It's about a legacy mailing my mum recently received from the charity who she sponsors a child with.
Nearly every effort had been made to personalise the mailing and to create the illusion that is it really was a one-to-one communication with my mum.
The signatory of the appeal had enclosed a business card, their picture was in the enclosed brochure, the letter named the child being sponsored and the response form was also personalised.
I was really impressed with it and it nearly created the impression of a personal letter until I turned over the page.
A badly scanned in, photocopied signature.
Why go to all the effort to produce such an individual mailing and then not take the final step and sign the letter personally?
Now you might say that no-one would expect a genuine signature or it would take too much time and that it wouldn't be worth the effort. For me that simply isn't good enough.
Given a typical legacy can be worth over £50,000 then it must be worth finding a way to sign the letters?
For example, you could do them in batches so you can better respond to any replies. This would also give you the opportunity to tweak future versions and you could also then have the time to do a follow up phone call.
Now you might think I'm being overly critical and picky, but given that so much effort had gone into the pack and the data selection (my mum is approaching 60 and has given for a number of years - a prime legacy target) then it is such a shame they didn't take the final step and truly make it a stand out communication.
"The last ten percent is the signal we look for, the way we communicate care and expertise and professionalism. If all you're doing is the standard amount, all you're going to get is the standard compensation. The hard part is the last ten percent, sure, or even the last one percent, but it's the hard part because everyone is busy doing the easy part already."