Purple Patch Blog

What to do when people are talking about you, not to you …

By Dawn Varley

This week I had two very different customer experiences, one very good and one very bad. What was really interesting was how I talked about them (you know that a good story spreads, but a bad story spreads faster…), and how they then unfolded – all thanks to my new best friend, twitter.

On Monday I was working from home, in part because things just fell that way, and in part because I was expecting a delivery. One that had been due to arrive the previous Friday, but had failed to show. As a fairly recent convert to twitter (c 3months and loving it) I tweeted my annoyance, mentioned the company, and got a tweet reply saying ‘We will be in touch, thanks’. Wow, I thought, that’s fast, and was happy it was being sorted. But I heard nothing after that, and so went ahead and re-arranged delivery online. Slightly annoying, but all good so far, or so I thought.

Monday arrived, and although I had parcels to take to the Post Office for relatives in Australia (it was last posting day for Christmas) I duly sat and waited. And waited. Whilst I waited my mobile rang, and it was a very bouncy chap calling from Christian Aid, following up my text donation to their mosquito net appeal. He launched into his script, and was furiously thanking me for my support, so much so that I had a hard time trying to butt in. Thank you, I said, but I was called a couple of months back after the original text, and I said then I didn’t want any more calls. He apologised, said it would be noted, and rang off. I was a bit annoyed about being disturbed this way, as I think if I’ve told you how I want to be contacted you should record it and stick to it. And I used to work for Christian Aid, so I know the CRM system can and does record ‘Do not phone’ flags. Indeed I used to import them onto the system. So, guess what I did? Yep, I tweeted. It was a polite tweet, but it did name check Christian Aid, whilst pointing out how important it is to record donor preferences. And then I got back to waiting for my delivery (Post Office now closed, sorry Aus rels, your parcels will be late)… Monday evening came and went. No delivery in sight, so another tweet, and a big complaint email, sent to the company.

Tuesday arrived and all was quiet from the delivery company. But I got a lovely reply from Christian Aid, asking for my details so they could investigate the problem with the lack of call suppression. I was very impressed. Not only is that good customer service, it’s good customer service via a channel that they have to pro-actively listen too. After all, I was talking about them, not to them. But they still heard, knew it was important to resolve, and got in touch. A few direct messages later and the mystery was revealed – a duplicate record for me on the system. As a database person I can understand that – it happens. One record was my full supporter details with name and address, and the other just my name and mobile number. I wouldn’t let the system merge me on that basis  - it could be two different people. The nice folks at Christian Aid explained that, apologised, and set to sorting it. Fantastic. I of course duly name checked them and their great supporter care in a tweet, am likewise thanking them now, and may even use this as a case study for a future seminar. Good stories can go far.

The moral of this story I think is that, whatever your business, delivering parcels to customer, or selling your cause to supporters, these days you have to be where the conversations about you are happening. And that’s facebook and twitter as the headline social media arenas. And you can’t just broadcast, you have to listen. And if you hear your name you should reply, in the right circumstances, but ideally you should also record those interactions. If I’m talking about you on twitter then I’m telling people about you – that’s an important piece of information to know. Ideally you should record that on your CRM – but I don’t know many organisations who are. Are you? I wonder if Christian Aid is. I think they just might, they seem to be savvy folks.

As for my delivery, as I arrived home late Tuesday evening I passed a very annoyed delivery man coming out of my block, wheeling away my parcel. I managed to intercept it and all is now sorted. Not sure I’ll be taking my business back there again in a hurry though. Sometimes the corporate world can learn from the not for profit one, and this is a case in point.

 

 

 

That was the (fundraising) week that was...

by Dawn Varley (@nfpdawnv)

Sunday evening, and thinking about the new week ahead... Or rather, I should be but I feel I've only just recovered from the week that just was. Don't get me wrong, it was a fabulous week as I spent a full three days at the Institute of Fundraising National Convention, with over 2,000 other fundraisers, talking about all things fundraising (or rather, not quite all things fundraising*). But all the listening, pondering, agreeing, questioning, tweeting (I made it into the top 10 tweeters - 2 months ago I didn't even see why I should be on twitter...), networking, 'small world-ing' and more meant it took its toll on mind and body. So, if you didn't make it, or indeed even if you did, I've shared some learnings below that I hope will make you think - as they did me. And read on after that for how the week ended!

• Ken Burnett, Alan Clayton & Giles Pegram CBE (fundraising royalty - shouldn't be allowed in the same room at the same time) held an amazing 'pull no punches' session entitled 'Think BIG!' in which they told us all that 'fundraising is [currently] a very shallow profession'; that we have sub-contracted out talking to our donors; and that we should stop apologising for fundraising'. WOW. Alan Clayton encouraged us all to be a lion/lioness fundraiser, who isn't afraid to roar - and who certainly doesn't move around every 18 months. Fundraisers need to 1) Make Decisions; 2) Commit yourself; and 3) Invest long-term. A lot of what was said I fully agreed with, and look forward to roaring re fundraising strategy very soon.
• A session on 'Naked ROI' (no disrobing involved) looked at the oft-talked of, and little understood/defined, 'Lifetime Value' (LTV). John Baguley (IFC) and Charlie Keep (Freedom from Torture) gave a brilliant session on understanding the value of your donors (financial and non-financial, as campaigning/event activity counts!) , what is important and what not (organisation dependant) and how to calculate it. The maths blew the mind a tad, but real food for thought and a great reminder that to work all this magic you need good data, which requires a decent CRM system, and required joined up thinking with your fundraising strategy. Easy then...
• Two great sessions came from different angles on the new fundraising buzz phrase in town 'crowd-sourcing'. Nick Burne from Think, Ed Whiting from WeDidThis.org.uk, and Tamasine Johnson from the National Trust's 'MyFarm' project were out and proud about it, and Tamasine was especially honest about what has (as yet) failed to translate into a real success for the NT (a foray into social media, and on a topic which has done more to alter perceptions of the NT than raise money - Ken Burnett would call that a fail, as per the 'Think BIG!' session). Ultimately crowd-sourcing (or crowd funding) means going to wider public to support/fund/power projects and make them happen. This is micro-projects with people power, vs mega-projects run by organisations. Interesting take on things, but I may be with Ken on the effectiveness of it vs 'traditional fundraising'. Depends on how you value engagement in your LTV model perhaps (see what I did there?)
• The next day AJ Leon (LaC Project), a 'rogue fundraiser' from the US, held a session about 'unfundraising'. This quickly unfolded to me as a very closely related cousin to the 'crowd-funding' theme stated above - by involving & inspiring others to be evangelical about your project, spread the word, etc they then do the fundraising for you. The idea works on a micro-project model, reports in real time from the projects concerned (a $100 'back alley' phone was handed to village resident so he could blog - he did, and it so worked), and allows supporters to sign-up to a project and be part of a project community. Hmm, I see how it works, I see how it inspires, and I see how small projects are easy to move - but that vs the experience of organisations who have been doing this for years, with the infrastructure, the experience and the ability to get economies of scale? I think my gut tells me to stick with the old school method, in terms of maximising beneficiary reach. But if you're talking engagement and empowerment of supporters, then I guess you go the other way. Interesting indeed, in terms of what social media means for fundraising.
• The last session to mention here was from another fundraising guru, Adrian Sargeant, and Jen Shang ('Professor of Philanthropic Psychology' - only in America!), about using psychology in fundraising asks. So you call up to join/make a donation and you are told 'Mary joined last week and gave $300' - in the hope that this will make you up your game against a simple 'how much would you like to donate'. And it did increase uplift, giving an average gift of $112 against the no-prompt control of less than $100...But at what cost to the donors self-esteem? Maybe I'm a sensitive soul, but would it be better to let the donor decide rather than make them feel bad about not being able to give $300? Discuss. Prompts, communities ('symbolic social identity') and smilies (male response rates saw significant increase when a row of 'smilies' lasered on response form. No such uplift for the ladies!) all figured in this interesting, but to me, slightly manipulative, session. But hey, I'm sure you're just going to tell me that's what fundraising is all about...

* So, great convention. Lots learned, lots to consider and lots to take back to the office. BUT. One thing really stood out to me - and it's the * bit. Whilst fundraising was considered from almost every angle, what seemed lacking across all three days was time dedicated to the systems that underpin matters under discussion. Technology didn't get a look in, aside from social media and fundraising software/methods such as online & SMS. What about where your donor data resides? Does your CRM reflect your fundraising stategy? How do you tie all the streams of donor info together? Etc, etc. Still waiting for sessions on the above. Maybe next year. In fact maybe Purple Vision should start writing the session pitch right now.

To see how it all unfolded this year search for #iofnc on twitter.

Oh, and as for how the week ended after 3 full days of fundraising at the start... with the News of the World implosion - and subsequent offer to charities for free advertising space and/or donations of revneue to 'good causes'. How's that for a trustee challenge, ethical-dilemma, short-term gain vs long-term reputation, fundraising question? And with a response required in 24 hours. Twitter and online debate forums lit up like Christmas trees. Brilliant, but exhausting.

You simply can't take the fun out of fundraising. Love it.

The new era: Social CRM explained

Can you answer the following questions?

• What is the online profile of your donorbase?
• What is the ROI of your new media budget?
• What are people tweeting about your organisation right now?
• Have you considered using an iPhone app?
• What % of internet statistics are made up?
• How do you know what to believe?

Apparently, there’s another e-revolution going on!  Are you up to speed?  Ahead of the curve?  On the bandwagon?  It’s easy to feel alarmed by experts with sensational claims and exciting ideas that don’t seem to relate to the reality of your next newsletter or fundraising event.

 

But, despite the hype and fads, we believe that online social media does represent a profound change in the relationship between supporters and non-profit organisations.  This is not because the internet is cheaper or faster or funkier than the old methods; it’s because your supporters can get what they need without you!

 

  

Despite the theory, under the model of CRM in use by most fundraisers today, relationships are, in fact, geared around the cause and not the supporter.  Think about it; who decides what the key issues are, which people might be interested, and when to launch communications?  But with social networking tools like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the balance of power has shifted to your supporters.

 

In the past, if your supporter wanted to find out about one of your fundraising events, they visited your web site.  If they wanted to complain about you, they wrote you a letter. If they wanted to find like-minded supporters, they phoned and you might direct them to a local volunteer branch. Now, they do all of these things without you even knowing!

 

  

Maybe you have already encountered social media and tried it out for yourself?  You probably have your own Facebook page or Twitter account? And perhaps you have identified ways to exploit it for your organisation?  But do you know how this affects all your other fundraising activities?  How does it relate to your events, your campaigns, your service delivery, and all that information in your CRM system?

 

 

See our full article at http://www.purple-vision.com/news-item.asp?Auto_ID=34

What is the point of the Single Supporter View?

At the IoF IT Group Conference yesterday, I was involved in a discussion on the "single supporter view". As the debate progressed, it became apparent that some people were talking about IT and database intergaration, whist others were re-examining the concept itself.

Especially in light of new ideas in online fundraising based aroud social networks, I wonder if the accepted wisdom of the centralisation of data, also known as the 360-degree view, is still valid?

Are you in favour or not? And what's the point of it anyway?

To prompt discussion, I've created a LinkedIn poll. Please cast your vote at:
http://polls.linkedin.com/p/38072/pkouv

And/or simply post your thoughts here ...

"It will never work"

We’ve been working on a project recently that aims to change the culture of a complex medium-sized organisation and create a customer-centric culture.

I can already hear you crying “don’t bother”! But before you scroll down to the comments window to tell me it will never work, let me share with you some comments from one of the working groups about their interactions with colleagues when introducing business process redesign:

“when told what successful CRM systems can achieve, they are very positive about it, and give every indication of committing to the change”

“it is difficult for people to visualise something that is not yet in place and the benefits need to be neatly described to those who don’t know much about CRM”

“can we think of quick and dirty examples of how the CRM will change the face of [the organisation] if we were all to sign up to it 100%. This is what we could look like it 3 years time ... paint the picture and tell the story maybe?”

“I think some of them will come from organisations that have successfully implemented CRM systems and can evangelise about them”

When I hear comments like these it brings a real sense of satisfaction and achievement. At Purple Vision we spend a lot of our time evangelising the benefits of real CRM (ie not just the database) to clients and others who typically see it as a just a technology solution.

Real CRM is about building a shared attitude where an organisation collectively places its customer (aka stakeholder, client, supporter, donor) at the centre of it’s work. We reckon CRM should be about 25% TECHNOLOGY, with the rest of the effort going in to PROCESS and PEOPLE.

The members of this project team are experiencing this for themselves – and reflecting it in their enthusiasm to spread the word! This is really encouraging for the chances of success for this organisation's ambitious plans.

OK, now you can be cynical (sorry, realistic) …