Check out the images here:
For some fundraisers, it was a pearl clutching moment, how could they? For the rest of us, we stood and applauded! After all, less than 40 percent of homes have landlines and if you look at younger generations, that number decreases significantly! I'm not suggesting here that you all go out tomorrow and slash and burn your phonathon rooms.
But let's think about it.
Stanford is listening to their donor base, examining their ROI and investing and divesting accordingly. Bravo. Of course they have a huge endowment worth billions, other fundraising challenges, especially after Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcasts on higher education fundraising. (Haven't listened? Go, NOW!)
But this begs a question I've been shouting about all along- Are we segmenting and communicating with donors in the channels they prefer? Phonathons don't fail because we can't find phone numbers, they fail because they're inefficient and don't respect donor preferences, a leftover relic from the days of the telethon and Jerry Lewis. I and many others are never ever going to give a gift via phonathon, no matter how much I like your callers, I'm an online donor. So why do you call me? I don't even answer the number if it isn't in my contacts or a previously scheduled call- Let's think about it- It costs a great deal of money to employ a calling program. Have them call donors who give via phonathon ONLY. Acquisition via phonathon is expensive. Same for retention.
I get it, there are people that live for the day a poorly scripted caller making above minimum wage and bonused in pizza and redbull calls them from a dank basement on their alma mater's campus, they live for that! (I still don't know any of those people)
But in any case, we should be attempting to convert them to monthly donors and online donors, not just calling 10 to 20 times until we bait them into answering!
What could we be doing instead? Let's see, an average phonathon can cost tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Imagine if we took 10% of that budget and put it into digital ad buys, promoted social media posts and engaging online collateral like video. We would again begin to be relevant. The problem isn't the phonathon or direct mail, it's that our programs are siloed and not integrated. It's that we're yelling into the wind and praying our donors are listening. With modern tools like EverTrue, Cerkl and others, we can find donors where they act, put them in the drivers seat and engage them based on their preferences.
Some say it's a revolutionary thing to say that Stanford is the first to eliminate their phonathon, but I have other clients that got rid of their calling programs a long time ago, they're just not Stanford. So it seems that they're on the leading edge. Or are they listening to their donors better than some of us? How are we proving that we are listening to our donors? Do we really know what they want? Are we honoring those preferences? I look forward to a robust debate in the comments, please keep it civil and remember somewhere on that beautiful campus in California there is a lonely basement. RIP. Comment away!
Cheers,
Lynne
Lynne. Love you, but you're dead wrong on this one. Stanford is not the standard bearer for the nonprofit industry. They are mega large with an endowment that makes traditional fundraising unnecessary. But for smaller nonprofits who don't have billion dollar endowments and funds, phonathons work and work extraordinarily well. And they don't all cost tens of thousands of dollars and the ROI is excellent. ROI for phonathons is far greater than the ROI for sad chicken dinner special events. For most nonprofits, phonathon is one of the tools they use to stay connected to their donors. And yes there are fewer landlines, but folks answer their cell phones and make phonathon pledges all the time from those non-landline phones. Phonathons retain, renew and upgrade donors better than many other strategies currently employed. And phonathons collect data from donors that organizations might not have access to. We learn about deceased spouses, graduations, weddings, divorces, and yes, all the time, bequests. Phonathons should be part of more organizations’ relationship fundraising strategies.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response and for providing the devil's advocate view! I wish I knew your name so I could respond personally. :) I agree phonathons have traditionally had their place and I by no means am holding Stanford as a standard bearer, however this piece is meant to stir conversation and enlist opinions and to begin a dialogue. I also am not promoting fundraising events, they have lower ROI than phonathons but we will and ARE seeing decline in phonathons nation wide and people need to come to terms with that. Remember not all donors want a phone call, just like any other strategy it HAS to be integrated! Cheers! Lynne
DeleteOlder gen...call. Younger gen...don't. You're both right!~
DeleteInteresting.....
ReplyDeleteThe comment above and this story both have valid points. To call or not to call isn't the question - it's listening to what the donor wants, period.
YAAAAS!!! You've got it!
Delete"Are we segmenting and communicating with donors in the channels they prefer?" is a valid question. But *honoring* donor preferences is different from *assuming* donor preferences. Pay attention to the effectiveness of all efforts, but keep what's working for you, folks. The key truly is INTEGRATION of these communication channels--but probably not abandoning any one of them. (although the aforementioned chicken dinner is a contender for extinction in my book as well!)
ReplyDeleteLOL so true David- I can't find any justification for ANY chicken dinner! LOL
DeleteAgreed. The phone still has it's place, I think that we, as an industry, need to start using the phone to do more than ask for money.
DeleteI agree with the replies and your post in that we need to employ multi-channel fundraising efforts that work for us and our donors. It all takes time to research, study data and test, and it all costs money. If you don't spend the time and money on every rational channel available to you -- and new channels are coming at us at a historically rapid pace -- you won't raise adequate funds for your university. Our Telefund program is still a workhorse for us, and we will continue to employ students to call prospects until it doesn't make sense. Some people have said for years that direct mail is dead. It isn't, if you do it right. Some people say e-soliciting doesn't work because their open rates are abysmal. But does that mean e-soliciting is dead or e-soliciting is an art that you need to master? I think the latter. I think we all have to do what works best with our donors because that's our job. Know your audience. We're not Stanford. We're Eastern, and we know what that means. Thanks for your insight, Lynne! ~ Pat
ReplyDeleteI love that we need to learn the new things better because we've had years to try to master the Phonathon!
DeleteI would like to see more info on how many iterations of this message have been sent, in what formats, and how the different audiences were determined. I've seen three separate versions, all with different content and tone. There is a lot of value in the "who, how and why" aspects of this move.
ReplyDeleteI've seen various versions as well Matthew! I hope they present on this topic! :)
DeleteI really love this post but have such mixed emotions about it. Sad, because as a caller in my university's phone room, I got my start in fundraising, and 10 years of college, the skills I learned when talking with alums are still used now with my donors, but happy, because as an alum in my early 30s, I really prefer not to get phone calls to give back to my alma mater. I take the calls because I was a former caller and I am a proud alum, but I'd much rather give in person, online, or even through the mail (I might be the only 32 year old who still checks my hard copy mail--I don't send checks, but might use a credit card to send back, or it spurs me to make my gift online). Sadly, my alma mater is moving away from mail, and only doing calls and online. I think that's the wrong way to go too. Either way, you're totally right--we MUST listen to our donors!
ReplyDeleteRobin,
DeleteI completely understand. It's hard to embrace change, but even you, a tried and true former caller doesn't give that way! time to put our ears to the ground and figure it out!! :) Love your story- thanks for sharing!
Bravo to Stanford and you Lynne! Someone had to hopefully say it and others will follow suit and end this archaic and intrusive practice should be put out to posture. I'm in your court.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jim!
DeleteI really enjoyed this post and I absolutely agree with you 100%. We need to modify our asks to the donor's preference. I feel like higher education institutions are slower than the business world to make changes that affect the bottom line. For instance, our last two appeals that went out via mail (letter, and an insert about how their donation makes an impact) received less than a .05% response. The cost of the mailer was more than we received in donations for two consecutive quarters. Now, why would we do this for a 3rd quarter? The answer is because we always have done it. I come from a business background, not higher education, and I am blown away on the operations that continue to be implemented even though the numbers aren't there to support the overhead. I love reading your blogs; you continue to inspire me! Cheers! - Kaylynn
ReplyDeleteWe've always done it that way is so dangerous! Thanks Kaylynn
DeletePreach! Loved reading this; happy to know a prestigious university is making a move and paving the way here. Smaller universities like ours tend to look for good results before we jump in, too. :) Lord knows we could all use more budget for digital and I'd love to hire more students on that end of things, too. #formerphonathoner
ReplyDeleteAGREE!!
DeleteIn my experience, phonathons have not been effective. The ROI was deplorable and the negative responses received were not worth the expense. Whether or not there is an endowment, or a volunteer base to execute a phonation program is certainly not the point. Donor-centric fund raising is critical to any NP's success. You need to take the time to get to know you donor base, understand why they are, or want, to invest in your program/mission and go from there. Money better spent this way rather than by phonathans. Callers cannot possibly build the relationship that will last over time. Sure they could successfull close some gifts, but what substance is there for future encounters?
ReplyDeleteThe answer will be different for all of us, how we get there will be similar. People give to people. Invest your limited budget wisely when engaging your prospect pool. The more you connect with them where they are, the more successful your fund raising will be.
I don't know if killing the Stanford phone program is good for Stanford. We don't have enough information. However, making a decision about how to contact ALL alumni based on what SOME alumni want is just plain stupid. We need to engage people in the way they wish to be engaged. In other words, this is a fine example of how segmentation of the database could make a great deal of sense. By way of example, I'll just mention that my wife actually looks forward to receiving an annual call from one of the students at Smith College.
ReplyDeleteI have more to say about the Stanford story. Readers can checkout my blog post here: “Stop Pretending that You Work for Stanford!” http://wp.me/p1h0KY-Vr .