 |
 |
|
|
|
| 
The following is a chapter from:
Trace Your Roots with DNA
by Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak and Ann Turner
(reprinted with permission)
BROADCASTING RESOURCES
The DNA project manager has many broadcasting options, but as administrators ourselves, we were curious to know which ones were the most popular and the most effective. So we included a few questions on this topic in our survey of experienced coordinators. We've distilled the results in Figure 8-5. The popularity of a given technique is measured as a percentage of projects using it (and rounded to the nearest percent), while effectiveness is admittedly somewhat more subjective. Based on our interpretation of managers' comments, we rated each technique as highly, moderately, or slight effective. The results are shown in descending order of popularity.
Figure 8-5: Popularity and effectiveness of broadcasting techniques
| Technique |
Popularity(%) |
Effectiveness |
| Surname and locality-based message boards and mailing lists |
68 |
high |
| Via family/surname association (and its newsletter and/or membership list) |
33 |
high |
| Web site |
30 |
moderate |
| Email (mass or list mailings) |
30 |
moderate |
| Testing company lists |
13 |
moderate |
| Traditional mail |
18 |
slight |
| Word of mouth |
15 |
high |
| Phone calls |
13 |
high |
| Other DNA project lists (e.g., www.dnalist.net) |
5 |
moderate |
| Reunions |
5 |
high |
| Announcements in genealogical publications |
3 |
N/A |
| Other (e.g., newspaper articles) |
3 |
N/A |
Not surprisingly, most project managers use a combination of techniques to improve their results, with many claiming four or five approaches. And we had anticipated finding good old-fashioned message posting leading the way! Beyond that, we were mostly interested in the disparities between popularity and effectiveness. For instance, almost 20 percent had tried snail mail (more than we would have imagined) but found it to be disappointing.
But the reverse is that phone calls and reunions are tactics that apparently offer untapped opportunity to recruit new participants. Jim Hill, whom we encountered a short while ago, runs several DNA projects and is convinced that personal telephone calls recruit the most people: "Since it is "now" communication, the questions get answered, and I can get some sense of why a person might be hesitant and respond to those concerns."
And Mary Lou Hudson has had great success using family reunions to get people interested in DNA testing for several names: "My Cox reunion in Texas budgets money each year for DNA testing. This past year, I made a motion at my Creekmore reunion to sponsor testing, and it was accepted. After I returned home, I received several messages from men who attended and wanted to become donors. Last year at my Anderson reunion, the group voted to sponsor DNA testing, and I asked them this year to sponsor more testing. So far, the reunions I am involved in have been more than happy to get involved. If a group holds family reunions, that would be the time to get people interested in DNA testing."
We also noted that word of mouth is another underutilized technique, and since "happy customers" are the best proponents, now seems a good time to turn our attention to the people side of participant recruitment. |
| |
|
|
|
North American office: P.O. Box 160, Carmine, TX 78932-0160 USA tel/fax: Toll free 866-7-DNA-DNA |
European office: 40 Preston Road, Weymouth, Dorset,
DT3 6PZ, UK tel:+44 (0) 1305 834936 fax:+44 (0)
1305 835925 |
|
|
