Week Notes #99

Last week’s update…

  • 22nd June

What happened this week…

  • Reviewed the initial design for the new Online Shop.
  • Monthly Accessories meeting.
  • Planned for launching new Weddings range.
  • Built a customer service bot for Face a Fear.
  • Prepared for the Summer Sale.
  • Attended the Fundraising Innovation workshop.
  • Confirmed our license for Magento 2.
  • Began the Christmas cards Marketing Plan.
  • Wrote content for the Selling Defibs onboarding experience.
  • More competitor research on the defibrillator market.

Read this week…

Doing next week…

  • Building the new Online Shop emails.
  • Testing file exports for the new Online Shop.
  • Learning how to use Magento 2.
  • Discussing how to align the National Defibrillator Network with selling defibrillators.
  • Finalising designs for the new Online Shop.
  • Building the Selling Defibrillators onboarding emails.
  • Quarterly Online Shop Roadmap Planning Session.

Interesting stat of the week…

  • Comparing June 2018 to 2017, the number of new visitors with no shopping behaviour has dropped 28%, and for returning visitors it dropped 8%. This means that more of the visitors to the Online Shop have a greater intention to buy.

In the not too distant future….

  • Testing a new menu structure for the Online Shop

Why I love customer service

The majority of my role is focused on improvement projects. Only maybe a sixth of my time is spent on the operational side of the business. And maybe only a sixth of that time is spent on answering customer service queries.

But, I think customer service is the most important part of what I do. I look at customer service queries every day, not because I’m necessarily the best person to answer them, but because it’s a good way to see what’s going on for our customers.

‘Getting closer to customers’ is one of the principles I think a lot about in how we improve and grow the business, and of course providing excellent support for our customers is a vital part of that, but more than that, our customers tell us how we should improve the business so we should definitely listen to them.

Philanthropy Vs. Capitalism: rambling towards understanding giving to charity

Ahead of a fundraising innovation workshop next week, I’ve been thinking again about the differences between philanthropic and capitalistic thinking for charities.

For the purposes of this rambling stream of thoughts about how charities can understanding ‘giving’ in a different way, here’s some definitions:

Philanthropy: private initiatives, for the public good.
Capitalism: private initiatives, for the private good.
(For completeness, Government is public initiatives for public good)

From a Charity (big ‘C’: organisation with charitable aims, rather than small ‘c’: being charitable) perspective, philanthropy is a one-way value exchange, meaning supporters pass value, mostly through financial donations to the charity but don’t receive any value in return. And capitalism is a two-way value exchange, meaning customers pass the value of their cash to an organisation or other person in return for receiving the value of goods or services.

Capitalism, as the dominate economic model in western society, has lots of history and theoretical models behind it to help us understand it and apply some of that thinking to charity fundraising, but first where did philanthropy come from?

Where does making charitable donations come from?

Financial donations to charitable organisations was fashionable among the middle classes in the 19th century, and through the twentieth century, with the shift in social classes and social mobility, making donations became something other classes did too.

This means that the making of charitable donations has always been very closely connected to social class.

The BBC class survey showed the class make up across the UK as:

  • 6% Elite – the wealthiest and most privileged group in the UK
  • 25% Established middle class – the most gregarious and the second wealthiest of all the class groups.
  • 6% Technical middle class – a small, distinctive and prosperous new class group.
  • 15% New affluent workers – this group is sociable, has lots of cultural interests and is in the middle of all the class groups in terms of wealth.
  • 14% Traditional working class – this class group scores low for economic, social and cultural factors, but they do have some financial security.
  • 19% Emergent service workers – this class group is financially insecure, scoring low for savings and house value, but high for social and cultural factors.
  • 15% Precariat – this is the poorest and most deprived class group.

Understanding social class is important in understanding charitable giving as class is made up of income, education, social networks, and social contacts, and all of these things that affect a persons ability and proclivity to donate.

Donating is a social act.

What makes people donate?

Reasons for donating to charity can fit into three broad categories:

  • Purely altruistic – motivated by supporting the good done by the charity.
  • Impurely altruistic – motivated by the expectation of getting some value from knowing they have contributed to the good for the charity.
  • Not altruistic – motivated by wanting to show friends and family that they are a ‘good’ person.

Charities assume, under the philanthropic model, that all charitable giving is ‘purely altruistic’. Capitalistic thinking might say that pure altruism is a myth and that a donor is always motivated to derive some value, even if it’s just feeling like a good person.

Supply and demand in charitable fundraising

“In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It postulates that, holding all else equal, in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good, or other traded item such as labor or liquid financial assets, will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded (at the current price) will equal the quantity supplied (at the current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity transacted.”

The same thinking could be applied to the supply of fundraising products by charities against the demand from impurely-altruistic and not-altruistic supporters. In this context ‘price’ means the value derived by the customer.

Quantity of fundraising products in the market

If there are fewer causes to donate to (either perceived or actual), the value of those causes increases. The value here can be thought of in terms of greater awareness for supporters and so an increased propensity to donate.

The more ‘asks’ that are put in front of supporters, the lower the value of those asks. A flooded market is no good for charities or supporters as it drives down the value of each fundraising product.

Imagine a world with perfect social equality, no environmental damage, and no disease or life-threatening health conditions. The majority of charities would have no reason to exist. Those that managed to find a reason would operate within a high demand market, pushing up the value of their fundraising offer.

Value of fundraising products in the market

This is where social contracts/act of donating comes in. If making a donation meets the needs of affirming a donors values, triggers empathy and connection, allows to let people know they’re doing a good thing, etc., then it has a higher value in the market than an ‘ask’ that doesn’t deliver these benefits.

Would you rather donate £10 anonymously to provide massages for stressed businessmen in Tokyo or to provide nurses for sick children in your local town and be able to post about it on Facebook? Option A doesn’t meet the social contract of donating and so has low market value, whereas option B has a higher market value as it includes aspects of the social contract.

The right number of asks giving the right value return equals equilibrium and so optimisation for the fundraising offer.

However, it often seems that charities, working under the philanthropic model, do a lot of work in trying to get the ‘ask’ right; creating new campaigns, testing images, optimising donation forms of web pages, etc., but do very little about delivering value to the donor. Made a donation? Here, have a thank you letter. Not a great value exchange, if you think about it from a capitalist point-of-view.

So, charity fundraising as an industry, charities, and those who work in fundraising, need to shift away from the idea of philanthropy as one-way value from donor to charity, to capitalism as a two-way value exchange between donor and charity. Once this kind of thinking is embedded, then they can start asking the question: what do donors really want in return for their donation.

Week notes #98

What happened this week…

  • Met with the Cards team to prepare for Christmas Cards.
  • Discussed building testing a customer services chatbot.
  • Set the Christmas cards advertising budget.
  • Reviewed dropship processes for phase 1 of RMSP.
  • Created banner images for the new Online Shop.
  • Confirmed the license for Magento 2.
  • Wrote descriptions and took photos for Christmas cards.
  • Took part in a card sort exercise for CPR content on the website.
  • Met with iWeb, our Magento agency.
  • Began reviewing the frontend of the new Online Shop.
  • Audited the content for the Selling Defibs onboarding journey.
  • Discussed events merchandise with the Events Team.
  • Met with a new supplier for supporter merchandise

Read this week…

Doing next week…

  • Testing the front end of the new Online Shop.
  • Meeting with the Giftware team.
  • Gathering product information for Defibrillators.
  • Fundraising Innovation Workshop.
  • Discussing setting up Dotmailer for the Online Shop and Selling Defibrillators.
  • Supporting Retail Customer Services to go live with Freshdesk.
  • Gathering product information for the new wedding ranges.Setting up Beating Hearts Ball tickets.
  • Sharepoint training

Interesting stat of the week…

  • Last week, 33% of our customers came to the Online Shop from organic search. That’s a 472% increase on the same week last year.

In the not too distant future….

  • Magento 2 User Guides for Customer Services.

Risk assessment by certainty of cost and value

Risk assessment by certainty of cost and value

When assessing the risks of a new piece of work the questions should be around how certain are we about the cost and value of the work. The more certain we are about the cost of a piece of work and the value of the outcomes, the lower risk of the work. This leads to prioritising more certain work over less certain, and making more uncertain work less uncertain.

Week notes #97

What happened this week…

  • Redesigned our Delivery Note in the new branding.
  • Began planning stakeholder engagement and communication for Selling Defibs.
  • Met with the Buying Team to move to a quicker buying model for Supporter range.
  • Built a customer service chatbot using the Freshdesk API.
  • Learned how to set up forms in SiteCore.
  • Spoke to NHS Digital about ambulance service open source data.
  • Confirmed data protection processes for Selling Defibs.
  • Supported Retail Customer Services in setting up Freshdesk.
  • Presented a Selling Defibs project update to the Commercial Director.
  • Discussed website structure and content for Selling Defibs.
  • Discussed finance processes for CPR kits, Defibrillators and Health At Work.

Read this week…

Doing next week…

  • Planning for a summer sale event.
  • Discussing a chatbot for Customer Services.
  • Writing descriptions and creating images for Christmas cards.
  • Meeting with the Cards team to plan Christmas cards.
  • Reviewing dropship processes for phase 1 of AX.
  • Meeting with our Magento agency to discuss progress with M2.
  • Writing test cases for Magento 2 functionality.
  • Meeting with the Events Marketing Team to discuss Events Merchandise.
  • Meeting with a branded products supplier.

Interesting stat of the week..

  • Comparing Conversion Rates by Traffic Source over the last six weeks to the same time last year, Social has increased 325%, Paid Search has increased 91% and Referral has increased 80%

In the not too distant future…

  • A new range of Supporter goods.

Customer service chatbot using Freshdesk API

Having built a chatbot that uses the eBay API, and with the idea of a customer service chatbot floating around, I decided to see if I could build a chatbot that uses the Freshdesk API to pull content from the Help Articles into a chat flow to answer queries from customers.

The bot introduces itself as any good bot should, and then asks the customer how it can help.

Customer service chatbot using Freshdesk API

The buttons that the bot displays are dynamically populated by querying the results from the Freshdesk API to find out what top level categories are available in the Help Articles section on Freshdesk.

When the customer selects the appropriate category the bot dynamically creates buttons again from what is returned by querying the sub-categories in Freshdesk.

Customer service chatbot using Freshdesk API

And when the customer selects a button the bot will calls the content of the Help Article and displays it in the flow.

Customer service chatbot using Freshdesk API

The bot then checks if that Help Article is what the customer is looking for. If the customer selects Yes the bot tells the customer that it’s glad and ends the conversation. If the customer selects No, the bot allows the customer to contact a human by raising a ticket in Freshdesk.

The bot is very simple, partly because there aren’t very many Help Articles to pull from, but it demonstrates that using the Freshdesk API to populate the buttons on the fly can work and means that the content only needs to be maintained in Freshdesk and not within the chatbot.

Backwards looks like the right way round

Backwards looks like the right way round

A director emails two managers about building something new to solve an existing problem.

The first manager says:

  • Let’s have a meeting.
  • We’ll have to get more resource.
  • We’ll need to understand the requirements.
  • I’ll write a Proof of Concept Document.

The second manager says:

  • Let’s build it.
  • We’ll get customers using it.
  • We’ll learn loads about what customers actually want.

The first manager is solving organisational problems. The second manager is solving customer problems.

In a large, traditional organisation, the first manager looks like the one who’s doing it the right way. The second manager is a heretic who isn’t ‘thinking strategically’ and is considered to be doing it the wrong way. But it’s backwards. Delivering value to the customers and starting to learn about their problems as soon as possible should be what’s important. That’s the right way round.