Dear Bernard …
Or is it Dennis? Or is it ‘whoever you are’? Or is it good-bye?!
The answer is … good-bye.
Fundraising Success just published an item by Dennis Fischman, originally posted on #fundchat.
It’s brief and to the point. An important point, so I’m reprinting in its entirety.
The Quickest Way To Lose A Donor
“Dear Bernard…”
I’ve been reading The Nation all my adult life. I’ve subscribed to it for thirty years. And I used to give a donation every month–but not any more.
“Bernard, don’t let them win!”
Sorry. There are other progressive organizations. Hell, there are other progressive magazines. If I want to do my part to keep the right-wingers from stamping corporate logos on people’s minds, I can give my money elsewhere.
“Bernard, we want you back.”
Too bad. Because my name is not Bernard.
Now, you might think I’m being petty here. I do read The Nation ever week, right? And I pass along each week’s issue to a friend who reads them too. What’s more, the magazine has moved into the 21st century with a good website and a diverse set of contributing editors that keep it lively and on point.
Why should something as minor as the wrong name lose me as a donor?
- First, because no one’s name is minor to them.
- Second, because if they’re making this mistake with me, how many others are they offending with similar mistakes? Why should my donation fill a hole they’re digging themselves, because they can’t get a person’s name right?
- Third, because when I point it out to them, they don’t respond. I reply to the emails. I tweet the editor personally. And yes, I’m going to call them and find a human being to speak to live. But that’s not the donor’s job. And most donors won’t do it. And you will lose them, maybe for a lifetime.
So, ask yourself: is our nonprofit telling donors they are irrelevant?
Do we make donors feel welcomed and cherished?
Or do we make them feel nameless?
Dennis Fischman
Thanks for that, Dennis.
The basics really matter.
Tom
P.S. Roger has talked about the importance of ‘customer service’ here. And search ‘customer service’ in The Agitator archives for more on this fundamental subject.
5 responses to “Dear Bernard …”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
I’m pleased to say that a new FR staff person at The Nation, Loren Lynch, wrote me back just this week, corrected the database, and promises to tell the social media department to do better. I have high hopes for what is after all one of my favorite publications.
So, please subscribe to the Nation…but please also learn the lesson of “Dear Bernard.” Customer service IS marketing. It’s also the first step to fundraising. Make sure you get yours right.
Amen, the basics count so much when there is so much competition for direct mail donors . . .
My perspective is that mistakes like this can happen, especially with something that involves the merging of data. The Nation, like all organizations, is a human endeavor, and human beings make mistakes.
The real problem here is that The Nation did not respond when contacted. This is a different level of error, it seems to me, and it reflects a poor response to a customer service need. This is where The Nation truly failed in this instance.
Yes, mistakes happen. When they do, it is up to us to respond immediately, acknowledge and take responsibility for the error, apologize, pledge do what we can to avoid similar mistakes in the future, and then make sure we do.
And when the next mistake happens, repeat.
Thanks for sharing this, Dennis. If you’ve ever considered giving that data of yours less than your total attention… well, this is what happens.
Yes, we’ve all made mistakes. But how quickly do we admit and fix them?
This reminded me of an instance about 25 years ago. We were mailing about 2 million pieces a year to membership/donor list of about 300,000 names. We received an irate letter from a donor in Georgia whose first name was Alice. Somehow, in data entry, we chanced the “A” to an “S” making her first name “Slice.” She went on for two pages about who would name their child “Slice”, etc. It was a very funny letter, but her point was serious. We responded to her immediately and made the fix (plus gave her an extra year’s free membership), but the lesson was learned. We did all we could to re-verify, on a regular basis, the names on our in-house lists and used computer programs to compare entries from previous mailings as a double check. It cost us money, but was well worth it. Yes, we all make errors, but a donor/customer/member is the life-blood of any organization or cause and if we cannot get their name right, we are probably doing a lot of other things wrong as well.