- Email: [email protected]
Defensive responses to charitable direct mail solicitations
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS William D. Diamond Stephanie M. Noble f
ABSTRACT Two studies examined consumers’ defenses against to catalog and charitable direct mail solicitations. First, 157 survey respondents completed questions about their charitable giving behavior. Significant correlations between four resulting principal components and demographic variables showed how people defend themselves against repeated appeals. In a second study, 34 subjects provided scripts of responses to charitable and catalog solicitations. The scripts further illustrated defensive responses. Several conclusions were drawn from these studies. First, recipients of charitable solicitations often use defensive mechanisms to protect themselves from frequent solicitations. Second, frequent recipients of charitable direct mail process their mail differently than infrequent recipients. Frequent recipients are much more likely to use defensive script elements. Multiple solicitations to prospective donors may increase charitable contributions. However, excess solicitation could lead them to develop a greater repertoire of defenses against solicitations and decrease the pool of available contributions over the long term. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. f JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
2
WILLIAM D. DIAMOND is a professor in the Marketing Department, Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. STEPHANIE M. NOBLE is a professor in the Department of Marketing, School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677.
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
logers for half a century. This formula, often stated as a regression model, predicts purchasing from recency of purchase (R), frequency of purchase (F), and monetary value of purchase (M). The model makes sense for catalogers: People who have recently bought a lot of clothing from L.L. Bean are likely to purchase again. Given the success of the RFM formula, it is not surprising that nonprofit fundraisers also use it (Ensman, 1993; Nichols, 1995). The rental prices of donor lists often increase if the people on the list have donated within 90 days. Direct mail fundraising firms often advocate remailing to donors four, six, or more times per year. This advice partially results from the need to recoup acquisition costs, but also from the belief that recency and frequency are predictors of future giving (Ames, 1996).
Over the past 15 years there has been a profound change in the advertising literature. Instead of just working with simple laboratory investigations of the effects of changing components of advertising design, researchers increasingly study advertising in its social context. One of the best known models of advertising in context is the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Kirmani & Campbell, 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994). This model proposes that responses to advertising depend on consumers’ consideration of the motives of the advertisers. To some degree we defend ourselves against advertisers. This paper proposes that direct mail recipients have also started to defend themselves against these solicitations. This is particularly true for recipients of charitable direct mail. Imagine returning home from work and finding two direct mail pieces in your mailbox. One is a retail catalog. The other is a charitable solicitation. Database marketing techniques probably generated both mailings. Similar algorithms probably scored you as a prospect for each of these mailings. However, your reaction to the two mailings may be very different. You might put the catalog in a place for easy browsing—you may even read the catalog for pleasure. In contrast, you may have greeted the charitable solicitation with resignation or hostility. You may constantly receive catalogs and charitable solicitations. Several may come every day. As a frequent recipient of solicitations, you may suspect that direct mail fundraisers and catalog marketers are trying to take advantage of you by sending so many appeals. To cope with frequent solicitations, you may have well-rehearsed coping rules. Alternatively, you may not receive many direct mail solicitations. Your action rules may be vague. In short, the number of solicitations you receive may affect the ways you cope with charitable direct mail.
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF RFM STRATEGIES FOR CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS There are several reasons why RFM models developed to improve direct marketing of products may not be appropriate for charitable marketing. First is the difference between the “products” offered by retail direct marketers and charities. Retail catalogs may be fun. They definitely suggest a straightforward exchange with benefits for the customer. Recently updated catalogs may be pleasant to receive. In contrast, charitable direct mail suggests obligation. Benefits such as moral satisfaction may exist for donors, but these are less obvious than the product benefits promised by catalogs. Second, some recipients of charitable direct mail feel oppressed by the recency and frequency of solicitations they receive. For example, an author in Newsweek (Press, 1995) described his depressed reaction to the thousandth solicitation of the year. While people complain about the number of requests for donations that they receive, we have not heard the same severe reaction to recent and frequent solicitation by retail catalog direct marketers. It is common practice for a fresh catalog to accompany deliveries of catalog merchandise.
RFM APPROACHES TO RETAIL AND CHARITABLE DIRECT MARKETING Stone (1997) states that the RFM formula has been a standard for general merchandise cataJOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
3
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
frequent donors to nonprofit organizations. This section of the survey asked respondents to “Please tell us about yourself as a donor.”
There does not appear to be resentment of this. However, donors may be resentful when solicitations accompany “thank you notes” from direct mail fundraisers. Similarly, consumers may see multiple catalog mailings as merely wasteful, whereas recipients may perceive multiple requests for donations as attempts at exploitation.
Segmentation Variables. The questionnaire asked the subject’s highest level of education, occupation, the occupation of their spouse or partner, and household income. We assigned each household occupational status equivalent to the highest status occupation in the household. Subjects also reported the number of pieces of mail from charities received each month. Twelve response categories ranged from “zero” to “200 or more.” Forty-nine percent of the respondents received “5–10” or fewer solicitations per month. Only 4 people (2.6%) reported receiving no charitable mail, 3 people (1.8%) received 76 –100 pieces per month, and 3 people (1.8%) received 101–150 pieces per month.
STUDY 1: EVIDENCE OF DEFENSES AGAINST CHARITABLE SOLICITATION Method Surveys were sent to 389 households in the database of a homeless shelter. Of these, 24 questionnaires were undeliverable, leading to 366 successfully delivered questionnaires. Ninetyeight households had previously contributed to the shelter twice or more, 153 households had previously given to the shelter once, and 138 households had never previously donated to the shelter. If two members of a household were on the database, we randomly addressed the questionnaire to one person. A postcard prenotified subjects that the questionnaire would be arriving by mail. The donor list received two waves of surveys. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 43%. However, the response rate was substantially higher among households that had previously donated to the shelter. The questionnaire was a brochure. The cover page described the study as “A Survey of People Who Donate Through the Mail.” Both the cover letter and survey described this as an academic survey helping charities to understand their donors. The return address for the questionnaire was a nonprofit center at a state university. The cover letter informed recipients that questionnaires were coded to allow the researchers to combine survey data with other information. We assured recipients that their responses would be kept confidential.
Results Principal Components Analysis. Principal components analysis of the 13 approaches to donation revealed four components with eigenvalues greater than one. Together, these components accounted for 61.5% of the variance of the original data. Table 1 shows loadings greater than 0.5 of the variables on the rotated components. Labels at the top of Table 1 present interpretations of these factors. Different approaches to dealing with a large number of charitable solicitations include rapid evaluation, keeping track of previous donations, giving to a limited number of charities, and using rules of thumb to evaluate appeals. Correlation of Components with Segmentation Variables. Table 2 shows the correlations of the four principal components with demographic variables and the number of appeals received per month. The correlation of the first factor, rapid evaluation of appeals, with household occupation and education was statistically significant. The first factor was also marginally
Approaches to Donation. The data described here came from 13 likert-format questions on the respondent’s approaches to evaluating solicitations from charities. These items were developed from exploratory conversations with JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
4
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
TABLE 1
Components of Self-Reported Donation Behavior Component 1 Rapid Evaluation I use simple “rules of thumb” for deciding whether to donate to a charity. I read letters from charities very carefully before deciding whether to make a donation. I usually know before I open the envelope whether I will give to a charity. I am usually too busy to give careful consideration to all of the contents of a charitable mailing. I do not spend a lot of effort understanding each letter I get from a charity. It is very important for me to take the time and trouble to systematically evaluate the charitable letters I get. Even if a charity seems good, I probably won’t donate to it if it is not on “my list.” I write down when I donate to a charity so that I will not donate again too soon. If I might give to a charity, I put the letter in a box or large pile for later reference. I try to find out when I last gave to a charity before making a donation. I donate primarily to charities of a certain type. I feel I must protect myself from the mail I get from charities. I give to a very wide variety of charities. variance explained by original components variance explained by rotated components
Component 2
Component 3
Defense against repeated appeals
Limited number of charities
Component 4 Rules of Thumb 0.76
⫺0.77
0.65 0.80
0.70 ⫺0.77
0.51 0.87 0.60 0.88 0.78 0.66
21.8% 19.7%
⫺0.65 13.3% 12.8%
8.7% 8.4%
find out when they make their donations. The second factor also significantly correlated with household income. The third factor, donating to a limited number of charities, was negatively correlated with the amount of charitable mail received by the recipient each month. The respondents who receive more mail do not appear to be defending themselves by donating to a specific type of charity. The fourth factor did not significantly correlate with the other variables.
correlated with household income. “Upscale” recipients apparently process appeals more rapidly. The first factor had no appreciable correlation with amount of charitable mail received each month. The second factor appears to be a set of defenses against numerous charitable solicitations. These defenses strongly correlated with the number of appeals received each month. People receiving a great number of store them in a box or pile and take measures to record or JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
17.6% 16.1%
●
5
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
TABLE 2
Correlations of Components with Segmentation Variables
Component 1. 2. 3. 4.
Rapid evaluation Defense against repeated appeals Limited number of charities Rules of thumb
Household Income
Household Occupation
Pieces of Charitable Mail Received per Month
.18 (114) .19* (114) ⫺.17 (114) ⫺.04 (114)
.22* (102) .16 (102) ⫺.06 (102) ⫺.04 (102)
⫺.02 (127) .41*** (127) ⫺.19* (127) .05 (127)
Respondent’s Education .18* (123) .01 (123) ⫺.14 (123) .02 (123)
Correlations are based upon the numbers of observations in parentheses. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .001.
Discussion This study suggests that people who receive a substantial number of appeals defend themselves against repeated appeals with behaviors loading on the second factor. They store appeals and keep records of previous donations. “Upscale” recipients, who are relatively affluent, educated, and have prestigious jobs, also use these approaches but also deal with appeals relatively rapidly. To increase our understanding of the ways that potential donors deal with charitable direct mail, we conducted a second study to examine their scripts.
“getting up in the morning” and for “going to a restaurant.” Scripts become more clearly defined as people gain experience with the situation. As people become more experienced with receiving direct mail solicitations, they might develop clearer action rules for dealing with them. Scripts shed light on an array of marketing situations. Leigh and his colleagues (Leigh & McGraw, 1989; Leigh & Rethans, 1984) showed that scripted norms exist for both industrial purchasing and industrial sales behavior. Hubbert, Sehorn, and Brown (1993), Bitner, Booms, and Mohr (1994), and Shoemaker (1996) provided evidence that when customer and service provider share scripts, satisfaction and perceived service quality are high. These marketing studies showed that problems occur when one party deviates from the script. For instance, hotel patrons may be dissatisfied if they expect a different check-in script than they encounter (Shoemaker, 1996). Direct mail solicitations that are inappropriate or too frequent may violate expectations. The prospective donor may refuse the organization even if he or she previously intended to give money.
STUDY 2: ELICITATION OF SCRIPTS OF RESPONSES TO SOLICITATIONS Abelson described a script as a hypothesized structure that when activated organizes comprehension of event-based situations. In its weak sense, it is a bundle of inferences about the potential occurrence of a set of events and may be structurally similar to other schemata that do not deal with events. In its strong sense, it involves expectations about the order as well as the occurrence of events. (1981, p. 717)
Scripts in Response to Direct Mail Solicitations Abelson’s description of scripts includes an “evoking context” and “action rules.” Evoking contexts are antecedent conditions that affect whether we enter a script. For example, the
Scripts are not recollections of particular events, but stereotyped event sequences with an understanding of what the actor might do, expect, or infer. Bower, Black, and Turner (1979) provided some classic examples of scripts for JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
6
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
to it and to related causes. The responses of these people are most important to charitable direct marketers. RFM models for charitable solicitations may depend on donors forgetting recent gifts. However, Study 1 indicated that people receiving many appeals guard against multiple solicitations. As they develop methods of saving appeals or keeping records on past contributions, the RFM strategy may become less effective. Johnson and Russo (1984) demonstrated that experts making choices use strategies that eliminate inappropriate alternatives early rather than processing them deeply. Analogously, people receiving many charitable solicitations may sort the mail more and read inappropriate mail less than other people do. We also hypothesize that people receiving many solicitations will develop defenses against “aggressive” solicitations by direct mail marketers and fundraisers.
contexts might include our mood and personal finances when we receive a direct mail solicitation. Our action rules evaluate the context and dictate whether we consider donation and eventually donate. An example of an action rule might be “if I have received another request within six months, throw out the solicitation.” Finally, Abelson (1981) noted that script elements could be more or less central. For instance, virtually everyone responding to a direct mail charitable solicitation might evaluate the cause, but only some might read the appeal in depth.
Hypotheses Earlier in this paper, we described different reactions to charitable direct mail and product catalogs sent in the mail. Charitable direct mail may be unwanted and oppressive while catalogs may be pleasant and interesting. We therefore propose that different types of scripts exist for dealing with these forms of direct mail.
H3: People receiving many solicitations will use a greater number of defensive approaches than other people, especially in response to charitable appeals. These approaches include presorting the mail and reading it superficially, use of delay strategies (“basket, box, pile or file”) to accumulate multiple solicitations from the same source, and external memory (lists) to keep records of multiple solicitations.
H1: Scripts for responding to charitable direct marketing solicitation will contain more defensive behaviors than scripts for responding to retail catalogs in the mail. Defensive behaviors may include sorting the mail, keeping a list of previous donations, storing requests for future evaluation (to see whether multiple requests arrive) and waiting until the end of the year before making donations.
Method
If respondents know the charity soliciting a contribution, they may rapidly decide whether to contribute without reading the appeal carefully. Consumers are more likely to read retail catalog solicitations thoroughly, checking the exact attributes of the merchandise offered. This may even be fun for high-involvement consumers (Bloch, Sherrell, & Ridgeway, 1986). We state this as the following hypothesis:
Subjects. Forty-one subjects filled out the questionnaire. Because the study was meant to explore responses to different types of solicitations, the authors used a judgment sample of graduate students, faculty members, residents of an apartment complex, and the community. The objective was to obtain high variability in the number of appeals subjects received and answered. This was not meant to be a representative sample. Over half the sample reported receiving 0 –10 solicitations per month, approximately 40% received 11– 40, and 3% received over 41 solicitations per month. About 29% reported donating less than once a month, 50% donated 1–2 times a month, 12% donated 3– 4
H2: Recipients of retail catalog direct mail solicitations are more likely than recipients of charitable solicitations to thoroughly process mailings. Because of database technology, charities repeatedly solicit people who previously donated JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
7
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
sponding to charitable and retail solicitations. They also described their expectations of charities and catalog companies. Finally, subjects completed some demographic questions.
times, and 9% made 5– 6 donations per month. We excluded subjects who did not contribute to charity by mail or who did not order merchandise through a catalog. Thirty-four subjects (19 female, 14 male, and a person who did not answer the gender question) remained. More than 70% of the respondents were between 25 and 54 years old. Over 66% of the sample reported a household income of $60,000 or more. As expected, individuals who received more solicitations tended to be older. The median income level of frequent recipients was between $80,000 and $99,999. The median income level for infrequent recipients was between $60,000 and $79,999. Frequent recipients received at least 11–20 charitable solicitations a month. Infrequent recipients received ten or fewer solicitations per month. We classified 18 subjects as infrequent recipients of charitable direct mail and 15 as frequent recipients.
Coding Procedure. The two authors developed a coding procedure with 13 categories. Table 3 lists these categories and their definitions. Several days after developing the codes, the authors independently coded each respondent’s charity and catalog scripts. The authors discussed discrepancies to resolve any disagreements. The overall interjudge agreement was 75%.
Results and Discussion Comparing Scripts in Response to Charitable and Catalog Direct Mail. Table 4 shows the proportions of subjects using each script element in the charity and catalog situations. Each code was only counted once per subject. Superscripts in Table 4 indicate significant differences between the total proportions of subjects coded into different categories for the two situations. The first hypothesis predicted that a greater proportion of subjects in the charitable situation would use more “defensive” script elements than in the catalog situation. These defensive elements include collecting the solicitations in a “basket, box, file or pile”, checking the recency and frequency of donation, or screening the mail by sorting before reading. There were not significant differences between the proportions of scripts mentioning “sorting the mail” or using “basket, box, pile or file” in the charity and the catalog situations. However, subjects dealt with the recency and frequency of charitable solicitations significantly more than with the recency and frequency of catalog solicitations. People considering donating to charities talked more about checking previous donation dates or making donations only once a year. For example, one person’s defensive elements for charitable solicitations included placing renewal solicitations in a pile for further consideration. She checked the date of her
Procedure. Subjects completed a questionnaire on their reactions toward different types of mail solicitations. The questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete. We offered subjects one dollar for their participation. Subjects returned completed questionnaires by mail. Consistent with previous marketing research on script elicitation procedures (e.g., Leigh & McGraw, 1989), we provided subjects with the restaurant script from Bower et al. (1979) to familiarize them with the data collection process. Consistent with other work on scripts, the elicitation procedures do not ask for recall of a specific instance, but for a generalized set and sequence of events. We asked subjects to provide scripted events for two situations. First, the instructions asked subjects to “describe what you generally do when you receive a piece of mail requesting a charitable donation and you give to the charity.” Next, the instructions requested that subjects “describe what you generally do when you receive a catalog in the mail and you order from the catalog.” Subjects listed these actions in order. Subjects also wrote “rules of thumb” that guided their thoughts and actions when reJOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
8
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
TABLE 3
Coding Scheme Definitions Code
Definition
Sort The Mail Receive The Solicitation Open Letter/Catalog Read Letter/Catalog Evaluate Organization Basket, Box, Pile, File Recency/Frequency Coping
Whether or Not? How Much?
Payment Mechanics Phone Inquiry Processing Outgoing Wait/Postpone Other
Reviewing the mail for interesting items; includes looking at the return address and discarding any solicitation before reading. Bringing in the mail or receiving it. Opening the letter or catalog. Includes reading, highlighting information, and considering information in the solicitation. Determining if the charity or catalog company is worthy or reputable. Will they sell my name? Have I heard of it? Placing the received solicitation in a basket, box, pile, or file for later review. Person checks a list of previous charitable contributions or catalog purchases; makes contribution or purchase decision only once a year. Deciding to give or buy; evaluating the offer; asking for spouse or partner agreement; examining the sizes, material, shipping costs, and delivery time of merchandise. Deciding how much the cost will be, and whether they can afford it. Once the decision is made to contribute or buy, includes everything from taking out the checkbook or credit card to recording it for tax purposes. Also included was placing an order to 800 number. Calling a sales representative to ask questions about the company, organization, or merchandise. Everything from addressing the envelope and filling out the response card to recycling and discarding the refuse (after reading it). Postponing the decision process after reading the offer by putting the solicitation aside for a few days to think about it.
note that an evaluation of the organization (rather than the solicitation) occurred significantly more in the donation context than in the catalog context. Individuals contemplated whether the organization was worthy of a donation and whether its cause fit with their beliefs and priorities. Additionally, in the donation situation subjects thought more frequently about how much to spend, whereas in the catalog situation they were more likely to consider whether or not to spend. Subjects often determined how much to donate by the amount of money they had left after paying the bills. “Whether or not” decisions involved the details of the catalog (e.g., ship-
most recent contribution. If the most recent contribution was more than a year ago she contributed again. Other subjects stated that they placed all their solicitations in a “charity file” and only reviewed the requests once a year. The second hypothesis predicted that a greater proportion of subjects would thoroughly process solicitations in the catalog situation. The data support this hypothesis. Subjects always read catalogs before ordering, whereas they often completed charitable donations without reading collateral materials. People often use simple heuristics (e.g., “is it on my list?”) to decide whether to contribute. While not hypothesized, it is interesting to JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
9
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
TABLE 4
Percentage of Respondents Using Elements of Charity and Catalog Scripts Charity
Code Sort the mail Receive the solicitation Open letter/catalog Read letter/catalog Evaluate organization Basket, box, pile, file Recency/frequency coping Whether or not? How much? Payment mechanics Phone inquiry Processing outgoing Wait/postpone Other
Infrequent Recipients
Catalog
Frequent Recipients
Total
Infrequent Recipients
Frequent Recipients
Total
27.8
33.3
30.3
16.7
46.7
30.3
61.1
66.7
63.6
66.7
53.3
60.6
50.0 44.4
60.0 46.7
54.5d 45.5d
5.6 100.0
6.7 100.0
6.1d 100.0d
50.0
40.0
45.5d
0.0
13.3
6.1d
33.3
60.0
45.5
27.8
60.0
42.4
11.1 33.3 38.9
66.7 13.3 33.3
36.4d 24.2b 36.4b
0.0 61.1 22.2
6.7 53.3 0.0
3.0d 57.6b 12.1b
72.2 0.0
73.3 0.0
72.7b 0.0
94.4 6.0
100.0 13.3
97.0b 9.1
100 0.0 11.1
73.3 6.7 26.7
87.9d 3.0a 18.2
33.3 5.3 11.1
20.0 26.7 0.0
27.3d 12.1a 6.1
Superscripts indicate significant differences (Fisher’s exact test, 2-tailed) between charity and catalog proportions. a p ⬍ .1; b p ⬍ .05; c p ⬍ .01; d p ⬍ .001.
the physical differences between catalogs and solicitation letters.
ping costs, sizes, return policies) and consideration of spousal agreement. In the catalog situation, respondents were significantly more likely to postpone their decisions after reading the solicitation. This may be how catalog shoppers control their impulse purchasing. Some respondents stated that they returned to the catalogs after an interval and eliminated a percentage of potential purchases. This activity does not often occur in the charitable donation situation. It is unimportant that subjects mentioned “processing outgoing” more frequently in the charitable situation. Charitable solicitations include a mail transaction rather than a telephone transaction. Similarly, the difference in the proportion of subjects mentioning “opening the letter” is probably artifactually caused by JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
Frequent Recipients vs. Infrequent Recipients. Consistent with hypothesis 3, frequent recipients were more likely than infrequent recipients to mention defensive elements in their scripts. Specifically, they put solicitations in a “basket, box, pile or file,” and explicitly considered “recency/frequency issues” to protect themselves against numerous solicitations. In the charitable situation (see Table 4), the proportion of frequent recipients protecting themselves against recent or frequent solicitations (66.7%) was far greater than the proportion of infrequent recipients (11.1%). This difference was highly significant (Fisher’s exact test (1-tailed), p ⬍ .001). Very few subjects con●
10
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
fenses against solicitations and decrease the pool of available contributions over the long term. As exploratory work, this paper has two important limitations. First, both studies used nonprobability samples. Further research will use larger and more representative samples. Second, we categorized subjects as frequent recipients or infrequent recipients based on the numbers of charitable solicitations they received. Future research could examine frequent and infrequent catalog purchasers as well as frequent and infrequent recipients of charitable direct mail.
sidered recency/frequency issues in catalog scripts. In the charitable situation, 60% of frequent recipients used a “basket, box, pile or file.” Only 33.3% of infrequent recipients used these. This difference approaches significance (Fisher’s exact test (1-tailed), p ⬍ .12). Though this was not hypothesized, frequent recipients were also more likely than infrequent recipients to store catalogs (Fisher’s exact test (1-tailed), p ⬍ .10).
GENERAL DISCUSSION We can draw several conclusions from these studies. First, recipients of direct mail charitable solicitations often use defensive mechanisms to protect themselves from solicitations that are too numerous or too frequent. These mechanisms include collecting appeals and keeping records to protect against multiple appeals. The “mind set” of people receiving charitable solicitations is different than that of people receiving retail catalogs in the mail. In their openended responses, many subjects reported being upset and annoyed at the barrage of solicitations they receive. Second, frequent recipients of charitable direct mail process their mail differently than infrequent recipients. Frequent recipients are much more likely to use defensive script elements. These defense mechanisms help them deal with the copious amount of direct mail they receive. Although charities have lofty ends, their means of obtaining more donations appear to be upsetting their strongest supporters. Finally, people may not read charitable appeals as thoroughly as they read catalog appeals. This may be especially true for “upscale” recipients. Our discussions with donors reminded us of the “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968). Frequent donors are an important common resource for nonprofit organizations. In the short term, multiple solicitations to people scoring high on RFM criteria may increase charitable contribution. However, excess solicitation by many organizations may “use up” this resource by alienating these donors. This could lead them to develop a greater repertoire of deJOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
REFERENCES Abelson, R.P. (1981). Psychological Status of the Script Concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715–729. Ames, P. (1996). Statistical Modeling Past Donors: Lessons from NFP Projects. Paper presented at Direct Marketing Association Nonprofit Day, New York. Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., & Mohr, L.A. (1994). Critical Service Encounters: The Employee’s Viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58, 95–106. Bloch, P., Sherrell, D.L., & Ridgeway, N.M. (1986). Consumer Search: An Extended Framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 119 –126. Bower, G.H., Black, J.B., & Turner, T.J. (1979). Scripts in Memory for Text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177– 220. Ensman, R.G., Jr. (1993). Communication Trends and the Small Shop. Fund Raising Management, 24, 51– 53. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1–31. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248. Hubbert, A.R., Sehorn, A.G., & Brown, S.W. (1993). Consumer and Provider Service Expectations: How Do They Compare? Paper presented at Services Marketing Conference, Vanderbilt University. Johnson, E.J., & Russo, J.E. (1984). Product Familiarity and Learning New Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 542–550. Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M.C. (2000). Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibil●
11
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
Nichols, J.E. (1995). Database Management: Developing Relationships with Donors. Fund Raising Management, 26, 18 –21. Press, A. (1995, December). The More We Give. . . . Newsweek, 126, 56 –58. Shoemaker, S. (1996). Scripts: Precursor of Consumer Expectations. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 42–53. Stone, B. (1997). Successful Direct Marketing Methods. Lincolnwood: IL: NTC Business Books.
ity and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 69 – 83. Leigh, T.W., & McGraw, P.F. (1989). Mapping the Procedural Knowledge of Industrial Sales Personnel: A Script-Theoretic Investigation. Journal of Marketing, 53 (January), 16 –34. Leigh, T.W., & Rethans, A.J. (1984). A Script-Theoretic Analysis of Industrial Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 48 (Fall), 22–32.
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
12
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
ABSTRACT Two studies examined consumers’ defenses against to catalog and charitable direct mail solicitations. First, 157 survey respondents completed questions about their charitable giving behavior. Significant correlations between four resulting principal components and demographic variables showed how people defend themselves against repeated appeals. In a second study, 34 subjects provided scripts of responses to charitable and catalog solicitations. The scripts further illustrated defensive responses. Several conclusions were drawn from these studies. First, recipients of charitable solicitations often use defensive mechanisms to protect themselves from frequent solicitations. Second, frequent recipients of charitable direct mail process their mail differently than infrequent recipients. Frequent recipients are much more likely to use defensive script elements. Multiple solicitations to prospective donors may increase charitable contributions. However, excess solicitation could lead them to develop a greater repertoire of defenses against solicitations and decrease the pool of available contributions over the long term. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. f JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
2
WILLIAM D. DIAMOND is a professor in the Marketing Department, Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. STEPHANIE M. NOBLE is a professor in the Department of Marketing, School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677.
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
logers for half a century. This formula, often stated as a regression model, predicts purchasing from recency of purchase (R), frequency of purchase (F), and monetary value of purchase (M). The model makes sense for catalogers: People who have recently bought a lot of clothing from L.L. Bean are likely to purchase again. Given the success of the RFM formula, it is not surprising that nonprofit fundraisers also use it (Ensman, 1993; Nichols, 1995). The rental prices of donor lists often increase if the people on the list have donated within 90 days. Direct mail fundraising firms often advocate remailing to donors four, six, or more times per year. This advice partially results from the need to recoup acquisition costs, but also from the belief that recency and frequency are predictors of future giving (Ames, 1996).
Over the past 15 years there has been a profound change in the advertising literature. Instead of just working with simple laboratory investigations of the effects of changing components of advertising design, researchers increasingly study advertising in its social context. One of the best known models of advertising in context is the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Kirmani & Campbell, 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994). This model proposes that responses to advertising depend on consumers’ consideration of the motives of the advertisers. To some degree we defend ourselves against advertisers. This paper proposes that direct mail recipients have also started to defend themselves against these solicitations. This is particularly true for recipients of charitable direct mail. Imagine returning home from work and finding two direct mail pieces in your mailbox. One is a retail catalog. The other is a charitable solicitation. Database marketing techniques probably generated both mailings. Similar algorithms probably scored you as a prospect for each of these mailings. However, your reaction to the two mailings may be very different. You might put the catalog in a place for easy browsing—you may even read the catalog for pleasure. In contrast, you may have greeted the charitable solicitation with resignation or hostility. You may constantly receive catalogs and charitable solicitations. Several may come every day. As a frequent recipient of solicitations, you may suspect that direct mail fundraisers and catalog marketers are trying to take advantage of you by sending so many appeals. To cope with frequent solicitations, you may have well-rehearsed coping rules. Alternatively, you may not receive many direct mail solicitations. Your action rules may be vague. In short, the number of solicitations you receive may affect the ways you cope with charitable direct mail.
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF RFM STRATEGIES FOR CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS There are several reasons why RFM models developed to improve direct marketing of products may not be appropriate for charitable marketing. First is the difference between the “products” offered by retail direct marketers and charities. Retail catalogs may be fun. They definitely suggest a straightforward exchange with benefits for the customer. Recently updated catalogs may be pleasant to receive. In contrast, charitable direct mail suggests obligation. Benefits such as moral satisfaction may exist for donors, but these are less obvious than the product benefits promised by catalogs. Second, some recipients of charitable direct mail feel oppressed by the recency and frequency of solicitations they receive. For example, an author in Newsweek (Press, 1995) described his depressed reaction to the thousandth solicitation of the year. While people complain about the number of requests for donations that they receive, we have not heard the same severe reaction to recent and frequent solicitation by retail catalog direct marketers. It is common practice for a fresh catalog to accompany deliveries of catalog merchandise.
RFM APPROACHES TO RETAIL AND CHARITABLE DIRECT MARKETING Stone (1997) states that the RFM formula has been a standard for general merchandise cataJOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
3
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
frequent donors to nonprofit organizations. This section of the survey asked respondents to “Please tell us about yourself as a donor.”
There does not appear to be resentment of this. However, donors may be resentful when solicitations accompany “thank you notes” from direct mail fundraisers. Similarly, consumers may see multiple catalog mailings as merely wasteful, whereas recipients may perceive multiple requests for donations as attempts at exploitation.
Segmentation Variables. The questionnaire asked the subject’s highest level of education, occupation, the occupation of their spouse or partner, and household income. We assigned each household occupational status equivalent to the highest status occupation in the household. Subjects also reported the number of pieces of mail from charities received each month. Twelve response categories ranged from “zero” to “200 or more.” Forty-nine percent of the respondents received “5–10” or fewer solicitations per month. Only 4 people (2.6%) reported receiving no charitable mail, 3 people (1.8%) received 76 –100 pieces per month, and 3 people (1.8%) received 101–150 pieces per month.
STUDY 1: EVIDENCE OF DEFENSES AGAINST CHARITABLE SOLICITATION Method Surveys were sent to 389 households in the database of a homeless shelter. Of these, 24 questionnaires were undeliverable, leading to 366 successfully delivered questionnaires. Ninetyeight households had previously contributed to the shelter twice or more, 153 households had previously given to the shelter once, and 138 households had never previously donated to the shelter. If two members of a household were on the database, we randomly addressed the questionnaire to one person. A postcard prenotified subjects that the questionnaire would be arriving by mail. The donor list received two waves of surveys. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 43%. However, the response rate was substantially higher among households that had previously donated to the shelter. The questionnaire was a brochure. The cover page described the study as “A Survey of People Who Donate Through the Mail.” Both the cover letter and survey described this as an academic survey helping charities to understand their donors. The return address for the questionnaire was a nonprofit center at a state university. The cover letter informed recipients that questionnaires were coded to allow the researchers to combine survey data with other information. We assured recipients that their responses would be kept confidential.
Results Principal Components Analysis. Principal components analysis of the 13 approaches to donation revealed four components with eigenvalues greater than one. Together, these components accounted for 61.5% of the variance of the original data. Table 1 shows loadings greater than 0.5 of the variables on the rotated components. Labels at the top of Table 1 present interpretations of these factors. Different approaches to dealing with a large number of charitable solicitations include rapid evaluation, keeping track of previous donations, giving to a limited number of charities, and using rules of thumb to evaluate appeals. Correlation of Components with Segmentation Variables. Table 2 shows the correlations of the four principal components with demographic variables and the number of appeals received per month. The correlation of the first factor, rapid evaluation of appeals, with household occupation and education was statistically significant. The first factor was also marginally
Approaches to Donation. The data described here came from 13 likert-format questions on the respondent’s approaches to evaluating solicitations from charities. These items were developed from exploratory conversations with JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
4
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
TABLE 1
Components of Self-Reported Donation Behavior Component 1 Rapid Evaluation I use simple “rules of thumb” for deciding whether to donate to a charity. I read letters from charities very carefully before deciding whether to make a donation. I usually know before I open the envelope whether I will give to a charity. I am usually too busy to give careful consideration to all of the contents of a charitable mailing. I do not spend a lot of effort understanding each letter I get from a charity. It is very important for me to take the time and trouble to systematically evaluate the charitable letters I get. Even if a charity seems good, I probably won’t donate to it if it is not on “my list.” I write down when I donate to a charity so that I will not donate again too soon. If I might give to a charity, I put the letter in a box or large pile for later reference. I try to find out when I last gave to a charity before making a donation. I donate primarily to charities of a certain type. I feel I must protect myself from the mail I get from charities. I give to a very wide variety of charities. variance explained by original components variance explained by rotated components
Component 2
Component 3
Defense against repeated appeals
Limited number of charities
Component 4 Rules of Thumb 0.76
⫺0.77
0.65 0.80
0.70 ⫺0.77
0.51 0.87 0.60 0.88 0.78 0.66
21.8% 19.7%
⫺0.65 13.3% 12.8%
8.7% 8.4%
find out when they make their donations. The second factor also significantly correlated with household income. The third factor, donating to a limited number of charities, was negatively correlated with the amount of charitable mail received by the recipient each month. The respondents who receive more mail do not appear to be defending themselves by donating to a specific type of charity. The fourth factor did not significantly correlate with the other variables.
correlated with household income. “Upscale” recipients apparently process appeals more rapidly. The first factor had no appreciable correlation with amount of charitable mail received each month. The second factor appears to be a set of defenses against numerous charitable solicitations. These defenses strongly correlated with the number of appeals received each month. People receiving a great number of store them in a box or pile and take measures to record or JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
17.6% 16.1%
●
5
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
TABLE 2
Correlations of Components with Segmentation Variables
Component 1. 2. 3. 4.
Rapid evaluation Defense against repeated appeals Limited number of charities Rules of thumb
Household Income
Household Occupation
Pieces of Charitable Mail Received per Month
.18 (114) .19* (114) ⫺.17 (114) ⫺.04 (114)
.22* (102) .16 (102) ⫺.06 (102) ⫺.04 (102)
⫺.02 (127) .41*** (127) ⫺.19* (127) .05 (127)
Respondent’s Education .18* (123) .01 (123) ⫺.14 (123) .02 (123)
Correlations are based upon the numbers of observations in parentheses. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .001.
Discussion This study suggests that people who receive a substantial number of appeals defend themselves against repeated appeals with behaviors loading on the second factor. They store appeals and keep records of previous donations. “Upscale” recipients, who are relatively affluent, educated, and have prestigious jobs, also use these approaches but also deal with appeals relatively rapidly. To increase our understanding of the ways that potential donors deal with charitable direct mail, we conducted a second study to examine their scripts.
“getting up in the morning” and for “going to a restaurant.” Scripts become more clearly defined as people gain experience with the situation. As people become more experienced with receiving direct mail solicitations, they might develop clearer action rules for dealing with them. Scripts shed light on an array of marketing situations. Leigh and his colleagues (Leigh & McGraw, 1989; Leigh & Rethans, 1984) showed that scripted norms exist for both industrial purchasing and industrial sales behavior. Hubbert, Sehorn, and Brown (1993), Bitner, Booms, and Mohr (1994), and Shoemaker (1996) provided evidence that when customer and service provider share scripts, satisfaction and perceived service quality are high. These marketing studies showed that problems occur when one party deviates from the script. For instance, hotel patrons may be dissatisfied if they expect a different check-in script than they encounter (Shoemaker, 1996). Direct mail solicitations that are inappropriate or too frequent may violate expectations. The prospective donor may refuse the organization even if he or she previously intended to give money.
STUDY 2: ELICITATION OF SCRIPTS OF RESPONSES TO SOLICITATIONS Abelson described a script as a hypothesized structure that when activated organizes comprehension of event-based situations. In its weak sense, it is a bundle of inferences about the potential occurrence of a set of events and may be structurally similar to other schemata that do not deal with events. In its strong sense, it involves expectations about the order as well as the occurrence of events. (1981, p. 717)
Scripts in Response to Direct Mail Solicitations Abelson’s description of scripts includes an “evoking context” and “action rules.” Evoking contexts are antecedent conditions that affect whether we enter a script. For example, the
Scripts are not recollections of particular events, but stereotyped event sequences with an understanding of what the actor might do, expect, or infer. Bower, Black, and Turner (1979) provided some classic examples of scripts for JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
6
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
to it and to related causes. The responses of these people are most important to charitable direct marketers. RFM models for charitable solicitations may depend on donors forgetting recent gifts. However, Study 1 indicated that people receiving many appeals guard against multiple solicitations. As they develop methods of saving appeals or keeping records on past contributions, the RFM strategy may become less effective. Johnson and Russo (1984) demonstrated that experts making choices use strategies that eliminate inappropriate alternatives early rather than processing them deeply. Analogously, people receiving many charitable solicitations may sort the mail more and read inappropriate mail less than other people do. We also hypothesize that people receiving many solicitations will develop defenses against “aggressive” solicitations by direct mail marketers and fundraisers.
contexts might include our mood and personal finances when we receive a direct mail solicitation. Our action rules evaluate the context and dictate whether we consider donation and eventually donate. An example of an action rule might be “if I have received another request within six months, throw out the solicitation.” Finally, Abelson (1981) noted that script elements could be more or less central. For instance, virtually everyone responding to a direct mail charitable solicitation might evaluate the cause, but only some might read the appeal in depth.
Hypotheses Earlier in this paper, we described different reactions to charitable direct mail and product catalogs sent in the mail. Charitable direct mail may be unwanted and oppressive while catalogs may be pleasant and interesting. We therefore propose that different types of scripts exist for dealing with these forms of direct mail.
H3: People receiving many solicitations will use a greater number of defensive approaches than other people, especially in response to charitable appeals. These approaches include presorting the mail and reading it superficially, use of delay strategies (“basket, box, pile or file”) to accumulate multiple solicitations from the same source, and external memory (lists) to keep records of multiple solicitations.
H1: Scripts for responding to charitable direct marketing solicitation will contain more defensive behaviors than scripts for responding to retail catalogs in the mail. Defensive behaviors may include sorting the mail, keeping a list of previous donations, storing requests for future evaluation (to see whether multiple requests arrive) and waiting until the end of the year before making donations.
Method
If respondents know the charity soliciting a contribution, they may rapidly decide whether to contribute without reading the appeal carefully. Consumers are more likely to read retail catalog solicitations thoroughly, checking the exact attributes of the merchandise offered. This may even be fun for high-involvement consumers (Bloch, Sherrell, & Ridgeway, 1986). We state this as the following hypothesis:
Subjects. Forty-one subjects filled out the questionnaire. Because the study was meant to explore responses to different types of solicitations, the authors used a judgment sample of graduate students, faculty members, residents of an apartment complex, and the community. The objective was to obtain high variability in the number of appeals subjects received and answered. This was not meant to be a representative sample. Over half the sample reported receiving 0 –10 solicitations per month, approximately 40% received 11– 40, and 3% received over 41 solicitations per month. About 29% reported donating less than once a month, 50% donated 1–2 times a month, 12% donated 3– 4
H2: Recipients of retail catalog direct mail solicitations are more likely than recipients of charitable solicitations to thoroughly process mailings. Because of database technology, charities repeatedly solicit people who previously donated JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
7
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
sponding to charitable and retail solicitations. They also described their expectations of charities and catalog companies. Finally, subjects completed some demographic questions.
times, and 9% made 5– 6 donations per month. We excluded subjects who did not contribute to charity by mail or who did not order merchandise through a catalog. Thirty-four subjects (19 female, 14 male, and a person who did not answer the gender question) remained. More than 70% of the respondents were between 25 and 54 years old. Over 66% of the sample reported a household income of $60,000 or more. As expected, individuals who received more solicitations tended to be older. The median income level of frequent recipients was between $80,000 and $99,999. The median income level for infrequent recipients was between $60,000 and $79,999. Frequent recipients received at least 11–20 charitable solicitations a month. Infrequent recipients received ten or fewer solicitations per month. We classified 18 subjects as infrequent recipients of charitable direct mail and 15 as frequent recipients.
Coding Procedure. The two authors developed a coding procedure with 13 categories. Table 3 lists these categories and their definitions. Several days after developing the codes, the authors independently coded each respondent’s charity and catalog scripts. The authors discussed discrepancies to resolve any disagreements. The overall interjudge agreement was 75%.
Results and Discussion Comparing Scripts in Response to Charitable and Catalog Direct Mail. Table 4 shows the proportions of subjects using each script element in the charity and catalog situations. Each code was only counted once per subject. Superscripts in Table 4 indicate significant differences between the total proportions of subjects coded into different categories for the two situations. The first hypothesis predicted that a greater proportion of subjects in the charitable situation would use more “defensive” script elements than in the catalog situation. These defensive elements include collecting the solicitations in a “basket, box, file or pile”, checking the recency and frequency of donation, or screening the mail by sorting before reading. There were not significant differences between the proportions of scripts mentioning “sorting the mail” or using “basket, box, pile or file” in the charity and the catalog situations. However, subjects dealt with the recency and frequency of charitable solicitations significantly more than with the recency and frequency of catalog solicitations. People considering donating to charities talked more about checking previous donation dates or making donations only once a year. For example, one person’s defensive elements for charitable solicitations included placing renewal solicitations in a pile for further consideration. She checked the date of her
Procedure. Subjects completed a questionnaire on their reactions toward different types of mail solicitations. The questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete. We offered subjects one dollar for their participation. Subjects returned completed questionnaires by mail. Consistent with previous marketing research on script elicitation procedures (e.g., Leigh & McGraw, 1989), we provided subjects with the restaurant script from Bower et al. (1979) to familiarize them with the data collection process. Consistent with other work on scripts, the elicitation procedures do not ask for recall of a specific instance, but for a generalized set and sequence of events. We asked subjects to provide scripted events for two situations. First, the instructions asked subjects to “describe what you generally do when you receive a piece of mail requesting a charitable donation and you give to the charity.” Next, the instructions requested that subjects “describe what you generally do when you receive a catalog in the mail and you order from the catalog.” Subjects listed these actions in order. Subjects also wrote “rules of thumb” that guided their thoughts and actions when reJOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
8
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
TABLE 3
Coding Scheme Definitions Code
Definition
Sort The Mail Receive The Solicitation Open Letter/Catalog Read Letter/Catalog Evaluate Organization Basket, Box, Pile, File Recency/Frequency Coping
Whether or Not? How Much?
Payment Mechanics Phone Inquiry Processing Outgoing Wait/Postpone Other
Reviewing the mail for interesting items; includes looking at the return address and discarding any solicitation before reading. Bringing in the mail or receiving it. Opening the letter or catalog. Includes reading, highlighting information, and considering information in the solicitation. Determining if the charity or catalog company is worthy or reputable. Will they sell my name? Have I heard of it? Placing the received solicitation in a basket, box, pile, or file for later review. Person checks a list of previous charitable contributions or catalog purchases; makes contribution or purchase decision only once a year. Deciding to give or buy; evaluating the offer; asking for spouse or partner agreement; examining the sizes, material, shipping costs, and delivery time of merchandise. Deciding how much the cost will be, and whether they can afford it. Once the decision is made to contribute or buy, includes everything from taking out the checkbook or credit card to recording it for tax purposes. Also included was placing an order to 800 number. Calling a sales representative to ask questions about the company, organization, or merchandise. Everything from addressing the envelope and filling out the response card to recycling and discarding the refuse (after reading it). Postponing the decision process after reading the offer by putting the solicitation aside for a few days to think about it.
note that an evaluation of the organization (rather than the solicitation) occurred significantly more in the donation context than in the catalog context. Individuals contemplated whether the organization was worthy of a donation and whether its cause fit with their beliefs and priorities. Additionally, in the donation situation subjects thought more frequently about how much to spend, whereas in the catalog situation they were more likely to consider whether or not to spend. Subjects often determined how much to donate by the amount of money they had left after paying the bills. “Whether or not” decisions involved the details of the catalog (e.g., ship-
most recent contribution. If the most recent contribution was more than a year ago she contributed again. Other subjects stated that they placed all their solicitations in a “charity file” and only reviewed the requests once a year. The second hypothesis predicted that a greater proportion of subjects would thoroughly process solicitations in the catalog situation. The data support this hypothesis. Subjects always read catalogs before ordering, whereas they often completed charitable donations without reading collateral materials. People often use simple heuristics (e.g., “is it on my list?”) to decide whether to contribute. While not hypothesized, it is interesting to JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
9
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
TABLE 4
Percentage of Respondents Using Elements of Charity and Catalog Scripts Charity
Code Sort the mail Receive the solicitation Open letter/catalog Read letter/catalog Evaluate organization Basket, box, pile, file Recency/frequency coping Whether or not? How much? Payment mechanics Phone inquiry Processing outgoing Wait/postpone Other
Infrequent Recipients
Catalog
Frequent Recipients
Total
Infrequent Recipients
Frequent Recipients
Total
27.8
33.3
30.3
16.7
46.7
30.3
61.1
66.7
63.6
66.7
53.3
60.6
50.0 44.4
60.0 46.7
54.5d 45.5d
5.6 100.0
6.7 100.0
6.1d 100.0d
50.0
40.0
45.5d
0.0
13.3
6.1d
33.3
60.0
45.5
27.8
60.0
42.4
11.1 33.3 38.9
66.7 13.3 33.3
36.4d 24.2b 36.4b
0.0 61.1 22.2
6.7 53.3 0.0
3.0d 57.6b 12.1b
72.2 0.0
73.3 0.0
72.7b 0.0
94.4 6.0
100.0 13.3
97.0b 9.1
100 0.0 11.1
73.3 6.7 26.7
87.9d 3.0a 18.2
33.3 5.3 11.1
20.0 26.7 0.0
27.3d 12.1a 6.1
Superscripts indicate significant differences (Fisher’s exact test, 2-tailed) between charity and catalog proportions. a p ⬍ .1; b p ⬍ .05; c p ⬍ .01; d p ⬍ .001.
the physical differences between catalogs and solicitation letters.
ping costs, sizes, return policies) and consideration of spousal agreement. In the catalog situation, respondents were significantly more likely to postpone their decisions after reading the solicitation. This may be how catalog shoppers control their impulse purchasing. Some respondents stated that they returned to the catalogs after an interval and eliminated a percentage of potential purchases. This activity does not often occur in the charitable donation situation. It is unimportant that subjects mentioned “processing outgoing” more frequently in the charitable situation. Charitable solicitations include a mail transaction rather than a telephone transaction. Similarly, the difference in the proportion of subjects mentioning “opening the letter” is probably artifactually caused by JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
Frequent Recipients vs. Infrequent Recipients. Consistent with hypothesis 3, frequent recipients were more likely than infrequent recipients to mention defensive elements in their scripts. Specifically, they put solicitations in a “basket, box, pile or file,” and explicitly considered “recency/frequency issues” to protect themselves against numerous solicitations. In the charitable situation (see Table 4), the proportion of frequent recipients protecting themselves against recent or frequent solicitations (66.7%) was far greater than the proportion of infrequent recipients (11.1%). This difference was highly significant (Fisher’s exact test (1-tailed), p ⬍ .001). Very few subjects con●
10
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
DEFENSIVE RESPONSES TO CHARITABLE DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS
fenses against solicitations and decrease the pool of available contributions over the long term. As exploratory work, this paper has two important limitations. First, both studies used nonprobability samples. Further research will use larger and more representative samples. Second, we categorized subjects as frequent recipients or infrequent recipients based on the numbers of charitable solicitations they received. Future research could examine frequent and infrequent catalog purchasers as well as frequent and infrequent recipients of charitable direct mail.
sidered recency/frequency issues in catalog scripts. In the charitable situation, 60% of frequent recipients used a “basket, box, pile or file.” Only 33.3% of infrequent recipients used these. This difference approaches significance (Fisher’s exact test (1-tailed), p ⬍ .12). Though this was not hypothesized, frequent recipients were also more likely than infrequent recipients to store catalogs (Fisher’s exact test (1-tailed), p ⬍ .10).
GENERAL DISCUSSION We can draw several conclusions from these studies. First, recipients of direct mail charitable solicitations often use defensive mechanisms to protect themselves from solicitations that are too numerous or too frequent. These mechanisms include collecting appeals and keeping records to protect against multiple appeals. The “mind set” of people receiving charitable solicitations is different than that of people receiving retail catalogs in the mail. In their openended responses, many subjects reported being upset and annoyed at the barrage of solicitations they receive. Second, frequent recipients of charitable direct mail process their mail differently than infrequent recipients. Frequent recipients are much more likely to use defensive script elements. These defense mechanisms help them deal with the copious amount of direct mail they receive. Although charities have lofty ends, their means of obtaining more donations appear to be upsetting their strongest supporters. Finally, people may not read charitable appeals as thoroughly as they read catalog appeals. This may be especially true for “upscale” recipients. Our discussions with donors reminded us of the “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968). Frequent donors are an important common resource for nonprofit organizations. In the short term, multiple solicitations to people scoring high on RFM criteria may increase charitable contribution. However, excess solicitation by many organizations may “use up” this resource by alienating these donors. This could lead them to develop a greater repertoire of deJOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
REFERENCES Abelson, R.P. (1981). Psychological Status of the Script Concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715–729. Ames, P. (1996). Statistical Modeling Past Donors: Lessons from NFP Projects. Paper presented at Direct Marketing Association Nonprofit Day, New York. Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., & Mohr, L.A. (1994). Critical Service Encounters: The Employee’s Viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58, 95–106. Bloch, P., Sherrell, D.L., & Ridgeway, N.M. (1986). Consumer Search: An Extended Framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 119 –126. Bower, G.H., Black, J.B., & Turner, T.J. (1979). Scripts in Memory for Text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177– 220. Ensman, R.G., Jr. (1993). Communication Trends and the Small Shop. Fund Raising Management, 24, 51– 53. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1–31. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248. Hubbert, A.R., Sehorn, A.G., & Brown, S.W. (1993). Consumer and Provider Service Expectations: How Do They Compare? Paper presented at Services Marketing Conference, Vanderbilt University. Johnson, E.J., & Russo, J.E. (1984). Product Familiarity and Learning New Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 542–550. Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M.C. (2000). Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibil●
11
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
Nichols, J.E. (1995). Database Management: Developing Relationships with Donors. Fund Raising Management, 26, 18 –21. Press, A. (1995, December). The More We Give. . . . Newsweek, 126, 56 –58. Shoemaker, S. (1996). Scripts: Precursor of Consumer Expectations. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 42–53. Stone, B. (1997). Successful Direct Marketing Methods. Lincolnwood: IL: NTC Business Books.
ity and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 69 – 83. Leigh, T.W., & McGraw, P.F. (1989). Mapping the Procedural Knowledge of Industrial Sales Personnel: A Script-Theoretic Investigation. Journal of Marketing, 53 (January), 16 –34. Leigh, T.W., & Rethans, A.J. (1984). A Script-Theoretic Analysis of Industrial Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 48 (Fall), 22–32.
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
●
12
VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 2001