A weeks back, I posted some envelopes from Uncle Maynard's Treasure Trove of Direct Mail Knowledge that featured textures.
A number of commenters noted the teaser on one of the envelopes, this one from CARE:
Wait a minute, they asked. How exactly does that work? How can it possibly be sustainable?
Good question.
CARE is not the only organization using this tactic in direct mail fundraising. Quite a few large national fundraisers use this, and have been using it for several years. The fact that we see this we'll never ask again approach repeatedly and over time tells us one thing: It works.
Here's how: These letters don't automatically drop donors off their list after one gift. They require the donor to opt out of future asks. See how it's handled on the reply device:
I don't have any inside knowledge about these mailings, so I'll make some semi-educated guesses about them:
- The tactic probably increases response rate.
- It probably gets a lower average gift, and that may depress long-term value and/or future retention.
- The number of donors who opt out is probably small.
The organizations doing this are sophisticated. I'm pretty sure they're watching the long-term value of these donors, and finding it acceptable.
In my experience, giving donors choices about how your relationship will be has a positive influence on later retention. And this package offers choices.
This fundraising tactic is probably not stupid or crazy. Even though it might seem so at first glance.
But I still have a problem with it.
I think it insidiously undermines the brand of the organization. It all but says, We'd rather let more children go hungry than bother you with junk mail. The amount of mail a donor gets matters not at all compared to causes like poverty. That's just a truth, and I think we should live that truth out by finding donors who care about our causes and mailing them as often as necessary. (Respecting their wishes, of course.)
In fact, I think when you send messages that you know your mail is unwanted, you start a self-fulfilling cycle that not only undermines your brand but the brand of fundraising in general. You encourage donors to think of fundraising messages as an undesirable commodity. Not important messages about real issues -- which is what they should be.
If I'm right about this, there's really no way to prove it.
Except maybe this: If we're systematically undermining the premise of fundraising, we might see generally dropping response rates and retention.
Which is exactly what's happening.
Bottom line: We'll never ask again may be an effective fundraising tactic, but I think it's a poison pill that will hurt in the long run.
