Poacher, gamekeeper, poacher

This week I leave Bluefrog, after two and a half years agency side, to return client side. I had worked in an agency before, prior to moving into the charity sector, but at a more junior level than Client Services Director.

So what has my side-swapping taught me?

Perhaps chiefly that there are misconceptions and prejudices – on both sides – that can get in the way of working constructively. Similarly, the two sides can misunderstand one another, meaning there are times when neither meets the other’s needs – for information or due process for example.

In the months ahead, as my perspective shifts as Director of Fundraising, I will no doubt gain further insights. In the meantime, and for what they are worth, here are my Top3 recommendations for clients and agencies on how to get the best from your relationship with the other.

CLIENTS

1. Brief well
This is the single most important piece of advice. Briefing well will have the biggest impact on how effectively the agency delivers.

As clichéd as this sounds, you get out what you put in. Work hard, do lots of research, find out about the audience, give context, define the proposition, be precise on budget.

Less is not more with briefs, even where it is 'just another appeal mailing'.

Mark shares more thoughts on brief writing here.

2. Don’t buy on price
Being price conscious is one thing. We're not out of the recession yet, after all.

But it has saddened me to have witnessed several examples of charities buying purely on price. They turned down Bluefrog's solution, despite the proven route to more net income that it offered, and bought something cheaper ... only to return months later and admit that rather than saving five grand, they wasted the entire budget.

Buy on value. Push your agency to prove the results on which their recommendation is based and keep your eye on net income. A great example of this is Bluefrog's high value donor segmentation, which sees mid and high value donors selected, talked to and asked differently. It costs more but net income is typically 50% higher.

You may need to persuade someone to let you spend a bit more but hey, you're fundraisers – you're supposed to be able to persuade.

More on price below...

3. Be respectful
In this post I suggested that each time you open your mouth, write an email or fire off a text, you can choose to communicate in a way that will open the other person up and result in a constructive conversation.

And it seems clear to me that where the other person is someone you're relying on to deliver a complex project with a strict deadline, this is even more important.

And so again, I have been saddened to see not infrequent examples of account team members being on the receiving end of really nasty phone calls or – more often – emails.

Your agency is not your punchbag.

I am a marketer when all's said and done, so unashamedly I offer the Four Ps of respecting your agency:

• People. Don't stop at being nice. Be considerate too. Don't just expect people in the agency to work late, even if they regularly do; they're often paid no more than you and they would actually like to leave on time too.
• Processes. Making last minute changes to creative not only shows poor project management, it puts an agency in a difficult position where it will have to work more than the allocated hours for a job and then face the unpleasant task of trying to charge you for some of that time.
• (A)ppreciate (sorry). I witnessed an occasion just last week where a client sent a plant to a Senior Account Manager to say thank you for working late to organise an urgent print run. So out of the ordinary was this gesture, that she will happily go an extra mile in future. That client's work is now always a priority.
• Promote. Agencies depend on word of mouth marketing. Do not be ashamed of mentioning that a piece of work was created with help from an agency. A client of ours was recently interviewed on a programme of work that we had helped develop the strategy for. Some of our ideas were being implemented with great success and yet there was not even a passing mention of our involvement.
  

The classic way to show disrespect for an agency – especially with digital work – is to haggle on price. This video illustrates an all too familiar experience.



AGENCIES

1. Clients have internal issues
Don’t underestimate or dismiss the challenges that many clients face internally.

I have worked in some truly stone age organisations, with internal bureaucracy that would make the government look like a start up on Red Bull. You need to find ways to help your client, not put them under more pressure.

Where internal politics or sign-off procedures threaten to derail your schedule or hamper your quest for a good case study, meet face to face with your client and explain the impact, and then work out a solution together.

2. Sell good stuff
Only recommend what will work, not just what will sell.

I seem to have been lucky with my agencies over the years. I have taken for granted that (most of the time) they have recommended the right thing. But in working at Bluefrog I have seen several examples of shocking practice from other agencies, who have presented slick creative that in direct response terms was always going to be as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Not sure why, but inserts seem to be a favourite. Agency: "you should do inserts. Look, here's a nice design". Client: "ooh yes, I agree, how nicely designed". But on what basis does the agency think this will give the best return on investment?

Selling duds is short-sighted, as it damages all agencies' credibility in the eyes of clients.

3. Challenge inexperience
Don’t hesitate in going to senior client staff when big decisions are being messed up by amateur, inexperienced – if well meaning – juniors. [gasp]

I'm sticking my neck out here.

Slightly embarrassed, I have had to concede that charity marketing teams are rather too often not staffed by skilled marketers. Heads of department seem to accept on-the-job learning, where junior staff are allowed to direct agencies and inevitably produce weak work as a result. Imagine being in a plane when the captain announces, "afternoon, this is your captain; we're coming in to land shortly and I'm going to sit with you while a trainee pilot takes over - she's only read about landing a plane and is still getting to grips with the controls but we should be alright in the end."

Although a poor advertising campaign does not threaten life immediately, many charities who deal with life and death issues would have been able to save more lives if only the campaign had worked better. And there is an obligation to use donated funds to the best possible effect.

And so, be ready to challenge clients. I only stick my neck out like this is because I have seen enough examples of even large national charities running campaigns in the way I have described above.

DO YOU AGREE?
Do these factors resonate for you – whichever side of the fence you are on? Please add to them, agree or disagree by leaving a comment.

These final weeks in this role have been incredibly busy so I have not written as in-depth a post as I would have liked. Do fill in some of the gaps.

Finally, may I say very publicly how much I have enjoyed the madness, intensity, achievements, constant learning curve, many successes, fun and privilege of working with my client services and legacies teams, Mark and the other Frogs, playing a part in helping such fantastic organisations do industry-leading fundraising.

Top3: What commercial marketers can teach their charity peers

Just like commercial marketers, charity marketers are in the business of building brands and generating income profitably. What the best commercial marketers do very well, however, is to maintain a single-minded focus on performance.

And that manifests itself in several ways. In the second in a series of Top3 posts, I shall consider what some of these are.

At Rapp, there is a ‘testing bible’ that contains over 25 years of testing on NSPCC direct marketing. I remember in an agency meeting one day, sat overlooking Hammersmith bridge, asking why the NSPCC used plain outer envelopes – featuring no more than the logo.

“Ah,” came the reply, “five years ago we completed a series of tests that showed that a plain OE uplifted response.”

There it was. My perception that they were weaker was an unfounded assumption. (Although in fact we had tested them at ChildLine and found that plain outers only worked occasionally.)

“But in fact,” they continued, “we’ve seen that ChildLine’s outers for lower value segments almost always feature headlines or some other artwork. And they work well, from what we can gather.”

I confess that I felt a little smug.

“So we’re going to test them.”

The reason I dwell on that episode in working with Rapp is that except for some of the larger charities – especially those with very experienced DM managers – most charities are not good at testing.

Some simply make assumptions and do not test. They follow their heart, swayed by a moving concept presentation, or their own preferences. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.

Of course there are still exceptions, but commercial marketers generally test more rigorously. From something as basic as only changing one variable at a time, to more complex testing such as subtle home page variations on a website.

US luxury goods store Neiman Marcus has been incredibly successful online, and growth has far outstripped offline growth in recent years … imagine buying a £4,000 handbag via mail order! But the success is due in no small part to the rigour of the testing. Every minor tweak to the home page is tested with AB testing – i.e. one visitor to the site gets homepage A, whilst the next sees homepage B.

Similarly, in the UK, lastminute has developed a testing matrix that splits visitors to the site into one of six segments. They have found that this enables them to test any combination of variables and ensures the homepage works the best it possibly can.

And this gives a clue to a related, but separate, point. In general, commercial marketers only make changes or take action when something is proven. In my experience, charity marketers make decisions more subjectively, e.g. “I think we should change the colour of the ‘donate now’ button; red looks horrible.” But commercial marketers are much more likely to be heard saying, “our conversion rates are falling slightly; I wonder if we should change the colour or size of the ‘submit’ button; let’s test different versions.”

Nevertheless, sometimes even the best testing is insufficient to prevent poor results. However, commercial marketers are – generally – quicker to pull the plug than charity folks. They are better at facing up to reality, and chopping out poor performing parts of their programme (and staff for that matter).

They also begin the fight-back a little quicker. Contingency plans are implemented straight away, with pre-determined budgets. Energy and focus are ramped up, and they will naturally work even harder until things turn around.

Sadly, this is often not the case in charities. They are sometimes not even on top of their numbers until several weeks down the line. By the time they grasp that failure is upon them, their next campaign is ready – using the same formula.

In a way, the Top3 things that commercial marketers can teach non-profit marketers are very closely linked. And they are more about professional discipline than about tactics or techniques:

1. Testing rigorously
2. Rarely doing anything unless it’s proven
3. Monitoring performance – when they do take risks, they ensure results and data will be immediately available, they will monitor them and they have strategies in place to manage the various outcomes.

Charity marketers often show creativity and innovation, but those qualities alone will not lead to the greatest success. The perception that the sector can sometimes be somewhat amateur in its overall approach is not entirely unjustified.

Which Top3 would you suggest?

Top3: what charity marketers can teach their commercial peers

Admittedly, there is a swathe of charity marketing that is muddled, wasteful and not strategic.

However, it would be grossly inaccurate to deny that in many instances, charity marketers use more sophisticated and more effective techniques than their commercial counterparts.

This is the first in a series of 'Top3' posts, in pairs, using the format ‘what A can teach B', followed by, 'what B can teach A’.

Here’s my suggested trio of things the Dark Side could learn from non-profit marketers.

Personalisation
Basic, huh? But how many times have you received communication from companies who appear to pay no attention to who you are?

There are so many good examples from charity marketing to draw on, but one in particular comes to mind.

A couple of years ago Bluefrog’s data planners started introducing ‘ultra-personalisation’ with various clients. This is where each mailing, telephone script or digital communication contains details personalised to that individual.

From a simple reference to the number of years the donor has supported, to relating the number of doctors in a large rural area in Uganda to the equivalent number of doctors in the nearest town to where the donor lives, this has steadily increased value across the donor spectrum.

Segmentation
I have been banking online for nearly a decade. Every year of that with the Co-operative Bank. Why, then do I still get statements or letters through the post with leaflets promoting online banking?

Here’s an idea, Co-op: split the mailing into two segments; A. already bank online, B. don’t bank online. Marginal increase in production costs but a saving on print and a saving on customer irritation.

Of course, the likes of Tesco do segment - into many thousands of distinct segments in their case - and create carefully tailored messaging to each segment.

But charity appeals are among the most consistently complex and effective models of segmentation. Not only are donors split by simple value bands, they are also often segmented by recency, type of giving, number of relationships, contact preferences, age and propensity. Among many more.

At Bluefrog, we have for several years also advocated segmentation by low-value and mid/high-value donors. The proposition is often the same, but when served different creative, the latter group responds radically differently.

Although costs increase, net income always goes up – sometimes doubling.

Early commercial models include BA’s Club World, but such communication products are still relatively rare.

Thanks
Give to charity and you get a warm feeling. Some charities mess it up, by bombarding donors or conveying wastefulness, but on the whole, people know they will feel good if they give (through meeting their donor needs).

Charities who really tap into that do so by calling on a host of techniques – perhaps most importantly of all being the thank you.

Send the same generic thank you time after time, and donors will switch off. The best charity marketers know that, and certainly at Bluefrog we advise a fresh thank you letter be written with each new appeal or communication, to be ready as soon as the gifts begin arriving.

If you buy a new car, you expect a certain level of attention – although a fawning, sickly ego stroke takes it too far.

But imagine if commercial marketers said ‘thank you’ with every purchase, in the same way even a small donation is received with gratitude by most non-profits? Particularly online, there is so much scope for personalised, relevant thank yous and feedback requests – why, then, do so many insist on regurgitating the ‘transaction confirmed’ messages they wrote in 1998?!

What do you think? Which aspects of non-profit marketing would make it into your top three?