For those of you who read this and don't know - I'm about to have my first baby and will be taking 8 or so months of maternity leave. I am VERY excited about our baby girl and the time I'll have at home with her, however with the drop in pay and the increase in expenses, I've had to re-think my spending, including my charitable giving.
I give to a number of charities, but have one particular charity that is close to my heart. They are a child sponsorship organizatin and I've had the opportunity to travel with them to see their work firsthand. Since that trip, I have been a passionate and commited sponsor of 4 children in different parts of the world. Knowing I couldn't continue to give at the same level broke my heart, but as difficult as it was, i picked up the phone yesterday to call and cancel my monthly gift.
I was shocked with the rep on the other end of the phone suggested an alternative. The orgaization would take over my payments for up to 8 months. I would continue to receive my updates, photos, letters (and appeals I'm sure) as though nothing had changed. Then in 8 months time they would contact me to see if I would like to resume payment, and if not, my kids would go back into the sponsorship pool.
Of course I jumped all over it. For me, it was a perfect solution, and I'd imagine for many people who have found themselves in tough economic times during the past year or so, it might have been as well.
On the flip side, I contacted another large Canadian charity with whom I have a monthly gift. They thanked me for my past gifts, canceled my monthly donation and wished me all the best. Its safe to assume that when I get that call from charity 1 in 8 months I'll be ready to re-start my gifts, but its unlikly I'll take the time to call charity 2 and ask them to sign me back up.
I'd like to believe that the first organization has tested this approach and found success or is currently testing it now. And I'm curious to know your thoughts on this 'aquisition busting' approach.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First off huge congrats on starting a family! Sounds like this org has an impressively good handle on their "new sponsor acquisition costs" and some understanding of the typical churn rates on their file. I don't even think the approach needs testing. It can be proven with good quick math and some common sense criteria. If it is going to cost the org $300 to recruit a new child sponsor, it makes sense for the org to invest a sizeable percentage of that cost in granting you some reprieve from your monthly obligation. Banks in the US are doing it with homeowners and mortgages. Mobile phone carriers do it with customers who are being lured to competitors with cheaper phone plans. Bottom line it's cheaper to keep a good customer than acquire a new one. This is great business practice at work by the charity you support, not to mention a wonderful gesture to let you maintain your relationship with the child you've been supporting.
ReplyDeleteHi! Thanks for the feedback. I have to tell you I am a firm believer in testing, but your right...this is one of those things that seems like a no-brainer. Not only is it expensive to recruit a new donor, but its bloody hard work. Thanks again for sharing.
ReplyDelete