Membership Mailings

Table of Contents

With very few exceptions, all efforts to bring in money undertaken by the Development & Communications Department are achieved via direct mail appeals to members and prospective members. In short, we send people mail, and they send us money. This section covers procedures for producing and sending these direct mail appeals. Also see: Bulk Mailing for the steps in assembling bulk mailings.

Types of Mailings


The first objective of direct mail fundraising-though not necessarily the most important-is to gain new members for the Project, and thereby to expand the PVS membership base (currently at 25,071 members as of October 2013). The second objective is to re-solicit past contributors (who are our most likely source of future donations) in order to maintain a steady income for the Project.

There are three basic types of mailings that generate the bulk of the Project's income:
  1. Prospecting mailings
  2. Renewal requests (called Programs)
  3. Fundraisers (called Advisories)

Note: "Hodge Podge" mailings account for a relatively small percentage of the Project's income. This list as of 2012, consists of almost completely of material requests made by non-members. Anyone in Donor Perfect with an MRE flag would be a part of the HP mailing.

A) Appeals to prospective members(usually managed by RK)

Design of Mail Package for Prospecting and Mining

So-called "prospecting" mailings are those mailings that are sent to citizens who have not previously contributed to Project Vote Smart. Most of the people who receive these prospecting packets have never heard of PVS before. Therefore, the first job of the prospecting packet is to introduce the recipient to the Project's goals and services. The membership pitch (e.g.: "Please join us as a contributing member of Project Vote Smart") can only be successful once the reader is convinced that ours is a worthwhile cause.

*A point of clarification may be necessary here: While the first purpose of the prospecting packet is to introduce the reader to PVS, this should never be regarded as its primary purpose. The primary goal of these mailings is always to raise money by recruiting new members. Publicizing our efforts is a necessary component of that effort, but is not an end in itself. Publicity for publicity's sake is the job of other departments. Any membership solicitation mailing that does not raise money will be judged a failure.

Prospecting mailings are the riskiest component of our fundraising efforts. They are costly to produce and generally bring in less than one donation for every 100 packets mailed. However, these mailings are crucial for maintaining a strong membership base.

Data Files for Prospecting and Mining

1. Choosing mailing lists

To obtain new names and addresses of potential contributors, we rent mailing lists from other organizations and companies (as detailed later). Our choice of which lists to use is the single most important factor in insuring the success of a prospecting mailing. Also, these lists are expensive-list rental generally accounts for 1/3 of the total cost of a prospecting mailing-so it is important to choose lists carefully.
i. Previously successful lists-"Mining"

The safest lists to rent are those that have performed well for us in the past. To find the lists that have been successful in the past, consult the Weekly Reports generated by the membership database program. These reports give a full cumulative listing of all mailings done by the Development & Communications Department since 1991, as well as the amounts that these mailings have earned. Old weekly reports prior to 2008 can be found in the filing cabinet under the stairs and next to the folding machine. Newer weekly reports are found in the Reports folder in the membership drive.

Point of Clarification


When the PVS database DonorPerfect was purged of inactive members in March 2005, the Director made a major mistake and DELETED these records rather than marking them inactive. Deleting a record deletes the record's giving history. Consequently any report run in DonorPerfect is INCORRECT for mailings dated prior to 2004. To find the profitability of mailings that were mailed before 2004, you must consult the old Access Membership database. A copy of this database MUST ALWAYS be archived and available for use. Otherwise we will lose all accurate records of mailings prior to 2004. I, Josh Sewell, have a copy of the database on my desktop. I must access it using the old Director's information. Login: jenna, Password: beasley.


For our purposes here, the most important column of the weekly report is the second column from the right, labeled "% return". Any prospecting mailing which shows a number greater than 70% in this column is considered to be financially successful and is therefore a candidate for being re-mailed. Mailings showing a % return figure below 70% should probably not be re-mailed without good reason. However, it is important to consider the entire history of a group, not just the most recent mailing.

A list that has been consistently successful in the past (such as Common Cause, People for the American Way, or Americans for Democratic Action) can be re-mailed as often as twice a year, and should never be left un-mailed for more than a year. Renting the same list more than twice each year will result in diminishing returns and should not be done. Optimally, we should not mail exactly the same packet to the same group twice, though in reality it may not be feasible to redesign our prospecting packet more than once a year. (NOTE: the whole list should be used within a year; part for one mailing, and the remainder for the next.)
ii. New lists - "Prospecting"

In addition to re-mailing lists that have done well in the past, we must continually seek new lists in order to reach new prospects.

Available lists may be composed of contributors to charities or political organizations, subscribers to various publications, purchasers of mail-order merchandise, respondents to online surveys, registered voters, etc. Naturally, some of these types of lists are more useful for our purposes than others.

List ideas can come from a number of sources: list brokers, industry publications (such as "Target Marketing", "Direct" magazine, and "The Non-Profit Times"), special interest groups listed on the Vote Smart website, direct mail offers from companies that rent out their lists, and personal knowledge of groups whose members may be interested in PVS.

By far the most useful and reliable source of new list suggestions is a good list broker. (See Appendix A for names and phone numbers of list brokers who we have used in the recent past.) A list broker who understands Project Vote Smart's mission, services, and mailing history should be able to suggest new lists that are likely to prove successful. No matter where the suggestion comes from, it will be necessary to consult a list broker to determine the availability and cost of any mailing list that we are considering.

In addition, a list broker will supply a short description of the list's source and, in most cases, a demographic breakdown of the list's composition. All of this information is useful in determining which lists are likely to pay off.

There may be additional fees involved for purchasing lists for in house mailings. Fees which are not included when printing through a mailing house.
iii. Donor Demographics

In order to maximize our chances for a successful mailing, there are two questions that should be asked about any new mailing list. First, given what we know about the source of this list, are these people likely to be interested in what we do? This is an inexact science, but we are forced to make certain assumptions in this regard. For instance, there is little point in mailing a solicitation request to people with no interest in politics; such people would be unlikely to contribute. The same would be true for groups of people with no voting rights (for instance minors, resident aliens, or convicted felons). On the other hand, a list of subscribers to a political magazine may be a good source of interested prospects.

Second, are the people on this mailing list likely to back up their interest in PVS with a monetary contribution? If they care about what we're doing, will they give? We generally try to target people who match the profile of our past contributors. There has never been a scientific study of the demographics of PVS contributors. The presumption, however, is that our typical donor is likely to be well educated, over 30 years of age, middle- to upper-class, and near the center of the political spectrum.

If a list's description suggests that it contains people likely to be interested in the Project, and if the demographic info matches our "typical" donor on several points, the list is a good candidate for a prospecting mailing. The recommendation to test this list should be given to the Project's Executive Director, along with a very brief rationale. The final decision on which lists to rent always lies with the Executive Director, and no fundraising mailing of any type can be produced without the Executive Director's approval.

In the case of a new list (or, for that matter, any list which we have not used in the past year), it is standard policy to test a small portion of the list before renting all of the available names. These tests typically consist of 5000 names selected randomly from the total list. If the 5000 piece test is successful (i.e., if it breaks the 70% mark in the % return column of the weekly report), we can then mail to the remainder of the list. The Project's National Director and Richard must also approve this follow-up mailing.

Project Vote Smart will benefit greatly from instituting a scientific and business oriented approach in identifying the demographics of its user and member bases. Because of rising postal and printing costs, an increase in volume of direct mail, and message saturation, direct mail is an increasingly expensive and unprofitable endeavor. One key to making Project Vote Smart a financially stable organization is to find ways to better utilize the various income streams that exist. Currently we do not know the demographics of those who use our services, we simply make assumptions. Because we do not have an idea of whom uses our services, we do not refine our message, approach or communication medium to find the most effective means for making direct mail profitable in various demographics. A shotgun or one-message-for-all approach is no longer effective and there is no reason to believe it will be effective in the future.

2. Renting mailing lists (Working with a list broker)

Working with a list broker allows us to do our entire list shopping through a single source rather than dealing with a dozen or more separate list owners each time we do a prospecting mailing.

Once the National Director/Richard has approved the proposed lists, we must secure approval to rent these lists. Call the list broker and ask him/her to seek preliminary approval. The list broker will need to know which lists we want to rent, how many names we want from each list, what our intended mailing date is, and any other specific handling requests that we might have. The list broker will also need a copy of the prospecting packet that we intend to send out, in order to get approval from the owners of the individual lists.

When placing an order with a list broker, always specify that we wish to exclude any names that we mailed in the past six months. For instance, if we rented a sample of 5000 names from the League of Women Voters in May and we want to rent the remainder of the list in August, we must tell the broker that we want to rent the entire LWV list excluding the 5000 names most recently mailed.

Also, if we are requesting a partial sample of a list for a test mailing, we must specify that we want a random representative sample. If we are renting 5000 names from a list of 250,000, we do not want the first 5000 names in alphabetical order, or the first 5000 names from New York State. We want an even distribution pulled from the entire list. The industry term for this is an "N-select".

The list broker will notify us once the owners of the various lists have approved or denied our rental requests. Some list owners are quite slow to respond, so it is important to request approval as early as possible. (In fact, if the timetable for the prospecting mailing is tight, we can request preliminary approval from the broker before the National Director/Richard has approved the list for mailing. The pre-approval does not commit us to actually rent the names.) Any time a rental request is denied, we should ask for an explanation so that we know if it's worth our effort to inquire again at a later date.

Once all the list rentals have been approved and all the details of the mailing settled, ask the list broker to place the actual orders for the lists. Request the lists by email. It will take roughly a week for the list owners to download the data and email it to us (or directly to the mail house that will be producing the mailing); this time must be factored into the schedule for the mailing.

Some list owners may require advance payment. Usually, though, we will receive a single invoice after the mailing date, payable to the list broker who arranged the rentals.

B) Yearly renewal requests to current members


The people most likely to donate money to PVS in the future are the people who have shown a willingness to donate in the past. Therefore, we ask our past supporters to renew their support each year through a series of requests for their annual membership "dues."

The first renewal request for each calendar year is mailed out in late November or early December of the previous year. (For instance, the first request for 2012 dues was sent on November 28, 2011.) Members who donate before January 1 can deduct these dues from their taxes for the outgoing year.


Data Files for Renewals

All currently active members receive this first renewal request, regardless of the date of their first donation or of their most recent donation. In other words, someone who became a member in August will receive a request to renew that membership in December, the same as someone who became a member in January.

There is a single exception to this rule. Anyone who joins in the last three months of any year will not receive a renewal request for the year immediately following his or her initial donation. Thus, a member who joined in October of 2011 (or later) would not have received any requests for 2012 dues. Their first renewal request would have been a request for 2013 dues mailed in December of 2012.

Members who do not respond to the first dues request are sent a follow-up request approximately two months later. These reminders continue at roughly 2-month intervals (Feb 1, April 1, June 1, Aug 1, Oct 1) for any active members who have not yet sent a contribution for the current calendar year. This means that there are a total of 6 (program) renewal requests each year, usually ending in October with Renewal #6. Two months later, in December, the cycle begins again with Renewal #1 for the next year. Occasionally there will be a seventh renewal notice, especially when the previous renewal mailings are based on six or seven week intervals rather than eight weeks. A calendar of specific mailing dates is created by the Development & Communications Director, National Director and Project President. Changes to this calendar are only made with approval of these individuals.

As of April, 2015, Vote Smart has had the policy of only sending mailings to those members designated as "active" members. Active members are those members who have given in the last few years. The exact definition is set by Richard Kimball. As of April 2015, it is those members who have given since 01/01/2011. Richard will let you know if he wants this definition changed. Should Richard want a mailing sent to all members, including inactive members, modify the steps related to letting a last date later than the cut off date as appropriate.
1. Dumping names from Donor Perfect for renewal mailings (creating the data file for the printer)

The list of names and addresses for a renewal mailing is dumped directly from the Donor Perfect membership database into the DP 32 file in the Donor Perfect Drive (Q). The process is as follows:

For Renewal #1 (late Nov/early Dec mailing but data must be sent to the mail house one to two weeks prior to the mail date. Check with the mail house as to the specific date).
  1. From the main screen of the Membership Database, select the REPORTS pull-down menu
  2. From the Report Menu, select Listings
  3. Select Count Records
  4. Select Include "No Mail" Names
  5. Change "Sort Order" to Zip
  6. Set Selection filter
  7. Build a Selection Filter
  8. From the "Main" file
  9. Flags
  10. contains
  11. MEM
  12. AND
  13. Initial Date Given
  14. < less than
  15. "Date" = two months prior to the mail date for Renewal 1
  16. [Example: for Renewal One of 2006, which was mailed Nov 28, 2005 Initial date given < less than 09/28/2005]
  17. Use "less than" not "less than or equal to" because we want the last two months excluded
  18. Main > Last Date > greater than or equal to > (current date of active membership defined by RK)
  19. Select Finished
  20. Hit OK
  21. Hit Preview
  22. If count is as expected start the filter over but this time select under #1[EXPORT to FILE]and under #2 Main/Bio and under #3 Set Selection Filter
  23. Select USE LAST FILTER
  24. Hit OK
  25. Choose Excel Spreadsheet
  26. Choose 'mailing info' as template
  27. Name the file in "Export File Name"
  28. Click Do
  29. Click OK

The "Include Do Not Mail" box must be checked in order for people marked "Do not mail" reason "email only" to be included. As of this update, PVS has a number of individuals who have indicated they do not want postal mail, yet PVS has not created a system for handling these individuals. These people should not be mailed postal mail because they have expressed interest in an online only relationship and this will save PVS money. Until this policy is created, however, we must continue mailing these people so we do not ignore a significant part of our membership.

For Subsequent Renewals (Programs) #2-#6: Those members who gave to the first renewal (or second or third or fourth or fifth) will not be included the dump.

  1. From the main screen of the Membership Database, select the REPORTS pull-down menu
  2. From the Report Menu, select Listings
  3. Select Count Records
  4. Select Include "No Mail" Names
  5. Change "Sort Order" to Zip
  6. Set Selection filter
  7. Build a Selection Filter
  8. From the "Main" file
  9. Flags
  10. contains
  11. MEM
  12. AND
  13. "MAIN"
  14. Flags
  15. does not contain
  16. REN
  17. AND
  18. Initial Date Given
  19. < less than
  20. "Date" = two months prior to the mail date for Renewal 1
    21. [Example: for Renewal One of 2006, which was mailed Nov 28, 2005 Initial date given < less than 09/28/2005]
    Use "less than" not "less than or equal to" because we want the last two months excluded
  21. And
  22. "Last Date" (Last Date Given)
  23. Between
  24. Use the date for active membership (11/30/2010 as of 11/15) as the first date and the beginning of the renewal cycle as the end date
    25. In previous example Last Date Given < 11/28/2005
    (Do not use "< = less than or equal" because we do not include gifts on first date of the cycle
  25. Finished
  26. Click OK
  27. Preview- If number corresponds to total initially mailed minus total of renewal that have come in, give or take a few, the query is correct.
  28. Close the preview. Close out of the Report window.
  29. Start a new filter in Reports/Listings
  30. Choose EXPORT to FILE
  31. Select set a filter
  32. Select USE LAST FILTER
  33. OK
  34. Click Do
  35. Select Excel Spreadsheet
  36. Select Mailing Info under template
  37. File will be sent to the DonorPerfect Drive (Q) and will be in a folder named dp32.
  38. File will be named "dpexport" or whatever you chose to call it
  39. Rename file to PVS_Renewal_2_20xx (replace "2" with the proper renewal and make sure you use the correct year in the file name)
  40. Move file to the Membership Drive


If Richard decides to do two separate letters for a subsequent renewal #2-6 for whatever reason and you need to get a list of the people who have already renewed, follow the same steps above but use the following:

Flags contains MEM
Last Date Given is greater than the date of the 1st renewal (for steps 13-19)

If we decide to mail to only members who have given in the past few years, please follow the steps below:
  1. For initial date given still use the "< less than" and set the date to two months prior to the mail date for Renewal 1. We still don't want to mail people for a renewal if they just became a member right before the first renewal.
  2. For last date given set a date range between the 1st date of the renewal cycle and however many years you want to go back. For example, if your mailing is P2 and scheduled to take place February 1, 2014 and your P1 mailing went out on November 28, 2013 you will want to set your date range between 11/28/2013 and 02/01/2011 (3 years before the date of the mailing). This will give you a list of people who have not renewed for the present year yet, but have given in the past 3 years.

We moved to this method of mailing for about half of the 2013 membership mailings. We were able to contact the people most likely to contribute to Vote Smart based on their most recent giving history.

Problems with the current renewal schedule


The current renewal schedule, in which all members are subject to the same calendar-year cycle of six (or seven) reminders, was originally invented in 1993 as the easiest way to handle the annual renewals of a membership base that had, by then, expanded to 30,000 active contributors. The system is indeed simple to manage, and it has been reasonably successful. However, it is not without its problems and limitations.

Most importantly, this system confuses and annoys many of our members. Members who send their dues in November of a given year are often taken aback when they receive two more requests for "annual" dues within three months (i.e.: Renewal #1 and #2 for the following year). Worse yet, members who purposely budget their charitable giving for later in the year must suffer through up to six renewal reminders (in increasingly harsh tones) before their preferred giving time rolls around. One of the most frequent complaint we hear from our members is "You are asking for money too often."

It is impossible to tell how many members we have alienated as a result of this problem.

Furthermore, in the case of members who prefer to donate later in the year, and who do so faithfully each year, we are wasting money by sending the entire series of early renewal letters. (Many of our members point this out to us.)

In view of the problems caused by the general inflexibility of the current system, it may be worth looking into alternative renewal schedules.

Another problem arises with the increase in the number of people expressing a desire for online only relationships. A number of members, have expressed a desire to not receive postal mail. DonorPerfect can handle these members. They are flagged "MEM" but have "Do Not Send Mail" checked with "Reason" equal to "EM" (email only). The problem arises in setting up procedures to ensure we treat these members equally and even remember they exist. When we mail members a renewal notice, we need to also email all the EM members. When we run a thank you, we need to remember to email the thank you to the EM members. The biggest obstacle to instituting such a policy is convincing the leadership of Vote Smart that these people in fact mean what they say, they do not want postal communication from us. The number of people desiring this type of relationship will only increase in time, especially if the Vote Smart begins targeting for younger membership and/or computer savvy individuals.


C) Fundraiser appeals to current members


In addition to the cycle of renewal mailings, we also conduct two or more Fundraisers each year now called Advisories
1. Topics for fundraisers

The fundraisers are designed to raise money for programs that fall outside the Project's normal operating budget. This may include entirely new program components (the fall '97 fundraiser to establish the Library Program), significant expansion of pre-existing programs (the spring '97 and fall '98 fundraisers to expand and upgrade the Vote Smart website), or ongoing capital campaigns (the spring '96 fundraiser for the farm building fund).

These appeals are most successful when they have a concrete goal that can be described to our members in an exciting way. The table below shows the history of fundraisers at Project Vote Smart.

Date of Fundraiser AppealSubject of Fundraiser AppealTotal $ Money Raised
1991Establish toll-free hotline$5,400
1991Establish education program$12,400
1992Establish Reporter's Resource Center$18,900
August 1993Establish national internship program$38,700
May 1994Legacy funds program?
August 1994Expand coverage to include state legislative candidates$34,400
March 1995Establish Vote Smart website$68,900
August 1995Establish Vote Smart website (part 2)$54,900
April 1996Building fund for facility at the farm$96,800
September 1996Operations$46,400
May 1997Upgrade website$87,900
October 1997Establish library partnership program$69,500
February 1998Establish NPAT partnerships with selected newspapers$82,800
June 1998Interns / volunteers support & Member intern program$62,600
October 1998Upgrade website$61,800
May 1999Great Divide Ranch$120,200
October 19992nd Fundraiser for GDR$121,204
May 2000Intern Support$105,067
March 2001Facilities-Great Divide Ranch (1st mailing)$126,030
April 2001Facilities fundraiser remailed$80,005
October 2001Legacy Endowment fundraiser$63,840
May 2002Fundraiser w/VSDM for interns$81,540
September 2002Fundraiser for A/C$135,615
March 2003Fundraiser for NPAT$88,042
July 2003Fundraiser only to best members(referral request)sent to 2648 members$12,592
October 2003Legacy endowment fundraiser$83,154
March 2004Equipment (truck etc) fundraiser$115,157
August 2004Early fundraiser sent with VSDM for facilities$34,242
September 2004Key Votes fundraiser$147,382
March 2005Fundraiser for New Admin Computer Program$140,554
September 2005Legacy endowment fundraiser with new brochure$45,899
October 2005Special fundraiser to select 205 MJD (library construction)$6,932
March 2006Fundraiser for Arizona Office$125,375
September 2006Fundraiser for 2008 Election Cycle Advertising$74,228
March 2007Fundraiser for Hatton Sumners Key Votes Matching Grant$131,757.84
September 2007Fundraiser for Purple Campaign$117,791.70
March 2008Fundraiser for Tour Bus$86,933.25
September 2008Fundraiser for Nov election costs$93,004.75
March 2009Fundraiser for K-12 Civics Program$107,233.91
September 2009Fundraiser for lack of foundation money$258,609.35
March 2010Fundraiser for 3 program components$75,452.66
September 2010Fundraiser for VoteEasy$82,192.44
March 2011Fundraiser$99,432.25
September 2011Fundraiser $73,004.76
March 2012 Fundraiser $101,470.15
September 2012Fundraiser $89,904.80
March 2013Appeal to member volunteers$74,096.36
September 2013Data Visualizations$76,369.55

(Fundraiser totals updated March 2014)


The topic for each special fundraiser will be set by The Project's National Director/Richard though suggestions are often solicited from the staff at large.


D). Material Requests via hotline or website


Every day, people call the Voter's Research Hotline or log onto the Vote Smart Website, looking for information on their candidates and elected officials. In each case, the users of our system have the opportunity to request further information about Project Vote Smart or to ask for copies of our free publications.

These people have already shown an interest in Vote Smart and the type of information we provide. Consequently, they are viewed as likely candidates for membership. All packets sent out in response to these material requests include a brochure describing the Project and asking the recipient to join. This is generally the same brochure used in other prospecting mailings.

These should be treated as Material Requests and handled by the Development Department.
1. Types of Hotline/Web requests

There are generally two types of packets that are sent out in response to Hotline/Web requests.

The first is an "InfoPack" which includes a membership brochure, a return envelope, and a personalized form letter (e.g.: "Dear Joe: One of the operators on our Voter's Self-Defense System told me that you requested more information about Vote Smart.").

The second is a VSDM packet. It includes the membership brochure, the return envelope, and the personalized form letter, plus the most recent copy of our manual (Voter's Self-Defense Manual in election years).

Once the hotline call is addressed and the caller has expressed interest in receiving further materials from Vote Smart, please forward the caller to a staff member in Development. If you are unable to reach a Development Dept. staff member, please take down the following information and leave a detailed message for them:
Name
Address
Email Address
Materials requested/# of materials
Any other information or notes- Did they mention where they were distributing materials? How did they find out about Vote Smart (for non-members),etc.

Once that information is received by the Development Department, they will assemble the materials, record the request in Donor Perfect, and mail the materials.

E). Appeals to lapsed members ("Hodge Podge" mailings)--


Every 2 to 3 years, members who have not given a donation for several years (usually 3 to 4 years) are purged from the membership. Be sure and indicate to what years these purged members correspond. The names in this can be used to create HodgePodge mailings, which are solicitations to individuals who have contacted us in the past and may or may not have become members. The HodgePodge mailing is typically sent along with the Prospecting/Mining mailings. A "de-duping" process should be conducted against our database to ensure we are not harassing people who have already become members.

A MAJOR and TERRIBLE Mistake was made in 2005 while Purging

You should NEVER delete an individual record from DonorPerfect. If there is a duplicate, you merge the records together. If someone is Deceased or obviously inactive, ie would be purged, they need to have the MEM removed from the Flag field and have the proper Flag or Flags placed into the field. In March 2005 nearly 11,000 names were "purged" by deleting them rather than marking them inactive.

This corrupted our data. If you delete a record, you delete the record's giving history. Consequently, once you run a report to see the amount of money returned by an old solicitation or fundraiser, you will not have the gifts associated with the deleted record(s). We now do not have accurate financial records for any solicitations done prior to our conversion from Access to DonorPerfect. The data in DonorPerfect is WRONG for any mailing with a mail-date prior to 2004.

To estimate the response to any solicitation mailed before 2004, you must look at the old database. It is archived and not updated EVER.
There is one comment on this page. [Display comment]
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki