We’re Outreaching; Are We Succeeding?

24 Sep We’re Outreaching; Are We Succeeding?

24 September 2024

By David Allen, Development for Conservation

Note: It’s Rally Week – [Will I see you in Providence?] – and I am reposting this from March of 2022.

If there is one word in land trust language that would benefit the most from tighter definition, it’s probably the word “outreach.” We have Outreach Committees, Directors of Membership and Outreach, Outreach Strategies, Outreach Events, and so on.

I’m certain that the staff, Board members, and volunteers involved in these activities each have a pretty good idea what “outreach” means for them. But it’s not consistent across our community because each person brings their own personality and comfort-level to the question. When the actual definition is this ambiguous, what counts as “outreach” becomes “whatever I feel like doing today,” or even “whatever I feel most comfortable doing.” Some organizations are tabling at farmer’s markets. Others are posting on social media and publishing email “blasts.” Still others are working on structured environmental education.

The question I have is “Is it working?”

My bias here is that communications work should be measured. “Success” implies that we have established goals and that we are able to show we are moving in those directions. Communications is then considered “successful” when our metrics change in the direction we want. Usually that requires some sort of response from the person with whom we are communicating.

Eye contact. A nod of the head. Someone saying “Mm, hmm” every once in a while.

Specialized communication requires specific, defined responses. Marketing, for example is a specialized communication – the response we are looking for is the conversion from people not giving to people giving. This can obviously be measured. The more people responding (by giving), the more effective the marketing.

For much of our other communications, the results are not as clearly measured.

In my work, I am most interested in Donor Communications. And I would hope that when donor communications is effective, it would be reflected in things like renewal rates, regular upgrading, increasing five-year values, and more money available to conservation outcomes. Presumably, the more donors know about how their investments are paying off, the more likely they are to increase their investments over time.

A problem I often point to is that few organizations are focusing on communicating with donors. They are focusing on “outreach” instead. The general sense is that if we send everything to everybody, our donors will get it, too. I don’t actually believe that.

One organization I recently worked with had 300 members and more than 6,000 subscribers – people who regularly received information but were not touched, moved, or inspired enough to act (give, volunteer, and so on). What could we do to improve that ratio?

Well, we could ask them …

An underutilized technique (in my opinion) for communications with donors is to ask questions. Our newsletters often read as newspapers – one-way communications. But they don’t need to. They could include one-question surveys, invitations to special events or briefings, links to more information about this and that – responses that can be measured to help us understand how we are getting through. We could test different communication styles, points-of-view, event types, and so on and then adjust our outreach programs accordingly.

But even then, how do we know that our donors are responding and not the community more generally?

Some of our outreach events serve this purpose, but we tend to stop at the counting. For example, eighty people came to our field trip or lecture event. Is that good? Is it increasing or decreasing from our previous experience? And most important from an evaluation standpoint: Is it the SAME people? or are we attracting a new set altogether?

We know from behavioral science that the more “channels” someone engages in the more likely they are to identify with the organization and become loyal. Are we measuring how many current donors are engaged? What percentage of our current donorbase participated in a field trip last year? Is that percentage growing or shrinking?

We could ask these same questions of our annual meeting, lecture events, social media likes and shares, and so on.

In other words, we have ways of evaluating whether our communications strategies are working. (Our willingness to use what we learn to change strategies if they are not working is another story altogether.)

My point is that our “outreach” programs need this same kind of measuring work. What is the point of outreach? Social media “likes” and Mail Chimp “open rates” are the metrics everyone points to, but how do these relate to whether something is “working” or not? How do they translate to fundraising?

It’s like counting the number of cars driving down the freeway underneath a billboard and inferring that X number of people see your message every day.

So what? If the same people see you, or open you, or like you, or attend your outreach events over and over, does that satisfy the Outreach goals?

If the answer is Yes, let’s not ever confuse these activities with fundraising.

If the answer is No, how will you measure whether your outreach is working?

And consider this: At some point you will want to move your billboard. The people who were going to see it, have seen it. The people who were going to notice, noticed. Your return on that investment is diminishing. Time to move the billboard. How will your current outreach strategies “move”?

Cheers, and Have a great week!

-da

PS: Since I first wrote this is 2022, I have talked about these themes with lots and lots of people. And I have come to the following conclusions:

1. At least one of the primary purposes of outreach programs should be to help interested people find us and invest in conservation – “likes” is not enough. Trusting that something will work eventually is not enough.
2. The best outreach events are those in which both current donors and non-donors participate – with the caveat that the distinction is obvious.
3. The outreach program as a whole should have two metrics: how many new donors were inspired to make a first gift, and the percentage of current donors who participated at all. These two metrics can also be applied to individual activities.
4. Every activity, and the outreach program as a whole, needs a goal. If something isn’t working, move on.

PPS: 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 Bandi Wage courtesy of Pixabay.com.