11
How to make sure your donors read you r pub I ications Ken Burnett and Jackie Fowler White Lion Court, 7 Garrett Street, London ECly OTY, UK; Tel: +44 171 490 4939; Fax: +44 171 490 31 26; e-mail: [email protected] Received (in revised form): 70th September, 7997 Ken Burnett is Chairman of Burnett Associates Limited and an internationally well-known lecturer on marketing for not-for-profits. He is author of several books on fundraising and communica- tions including ‘Charity Annual Reports’ (Di- rectory of Social Change, London, 1987), ‘Relationship fundraising’ (The White Lion Press, London, 1992) and ‘Friends for life’ (The White Lion Press, London, 1997). Jackie Fowler is Director of Burnett Publica- tions, a division of Burnett Associates Limited. She has ten years experience of producing publications and direct marketing campaigns for many of Britain’s most successful fundraising organisation, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, The National Trust, Botton Village and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. ABSTRACT Volirntary organisations poirr large chinks of their irsirally slerider resoirrces into prodircing pirblications in the hope that these will carry their niariy proniotio~ial rnessages to a variety of atrdierices, pnrticirlarly donors and other sirpporters. T h e airtliors feel that little is known aboirt how donors view and irse these pirblications and wlietlier or not their senders get good valire f o r rrioney. This paper preserits oti oirtlivie of jfiridirigs froni reseorcli recently coriiniissiotied by the airtliors irito liow doriors read arid irse the pirblicntions and other printed coriiriiirriicatioris setit to tlieiri by charities they sirpport. The conclirsion is that rriany charities coirld take sirtiple actioris to iniprove their pirblications, and some srrggestions are ntade. Froni the air tli o rs experience they scrpp 1 y gir idel it i es charities can follow i f they wish to cliatige the way doiiors perceive, read, erljoy, rerneriiber mid respond to thepirblications they send. Also inclirded is a cliecklist for basic strategic plan- ning so that any clinrity cari ensirre that toniorroiu’s donors will receive coniniirnica- tions based not jirst 011 what the cliarity wants to send, birt also on what the intended airdierice iuants to receive. INTRODUCTION Fundraisers have always been prolific producers of printed communications and thc arrival of clectronic mcdia has diminished this not at all. According to rcccnt research froni the UK’s Charities Aid Foundation’ three of the four most popular ways of communicating with donors are delivered by post. Charities expend much time, energy and moncy on their publications, but what do donors think of them? Do they read them and respond to them? Could fundraising publications do a better job? Providing information is, of course, not quitc synonymous with communicat- ing. Publications may be the preferred incatis by which most charities hope to communicate with most of their con- stituents, they may in thcir own opinion bc the shop window on voluntary action for the outside world and they may take

How to make sure your donors read your publications

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: How to make sure your donors read your publications

How to make sure your donors read you r pub I icat ions

Ken Burnett and Jackie Fowler White Lion Court, 7 Garrett Street, London ECly OTY, UK; Tel: +44 171 490 4939; Fax: +44 171 490 31 26; e-mail: [email protected]

Received (in revised form): 70th September, 7997

Ken Burnett is Chairman of Burnett Associates Limited and an internationally well-known lecturer on marketing for not-for-profits. He is author of several books on fundraising and communica- tions including ‘Charity Annual Reports’ (Di- rectory of Social Change, London, 1987), ‘Relationship fundraising’ (The White Lion Press, London, 1992) and ‘Friends for life’ (The White Lion Press, London, 1997).

Jackie Fowler is Director of Burnett Publica- tions, a division of Burnett Associates Limited. She has ten years experience of producing publications and direct marketing campaigns for many of Britain’s most successful fundraising organisation, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, The National Trust, Botton Village and the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

ABSTRACT

Volirntary organisations poirr large chinks of their irsirally slerider resoirrces into prodircing pirblications in the hope that these will carry their niariy proniotio~ial rnessages to a variety of atrdierices, pnrticirlarly donors and other sirpporters. T h e airtliors feel that little is known aboirt how donors view and irse these pirblications and wlietlier or not their senders get good valire f o r rrioney.

T h i s paper preserits oti oirtlivie of jf iridirigs froni reseorcli recently coriiniissiotied by the airtliors irito liow doriors read arid irse the pirblicntions and other printed coriiriiirriicatioris setit to tlieiri by charities they sirpport. The conclirsion is that rriany charities coirld take

sirtiple actioris to iniprove their pirblications, and some srrggestions are ntade. Froni the air tli o rs ’ experience they scrpp 1 y gir idel it i es charities can follow if they wish to cliatige the way doiiors perceive, read, erljoy, rerneriiber mid respond to thepirblications they send. Also inclirded is a cliecklist f o r basic strategic plan- ning so that any clinrity cari ensirre that toniorroiu’s donors will receive coniniirnica- tions based not jirst 011 what the cliarity wants to send, birt also on what the intended airdierice iuants to receive.

INTRODUCTION Fundraisers have always been prolific producers of printed communications and thc arrival of clectronic mcdia has diminished this not at all. According to rcccnt research froni the UK’s Charities Aid Foundation’ three of the four most popular ways of communicating with donors are delivered by post. Charities expend much time, energy and moncy on their publications, but what do donors think of them? Do they read them and respond to them? Could fundraising publications do a better job?

Providing information is, of course, not quitc synonymous with communicat- ing. Publications may be the preferred incatis by which most charities hope to communicate with most of their con- stituents, they may in thcir own opinion bc the shop window on voluntary action for the outside world and they may take

Page 2: How to make sure your donors read your publications

Figure I Binned-unopened (6%)

2 Opened-unread (5%)

Mostly/entirely read (41%)

only (1 4%)

’ Partially read (34%)

Note: 89% look at/read charity publications 11 YO do not look athead charity publications

a large part of the average fundraiser’s promotional budget, but recent research2 has shown that donors have firm views of their own about the publications they receive. And the opinions of some of these donors indicate that many fundraisers are not only falling short of their goals and missing worthwhile op- portunities, they may also be alienating significant potential support.

IN THE BAD OLD DAYS The authors’ company has experience of a time in the not-so-distant past when things may have been worse.3 Burnett Associates opened its doors as a publi- cations production agency in 1983 and even in those days charities churned out vast amounts of printed communications. But as printing and distribution costs were largely fixed and concepts such as investing in communication and donor development had not quite arrived, most

charities at the time saved money (or so they thought) by spending next to noth- ing on design, copy and photographs. As a result, the dull and uninspiring produc- tions they sent out all too often enjoyed an uninterrupted passage to the was- tepaper basket. In terms of donor com- munication, charity publications at that time could generally be described as fine examples of how to lose friends and influence no one.

Much has changed since. Charities nowadays realise that if publications are to repay investment they must be read and used (See Figure 1, which shows, as do all the figures in this paper, responses from the quantitative research only.) Therefore, they must be readable and usable. Consequently, ab- sence of design and copy has now given way to some apparently sophisticated and visually stimulating productions. Charity publications in the late 1990s are averagely well laid out, with plenty of

Page 3: How to make sure your donors read your publications

pictures and often employ full colour as well as the by now mandatory investment in design and, perhaps less frequently, copywriting.

But it may be that many charities are still missing the mark. Designers, in the authors’ experience, are not necessarily communicators and those responsible for charity publications are seldom ex- perienced publishers. The clamour from competitive sources for ‘our’ donors’ attention has increased many times in the intervening decade and a half, while society’s collective attention span seems to have become dramatically shorter. So merely looking good may not be enough if fundraising communications are to achieve the attention they deserve in this noisy world. Fundraisers should be aware that design is not necessarily synonymous with readability. And, even more impor- tant, what fundraisers want to say may not be synonymous with what donors want to hear.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW, ASK YOUR DONORS Not surprisingly, the best source of information on what donors want is donors themselves. Yet remarkably little general research has been done among donors to establish their preferences and prejudices when it comes to reading matter from the charities they might support. And charities who routinely expend a small part of their publications budget in evaluating how recipients use -or do not use - their productions are still very much the exception. Considering the scale of expenditure in this area, this could be something of a false economy.

In an attempt to see what lessons could be learned from donors, Burnett Publica- tions commissioned a study in early 1997 from independent market research company Karen Shaw Market Research

Limited. Conducted from March to May, the study involved 159 telephofie inter- views (following a structured question- naire) and 20 face-to-face interviews (using a topic guide), all with ABCl current charity donors randomly selected to ensure impartiality and give a diversity of charities supported. All face-to-face interviewees and all but 18 of the telephone interviewees were a t the time receiving and reading charity publica- tions, often from more than one charity. All of the face-to-face interviews were in the South-East of England, although location is not felt to be particularly important. Females outnumbered males in both samples by about two to one, and a similar proportion of participants were aged 45 and over.

HOW DONORS VIEW CHARITY PUBLICATIONS As expected, the response from donors was excellent. Donors are very willing to help charities through research. Also as expected, virtually all responses were tinged with what the researchers came to refer to as ‘the goodwill factor’. Clearly donors are nice people and do not like to say anything bad about worthwhile organisa- tions, particularly those they support ac- tively. Because ofthis, it soon became clear that what they say may not always be what they mean. (For example most donors said they were happy with the publications they receive, but many also indicated that they would like to see change. The reasons for this became apparent during the depth interviews). Some allowances have to be made for this ‘goodwill’ syndrome, which the authors believe affects nearly all re- search among donors.

Another important fact emerged early on, when participants were asked specific questions relating to publications produced by charities they claimed to

Page 4: How to make sure your donors read your publications

Figure 2

48%

33%

18%

79% n

support regularly and asked to compare these with publications from other charities. Figure 2 illustrates the types of publication received. From their responses it appears that donors make a very clear distinction between those charities of which they consider them- selves to be supporters (perhaps quite different from the charity’s view of the relationship) and those they do not support specifically. The goodwill (tolerance) factor appeared to be sig- nificantly greater for those they do support. Donors also have different expectations of charities they do and do not support and are more willing to be open and criticise those charities they do not support.

Direct mail Tolerance and goodwill seem to disap- pear whenever direct mail is mentioned, whatever its source. All researchers were briefed to ask about postal appeals and the subject of fundraising by direct mail, and all reported with concern and alarm that whenever direct mail is introduced into the discussion donors’ hackles rise. It appears that, whatever charities may wish, many donors do not like direct mail. (See Figure 3.) Fifty-seven per cent

of telephone interviewees said they do not like receiving direct mail appeals, whereas only 2 per cent claimed to enjoy receiving them. Negative views of direct mail appeals were, unfortunately, con- firmed by the depth interviews. Attitudes ranged from tolerance mixed with a de- gree of irritation to obvious anger, arising from feelings of bombardment; that they (the interviewees) cannot give to every- one; the perceived aggressive tone of some mailings; resentment of donation tick boxes and incentives; and so on.

Magazines and newsletters Other communications such as mag- azines and newsletters can compensate, at least in part. Donors think surpris- ingly highly of charity publications, al- though through the goodwill it is possible to see some clear demands for change. Eighty-one per cent expressed satisfac- tion with the publications they receive, but at the same time over 41 per cent said they want betterldifferent publications. Thirty-seven per cent said they do not enjoy the publications they are sent, and 25 per cent found them irrelevant. The level of enjoyment is shown in Figure 4. (These figures may seem contradictory, but the confusion occurs because in some

Page 5: How to make sure your donors read your publications

Figure 3 Open and read most/all appeals (23%)

Do not .open and read appeals (29%)

Open and read some appeals (48%)

Base: all respondents

places respondents could tick more than one box.) The interpretation is that the high rate of apparent satisfaction is caused by the goodwill factor, but when some donors are offered the opportunity to give other opinions they will be slightly more revealing.

‘If the sector wishes to preserve the existing public goodwill it will have to nurture it through more carefully designed cam- paigns and increasing use of research and donor feedback.’’

Information and inspiration The research indicated that donors need both hard facts and inspiration and that few charity publications cater success- fully for both. Important information includes explaining how the money is spent and how it makes a difference. But here charities tend to try to say too much, to give far more information than most donors want, so donors switch off. Annual reports particularly receive the thumbs down here.

Donors are also seeking inspiration, more than just a warm glow (although this is important). They want to share in an idealistic vision, to feel they are part of something supremely worthwhile. Some charities are very much better than others at imparting this (and publications are often their sole means of doing so), but most lose their inspiration amid pages of superfluous detail. , It matters a great deal that charity publications should be more effective, for several reasons. As mentioned ear-

’ lier, charities spend a great deal of time, energy and money on their publications. It is mostly via publications that the world forms its picture, not just of in- dividual charities, but of voluntary ac- tion generally. Publications are a charity’s principal means of communicating with its supporters. Sadly the responses to the research survey seem to show that when it comes to publications many charities could do much better, and some are barely communicating at all. The overall opinion of charity publications received is shown in Figure 5. Donors’ responses

Page 6: How to make sure your donors read your publications

Figure 4 Don’t know (3%)

?

Not very

Base: 141 (100%) - all skimhead partially, mostly, entirely

show that there is a world of difference between sending information and com- municating. From this it was concluded that fundraisers should be aware that not communicating means more than just wasted money and more than just failing to build relationships. At a time when donor development is fashionable, in- effective publications may be doing a charity’s existing supporter relationships some damage.

WHAT INFLUENCES EFFECTIVENESS? Publication production is about language, images and design to produce documents that entertain, inspire and motivate their intended audience(s) while meeting their need for information at all levels. It is much more than a question of graphic design. Success will also depend on

knowledge of the reader, the organisation and the issues that interest them both, as well as fundraising strategy, marketing skill, linguistics, printing and apparently even ergonomics, psychology and much more beside^.^

The ‘How donors read’ research project appears to confirm these opinions and points to a very complex range of fac- tors that seem to affect the effectiveness of charity publications. First of these is donors’ attitudes to the subjects and issues that the charity might write about.

‘I used to support xxxx and got really tired of their literature coming through every month. Really horrible stufflike seals bashed over the head.’

Charity publications reader

These attitudes can also be complex, indicating that fundraisers really need to

Page 7: How to make sure your donors read your publications

Figure 5

Satisfied with what receive (81%) 4 Would like a choice about publications received (43%)

Would like to receive a different type of publication (22%)

Would like to receive better publications (19%)

Not satisfied with what receive (17%) Would prefer to receive

no publications (21%) Would like to receive more (10%)

Would like to receive less (39%)

Base: all respondents

understand their donors and to deal with their different attitudes and expectations appropriately in fundraising publications. If the editorial approach is sympathetic to the broad range of attitudes the publica- tion is more likely to be effective. This has to be matched by equal sensitivity to and understanding of the emotional need of donors and their need for information. Publications have to satisfy both types of need, or their effectiveness will be reduced.

Appeal and accessibility Instant appeal is also important to a large numbcr of donors, as is accessibility. Many donors expressed the strong view that they are unwilling to wade through extraneous matter, or to work at finding the information they want. Neither are they prepared to wait to be stimulated or entertained. It is an example of the com- mon phenomenon, where less is often more. Donors said they want informa-

tion to be well signposted so they do not have to work a t finding it. Headings such as ‘Annual Report’ put people off.

Openness and accountability Unsurprisingly, openness and account- ability - or the lack of them - rate very highly with donors. They really want to know where their money and is going, and how it makes a difference.

‘People have got to understand where their money is going.’

Charity publications reader

According to donors there are other tan- gible issues that also affect effectiveness. Two often mentioned favourites are size (donors much prefer shorter documents that are easy to use) and frequency (bet- ter publications are welcome more often than poorly prepared ones). These ob- servations seem blindingly obvious, but they are certainly not apparent to many

Page 8: How to make sure your donors read your publications

charities if one judges by what they send their donors.

Size and frequency Many donors feel that charities are not in tune with their preferences on either size or frequency. Thirty-nine per cent indi- cated they would like less information, and 21 per cent said they would prefer none at all. Nearly 43 per cent would like a choice in the publications they receive.

‘I want to have something fairly easy to hold and read while drinking a cup of coffee.’

Charity publications reader

Presentat ion Presentation, tone of voice, and image are also factors that influence effectiveness, as are readability and, not surprisingly, op- portunities for involvement and response. Many donors indicated that they are put off by overt appeals within their publica- tions, although often this appears to be a consequence of how the request is made rather than that a donation has been sought per se. Conversely, opportunities for involvement (ie helpline, invitations to contribute comments or articles etc) are often welcomed by donors.

INTRODUCING CHANGE The research shows that many once regular and loyal donors feel that nega- tive experiences of charity publications have reduced their interest in, and even stopped them supporting, once favoured causes. Several donors made it quite clear that some charities were communicating much more effectively with them than others and that this influenced them to support the better communicators. So for some charities a change of procedure could bring big dividends.

‘There’s such a lot of it, the lines are close together and the letters are very small. You’ve really got to concentrate - this isn’t a five minute read to see what the charity is going after. There’s too much if it, it’s too detailed.’

Charity publications reader

‘Everyone should have a choice of not feeling guilty if you don’t want to receive them.’

Charity publications reader

Picking up on lessons to be learned from the detailed responses to ‘How donors read,’ the authors have prepared some simple guidelines for charities who want to get more from their donors and their publications. What follow, therefore, are suggestions on subjects influenced by this research, based on the authors’ combined experience of what works when com- municating with donors.

Changing how donors perceive your publications

- Tell your donors what you are doing, and why. Donors apparently ap- preciate being involved and kept in- formed.

- Make promises/issue guarantees. ‘Customer charters’ and the like may be currently out of fashion, but donors will be reassured by promises of fair dealing and prompt service.

- Keep donors informed as you develop your publications strategy. Explain your thinking to them.

- Invite their opinions. Explain why their views matter. Give them as many chances to be involved as possible.

- Give readers a chance to contribute to the content of what they receive. If possible, allow your donors to choose what publications they want to receive from you, and when.

Page 9: How to make sure your donors read your publications

Changing how much your donors enjoy your publications

- Work hard at getting the content right. Listen to your donors. Research their views.

- Make sure the format of each publica- tion is as concise, convenient and ac- cessible as possible.

-Design for readability (see below). If your readers are predominantly older, set type correspondingly large.

-Use only the best photographs and illustrations. And use plenty of them.

-Check that the style, mood and tone of voice of your publications are right for your principal audience.

-If you can, make appropriate special offers from which only your readers can benefit. Even better, see if these can be related specifically to your cause.

Changing what your readers remember

-You know all too well what you and your organisation stand for, but would your reader? Do your publications present a clear and consistent image? Do they reflect strongly your or- ganisation’s culture and values? They should:

-Are they strong advocates of your charity’s brand? IS that branding clear and consistent throughout?

-Shorter copy and good pictures are more likely to be remembered.

- Try condensing important copy into a series of bullet points.

- Only use really good stories. And tell them with passion and courage.

Changing how your readers respond

- Encourage response at every oppor- tunity.

-Provide clear reply forms. If ap- propriate, design your forms with older donors in mind.

-Wherever feasible and desirable, offer your donors choices.

- Set up a helpline and encourage com- plaints.

- Show your people. Put photos, brief, customer-friendly job descriptions and a phone number in all relevant publica- tions.

Readability The ‘How donors read’ research supports the authors’ experience of the complex and vitally important area of readability, confirming that it is one of the hard- est subjects for the non-technical charity publisher. Yet it is here that many pub- lications fall very short of acceptable. As with all free publications, if people find what charities send them difficult to read they will probably not work at it. And you cannot save souls in an empty church. What makes readability a particular graveyard for charity pub- lishers is that fundraisers make the not unreasonable assumption that their ex- pensively hired and doubtless sensitive designer should know about and take care of all things to do with readability. Un- fortunately designers often know little more about readability than the average man or woman in the street, and may care even less if they believe. their role is solely to enhance the visual look of your publi- cation. Too often what is most readable is not what is most fashionable, innova- tive, or striking. Ask yourself when you last worked with a designer who actually understands your audience and who has read your copy.

Technical and complicated it may be but readability really does matter. Most donors will not know much about it, but they do know what they find difficult to read. It may not strike them that

Page 10: How to make sure your donors read your publications

the publication they are trying to read pays no attention to reading gravity, or uses the wrong typestyle or face, or has columns that are too wide, or uses in- appropriate backgrounds or, equally pos- sibly, does all of these things at once. You might think it could not happen, but a glance at any random selection of charity publications will tell you otherwise. What follows is really the only piece of advice to give on this subject.

Changing how people read your publications

Make sure your designer knows what affects readability in all areas.

- headlines - captions - call-outs - typestyles - typefaces - type sizes -when to use reversed

ground - colours - tints -justification - reading gravity

type back-

If he or she has any doubts, point them towards the research of Colin W h e i l d ~ n . ~

A STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE

‘. . . in spite of an increasing awareness of the need to improve public communica- tions, the pressure on fundraisers to max- imise returns and reduce costs inhibits longer term strategic development.”

If they are to satisfy all the complex requirements and interests of today’s donor, the research findings clearly show that charity publications need to do much

more than just improve the way they look.

Faced with such a complex task, what is the concerned charity publisher to do? Establishing even a basic strategy for publications might be a good place to start.

‘. . . only 15 per cent of charities carry out regular marker research.”

What might that strategy say?

- Fewer, less, but better. Charities could save by producing fewer, shorter publications and invest that saving in making them better and more effec- tive.

- Brand values, image, housestyle. Your strategy should define.how your publications will reflect these.

- Commitment to customer service. Define your policy, how it will show in your publications and what you expect to get in return.

- Investment in design, copy and photo- graphs. And really good stories.

- Systems for involving readers. Make response and participation attractive and easy.

- Audit of readability. Make sure your publications are enjoyable and easy to read.

- Research, evaluation and review. How will you feed back lessons learned into your next cycle of publications?

- Staff training. Everyone should know the importance of your publications strategy and their role in it.

- Involving all your organisation. How will you communicate your strategy and what is involved to all potential stakeholders, internal and external?

Once the strategy is put in place, with all the questions answered, charity publi-

Page 11: How to make sure your donors read your publications

cations can move ahead and appeal to donors in the best possible way.

REFERENCES (1) ‘Keeping posted’ CAF Research Report

No. 1. (2) ‘How donors read’, a research project

undertaken from March to May 1997 by Karen Shaw Market Research Limited on behalf of Burnett Publications.

(3) In the authors’ opinion, based on their experience rather than formal research.

(4) Adapted from Kempson E. and Moore, N. (1994) ‘Designing public -. documents’, Policy Studies Institute, London.

(5) Wheildon, C. (1984) ‘Communicating - or just making pretty shapes? A study of the validity - or otherwise - of some elements of typographic design’, The Australian Bureau of Newspaper Advertising, and Wheildon, C. (1994) ‘Type and layout’, The Strathmoor Press, Berkeley, California.