attention lately, thanks to all the hype around The Secret, which is featured on the cover of Newsweek and on Oprah – a book and overall popular sensation that essentially says, the secret to getting what you want is willing it to be so with a positive mindset.  Self-help books have been saying this for years, as Newsweek points out, but our country can’t seem to get enough of it.  “The Secret” is very well marketed and making loads of money for the author.

Recently, I got asked to review a book, Top Performer’s Guide to Change, and much of what it concludes is that attitude determines outcome.  How you perceieve change will determine how well you are able to embrace it.  The authors (Tim Ursiny and Barbara Kay) do a thoughtful job explaining various personality types and their reactions to change, which is useful if you’re in the business of persuading people to do new things.  The book then suggests how to be better at adapting to and leading change by being optimistic and proactive, as well as what to do when you can’t change things – which is to let go and move on.  That’s not earth-shattering as a set of insights, but it’s useful to be reminded that if you view new things as opportunities rather than inconveniences, you’re going to be in much better shape.  If a news story or policy change or economic downturn renders your marketing plan less relevant, you can despair or you can figure out how to align with – and leverage – the change.  The right answer, of course, is the opportunistic #2. 

Of course, none of this should be a “secret” to us, and by even posting on any of this, I feel a little Oprah-esque.  But perhaps by willing my plane to leave on time, it will.

PS: My plane is actually boarding now, 90 minutes before they said it would.  Go figure.

  • Comment: (3)

Shortcut blog reading

I read a lot of blogs, and if it weren’t for Google Reader, it would be labor-intensive.  But I also wanted to call your attention to two other time-savers, if you like reading blogs from our sector:

1.) A blog roundup from the Chronicle of Philanthropy—Give and Take.  It’s been around a few weeks now, and it provides a nice sampling from dozens of blogs.  Check out the blogroll on the right of the page—I discovered some new blogs on there.

2.) The Nonprofit Blog Exchange —news and links for nonprofit blogs, with a lot of good stuff on technology and nonprofits.

  • Comment: (0)

Sticky Week IV: Emotion and Calculation

To wind up Sticky Week, I wanted to relay some insights from Made to Stick about the role of emotion in giving.  I truly believe most people give money for deeply emotional, personal reasons.  That’s why statistics move us less than stories.  Here’s a story from the book that reveals especially interesting nuances behind the emotions of giving:

Save the Children tested two versions of an appeal.

The first said, “Food shortages in Malawi are affecting more than 3 million children.  In Zambia, severe rainfall deficits have resulted in a 42 percent drop in maize production from 2000 as a result, an estimated 3 million Zambians face hunger…”  You get the idea.

The second said, “Any money that you donate will go to Rokia, a seven-year-old girl from Mali, Africa.  Rokia is desperately poor and faces the threat of severe hunger or even starvation.  Her life will be changed for the better as a result of your financial gift…”  You get the idea.

Researchers gave some study subjects one of the two letters and asked them to donate, if they wanted, and put any money in a sealed envelope.  The people from the first appeal gave $1.14 on average.  The second?  $2.38.  More than twice as much.  People felt overwhelmed by the first appeal but motivated by the second.

Now it gets really interesting:  the researchers decided to give a third group of people BOTH sets of information.  People who got both letters gave $1.43.

The lesson?

Statistics shift people into a more analytical frame of mind.  When people think analytically, they are less likely to think emotionally.

Researchers proved this argument by asking people analytical questions like math problems before getting the Rokia letter, while other people were asked to free-associate after hearing the word, “baby.”  The people who did math before getting the letter gave $1.26 while the people who thought about babies gave $2.34.

Wow.  What a story.  Math makes us stingier!

Lots of implications for our donor communications, wouldn’t you say?

[Full disclosure: I sent a link of this blog to Dan and Chip, Made to Stick authors, and they said thanks.  They offered to send additonal copies of their book to me—and I did ask for a copy of their book for two of my colleagues.  I feel I should disclose this because transparency is important!  I didn’t post because of the free books—they sent the books after posting—but did want to disclose I did receive something after posting about the book (which I received as a review copy) on this blog.]

  • Comment: (3)

Seeing RED, Part 3

As an update to my post on the RED and anti-RED campaigns, I wanted to provide links to the latest debate.

Bobby Shriver wrote this letter to AdAge, in response to their story characterizing the RED campaign as a disappointment.  Meanwhile, TIME picked up on the AdAge story here.  The RED Blog has also responded.  And, finally, the anti-RED campaign has posted a mission statement on their site.  They’ve also responded to Bobby Shriver’s letter here (you have to register to see this).

The mission of BUY (LESS) on an individual level is to provide a means for people to donate directly to charity, to remind them that this is the most efficient way to support a cause, and to inspire less consumption overall. On a policy level, our mission is to raise causumer awareness and provoke public discussion—resulting in explicit transparency standards, the adoption of best practices for all cause-related marketing efforts, and leading to greater causumer confidence and more assured revenue streams for charity.

Nope, that’s not a typo.  BUY (LESS) is seeking to coin the word “causumer” to mean people who “look at how their purchases effect not just themselves, but the world around them,” Ben Davis of the anti-RED campaign says.  I think the word is interesting, but it’s an odd match with the site, which is postioned as anti-cause-related-marketing and really, anti-causumerism (though they say that’s not the case, that’s what comes across to me).

I think the issue has been covered exhaustively at this point, but if you are contemplating causerism, so to speak, here are some tips:

1.) Check out Cause Marketing Forum.
2.) You might want to think about Buy (LESS)‘s idea of printing on price tags how much of the price of a product goes to charity.  At any rate, be as transparent as possible.
3.) Be sure you align the message, cause and products to the same audience.  The more targeted the audience, as always, the better.
4.) Segment your audiences.  There are givers and shoppers out there, and some overlap.  Offer many different ways to support your organization, based on your audiences’ desires.  I agree with Buy (LESS)‘s recommendation to put direct donation links on cause-related marketing sites so people have that option if they want it.  I recommend tracking the total collective donations too through any links for further transparency. 
5.) Have a plan for following up with people who buy stuff.  Reach out and cultivate relationships with them and the cause after they buy (a smart thought from the Spare Change blog.)

[Note: this entry edited to add links to Buy (LESS)‘s letter and recommendations.]

 

  • Comment: (2)

Sticky Week III: Hang Your Message on Hooks

This is my broken record alert (from flickr’s 45 street), as well as a signal I’ve broken the rule I laid out yesterday, which is to be unexpected. 

Here’s my broken record refrain: If you know me, you know I’m

always

talking about how it’s best to appeal to the existing values of an audience instead of trying to convert them to your set of values.  Don’t make your world view a prerequisite to a person taking action.

Made to Stick, the book I’m blogging this week, explains a fresh new reason why it’s better to work from an audience’s existing schema than to try to build them a new one.  It allows you to make profound ideas compact, which in turn makes them stickier.  I quote:

How do you do that?  You use flags.  You tap the existing memory terrain of your audience.  You use what’s already there.

People are tempted to tell you everything, with perfect accuracy, right up front, when they should be giving you just enough info to be useful, then a little more, then a little more.

Nonprofits are very guilty of that second point - telling everything.  Tell less, in fewer words.  It’s more effective, always.

Another way to think of this approach is to visualize a person’s mind as a bunch of little hooks (the Heaths say the brain really has them).  If you can attach your message on a bunch of existing hooks, it’s going to stick like velcro.  If you try to make new hooks, you’re in for a big, messy self-help project.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Comment: (2)

Sticky Week II: Go for the Unexpected

Last week, in the mail, I got a stuffed plush chicken bearing a mini-t-shirt that said “Feet First” and a plastic egg.  Also enclosed in the little box was a personal letter from my favorite nonprofit organization in Seattle.  They were thanking me for my support, which was nice because I am a monthly donor.  Normally, I don’t really go for gifts in return for my donations—I want the money going to programs—but this chicken was different from the usual ho-hum calendars and ugly address labels.  It turned me into a spokesperson for Feet First, yet AGAIN.  I know I’ve blogged about them a lot, but darn it, they just keep earning the attention.  Amid a mailbox crammed with bills, catalogs and boring appeals from nonprofits, I got a chicken.  And even with dinner burning and the kids fighting and the phone ringing, I noticed.  And now I’m telling you about it.  Those two events are definitely worth the cost of a little stuffed animal and a plastic egg, from Feet First’s marketing perspective.  Turning a “walkable communities” program into a story about a chicken crossing the road, and sending out chickens, is sticky: it is unforgettable, and it leads to donor evangelism. 

I tell this story because it’s Sticky Week here at my blog, in honor of the wonderful book, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.

madetostick

Today’s concept is the importance of the unexpected in making your message stick in people’s minds - and hearts, and wallets.

Authors Chip Heath & Dan Heath offer this advice to making your ideas stickier for your audience:

-Find your core (I blogged on this yesterday)
-Figure out what is COUNTERINTUITIVE about your message
-Communicate in a way that breaks your audience’s “guessing machines” by being counterintuitive

Feet First broke my guessing machine.  Sending me a chicken instead of a wrist band or annual report is counterintuitive. 

Extraordinary customer service breaks the guessing machine.  (And by this I don’t mean saying you “value someone’s business” while they are on hold for 30 minutes, I mean what the book says - like Nordstrom cheerfully gift wrapping a product bought at Macy’s or refunding money for tire chains - which they don’t sell.)  A nonprofit that actually asks people how often they want solicitations and what kind of news they want about their donations is extraordinary. 

The best stories break the guessing machine.  Like pulling people out of their tombs to dance with them.  Like buying a refrigerator repair kit for a woman in Samoa. 

How can you be unexpected today—in a good way?  How can you take that tired old success story and rev it up with something surprising?  Try to amaze, not daze, your supporters by breaking their guessing machines.  They are tired of knowing your next move.

 

  • Comment: (9)

Getting distracted by the audience—or grants

Andrew of RiseUp.net has a great comment to my last post that I want to highlight here:

I’d suggest that some organizations (more often smaller, younger ones) sometimes forget one of the other circles, even as they have that third circle in mind.

Mission Drift: Many organizations are so close to their audience’s meandering interests that they lose track of what they’re doing.

Redundant Organizations: “Let’s start a _____ group” when there are already plenty doing the same thing.

My only point is that while more established organizations run the risk of ignoring their audience, newer organizations run the risk of a myopic focus on what their audience is interested in at any given time.

Good point.  If you lose the intersection between what you audience wants and what you’re

uniquely

good at, and focus solely on the audience, you lose your way.

It’s the intersection that’s key.

I would add that nonprofits also lose the intersection when they chase grants, if the grant is not in that sweet spot.  That detour often comes at the expense of focus and effectiveness.

An aside: On the theme of straying from sweet spots:  I was just in Chicago and saw two weird things: a Weber Grill Restaurant (with a big grill hanging off the side of the building) and a Ralph Lauren restaurant called RL.  I’m not sure about these brand extensions, because they are far afield from their core brand offering.  Anyone in Chicago feel the same?  Otherwise? 

  • Comment: (0)

Made to Stick Week: Finding Your Core aka Sweet Spot

Years ago, my dad once gave me some really good advice about relationships - stick with people who bring out the best in you.  Better yet it should work both ways - that you bring out the best in the other person too.  I wish I’d followed this wise counsel my whole life. 

Don’t worry, you haven’t stumbled upon Dr. Phil’s blog.  I’m getting to my point, and the theme of my blog for the next week.

When we’re thinking about how to market ourselves as organizations, we need to think about what’s best in us, and how it matches with what our audience wants.  I put up the following nifty little diagram a long time ago, but it is worth running again. 

Picture3

It shows that you want to focus all your efforts on the marketing front - and the organizational front - on the intersection between:

-What your organization focuses upon (which is hopefully what you’re good at)
-What you do better than anyone else (what is completely unique about you)
-What your audience cares about

I think we’re pretty good at identifying the first two but we tend to forget that third circle.  PLEASE ADD THE THIRD CIRCLE TO ALL OF YOUR STRATEGIC THINKING.  Ron of BrandCurve posted a comment this week about email that takes it a step further - not only should you add the circle, he says you should then start a conversation.  I agree.

I think the real issue behind email effectiveness [all marketing, I’d say—KA] is the consumer’s willingness to participate and receive that mail [message]. Intrusive, one-way, monologue-like messages where the consumer has no say – are sure to stay closed!

We want a relationship with our target audiences, so to have that relationship, we need to not only think about ourselves but also how we

intersect

with them.  We need to bring our audience back into the picture.  The center of this diagram is our sweet spot, in our relationship with our audience but also for our organization in all we do.  It’s what will bring out the best in us!

I am focusing on this sweet spot, which is based on the work of some branding folks and which is related to Jim Collins’ hedgehog concept, because it’s also at the

core

of the best marketing book that I have read in a very, very long time: Made to Stick.  I am so enamored with this book, I am going to be blogging about it all week. 

It’s Sticky Week here at my blog.

One of the main points of Made to Stick is that simple, core concepts are what stick in people’s minds and guide whole organizations, and I think this is a useful way of viewing the idea of the sweet spot.  The authors of Made to Stick call the process of identifying this essence, “finding your core.” 

So what is your core, aka your sweet spot?  If you stuck to it - and only it - in deciding what to do and what to say, you might find yourself with a renewed sense of focus and heightened impact.  The books says Southwest Airlines succeeds in large part as an organization because it knows its sweet spot is low fares.  Every decision is weighed against this organizing principle—will this lower fares?

Much more to come.

  • Comment: (7)

Implementing a Donor Database by Guest Star Cheryl Gipson

Michelle Murrain at Zen and the Art of Nonprofit Technology is hosting a carnival on “Nonprofit Data Management: from slips of paper to CRM.” I think that’s a good topic, so I’ve asked my esteemed colleague Cheryl Gipson who is Network for Good’s Director of Nonprofit Services to contribute the following post.  When the full CRM carnival goes up on Monday, I’ll link to it so you can read what other folks think!

Before I turn things over to Cheryl, I’d like to cover the basics.  CRM means “customer resource management”—it’s software that allows you to centrally store and access information about donors or other constituencies.  Why do you need this?  So you can better organize fundraising data and more easily build a long-term, personalized relationship with donors.  You can learn more at TechSoup about why you might want to get a database.  If you’d like to get on Network for Good’s email list of free tips on CRM, email me at robinhood at networkforgood.org.

Here’s Cheryl on how to actually get your donor database in place successfully.  She offers a helpful checklist.

CherylGipson

Steps to a Successful CRM implementation from Cheryl Gipson

Converting or implementing a CRM database is a big step for a nonprofit organization.  Generally a conversion or implementation represents a sea-change within the organization, brought on by management changes, fundraising need, programmatic expansion, or extreme discontent with current systems.  The data within a database is one piece of the data conversion pie, as the steps surrounding the data, and what the data represents (donors, money) are the life-blood of a nonprofit organization.

A successful data conversion/implementation has several component parts:

*If an implementation, a plan to establish workflow and data structures for processing incoming gifts and reconciling data with accounting

*If a conversion, an established plan for how to maintain current workflow and data structures while the data is being converted.
—-Parallel processing:  two systems are run simultaneously (legacy/new) parallel to one another with duplicate gift processing
—-Gradual Legacy Switch:  the new system is established and people work in the new system with new data after processes have been established, keeping the legacy system running for old data.  Legacy data is imported on a time-based plan
—-Planned Legacy Switch:  a date is set for the new system to go live.  Legacy data and systems are re-worked, a cut-off time is established for the old system, several test conversions are conducted, and the new system goes live.

*A strong internal champion for the database project with a database administration background.  This individual will work closely with the implementation consultant to implement new procedures, train themselves in the new product, document the procedures within the nonprofit organization and train other staff

*A strong executive champion for the database project willing to understand the importance of investing time, money, and human resources into the success of the project

*A fundraising database implementer who understands fundraising strategies, gift processing workflow, nonprofit accounting laws, and best-practice coding structures for development reports.  They must also be technically savvy in multiple fundraising databases and understand how to write queries, import and export data, manipulate and “clean” data using tools such as Excel or Data Junction

*A mutual understanding between the nonprofit organization and the database implementer that converting a database involves organizational change, and this can be stressful and threatening for employees.  Both the database implementer and the nonprofit organization will need to establish in the project plan the metrics and deliverables that comprise success

*Detailed procedures/documentation on the part of the database implementer for contact and gift counts.  Verifiable data transfer is the metric that can be used for the client to understand the success of the conversion and helps to create confidence from both sides

*Training of new procedures and workflow.  This will be specific to each organization

It is also worthwhile to note that the size of the database or the size of the organization do not diminish the complexity of a database conversion, because the issues of coding structures, workflow, fundraising practices, and accounting reconciliation are all the same.  What’s different is scale.  Small nonprofits are in the uncomfortable position of having to handle these issues without the same level of human or monetary resources enjoyed by large nonprofits.

THE FULL CARNIVAL IS HERE if you’d like to read it.

  • Comment: (7)

Six Steps to Better Email Outreach

I picked up lots of gems here at the Marketing Sherpa Email Summit.  Here are a few from Sherpa Anne Holland herself:

1.) Opt-ins – make it easy for people to sign up to hear from your nonprofit right on your home page.  Don’t make them have to hunt long and hard to find how to sign up, or go to through many steps and pages to do it.

2.) Welcome messages – Only half of folks they surveyed welcomed new sign-ups within 72 hours.  You can stand out just by saying hi and starting a conversation once people do opt-in to hear from you.

3.) Transactional emails – People open them at much higher rates than anything else.  Of course – they want their receipt or to track their stuff if they’ve bought something.  So when you receipt (and I hope, thank) donors, you might consider putting in a bit of nice additional content.  I wouldn’t ask for more money right then because donors are tired of that, though.

4.) Reputation – from AOL to Earthlink to Yahoo!, providers are sorting spam by the reputation of the organization sending the mail.  Even though you’re a nice nonprofit, you might get blocked if you’ve had too many bounces or unsubscribes from your emails.  So think about slashing your list so it’s just made up of people who really want to hear from you, and consider being more careful about sharing it with people who might spam your supporters.

5.) Design and rendering – Did you know half of all folks 25-54 have images blocked on email by default?  Wow.  And a high number of folks read all their email in preview panes.  MAKE SURE your emails appear right.  It turns out when people get an email with a funky layout or blocked images, many think it’s spam.  Second, make sure that if your images are blocked, there is something interesting to read so you don’t lose people.  Third, put what’s interesting at the top and at the left so people can see it in preview.

6.) Landing pages – Sherpa says they give you the best bang for your buck. So don’t just write great emails.  If people click through, make sure the place they go is very compelling.

  • Comment: (5)

A formula for winning communications

In a ballroom in Miami today, the director of MEC Labs put up this formula.  I kid you not.

ECE = 3lq + 20r + 2bc + 2it + ef +dr

The thing is, once he decoded it, it was really easy to understand.  And I really liked it.  Its usefulness transcends email marketing, which was the topic at hand.

According to Dr. Flint McGlaughlin, effective email is based on:

• 3 times list quality (heavy weight goes to the quality of the list)
• 20 times offer relevance (note that HUGE weight given to relevance)
• 2 times body copy
• 2 times intrinsic timing
• Envelope fields (subject line, from)
• Deliverability rate


In other words – your success in getting people to do something is:

• Very dependent on how well you’ve targeted your audience (it’s important you market to people who are likely to need what you’re offering and better yet, who know you and want to hear from you)
• Extremely dependent on whether your offering is well-matched to your audience’s needs and values
• The words you use are pretty important
• The timing and sense of urgency with which you convey your message is pretty important
• The messenger and headline are important
• The deliverability of your message is key – it should be easy to get/read/receive

I like this formula – it’s based on good-old Marketing 101, as all good communications – whether by email or not – should be.  And it helps us prioritize our time.

 

 

  • Comment: (3)

RED Redux: AdAge Weighs In

I’m in Miami today for Marketing Sherpa’s Email Conference where I’m presenting with Mark Rovner.  I’m going to share some of the useful information from today’s sessions later today.  In the meantime, pursuant to my post on Seeing Red and Pink and the cause-related marketing backlash, here is the headline in today’s AdAge:

Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million
Bono & Co. Spend up to $100 Million on Marketing, Incur Watchdogs’ Wrath

You can read more with registration here. 

To state the obvious, the honeymoon is over for cause-related marketing - just as it is for charities in general.  By that I mean, there isn’t sufficient infatuation with our sector that we can think all we do will be seen in a good light, even when we have the purest of intentions.  People are skeptical, ESPECIALLY when it comes to where the dollars are going.  And ESPECIALLY when it comes to marketing.  Even if a lot of marketing dollars got directed to a good cause, people not only want to ask how much got to charity, they are also digging into ROI!

PS If you haven’t checked it out, the discussion is really rich at Marketing Profs. 

 

  • Comment: (1)

Good word-of-mouth is hard to find

BusinessWeek has named top companies for customer service.  The top five based on this methodology are:

1 USAA
USAA keeps its promises, customers say. Ninety-six percent of home and 98 percent of auto policyholders report that USAA meets their commitments to call back regarding claim issues on time.  79% definitely would recommend

2 FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS  
When a Four Seasons executive says the luxury chain has an “obsession to be perfect,” he means it. In 2006, just 2% of guests reported major problems with their hotel stay, halved from 4% in 2005. 60% definitely would recommend.

3 CADILLAC Automotive
Servicing a vehicle at a Cadillac dealer after the warranty expires is a top-notch experience, customers report. The brand scored at least 47 points higher than the industry average on all six related factors. 51% definitely would recommend.

4 NORDSTROM Retail
Nordstrom’s famed service levels didn’t disappoint our respondents. Customers ranked the courtesy of the Seattle-based department store chain’s people tops among all retailers. 57% definitely would recommend.

5 WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS Supermarkets
You know they’re good if customers rank the ease of returning things higher than Nordstrom. Wegmans received the best scores of any retailer for the ease of returning items to the store. 60% definitely would recommend.

Wow.  Am I the only one who finds it remarkable that all of these companies got all “A"s and “A+“s and yet in many cases, only about half of respondents would definitely recommend it?  Good word of mouth is tough to earn even when you’re extraordinary.  By contrast, bad word of mouth tends to be very ordinary.  It’s easy to earn and fast to spread. Just ask JetBlue.

It’s hard to find people who are good at spreading good news - and for us, that means it’s hard to find supporters who will - and are great at - evangelizing for us.  We’ve got a lot of people creating personal fundraising badges right now, though not everyone is as good as this at it. 

If you’ve got even one supporter who is great at good word of mouth, you’ve got a rare and priceless person.  Take very good care of them.  If you’ve got one supporter who’s mad as hell, take very good care of them, too. 

 

 

  • Comment: (1)

Cause-Related Marketing: Seeing RED and Pink

Exhibit A: The RED campaign, an incredibly successful cause-related marketing campaign started by Bono and Bobby Shriver, that encourages us to buy products to benefit aid programs in Africa.

RED

Exhibit B: The BuyLessCrap campaign, which says RED is (RED)iculous and meaning(LESS).

Buylesscrap

Exhibit C: Think Before You Pink, which is another take on cause-marketing (in this case, breast-cancer-related). 

thinkpink

I expect we’ll be seeing more cause-related-marketing and more subsequent consumer scrutiny in the months ahead, so let’s dig a little deeper into these campaigns. 

The BuyLessCrap folks sent me a link to their campaign earlier this week.  Their site states, “Shopping is not the solution.  Buy (LESS).  Give More.”  My first reaction to the campaign was fairly negative for several reasons:

1.) Bashing consumerism in our country is a losing proposition.  It alienates the vast majority of people, because most Americans like to buy things. 
2.) Asking people to donate directly to charity INSTEAD of shopping seems like an unnecessary sacrifice.  The message doesn’t feel inspirational, it feels scolding.  Can’t I shop

and

give?
3.) While I believe people SHOULD give to charity directly, I don’t buy that cause-related marketing is REDiculous.  It may not be “the” solution, but it’s an important piece of

a

solution to the fundraising picture.  There are a few reasons it compliments fundraising efforts.  It doesn’t require people to change their buying behavior.  It gives people a way to give while they are doing a transaction they’d probably do anyway.  It exposes new audiences to causes, because companies have a lot more marketing muscle than nonprofits do.  Yes, companies benefit, but so do nonprofits. 

So I asked buylesscrap about these issues, and their prompt answers surprised me a bit.  Below is my email interview with Ben Davis of wpi, which put together the site.  As we corresponded, I realized his aim is not so much anti-cause-marketing as it about urging more transparency in cause-related marketing, similar to Think Before You Pink.  He said the RED campaign was not open about how it benefits its causes, and he wanted them to be more so.  So I emailed RED, and within 90 minutes, they emailed me back lots of information that struck me as quite transparent.  I’ve included their comments here, too.  It’s a very interesting conversation, so read on… AND keep in mind what I think is what is not in dispute:

If you are doing any cause-related marketing, remember that transparency is essential.  Tell donors how much of the money is going where, regularly, or they will think you’re hiding something.

Here is my Q&A with Ben.

Q: Who is your audience for this?

A: Our hope is that BUY (LESS) will be shared virally by anyone who has questions about the (RED) campaign and other cause-related marketing efforts…how much is spent, where the money really goes (CEO salaries, etc.) and how much makes it to the “cause.” We believe this covers a wide demographic. Reaction to the site has been immediate, positive, and expressed from diverse quarters.  In addition, we want to stimulate a healthy discussion and exploration of the topic among thought-leaders. (Yourself included!)

Q: How did you choose the message?

A: It chose us. The idea of replacing the suffix (LESS) for (RED) hit me one day while being bombarded by (RED) advertising, and suddenly the vague discomfort with the campaign crystallized: SHOPPING IS NOT A SOLUTION. BUY (LESS). GIVE MORE. Some great and talented friends loved the idea and together we sharpened the focus and created BUY (LESS) and it’s viral site http://www.buylesscrap.org.

Q: Do you feel cause-related marketing has a place in the charitable giving spectrum, for people who simply like to buy things and feel good about it - but don’t donate to charity? 

A: We support all forms of giving, including cause-related marketing. (And for the record, we love Bono, we think Oprah is great, we shop, we adore our iPods, and we want GAP—a San Francisco-based company—to do well.) It is our hope that with greater scrutiny, transparency, and possibly increased regulation, cause-related marketing can be less manipulative and can drive even greater and more certain levels of donations to charity. We do not think that shopping, however, should ever be considered a legitimate substitute for charitable giving. Just Give.

Q: Have you coordinated with the nonprofits featured on your site?  What is their feeling on the campaign?

A: Frankly, we’ve not contacted them. We are interested to gauge their reaction and hope they provide one. Keep in mind, we are taking on giants, and all the money and power are pretty much aligned on the other side of this issue. We are hoping for the best, but bracing for a potentially negative and even hostile or litigious response from the vested interests. We are warmed, however, by the citizen-level response we received so far. 

Q: What are your goals for the site - volume of donations, etc?

A:
1) To provide a means to give directly to charities without having to shop. We’ve set no specific goals for volume of donations, and in fact have no way to track actual donations resulting from our site.

2) To provoke discussion and change around cause-related marketing in order to refine and strengthen the model.

3) To encourage consumers to de-couple cause-related marketing (at least in terms of consumption) with charitable giving. Buying a $100 product is not the same as giving $100 to charity. Buy (LESS). Give more.

Q: The idea of transparency is interesting - are you familiar with thinkbeforeyoupink.org?

A: No. But thank you. We’ll look into it. 

Q: Do you think there is a risk of the no-don’t-negative parts of the message which essentially attack consumerism and cause marketing distracting from the positive-give-transparency message?  Or is the negative part needed so it goes viral with a smaller constituency that feels angry and will create pressure?  Sounds from your answer to the audience question that it is the latter?

A: Another really good question and one we wrestled with. We were quite concerned with the negative aspects of BUY (LESS) and worked hard to make sure the underlying message was positive and constructive. The key players involved, Aaron Feiger of RomanticStatic, Debra Amador of MindfulPR, and myself are all overwhelmingly positive personalities and fully recognize the many pitfalls of negativity. Yet, without the hook—without parodying the (RED) campaign as a means to garner viral success and to stimulate discussion—we didn’t feel we would have an impact. A white paper on (RED) would go mostly un(READ). Sorry.  We believe the site’s appeal will extend beyond an angry few. In fact, it already has. For all its celebrity backing and marketing might, (RED) leaves many people confused and full of nagging questions. Who benefits? How much money really reaches the cause? Is this intended as a substitute for charitable giving? Can we really consume our way to a cure? Is feeling good about shopping a healthy emotional response to human suffering? Am I being manipulated?  Our biggest reason for plunging ahead despite the negative aspects, however, was our utter inability to get a straight answer—or really any substantive information at all—about what’s been spent on the (RED) Campaign. That alone made us realize that discussion and reform was needed. 

On that note, I decided to ask RED myself, and here’s what Julie Cordua promptly replied:

The key to the (RED) proposition is results – delivering compelling products to people already in the market for everyday items; delivering business support for and awareness of the Global Fund;  and delivering money to buy medicine for people dying of AIDS in Africa.

In our first nine months (March – December, 2006), (RED) generated more than $20M for the Global Fund ($18M has already been paid, GF is still receiving payments). This is four times more than the private sector has contributed to the Global Fund since the Fund was founded in 2002.  (The $11M mentioned in the [BuyLessCrap] press release is inaccurate and based off of what checks were in the Fund by Dec. 31, 2006, not how much had been generated in that time.  As you know, it takes time to close the books, finish calculations and cut checks at the end of the year.)

(RED) is built for long-term, sustainable impact.  We believe engaging the world’s marketing powers and product designers, and putting them to work for those in desperate need is a smart way to break an issue that individual contributions alone cannot master.

A few specific points as related to [Ben’s] comments:

1) There were questions about how much money was given from each product.  This was clearly stated from the day we launched (see press release) and is also communicated on partner sites or marketing information. 

Clarification on partner contributions:

o     Gap: 50% of gross profits

o     Emporio Armani: 40% of gross profit, on average

o     Converse: 5% - 15% of net sales

o     Motorola: $17 per handset

o     Apple: $10 per iPod Nano

o     American Express: 1% of monthly bill (UK Only)

2) The question is who benefits and where does the money really go?  All (RED) money flows directly to the Global Fund.  You can always see updated figures of what money has come in here.  To re-emphasize, the money raised by (RED) and partners to date (in just nine months) is four times the amount of private sector dollars they’ve received in the first five years of the fund.

3)  It is important to note that the money is given by the company, NOT the consumer.  For example, the RED NANO and the non-red Nano are the same price.  When a consumer purchases a RED NANO, it doesn’t cost more, but it triggers the company to contribute $10 to the Fund.  The (RED) products give consumers an option to make shopping choices that will make a difference.  (RED) is one more tool for consumers to make a difference, it doesn’t replace other avenues such as volunteering, donating or lobbying your government.  We think it is great to donate directly.  But, if you need a t-shirt, an ipod or a phone, you know you can buy a (RED) one and even more money will go to the Fund. 

In response to the site:  Overall, we generally support anything that will drive more contributions to the Global Fund. However, it is unfortunate that this organization is working against another initiative vs. simply promoting the fact that you can contribute to the Global Fund at any time here.  The overall total to the Global Fund will be larger with many campaigns focused on generating contributions vs. one campaign using its energy to work against another.

—————————

Thanks Ben and Julie for all your responses.  FYI there is still more over at Marketing Profs too. 

 

  • Comment: (14)

People still read their direct mail

I’m in Alabama speaking at the state’s nonprofit association meeting, and so I can’t delve into this study to the depth I’d like.  But it’s too important not to highlight.

On the heels of my post about how lots of folks under age 65 are giving online, comes a study from Vertis that Elaine Fogel called to my attention via an email newsletter.  It says:

85 percent of women ages 25-44 read printed direct mail marketing pieces, despite the influx of electronically generated advertisements throughout the past decade.

Additionally, the study reveals that 53 percent of all women surveyed ages 25-44 who have access to e-mail, read e-mail advertisements, consistent with the 54 percent that did so in 2005.

Consumers of both sexes, not just women, said they loved mailed coupons and discounts (and that’s the direct mail I keep myself, especially if it’s from DSW), and significant percentages of people did the following: went to a store, visited a website or called an 800 number as a result of direct mail.

As much as I’m devoted to online everything, this is a good reminder that you should NOT stop mailing people.  But you should also be emailing them - if they give you permission - and you should integrate the mail and email pieces of what you are doing.  Oh, and you should PERSONALIZE them all. 

57 percent of women ages 35-64 prefer that companies they express interest in, send follow-up communication through direct mail pieces personalized to their needs
45 percent of total adults are open to receiving personalized, follow-up e-mails, younger men and women seem to be more responsive to this medium

  • Comment: (3)
Page 73 of 79 pages ‹ First  < 71 72 73 74 75 >  Last ›