Monday, March 26, 2007

A TALE OF TWO CHARITIES: PART 1
I received a #10 envelope with no logo – only an address and the words "Renewal 2007". I figured that it was from some non-profit wanting me to renew my support. But who? Should I bother opening it up or recycle the package unopened?

Yes, no. Yes, no. Well, I do write a blog and newsletter, I said to myself. I guess I'll open it so I can report on it.

When I emptied the envelope's contents, I saw the organization's logo on the letterhead. But why, I asked the heavens, didn't they put it on the envelope? I'm one of their supporters. I like to hear from them. If I were asking a friend for a favour, the first thing I'd do is identify myself.

The story becomes more baffling once you start to read the letter.

The organization has some breakthrough news to report. It all sounds great. I'm very happy for them. So why is the news buried within the letter? Why didn't they broadcast it on their OE so everyone would be sure to open it?

A TALE OF TWO CHARITIES: PART 2
I also received an envelope from an organization I'd never heard of: The Foundation Fighting Blindness. I might have never heard of them, but I liked their slogan: "A Cure Is In Sight".

Three things struck me right away: (1) the package was a lumpy and had some weight to it (2) the OE featured a large circular window on the back, headed by the words, "Your Free Gift Is Enclosed" (3) a faux-stained glass ornament showed through – obviously something of value

All together, the envelope said to me, "I'm different. Better open me up." So I did.

They'd sent a 4-page letter from the mother of a child who's been fighting blindness since he was 3 years old. I wish I had room to post all the copy, because it's very well written from start to finish. But here are just a couple of ways that it reaches out and says, "I understand you, Mr./Ms. Reader."

After listing the names of six doctors and how they're working to cure blindness, the signatory says, "I don't understand all the scientific jargon – and I suspect you don't either. But I do know The Foundation Fighting Blindness is funding some of the best research in the world right here in Canada."

Soon afterwards she writes, "It is difficult to say no when asked to support organizations for cancer research, heart and stroke and others. I'm not trying to undermine any other organizations that you feel are worthwhile. I am just hoping you will consider The Foundation Fighting Blindness as a recipient of a portion of your charitable donation dollars."

That's exactly what a prospect needs to hear from an unknown charity: keep supporting your favourites but please add this one to your list of charities that you support.

A BETTER WAY TO SAY IT
Reading the Fighting Blindness package reminds me of the story of a blind man who had been seeking donations on the street.

For years he'd been sitting on the curb with a sign asking for money. Every now and again someone would drop a few coins into his hat.

One day an advertising woman stopped by, gave him a little money and asked if she could write something on his sign. He agreed and, soon, more coins than ever were falling into his hat. In no time, his hat was filled with coins as well as bills.

When he identified her footsteps approaching him at the end of the day, he asked her what she'd written that had caused so many more people to be generous. She told him it was simple.

His sign had read, "I'm blind. Please help." Her sign read, "It's spring but I can't see it."

That's the kind of copy everyone should strive for, including...

Dr. Bob
b_knight@telus.net

Monday, March 19, 2007

LOTTERIES LEAVE A LOT TO WONDER ABOUT
Provincial government lotteries are under the proverbial microscope because it's been discovered that an inordinately high percentage of ticket retailers are winners. Maybe that's going to help the charitable lotteries where there's no middleman and, therefore, less chance of cheating.

I received three mailings from two lotteries this week – two from the Variety Children's Charity and the other from the Surrey Memorial Hospital-Royal Columbian Hospital lottery. They presented an interesting contrast.

Variety's unaddressed self-mailer is splashed with colour and hype. So is their addressed envelope mailing.

The hospitals' lottery has lots of colour too, but their unaddressed brochure is much classier and considerably quieter in tone.

Judging from the look and tone, I'd guessed that Variety's is the bigger of the two lotteries. But when I checked out how much is being given away, I found out how wrong I was. Variety is giving away just over $2 million; the hospitals are offering more than $5.4 million in prizes.

When I look at the odds of winning, I see a similar gap. You have a 1 in 286,000 chance of winning a grand prize with Variety. Your odds are 1 in 105,800 with the hospitals. And both lotteries' grand prize homes are similar in value.

If the mailings had arrived weeks apart, I'd be make my purchase decision independently. But since both appeals are sitting on my desk side by side, just begging for comparison shopping, it's easy to pick the winner.

If I were the preferred lottery, I'd make sure that, next year too, my mailings go out at the same time as my main competitor. If I were the losing one, I'd do anything to avoid ending up in the mailbox with my rival.

WHAT'S WITH THE HIGH TECH ANIMALS?
Several years ago a new cell phone provider was launched: Fido. Not surprisingly, they featured dogs in their commercials and mailings.

Then there was ClearNet which featured chameleons. Their campaign was so successful that, when Telus bought out them out, they also adopted their animal-focused ad campaign and have been running with lizards, monkeys and flamingos ever since.

And now Rogers Wireless has gotten into the animal act with Frank and Gordon, two anthropomorphic beavers.

I received a nifty little self-mailer from them this week. It's just a simple folder. But what adds interest is what they've done to the inside. They've added a flap to the left and slit it twice to form three panels.

You can pull back the top flap to reveal one scene, pull back another flap to get a different scene. It's a cheap, cheerful little involvement device that any mailer can afford.

A DOUBLE-DECKER BATH TUB?
A company called Bath Fitter sent me an unaddressed folder saying that if I give them one day, "we'll give you a beautiful new bathroom." I understood that part. What I didn't get was the following line: "In just one day, we'll install a beautiful new bathtub or shower RIGHT OVER your old one."

Say, what?

While I was wondering why anyone would want a new bathtub to be sitting on top of their old one, and trying to figure out how you would fill either one with water, I started checking out the photos.

All the shots seemed to be portraying regular bathtubs and showers. They look nice enough. So what's with the "right over your old one" business?

It's usually good to make a distinctive claim. But if it's downright boggling, you have to explain it. At least you do to a recipient like...

Dr. Bob
b_knight@telus.net

Monday, March 12, 2007

WRITE FOR A RANT
On Friday, I sent out the most recent issue of Rants' N Raves. If you're not a subscriber to my newsletter but want to be on the list, let me know: b_knight@telus.net Act quickly and I'll sent you the last issue.

THEY'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE MAIN REASON FOR GIVING
Survey after survey shows that the #1 reason that people give to a charity is simple: they were asked.

That's why the vast majority of people who support a charity only give when they're contacted. That's why charities keep mailing, emailing and phoning donors; if they didn't, they'd miss out on a ton of donations.

Your scribe was part of this phenomenon last week.

I've always been an animal supporter but have never given to the World Wildlife Fund. Why? They've never mailed me anything, which made it too much trouble to search them out, even though I like the organizaiton.

However, a few days ago, I received an unaddressed self-mailer from them. They happened to be talking about the threat to polar bears, a subject that's been on the TV news recently. But even if they were lamenting the plight of Mongolian swamp monkeys, I would have donated. And I will. Simply because they asked.

OVERSELLING
As background, I live on the North Shore of Burrard Inlet in BC. The moment you step from the shore, you have to climb uphill to get anywhere, until you get to the peak of Mt. Seymour. (It's not ALL steep though. Thousands of people live their lives in relative flatness on the mountain.)

As a resident, I consider the "base" of the mountain to be the shore...not a couple of miles uphill from there. Yet I received an invitation to enjoy, "an evening of wealth & wine" at the local golf club which is situated, "at the base of Seymour mountain nestled in mature forest."

Bull! It's just up the street from me.

At first, I figured that some urbanite living in the heart of downtown Vancouver had penned the promotional prose – someone who's never done more than gaze at the mountains from afar and has never set foot on the North Shore. But I figured wrong.

Whoever wrote it, picked up the line from the golf club's own web site. And they go on even more about the great forests at the mountain's base.

Maybe that kind of copy impresses people from afar, but it just tells the club's neighbours that they're truth-stretchers. And if they're exaggerating about its location, maybe their veracity about other matters should be brought into question.

It reminds me of two things:

(1) A local financial institution moved a few blocks and their promo piece said how they were moving "up the mountain". Now, in fact, they were indeed moving up the mountain. But nobody in this area would think of it that way. Must have been written by a flatlander.

(2) There was a cartoon in the New Yorker, showing a couple salivating over a travel brochure. "It all looks so wonderful," said the man, "I can't wait to be disappointed."

Those are the kinds of things that stick in the mind of...

Dr. Bob
b_knight@telus.net

Monday, March 5, 2007

Before getting onto the mail at hand, I thought you should know – I'll be putting out the next issue of Rants 'n Raves this week.

I think I'll fill you in on a Rogers cell phone debacle, another one featuring Ticketmaster and maybe cast a kindly look at Consumer Reports' mailed mea culpa, among other things.

If you're not a subscriber yet, email me: b_knight@telus.net


LOVING LAVENDER
I received a package from Epilepsy Canada that felt particularly weighty, although not thick. I was intrigued. At least I was until I read the teaser: "Your Free Epilepsy Lavender Ornament is Enclosed!".

Even though the surprise was now gone, I opened up the envelope. And I must say, the ornament is pretty cool – a heart shaped piece crafted from brass with a clear plastic cover on one side. Inside, you can see a heart shaped wreath made of lavender. What a refreshing change of pace from address labels.

There were some things I admired about the package but a couple of other things had me lamenting on their behalf. If you're with Epilepsy Canada, get in touch and we can kick around some ideas.


GREAT DEMO
The latest issue of Direct Marketing News came with a promotional paper sleeve wrapped around it. As they say, it's "from the folks who invented The Bellyband™".

So you see this cool wraparound. Then you see that it's presented by the folks who invented them. And when you open the band up, you get all the info you need in case you want to try using one in your next mailing.


A ROYAL PAIN
RBC Asset Management, part of the Royal Bank group, sent me a self-mailer that had me wanting to throw a brass ornament at them.

There were no instructions on how to open it. I had to figure out on my own that I should tear away the bottom, then the left and right side.

Why would anyone send out such a difficult-to-open piece? Because they really don't want you to open it.

They're required by law to help you request their 2006 annual report and 2007 semi-annual report. But of course they don't want to go to the expense of paying postage for the request (the postage paid request form was enclosed) or incur the cost of printing extra copies of the reports and then mailing them.

So they make the whole process arduous in the hopes that people will give up with the first perf. It may save them some money, but it won't gain them any friends.


WHERE'S PRIVACY LEGISLATION WHEN YOU NEED IT?
One non-profit that I support sent me a package with the following teaser on the OE: "Your support last year made such a difference...".

Call me Mr. Private, but I don't want my letter carrier knowing which charities I support and when I last donated. Here, they make all these promises about not sharing my name with any other organizations. Then they blab info about me to every employee of Canada Post who touches my envelope.

And while I'm in a grumpy mood, I can't understand why so many direct mailers set their postscripts in bold (as this non-profit did). The PS is sitting there in an island of white. It's easy to spot. It's easy to read. Why risk overkill by bolding it?

It's a technique that confounds...

Dr. Bob
b_knight@telus.net