Is Direct Mail Dead?

Tuesday, March 4, at noon U.S. Eastern time

Roger Craver is the founder of Craver, Mathews, Smith & Company, an Arlington, Va., direct-marketing consulting company, and is an author of the Agitator, a popular fund-raising blog.

Madeline Stanionis is the chief executive of Watershed, a San Francisco consulting firm that specializes in online fund raising and advocacy.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    Is direct mail dead? Certainly, the answer to that question is no, given the amount of money charities raise through mail appeals. But direct mail is nonetheless facing some significant challenges and we have two fund-raising experts on hand today to discuss how your nonprofit organization can adapt to these changes. Roger Craver and Madeline Stanionis will be here for the next hour to take your questions. Please click on the "ask a question" link to submit your query. This should be an interesting debate.

Question from Theresa Nelson, Children's Fairyland:
    Some experts say that direct mail would already be "dead" except that it still does much better than any other large-scale fundraising alternative such as online fundraising and phone appeals (but excluding events and major gifts). Is this still true, or have the metrics changed? And if it is still true, does this mean that those alternatives are not all they've been made to be? Or is it just a matter of time before direct mail rates sink below the alternatives?

Roger Craver:
    If direct mail is "dead" then it's a mighty exquisite corpse. Fact is that mail still produces massive AND predictable AND sustainable amounts of money for non-profits.

The question, Is Direct Mail Dead?, is somewhat meaningless if positioned as a debate about mail vs new media. The reality is that each reinforces the other and really great fundraisers will figure out how to integrate and master the combined use of channels.

In reality, direct mail has become a 'premium' product where new media activity is concerned because it can help new media efforts, just as new media efforts help or reinforce direct mail.

For a more detailed exploration of this see my piece in The Agitator at http://www.theagitator.net/index.php?/archives/974-The-Baby-and-The-Bathwater.html

Question from Kevin Feldman, nonprofit consultant:
    Direct mail isn't dying, but is becoming more and more dependent on other marketing channels for reinforcement in order to be effective. What are some affordable ways that smaller nonprofits can be proactive multi-channel marketers?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi Kevin! I completely agree with you - direct mail isn't dying, and channel integration is critical! If you're a small non-profit and want to integrate better email is the way to go. It is just so very inexpensive to use email to reinforce, to replace (ONLY SOMETIMES), to add nuance, to be more personal, to be more creative, to add detail...the list goes on!

However - you do need to use a quality online system. At the higher end in terms of cost and robustness are Convio, Kintera, Blue State Digital, Grassroots Enterprise. Less expensive (but still great quality) are DIA and Groundspring. And then there are the stand alone email providers - there are many of those. For more info on software options, check out: http://www.idealware.org/

Then it comes down to building a list and delivering a quality email program - a much longer conversation, but still affordable. Shameless promotion: I wrote a book and it's pretty helpful at making your way in this area:

http://www.emersonandchurch.com/books/raisingwithemail.html Thanks!

Question from Scott Friend, American Legion Auxiliary:
    Do you recommend a difference in frequency of direct mail appeals be considered with a group of $10 donors compared to $100 donors?

Roger Craver:
    As a general rule the larger the gift the greater the interest and involvement on the part of the donor. Unfortunately, most organizations tend to reduce the frequency to their best (highest) donors. In fact, the lower the gift the more you should consider limiting the frequency.

Question from Kathy Catino, Equality Virginia:
    We rely heavily on direct mail income-which is off 30% this year and hurting us. Our mailing schedule is very aggressive (monthly appeals). Can you talk about multichannel fundraising? And how frequently can donors and prospects be asked before the donor relationship is damaged (by too frequent asks)?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi Kathy - This is a particularly tough position to be in - one channel suffering, and you looking around for replacements.

Generally speaking, the web can't replace your direct mail losses quickly or easily.

Here's the thing: because mail and phones are so expensive relative to internet options, it's hard to waste a mailing and not ask for a contribution. That, of course, can lead to a very one-sided, one-note conversation. Replicating it on the web is not an option.

As everyone knows, the internet is different - you can afford to have many conversations that have elements of fundraising, advocacy, cultivation, fun, etc. So, you have to treat that channel accordingly and broaden the conversation. That way, your folks are there for you when you need them.

Frequency - on the web - is really about authenticity and the right ask at the right time. If you're asking for a contribution and the timing and genuine need isn't right, people won't respond. But if you have urgency and authenticity on your side - really, truly on your side, you can ask for contributions when you need them.

P.S. I work with Equality California! Good luck!

Question from Kathleen Allard:
    Do you have any advice concerning direct mail in light of the election year? Would it be better to skip mailings, or send it out and hope it doesn't get lost in the mix of political mailers?

Roger Craver:
    Depends on your cause. Highly political or ideological causes run some risks in an election year and need to be alert to this. Other causes aren't very much affected. If your organization doesn't have a history of experience around elections, talk to colleagues in similar organizations to see what their experience is.

What may be more problematic this year --especially where acquisition is concerned --is the economy not the political state of the Union.

Question from can't say, unfortunately:
    Instead of posing direct mail and online fund raising as an "us" vs. "them" scenario (translation: "old school" vs. "new school" way of doing business), wouldn't it be better to postulate integrating the two? Recent studies have shown that this integration boosts both, rather than cannibalizing one from the other.

It seems that this would not only provide more options to (!!) satisfy the donors' needs, but prevent the feather ruffling of staff members who might need to maintain the status quo. ("We've always done it THIS way...our donors won't respond to THAT way.")

Once the "new school" foot is in the door and enough returns are measured, one would hope that the numbers could begin to speak against any preconceived notions...and real policy change could be implemented.

Madeline Stanionis:
    Yes, EXACTLY!

I would never, ever posit direct mail and online as adversarial. That just creates drama (and maybe gets web chat visitors in the door, eh?). It is all about integration. That's much easier said than done. For many orgs, integration just means they have an online program and a direct mail program - but without thinking, from a constituent perspective, about using the right medium at the right time.

I like to do this:

Randomly pull a few names from your donor database. Map out the last three months of communications of ANY kind (mail, phones, email, social network, advertisements, events, etc) and look at how they relate to each other. What's the story you've told them?

For many groups, it looks a bit frenetic. A renewal letter, a cocktail party invitation, an advocacy action, an email appeal, a billboard...hmmm, it starts to look a little less integrated and forces you to think about about the narrative, the conversation.

One challenge of all this is the silliest one: who gets credit for the donation? Because budgets are often accomplished in silos (the telemarketing budget, the direct mail budget, the online budget), if a gift comes in on a channel, that's who gets credit. This definitely reinforces old silos, and it's just dumb. So, you must be integrated with your output and your income!

Question from Susan Taylor, Pet Helpers Adoption Center and Spay/Neuter Clinic (Charleston, SC):
    We're a small non-profit that spends $8,000 annually on newsletter mailings which go out to approx. 10,000 homes. With rising postage rates, we're considering cutting names from our mailing list, but don't know where to start - people who haven't given in 5+ years, 3+ years, skip donors, etc? Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Susan Taylor Director of Development

Roger Craver:
    I would test a segment from the 5s+ and 3+ years. If not productive, then cut. As a general rule skip donors and donors from 0-24 months are productive. But as in al activity involving direct response: test. test. test.

Question from Angela Glover:
    In lieu of Direct Mail Campaigns what about campaigns to create web traffic?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Before I answer, I must clarify.

With some exceptions, it's very difficulty to use an online channel "in lieu" of direct mail (or any other offline channel for that matter). It's really "in addition to" at this point.

You should absolutely be driving web traffic - and using your direct mail, telemarketing, advertising, press releases, events, etc to do it! People just expect that there will be a web option these days, for all things. Integrating the web into other channels is one of the most important (and often only) ways that smaller orgs can drive traffic, actually.

For example, I recently received an invitation to a local gala event. To attend, I needed to complete an rsvp card and put a check in and mail them back. There was no way to rsvp and pay online. I set the invite aside (heck, I don't even know where my check book IS). I ended up not going to the event.

Had there been an online rsvp/payment option, I would have been at the event, the organization would have had my email address, and over time...they might be able to get me to rsvp online and not have to send a print invitation.

Question from Susan Karp, $8M nonprofit:
    We have a small data base of donors and, in order to build that up, we are considering investing in a direct mail company to help us increase our list with rentals and prospecting? Since many organizations are seeing declines in their direct mail revenue and are moving this function in house, are we on the right track by investing in an outside mail house?

Roger Craver:
    First the disclaimer: I'm the founder/owner of a direct response fundraising company.

There is a tendency, fad, fashion, to in-source many functions these days. For a small to mid-size and even most large organizations the cost of building skilled in-house capacity is generally far greater and less effective than partnering with a skilled company.

Question from Amanda H., small nonprofit:
    What is the best way to transition from direct mail and what should we transition to? Email, text messaging, Facebook?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi there! First, if direct mail is working for you, I don't think I'd transition.

Add to, augment, reinforce, with an online program - for sure.

The easiest program to add is email. Many people are beginning to say email is dead. Not true! (And I'm not just saying that because I wrote a boo

k about email!) Email is still the best way to drive results online. Text messaging (and other mobile phone use) as a way to raise money has really not arrived here in the US yet.

Facebook, and other social networks, haven't quite worked as a direct response medium yet either. It's raised money for some organizations but not easily!

HOWEVER - new and cool things that are working emerge every day. We're living in some fun times. If you want to see what people are doing, I would sign up for the presidential campaigns on all sides, and include your email and mobile phone number. They are often trying all kinds of things, including the latest and greatest. If something is working, you'll see 'em use it a lot. And you'll often see some thing once but never again. That tells you that it's not working.

Question from Orange County Performing Artscenter:
    What are three effective Direct Mail Strategies that you would recommend to counter the slump in Direct Mail Appeals? Is the decline in Direct Mail Appeals directly related to the current state of our economy? How so?

Thank you, Kathleen

Roger Craver:
    There has been a steady decline in acquisition for most organizations over the past few years. This is mainly due to changing demographics, but more recently also to the economy. Acquisition is the first activity adversely affected by an economic downturn. This does not necessarily hold true where performance of your own donors is concerned.

Where your own donor file is concerned: 1) Focus on the best/most productive donor segments in order to get the best net income; 2) Integrate techniques or channels --use mail, telemarketing and new media in combination. The power of integrated reinforcement is mighty. 3) Take a hard look at the appeals themselves. Are they the same-old, same-old? How do they compare with your 'competition'?

Question from Jeanne Clark, PennFuture:
    Roger and Madeline What is being done to enlarge lists? Our donors are dying and as far as I can see, there are not a lot of new donors on the horizon.

(Good to hear from you Roger)

Roger Craver:
    Hi Jeanne. You were present in the 'boom years' as the National Organization for Women grew. Today, there are, in fact, few donors, but don't despair. The 'fewer' are giving more money.

A couple of words of advice. An aging donor base presents new opportunities for legacies, charitable gift annuities and other planned giving. New media and its quiver of effective name-gathering tools (petitions, advocacy actions, viral devices and social networking) presents great new opportunities.

Good luck and best wishes.

Question from Astrid Guerra, Small Nonprofit:
    I worked in museum memberships for a while and direct mail seemed to be the #1 strategy for reaching large amounts of people and for renewals. Is direct mail facing extinction in all fields?

When talking about direct mail, are we talking about the traditional letter-insert-reply envelope kits? Another organization I worked with inserted the reply envelopes in the newsletter.

Thank you.

Madeline Stanionis:
    I don't think direct mail is facing extinction. At all.

I DO think that it is changing and thinking about what a great package looks like in 2008 means thinking about all those pieces - where are the opportunities to integrate, to point folks to the web.

However, museums and other "consumer" orgs have a terrific advantage at reaching people online and building big lists. Why, just the people who google for your address and opening hours alone is far more traffic than most non-consumer orgs get. That's a huge opportunity. And, certainly, if a museum is building that list, there will be many times when an email or web campaign will do just fine for raising money and building a relationship. It's really about the right channel at the right time.

Question from Andrea Stander, VT Public Interest Research Group:
    What role, if any, do you think the proliferation of unsolicited "junk" mail is playing in the decline of success for charitable direct mail campaigns? Are consumers just fed up with the onslaught and the waste?

Roger Craver:
    Like the weather, death and taxes, the complaint of unsolicited "junk" mail has been with us forever. Right now there are some self-righteous groups like Green Dimes and others who are riding that hobby horse again.

In my world the only "junk" mail is that which comes back without checks.

Seriously, with the Direct Marketing Association's Mail Preference system where folks can opt out of receiving most direct mail, and with the industry increasingly sensitive to rising costs and environmental concern, there is in fact less and less waste.

Roger Craver:
    Peter.... In your intro you characterize this as a 'debate'; something I take issue with. The fact is that direct mail brings a legacy of knowledge, general principles and 50 years' worth of learning that can be applied to the new media world.

There's always somehow a belief that the direct mail pie has to somehow be shared or made smaller by the new media pie or the telemarketing pie or whatever the channel.

The reality is that all these channels, all these technolgoies simply create a bigger pie. When you add Face-to-Face, SMSs and the other 'new and cool' stuff to new media and the more traditional direct response channels the potential for a humungous pie is enormous.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    Roger -- Great point. I should have used the word "discussion" rather than debate. As we can see from what has transpired thus far, this is much more a discussion than it is a debate. And this discussion is yielding some interesting ideas on how to adopt and consider some of the new devices being used to raise money.

Question from Patricia McNeal, Words That Mean Business, LLC:
    Many mail order companies are finding that online sales increase once catalogs hit in-home. Are declining non-profit "by mail" donations actually decreasing or are they being replaced by online donations triggered by the direct mail package? Could non-profits win via direct mail by eliminating response devices (lighter, smaller, cheaper mailings) and driving donors to the website?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi there Patricia -

That's a great question. The commercial world is figuring things out in this regard at a faster rate than the non-profit world, and it's good to be watching them.

But as for the answer - many organizations are finding this to be true, but far more can't answer the question accurately because they just aren't very well integrated.

I can tell you that one large advocacy group with whom I worked experienced a rather remarkable response to their renewal program: 25% of folks who renewed as a result of a direct mail effort renewed online. That's pretty amazing!

Is that organization eliminating response devices and delivering a cheaper package? Nope. Not yet, that's for sure. I like to think that we will eventually achieve those kinds of economies but they are few and far between at this point.

Question from Richard Popilowski, Milford Hospital Foundation:
    Please give your opinion on which direct mail piece works best? Is it testimonials or a statement of purpose or a listing of programs and projects that reap the best results. Thank you.

Roger Craver:
    The most effective piece depends on the cause, the content, and the personality of the organization. An urgent message is best delivered in an urgent format like a Fed X package or a telegram. A highly personal message is best packaged as a letter, and so on.

What is always important, and the reason testimonials are effective, is to make sure the reader feels he/she is not alone and that other see the value of an organization's work.

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hello everyone! Thank you for joining us today. I want to let you know that we've got lots of questions in the hopper and we're getting to them as quickly as possible. Thanks for your patience.

Question from Elena Kezelis, hospital foundation:
    Some of my donors complain that in the past few years they've started receiving as many as 80-100 direct mail solicitations in November - December. Isn't this so overwhelming to donors that they'll simply reject all direct mail solicitations? In other words, the sheer volume of solicitations individual donors receive these days makes them less likely to respond to any.

Madeline Stanionis:
    Elena, are you talking about direct mail or email? Or both?

Question from Matthew, large museum:
    Our direct mail program is still working very well, but acquisitions are suffering (down 11% over last year). We do routine testing. What kind of innovation have you seen work during economic downturns?

Roger Craver:
    Frankly, the best technique in economically uncertain times is care and risks avoidance. Use only those lists or acquisition channels which have yielded the best-retaining, highest value donors in the past. Avoid the trap of "having to mail quantities', focus on lists/channels that produce the longest lasting and highest quality (average gift and retention) donors.

Same advice should be followed in good economic times as well, but some folks get sloppy when money raising is easier.

Roger Craver:
    Peter... One of the tacit questions is 'if direct mail is dying, why?" The 'change", not "death" of direct mail deserves some notice as to why? What are the adverse trends working against direct mail?

Most important is the change in demographics and the habits of consumers. Environmental concerns as to packaging and waste ...change in the amount of time available or willingness to read long, long, copy...etc.

What no one really wants to talk about is the elephant in the room--the fact that most of the huge organizations built on direct mail have outlived themselves. Direct mail probably ain't dead, but many of these organizations are dead or dying and we sooner or later will have to hold the funeral or memorial service.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    We're approaching the midway point in today's live discussion. As Madeline just mentioned, we do have a lot of questions that have come in, so please be patient if you've submitted a query and haven't yet received a response. We will get to as many or all of them as we can. And we are still looking for more. If you want to get in touch with one of our experts, click on the "ask a question" link and fire away.

Question from Aretha Frizzell, Ward Memorial CDC:
    Is the discussion today only on direct mail?

Roger Craver:
    Peter here. As you can see from the topics we've covered so far, we're talking about much more than direct mail today -- though direct mail is definitely the starting point of this discussion.

Question from Steve Smith, Rolling Dog Ranch Animal Sanctuary:
    We run a nonprofit sanctuary for disabled animals in Montana called the Rolling Dog Ranch. Our animals come from all over the country, and our donors are nationwide, too. We are planning to conduct our first direct mail campaign for donor acquisition this year. However, we are now concerned that with the current economic climate and amid fears of a recession, that this might be a bad time to launch such a campaign. We have not used direct mail so far because we have managed to grow our donor base through other means (media stories, Web site, e-newsletter, etc.), but realize that direct mail is a tool we should use at some point. Is it better to wait on a healthier economy to launch a donor acquisition campaign?

Madeline Stanionis:
    I think this is a good question for Roger, to be honest. I have heard some direct response fundraisers say that if you aren't already running a direct mail program that you shouldn't start. But, returns from online programs don't come near direct mail returns in most cases (even factoring in the cost). I'd put this to Roger. Oh, by the way, one place where online returns are getting closer to comparable to phone and mail returns is with animal groups. Not all, and certainly not always though.

Question from Carolyn, nonprofit community health center:
    If gifts generated from a 50,000 piece direct mail solicitation to area medical professionals covers all expenses with some of the direct mail and a small profit, is it generally worth the effort to keep our clinic's name before the health community?

Roger Craver:
    Absolutely. Positively. Keep on keepin' on. If you're brining in donors at break-even or even at a reasonable loss you're in clover. You are not only acquiring donors for future fundraising efforts, but as you noted, you're keeping your name and good works in front of a key segment of the health care community.

Question from tom:
    Madeline, To what extent do direct response techniques "proven" over the years in direct mail also work in online fundraising?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi Tom! Love this question. One thing I am often asked is about what kind of person should be staffing an in-house online program (one which includes fundraising, advocacy, and marketing). I almost always lean towards someone with a more traditional direct response perspective. Many organizations hire techie/activists - those folks are great, but I do think that the internet is still a direct response medium and understanding that is important. Some particular proven techniques that work online include: Segmenting by HPC (highest previous contribution) and providing the right donation page for the level of donor; Understanding that membership renewals are often about ease and repetition - not urgency and appeal; Knowing that sometimes the best response to news is an appeal (vs an informational alert or action); and, of course, that people give to people and relationships matter.

Question from Geeta:
    Would direct mailing continue to work for countries like India?

Roger Craver:
    Depends on the country and the culture. The best test for what works is to look at the medium of consumer commerce. If folks are accustomed to buying things by mail, or e-commerce, or over the phone, or through TV shopping those channels will work. In countries that don't have a direct mail culture, like India, groups such as Greenpeace are having great success with Face-to-Face canvassing and with house visits.

Question from Leah Garrett, Sojourners:
    Would you consider a newsletter an effective 'multi-channel' alternative to the normal letters?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi Leah. I love Sojourners, by the way. I'm not certain if I understand your question correctly. Are you asking if a print newsletter is an alternative to a direct mail letter? Or if an e-newsletter is an alternative to a print newsletter? Or...hmmm, what? Could you clarify? THanks!

Question from Susan, independent school:
    Perhaps DM is not dead, but it is morphing into a different animal. The post-baby boomers are not traditional DM "readers" and I suspect that most nonprofits are facing an aging database.

Roger Craver:
    Susan, you're absolutely right. And skilled, curious fundraisers recognize that and will take risks to understand and tap into these changes. Remember, Baron von Roschild's dictum about investing: "Buy while the blood's running in the streets."

NOW's the time to begin experimenting and learning.

As for aging databases. Of course you're right, but databases are always aging. When I first got into this 35 years ago the big concern was about all these "aging, old donors". Same thing today. Fact is that giving is mostly a function of age. The question is whether organizations have the skill to use the multiple channels required to reach today's middle age donors.

Question from Jennifer Meyer, Goodwill Industries:
    Is it better to use a national brand (such as Goodwill) in local direct mail pieces or to create a whole new image for your fundraising appeals specific to your region?

Roger Craver:
    Terrific question, Jennifer. All the research over the past 30 years I've seen coupled with experience shows its generally best to build on the national brand and TEST localizing the specifics of the fundraising appeal.

Most folks believe that localization helps. Not always. So, please test.

Question from Molly Baer Kramer, Oregon League of Conservation Voters:
    Madeline - I have found your book VERY helpful, thank you for that. What I'm trying to figure out is how to retain a high-quality ask via email and not flood people's inboxes (we all know groups that do that) so frequently that people just hit delete, delete, delete. Part of the attraction and the problem with with email is its low cost. Everyone's trying it - how to stand out in such a crowded field?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hmmm, the book was supposed to help with that, Molly!

I think your question is quite important. Far too often, organizations send email because the *can* send email. And far too often, that email is poorly written, boring, not urgent, not personal, not relevant, etc. etc. etc. The questions I'd like you to ask yourself (or your organization) before you send a message are: What is my constituent expecting from me today? If the answer is nothing, you need to think seriously about adding to their clutter. How does this message relate to the last one I sent? How does this message to what my constituent is reading/seeing/hearing about our organization or our issue? Is this message personal? Authentic? Is this message going to the right segment? Does it acknowledge the relationship appropriately? Is it interesting? I'll bet if you hold you and your organization to a discipline of answering those questions for every message you send, you'll find that it's not about sending less email, it's about sending less *bad* email.

Question from Wendy, nonprofit:
    What do you think about the state of direct mail prospecting and what should an organization's investment level be?

Roger Craver:
    Hi Wendy...prospecting is growing increasingly expensive because not only response rates are going down, but so are retention rates. Sadly, the historic volume-driven model is still being used by too many non-profits. Thus, the belief is that an organization "needs" a certain quantity of new donors to maintain the status quo or grow.

The truth is an organization needs increasing higher quality donors, not more donors.

Sadly most of the direct mail industry, the list brokers, the data processors, some agencies, are still paid on a volume basis. That has to change.

Our world better get used to paying for value, not volume.

Question from Seattle Pacific University:
    So, I see frequency referred to in a couple of questions. As we work our alumni base, how many direct mail appeals a year would be reasonable? I know some non-profits send 15+ a year to their single gift file. Other can afford only one or two. Is there a best range?

Roger Craver:
    The answer is to test and determine what frequency to what segments is most financially productive.

There are more 'urban myths' about frequency than have shirts. Most on based on personal opinion, not fact. As in "I don't like telemarketing".."Our donors will get angry if we send too many appeals, etc."

Reality says that the more donors give, the more interested they are and thus should be contacted frequently. The less good givers should receive less. There really is no "best" range other than what you EMPIRICALLY discover.

Question from :
    How should NGOs begin to track how mail is motivating online giving or vice versa?

Madeline Stanionis:
    The most common way to understand if a mail piece drives an online gift is to use a unique url (as in, www.YourName.org/kenya) and/or a source code if your system allows. I have also seen some organizations actually as for the mail code on their donation forms and a surprising number of folks complete that field. In terms of tracking whether an online message motivates an offline gift, many organizations offer the option of "print this form and send in with your donation." That's a great way to track responses, but even more important, it's a great way to provide a service to your donors. Many folks are not comfortable giving their credit card online, and if your donor base is a little older, they'll most definitely appreciate that option.

Question from Anonymous, Large Nonprofit:
    Roger, in your comment about GreenDimes, you seemed quite dismissive of concerns about the environmental cost of paper mailings. Could you speak a bit more to this?

Roger Craver:
    If that's the impression I left, then let me correct it immediately.

I've worked hard on environmental causes for most of my career and I respect those who show concern and fight to make change. What I don't respect is stupidity. Paying $10 to not get any mail or to fight against mail doesn't do anything meaningful in my judgement.

What is meaningful is the efforts by groups like Environmental Defense to work with the catalogue industry, or direct mailers to work to use more and more post-consumer content.

Question from Holly Hall, Chronicle of Philanthropy:
    Hi Roger: Our reporting has found that few, if any, charities are fully integrating direct mail and online solicitations. Instead, groups seem loathe to tamper with their direct-mail programs and they start online solicitation efforts separate, or off to the side, from direct mail. Why is this, and do you think charities should change this practice?

Roger Craver:
    Terrific question, Holly. And your reporting is right. Most non-profits, like most corporations, are very near-term oriented. Fundraisers have to meet their numbers, quarter by quarter. There's almost no room for experimentation and testing, let alone the costs of integration. Of course this is not only stupid. It's ultimately deadly. And on top of this there's a strange aversion many direct mail people have for new media. Sad, but true.

Roger Craver:
    I want to add a bit to my comment on Green Dimes and environmental concerns. If a direct mailer is stupid enough to believe what they do environmentally doesn't affect their bottom line they're going to be out of business. Increasingly consumers are being trained and educated to avoid wasteful packaging and will simply reject overblown, highly wasteful packaging whether it's in stores or in their mailboxes.

Question from small liberal arts college:
    What are your thoughts on including a recipient's three-year giving history in her letter? Does that tend to induce giving, or an increase?

Roger Craver:
    Like most human behavior, giving follows an individual's behavior. Thus, it's important that asking amounts reflect that individual donor's pattern.

I certainly would not cite three years' history without testing it. Probably far safer, to test formulae which work off either a Total To Date or Highest Previous Gift combination. In other words if you ask someone for an amount they're comfortable with and push it up a bit higher --15% or 20% -- and they care about your cause you're likely to get the increase.

Question from Karen McClure, Guiding Eyes for the Blind:
    How would you respond to Board Members who want internet fundraising to replace direct mail fundraising because of the lower costs and higher average gifts? They believe all donors can be converted, and that the response will be the same.

Roger Craver:
    I would suggest they either break their drug habit or come face to face with reality.

It really is essential that all organizations which intend to survive and thrive get quickly into the integrated fundraising business and that means making the most of all the channels.

But suddenly switching from absolute reliance on direct mail to absolute reliance on online is like trying to replace the roof of your home in a monsoon and believing you won't get wet.

Question from Kathleen, Orange County Performing Artscenter:
    Thank you for this fantastic online discussion. As with other non-profit organizations, we too are experiencing a decline in our direct mail renewals program. Question: what are three immediate remedies that we can integrate and implement into our current renewal strategies that could off-set our direct mail deficit? We currently have online giving, direct mail, in-house Telefunding, on-site membership tables, and a grass-roots word-of-mouth. While our TeleFunding numbers are phenomenal, our direct mail is still shy of monthly goals. Three immediate solutions would be ideal.

Madeline Stanionis:
    Kathleen, I'm always worried when people ask me about how the internet can "offset a deficit in another channel." The internet is just not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, there are ways that you can use the internet in your renewals that will certainly help (you might already be doing all or some of them). First, remember what the internet is good at - timing and repetition. So - you should be sending email reminders timed to hit folks just before or just after they've received a direct mail or phone renewal, and you should be sending them as a "last chance" effort. You can also afford to send an email renewal reminder a couple of times - the same exact message, maybe with a note at the top saying something like, "Madeline, we're sending this notice to you again because your membership has expired. We really need you this year!" Hope these help.

Question from Leah Garrett, Sojourners:
    What are your suggestions on effective list segmentation beyond recency, frequency, and monetary?

Roger Craver:
    Segmentation depends on the purpose of the mailing, email, telemarketing call or whatever.

For example, if you're doing a legacy or planned giving mailing, age is important. So are the factors of whether the prospect is a frequent and long-time contributor, gender, and whether or not he or she has children.

Another campaign my have different requirements. For example, if you're running an advocacy campaign can you identify donors who have made political contributions to sitting Senators, Representatives, or state legislators.

As a general rule, in the absence of outside data, in addition to recency, frequency and money amount, look at the pattern of upgrading/downgrading.

Question from Lisa M from Anonymous --- can't reveal unfortunately:
    A three-part question: 1. What is the time frame you should give for testing "new" direct mail (email and snail) if you have not done it before?

2. If you are mailing to groups who aren't used to receiving direct mail/emails from you to raise funds, but do receive offers in the mail from your org to buy items, subscribe to a magazine, etc. should you break the groups into different segments and target them differently (i.e looking at past giving, age, etc., or not?

3. Should your direct mail items from both snail and email be sent in tandem & should the pieces have a similar look and feel to reinforce branding & recognition?

Roger Craver:
    Sometimes it's tricky to convert 'merchandise buyers' to 'donors." In my opinion this is the scourge of history that public broadcasting has to live with. Over the years they've spent so much effort hustling coffee mugs, DVDs, and the gods only know what else, that they find themselves not knowing who's a donor from who's a merchandise buyer. You hit the nail on the head. Test offers and segments and be patient. The truth will be revealed.

Question from Claudia Broman, Northland College:
    For those who are accustomed to using direct mail, what new venues for donor contact should we be looking at to augment direct mail?

Madeline Stanionis:
    You should be driving your direct mail donors online for interesting (!) content and to take care of their gifts online. You should be using Facebook and other social networks for your folks to stay connected with you in a casual way. You should using email to communicate with folks about urgent issues and a more personal and casual communication stream. And that's just a few!

Question from Holly Hall, Chronicle of Philanthropy:
    With the costs of direct mail soaring and the returns dwindling, especially in efforts to find new donors, does it even make sense anymore for a charity that is not in direct mail currently to start a direct-mail program?

Roger Craver:
    It absolutely does make sense to start a direct mail program PROVIDED it's integrated with other medial channels -- the internet, telemarketing, inserting, SMS.

In fact, this is a great time for launching new organizations if the folks doing the launching are saavy. All the studies we've done of the -50 year old donor groups is that they're not locked into the 'big brands' and thus there are fewer barriers to entry.

The reason to put mail into the mix is that it is adds an important "premium" to the information/fundraising mix. Even for a 30 or 40 year old who lives life on the net, there is a gravitas and important reinforcing effect that mail has which no other medium has.

Question from Carol, small nonprofit:
    How do organization deal with the requirements of the CAN-SPAM Act governing emailing? Opt-in, Opt-out, it seems like a lot to manage.

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi Carol - actually, it's pretty easy to manage IF you use a reputable email messaging vendor. They typically have great systems with reliable opt-in and opt-out functions. While you need to know a bit about being a good email messenger, you don't need to know too much. Just use a good vendor that works with other non-profits. Check out Idealware for recommendations: http://www.idealware.org/

Question from Molly Baer Kramer, Oregon League of Conservation Voters:
    Roger - when you suggest that it's best to avoid risks in times of economic uncertainty, using only your best lists, etc., I assume that means you would recommend against launching a large, new direct mail program to acquire new donors until the economic forecast is better?

Roger Craver:
    Molly, as a general rule that's what I would recommend to most causes. Of course if you're about to launch a cause that will deal with the economic situation or something else highly topical, I would not let the concerns about the economy stop me. Many, many large and now successful advocacy movements -- Common Cause, NOW, Environmental Defense, NARAL (and all those right wing equivalents :) ) were launched in difficult economic climates, but very yeasty political climates.

Question from Allison CostaLifespan:
    Given that the population is becoming more environmentally aware, are direct mail businesses doing anything to be 'greener'? I know that the younger generation is very concerned with the ways businesses are being more environmentally responsible. Are there ways organizations can promote that their direct mail is more earth friendly?

Roger Craver:
    Allison, if they're not they really have a diminished future. Whether through the mails or online or through SMS all successful marketing depends on meeting consumer/donor needs.

In terms of promoting 'earth friendly" direct mail, the proven ways are to indicate the content, recyclability on the paper itself in small, but visible type, and not to package the direct mail appeals in some gross, outlandish style.

Question from Emily, educational institution:
    We typically send a direct mail piece and then follow up with an email consisting of a similar message about two weeks later. The follow up emails are usually simply text. Is there research that supports whether plain text or more graphically appealing email solicitations return better results?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Emily, this is always changing and your own testing is usually the best these days. However, whenever I've tested plain text against HTML (pretty, and with pictures), HTML has outperformed. However, I have also tested very slick HTML with a simpler version (but still with graphics), and the simpler version has out performed. The problem is that very little online testing is reliable so you'll have to try for yourself if you can. If you can't, I'd go with simple HTML version and I'd send that reminder a week after the direct mail piece hits.

Question from Glynnis, large museum:
    For Roger - In advertising, it is said that it takes a number of times for a reader to see an ad before they buy. What is your experience for the number of times an acquisition needs to be "seen" before someone joins or gives to an organization?

Roger Craver:
    Because direct mail, unlike online messaging, does not deal with "When" (that is, the organization sends it not knowing whether the person is interested right now or not; whereas online or web information is generally picked up when the person is interested) there needs to be lots of repetition. That's why some really great control packages have shelf-lives of 10 or even 20 years.

Question from Marc , higer education:
    What are the challenges you have experienced using direct mail with the newer generations (i.e. Millennials)?

Roger Craver:
    The biggest challenge is not receptivity or interest. The biggest challenge is retention. One of the reasons many organizations are experiencing falling renewal rates is that they now have a new mix of donors.

Boomers, and Gen X and Y donors are not blindly loyal. They want accountability in terms of what the organization is accomplishing. They want involvement.

If an organization still operations in the "We'll tell you" mode instead of the "We'll show you mode" it's on a downtrend, believe me.

Question from Patty, children's charity:
    our donor base is about 12 - 15,000. at what point should we consider "segmenting" our donors for targeted DM appeals?

Roger Craver:
    Do it immediately. Look for anyone who's given more than $100, $500 or whatever is a 'big' gift to you. Give them more information, call and thank them, invite them in for a brown bag lunch or briefing. Recognize them as the special people they are.

Then look at all the rest. Cull those who have stopped giving. Test some upgrading in asking amounts or offers to those who are regular giving. Size doesn't matter when it comes to donor bases. What matters is looking at donors as individuals (even if it is by segment) and developing specific strategies for that segment.

Question from Carmen, National large Non-Profit:
     Do letters from a board member or other involved volunteer or a nice fancy, glossy "fold-up" direct mail piece generate more dollars in a direct mail campaign? I know there are other factors including population, community, etc. but do special touches really make a difference in the dollars recieved?

Madeline Stanionis:
    Hi Carmen! I don't do direct mail, so I'd let Roger field that one. However, online is both more and less limited in terms of the "package." You can include photographs easily and without expense but you've only got an email to do it. I think personal, authentic, and visually interesting (but not overwhelming) is what you should aim for online.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    We're approaching 1 p.m. Eastern but we have several more questions that have come in. If Roger and Madeline are still available, we will extend the chat for a few extra minutes to get to the outstanding questions.

Question from Mike, Nature Park, small nonprofit:
    We have a 2,200 mailing list used for our newsletter that includes our donors (less percentage). We just added 1,300 more names from a local Wild Birds Unlimited that closed it's doors. they sent out a newsletter and they gave it to us when we asked them for it.

Is it better to notify the names that the business thought they would be interested in our newsletter or should we just go ahead and send it to them with plans of including them in solicitations down the road after the newsletter educates them on our mission. How long do we wait to include them in our solicitations. about 100 names were already in 0ur database so it looks like a good fit.

Roger Craver:
    In a way, you've answered your own question, Mike. Watch what people do after you've done something. If it works repeat it, BUT also experiment or test to see if you can improve the result.

For example why not send each of the Wild Birds Unlimited a letter explaining what you're up to and why it's so important they be part of this new amalgamation and why it will benefit them.

Roger Craver:
    Madeline and I are both pushing testing and integration in this chat. What is very important is that folks start admitting that everyone who talks about "integration" ain't doin' it. This is difficult stuff. The tech folks (webmasters, etc) have to talk to the communications people, who have to talk to the fundraisers. And all these silos have to agree and put together a truly integrated plan AND then execute on it.

Those organizations where folks are still debating what department gets credit for what are doomed in the long run.

Question from Mike, Nature Park, small nonprofit:
    What's the best way to build a database outside of guest registry, names list from board members. I have had some luck with getting free lists from similar groups but when do you decide to start buying lists.

While we are a regional NP, we do have donors and subscribers to our newsletters from throughout the US mainly because of a local connection.

we send out a spring and fall newsletter, e-mail alerts and a spring sustaining solicitation for all and and E-O-Y for previous donors only.

Roger Craver:
    This was also a key question 40 years ago when the direct mail trade was in its infancy. Then, as now, the best lists were the small ones, sometimes built out of personal rolldexes, sometimes out of the names from affinity organizations. If you can find similar lists on the rental market, by all means test them.

The bedrock task of anyone in this business --online or offline -- is the building of lists of potentially interested people. Sometime you can buy it, but most new or small organizations have to invent and develop it.

Question from Bill Mengerink, Consultant:
    What is a reasonable percentage today in terms of a range of return on an acquisition mailing? Years and years ago, 1.5% was profitable both on the short term and long term, e.g., a much higher percentage of new donors continued to give.

Roger Craver:
    It's not so much the percentage of response, Bill, as it is the cost of acquiring a donor. If an organization can make an investment (meaning subsidize the acquisition of new donors) and can hold on to them, my rule of thumb is to spend or invest an amount that you can recover in 10 to 12 months For most organizations this means acquiring a small gift donor at a cost of around $20 -$30 above their first gift.

Question from Karen, large nonprofit:
    We are trying to engage our SYBUNT donors more aggressively this Spring. Do you suggest we solicit them with a general appeal or more program-specific?

Roger Craver:
    This is simply something that has to be test. My experience is that if it's an emotion packed appeal and the specifics go to emotion, then you don't need a lot of programmatic detail. If you're appealing to folks who are into program detail (and I'm not sure who that would be other than the staff, the CEO or the Board) then the latter will work better. You really won't know 'til you split-test both approaches.

Roger Craver:
    I see a lot of questions from good folks working for smaller organizations. You may be wondering if the rules are different for you than for the giants. Yes they are: you have much more flexibility, so use it. The giants can't because they're bound by gigantic, generally inflexible budgets and can't react quickly or experimentally. However, no matter what your side the principles of marketing, fundraising and human nature are the same.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    Thank you to everyone who participated in today's live discussion. And I hope you gained some new knowledge about direct mail and donor appeals. Thank you also to our guests, Madeline Stanionis and Roger Craver. Our apologies to those who submitted late questions that we were unable to answer. Join us next Tuesday at noon Eastern time for our next discussion, which will focus on new research about the leadership gap facing the nonprofit sector -- and how to get current leaders and younger professionals to work together to close this gap.