Terrible ideas for Face to Face programs thought up by people who clearly have never done any face to face

During my time as an account manager for a face to face agency I learned that all new client contacts would go through a similar journey at the start of their tenure.  They would start off over compensating for their initial discomfort in working with F2F. They would eulogise about the benefits and even offer to go out and campaign with the team (although when push came to shove this rarely happened). This enthusiasm is really positive and should only be encouraged, but the stage that followed was just a little awkward.

After 3-6 months they would often try to start suggesting “innovations” to the program.  There is nothing wrong with innovation, but the issue was that these “improvements” would never make sense to anyone with any experience of the practicalities of running a team of Fundraisers on the street. Oddly their seemed to be a psychic connection between these clients that forced them to suggest the same ideas one after the other.  So if you are new to your job running an F2F program, please take note not to suggest the ideas below, this will save you uncomfortable exasperated conversations with you account managers.

Balloons and/or sweets

A fairly innocuous one to start with. The idea behind it seems to be a way of attracting children to a shopping Centre stall.  If the children are there then they surely the parents will want to stick around, listen to the pitch and sign up. The first comes from the assumption that parents want their children to accept candy from strangers, generally the opposite is advised. Accusations of bribery are also likely to follow and you’ll be lucky to find a shopping centre that wants its aisles covered in deflated balloons or sweet wrappers. Last but not least, public liability insurers tend to look unfavourably on the use of compressed gas and choking hazards around members of the public.

Thank you for listening cards

There is some logic behind this.  It’s certainly true that a large number of people ask for more information on the streets and so giving them a reminder pointing them to a website might work.  Sadly though, of the people who ask for more information, most are just doing it to politely get out of the conversation and have no intention of ever giving to your charity. Of the rest some will want to sign up when given a little more information from the fundraiser and those with a genuine desire to do some deep research will do so without a card to remind them.  What the thank you for listening card does do is give the fundraiser, especially a new one, a false sense of success. When asked how they’re doing, they tell you that they’ve had a brilliant day because although they haven’t signed anyone up, eh have given out 400 cards.  Thank you for listening cards do have a couple of great uses however; for handing to people who are inappropriate to sign up while leaving them on a good note and for getting rid of time wasters

Funky pitch cards

Pitch cards, for those who don’t know, are an A3 or A4 laminated cards used help Fundraisers out when they can’t remember what they’re supposed to say next or to point at for emphasis. They’re simplicity sadly makes them ripe for pointless reinvention attempts.  There have been a variety of things tried which remind me of early attempts to redesign airplanes, you know the ones that have 14 sets of wings stacked on top of each other and look really impressive for 3 seconds before they crash and burn killing all on board. To my knowledge no ones ever been killed by a pitch card, but the heroic failure can’t be counted, even with my socks off.  I’ve seen pitch cards with intricate folding mechanisms that make it impossible for the fundraiser to open.  I’ve seen pitch booklets that allow the fundraiser to choose a variety of topics to talk about, if they can convince the donor to stick around long enough for them to find the write page. Pitch cards with interchangeable sheets sounded like a cost effective way of keeping them up to date before it was realised that interchangeable was a synonym for easily losable.

Other innovations that crop up quite frequently include getting the agency to Fundraisers “interesting” locations like music festivals (the people who chose talking to fundraisers over spending time with their friends or watching band are rarely sober or serious).  Suggesting changes to the agency’s payment model that would see the agency go under in a week while favouring the client.  One of the few ideas from a client I really liked was when a client told me that account manager role we were recruiting for was drastically underpaid and we wouldn’t find anyone decent for that salary. Although on second thoughts this was maybe a comment on my skills.

There is also a special place in hell left for the client who revises their “product” without warning or consultation, but that in itself will get its own post.

As mentioned at the top of the article, innovation is a good thing, as is that naive optimism that generated these is also to be encouraged.  It only becomes a problem when the client enforces a bad idea on an agency.  Working collaboratively with them will see much better results for all involved.

The Donor’s Decision to Cancel (and Buckaroo)

A lot of the posts in here have been about point of recruitment, that moment when someone decides to join your organisation and donate to you, but what about the other end of the journey, the cancellation point. This is harder to talk about,  but in many ways more important.

We all dream of recruiting donors who stay on until they die, but the reality is that most of our donors will decide to cancel at some point and the more we know about their reasons for doing so, the better equipped we are to stop them. There are a few different pathways to the cancellation, but let’s start with the most common the donor decision to stop giving.

This journey to the cancellation point generally starts with a mild discomfort. Its fairly safe to assume that to a greater or lesser extent this mild discomfort is present in most if not all of your donors. If your totally honest with yourself you’re also likely to notice this in your own giving patterns. There is often a nagging part of your brain that asks if money is best directed towards The Human Fund or would putting it towards Far Cry 3 be a better investment. It doesn’t make you or your donors a bad person, it makes you and normal.

These nagging moments are usually prompted by something, which for dramatic effect we’ll call “straws”( as in those things that break camel’s backs, a metaphor I will decline in a couple of paragraphs). These straws come in several basic categories.

Specific Personal Straws

Something that affects the individual and probably none of your other donors.  This could be loosing a Job, a big bill coming in, saving for something. It could even be someone having a getting out of bed on the wrong side. 

Values Straws

Anyone who’s been to a school reunion will vouch that people change over time; their priorities change, their start to care about new things and stop caring about some other things. They may have may have starter giving to your environmental organisation when they were an idealistic geology student with dreadlocks, but now they work for a mining company, they not so hot on you. On the other hand it could be that your organisation has changed and the donor hasn’t changed in the same way,

Public Straws

These are things that affect people on a wider scale. The most obvious example would be the GFC. But others could be along the lines of the natural disasters, cost of living increases, changes in legislation etc…

Communication Straws

This is a specific thing that the organisation has done which has annoyed the donor.  This cold be on the level of organisational mission such as policy the donor dislikes or negative media involving your organisation. Or it could be the way in which you’ve interacted with then from the tone of a letter they received or an-opt out auto upgrade.

Now imagine the game, Buckaroo.  If you don’t know the game it involves placing bits little plastic items on a spring loaded plastic mule.  One wrong move or too much weight and the mule kicks and who ever placed the last piece is the loser. The crucial thing is you never know what is going to be too much, it could be the first piece or the tenth piece.  The more items are placed on the mule, the more chance the next piece will set off the mule.

Now, prepare for a stretched metaphor.

Donor’s decision to cancel is a lot like the game.  Their donation is the mule; the different straws are the items.  The straws are placed on the mule, without you knowing what’s being placed, when it’s being placed or whether it’s being placed in a way that sets off the mule. You do know however that different items are being placed on the mule at all times and as time passes, the more items are being added. When the mule kicks, the donor cancels and you both loose.

You’re not privy to the any of the pressures being put on the donor’s desire to give and each donor will be loaded to spring under a slightly different weight.  You do know that as time passes and more items are being placed on the mule, the more chance there is of the next piece setting off the mule.  This means you have to be ready for the mule to spring at any time. Identifying the potential influences, especially the ones that  tip donors over the edge most regularly, will help in objection handling with individuals. The bigger question is how we can use our knowledge of the model to improve our retention long term.