Monthly Archives: February 2010

Making eCRM work for charities

The age of eCRM is upon us. Well, to be fair, the age of Electronic Customer Relationship Marketing is upon the commercial world. Companies can double their revenue from digital by engaging with their existing customers in a structured, highly commercial way. They love it (who wouldn’t love a 93% increase in digital sales in three months?); eCRM’s a hot subject for all sorts of household name brands – we’ve been doing it for six or seven years and can prove its commercial effect. You would imagine that, given the commercial successes and incremental profits it drives, it would be a straight port to charity. But it isn’t. In my view, eCRM isn’t a universal fit, and it needs a slightly different approach when it comes to applying its highly tested principles to fundraising and donor engagement.

Let me take a step back and explain the general principles behind eCRM and then how I believe it can and should work for the third sector.

ECRM starts with data. This data comes from, in essence, existing customers. The data consists of things like when a product was bought, what its value was, whether it was bought following a sequence of events, or driven by a promotion, or facilitated by a third party. That kind of observed behavioural and motivational data can be layered with information about the customer herself – family size, age, location, whether others they know are also customers, whether they belong to this, that or the other social group. Integrating and analysing this data often shows up connections and trends. We may find for example that a customer is likely to spend more if they’ve seen a TV ad within hours of being emailed a voucher on a Tuesday, or that if they’ve got young children they’ll respond better to new offers on mornings when they have childcare. We derive series of insights, and we create a plan that segments audiences by value, frequency, recency, and motivation. We come up with a creative hook, attach email, SMS, web touchpoints, and off we go testing and optimising campaigns to see which work most effectively. It’s pretty logical, and it’s entirely oriented towards increasing a customer’s value.

In theory, you could apply the same highly commercial approach to charity eCRM. In fact, Direct Marketing and Direct Response Television (DRTV) do exactly that, and in general it works extremely effectively, at least for a short while. It relies on continuous volume being fed into a funnel, because using these kinds of methods you can burn through huge numbers quite quickly. And it is of course very single-minded. It allows little for the emotional attachments people have with causes that actually very often span lifetimes and generations. It’s mechanical, in essence. Commercial eCRM creates an equation that takes customers and uses data and psychological techniques to maximise the revenue that can be gained during their lifetime as a customer. That’s business, and it’s not personal. I think that charitable giving, on the other hand, is personal. Charity is not, or should not, be a machine (stick charity on top of problem here, turn handle, problem solved) because I think charity is about solving problems unaddressed by the machine of society.

All of which is a little grandiose. ECRM for charity does automate inasmuch as it allows organisations to use techniques and principles to increase engagement between a cause and its supporters. If by using eCRM we can provide genuine value and fulfilling engagement then as a consequence support will deepen and charities will be able to operate more effectively. The essential truths of eCRM do apply: eCRM is about delivering information to a supporter that is timely and relevant, that doesn’t confuse, that increases the bond rather than distracts from it or irritates. Data is still at its heart. Understanding what your audiences are motivated by, where they live, what their attitudes are, what they are prepared to do on your behalf, all of these are critical. But while commercial eCRM is about facilitating a value transaction (I give you entertainment, you increase your purchase frequency), not-for-profit eCRM is about building and delivering trust, and allowing an opportunity for this to be returned.

ECRM for causes works most effectively when it provides a call to understand rather than a call to action. The same methodology applies – we still analyse all the data we can lay our hands on, we understand what motivates people, we work out what people are likely to want to do, and we segment them accordingly. But the strategy is much longer in view. Building relationships over long periods of time builds trust and cut-through. It gives something back to the supporter, and in turn this means when we do have something we need to say, if it’s delivered in an appropriate manner to the right person at an appropriate time, it is listened to. VSO learned this early on in its forays into eCRM, when at a certain point it found it needed to recruit a large number of primary school teachers – using email and a microsite to engage it found over 6,000 new, qualified contacts all through referral, because of the relationships it had created.

ECRM, that is to say properly researched and segmented long-term contact strategies delivered digitally, is a means not to an end, as it is in the commercial world, but to a beginning. Worked well it delivers relationships that last not just lifecycles, but lifetimes.

The simple pleasure of Sandy Balls

This is possibly the ultimate in accidental virals.  So the story goes – nice Hampshire Centre Parks wanna-be holiday resort “Sandy Balls” decides they want to advertise their wares on TV.  They get a local agency to create their ad – pitched (no doubt) as a mix-between Baz Luhrmann’s Australia and the Sound of Music.  The CEO of Sandy Balls takes the bait and goes for the treatment.  It’s what he’s always wanted – TV fame at last for his beloved holiday park.

Several thousands of pounds (and takes) later, local ad agency delivers a beauty of a film.  Overwhelmed by the Luhrmann-esque results, the Sandy Balls’ PR agency pitches to “seed” the film on YouTube and make Sandy Balls “famous”.  And they do.  On Failblog.  In America.   Amongst 15 yearolds (and me) who find the name Sandy Balls delivered in clipped English tones so fricking hilarious they send it to their whole address book racking up 10′s of thousands of YouTube views . . .

And you know what, I love it.  It’s a truly great piece of work, and having enjoyed it on the small (laptop) screen can’t wait to enjoy the simple pleasures of Sandy Balls for myself . . .

@Rubber_Republic

Social media confusion and the problem with ROI

Why do some people get it and other don’t? Starbucks boss Howard Schultz is quoted in Marketing today saying social media is the channel that takes priority and in the same issue we hear that four fifths of markers do not see it as core. Whose right?
Schultz is asked in the interview which one channel will take precedence, here’s his answer:

“I think social media is a natural extension of our brand because we want to do things that are unexpected, and to speak to all sorts of people who are engaged with social media. It’s tough to measure but there is an incremental benefit to sales.”

It is a great quote as in it he encapsulates not only the essence of what social media can achieve (the unexpected and the variety of conversations you can have), but also what for some is the problem or the stumbling block to using it: ie it is tough to measure. Where they ask is the ROI. Read More »

What a viral really looks like

So following on from my obsession with models (the graph not busty/leggy type) I’ve drawn up what a typical viral campaign looks like.

And the truth is your typical viral looks a bit like a roller-coaster.  Starting with a sharp climb as the campaign launches and the early-adopters starting buzzing-up the campaign, we then reach a plateau with numbers hitting a constant for a while until we see the campaign peak and then WHOOOOSH! the campaign enters its long-tail stage zooming downwards, with numbers slowly (or rapidly) decreasing over-time.

 

Of course, the better the viral the bigger and more extensive the long-tail of the campaign, which I’d argue is where much of the value of viral campaign lies . . .

@Rubber_Republic

eModeration Social media Round Up #25

Ach.
Like a hyperventilating claustrophobe stuck in a lift, the iPad pretty
much sucked up all the social media air last week. So it is a somewhat
foreshortened second installment to our weekly roundup which we now
offer for your reading pleasure.

This week: Facebook’s IPO ‘No’; Google’s Chinese impersonator; and Twitter’s stuttering stats.

ON FACEBOOK …

Facebook is going for gold with a mega-test of the Facebook Credits
system on Farmville, the largest social game on the web. The system has
previously been tested on much smaller games, but the rollout to
Farmville shows that the ‘Book is getting serious about monetizing
virtual goods. The Business Insider suggests that the social network
will be charging developers a meaty 30% per transaction – leading some
commentators to speculate that revenues from payments could exceed those from advertising.

Recent fiddling with privacy controls, and the addition of the option
to answer comments directly via email, without even visiting the site,
are all heading in one direction: Facebook is shifting focus from its
traditional platform and homing in on its users’ streams, in an attempt
at future-proofing. According to VP of Engineering Mike Schroepfer, “it is entirely possible that there will be no Facebook.com in the future.”

Nevertheless, two major investors this week confirmed
that there was no IPO in Facebook’s tealeaves for 2010. Yuri Milner of
DST said: “we don’t have to return money to investors, so we have
unlimited patience.”

ON TWITTER …

What Twitter news there was this week was all about the stats – and it was a curate’s egg, to be sure. The bad news:
though they passed the 75m user mark in 2009, inactive accounts are
higher than ever. Only 17 % of users sent even a single tweet last
month – an all-time low, according to ClickZ. Twitter can take some
comfort, though, in the fact that active users are more engaged than ever:
they now average 300 followers apiece, up from 70 in July 2009, and can
boast 420 updates each, compared with just 120 six months earlier.

ON GOOGLE …

Google’s presence at the World Economic Forum in Davos only added to
the growing sense that Google now resembles a sovereign nation – and
one with considerable colonialist aspirations. The Guardian
carries an interview with its gnomic CEO Eric Schmidt here, in which he
hedges round both Google’s newspaper-menacing advances to
display-advertising – and the possibility of a coming rapprochement
with the Chinese authorities.

On which note – only weeks after their Chinese troubles first began, Google finds itself in competition with a home-grown counterfeit.
The punningly-titled Chinese search engine Goojje (the final syllable
plays on the Chinese word for ‘older sister’) appears to be snapping at
Google’s heels – though confusingly, the upstart has made a public plea
for the search giant to stay in China.

BRANDS GET SOCIAL …

Osoyou.com relaunches
this week: the fashion and shopping social network now offers new
functionality which refines searches by brand, style, colour and price,
and features a drag-and-drop shopping list.

Audi is mobilizing a squadron
of environment-protecting “Green Police” for their latest campaign,
which will include a dedicated YouTube channel and a Twitter page. Both
platforms will feature updates from a campaign road trip, in which
journos will motor from Audi headquarters in Virginia, to the Super
Bowl in Miami.

Burger King is running a 41-city social media tour
to find the best basketball players in each neighbourhood – as well as
those who are “game-changers” in their urban community. They’ll post
video clips to a dedicated website, where fans may vote for their
favourite, or submit their own entries.

Breakthrough Breast Cancer is launching a celeb-backed campaign, called “Too Many Women”, which will attempt to harness the power of social networks
to raise over £1million. The charity is searching for 201 ambassadors
who will each be tasked with raising £500 – and recruiting nine friends
to do the same. The numbers are intended to echo the one in nine women
who will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime.

Procter & Gamble is to put Facebook at the heart of its marketing strategy for 2010. The company has opened a dedicated Silicon Valley office
to work on marketing functionality with the site – but is lukewarm
towards Twitter, which it sees merely as a broadcasting tool.

SOCIAL STATS …

There was a huge hike in the number of Baby-Boomers
using social networks last year: while Millennials’ stats stayed pretty
consistent, social media adoption in the Boomer cohort jumped to 47% -
up 15% from 2008, compared with a barely visible 1% rise the previous
year.

Marketers are turning to social media at the expense of direct marketing:
51% of them are moving from a campaign-centric DM model to social
media, with 40% planning to cut their DM budget by more than 20% to
fund the move, according to Alterian.

Another Facebook mega-stat: unique mobile users leapt more than 600% in
2009. While Twitter’s stats saw an even bigger relative jump – a 2800%
increase in just one year – Facebook was the overall winner on numbers, and is now the most popular mobile social network.

Online, UK shoppers were Europe’s big spenders
last year – averaging a mammoth £1,102 per shopper, and accounting for
almost a third of all European sales, according to the Centre for
Retail Research.

UNDER THE GAVEL …

Google Street View has won a partial victory
in a case brought by a Pittsburgh couple, who alleged their privacy had
been violated by when the Street View vehicle entered their ungated
driveway and took shots of their pool and house. A judge disagreed,
ruling that “no person of ordinary sensibilities would be shamed,
humiliated, or have suffered mentally as a result” – but he did rule
that the two can pursue a trespass claim against the company.

The first shots were fired in the Nokia-Apple Patent War
last week, when the International Trade Commission began its
investigation of Nokia’s claims that Apple is treading on its patents
in pretty much each one of its products. The war, which recently saw
Apple launch a counter-suit, promises to be one of attrition.

A Facebook user has withdrawn a suit which alleged that the company
profited from Zynga’s so-called ‘scam ads’ – but she continues to push
a class-action
against the social-games developer itself. Some observers suggest that
both companies are likely to be protected by the federal Communications
Decency Act.

VIRTUAL AND GAMES …

If you’re still thinking that the iPad could be a game-changer for gamers, take a look at this, from Massively, which tells you why lack of multi-tasking, Flash support and webcam suggests it won’t.

Last week Linden Lab announced the Feb 17th launch of Linden Home
– its new offering for premium users of Second Life. The home hub,
which comes with a free plot of land and a monthly wad of Linden
dollars, is the company’s attempt at making Second Life less
intimidating to new users.

And lastly, if virtual world communities are Your Thing, you could do much worse than examine this list of useful online resources relating to the same, kindly provided by the chaps at Massively.

THINKING …

If you’re (whisper it) still struggling with your Facebook Fan Page, Social Media Examiner tells you why (350 million users; average daily session 25 minutes) and how. Just sayin’.

Venturebeat offers a succinct rationale for why the iPad will sell despite its aforementioned ‘missing’ functions, here.

And Michael Brito offers businesses this useful map to help them navigate the rough waters of real-time search – the latest challenge facing companies using the social web.

Last week we featured the story that Dunbar’s number – the theory that
the optimum number of people in any given network is 150 – was also
applicable to social media. This week, here’s Jacob Morgan to tell us why Dunbar’s Number is, in point of fact, irrelevant. Oh, do keep up!

That’s all folks!