Page MenuHomePhabricator

Civi: display direct mail recipients more prominently to reduce visibility gap
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

Zendesk #1692804 was a telephone inquiry from a person whose recently deceased parent made a card donation, and they wanted to confirm that it was not recurring. The process of responding illustrated a search / visibility gap with direct mail donations, and this Task can hopefully start a conversation about ways in which we might reduce that.

The caller knew the donation had settled, but I could not locate it at Gravy or Adyen. Usually we can find card attempts that stop at authorized or fail, and creative searching will overcome typos in the email address, nicknames used and things like that. I was unable to find the donation, and assumed that it may have been just authorized and would not reach Civi, but I let the donor know that I’d follow up to make sure that it was one-time if it eventually reached us.

This was on Monday, and the donation reached Civi at cid=29235670 on Tuesday. That’s when I realized it was via Direct Mail. The Donor Relations team will not generally have access to Engage and I am uncertain about the timeline and specifics of the integration of Engage into Gravy.

As we increase our usage of direct mail, Donor Relations will field more donor inquiries into card donations for which they have no visibility, and agents will search multiple consoles before the possibility of direct mail makes sense. To better indicate to DR agents why they might not be finding a given card donor, and thus save agent time, what if we modified Civi to display either:

1 a new line item in the box in the center of the main CID view (that begins with Privacy and includes Preferred Methods) that says something like Direct Mail Recipient? Y/N

or

2 a similar line in that box that says Most Recent Direct Mail [date or n/a]

We can currently tell which donors have received direct mail by searching under Activities, but having the info on the main screen rather than clicking through would be helpful for cases like this. I know the directmail workflow has lots of stakeholders, and is an emerging workflow we’re still documenting on DR, but hope this Task can be part of making this easier.

Two other learnings from this ticket: the donation arrived after I had marked the CID as deceased, so it’s good to know that dead people are not discriminated against. More seriously, the contribution date of June 19th is likely the date Engage processed it, as the contribution was not in Civi until the 25th, which is when Civi sent the TY email. Six days is a long wait for a TY email for a card donation, so we might want to see if that could be reduced. We'll add these to DR documentation.

Event Timeline

@MBeat33 Looking into the processing time - you are correct the gift date is the date it was processed by Engage, which in this case was June 19th (Thursday). We were provided the file from Engage on June 23rd (Monday) and I see the gift was imported the next day the 24th (Tuesday) and an email TY sent upon import as well. I think the weekend when Engage is closed added those two extra days to the processing. Unfortunately with offline gifts that timing can be affected by office closures. This brings it to about 2-3 business days for the gift to reach our CRM and trigger the TYL which I think is a decent turnaround for a mailed card. Appreciate the comments and please let me know if anything else regarding processing comes up!

Thanks @MDemosWMF for sharing this task with me! In terms of DM audience visibility needs in Civi, as the Audience within DM is not the entirety of the CRM - I would agree that it would be helpful to have a tagging mechanism that identifies these donors. My understanding through other documentation was that there was meant to be 2 existing Civi fields that would support with this:

  • Directmail_id - text field
  • Directmail_receivers - yes/no

However - I've been unable to locate these fields on a Civi record. So I'm wondering if they do currently exist? If so do we have examples of them in action, that could be reviewed to make sure they are functioning as expected?

From my view point - I wasn't sure whether the 'Directmail_id' - as a text field was meant to link to the most recent DM appeal code - perhaps pulled from their activities tab? In this case would it be overwritten every time a more recent DM activity was imported? If not - how is this field being populated?

With the 'Directmail_receivers' - as a 'yes/no' option - while this would have worked for the first year of the program - this would not be super beneficial in the subsequent years - as people will both flow in and out of the program (based on the evolving strategy behind the channel). As such - a more useful indicator of DM recipients would need to be tied to the current year of the program (so FY2425 Directmail_receivers = Yes/No, FY2526 Directmail_receivers = Yes/No etc). I would note that this indicator would just be useful in defining the original universe within any given year - we would still always rely on the communication preferences for removal from mailings (ie- Do Not Mail, Exclude from direct mail, & preference tag: exclude-from-direct-mail-campaigns) - but those preferences should not change the initial tagging of a recipient.

These options would also only help from a more static universe for DM (one set each FY) - however as we look to get to a more 'live' version of the program that allows new people to flow in throughout the year, it might make more sense to have something more in line with what Michael suggested as a second option - 'Most Recent Direct Mail'. In this instance, if there was a way to populate this with two linked fields, that could be a decent option:

  • Most Recent Direct Mail Appeal = Appeal ID (appeal code that is appended to the record of the DM activity)
  • Most Recent Direct Mail Appeal Date = Mail date of DM (via activity import)

Let me know what's needed next to continue moving this forward. And very open to anyone's suggestions on alternate fields that would allow this level of identification for these donor groups. Thanks!

@MRitch-WMF This sounds like something we can queue up for the bigger rework of the contact summary record that we're starting to get into now. Ideally, we can combine your two suggested fields into one line showing the most recent mail appeal, i.e. Appeal ID (Date), with a cutoff date such that we only show appeals sent less than N days ago to avoid showing irrelevant data. If it would be useful, we could make it possible to pop up a list of past appeals as well.

I don't see those fields in CiviCRM either, but I think it will be simpler to pull in the activity directly rather than having custom fields storing this data.

Hi @MRitch-WMF and @Lars Thanks for working on this. I wanted to share this [[ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ex71O8Xh1LqI_fY-AHX9wF-glmcqxc-j1tGflFwVcjo/edit?gid=1402492694#gid=1402492694 | Acoustic wishlist ]]that the Audience team put together. Some of these criteria are included, @MRitch-WMF it might be good to review and update as needed. Thanks
FYI @AKanji-WMF

Hi @Lars and @MSuijkerbuijk_WMF - thanks for adding in the Acoustic wish list doc - I've haven't made changes to the tracking for the request of the DM fields in this doc, even though they don't seem to currently exist (directmail_id and directmail_receivers). I had originally populated some notes with regards to these fields and how I assumed they were working, but I think before I make any updates to fields requested we would need to make sure that the fields are covering the use cases for both recognizing in Civi for the DR team as well as recognizing for targeted communications in Acoustic.

(1) DR Need - this appears to be to have a quick identifying tag of a donor as being a recipient of the DM program. In this sense the Yes/No functionality of the 'directmail_receivers' field would make sense - but we would need to factor in that people will move in and out of the program so how would be identify and active DM recipient vs someone who previous received DM (but was removed for various reasons - either donor requested or via a change in the target audience overall of the program)
(2) Acoustic link - in order to move to the potential of a more multi-channel experience, relying on Civi data enriching our Acoustic email data - we would need to be able to recognize the unique appeal ID associated with a direct mail activity in Civi - so that we could create a query in Acoustic that references if an donor received a communication. For example if donor has Direct Mail Appeal ID = TER24 they would be pulled into a send query.

I'm not entirely sure how to translate this into a logic that flows between Civi to Acoustic and what a clear naming convention would be - @Lars open to your expertise on this - and happy to jump on a call and discuss this - as my brain isn't always able to explain the needs in a data language! thanks!

Belated +1 and thanks to @MRitch-WMF re comment > it might make more sense to have something more in line with ... 'Most Recent Direct Mail'.

Donor Relations searches will be greatly facilitated if we can see the donor as a DM recipient at a glance, and ideally with a date field associated so that we're not having to dig to make sure that the Yes doesn't mean past years.