Health care, midterms, stimulus, oh my! There’s a lot going on these days and maybe you’re asking a lot of your organization’s volunteers, donors, and activists.  Maybe asking so much that you’re worried about “list fatigue”.

“List fatigue” is the notion that the people on your email, direct mail, phone, and other lists are tired of hearing from you and tired of being asked to participate. They’re still supportive, but they’re “fatigued.” It’s a common explanation for everything from declining response rates to bottomed-out website traffic.

Three things to consider if you’re worried your lists are suffering from fatigue:

1. Prove it. How do you know your list is tired? What does that mean to you and your organization? Define the indicators, measure them, and make sure it’s not just you who’s exhausted.

2. Give it a rest. While we’re proponents of consistent communication with supporters and activists, we know that sometimes list fatigue is real. Maybe your organization is just on the flip side of a major fundraising push or grassroots campaign aimed at the Hill; you’ve asked a lot of your people, and they’ve delivered. It’s OK to take a break. Halve the frequency of your outbound emails, shift from a direct ask to a softer ask, and stay off the phones for a couple of weeks. Give your supporters a chance to miss you.

3. Mix it up. Maybe your list isn’t tired generally, just tired of the specific thing you’ve been hammering them with of late. Veer a little bit: talk about something new, make a completely different ask, tell the story in a completely new way.

Be sure to set your evaluation criteria, time frame, and measurement protocols in advance so you can be certain about when your lists are fired up and ready to go again on your behalf.

We can start to bridge the gap by getting a handle on three things:

1. What’s the ideal profile of a superstar for your organization? Is it a monthly donor? Someone who signs up and then shows up for offline events?  Someone who organizes those events? Do your superstars submit content for your website, emails or direct mail? Do they forward, post, and retweet your content?  If I told you I could bring you 1000 people who would consistently deliver on three things – what would those things be? What contributions made well and consistently would move the ball furthest for your organization?

Being clear about what you need from the most active 20% of your supporters, activists, readers, or volunteers is the first step to ensuring you’re building structures to find, cultivate, and support those critical folks.

2. How will you know who your potential superstars are? With a clear profile of an ideal superstar in mind, you can set up the analytics tools and reporting to help you identify them – the first step toward learning more about your superstars and cultivating them.  If you’re all about content and ideas (i.e. Mother Jones or the New Republic) then you should set up analytics tools to help you identify the people who both read and share your content most.  If your focus is advocacy, then you need analytics to surface the people on your list who are taking action (maybe online, maybe offline, maybe both).  If your superstars are donors, then craft a clear definition of a superstar donor (i.e someone gives at least the average donation once per month) and embark on a quest through your data to find them.

3. What is your capacity for supporting your superstars? So you know what your ideal superstars do, you’ve figured out how you’re going to find them, now how are you going to build your organization’s relationship with those superstars? Is your operations structured to conduct meaningful, personal outreach? Do you have an organizational culture that can grow from the meaningful feedback you’ll get in return? Do you have a list of high level asks to make of your superstars, and the capacity and materials to support them in delivering on those asks?  Knowing who your superstars are isn’t enough.  To truly make the most of your relationship with your superstar donors, activists, readers, and volunteers you’ll need to have the structure, plan, and capacity to encourage, support, and integrate their efforts.

And perhaps a 3a: Establish mechanisms to discover what makes your superstars tick and how you can apply that information to the rest of your list. On the consumer side, marketing firms have found that learning what drives “super consumers” doesn’t help cultivate more super consumers, but it does help drive effective messaging and asks for the rest of us. While there’s not a ton of research on this point on the donor or advocacy side, it stands to reason that the same principles apply.   Surveys, focus groups, and even informal conversations should be integral to engagement ladder planning.

*Cross posted in slightly modified form on Frogloop.

Michael was on the ground for the climate movement’s efforts in Copenhagen a couple of months ago, and came away with an impression of a policy making process largely immune to the outputs of the movement’s work.  He proposes a refocusing, noting, “it is incumbent upon all of us to avoid getting so caught up in the art and craft of our online engagement and online campaigning work that we’re blinded to the reality of the people we’re trying to influence — or the landscape in which we’re operating.”  It’s a brave and insightful post and I hope you’ll read the whole thing.

In support of refocusing, we’re offering up a trio of ideas that we think can guide the way toward more effective more world-changing work, online and offline.

1. Measure for outcomes, not just inputs and outputs. It sounds obvious, but as a sector we focus relentlessly on inputs (how many emails did we send, how often did we tweet, and what’s on our campaign website?) and outputs (how many calls to legislative offices did we generate, how many people visited our website,  and how many of them signed up for our email list?), but very little on outcomes.  As we noted in a December Three Things on measuring outcomes, we tend to focus on inputs and outputs because it’s incredibly difficult to figure out how to measure outcomes in a complex environment with many moving parts and murky causality.  Difficult as it is, it’s a vital next step.

2. Remember that organizations don’t have friends. The buzzwords in online organizing are “community” and “engagement.”  Communities are great and cultivating and engaging them is a time-tested touchpoint of grassroots organizing, but mission-driven organizations need donors, activists, volunteers, grasstops leaders and sound connections within well-thought power maps.  Engagement for engagement’s sake can lead us to generate a ton of outputs (ie. Facebook fans and Twitter followers) unconnected to meaningful outcomes. We wrote about this before, too, here and here.

3. Become a power mapping pro. Most, if not all, of the policy change work we do depends ultimately on the decisions of a very few people, be they members of Congress on key committees, policy makers in the US administration, business leaders, high profile members of the media or a city council member or two.  Online campaign strategists should bring to the table a commitment to understanding what really influences those people, and endeavor always to keep investments and activities narrowly focused on those pathways of influence.  Sometimes mass grassroots actions are the right way to go, other times they’re not.  For a terrific example of power mapping in practice, check out this write up of the successful campaign to get Lou Dobbs off of CNN, in part using Facebook ads mictrotargeted to CNN/Time-Warner employees.

Clearly I’m missing some things in this list – and it might be the wrong list altogether, I’d love to know what you think! – but if we can get more focused on outcomes, on relationships that move our mission, and on focusing our efforts only where they can have an impact on decision-makers, I think we’ll see more of the change we’re working for.

One of the biggest mistakes we see our clients make is not taking the time to really understand, and then take action on the knowledge, of who exactly is “in” their email list.  We hesitate to even call this a “mistake” because it’s both extremely understandable, and changing it requires a not insignificant new workload for your team.

That said, smart list segmentation can have a tremendous return on investment in the form of more action, dollars and engagement from your email list.  Below are three of the first ways to rethink how you’re using your list.  You probably have already done this once – is it time to do it again?

1)  Very Active vs. Active vs. Passive Subscribers. One relatively easy, but highly useful list segmentation comes in the form of slicing by activity levels and then tailoring the difficulty of your information and ask to suit each list.

Let’s say 1% of your list is very active subscribers who open nearly every email you send and take action most of the time.  These individuals could be getting emails that contain slightly more complicated information, along with more time consuming asks – because they’ve proven they both want and can handle the information and tasks.

Then, let’s say another 10% of your list sometimes opens your emails and occasionally takes the action asked of them.  These individuals could be getting messages that are more direct, easier to read and have quick & simple action asks.  As they become more informed and more engaged, those would then be moved into the “very active” list.

Then you have the other 89% of your list.  This group rarely (if ever) opens your emails, and thus rarely (if ever) takes action.  It’s often a good idea to step back a bit with this segment and put together a series of brief, education-oriented messages and reiterate the importance and value of your issue, with the goal of reminding them why they bothered to sign up with your group in the first place.  Since we are big believers in asking someone to do something as the best way to get and keep them interested with an issue, you should always have something for these individuals to “do” – even if it’s “Click Here to Learn More.”  Then, after a few months, take those that have opened several of the emails and move them into the “Active” list so they begin getting the slightly bigger asks.

2)  New registrants vs. long-time subscribers. It can often be helpful to keep your “new” folks separate from your “old” folks for up to 3-6 months and tailor your messages a bit.  The new folks can get value from messages that contain a little bit more background information (beware of the weeds however – carefully edit here!) in order to get more up to speed on your issue.  Those who have been on your list for a while we can assume already know a little something and so can get slightly more direct messages with less background data.  The asks can usually be the same – especially if they are the quick & easy tasks – but packaging them a bit differently can often yield much greater results.

Once an individual has been on your list for a predetermined period of time, you can move them into the “long-time” segment and just keep them there.

3)  Opt-In Source. Often, knowing where an individual came from can help you decide how to begin communicating with them via email.  Did they google your issue, find your website and spontaneously sign-up or did they randomly get one of your action alerts from a friend and decide to just sign the petition?  One of the best ways to turn a moderately interested person into an uninterested person right quick is to overwhelm them with too much information and difficult asks too soon.  And, that engaged person will be turned off if their interest and willingness to help isn’t being put to good use up front.  Thus, separating those who came to exist in your list “more casually” from those who were more proactive – and then talking to them differently, at least to start with – is an excellent way to turn that casual person into an active person and keep that eager person involved for the long term.

Utilizing all of the above segments simultaneously would be impossible – or at least more complicated than it might be worth.  So, you should think about your goals for your email list and choose one way to segment – whether it’s one of the above suggestions, or a different way altogether – and then run with it.  Test your segmenting for a few months and see if it’s having an impact on your open rates and completion rates.  If not, it might be worth trying a different approach.  The bottom line is your list is comprised of many different individuals who all want, need and are able to do different things.  Treating your list like one, amorphous blob is simply not the best way to take advantage of their talents and potential.

We hope this helps!  As always, we are available to help, so please be in touch if we can be of use to your project or organization!

Here are three things to think about to improve the chances that your op ed will get published and help advance your organization’s agenda:

1)  Choose who signs your op ed carefully. High profile names help in getting placed, but op ed editors are also on the lookout for ordinary people with firsthand experiences with an issue. Consider inviting an “unlikely ally” to be your by-liner or co-signer.  By offering an unexpected point of view, unlikely allies add credibility and attract attention to an issue.  For example, a prosecutor who used to support the death penalty, but recently changed his mind, would be interesting to readers.  Exploring relationships with new or different messengers is also an important way to go beyond preaching to the choir.

If you plan to write frequently, you might decide to open an account at a website that is popular with your target audiences and allows people to post their own pieces (e.g., The Huffington Post).  If you take this route, you should also plan to respond to readers’ comments and encourage friends and supporters to share your content.

2)  Begin with an introduction (or lede) that makes your readers want to keep reading. It’s best to tie your lede to an event in the news or – better yet – news that’s about to break. This is what makes your op ed timely and therefore publishable.  Common ledes include: new research studies or statistics; holidays or anniversaries of historic events; references to popular culture; and unique personal experiences.

In the internet age, op eds written in the first person and disclosing personal information have become a common and effective technique.  For example: “Breast cancer.  Hearing these two words will truly take your breath away.  As a person living with the disease since 2004, I know firsthand the impact those heavy words can have on individuals and their families.  As a South Carolina legislator, I have seen how breast cancer affects our communities and our people ….”

3)  The good news is you already know the basic structure for an op ed. You learned it in high school: introduction ending with your main point; three supporting paragraphs backed up by evidence (e.g., statistics, studies by experts not affiliated with your organization, lessons of history); and conclusion. The better news is that you don’t have to follow a set structure, but this one works for getting started.

There are two important additions to the high school essay formula.  First, you will need to add a paragraph between your last supporting point and your conclusion that refutes the opposing side’s main arguments. This paragraph is essential for reinforcing your credibility and addressing the concerns in your readers’ minds.  Second, your conclusion should include a proposed solution or a call to action. Now that you’ve educated your readers about the issue, tell them what should happen next and how they can help make it happen.

The opinion editorial pages offer nonprofit organizations a chance to deliver their messages to key target audiences in an unfiltered way.  A good op ed can add what has been missing from the public debate, steer policies in a new direction, or help set the agenda for a community or the nation. With these three things, and a little strategic thinking, op eds can become a powerful component of your next campaign plan.

~~

This weeks 3 Things has been brought to you by a special guest poster!  Margot Friedman is the principal of Dupont Circle Communications and specializes in writing opinion editorials, press materials, speeches, email campaigns, website content, and special reports for progressive nonprofit organizations and Democratic PACs.  Thanks for the great post, Margot!

Words, words, words, words, words.

Yada, yada, yada, yada, yada.

Are you annoyed yet?  Are you wondering what the heck this post is going to be about and just wish we’d spit it out already?

Guess what:  So do the individuals who are getting your emails!  Especially those who are using their mobile devices to triage their messages and decide what’s worth reading when they get back to their desks.

Having email messages that are short, focused and clear will help ensure your readers actually read your email, and it will also increase the likelihood that they will take the action you are asking of them throughout the message.

Below are three things to help you get to the point in your email messages:

1)  If you can’t say what you mean in 3 sentences or less…say something else. We know that your story is the best, most inspiring, most compelling story ever written – if only people would read it.  But that’s the kicker:  they won’t if it’s too long.

Be honest – how many emails have you opened where you just think to yourself, “Nope, not going to happen…too many words, not enough time.”  Don’t let people think that about your organization’s emails!

If you really must have this lengthy topic or story be the subject of your email, start by giving them a brief, engaging, preview and then link to the rest of the story once you’ve tugged at their heartstrings or peaked their interest.

2)  What do you want me to do? We’ve worked with organizations who think they need to “trick” readers into caring about their issue with a bunch of long and involved stories or statistics before they can even begin to think about making an action or donation ask.  First of all, see last week’s 3 things about making an effective ask, then put yourself in the shoes of the individual getting this email.  Don’t you wish they’d just get to the point and let you know what they need you to do (with a quick note about why doing this specific thing will have an impact)?  You care about the issue – you signed up for the email list for goodness sake!

Ts a general guideline, the point or ask of the email should be in the top 1/3 of the body, the next 1/3 of the body and at the end of the message. (Of course, test this in your emails!)   That way people know what you need of them right away and all the way throughout, and they have plenty of opportunities to take action at the point in the message that most compels them to do so.

3)  Have some personality. This one can be tricky.  We work on serious issues that have serious consequences, so it can often be difficult to separate ourselves from the headiness of what we are doing.  The trouble is, every other organization out there is sending serious, weighty, important messages too.  You can get yourself noticed, and engage more people, if you can stand out from the crowd a little bit.  You don’t have to be disrespectful or silly, just being a bit more interesting or down to earth is enough.  Bringing the tone down just a notch will also help you shorten the wordage and increase the impact of your email because you’re not taking yourself too seriously.

Hopefully keeping these 3 things in mind when you are composing your email messages will help you increase your readership, click through rates and conversions.

Remember, we are always here to help you think through your communications and messaging strategy, so drop us a line if we can be helpful!

We’ve seen it often, online and offline:  Jane wants help from Joe, so Jane calls Joe and goes into a long, involved story about why what Jane is working on is the single most important issue in the history of the world, how many lives it will change, how it will better the future for us all, yada, yada, yada.

Joe is a good person, and he is interested in the issue, so he asks, “What can I do to help?”

And Jane, so overjoyed by his eagerness gives him a long menu of involvement options:  1) Call your congressperson, 2) Attend a house party, 3) Give some money, 4) Man a table at the state fair, 5) Go door to door in your neighborhood, 6) Forward this email to 10 friends, etc, etc, etc.

Joe says, “Yes, I’ll help.”  Jane says, “Great.”  They hang up and Jane thinks she’s just found a great new ally, and Joe goes about his day doing nothing to help this issue.

Where did Jane go wrong?  In a nutshell:  she didn’t make a proper ask.  She gave Joe so many options for getting involved that he became overwhelmed, didn’t know which would be the best, and so did nothing.

When making an ask, follow these 3 Things to get people to do what you need them to do:

1) Be Clear. Be clear about the issue and why it’s important to the world and why they need to get involved today.  Do this in 3 minutes or less.  “Issue A impacts X number of people each year.  Organization B is working right now to solve problem C and we need your help.”

2) Be Specific. We cannot stress this enough:  You must ask for one thing and one thing only at a time!  If they say yes, you can then go back (once they’ve completed it) to ask for more help, but if you give people a menu up front they will get overwhelmed and choose to do “something” (and just like “some” is not a number, “something” really means “nothing”).

Now, you should have a menu for yourself so if they say no to your first ask, you can come back with a different, hopefully easier, ask so they are still getting involved, but don’t offer up a list of choices right off the bat.

Example: Jane:  “I am hoping you can send a letter to the editor to the local paper by Friday.”  Joe:  “I’m not interested in doing that right now.”  Jane:  “No problem, would you feel more comfortable sending an email to your Congressperson today?”  Joe:  “Yes, I’d be happy to do that.”

Another big part of being specific is having a specific deadline for completion.  If you don’t give people a deadline, it will get lost in “the future” and just never happen (not because people are bad, but because life happens).  Ideally the deadline is less than 48 hours from the ask so the person doesn’t have a chance to forget.

3) Follow up.  Follow up after receiving the commitment in order to both ensure it is getting done, and that it is getting done in the manner that will be most helpful to you.  It’s not so helpful if your issue is climate change and the volunteer sends her letter urging education dollars (you laugh, but we’ve seen it happen)!

Your follow up (preferably in email so you have it in writing) should include a preemptive thank you along with whatever tools they need to complete their task (ie:  sample language, phone numbers of their Congressperson, talking points, phone list, etc), your contact information should they have any questions, and your deadline for completion.

Then hold them accountable.  If Joe agreed to send an email to his Congressperson and he didn’t do it, call or email him reiterating both the importance and his commitment.  99% of the time, Joe just got busy with something else and forgot and just needed that extra little reminder.

Hopefully this will help you maximize your asks so you can get more people doing what you need them to do.

Have a great week!

Three Things to make your goals a more valuable part of your toolkit:

1) Some is not a number. Whatever your goal is – be it mobilizing your grassroots, raising money, educating volunteers, or winning over legislators – it should include a tangible, specific, and measurable specific number.

2) Set Deadlines. Sometimes, deadlines are difficult because there are no single dates or moments that are key. So…make one up. We’re not joking. Pick a day – it can be totally arbitrary (March 3rd because “I said so”), or it can be meaningful (March 3rd because that is the birthday of our organization’s founder) – it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that everyone has a deadline to work toward together.

Then, once that deadline is passed: set another one, lather, rinse, repeat.

3) Set Benchmarks. Once you have your number and your deadline, set “check-in” dates to help you measure progress and ensure you are on-track, as well as to let you know if your goal is reasonable and attainable. If you need 4,000 petitions signed by March 3rd, do a team check-in 6 weeks out to make sure you are on track. If you only have 15 petitions signed, that might be a sign that you need to deploy more resources to your effort…or if you’re already giving it all you’ve got, it could be a sign that your goal was too lofty and should be reset. So, rejigger a bit, then check in again 4 weeks out, 2 weeks, 1 week…until success!

Hopefully revisiting these basics will help you and your organization redefine the goals you are working toward to you ensure you are putting your time, treasure and talents to the very best use.

(And a quick plug: we’re always happy to help you take a step back and think through your strategy, define your goals, and evaluate the available tactics, so get in touch if we can be of use to you!)

First, the vernacular.  Longtime readers will recognize this hobbyhorse: tools aren’t strategies, and neither are plans.  You need all three to get the job done.  (See some of our past musings on the topic here, here, here, and here).  We think about it this way:

• Strategies are the big picture, or the general orientation.  Is your organization going to make change by being the friendliest, most accessible organization on your issues, or are you going to be the strident flank?  Are you going to build a base of advocates who will take action in even the most effort-intensive ways, or is it big numbers on online petitions that are most important to your success?

• Plans are the detailed sets of activities and timelines that follow from strategies.  Protests might make sense if you’re the strident flank, less so if you’re the sober bipartisan element in your movement.  In the typical parlance, once you’ve decided your strategy is to drive somewhere, the plan is your roadmap detailing what roads (highways or side streets?) you’ll take, where you’ll stop for gas, and how long you expect the journey to take.  It’s in the planning that details about your goals should be considered.  For example, to deliver on a grasstops strategy, how many prominent leaders do you need on board, from where, to do what?

• Tools and tactics are the task lists in the plan.  To fully wear out the metaphor:  If the strategy is to drive there, the plan is the turn-by-turn directions, the tactics are the kind of car, the type of gas, and the choice of driver.   If your strategy is high-level grassroots mobilization, and your plan is to generate as many personal contacts to targeted members of congress as possible; including in-person meetings, phone calls, personal letters, asking questions at in-district events, and calling in to local radio shows the congressperson is scheduled to appear on.  Your tactical question would be:  Is email, direct mail, phonebanking, online advertising, a combination of all of the above and/or something else altogether the best way to get your activists to do one or more of those things?

In a comment on last week’s Three Things, PR pro Margot Friedman asked, “Why do so many organizations have strategic plans that are sitting on a shelf? Why are so many organizations operating (often successfully) without a strategic plan?“  Two good questions that get to the heart of the value of a strategic planning process.  If your strategic plan is sitting on a shelf with no bearing on your day-to-day activities, you didn’t do it right. We’ve worked with many organizations who’ve presented us with past strategic communications or advocacy plans that are, to be blunt, neither strategic nor plans.  They didn’t lay out the organizational approach to communications or advocacy, so they couldn’t detail a path to deliver on that approach, which meant they wound up either as vague descriptions of aspirations and restatements of the mission, or a hodgepodge of tactics and metrics.  We wholeheartedly feel that the time and energy that went into those documents could have been better spent.

However, strategic plans that articulate an approach and the rationale behind it, the steps required to deliver on that approach within a given timeframe, and tools and tactics to achieve those steps can and should guide day-to-day organizational decision making, day-to-day-activities, and even better hiring through better job descriptions (what do you need a new member of the team to be capable of?  It’s all right there in your plan!).   Strategic plans needn’t be long, wordy documents.  How they’re bound is irrelevant.  Ditto for fonts and bolding and bullet point styles.  The value is in the clear articulation of focused thinking and decision-making regarding how your organization can make a mission-driven difference through communications or advocacy.

To kick off the new year of 3 Things, we offer up the three things we’ve found helpful for organizations working on setting goals to guide strategic decision-making.

1)  Goals are made up of 3 parts:  Objectives, Metrics, & Targets. For example, your field director might have a goal of increasing the number of volunteers.  That sounds great, but really that is a very vague goal and you have no idea what type of volunteers, what value recruiting them will add to your larger objectives and how you will measure success (one new volunteer is an increase – is that what you were looking for?).  A better way to formulate this goal would be:  Increasing the number of City Captains (meaning they lead our local volunteer recruiting efforts, can deliver our message points and can be called upon to attend meetings & events so staff doesn’t have to) in major metropolitan areas in the Northeast from 12 to 24 by June of this year.

2)  Goals are SMART*. This means they are:  Strategic, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic and Time-Bound.  Without these five characteristics, a goal is just words on a page.  We think the best way to illustrate this point is again with a tangible example.

Bad Goal: Get More Media Coverage

Good Goal: Get at least one article, Editorial or OpEd and 2 Letters to the Editor placed in the hometown newspapers of our 6 top congressional targets prior to the August recess.

Bad Goal: Pass Comprehensive Universal Healthcare

Good Goal: Working with partner organizations, we will leverage our relationships with 3 top Senators with a goal of getting 2 signed on as public supporters of a bill that includes X, Y & Z before the Holiday break.

3)  Goals are properly assigned. Often, the key element to a good goal is the accountability piece.  A goal needs to have a specific person or department tied to it’s success or it simply won’t get done.  That’s not to say that more than one person or department will be working toward that goal, but there needs to be one person in charge of rolling the ball forward and keeping everyone else on task.

Setting tangible, accomplish-able and strategic goals is really, really hard and there are so many sand traps the unwary and under-informed can fall into.  We all have the best intentions, and with so many fires to put out every day it can be difficult to take the step back and evaluate whether or not what you are doing is actually what you should be doing.  But not taking this valuable step – both as an individual and as an organization can have an unfortunate effect on your ability to effect the change you are working so hard for.

*For more information on setting SMART goals, we highly recommend the book “Managing to Save the World: The Nonprofit Leader’s Guide to Getting Results” by Alison Green & Jerry Hauser of The Management Center.