Now, more than ever, our nonprofit world cries out for “game changing” innovations and solutions. Significant breakthroughs.

For many fundraisers, the term “game changing” means some big, bold innovation that can carry us into the Promised Land of Greater Response and Larger Gifts with magical ease.

And so, we go through phases of abandoning the old in favor of the new and shiny. Direct mail is ignored or abandoned by the unknowing in favor of email.  In turn, email and online peer-to-peer gives way to social media as Facebook comes into favor. Telemarketing is tossed aside as the Face-2-Face missionaries arrive preach the latest in fundraising salvation.

Of course, all these channels and techniques have their place and can and will  be used effectively for years and years  to come.

The fundamental problem isn’t that we need new and exciting things. It’s that the term “game changing” needs to be focused on the capability of harnessing the vast donor potential that already exits and delivering results commensurate with that potential.

Our sector devotes vast resources to short-term strategies and techniques like acquisition efforts (with and without premiums) only to see between 60% and 70% of those acquisition dollars pissed away because most of us persist in starving fundamental research into understanding our donors and empirically determining what experiences we could provide that will produce far, far more money and loyalty for a far, far longer period of time.

Even folks who have been in this trade for decades act as though there’s a quick fix just around the corner rather than admit that we could all do far better if we simply invested the time, money, patience and skill in rearranging priorities and focusing on activities that make a huge difference for the future.

Until we do that we’ll continue to see slow or no growth…retention rates resembling the EKG of a death-bed patient and increasing frustration on the part of serious fundraisers and CEOs with the gnawing feeling that there must be a better way.

I suspect a good part of the reason for the situation we face lies in the business-as-usual, risk adverse nature prevalent in a lot of contemporary nonprofit mentality.  A mindset focused on protecting the institutional status quo … of defending one organization’s turf against another organization’s ambition … of making sweeping and noble pronouncements about societal good while quietly and narrowly advancing self-interest.

Unfortunately, this same mindset flows into today’s fundraising process — the slow and painstaking nudging forward of not-much-risk, not-much-gain — a phenomenon that a colleague of ours called “massive incrementalism.” 

At a time when higher risk with its potential of great breakthroughs is so urgently needed, too many in our craft remain bogged down in analysis-paralysis; endless debates over small gains dependent on the minuscule variations that come from different color envelopes or the quality of paper in an annual report; and enough claims and posturing through jargon-ridden nonsense like “personas” and made-up “donor journeys” to make even Napoleon cringe.

We need to be doing far more to tap the potential that’s out there, and doing far less of the same old, same old things.

“Massive incrementalism” is not something I want to be remembered for.  How about you?

Let’s Try Heroic Incrementalism

So how about some “heroic incrementalism”. To illustrate this I draw from a term coined by the noted physician Atul Gawande in a New Yorkerarticle titled the Heroism of Incremental Care. He makes the point that in the not-too-distant past the celebrated and most highly compensated medical “heroes” were the surgeons with their awesome power to intervene quickly and save a life. Surgeons, cardiologists, and other highly trained specialists as saviors.

Little noticed, celebrated and certainly far less compensated were the primary care physicians, the nurse practitioners and the physician’s assistants who day-in-day-out delivered preventive and ongoing care.

In the end, believes Dr. Gawande, it is these under-recognized, under-paid “heroes of incrementalism” with their commitment of sticking with the patient, meeting their on-going needs and expectations who will transform our healthcare system.

BUT…he emphatically notes the problem is our current health-care system does not put great value on the type of care that takes time to pay off.

AND…the same thing can be said for the state of our fundraising system: it doesn’t place enough value on the type of donor research and donor care that takes time to pay off.

Take a look at the personnel involved with just about any nonprofit of any size.  Chances are there are some highfalutin folks with titles like Chief Strategist (surgeon) or Creative Director (cardiologist).

What about the people who really understand the donor and those who provide the donor care.  Aren’t they the ones who deserve proper compensation and recognition?

Most times when I point out this disparity/incongruity I’m listened to politely and folks often agree; as in, ‘yes, it would be nice if we could do it that way, but we really need to be able to do exciting, break-through things. We need to be able to innovate.

Yes, most of the work involved in holding on to and increasing the commitment, satisfaction and value of donors for the long-term is difficult and often boring.  Taking the time to find out “why” a donor gives and whether she likes or dislikes the experiences you’re providing is never going to be as much fun as designing a website that glows in the dark or creating a snappy teaser or subject line.

And so most organizations will continue to hold endless meetings of their strategy and creative rock stars as they conjure up –without benefit of data—two or three donor journeys or plaster the walls with persona mood boards congratulating themselves that they’ve guessed just what the donors want and need.

Meanwhile, expenditures for true donor research will not make this year’s budget (“We’re concentrating on basics first.” Whatever that means).   And those who service and support the donors will either be outsourced or ignored.

To change the game we must change our mindset.  We must change the way we prioritize the importance of learning “why” our donors give, and recognize and reward those who effectively care for and serve up those experiences that motivate and hold on to donors year after year after year.

Have you identified and recognized the Heroes of Incrementalism in your organization or the need for more of them?

Roger

P.S.  The rest of this week we’re going to spend time of putting practical definitions to terms we’ve been using with increasing frequency in The Agitator. Terms like “donor identity”, “donor commitment”, and “donor satisfaction”.  Each of these areas is ripe for some “heroic incrementalism” in most organizations.