As humans we like to be acknowledged and
there is no doubt that referring to me as an individual trumps being treated
like a number. But can we do better? Can we connect with supporters and engage
them beyond the rational - references like the date I first donated - or more personal
than using the name of my dog or cat?
Maybe we could learn a thing or two from
the commercial sector – specifically the hotel industry. At a recent stay in a
boutique hotel (which I could afford based on a special rate) a handwritten
note was waiting for me in my room.
My emotional response was to feel special and
a little bit important. The gesture differentiated
my experience of this hotel from others I had stayed in. It’s clearly a
better choice than the hotel with the moldy shower and the concierge with
tomato sauce stains on his tie. And in such a comparison – assuming similar
price points – it’s the clear winner.
However, does this hotel compare favourably
to hotels of a similar calibre; boutique hotels which also employ tried and
tested tactics to engage customers with a personal touch? How does that
handwritten note - and the ethically sourced, Fairtrade chocolate sitting on my
pillow - compare to my experience in a competitor’s hotel?
Let’s bring it back to fundraising: how
will the handwritten with-comps-slip from CEO ‘A’ compare to the note from CEO ‘B’?
Both organisations are sophisticated enough to know that I’ve supported their
cause for three years and they each know the name of my dog (Rover). Each CEO is
profoundly grateful for my support and hopes that I’ll donate again today. What
will differentiate my experience of one
organisation from the other?
What if CEO ‘A’ had notes from every conversation
I’d ever had with the charity and those notes were used to inspire a more
engaging message or a more valuable phone call? If we knew a grandchild’s name
or the age of their children would we use that information? Knowledge of a
changed address or Rover’s visit to the vet might provide a good conversation
topic or an opportunity to ask further questions. Undoubtedly supporter service
teams speak to people everyday who share such information and who would be more
deeply engaged with a signatory who treated them like a person – not a donor.
When I checked out of the hotel I had the
welcome note in my hand with the intention to ask the concierge how the process
worked. Before I was able to broach the subject he asked me: “were you happy
with the window in your room, Mr Bailey?” Apparently in a phone conversation three weeks earlier
I had mentioned that I prefer a room with a window and this information was
available to him the moment I told him my room number. On my third stay I was
asked if I needed anything printed ahead of my presentation and if the busy tax
appeal workload had eased up yet.
The point to this discussion isn’t that
personal engagement is important. For me, the lesson we can learn is in the
system employed by the hotel. An emotionally engaging approach needs to be
systematically structured to ensure information is collected and used
effectively. Team members need to be trained to engage supporters and to
intuitively record conversations. And a CEO needs to subscribe to the approach
and embrace it.
Most organisations use personalisation in
their fundraising - many are very good at it. However, as more charities move
into the boutique bracket of emotional engagement, the difference between charity
A and charity B will be the information they collect and the way it’s used. If
you want a supporter’s experience to stand out from the sauce-stained ties, or for
your CEO to mention more than Rover’s name, develop a systematic approach to
emotional engagement.
No comments:
Post a Comment