Skip Fidura on the opt-in, opt-out dilemma facing charities

In the last year some notable charities have moved their marketing to opt-in, meaning their donors actively want to receive messaging from the organisation. The RNLI and Cancer Research UK are two such examples.

These changes came about because of some of the fundraising horror stories highlighted in the press, culminating in the tragic case of Olive Cooke.

Many charities have been damaged by these press reports and it has affected their ability to raise money for the great work they do, not to mention the lasting effect on the reputations of those organisations implicated in the headlines.

For all fundraisers the world has fundamentally changed but this holds for all marketers too. Consumers have become much more savvy about where, when and why they share their data.

The idea that charities may be allowed to play slightly looser with personal data because of the good work they do is not good enough, not legal, and certainly not acceptable to the public.

The good news is that most charities understand this and have changed their ways by working to codes of practice like the DMA Code.

A big concern for many charities is this loss of potential donors and whether they will be able to continue and re-grow the support they may lose

Skip Fidura

But what is best practice? Should all charities be moving to opt-in only or is there still a place for opt-out?

Clearly the best practice for all marketing would be opt-in, but this is not essential and such a dramatic shift would be detrimental for many commercial and not-for-profit organisations.

Not all companies need to move to opt-in only, so they must find what works best for them and their supporters. In fact, during a recent webinar we discussed this point with one of the first charities to move to all opt-in communications, the RNLI.

The number of charities moving to an opt-in only regime is seemingly growing every month, but their journeys to this consent nirvana have rarely been smooth.

In fact, most understand that they will lose a significant proportion of their supporters and, as a by-product, the money they are able to raise.

Although the benefit is clearly the enhancement to their reputations that comes from such a move, it is certainly not without risk.

A big concern for many charities is this loss of potential donors and whether they will be able to continue and re-grow the support they may lose.

Another issue is the IT and technological challenges organisations face in trying to track whether or not they have the correct opt-ins for new or existing supporters over the various channels they may use.

One challenge that the RNLI described facing was that some supporters may not understand they even need to opt back in, assuming that their strong previous support means they have already opted-in.

Conscious of these issues, the RNLI placed rather conservative estimates of around 255,000 donors opting back.

Happily, with focused messaging to ensure supporters knew they would not be automatically opted-in, they nearly doubled this with 450,000 re-engaging with the charity.

Opt-in isn’t the only answer…

How businesses and charities deal with data is important – to build trust organisations must be honest, transparent and give individuals control. Organisations, however, do not need to go opt-in only to achieve this greater control.

One example could be a charity contacting its database to explain it would like to keep in touch, and asking them through which channels they would prefer to be contacted. This gives the supporter control and the charity the ability to use those channels its supporters prefer.

Charities need to get their data collection statements and privacy policies right. Charities should not hide what they do with data but make it clear so donors have no doubt. All charities should be able to behave in a way that we want them to.

For example, keeping in touch with donors that may not have opted-in through a direct mail message at Christmas to update them on the year of great work may well be appreciated.

It’s important that supporters have the ability to tell you if they no longer want to receive such messages at all or if they would prefer to hear from you less frequently.

Ultimately, opt-out should not be seen as a dirty word.

Whether you have plans to move completely opt-in across all channels or to continue with a mix of consents depending on the channel, make sure your supporters have the respect and control they deserve.

Skip Fidura is chair of the Direct Marketing Association’s responsible marketing committee and client services director at dotmailer.