One of our assumptions has been around the idea that a Next Generation constituent needn't necessarily have a postal address. As many of you know this requirement in the current software has caused us to jump through some hoops with web registrations where we actually temporarily create constituents with a dummy address. So the thought was if a large percentage of your constituents only address you electronically, why bother with a required postal address? Furthermore, considering the type of "groups with members" constituent model that we've been talking about, why should a every child in a family need an address when all of the children belong to a family that has a postal address?
So yesterday we got into having a big discussion about whether we needed to carry on the notion of a "primary address" for a constituent. Currently each constituent must have a primary address and that primary address must not be control grouped--everyone can see it.
Primary addresses has some nice advantages--if you want to analyze purchasing by postal code sometimes you just need any easy way to get to a postal code. Plus if you've got several addresses on a constituent and none of them really match the criteria for a particular mailing, you've always got the primary address to fall back on.
Obviously if no postal address is required then you can't force a primary address. You could make a rule like "if there are any addresses, then one of them must be primary". But then we thought, "does this work in a consortium setting"? Let's say the Symphony and the Ballet share a system. Couldn't you make the case that the Symphony might want to store a private address that only the Symphony could see? And that's the only address the constituent has on file? You can't say it's the primary address because the Ballet can't see it.
So several questions:
1. What about this notion of a constituent with no postal address? Does that make sense? Or does the current model feel better? Even with the group/member model we could say that each constituent has to have a primary address, even if that address is not specifically tied to that constituent. That's the example of the child's primary address actually being the family's address.
2. If there were no requirement for a postal address, then there are obviously still times when one is required. We couldn't have a delivery method of "Mail" if the constituent didn't have an address. Of course we could require that an order have a shipping address before allowing that delivery method. But what does this do to subscribers if some percentage of subscribers didn't have postal addresses? Or is this just the way the world is going and we have to learn to operate that way?
3. If we don't require an address, what about a primary flag? Is it ok for a constituent to have say 3 addresses (some shared, some not) and none of them being a primary address? Is it ok for a constituent to have 3 addresses, all only visible for some part of a consortium?
Believe me it's a nice feeling knowing that we can put questions like this in front a large, interested audience. We're eagerly awaiting your help.
1. I think it’s reasonable to not require a postal address, except in the case of “card not present” credit card transactions.
2.Yup… if the customer wants the tickets mailed to them, then we need to capture a postal address. In the subscriber example, I would argue that our business decision should be to get a postal address. People who can afford a subscription have to live somewhere, but they don’t necessarily have to have email. If they have entered into that level of a relationship commitment with us, then an address is required.
3.Yes, the shared box office is the issue for us. I think if you want to control group the contact method (be it address, email, carrier pigeon), then it can’t be primary. And I do find the concept of ‘some contact method must be primary’ comforting from a data retrieval perspective.
This whole discussion reminds me of a favorite Doonesbury cartoon from years ago. Rick the reporter was interviewing a homeless man about his dreams and aspirations. The reply he got was along the lines of: “I live for the theater! I want to be an actor… but you can’t play the definitive Lear without a damn mailing address!”
Frankly reading this thread made my head hurt... loved your Doonesbury reference Nancy! My thoughts - as related to the new constituent model: Samantha, Tim's wife, has her own constituent number, and she prefers to get old-fashioned mail at their house on Opera Drive. (She likes walking to the mailbox for exercise.) That would be her "primary address"... on the other hand, Tim has his own preferred contact method at his own preferred smartphone number - that combination becomes his "primary address" ... I have to give my zip code to the gas station in Illinois in order for my credit card to be charged. We will have to have zip codes for purchasers wishing to use their credit cards with us, even if Tim only wants us to "correspond" with his smartphone. When Tim shows up at the Box Office for an upgrade or whatever - the chance that he will in the very near/near/far future NOT have a physical ticket present is increasing. What about this idea of two segments of patrons - 1) purchasers/those wishing to make their first purchase, and 2) not yet purchasers. If you are in the first segment, you MUST HAVE an address. If we define address as "Smartphone number plus postal zip code" - fine. That becomes "primary" - even though it isn't a physical structure. And, for orgs to which this change comes more slowly (i.e. not going to use smartphone ticketing in the very near/near/far future) - they can still have a primary address and set up their own rules about how it gets used. As for segment #2... the idea with them would be to make corresponding with our organizations "barrier free"... so if they don't want to give us their address at that stage of our "relationship" - fine. I think. And overall, I do think that you have to have some really obvious simple "no brainer" way to eliminate duplicates from old-fashioned Postal Service-style mailings. Primary address does that for us now, but I think that if we put the brochure in the mail to Samantha, and Tim gets the same info sent to his smartphone - that's a win.
Frankly reading this thread made my head hurt... loved your Doonesbury reference Nancy!
My thoughts - as related to the new constituent model: Samantha, Tim's wife, has her own constituent number, and she prefers to get old-fashioned mail at their house on Opera Drive. (She likes walking to the mailbox for exercise.) That would be her "primary address"... on the other hand, Tim has his own preferred contact method at his own preferred smartphone number - that combination becomes his "primary address" ...
I have to give my zip code to the gas station in Illinois in order for my credit card to be charged. We will have to have zip codes for purchasers wishing to use their credit cards with us, even if Tim only wants us to "correspond" with his smartphone. When Tim shows up at the Box Office for an upgrade or whatever - the chance that he will in the very near/near/far future NOT have a physical ticket present is increasing.
What about this idea of two segments of patrons - 1) purchasers/those wishing to make their first purchase, and 2) not yet purchasers. If you are in the first segment, you MUST HAVE an address. If we define address as "Smartphone number plus postal zip code" - fine. That becomes "primary" - even though it isn't a physical structure. And, for orgs to which this change comes more slowly (i.e. not going to use smartphone ticketing in the very near/near/far future) - they can still have a primary address and set up their own rules about how it gets used.
As for segment #2... the idea with them would be to make corresponding with our organizations "barrier free"... so if they don't want to give us their address at that stage of our "relationship" - fine. I think.
And overall, I do think that you have to have some really obvious simple "no brainer" way to eliminate duplicates from old-fashioned Postal Service-style mailings. Primary address does that for us now, but I think that if we put the brochure in the mail to Samantha, and Tim gets the same info sent to his smartphone - that's a win.