A few days ago, I received an odd direct-mail solicitation from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, in Memphis.
When a friend asked me to make a donation to the hospital to honor the memory of a child who had died, I dutifully mailed in a small check. Now, more than a year later, St. Jude sent an appeal for another gift.
But the charity’s letter raises questions. First: Why am I only now receiving a letter dated February 24, nearly two months ago? And more important: Why did the hospital ask me to give $0 on its donation-return slip (shown above.)
It made the mistake on the appeal itself two more times:
”Please rush your tax-deductible renewal gift of $0, $0, or even $0 to St. Jude today and give a child a second chance at life,” the appeal reads.
When I called St. Jude to ask about the letter, a spokeswoman said that the company it hired to produce and mail its solicitations made a mistake on 3 percent of the letters in a recent batch of fund-raising mail. After the hospital was notified of the error last month, the spokeswoman said, the direct-mail company reimbursed the charity for the mail pieces with the $0 mistake and added a new quality-control step to avoid more errors.
St. Jude doesn’t plan to make any effort to notify people who received the mistake-riddled appeal. “While St. Jude would have liked to notify impacted donors of this error, all notification options would have resulted in a net loss in revenue,” wrote Jessica Lukens, a St. Jude public-relations specialist, in an e-mail response.
What would you have done about this mistake? How can charities keep donors motivated to give in response to direct mail when they receive outdated or sloppy materials?
Let us know your thoughts by clicking on the comment link below.
10 Responses to You Get What You Ask For
skline - April 21, 2010 at 3:25 pm
The net loss in value of relationships likely is far greater than the net loss in revenue cited by the public relations office at St.Jude. Each and every one of the individuals who received the erroneous solicitation card should have received a written apology and explanation, along with a request to remain loyal to St. Jude despite the error.
rlucky - April 21, 2010 at 3:56 pm
skline – I totally agree with you. To be perfectly honest, I’m very surprised by St. Jude’s response. Not only is it shortsighted, it’s also very amateurish.
kathyrubino - April 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I disagree. By sending an apology, St. Jude would not only spend tens of thousands of dollars to “correct” an error that is truly irreversible, St. Jude would likely just call additional attention to an oversight that only the most engaged (and likely the most forgiving) donors would notice in the first place. Although I would certainly not have referenced the bottom line in a public explanation, I agree with the logic St. Jude used – the money they’d spend on an apology for a relatively minor problem would likely far outweigh the net positive results.
nonprofprof - April 21, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Mistakes happen, but their response suggests they take donors for granted.
albtest - April 21, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I would follow up with a light-hearted apology. Yes, we made a mistake. Obiviously, we need more than $0 dollars to continue doing our important work. Just fess up and turn the goof into another opportunity to connect with donors and to raise money. Why St Jude consider’s a 2nd effort a waste is puzzeling.
susanstopp - April 22, 2010 at 7:29 am
Fundraising is all about relationships. Furthermore, if you must monetize a donor’s value you consider total giving history, not merely response to one appeal. So, ignoring this faux pas seems very wrong. I’d be inclined to negotiate with the mailshop to cover or at least share the expense — over and above the refund they paid — given that the potential damage from this mistake is not revenue neutral.And I absolutely agree with albtest’s suggestion that the apology be light-hearted. I’d bet that, with a little cfreative thinking, St. Jude might find an additional PR opportunity here.
jtimm - April 22, 2010 at 10:18 am
Something similar just happened in the organization i work for. We sent out an email reminder for our spring appeal. In the email we mistankenly inserted the last name as the salutaion vs. the first name (ex: Dear McCabe vs. Dear Jillian). We immediatley sent out a simple apology for the error. When we arrived the next day in the office we had received a huge amount of emails from our donors thanking us for acknowledging the error and gratitude for all the work we do. Everyone makes mistakes – it is always better to own up to them.
aste5452 - April 22, 2010 at 4:41 pm
This indicates to me that a) proofreading always pays off; and b) I never liked these direct mail appeals, either for my own self, or in fundraising for organizations I support, as volunteer or Development Officer. By all means, let these guys keep doing this . . . wave of the past.
gliwski - April 25, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Of your own admission, you made a a very small donation the first time you were solicited. A small (under $1000) one time donation to a charity the size of St. Jude does not in any way create or represent a ‘relationship’. It is easy to see this particular campaign was geared towards the small one time and/or ocassional donor. Therefore, the additional expense for the apologies people demand are not warranted. Note that only 3% of these small prospects (not yet donors) and small donors were affected.
aburmood - April 27, 2010 at 10:59 am
This kind of thing happens more than one would expect. Unless St. Jude could identify the addresses the error notice went to, no one should expect them to go through the expense of notifying everyone. It is not a very sound, or cost effective move for any company to do. If St. Jude did have a list of only those who received the sloppy marketing material, I am a believer that a company should send a follow up letter to them indicating what happened and what action was taken to prevent it from happening again, just as Jessica Lukens from St. Jude did over the phone. Mistakes happen and I think the majority of society is more forgiving than some.