Nonprofit Cues from the Retail Sector
Our executive director’s husband, Henry Quinn, is a creative thinker and occasional blogger whose thoughts sometimes stray into topics of interest to the nonprofit sector.
I just got back, in my professional capacity, from this year's Shop.org annual summit in Boston, and a couple of things seemed worth sharing here. Obviously, we were talking retail, but the tone of the technology discussion had some relevant features. (I apologize in advance for using marketing rather than nonprofit lingo; hopefully the outside perspective is worth having to do some translation.)
- People were surprisingly negative on social media. I'm a skeptic, and always have been, of its revenue-generating value, but even I was taken aback by how matter-of-fact many of the dismissals of social media were. The recurring theme -- not quite a consensus, but not far from one either -- was, “Look, you have to do social because that's the current state of our target's expectations, but we're not sure why, none of the usual metrics work on it, and you absolutely shouldn't expect any money from it directly.”
- The leitmotif regarding the value of engagement wasn't much better: “Until you can tell me the exchange rate between ‘Like's’ and U.S. Dollars, I have no idea why I want to spend money to acquire ‘Like's.’” It's 2011, we're three years into a massive downturn, and it felt to me that antiquities like “income minus costs equals net revenue” were back in fashion.
- The phone vs. tablet conversations were quite nuanced. If you're trying to incent a relatively simple behavior, there was agreement that phones should be part of the conversation. Selling movie tickets, finding the time of a train, or soliciting a donation for a very specific cause—these were the kinds of things people were talking about on phones. Anything larger, about engaging via the device (rather than executing on existing inclination to spend), the entire discussion was about tablets. I do see this point – until someone invents an app that makes your phone's screen bigger, it's a pretty limited experience. Also, I think that app would make it a tablet.
- Ray Kurzweil, who spoke at the summit, is a very interesting guy and gives a good talk. His likes include exponential curves, and his dislikes include giving any indication that any prediction he's ever made has turned out to be wrong.
- Attribution got its own session, and it totally deserved it. It's a pet obsession of mine -- if I contact a person 30 times, and they donate, how do I allocate that donation to the 30 touches? And what's leftover, the residual portion of donations that came completely independent of (or even in spite of) my efforts? (That is, what's incremental, and what's not?)
If you're not thinking about attribution, or if you're assuming that the envelope the donation came in or the email that was clicked through is the whole story, you're shooting in the dark with your promotional spend. It is vital, regardless of the size of your organization, to work on determining what share of each conversion comes from each of your marketing programs. You cannot NOT do this and then go to your board and make the claim that you're doing things that are (or are not) working, because you don't know.
- Those Kiva robot inventory systems are CRAAAAAAAZY! I watched a bunch of them for like 20 minutes and my only disappointment was that none of them responded to my attempts to communicate. (This is a less relevant point unless your organization helps jobless robots, and I guess it's sort of a bummer if your organization helps jobless humans. All I'm saying is, it was really cool.)
- A handful of people were vocally down on QR codes. They generally didn't acknowledge what I think is the most important point: the codes are incrementally free to implement on top of some other effort, which makes the “I” in “ROI” close to zero. There was agreement that they're only effective if you use them to land someone somewhere compelling in service of a conversion. If you land people somewhere dull, it doesn't matter whether they got there with a QR code or not.
Things like this summit are really useful for taking the pulse of how people are thinking about technology and ecommerce. Like I said, not all of this is applicable to the nonprofit space, but this was a large group of smart, experienced people, and I thought it might be a helpful
perspective.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.idealware.org/trackback/2607


Comments
Attribution in Reality
If you're not thinking about attribution, or if you're assuming that the envelope the donation came in or the email that was clicked through is the whole story, you're shooting in the dark with your promotional spend. It is vital, regardless of the size of your organization, to work on determining what share of each conversion comes from each of your marketing programs. You cannot NOT do this and then go to your board and make the claim that you're doing things that are (or are not) working, because you don't know.
Right on man. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when i talk to people who don't seem to get this. At all. People just seem content to take the money and run. I think that's why a lot of marketing and engagement are mediocre at best - there's not enough desire or will to rigoriously test the "why" behind the "what works".
That said, sentiments like these (like mine!) need to step back and realize that, in a lot of cases, you are greatly limited in proving clear attribution. I wonder, how can you ever really know/measure accurately the incremental effects of each of those calls? And, even if you can, when does the cost-benefit trade off become too great? This is where, IMHO, establishing cause and effect becomes an art more than a science - at least in terms of achieving organizational success (read: profitability), but not in terms of robust scientific enquiry (sorry dude) and improving interventions. I want proof. My boss wants results. Take a guess who wins?
It's a balancing act which, oftentimes, you're often left with a "on balance"-led statements when reviewing effectiveness. I agree with you we should soldier on... notwithstanding, in my experience, it's been the good communication of "good enough" data that wins the day, and the board's "go ahead".
Keep on trucking.
Steve
Right on
If you're not thinking about attribution, or if you're assuming that the envelope the donation came in or the email that was clicked through is the whole story, you're shooting in the dark with your promotional spend. It is vital, regardless of the size of your organization, to work on determining what share of each conversion comes from each of your marketing programs. You cannot NOT do this and then go to your board and make the claim that you're doing things that are (or are not) working, because you don't know.
Right on man. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when i talk to people who don't seem to get this. At all. People just seem content to take the money and run. I think that's why a lot of marketing and engagement are mediocre at best - there's not enough desire or will to rigoriously test the "why" behind the "what works".
That said, sentiments like these (like mine!) need to step back and realize that, in a lot of cases, you are greatly limited in proving clear attribution. I wonder, how can you ever really know/measure accurately the incremental effects of each of those calls? And, even if you can, when does the cost-benefit trade off become too great? This is where, IMHO, establishing cause and effect becomes an art more than a science - at least in terms of achieving organizational success (read: profitability), but not in terms of robust scientific enquiry (sorry dude) and improving interventions. I want proof. My boss wants results. Take a guess who wins?
It's a balancing act which, oftentimes, you're often left with a "on balance"-led statements when reviewing effectiveness. I agree with you we should soldier on... notwithstanding, in my experience, it's been the good communication of "good enough" data that wins the day, and the board's "go ahead".
Keep on trucking.
Steve
Henry -- as a former IT
Henry -- as a former IT Director at a well-known retailer/nonprofit, I enjoyed your article and have no issues with the industry jargon. :). I get it, too -- I'm proud that, in my time at Goodwill, I took an incredibly fuzzy set of metrics on our sales performance and transformed it into the most detailed reporting that a Goodwill had ever seen. And we made some solid, profitable decisions based on the newly available data. At the same time, we understood that metrics don't interest customers. bargains do. Attractive window displays. Ads -- the best ad we ever got was a half page graphic showing some of the ridiculous prices we charged for very valuable things. It was featured in an expose alleging that we abused the trust of our donors. Anyone reading the article got the correct picture -- we were better at our poverty-ending mission than we were at properly pricing donations. Anyone skimming through the article said "I better make a trip to Goodwill!". I often said that if we ever prefected our pricing and get it all perfect, we'd be out of business in a month.
The things that build customer loyalty are much harder to measure than the dollars and the items sold. There's good info to gleam in the easily-obtained metrics, but it's not even half of the story of what makes one retailer more appealing than another. i would have loved to believe that our workforce development programs were what drew our customers to our stores, but it wasn't the case -- good prices and mispriced bargains were the primary draws. But we could have easily lost that "goodwill" -- and a neighboring Goodwill did lose it -- by abusing our relationship with our customers.
So I look at social media as an opportunity, and the cost of ignoring it an opportunity cost. Brands like Dell, Best Buy and Zappos have offered solid case studies on how you can use Twitter and Facebook to win the hearts and minds of your customers. They use those channels to enhance their interactions and their reputations. Other companies have seen how a lack of presence on social media can be a big threat to their image and brand. We're past the point where average Americans (not just web-obsessed early adopters) do expect to find product pages on Facebook and Twitter -- brand accounts that they can follow and converse with.
So your retail peers that don't "get it" need to acknowledge a few things like, if you don't advertise, no one might know about you, even though ad-based sales are difficult to quantify. If you're rude to your customers, people will shun your stores; friendly, more will come in; neither one easy to measure. And if you are absent on Twitter and Facebook (or, worse, you're spamming your Facebook page and Twitter feed with ads and ignoring any customer interactions), you're alienating people who can make or break you. The world expects you to interact with them on social media, and they'll reward you -- with business -- if you engage with them there. If you're not there, there's a huge opportunity being wasted. You can't easily quantify that, but you can count on it.