Category: marketing

Nonprofit mailings need more quality, less quantity

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

The United States Post Office has a nice service called “informed delivery.” People who sign up for it get an email each morning that shows them an image of each mail piece or package set to be delivered that day. It’s a nice heads-up feature for anyone looking for some important mail. As one who uses the service, I find myself often looking at the email and saying “again?!”

A stack of various envelopes, including a white envelope labeled 'BILL ENCLOSED' and several colored envelopes in the background.

It makes sense that an organization will send a thank-you and acknowledgment of a recent gift. It also is to be expected they would ask past donors to consider another contribution. But the frequency of these mailings from individual organizations often exceeds what is reasonable. As a result, the mailings defeat their purpose to generate another response. The likely response to being flooded is to toss or shred the mailing unread in an inevitable “cry wolf” effect.

The frequency of mailings from each organization is made worse by the number of mailings from multiple organizations. I contribute to a number of nonprofit organizations. Of course this places me on their mailing list. But because organizations sell or share mailing lists, or addresses appear in the database of professional mailing houses that serve nonprofit organizations, my name gets added to the mailing lists of organizations I have never given to or even heard of.

This all adds up to a pile of mail, and my conclusion that nonprofit mailings need less quantity and more quality.. Part of my past career doing public relations work for nonprofit organizations included direct mail fundraising letters. So I offer some suggestions as a consumer as well as a professional in this arena.

  • Segment by recency, frequency, and quantity. It is conventional advice that organizations should segment their publics and avoid the folly of thinking there is a “general public”. In nonprofit fundraising, this means having a database and using it strategically. Sending mail, and writing corresponding content, that considers how recently someone gave, how often they historically give, and how much they typically give is just common sense. Asking someone to give when their last contribution has not even appeared on their bank statement or credit card bill is annoying. Taking them off the list for a period is respectful and likely will have more response. A targeted letter to lapsed donors, those who have missed a pattern of regular giving, can also be effective if written well to acknowledge the appreciation of past giving and asking if there is a reason the contributions have stopped. Related to recency is frequency. Some people give monthly, while others prefer to give quarterly or annually. Once organization I support smartly recognizes that I give each July and they send me a reminder appeal shortly before then. Finally, appeals should be written differently to groups of donors according to they amount they have given or have potential to give. A letter to a wealthy individual with check boxes for $10 or $100 is a missed opportunity. Asking for a large gift from someone of modest means will cause offense or distress.
  • Match donor intent and cause. When I worked for an NGO, we allowed donors to support specific staff, projects or a country where we worked. This gave donors more agency and the opportunity to feel more engaged with the organization. It also matched their preferences and considered why the donor gives and not just what the organization needs. If a donor gave to a project that was fully funded, we let them know and offered to return the gift or redirect it to something else of the donor’s choosing.
  • Be a relational vs transactional nonprofit. Corporations that make and sell products or services talk about what type of brand they are. Transactional brands merely offer a product or service in exchange for payment. That’s fine in some product categories and industries. Others seek to be a relational brand, where there are repeat customers who engage with the company in ways beyond a purchase and actually have relationship with company representatives. Some of the nonprofits I support achieve this relational status well. I receive correspondence not from some nameless organization, or even a development director, but directly from a person in the field doing what the nonprofit mission is. Often it was that person and my association with them that encouraged me to give in the first place. But the ongoing relationship also keeps me on the list of engaged supporters.
  • Manage the report to request ratio. I wrote above about the instinct to shred or trash mail from nonprofits who flood my mailbox too frequently. One way to encourage me–and others–to open mail is to ensure that some mailings do not request more contributions at all, or do so subtly. Instead, they report on what the organization has done with the support, in what specific ways have they been accomplishing their mission. There may be some people who give to nonprofits to feel good about themselves and say they support an organization. However, most want to know that their contribution housed the homeless, fed the hungry, established a church, rescued animals or in any other way demonstrate impact. The best way to do this is with storytelling–personal stories where the beneficiaries of the organization’s mission are front and center demonstrating positive change in their lives as a result of the organization doing what it says it does. Direct mail letters can include these stories in a letter, or in a newsletter or annual report. A giving envelope can be included without fanfare so donors can choose to give. But the purpose of such communications on a regular basis should be accountability.

In addition to this advice for organizations, I have advice for people like me who want to support nonprofits but get annoyed by the flood of direct mail funding appeals. People can go to DirectMail.com and fill out a form to be taken off mailing lists. But I would rather have people become strategic donors and reward organizations who do the above.

Essentially, I would encourage people to select a set number of organizations they want to support. Even do what I do and develop a spread sheet. Then indicate the annual amount (or monthly or what makes sense for you) to give to each organization. The total would be your annual charitable giving, which may equal the “tithe” percentage of income that Christians are encouraged to consider when giving. This helps to plan, stay committed to giving, report on taxes if you itemize, and mostly allows you to sort mail and discard organizations you have not pre-determined to support.

Criteria for giving are up to individuals but I suggest the following:

  • Obviously, select thoughtfully the types of causes you want to support. Religious, arts, environmental, political or anything else that means the most to you.
  • Investigate if the organization is responsible. One metric is the percentage of funding that goes to mission vs operations. A good standard is 80-20. Sometimes a donor can feel like they are merely paying for the next package to come in the mail to ask them for more. Guidestar is a good online resource of third-party data to vet nonprofits before committing to giving to them.
  • Do you actually know someone who works for the organization? This is not necessary, but it can help ensure you are entering into more of a relationship than a transaction.
  • Does the organization match what is recommended above in terms of the frequency and contents of direct mail communications?

If all of the above are practiced, I suggest it would lead to less frustrated donors and more effective nonprofits.

“Anti-woke” messaging on the rise as brands position by ideology

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

If I ask a group of students whether or not a company or organization should take a stand on a social issue, there is universal agreement. If I ask them which stand an organization should take, there is little more than blank stares.

The same phenomenon is likely true of adults at large. Everyone makes the self-righteous  assumption that organizations need to take a stand that is consistent with their personal opinion, beliefs and values. But what if a an organization proclaims position A when you are strongly aligned with position B? 

Perhaps this is why a recent Gallup poll notes that “fewer Americans want businesses wading into current events.“

However, if you read that poll commentary you see that democrats are most likely to encourage organizations take a public stance. Relating to my initial point, that is because the stance organizations take is usually left leaning. The left has dominated issue advocacy in terms of which stances organizations take because the left dominates social institutions including government, entertainment, news media, education and now corporations.

Given that left-wing dominance, the stances are often aligned with what is culturally called “woke” perspective. This general term correlates specifically to the alphabet soup of DEI (Diversity, Equity Inclusion), ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and of late advocacy for a particular perspective on matters of sex and gender.

Stances in accord with so-called woke philosophy are no longer seen as a potential, they are stressed as inevitable. This may be a good time for a conservative turn on a woke-ish neo-Marxist statement: we need to dismantle the hegemonic structures of institutional, systemic left power. 

I have noticed the beginning of a dismantling, or at least the emergence of alternative stances on social issues. This of course causes rage among the very people who used to say “speak your truth,” “marketplace of ideas,” or even “silence is violence.” 

So if the dominant left is demanding a stance be taken, the unwavering right is responding in kind.

The first company I noticed doing this is Jeremy’s Razors.  When Harry’s, a decidedly leftist company, stopped advertising on the Daily Wire due to “values misalignment,” co-founder Jeremy Boreing started Jeremy’s Razors to embrace that difference. The advertising copy has been boldly touting its products specifically as anti-woke. Recently the company has taken on and called out companys from Hershey’s to Braun for their extreme wokism and offered alternative products with that selling point.

In the career recruitment space, the company Red Balloon offers what it calls the “#1 woke-free job board in America.” It has an ad titled “It’s time to grow up and get back to work” that features children sarcastically saying what they look forward to in a workplace and career that mocks the woke culture pervading workplaces. 

Patriot Mobile advertises itself as the only “Christian conservative wireless provider.” They call out the corporate philanthropy of other wireless carriers that support causes in conflict with conservative and Christian values.

Another example is Public Square, a shopping site to rival Amazon that expresses its values as “Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Freedom.” Businesses that share those values can add themselves to the site, and consumers who share those values can shop knowing they are patronizing like-minded business owners. Don’t overlook the meaning of the name Public Square, which refers to a democratic philosophy that all ideas should be able to be expressed, not censored.

These are just a handful of examples of companies that are speaking out on social issues with an anti-woke set of values. There are others and will likely be more. It is hard to say if ideology forward positioning is a trend or a permanent feature of public relations, advertising, marketing and business plans from now on. 

For now though, the messaging is beyond the basics of features and benefits and price point. The target publics are defined more by ideology and social opinion than need for a product or service. The question is moving from whether or not a company should take a stand on a social issue, to determining which stand to take. 

Sales and stock prices were down for Target and Bud Light after famous social values marketing earlier this year. However, some other brands have continued such overt messaging.

I personally think this segmenting of businesses and publics, making social values the primary message and brand distinction, will lead to more divisiveness writ large. It’s why I have previously advocated for companies to have the courage to remain neutral. 

But if one “side” in the market keeps pushing a woke message, the other sides will understandably set themselves apart and offer their own deeply held perspectives. In the marketplace of ideas there are many ideas, ideologies, values and beliefs. They are all being expressed. It’s called diversity. 

Marketing: A Public Relations Discipline

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 3.11.59 PM

It caught me off guard for 2.3 seconds. I was just starting a radio interview about something public relations related, I don’t remember what any more. But I do remember the host getting us started by asking me: “First, what’s the difference between PR and marketing?”

I had not expected the question. But I should have. Because people get confused. Some use the terms interchangeably. Even some professional trade publications assert–incorrectly in my view– that “PR is a marketing discipline.” Others talk about work they do as “marketing and public relations” in a way that implies PR is only media relations, another minimizing error.

So what IS the difference? In the radio interview I stated that marketing is about all the activities that are required to bring a product or service to market, whereas public relations is much more broad in terms of developing and maintaining mutual relationships with many publics, not just customers.

I discuss this in my classes. As simplistic graphic above shows, marketing runs deeper in terms of bringing products and services to market, to reach consumers, with the objective of sales. Marketers engage in product development, packaging design, consumer behavior research, channels of distribution, economic analysis, pricing strategy and other aspects of what have been called the 4 Ps.

Public relations overlaps with marketing in terms of one public–consumers–and one of the 4 Ps–promotion. The tactics of both professions overlap in what is often called marketing communications, or MARCOMS.

But professions are not defined by their tactics. A mechanic, carpenter, electrician, and plumber may all use the same tools at one time or another. But they have different objectives.

So, PR has a limited contribution to marketing in terms of promotion. But in terms of objectives and publics it is considerably broader. As the graphic above shows, public relations is concerned with relationships, not only sales. Positive, honest, ethical, mutual relationships lead to good things with many publics, including sales to consumers, but also employee retention, investor confidence, community support, and more.

A fellow public relations professor who works in California said recently on social media that “marketing should report to public relations.” Exactly, for the reasons indicated above. It is broader and inclusive of marketing in terms of publics of interest and overall objectives. Another way of saying that is that marketing is a public relations discipline.

There are lots of opinions on this issue. This is just my take, albeit shared by many PR professionals and faculty with whom I speak regularly. But overall, the two professions need to have a mutual respect for each other, not demonizing or minimizing what the other does. I teach my PR students the basics of business and marketing (as well as addressing nonprofit management and the political landscape), and I am always pleased when marketing programs explain PR as something more than a product news release.