Fundraising Forum: DRTV

Editor’s Note: Direct-response television isn’t for every nonprofit organization, but with the proper planning and execution, it can be a solid source of income. Here, three professionals talk about their experiences with both long- and short-form DRTV.

The Players
Mary Arnold, director of marketing, Christian Children’s Fund
Kevin White, vice president of broadcast media, Russ Reid
Erika Kloehn, senior director of acquisition and fundraising programs, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
Melissa Busch, associate senior editor, FundRaising Success
Margaret Battistelli, editor-in-chief, FundRaising Success

Margaret: Welcome, everyone, to our DRTV e-chat. Can we start with your thoughts on where DRTV stands in the fundraiser’s toolkit?

Mary: Because of the cost of DRTV, it is mostly used by larger nonprofits.

Erika: We utilize DRTV primarily for obtaining monthly donors and use both long- and short-form creative. There really are only a few other players.

Kevin: My opinion is DRTV has been a venue for larger, more established organizations, due to the costs associated with it, including developing creative, buying media and managing phone centers. We’ve seen smaller organizations that would love to enter the DRTV arena who don’t yet have the financial backing to do so.

Margaret: What are the different costs that need to be considered?

Kevin: Creative can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending upon whether it’s short-form, long-form, travel required, hosts utilized, etc. Media has a much wider variance, depending upon the given budget of a client and the type of media they prefer.

Erika: Also, while you can get media time for a relatively low price (depending on the market), you do need to be able to commit to a regular schedule in order to have a bank of information to help you make future media buying decisions.

Mary: In short-form (60 and 120 seconds), you can gain production efficiencies with producing multiple spots at one time. Media cost is where the big investment is.

Kevin: National airings for cable or owned-and-operated affiliates can require a significant investment, while smaller, single-market buys can run as low as $100 or so.

Erika: Let’s not forget call-center costs!

Kevin: To Erika’s point, the challenge with DRTV is that it’s all about response, rather than sheer branding/awareness most of the time.

Margaret: Can you define long-form vs. short-form? Aside from costs, of course, are certain missions more successful with one form over the other?

Erika: Long-form is anything longer than five minutes; short-form is anything five minutes or less.

Kevin: Long-form is typically hour or half-hour programs. Occasionally, other lengths can arise but are usually on such a limited basis that the investment in creative must be considered. Most short-form purchased tends to be 120 or 60 seconds, again depending upon what individual stations/networks are willing to sell.

Mary: Maybe define long and short as with long-form the nonprofit is buying a program period. With short-form, it’s buying commercial break time. Child sponsorship, which is well-established as a monthly giving program, has been historically successful in DRTV — both long- and short-forms.

Kevin: Mary brings up an excellent point — a major consideration in DRTV is creating the correct ask or offer. Does the organization have something that people will respond to on TV? Strong monthly giving programs tend to work best on TV because they create a sustainable revenue stream that leads to an acceptable long-term value of sponsors/donors.

Margaret: Mary, I don’t know anyone my age — I’ll let you guess — who didn’t grow up seeing Archie Bunker’s daughter on TV talking about child sponsorship. Is it the inherently powerful images that are associated with helping impoverished children that make it a good fit for DRTV?

Mary: I heard that “Saturday Night Live” had another skit on it last Saturday — Sally [Struthers] was spokesperson for at least a couple of child sponsorship orgs.

Kevin: We find that it’s very important to find a balance between “need” and “solution.” Need is what creates emotion in donors to respond. However, if there appears to be no solution to the problem, they feel powerless. We can tell you that programs/spots with too much success make people feel great, and they love the creative, but they tend not to be successful fundraising vehicles.

Mary: And the solution has to be within the potential donor’s power to achieve.

Margaret: How do you accomplish all of those things in a 60-second spot?

Kevin: The shorter the creative, the more challenging it tends to be.

Erika: Introduce the problem, offer a solution, let the viewer help.

Mary: It’s certainly not easy … we have had 30[-second spots] that work.

Kevin: In 60 seconds, it’s imperative to capture the viewer’s attention immediately, communicate the need quickly and offer up the solution.

Erika: We have had more success with harder-hitting creative, although the harder the visual, the shorter the shelf life of the spot. Plus, donors want to know where their money is going!

Kevin: It’s important to illustrate not only how the donor fits into the picture, but, as Erika says, what their dollars accomplish (the success).

Mary: And get your name in there, and make sure the viewer knows how to respond and to respond NOW.

Kevin: Which brings us to how people respond. Online has been becoming more and more of an alternative response mechanism to phone center, which, in some cases, makes it much more difficult to track where people are coming from and [what they’re] responding to.

Mary: Yes, and tracking TV responses to the Web site can be a challenge.

Melissa: Is online a cheaper alternative to phone centers?

Erika: Online is a cheaper alternative to phone centers, but donors aren’t ready to go there yet (at least not for us).

Kevin: On a per-response basis, online is less expensive but requires significant up-front development.

Margaret: To go with Melissa’s question, are most spots driving traffic to the Web or the call center?

Erika: Call center.

Kevin: Most of our creative offers both, with the primary being call center, secondary online.

Mary: Call center, but a growing number [are] going online.

Kevin: We’ve done some specific online pushes that have resulted in 40 percent or more of responses coming online. My argument is that they’re different types of people.

Margaret: That seems pretty impressive, Kevin.

Kevin: I [personally] do everything online, so [I] would never call. Other people prefer the direct interaction so always call and would never go online. It is impressive, Margaret, but it’s also difficult to determine which spot they came from to optimize a buy.

Erika: They most likely are going online to research, then calling later.

Margaret: So are these “different types of people” different because of age (younger = more open to online) or something else?

Kevin: Age has an impact, because online usage falls off significantly after age 65, but isn’t necessarily the key driver. We’re much more wired in general than just 10 years ago, but people prefer different types of interactions. To Erika’s point, people do a lot of research online before ever deciding to give.

Erika: Our Web traffic follows airings, but the conversions/donations do not necessarily.

Mary: Kevin, when you push online, you have 40 percent. What is it when you don’t push?

Kevin: The average online response, I’d guess, is currently 20 percent to 25 percent.

Erika: We are more in the 5 percent to 10 percent range.

Mary: Regarding research, our surveys show that a small percentage do research prior to giving. Of those who do (20 percent), half go to our Web site.

Kevin: Some people who come in via search may not be credited to TV, or people who went to the homepage first, etc.

Margaret: What about celeb involvement? Is it worth it?

Erika: We think so!

Kevin: I think the biggest factor is, do you have relationships with celebrities who are already bought into the cause?

Erika: Celebs offer stopping power, search and PR opportunities, and a level of credibility to the general population.

Margaret: Stopping power?

Erika: Stopping channel surfers — 65 percent of our audience comes across the hour show by channel surfing.

Margaret: I see. Kevin ... do you mean as opposed to someone who just takes the gig for the money?

Kevin: Exactly — it will come across to the audience.

Erika: Although, we don’t pay any of our celebs. But there are other motivations, of course, for them.

Mary: Agree — and celebs are probably more important for long-form than short-form.

Kevin: In Erika’s case, St. Jude has great relationships with celebrities who have a personal interest in the hospital.

Mary: And St. Jude has historically had celebs.

Margaret: That was my next question. Are these celebs donating their talents, in general?

Erika: That is correct, we do not pay our celebrity talent. They are donating their time, image, etc. Relationships are key!

Margaret: A question for everyone: the biggest obstacle/challenge to doing DRTV — ASIDE from money?

Erika: Getting the offer, call-center script and media placement all to align. And our ability to reach a rapidly fragmenting audience.

Mary: For us a challenge is keeping it fresh. We have had the same offer — child sponsorship — on TV since the late ‘70s. Managing the process is another big challenge.

Kevin: Determining all of the factors that are affecting your airings, and determining which to address: cost, conversion, unexpected events, market conditions, etc.

Mary: Everything has to work.

Erika: And that takes resources — not just money, but staff, as well.

Margaret: How much does/should the DRTV creative align with direct mail and other efforts?

Kevin: For my 2 cents, not as much as it should. Intentionally integrated campaigns can multiply the effects of each medium significantly.

Erika: We keep the core messaging on target, but the offers vary significantly depending on channel.

Kevin: And DRTV serves multiple purposes, helping generate responses and increase awareness that impacts other areas — it tends to help everything else perform better. To Erika’s point, some offers tend to work well on TV but not in direct mail and vice versa.

Mary: And the nature of TV — sound and video — can convey emotions that mail can’t, so while the message can be the same, the delivery will be different.

Margaret: Do you recommend it for specific campaigns, or is it better suited toward representing the overall mission?

Kevin: Yes, and yes. It’s important to identify first what the goal is in doing DRTV and what role it plays in the overall plan first.

Erika: For us, our TV efforts have been successful in representing the overall mission — not just for donors, but for patients and their families, as well.

Kevin: Most clients have been using DRTV as an overall mission, rather than for specific campaigns. However, we’ve recently seen significant success with some short-term, very specific, contained efforts, as well.

Mary: Some nonprofits use it only for emergencies — which I would consider a campaign.

Erika: A campaign-by-campaign approach could be cost-prohibitive.

Mary: And to Erika’s point, DRTV is also very affirming for current donors, in addition to bringing in new ones. We hear anecdotally from donors, often, how much they like seeing us on TV.

Margaret: Another question for everyone: biggest benefit to doing DRTV?

Erika: Generates interest, awareness and our most valuable donors — nothing tells our story better.

Kevin: DRTV can simultaneously generate donors for the organization while increasing awareness that helps other channels, as well.

Mary: Mass reach, awareness, conveys emotion, tells the story.

Margaret: Can you each give a tip or caveat or two to any nonprofits that might be considering embarking on a DRTV campaign?

Erika: Test producing a video for online usage, and see if people watch it, act on it, comment on it.

Kevin: Do your homework — what are your goals; what value do you need to achieve to make it work; how much can you afford to pay; do you have the back end in place; how will you know if it’s successful?

Margaret: Erika, that is a great idea that I bet many people wouldn’t think of. Maybe not making that connection between the two media.

Mary: Also put a PSA toe in the water.

Erika: Don’t go it alone! DRTV is a complex area with a lot of heavy hitters, and it’s important to consult with those who know the space.

Mary: The back-end metrics are key. You have to know how each spot, each station, each market is performing so that you can optimize your spend. And like all good direct response, TEST TEST TEST.

Margaret: This might seem a little vague, and I apologize for that, but at what point can an organization be “ready” to delve into DRTV? Is it strictly a resources thing? Or are there instances where no matter how big an org or how much staff/money it has, it just doesn’t make sense?

Kevin: I think it’s a matter of risk tolerance. Do they, first of all, have the means? Secondly, do they have a workable offer? Also, why do they want to do it? There are absolutely organizations for whom it’s unlikely to make sense. The caveat to that is — why are they doing it?

Margaret: What would be a “good” answer to why they want to do it? What would be a “bad” answer?

Erika: A bad answer would be, “I want to be seen on TV” with no back end in place to retain and cultivate the donors.

Kevin: Are they doing it to increase awareness? If so, don’t try to make DRTV require a specific response. Are they looking to raise money, increase advocacy, generate volunteers? All of those are reasonable responses but require different measurement and quantification of success. Erika’s right — “I want to be on TV” is not a good reason.

Margaret: What about planning time for a DRTV campaign? If I want to have, say, a 30-minute spot on air in January 2009, is it too late to start thinking about it now?

Erika: Depends on your content and who you would like to participate in your new spot.

Kevin: Depending upon the organization, no, not too late. Much of it depends on how many approvals are required, whether creative is available, etc.

Margaret: Is there a safe, general time frame you can suggest to an org wondering just how long this is going to take?

Mary: For short-form, planning can be as short as three months for a full-up film shoot, or as short as four weeks if pulling from existing footage.

Kevin: If you’re starting from scratch, it will take several months to gather footage, edit and get on air.

Erika: For our hour show, we tend to follow [patients’] families for 18 to 24 months to get their stories.

Kevin: And in some cases, clients must travel to Africa or Asia to gather stories

Margaret: So it really is a wide range. I have one more question, and then I’ll ask you each to conclude with any closing thoughts you might want to share. If you have raging success with a short-form spot, does it naturally follow that you’ll have even more success with a longer format? Is short-form a valid test for longer form?

Mary: Not in my experience.

Kevin: Not necessarily.

Erika: I have not seen success translate back and forth, station to station.

Margaret: So we really are talking about two different animals?

Erika: Yes!

Kevin: Absolutely.

Mary: You bet.

Margaret: OK, I promised to keep you all for only an hour. Is there anything else you would like to share in closing?

Erika: More in summary, DRTV is a great way to generate valuable donors and keep the public informed of your mission. However, you have to be prepared to take risks.

Kevin: If you decide to venture into DRTV, make certain you go in with your eyes wide open. Learn as much as possible about all facets before moving forward.

Mary: I think the critical components of DRTV are the same as in any good direct response. The offer is critical; the creative needs to convey need, urgency, solution and ask.

Mary: The opening of a spot has to generate interest, just like the teaser on an outer envelope, and you have to be able to handle fulfillment and response.

Erika: Too much of an investment to let the back-end drop.

Margaret: Thank you all for joining us!