I was reading Ron Bronson's blog yesterday and really just couldn't disagree with one of his positions more.
Plus, the fact remains that statistics clearly show that print is still an extremely effective way of raising money. There was an article just this week in The Chronical of Philanthropy about this subject: Direct Mail Beats Predictions, Study Finds.
As with most things, the key is to find a happy medium: I make donations all the time that are initiated by print mail. Now, I may not write a check and mail it back to the organization that has asked me for money, but I will log onto their website and give if there is an easy way to do it on there. But the print piece is what convinces me 9 times out of 10. Should we not consider this a successful print piece just because I elected to respond by a different medium? At 27-years-old, I wonder if he would consider me an oldster because I responded to a print mailing?
This blog also brought up a broader point for me: I'm not insinuating that Bronson is advocating this because he doesn't in the text of the blog I'm referencing, but you hear all the time that the web should have parity with print in marketing materials because it is just as effective, if not moreso. Now, I think we can all agree that it is just as effective, but to say that it deserves financial parity with print is the most naive argument I've ever heard. The fact is that it costs more to produce quality print materials than it does to produce web work of the same quality. I can cover my email budget for the year for $15,000 but that may not even cover the cost of doing one print piece. As long as the web is supported in my organization and I have the resources I need to do my job effectively, I'm covered.
Bottom line: Print works. Web works. You can appeal to both old and young audiences without breaking a sweat. Change doesn't always involve choosing one thing over another - it often involves integrating the two, which will ultimately give you a better result than either one could on its own.
Key Takeaways:
1) It is not about print vs. web. It is about the two working together harmoniously to achieve a final result.
2) Print still works when it comes to fundraising.
3) Arguing for financial parity of the web and print within your organization is unrealistic. Rather, work on getting the web valued as a marketing tool within your organization.
Presidential candidates are making unprecedented amounts of money on the internet and we still have schools publishing bulky print materials to the oldsters, because that’s the way they’ve raised money in the past, so why change it now?Bronson's post was ironic because he made the huge leap from talking about authenticity in admissions marketing (which I completely agree with) to discussing the elimination of print materials in marketing the university to potential donors. Having worked in both worlds now, I can emphatically say that one has little to do with the other and what works in admissions may not necessarily work in development at the same school! Admissions should be more authentic than it is - you're selling a product and the buyer should know what they are getting into so that your retention doesn't suffer. On the other hand, fundraising can be more nostalgic. There are iconic images at any school that defy generational nuances.
You change it now, because you want to raise money from the oldsters of tomorrow. The alumni who will run this country and who will feel less connected, less engaged and more cynical about their college years with debt rising and feeling as their prospects are grimmer than they were when they first started as wide-eyed first year students.
Plus, the fact remains that statistics clearly show that print is still an extremely effective way of raising money. There was an article just this week in The Chronical of Philanthropy about this subject: Direct Mail Beats Predictions, Study Finds.
As with most things, the key is to find a happy medium: I make donations all the time that are initiated by print mail. Now, I may not write a check and mail it back to the organization that has asked me for money, but I will log onto their website and give if there is an easy way to do it on there. But the print piece is what convinces me 9 times out of 10. Should we not consider this a successful print piece just because I elected to respond by a different medium? At 27-years-old, I wonder if he would consider me an oldster because I responded to a print mailing?
This blog also brought up a broader point for me: I'm not insinuating that Bronson is advocating this because he doesn't in the text of the blog I'm referencing, but you hear all the time that the web should have parity with print in marketing materials because it is just as effective, if not moreso. Now, I think we can all agree that it is just as effective, but to say that it deserves financial parity with print is the most naive argument I've ever heard. The fact is that it costs more to produce quality print materials than it does to produce web work of the same quality. I can cover my email budget for the year for $15,000 but that may not even cover the cost of doing one print piece. As long as the web is supported in my organization and I have the resources I need to do my job effectively, I'm covered.
Bottom line: Print works. Web works. You can appeal to both old and young audiences without breaking a sweat. Change doesn't always involve choosing one thing over another - it often involves integrating the two, which will ultimately give you a better result than either one could on its own.
Key Takeaways:
1) It is not about print vs. web. It is about the two working together harmoniously to achieve a final result.
2) Print still works when it comes to fundraising.
3) Arguing for financial parity of the web and print within your organization is unrealistic. Rather, work on getting the web valued as a marketing tool within your organization.
3 comments:
Nice piece Karlyn, you couldn't have said it any better. Good stuff
Completely agree. I find myself over advocating web all the time - on the comment that I left on Jeff Kallay's blog I mentioned shortening the "advice" to a rule:
Stop printing fat glossy brochures. No one cares.
It's a function of speaking (warning: bit of a cop out) where I feel like I need to have "the impact of the unequivocal" - to quote a Le Tigre snippet - to be memorable.
And my simplistic notion is that pushing authentic / relevant / crm / digital ideas helps the teeter-toter find the balance point.
The better advice is more nuanced and I'm glad you are laying it out. From now on, I'll be unequivocal with an asterisk to read your blog. That way all the bases are covered.
Here Here!
It should be about integration and finding the right medium for the right message for the right audience.
And print is still alive and well in the college admissions office as well. People still like flashy brochures. It's just you can't fill it with fluff anymore. They expect a real encounter with your school within the pages of your slick and pretty brochure.
But beautiful things still sell and good design still adds to an experience.
Post a Comment