I received a solicitation recently from a 501(c)3 organization, asking me to contribute to their worthy cause. Likely I received an email, rather than a letter mailed via the post office, because, you know, nobody sends letters via the post office anymore. This sales pitch for a cash contribution was quite innovative, in my opinion, because the crux of the message was (I’m paraphrasing, because my memory is not that great, but I’m certain that I’m effectively capturing the tone and the message), “Send us money, and we’ll quit badgering you ceaselessly for contributions.”
This sales approach aligns with what we consumers have come to recognize as the “freemium” model strategy, in which a “free” product option is provided, and, for a fee, a “premium” product option is delivered. This model has become quite popular with those companies selling subscriptions, such as Spotify, Dropbox, and Slack, as well as other businesses. In many cases, the variable between the “free” product offering, and the “premium” product is not the addition of things which have value, but the subtraction of things which might serve to annoy the customer, such as advertising messages. This is exactly the play that the charitable organization described above was attempting to execute: contribute, or we’ll continue to bombard you with sales pitches, which, if I’m honest, might serve to annoy me, the customer.
We’ve all become familiar with the tried-and-true approaches to eliciting donations for charitable causes over the years. These tactics have included: raffle tickets; auction items; dinners or events for which the ticket price far exceeds the value of the meal provided; the sale of cookies, or candy, or wrapping paper, or holiday wreaths, or popcorn, which, as a parent, you are obligated to hawk in the office to your colleagues, because, when it’s their turn, they’re going to do the same damn thing to you.
One of the most awkward fundraising strategies I’ve seen utilized in recent years occurred at a dinner (for which the ticket price far exceeded the value of the meal provided, no doubt, and for which raffle tickets, and auction items were also likely sold), which featured a number of round tables scattered around a ballroom, and for which each attendee was issued a numbered handheld paddle to be used for auction bidding, I believe.
At one point during the festivities, the master of ceremonies asked all those willing to contribute a nominal amount to the organization, perhaps $5.00 or $10.00, to stand, and hoist their numbered placard aloft. Now, given the massive peer pressure involved in that situation, virtually everyone stood up - nobody wants to be that guy, right? I mean, it’s only $5.00, or $10.00. The next step in this progressive shakedown, however, involved the master of ceremonies upping the ante, asking that all those willing to increase their contribution to $25.00 remain standing. There may have been a few people who sat down at that point, but still, we’re only talking about $25.00.
You can imagine the next steps. I don’t know if there was a $50.00 waystation, but there almost certainly was a $100.00 stop on this express train. And, as I recall, the “asks” kept rising, at least to the $1,000.00 barrier. I honestly don’t remember if the action continued beyond that point or not, because, you know, I had long before retracted my paddle, and sat back down in my seat. But, I do remember thinking that it was one of the most uncomfortable fundraising tactics I have witnessed. It completely removed the “Anonymous” angle, which I think is a noble approach to giving, and did not honor the axiom that giving is a personal decision, instead turning it into a competitive blood sport.
Are these new fundraising tactics effective? I don’t know. Telethons used to be quite common - recall the Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon, or public television’s annual pledge drives. The core fundraising message of those two appeals were a tug at heartstrings, and guilt at enjoying content for free, respectively. Plus, tote bags, in the case of the latter.
All this talk of fundraising strategies prompts me to consider other potential new approaches to raising funds for charitable organizations. For your consideration:
“When can we drop off the dog?” - Yes, I know there are a good number of dog-lovers out there, who would welcome the addition of another Fido, or Biscuit, or Huckleberry Finn (What do you think, I’ve never met a dog with that name, but I think it’s a winning solution? I don’t think it’s a great name for a band, but for the right dog, I think it might work) into the household. But, there are some who would recoil at the thought of inviting a dog into their life - you know, because of the overwhelming responsibility, and the cramp it might put in their social life (“I gotta’ get home to let the dog out. . .”), and the poop everywhere (I should have led with that, I know that now). So, this is a win-win solution for an animal shelter: the dog-lovers will be willing to adopt one of the shelter’s dogs; those on the other side of the dog-loving fence will happily contribute to the shelter, if it means that they don’t have to adopt a dog, and the shelter will agree to quit badgering them about adopting a dog.
“Can you bring your own hammer” - Habitat for Humanity builds houses for those who need them, and guys like Jimmy Carter, who want to help, have already volunteered for duty (now in his 90’s, I suspect that Jimmy Carter is no longer swinging a hammer). But, this direct pitch, when accompanied by the smaller-print, “But, if you’re not able to join us, perhaps you’d be willing to make a modest donation, and we’ll pass your house by, next time we canvass your neighborhood, seeking volunteers,” would likely be wildly successful in securing donations.
“Please verify your personal information for publication of our upcoming list of most egregious polluters” - The Sierra Club could certainly utilize this fundraising call to arms, and ensure a steady inflow of contributions, upon offering an “opt-out” alternative, in which a decent-sized cash contribution could remove one’s name from this list.
Now, I’m not opposed to charitable giving. I mean, I’ve actually written a check or two along the way, in support of a worthy organization. But, it seems to me that more and more of these organizations are adopting sales strategies which were long relegated to such causes as the Columbia Record Club (A show of hands: who among you were members? It’s likely that you’re still members, given that it was virtually impossible to stop your subscription), or Amway, with its multi-level marketing strategy (there’s another, less-appealing term for their sales tactics, deployed by the Federal Trade Commission, every time they’ve investigated them, but the company has never been found guilty, or vacation home timeshare programs, which, judging by the number of companies which have been formed for the specific purpose of voiding timeshare agreements, probably markets agreements harmful to consumers.
As another political fundraising season is upon us, it occurs to me that the “premium” product offering attached to the marketing of political candidates could be the removal from the ballot of the candidate. Let’s face facts - more votes are cast against opposing candidates than are cast for the desired candidate. I haven’t yet worked out the logistics of this “freemium” offer, but I’ll be sure to share it with you once I do. And, the nation will be a better place because of it.
Finally, a decision. . .I’ve decided that Rule of Three should jump into the “freemium” pool. . .headfirst. As you know, a free subscription to the Rule of Three currently entitles you to a weekly email, leading you directly to the awesomeness that is Rule of Three - that is the “free” product option. The new “premium” product, available to you in this exclusive VIP offer right now, will provide you with the exact same product benefits. All that is required is for you to write a check to Rule of Three in the amount of $100.00. At the same time, the “free” product option has been revised to include not just one weekly email, but one email in your inbox every hour of the day, every day of the week. . .forever. The choice is yours.