October 2001 - Issue 7

The Next Appropriate Step
A Direct Marketing Response to the Events of September 11th
By Frank O'Brien, President and Creative Director, OMP

O'Brien McConnell Pearson is a Washington, D.C.-based, communications, research and direct marketing firm serving nonprofit organizations.  In its work for some of the leading advocacy and charitable organizations in America, OMP has developed a unique donor-centered and research-based approach to the development of communications and fundraising strategies.  Current clients include the Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, the ASPCA, Oxfam America, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, and the International Rescue Committee.

Now, more than ever, it's important to look at events through the eyes of our donors. In the weeks ahead, the sensitivity and skill with which groups communicate will affect both immediate fundraising goals and the long-term bond between those groups and their supporters. This article attempts to lay out a few basic premises for dealing with this sad and extraordinary moment in time.

• Premise #1: We should admit to ourselves that, any course of action we forge now will have to be regularly revisited in the weeks ahead.

Prudence suggests that, at the moment, groups only make immediate decisions that can't wait and then put together a "first draft" of a plan for the next three or four months. Built into that draft should be points of intervention at which plans can be revisited and, as needed, revised based upon new information.

• Premise #2: There is as much risk in lagging behind your donors' perceptions and attitudes as there is in getting out in front of them.

In the early days following September 11th, the biggest risk was in getting out ahead of your donors by trying to re-engage them in a fundraising conversation before they were ready. The biggest danger now may be the reverse - appearing reluctant to advance your organization's work even as donors search for opportunities to express themselves through their giving. That means being careful not to "scale back" your fundraising schedule too dramatically. But, it also means communicating confidently to your donors when you contact them. The least persuasive appeals of the next few weeks will be those that seem to apologize for their very presence.

• Premise #3: Charitable organizations and advocacy groups are likely to have very different experiences between now and year-end.

Understandably, people are feeling a strong urge to "do some good in the world." This is a moment in time when charitable organizations will be doing their donors a favor by offering an outlet for action. But, advocacy groups will face a number of hurdles at year-end. Many don't speak persuasively to the "let's all pull through this together" spirit of the moment. And, for a while, many donors may shy away from the "us versus them" dynamic behind much advocacy mail.

• Premise #4: Humanitarian and charitable groups should avoid a knee-jerk pulling back of their fundraising efforts.

In the charitable context, one should not underestimate the resilience of donors, nor the healing role that can be performed by providing people with an opportunity to reach out and help others. Donors will, of course, be highly motivated to give to groups that are providing direct assistance to people impacted by the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings. But, they are likely to cast their net pretty broadly - especially with groups that they already support - in seeking out opportunities to spread some goodwill.

• Premise #5: In the immediate future, advocacy groups' most effective financial management tool may be to limit expenditures in an environment in which income is hard to generate.

Advocacy groups should set the bar very high on decisions to continue prospecting between now and late December. In nine out of ten cases, discretion will be the better part of valor. A suspension - or major pulling back -- of prospecting will prevent losses and, to some degree, mitigate the effect of lowered re-solicitation income. In the longer term, it will preserve prospecting subsidies for the January and forward period when they can be used more prudently.

• Premise #6: Advocacy organizations can - and will need to - depend on their core donors to see them through the next few months.

In situations like the current one, it is always an organization's closest and most committed friends that provide essential support. I spoke earlier about not underestimating the resilience of charitable donors. The same is true of core donors to advocacy groups. Properly approached, they will "hang in there" with the groups they have long supported - recognizing that the current circumstances create a special need. Especially in communications with high dollar donors, the need for special help in the face of circumstances well outside of the organization's control can and should be directly addressed.

• Premise #7: Advocacy messages critical of President Bush should be suspended for the balance of the year.

Because his policies have defined the political environment throughout 2001, many advocacy groups have made criticism of President Bush and/or his policies a key tenet of their fundraising communications. Without hazarding a guess as to when donors will be receptive to Bush criticism again, it is safe to say that they aren't receptive now. That leaves advocacy groups with the far from simple task of devising persuasive messages in a climate in which a) donors' sense of urgency about their issues is muted and b) one of the main organizing principles of their message (concern about Bush policies) is temporarily unavailable.

• Premise #8: There are two logical approaches to crafting advocacy group year-end messages: Letters emphasizing a high-minded discussion of values and the use of packages that are dependent on technique as opposed to content.

One approach to year-end message development is to write high-minded, value-based appeals around an organization's core mission. Getting back to basics with donors - reminding them why your work is an important expression of their values - can effectively speak to the tenor of the moment. However, if you go this route, it is essential that the implicit message of your appeal isn't a defensive "Even after all that has happened, our work still matters." The alternative approach is to turn to technique-based renewals and appeals that are far less dependent on message in the first place.

• Premise #9: Both charitable and advocacy groups should avoid writing letters that dwell directly on the events of September 11th.

It is essential that your letters resonate emotionally with the spirit of the moment. But, it will rarely be appropriate that they address the specific events at any length. Most important of all - and this is especially true for international humanitarian groups -- you should avoid arguments that attempt to weigh the relative pain and suffering of the people you serve against that now being endured here in the U.S.

In the end, of course, each organization must take its own specific circumstances into account when choosing the right direction. But, hopefully, these thoughts will provide some context and food for thought as we begin the task of deciding how to communicate with our donors in this critical year-end period.