Hi guys,
Here is a question for anyone who's had experience with either channels, or both at the same time.
I have had my budgets for the year approved by the board, always nice, in which i set a budget for Door to Door and DRTV. These would be in conjunction with our usual direct mail and doordrop.
Now in the planning stages i am wondering if jumping into DRTV would be too hasty, seeing as the budget is good but not huge. Would it not be wiser to just put it all in door to door? Or would taking the risk in DRTV be worth it?
I wish I could find a first time DRTV campaign report which would make me more comfortable in knowing the returns are there. Not interested in awareness, only numbers of those who will sign up to a direct debit from the ad.
Any words of wisdom?
Thanks
Reassurance??
Dear Tuskakubwa
Just to reassure you, I would never suggest that a charity did something which I didn't believe in just so it would benefit my agency.
And I regularly advise charities in the full knowledge that there will be no business in it for my agency.
I haven't exaggerated the results at all. I'd gladly refer you on to the charities I am referring to but not publicly on this forum because they may not want that.
Best wishes,
Steve Andrews
Chairman
Whitewater
pinch of salt...
I hesitate to sound like a cynic (which I am) but it isn't a surprise to see an agency that "sells" DRTV bigging up DRTV results. Breaking even in less than 2 years is a bold claim, would much rather hear about the results from your clients rather than you.
Rarry
I agree... but
I agree with Rarry's final conclusion but not all his reasoning.
In the end, because of the capital outlay on creating a strong DRTV ad... and spending enough on media to do a sensible test... before you know whether it will work at all, DRTV, as Rarry says, is riskier.
But I know of 3 charities currently getting much cheaper donors (measured by net cost of acquisition) through DRTV than D2D... by a considerable margin. And then, because the retention rate of DRTV donors will be much much better than D2D, the lifetime value of those DRTV donors is dramatically higher. So, those charities are breaking even in much less than 2 years.
Although D2D is lower risk (you can pull the plug if it's not working), the cost per donor is pretty much set by the agencies doing the recruitment... so you can never get it down through any kind of creative breakthrough (as I understand it), so you will always be lumbered with the long break-even period.
So ultimately, as Rarry points out, this is about how much you're able to risk to possibly develop a much more effective route... but produce something that bombs. And that depends on the nature of your cause (which isn't apparent from your posting) and the size of your budgets.
Steve Andrews
Chairman
Whitewater
Its all about risk
DRTV will cost more per donor than D2D and you aren't guaranteed donors. DRTV attrition rates are lower than D2D.
DRTV media costs are cheaper thanks to the downturn, but you need to spend a fair bit to a get a good test of different channels. Thinking channels like National Geographic and the History Channel work well.
You will need a budget to make the video. If you are going to do anything challenging then do a few different cuts as you need it to be passed by the ASA.
Either way you won't breakeven for 2-4 years so if your budget is big enough test, otherwise I would say D2D is a less risky option.
Rarry