I’m sorry CAF, but you’ve been rubbish

Many smaller charities rely on third parties like CAF to provide an important donor servicing function in setting up and processing Direct Debits. But are charities checking that they’re getting value for money from these services? My recent experience suggests maybe not.

A week ago I set up a DD with a small charity on their website. I was taken to the CAF site and filled out my details and ticked the gift aid box. I then got 2 automatically generated emails – one confirming receipt of the DD and the other confirming my gift aid. The gift aid email thanked me for setting up gift aid but it also informed me that my gift aid money would be going to help Bournemouth University. Whilst I have nothing against Bournemouth University, I certianly would have prefered my gift aid to go to the charity I support. I complained to CAF and the charity. Only the charity responded and after speaking to CAF told me it was an administrative error.

Then, a few days ago, I got written confirmation of my DD. But it came in an MSF envelope. Thinking it was junk mail, I almost put it straight in the recycling. I’ve complained again, and no doubt this will be down to an admin error too.

Working in the sector, I’m aware of the relationship the charity has with CAF, so I’m not blaming them for these problems. But how many of the public would understand these set ups? Plus how many would be so understanding?

But my real point is about getting value from third party suppliers. If you’re paying for a service, you have a right to demand a certian level of service. Just because you’re a smaller organisation doesn’t mean you shouldn’t demand less than first rate. Regularly check your third parties, ask your donors what you think of their experiences, ask the organisation you’re buying services off to provide reports on their performance.

“Admin” issues are really important in donor experience and shouldn’t be ignored.

The long-tail of giving

Social Actions is an aggregator which brings together thousands of charitable actions (from signing a petition to giving money) in one place through the power of search. The aim is to go beyond the larger charities, reaching right down to small causes and niche interests.

This is a classic aggregator, which is exposing the long-tail of causes, giving and campaigning. Places like this make it easier to find things to do that really interest people and fulfil their needs. This is taking power away from “hit” charities and putting it in the hands of smaller organisations.

They’ve even released a widget which brings up the most relevant actions depending on the content of the web page that it is situated on.

However, they could improve it even further by developing recommendations based on what you have done, along with showing what the most popular actions are for certain search terms. This will really help the niche grow.

Hat tip to Bryan Miller

The Long tail and me

Good article by Nicolas Kristof in the New York Times (hat tip to Alan Wolk). He says that, with the unlimited choice made available by the internet, people naturally gravitate towards ideas and behaviour that reinforces existingly held beliefs. People claim that they prefer open and challenging debate, but when choosing to seek out debate and information they go to those spaces/ideas that mirror their current thinking.

This set me off thinking about The Long Tail. In the book of the same name, Chris Anderson argues that the infite space and advanced filtering (search, user recommendations, dynamic recommendation engines etc) that the internet brings is allowing people to connect and explore niches and break the monopoly of a corporation-determined hit machine.

What Anderson argues is that The Long Tail allows us to easily find and indulge in those things that really interest us, in all the myriad ways that human beings are interested in different things.

If Kristof is right in his view on human behaviour, and The Long Tail reaches the logical conclusion of Anderson’s argument, then we’re in for some very different times. People will be able to completely satisfy their own diverse interests and will then be engaged in a positive feedback loop where their interests are mutually reinforced. If people move away from “real” life then they will miss interaction with views and opinions that contradict their own.

What will we see? Increased cultural and social fragmentation with universal social mores and cultural norms finding it increasingly difficult to take hold.

So what’s the implication for charity marketing?

Well, I think charities (over the next 10 to 20 years) will find it increasingly difficult to build a national “hit”. But, smaller charities and niche interests will find that their support grows as people find it easier to filter and discover those causes that resonate.

But if it’s easier to find a cause, it’ll be easier to find another one that better meets your interests. Charities, bigger ones especially, must start being more and more tailored to people’s interests. They have to stretch themselves down the long tail to survive in the fragmenting world. If they don’t, they’ll be beaten by small charities or those charities that do react to the changing landscape.

The good news is that the technology is there to allow this. The bad news is that this will require internal investment from charities in that technology and in content creation. Those that do invest will reap the rewards.