On the Line...with Jason Fisher

Some Shortcuts in Phonathon Lead to Big Cuts in Productivity

We’re all guilty of taking shortcuts at times.  We tell ourselves that finding a quicker way to get things done will make our jobs easier and our bosses happier.  But before we stencil our name into the employee of the month trophy, consider that some time shavers in our industry have serious and often unforeseen consequences.  What starts off as a good intention or a passing thought turns into a more serious issue down the road.  We may not immediately notice a problem, but over a period of weeks, months, and years, results can suffer. 

 

Here are a few shortcuts in phonathon that aren’t worth the time saved. 

 

Copying and Pasting Scripts and Training Materials

Some things get better with age…wine, cheese, wisdom, a good story, etc.  But phonathon materials are not one of them.  In fact, using the same materials year after year will leave your message stale and your prospects unimpressed.  As a phonathon manager, your job is to deliver the vision of your institution or organization to your constituents.  There is a tendency to believe that “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it”.  I think this is a mistake.  After hearing what is essentially the same scripted message 2 or 3 times in a row, your prospects will have a much easier time telling the callers no.  If your students are tasked with persuading the prospects, then at the very least they need fresh verbiage- even if the general message and reasons to give have not changed all that much.  Consistency is important in phonathon, but not at the expense of losing the listener.  Take the time at the beginning of the campaign to fine-tune training materials and thoughtfully revamp your calling scripts.  The quality of your calls will be better in the end.

How the U.S. Federal Stimulus Package May Affect Phonathon and Annual Giving

It’s been no secret that higher education has been severely hurt by the economy in the past several months.  Coupled with already-tight state budgets, the upheaval of the financial system provided the opportunity for the worst-case scenario to unfold for many institutions.  Not only did the direct appropriations for many programs on campus shrink rapidly, but so did the endowments, student loans and financial aid for students, and in some cases, alumni giving.  Colleges and universities across the United States, and the world for that matter, have been facing their most daunting challenges yet.

 

House Resolution 1 passed both chambers of Congress this past week and will be signed into law tomorrow by President Obama.  Given the back and forth of the political scene, I thought I would take a minute to talk about what is actually in the stimulus package for higher education.  Whether or not you approved of this package, the reality is that it’s here and it will impact all of higher education in some fashion or another.  And yes, phonathon managers too!

A Few Thoughts On Budget Shortfalls in Scripting and Direct Mail

I’m currently working with several colleges and universities that are in the middle of fine tuning their spring message and preparing their final calling scripts and direct mail pieces.  As we all know, the economy is dominating the conversation right now in higher education fundraising (and all fundraising for that matter).  Most calendar year-end appeals that I have seen either focused on a holiday message or a message asking for help due to the economy.  I haven’t seen too many fiscal year-ending pieces yet, mainly because the climate is changing so fast that annual giving directors have been hesitant to etch any idea in stone.  But that will be changing in the coming weeks as spring will bring a new sense of urgency to finishing the fundraising year on a strong note.  Many schools are behind in their goals and will use the sour economy to help craft a message in their fiscal year-ending pieces.

Use Credit Cards in Phonathon to Build Caller Confidence and Establish Creditbility

Success or failure with credit card percentage is often a good indicator of how the program operates overall, especially in terms of negotiation.  Most of the time, the main reason for low performance has more to do with callers being afraid to ask or just not wanting to ask than it does with the ability of the phonathon to acquire pledges on credit card.  If the requirement for asking is fairly loose and not enforced, chances are the callers will take the easy way out and just send pledge cards.  Industry average for credit card percentage is 20-25%.  If your program is performing at less than 20%, then you most likely have improvements you can make with a number of your callers.  If you're program is under 10%, then it's almost certain that most callers are not following a set structure.  And that responsibility falls squarely on management's shoulders.

When I take over a phonathon or make recommendations for significant changes, especially those that are seriously under-performing, I first need to win over the confidence of the calling staff and establish credibility.  Sometimes that is easy, and other times it seems like an impossible challenge.  One of the first things I do to turn around results is to work on credit cards.  If I can show callers how to substantially improve their results in this area, they are much more likely to listen to me when I give advice in other areas of negotiation.  Callers that miss out on opportunities to get credit cards will often miss out on pledges as well.  That's because it's the same skill set they use- the art of persuasion.  Since full blown negotiation takes time and is difficult to teach in just a few days, I start with something simple and easy that can have immediate results- credit cards.  Here are a few strategies I use to make an immediate impact.

Ensure that the exact wording you want them to use is scripted and given to the caller.  Don't leave it up to the caller to decide what to say.  Give them the exact verbiage you want them to use and enforce it practically verbatim.  That way everyone is using the same language and changes that you make can be universally applied more easily.

Enforce a credit card ask on 100% of all pledges.  The biggest reason why callers fail to get credit cards is because they don't ask for them.  Don't be fooled...callers are tricky.  I can't tell you how many times managers tell me their callers always ask for credit cards.  Then I listen to calls and find out that is far from the truth.  Callers will take the path of least resistance on most occasions.  If they feel any push back from the prospect, many will give in immediately and just send a pledge card.  Listen, monitor, and reinforce 100% usage of the credit card ask on all pledges...no exceptions.

Overcome at least one objection to giving on credit card.  Just like in the body of the script, callers should overcome at least one objection to giving on credit card.  Use needs and reasons inside the ask demonstrating that credit cards are important, such as saving money on postage, saving paper, time and energy, etc.  Persuasion is a significant part of getting a credit card, and it certainly comes in handy after they have been told no.

Be assumptive.  Avoid asking if they want to put their gift on credit card...assume they do and it's just a matter of which credit card they want to put it on.  Would that be your Mastercard or Visa?

Set nightly credit card goals.  Be sure to give the callers something to shoot for.  And reward them for good performance.  Make credit cards a standard focus and include them in all motivational contests.

Most importantly, after you begin to experience success be sure to keep the callers aware of the increasing results.  Keep raising the bar and let them know that prior performance is no longer applicable or acceptable.  Post their nightly or cumulative results in a visible location in the call center.  Now that there is a new minimum expectation, each caller has a role to play in team achievement.  Substantial increases in phonathon results are usually the product of starting with something simple and structured.  Not only will high rates of credit card acquisition secure better pledge fulfillment, it will also increase caller confidence, persuasion, and overall negotiation ability.  And those are the first steps toward complete program improvement.

Draft the Right Message to Challenge Your Prospects to Give

At its core, higher education fundraising is nothing more than persuading or convincing people of similar background and interest to invest in a common purpose.  Everything we do in the phonathon room is geared around supporting that process, whether it is through caller motivation, training, segmentation, coaching, etc.  But sometimes personal experiences and empathies get in the way of the job, and callers make the mistake of assuming that every call they place to constituents will end in the worst-case scenario.

Weathering the economic crisis in the phonathon room means that you have to change both the tenor of the calling floor and the tools they use to do their job.  The message we deliver to the prospects must be confident, informative, and forward-looking.  Simply put, we need to challenge the prospect to give.  Here are a few thoughts I have about the approach call centers should take during this difficult economic period.

Clearly spell out needs and reasons to give in scripts and training materials.  The message that the alumni needs to hear is that the school has a plan and a need.  Avoid writing material that is vague, sounds desperate, or paints the picture that the prospect’s gift will just help keep the lights on.  Nobody likes to throw money at a sinking ship, just as nobody likes to give when they don’t know what they are giving to.  Tangibility and transparency are very important under normal circumstances and crucial during periods when convincing a prospect to give is much more difficult.  Be sure that your calling scripts emphasize the word investment.  Share the vision of the school and the role the annual fund (or the fund you are calling for) will play in helping to realize the goal.  And most importantly, use language in your scripts and objection techniques that stress the importance of alumni involvement and tell them in no uncertain terms that we need their support now more than ever.  The words are important, but the caller’s sense of urgency and how they convey this message in critical to convincing them to give.  Avoid easy opportunities for them to opt out of participating and make them think twice (and perhaps a little guilty) about telling their alma mater no.

Scripting should reflect a direct and assertive ask process.  Our instincts tell us during tough economic times to approach our prospects with kid gloves, dancing around the obvious solicitation that is the purpose of our phone call so as not to upset them or violate the rule of good stewardship.  This subconsciously teaches our callers not to be responsibly aggressive with overcoming objections.  Instead of negotiating and affirmatively stating the needs and reasons to give, students weakly let the prospect go after just one ask or do not acknowledge the objection.  I have yet to find a successful program that employs this method.  Be sure to write scripts that have at least three solid asks for money, with verbiage that is positive and assertive.  Use assumptive language to phrase the ask, such as “Can we count on your to join your classmates with a leadership level gift of $250?”  Or, “Would that $250 level be something we can go ahead and put you down for this evening?”  Remind the callers that it is their job to be persuasive, not simply read the words and say the lines. 

 

Train callers not to fear economic objections or project their insecurities to the prospect.  Student callers have the most uncomfortable job in the development office during an economic crisis.  They must repeatedly make dozens of calls each night, believing that prospects have neither the desire nor the means to make a contribution.  They undoubtedly have a worst-case scenario in mind when they dial the next number, often remembering back to the last person who told them they had just lost their job or fell behind in their mortgage payments.  They may have even experienced financial difficulty within their own immediate family.  We know as managers and professional fundraisers that not all calls result in an economy-related objection, but it is difficult for callers not to convince themselves that another negative response is just around the corner.  Over time this hesitation turns into being timid, with the mood and demeanor of the call center changing from persuasion to one of cautious reaction.  A steady decline in statistical performance follows and the callers begin to change the tone of their calls to compensate for the expected negative response from the prospect.  Supervisors and managers must constantly fight this battle by reminding callers to prepare to overcome these challenging objections, but not make a blanket assumption that all prospects are in a negative financial situation.  Now is not the time for timid student fundraisers.  Confidence is everything during a solicitation, and never more important than right now.

Create and refine financial related objection techniques.  I’m a strong believer in caller training and preparation.  It pains me greatly to listen when a caller doesn’t quite know how to handle a common situation or is ill-prepared to respond to a routine objection.  I take it as my ultimate responsibility to give them the tools they need to be successful.  Avoid assuming that your callers understand how to handle these financial objections.  Clearly spell out how you want them to respond, and take the time to discuss strategies in team meetings and coaching sessions.  Leave nothing to chance.  Write great scripts and be sure you enforce their use by the callers, including being precise with your expectations.  Concentrate specifically on the verbiage they will use and the confidence that they need to display when acknowledging the objection.  

Challenging the alumni to give is more than a technique, it’s a mindset.  The calling room should stay enthusiastic and full of energy, even if you are struggling to reach goals.  Making sure that each prospect has the opportunity to contribute and understands the reasons why their support is vital can help your program weather the storm.

Next Blog:  Using Creativity in the Call Center to Counter the Negative Economy

Handling Sensitive Unemployed Objections

The United States GDP numbers came out this morning.  As expected, the economy contracted by .3% and unemployment figures shot up by another 479,000.  This economy is headed towards very difficult times where even a college degree may not completely guarantee a decent income.

 

But amid the sobering news, let’s be honest.  Not every alum who tells the phonathon they are unemployed is truly unemployed, completely out of work, and destitute.  Callers tend to immediately imagine the worst case scenario.  The fact is, some alumni simply use this as a reason to get callers off the phone.  And while they may not be outright lying, many might exaggerate their current situation to avoid giving back.  This is where great listening skills and communication ability really make a difference.

 

Callers that contact alumni in this situation need to be sensitive and careful with how they approach the remainder of the call.    As fundraisers, we cannot just give up every time somebody tells us they cannot afford to give.  If that were the case, our results would be no better than direct mail.  The key is negotiating toward a mutually convenient amount while maintaining good rapport and listening to what the prospect tells them.  If the initial response is very negative and the prospect sounds upset, the caller has the option to end the call.  If the reaction is mild and the prospect seems disappointed or apologizes for not being able to help, the call should continue.  The latter response is what I call a “soft” unemployment objection, and I teach the callers to overcome this and continue with the call.  Sometimes there is no mutually convenient amount to agree upon, but the caller never knows that unless they respectfully give that prospect every opportunity to give.

 

Scripting a solid response that both acknowledges the prospect’s situation and allows the caller to continue responsibility will improve the results of the phonathon.  Here’s a short technique I teach my callers to overcome “soft” unemployed objections. 

 

I can certainly understand Mr. /Ms. ______.  I’ve actually spoken with several other alumni who, like yourself, are interested but have not been able to help with that size of a contribution due to their current employment situation.  However, because our alumni understand that this fund is such an important and crucial part of the success of their alma mater, many have chosen to support at a more modest level that is much easier on their financial situation, yet allows them to get involved in the campaign.  The size of the gift is secondary to your participation towards this effort.  Will you join your fellow alumni with a gift of $______ this evening?

 

If the caller is still unable to secure a pledge, be sure to share the phone number of the school’s alumni career services office with the prospect.  It’s a good way to reach out and offer help to the alum for their current situation while avoiding an abrupt end to the call that makes them feel the call was just about getting their money.  Remember, being unemployed can be seasonal and completely expected.  And spouses also have income as well that sometimes insulates the family from bumps in the road.  Callers cannot and should not assume that every unemployed objection means a quick end to the call.  Teach the callers to use their listening skills to differentiate between prospects whose situation is dire and those who are using it as a mild excuse.  If the calls are handled correctly, you will secure more pledges from unemployed prospects than you may think possible.  And in the process, you teach the callers that giving up is not an option.

For Best Results: Don't Leave a Message After the Beep

Answering machines and voice mails have become a staple in today’s busy life.  I’m not sure how society ever got along without being able to leave messages.  But as convenient and necessary as they are, they don’t really do much for phonathon programs.  In fact, leaving messages prior to the very last pass through the records can actually hurt productivity.  Here’s why I recommend that phonathons avoid leaving messages.

 

Leaving messages alerts the prospect as to the reason for our phone call.  Most alumni, parents, and friends are wise to the game of phonathon solicitation.  Once they know why we are calling, and hear that we are planning to call back, they will just avoid picking up the phone and may screen our calls.  Granted, Caller ID lets them know it’s the institution before we leave the message, and they may very well guess what the call is about.  But giving them confirmation of our intentions may be the tipping point they need to avoid being solicited altogether.  Remember that it’s never a good time to be asked for money, and some people do not like to tell callers no.  If they can avoid the solicitation and having to feel guilty about rejecting a college student, they may very well opt for the easy way out.

 

Prospects who do answer the phone the second time around will be ready for our solicitation.  Letting them know our intentions helps them harden a response to our solicitation, making it more difficult for the caller to overcome the objection.  They become more set in their ways.  Whatever ability the caller may have had in negotiating is effectively neutralized because the prospect is thinking ahead of time about how to tell us no.  Persuading the prospect is simply more difficult when they know what is coming. 

 

Granted, the negative productivity difference may only be slightly noticeable, but I can promise that it does exist.  The number of contacts (solicitations) the callers are able to make during the night will decrease and objections they receive are likely to become more difficult to overcome.  After many years of doing this, I can tell you that phonathon is a game played at the margins.  To be productive in today’s world of increased technology, we need every advantage we can get.  Showing our cards before we play the hand does not make for good business practices.  It simply takes away from opportunities to raise money and acquire donor support.  Whatever slight stewardship benefit the institution may get from leaving messages is completely overridden by lower productivity.  And whatever element of surprise we still have in the age of Caller ID is useless if we tell them why we’re calling before we are able to ask them for a gift.  For this reason, I believe leaving messages leads directly to leaving money on the table.

 

Increasing Employer Matching Gift Results During a Recession

Conventional wisdom tells us that during a recession or prolonged period of decreased economic growth, that one of the first things companies cut back on is the matching gift programs they offer to their employees.  But before we write off the possibilities, let me share this with you.

 

I recently spoke with Steve Hafner, Founder and CEO of HEP Development Services, a company dedicated to improving matching gift numbers on college and university campuses.  Steve told me that in the past several years, the number of companies offering matching gift programs to their employees increased from around 14,000 to around 16,000, or about 14% higher.  And while it’s possible that companies may decrease the benefits they pay out under these programs in the coming months during the economic downturn, it’s unlikely that a large percentage will eliminate their program altogether.  He told me now is not the time for higher education to pull back from concentrating on matching gifts, it’s actually the time “to do more with less”.  That means continuing to dedicate resources in the annual giving office to identify and follow up on potential matching gifts.  And it means the phonathon has a significant role to play.

 

When it comes to increasing matching gift results in phonathon, first and foremost is the age old axiom that if “we don’t ask, we don’t receive”.  But it also goes to the heart of how we go about this process.  Teaching callers the proper way to conduct this part of their job is very important in seeing a significant sum of money from matching gifts.  I’ll share the following passage on asking for matching gifts from the book I wrote with Anthony Arrington, The Phonathon Manager’s Planning Handbook.

 

Below are two questions that are scripted to ask for matching gifts.  Both are commonly seen in phonathon pledge closes.  However, only one is scripted correctly.

     

Correct: “Would you or your spouse work for a company that would match this commitment?” 

 

Incorrect: “Do you or your spouse work for a matching gift company?”

 

The incorrect version could easily be interpreted as asking the prospect what “type” of company they work for, such as a “computer” company, “pharmaceutical” company, “engineering” company, etc., when the real purpose was to find out if their place of employment will donate to your institution at an amount equal to or greater than their employee’s donation.  An incorrectly phrased matching gift question could cost the institution the chance for additional revenue.

 

The correct version asks whether the company they work for has a matching gift program.  It is a small difference in verbiage, but a major difference in meaning.  This verbiage also sets the caller up to explain the details of a matching gift.  Remember that the prospect may be unaware of what a matching gift program is and how to go about the process of securing it and sending it back.

 

Listen to how callers ask the matching gift question during coaching and be sure to correct them when you hear it phrased improperly.  If the prospect is unsure whether their company matches, the caller can refer to their list of matching gift companies via the appropriate list that management provides to determine if a matching opportunity exists.  When the caller receives a matching gift they should be sure the prospect understands how to acquire the paperwork from their employer to send it back.  This is helpful to include in the pledge close as a reminder for the caller to not assume that the prospect knows how to go about this process.

 

The industry average for matching gifts is about 6-10% of the total dollars raised.  However, I have yet to find many programs that are reaching their full potential with this figure.  There is usually significant room for improvement in how callers are asking for the matching gift.  In today’s difficult economy, phonathon is a game played ever closer to the margins.  To achieve your goal, there is little room for error.  It stands to reason that now is the time to put a concerted effort behind properly asking for matching gifts.  It could be the difference between celebrating at the end of the fiscal year or scratching your head wondering what went wrong.

Are US News and World Report Rankings Effective in Phonathon Scripts?

I have reviewed hundreds of calling scripts in the past several years, and have written or re-written more than my fair share as well.  Most calling scripts are similar in structure and style, with the same basic reasons for giving- library acquisitions, scholarships, faculty enrichment, research, and technology improvements.  But somewhere buried in the second or third ask (and sometimes the first ask) of many of these scripts is the US News and World Report ranking for that particular school.  And certainly, the rankings are often impressive.  But do they work in motivating alumni to give?  And should we use them in our calling scripts when we have just a few minutes in each presentation to state our case?  Let me attempt to answer my own questions.

 

First, let me say that I have used US News and World Report rankings in some of the scripts I have written in the past.  But I stopped using them on a regular basis a few years ago, as I found the reasoning was growing less effective each year.  The rankings in donor segments may have some positive effect in highlighting the value of the alumni’s previous investment.  But in nondonors, I’m not sure talking about the rankings has much of an impact on the results at all.  Here’s why- Alumni are less inclined to give if they think the institution is doing just fine without their support.  The question to ask ourselves when writing this into our scripts is -What’s the motivating factor to give for the first time when we are giving them the impression that things are going so well?

 

I believe alumni need to be challenged to give, not just asked.  They need to be told that their support is more than just appreciated, it is crucial to the success of the school.  Most people have a fairly limited philanthropic budget each year.  They want to give to a program or organization that needs their support, and they want their gift to make a difference.  Some people give out of a sense of appreciation and loyalty, but those people are probably already in your donor pool.  To get the new donors on board, we need to be persuasive and assertive in stating our case.  For example:

 

Your investment in this campaign is a crucial component for the school to maintain and increase the tradition of academic excellence.  Alumni support of the Annual Fund directly impacts the quality of the educational experience here at XYZ University by providing new technology and equipment in our classrooms that effectively prepares our students for the competitive workforce they will face after graduation.  Simply put, we need your support this year.  We are asking all alumni to get involved in this campaign.  Can we count on your support tonight with a leadership level gift of $_____?

 

The emphasis in the above example is on all alumni getting involved.  And we directly state to them that we need their support.  Without directly challenging them, we invite them to skip participating again this year.  Alumni are essentially investing in the future of the school with their contribution to the annual fund.  That’s the problem I have with using US News and World Report rankings as a stand-alone reason to give- it’s backwards-looking.  To effectively convince alumni that this is a worthwhile investment for them to get involved (in many cases for the first time), we need to challenge them to give in a positive fashion and effectively convince them to do something they would not otherwise do on their own.  While US News and World Report rankings are a nice compliment for a calling script as an example of progress, I feel they should never be used as a substitute for the important needs and reasons every campaign is facing during challenging and competitive times.