We get slammed with 600 messages a day though a whole bunch of channels….

So if you mail a letter with your annual appeal brochure, you want people to read it, right?

Why should they or, better yet, why would they?

Well, if you want people to read the thing, you may want to consider these points:

- Write letters than can be scanned. Yes, scanned. If it takes you seven paragraphs to get to the cause concept and fourteen more to make the ask for support, consider rewriting the letter. There is a lot of discussion out there on the optimal length of a campaign letter. I am of the school that “shorter” is “better”. Leave epic written sagas to James Michener. 1 page is dandy.

- Remember the average age of your reader. Keep the font size at 12 point and use courier new – it looks like a type writer and will appeal to your older donors.

- If possible, use a live signature in blue ink.

- People read what you put in the p.s. line. Use it.

If they read, who knows, they may respond.

I just cleaned out my “spam” folder on my hotmail account – 1,200 messages ranging in offers from hair tonic (not a word) to reduced home financing rates.

I did not read a single one.

Many, if not all, diocesan development offices offer some type of online giving portal.  Some, and I do not know how many, may drive donors to the link through email communication platforms with the online giving portal embedded within the email. 

Seems to make sense.  One simple “click”, and the donor has parked their largesse within your charitable coffers.

Yeah, not really.

A study recently conducted by Dunham+Company indicates that the majority of online donors were prompted to use this contribution vehicle through a direct mail solicitation prompting them to do so.  Actually, 37% of those who made an online gift did so because they were provided such an option through a letter from the charity. 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a direct relationship between donor “youth” and their likelihood of making an online gift.  75% of those who are 65 years and older still prefer to give through direct mail.

The report also suggests that wealthier households are more likely to make an online contribution as well.

Implications for diocesan development directors?

- All appeal direct mail solicitation materials should include the online giving web address

-All written communications from the stewardship office should include the web address for the online giving portal.  Place it in the masthead of your stationary, the back flap of all mailing envelopes, etc.

Here is the link for the study:

http://www.dunhamandcompany.com/resource/DC_National_Offline_Online_Communications_Survey_Oct_2010.pdf

Enjoy ….

A mountain can teach you many things.

I spent a year in training to summit the tallest peak in Africa. 

I got close. 

Real close.

But, apparently, the human body does not really like spending time above 17,000 feet and lets you know it in really clear ways.

“What did you learn?”

What I learned was that “goals”, the “end state”, although important, are largely over rated.

The fact that I did not see the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro does not diminish the value of the process that enabled me to come close to that goal.

We spend a lot of time in diocesan development work worrying about goals when we should be concerned about the process that we have developed and employed to actualize the goal.

“How much did you raise?”

A better question is:

“How will you go about raising the money?”

A better question.

Oh, and buy some Tanzanian coffee.  It is tasty.

The Pew is going to be empty for a bit.

Early next week, I leave for a two week trek to Tanzania to assault the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro.

At lot of people have been asking me “why?”

Apart from the deep love for that continent that I have had since age five, my answer has been simple:

“I like pushing myself.”

Challenging my mettle has been a latent development, forged in the fires of the advancement offices that I have directed. 

Our work is difficult.  Raising money in the best of circumstances is no cake walk.  Often, it is easier to do “what we have always done” as opposed to attempting innovation to improve performance.

Yeah, innovation is scary.  Yeah, innovation is hard.

Push yourself, you will like the view from the summit.

Keep your eyes open in the last week of January, have a really good series on direct mail in the hopper for you.

My Dad, Full of Hate

When I was a child, on Saturday evenings, my family would huddle around anHitachi television and watch an unending cavalcade of media offerings that mercy, and time, have rendered unto dust.

When I was a kid the television had two frequencies, UHF and VHF.

I still have memories of my otherwise brilliant and gentle father being reduced to an emotional slag heap as he did battle with the antenna in search of that elusive “perfect picture”.

UHF and VHF.

Diocesan development directors should be acquainted with that elusive donor frequency:  RFM.

Each and every constituent that spins in the diocesan development universe should have an assigned RFM value that reflects their recent contribution, the frequency of their contribution and the monetary value of their participation.

RFM:

Recent:  When was their last gift?

Frequency:  How often do they contribute?

Monetary: How much do they contribute, each time they contribute.

Development offices would do well to assign each of these categories (recent, frequency and monetary) values that reflect performance strength or weakness and then assign the resulting number to specific donors.

For example, a diocesan development office may assign a value of 1 – 5 for each category: 1 reflecting poor performance and 5 indicating optimal performance in the category.  A donor with a “555” rating indicates a donor who gives at optimal levels in all categories. 

Why these codes?

These codes can inform the collective action of a diocesan development team that could significantly change the behaviors of a great many donors.

How so?

I will let you know after I fix the antenna….