So You're Saying There's A Chance?

Yeah, I know it's a cliched joke.

Here's a very involved idea that might not pay off. There's some risk and some uncertainty. A lot of people won't like it, won't buy into it, and might end up scorning it even though it may have seemed rational at one point.

Create a system that measures a caller's chance of getting a particular pledge. No, not for the caller, for the prospect. Call it the GPR: the gift probability rating. It will be the primary measure of how well a caller is doing, how tough the caller's assignments are, and which callers are getting the short end of the stick. It may also aid in group specialization for callers and individual training.

It must first be said that this system would require a huge investment. I mean, HUGE. Like REALLY HUGE!!! Did you get that? Good, because here it goes. Calling will take longer initially, as will every other job going up the ladder. There will be some numbers that help but there will also have to be some guessing. And a lot of those guesses will be wrong: too high or too low. Wrong when you think they're right. Right when you think they're wrong. The system is not likely to mesh with CampusCall. You probably won't even realize until the burden of the system starts to kick in how tough this is going to be.

I haven't quite worked this out yet. I'm not good enough. A CIS major might have a shot at it. But the GPR's can't be made arbitrarily, so here are some inputs, some easy and some tough:

• percent of years given (times given over years since graduation)
• number of activities involved on campus
• number of activities involved post-graduation (think small on this one)
  
• current career/income
• Times gift amount has increased
• Toughest part: someone has to put a figure on how "happy" the student was on campus and how much she generally liked the university experience
• Addendum: if there is any reasonable circumstance during which a caller can ask a prospect for this kind of number, go for it!

Obviously, this isn't the complete formula. This isn't the complete equation. Some of these ideas may not even work or be correct. It will take some trial and error. There is no exact science of getting into the heads of alums. (Well, there is but we need their consent.) But callers need to know their chances and Annual Giving needs to know that callers are measuring up. This system is NOT an excuse, but rather an opportunity. But it's an investment...and something to talk about.

Get Increases or Bring In New Fish?

It's an interesting question. Is there more money trying to get increases from current donors or new gifts from previous non-donors? I want to argue for the former.

But the first thought you have is obvious: aren't there about a thousand new non-donors produced every year that will end up having a pretty high GPR (Giving Potential Rating)? Yes, sort of. Granted, many of these individuals who will give once they get their feet on the ground (the only group of people you actually trust when such topics arise) will already have given Senior Gifts or the like. Let's not consider these people. They have a really high chance of being part of the fan club.

This is one kind of non-donor. The other kind strikes demoralization into the hearts of callers. You wish they'd have said "no phone" years ago. Instead we call them every year, even though they haven't given in the fifteen years since graduation. You want to say, "Look, calling you every year is a waste of time. If you're not going to give, just leave me alone." There is something to this situation, but let's save it for another post.

Usually, these new fish takes themselves off of the list because, after a few years, they get tired of the calls. But what about the alums who gave a couple times after graduation and haven't given in thirteen years. Their GPR is about as low as the woman above. That's going to be a pretty low GPR (once we get it up). Meanwhile, someone who's been giving somewhat consistently has a much higher GPR. He is very much inclined to remain a part of the fan club and give his thirty bucks a year.

But how much is it worth to ask for an increase? Well, he could say 'no'. Or, worse, he could be offended and not give. What if he never gives again? Then, he's probably not much of a fan. Small increases should work. To ensure that such offense is not taken, let's use the Tip rule. Fifteen percent. Twenty if he sounds happy. Ten if he's...you know.

Don't get it twisted. New club members are great. Adding potentially excited individuals to our group of alumni who appreciate the university experience is great. It's amazing. But strengthening the core is better. It makes for a stronger tribe and, probably, more money. The big dough lies in increasing gifts from current donors, getting them a little more enthused with a little more reason to be happy. It's there: we just need to grab a hold of it.

Working On Closings For Refusals

Openings are pretty tough. They require just the right amount of politeness, determination, and persuasion to work. They require a caller to demonstrate an understanding of what is appropriate and what is acceptably risky. It would be nice if openings were easier.

Closings, on the other hand, are simple, maybe even easy. Remember to thank the prospect; remember to restate the gift amount; and remember to tell the prospect when to send in the check. A lot of remembering and not a lot of doing. Until now.

Just as we try to have a cordial, confident, and persuasive beginning to a call, we should have a strong finish. Getting a refusal is never fun. And it rarely results in a caller being very positive. But I think there could be information on the end of that call as valuable as the information on the end of the simple gift-get. Firstly, it's really important to know why alums who keep getting calls won't give. That information goes towards helping current and future calls. Also, the 'no phone's' are more important than you may think. Remember the fan club? I'll try to script a refusal closing.

Well, Mr. ______, since you aren't planning to make a gift this year, may I ask why?
May I also ask, "what kinds of efforts can Elon make in the future to make you proud to be an alum?"
Can I also make a request of you sir? Could you at any point in the next year take some time to consider your experience at Elon? To think about whether you are proud of being an alum and about what it would be like if you were a student now?
I appreciate your feedback on our program here at Phonathon. It was a pleasure talking to you about Elon.

Instead of getting refusals out of the way, which is what we all do, let's use them. Refusals are as much of an opportunity as pledges. (All we have to do now is figure out what to do with those damn 'Maybes') We can get good, honest feedback, find out the issues that have alums least positive towards Giving, and reposition for next time. We'll also figure out which 'refusals' are real REFUSALS, prospects with no intention of giving and not enough energy to ask not to be called again.

The politeness and persuasion are still there. They are just reaching the same end through a different means. The end is helping current and future students. The means is a plethora of new information at Phonathon's disposal.

And I didn't use the word 'remarkable.' Sort of.

Whoops, My Bad!

It's Phon - A - thon! What have I been thinking?

Phonothon Should Be The BEST Program On Campus!

There is no doubt in my mind. There should be no doubt in any of the workers' minds. Jozi, narcissism is bad but this is a no-brainer.

What else can I say? How can you relay that the function the program serves far surpasses any efforts that the others on campus performs? The Pendulum (an object best known for doing an imitation of Nancy Reagan's head) won this past school year. Let's do everything we can to change that, to get the performance we need and the recognition we deserve.

Let's be remarkable. Let's be special. Let's be different. Let's be worth taking about.

Let's be the BEST.

Quick Thought on the "Great Deception"

That's what Justin Wolfers likes as the name for the current economic calamity the world faces FYI.

In the face of economic hardship, cost-cutting, budget-slashing, and general acrimony towards spending dough, the great companies see opportunity. If everything looks like it's going to hell, the CMO says, "Thank God. Now I can really start implementing my plan." In a good way.

As an organization targeting individuals with disposable income, the Phonothon's best opportunity seems to be looking ahead. People don't like to talk about it. Obviously. People don't like to think about it. Obviously. They don't want 100% tax-deductible solicitations during it. Obviously. But it's here. The good and the bad. Even the ugly. What would be really ugly would be ignoring the future, ignoring the growth that the school will go through and the program will go through.

The sun will come out tomorrow. Donate your bottom dollar. Especially if you're freaking out about your top dollar. Things are going to get better. AIG was too big to fail. Phonothon and Annual Giving are too good to fail. Forget Obama; we've got the hope.

A New Approach to "The Game"

What is the Phonothon game for? The conventional idea is that the game provides incentive, an economic concept that explains that someone will offer more effort for a perceived increase in utility. There is also the idea of a reward. There are many things to consider on this subject, i.e. I might post on this again. Here it goes.

Should "the game" be sparking competition between good workers (we'll get to this later)? Hell, yes. Undoubtedly. You get a prize! Should the prize be uniform or given based on its winner? Tougher question. I would say to vary it but that would be a cop out. Make it uniform. That doesn't mean the prize should be unremarkable. You should want to come home to your roommates and say, "look what I got!" Just as commission pay works for Billy Mays, prize incentives work for Phonothon callers.

Is that the only reason to play "the game"? Of course not. If only one person 'won', it would not be a game. It would be a jealousy contest. So what can be fun about "the game" if you are not winning? The experience. It's enjoyable. You like guessing the letters or shouting names of states (maybe). But is this fun going along with the job experience or taking a break from the job experience? Chances are...the latter. Sorry, but that's just the way it is (things will never be the same). So make the game more engaging without making it more distracting. Move where the board is. Bring in darts, balls, a balloonist (ok, maybe that's pushing it). Re-scripting the work environment is one of the main things that keeps workers from going postal.

It's not time to think of new games. It's time to think of new ways to play the games. It's time to think of new ways to incentivize performance. It's time to keep both the callers and the supervisors accountable. And, lastly, it's time to think of revitalizing the "job experience." Just because the Phonothon is not your career doesn't mean that it has to be just another job. "The game" has been a staple of the Phonothon working place. Tweaking it a little makes it a remarkable and essential part of the experience.

Becoming A Leader In Annual Giving

This technologically-savvy thought has already become the conventional one. Go online. Develop online social networking. Take away the envelopes and the stamps, and gift giving becomes remarkable. Well, Mr. Seth Godin has other plans:

The Internet is not...direct mail with free stamps. It is something much bigger than that...The big win is in turning donors into patrons and activists and participants. The biggest donors are the ones who not only give, but also do the work....The Internet...allows some organizations to flip the funnel, not through some simple hand waving, but by reorganizing around the idea of engagement online. It means opening yourself up to volunteers, encouraging them to network, to connect with each other, and yes, even to mutiny.

So it's not JUST the Internet. The blog is a great idea. Compartmentalizing donors into networks is a great idea. Using the Web to boost participation and interest will be great ideas for years to come. But that's not IT. It's about ARM: alumni relationship management. And it's going to be a lot harder than CRM. Well, they're probably exactly the same, but let's pretend that we've got the big challenge.

Becoming a leader in Annual Giving is not the same as becoming a leader in market share of cereal foods or batteries. It's so cerebral. It's about reputation and memory and experience and happiness. It's about embracing the future, holding on to the present, and getting pretty far from the past. It's about getting that extra minute on the phone with a pledge asking them to spread the word or read the blog. It's about looking at the refusals with an analytical rather than an acerbic mind, bearing in mind that there is a reason she is not giving and that it's Annual Giving's fault.

We can't afford to be indirect with our consumers. We can't put Phoenix-shaped furniture in their living rooms or the letters "EU" in their kitchens. (If this doesn't make sense, check this out.) If they aren't doing that themselves, we have to go head-first. The dominoes are already set up. Let's knock 'em down!

With Whom Are We Competing

This is something I just don't know about. It would take a lot more understanding on the dynamics of non-profit organization operations and marketing approaches. From a fundamental approach (the one I've been taking), Annual Giving is kind of competing with itself in that the only real competitor orientation it could take is one that demonizes itself, thus creating a hypothetical circumstance wherein measurement and response is possible. In other words, Annual Giving is its own worst enemy. But that explanation does not help anybody.

So let's try something else. Say the competition is made up of other schools. Wake Forest has a hell of an Annual Giving program. The numbers are climbing. And fast. So what Elon Alums are thinking is, "Elon is not the best school. It does not have the best Giving program. I should not give." Hmm. That does not sound right. Unless the family gives to Wake because the children attend. Then, forget about that family Remember, we need the fans. They spread the word. They initiate conversation. And they feel and understand the connection.

So say the competition is made up of other non-profits. Other direct-mail or direct-phone payment companies that support funding for AIDS awareness or home building. The prospect has meaningful connections to Habitat for Humanity (those bastards!) and forks over the 100% tax deductible disposible income to HFH. What do you do in this case? Conventional Phonathon wisdom says, "play up the Fund, play up how important IT is." The caller really should just try to establish how firmly entrenched the individual is into the HFH fan club. If she does not have time for Elon alumniship, she certainly does not have money for it. Last thought: HFH is here on campus. There's a way to give to both causes. At that point, the prospect is lost. Thanks for your support.

The last idea here is controversial. It goes against the time-old mantra that businesspersons must embrace and make love to. The customer is always right. If the alum says that he does not want to give, what else can you say? [Well, you're supposed to run off a list that includes tax deductibility, gift size, and begging] Anyways, Annual Giving is competing with the alum's lack of knowledge or understanding. The alum does not know what the Fund is for and/or does not truly understand the reason for giving. The only way to affect change into the program will be to embrace this concept. We have to take the Buy-ology approach (link) and assume that our market research is faulty and largely untrue. We have to believe that alums wants to give deep down inside and just have not found the motivation to do so. We need to remind them why the University gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. Or at least figure out if it still does.

Just A Bunch Of Ideas (the first of many posts)

• When someone gives a gift, offer to place their name (or whatever they like) in a new blog post. People love being given credit. No one is truly humble. Better yet, maybe they're outrageously narcissistic.
• Oh yeah, write a continuous blog fusing with the current (pretty lame) one about what various alums are up to with traveling and careers and such. Might need to do some research on this i.e. not do too many "relating Elon alumniship with this silly link or video" and "here's an alum, there's a city, unremarkable, non conversation-inducing" clutter. This must be a unique experience for alums that sparks conversation and starts alum participation.
• Not exactly implementable: change the idea of alumni participation. A couple may have dated all throughout their time at Elon and gotten married and had 15 kids but if their connection to the university withered away years ago, then they're useless. They're not part of the fan club. Participation doesn't just mean that you gave ten bucks last year. That's almost the opposite of participation. That's nearly emancipation. Participation is constant introspective thought on the university experience and consistent external engagement with the continuing post-Elon existence. I.E. if an alum has that degree posted up on the wall in the den or the office and looks at it, constantly remembering what it took to get there and how she made it, that's the thought. If an alum utilizes something from the experience to LIVE LIFE (if there's a bloody connection!), that's the engagement. This is all very inapplicable and for the most part surreal. But it certainly does happen.
• Everyone needs to come to a realization:Phonothon callers don't sell Annual Giving. And it's unfair that they can take a rap for that. Sure someone with a pleasant voice, a friendly disposition, and practiced monologue can open some purse strings. Hell, all strippers have to do is bend over. Annual Giving is sold for four entire years. It is sold within the memories that take place during those years; it is sold during the periods of reflection that take place concerning those years; and it is sold in the continuing connection and engagement that occurs after those years.
• The alumni are the consumers. The product is the university experience. The opportunity cost is the time, the thought, the energy, and the slight tip over of the money jar. The facilitator is the gift. Phonothon callers, pledge cards, online web pages, events, etc. are the oils that lubricate the facilitator that allow the consumers to remember and understand the value of the product. Together, the consumers and the school create the product though the school must be the one that improves the product though not without the aid of the consumer.
  
• The main problem with the approaching I am taking is that although the current alums may be today's consumers, they are yesterday's graduates. They have no experience with considering these ideas and their application. All of this is based on either hypothetical or subconscious premonitions. This does not, however, excuse anyone who may be thinking that these ideas should not be implemented. The school will continue to produce alums, smarter, more affluent, and more future-orientated ones. Setting this up right now will pay dividends down the road.