Why something is better than nothing

Retaining donors recruited on the street (face-to-face) is hard work.

In many respects its the elephant in the room, or has been for many years. Generally accepted that you’ll lose almost half of those regular givers recruited within the first 12 months.

I’m pleased to say that two years into an intensive effort to rebuke this, our clients are having some success in keeping far more donors.

One of the key aspects to the success of these programs (which I’ve talked about in the past, including here) is the regularity of communicating, especially early days.

This flies in the face of one of the myths thats been permeating the sector (particularly here in Australia) for many years: leave em’ alone. The more contact, the higher the cancellations. Don’t give them an excuse to leave you.

Whilst I’ve always thought this was BS, we are now seeing some conclusive data to prove it. We’ve tested two different approaches. A control group where donors receive nothing but a welcome pack (and an annual update), versus a test group with regular communication (up to 25 touch points a year).

The result? Much lower attrition when we keep in touch regularly. What a surprise.

Of course there’s no point sending stuff for the sake of it and granted if we sent loads of rubbish we’d probably see rubbish attrition.

But it’s not. The program’s filled with beautiful stories of lives touched and saved. Shared in different ways; by video, via podcasts, the written word.

More on the execution at a later date. For now, I wanted to share why, when it comes to keeping F2F recruited regular givers, something is a hell of a letter better than nothing.