How Much is Efficiency Worth?

15 Oct How Much is Efficiency Worth?

15 October 2024

By David Allen, Development for Conservation

Bob, why don’t you ask for money in your letters?

It’s more efficient to ask everyone for the same amount. Or not to really ask at all, leaving the amount given entirely up to the donor to determine.

Even though when we do that, we raise less money.

Tricia, you have a good appeal letter and it includes a QR code, but the code sends everyone to the website’s main landing page, which lists giving amounts from $25 to $250. Why don’t you send $250 people to a landing page with options starting at $250? And $1,000 people to a landing page with options starting at $1,000?

It’s more efficient to just have one landing page – good for everyone.

Even though some of our $1,000 people end up giving $50, and we raise less money.

Telissa, your letters are all addressed to “Dear Friend.” Why don’t you use an address block and merge all your appeal letters?

It’s more efficient to send everyone the same letter. It takes less time to prepare and it costs less to assemble the letters and envelopes.

Even though when we do that, we sound totally impersonal. Fewer people respond, and we raise less money.

Reed, you are just sending one letter in November for your annual appeal. Why not send a follow-up in December to all those who didn’t respond?

It’s more efficient to just send one. And it won’t help us if people feel harassed.

Even though when we don’t send a follow-up, fewer people respond, and we raise less money.

James, the lift notes your Board members wrote on the appeal letter last year contributed to the appeal being one of the best ever. Why aren’t you using lift notes this year?

We’re short on time and it’s more efficient to send letters without lift notes.

Even though the letters are just that much more impersonal, and raise less money.

Jacki, why are you are only using email appeals this year?

It’s more efficient to send email instead of all that letter complexity.

Even though we know that many of our supporters do not respond to email and we raise less money.

Chad – all of these things make your life easier. All of these strategies make the process more efficient. After all, the annual appeal is just a chore, right? And the insidious thing is that the cost of this greater efficiency is totally hidden. You don’t miss what you never had.

So, turn the whole thing upside down. Regardless of how inefficient it might be, and regardless of how long it might take, think about asking each individual person for their end-of-year gift based entirely on them – their gift amount last year, their participation in organizational events since then, their specific interests in the conservation priorities, their age, their communications preference – all of it. Intuitively, you would probably agree that this approach will yield the greatest return, both in terms of participation and in terms of money raised.

But, let’s face it, Alison. That’s unlikely – too many of THEM and not enough of YOU to make it happen. So, you compromise. A corner cut here, a grouping there. Segmentation, they call it. One size fits some. And each time you segment, it becomes a little more efficient and a little less personal. Until you really just have one segment. One size fits all. And you do this even though you probably raise a little less money. A little less that you don’t see anyway.

But instead of striving for the greatest efficiency we can muster, shouldn’t we be striving for the greatest personalization we can handle?

We would raise more money, Davin.

Cheers, and Have a great week!

-da

PS: Your comments on these posts are welcomed and warmly requested. If you have not posted a comment before, or if you are using a new email address, please know that there may be a delay in seeing your posted comment. That’s my SPAM defense at work. I approve all comments as soon as I am able during the day.

Photo by Frederic Goby courtesy of Pixaby.