As a little boy I grew impatient when others — especially grown-ups — didn’t seem to understand the wisdom of my advice, let alone act on it.

In the moments of my frustration Grandma Craver would take me aside, put her arms around me, and looking me the eye soothingly say, “Roger, you shouldn’t try to make a pig sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

Memories of Grandma Craver came flooding back as I worked on yesterday’s post about one the simplest, most effective of basic experiences we can offer a donor:  Saying ‘Thank you’.

“Why oh why”, I wondered, “does it take so long for so many folks to understand and put into place the simplest, most effective practices?”

I’m sure I’m not alone in wondering why this sector persists in ignoring the most obvious, most beneficial practices. I

In fact I know I’m not alone. Because this morning I opened and read a marvelously frustrating post from Ken Burnett and Jackie Fowler: The donor’s choice: an early fundraising preference service that’s worked brilliantly since 1986.

“Marvelous” because it contains the case history of one of most effective donor experiences ever offered; one that almost everyone can replicate. “Frustrating” because this proven approach has been around since 1986 (that’s 30 years!), but very, very, very, very few organizations have adopted it despite the damn-near-universal claim of “we’re donor-centric.”

This 30-year-old success story involves one of most basic tenets of donor-centricity: give the donor a choice and honor that choice.

As Jackie and Ken hopefully note, “Could it be, just maybe, a fresh generation of fundraisers eager to find favour with their donors might learn something useful from this pioneering early initiative? Sure they could!”

Here’s a brief summary of this classic case history on the importance of ‘donor choice’ or ‘donor preference’. (I urge you to read the entire post and savour the glorious detail and ingredients of the program.)

This donor preference effort was set up in the mid 1980s by Botton Village, the largest of the UK’s Camphill communities, working with Ken and Jackie’s agency Burnett Associates (now Burnett Works.)

In a nutshell here’s what happened:

• Following their initial contribution, Botton Village’s direct mail acquired donors were then mailed informative newsletters and appeals at “appropriate intervals.” Nothing unusual there.

But then … here’s where the ‘usual’ stops and the ‘unusual’/exceptional begins.

• As soon as a donor complained about the additional appeals (Ken and Jackie charmingly term them an “uninvited intrusion”) they received and immediate response from Botton Village.

• Bottom promised: a) not to do it again, and b) enclosing details of both the mailing and telephone preference services the organization offered, advising complainers how to benefit from these services.

• The result? According to Ken and Jackie, “Outraged of Turnbridge Wells’ and his fellow grumblers absolutely loved this, most changing their tone entirely. Letters regularly came back from objectors praising Botton for its exemplary service and often enclosing an un-asked-for gift. Many complainers became regular long-term donors. Most said something like, ‘I’ve complained lots in the past but no one, ever, has treated me as well as this’.

• Botton seized on this approval by ‘complainers’. Next included as part of its appeals was a form devised to give donors a range of practical choices in terms of what information they wanted to receive and when — including the option to ‘don’t ever contact me again’. (That preference form is reprinted in the post.)

The result of offering donors a preference? “The response levels and average value of gifts consistently exceed the average industry by massive margins.”  Some specifics according to Jackie:

• One group of nearly 10,000 Christmas-only donors responding at over 61 per cent with an average gift over £64 ($91).

• 60,000 donors gave £1.2 million after costs at Christmas 2014 with an overall response rate of over £60.

What’s remarkable to me — and if Grandma Craver were still around I rush right up and hug her for her wisdom — is that although Ken published a full case story 20 years ago very few nonprofits have followed the example and built anything similar. So much for donor preference. So much for donor-centricity.

Of course, since nonprofits themselves won’t do it, the regulators will eventually impose it. At least that’s what’s happening in the UK.

Why wait for the regulators? Why wait for even more of our donors to flee? Why not get busy with our organizations’ transformation to being truly donor-centered today?

What are you doing to give your donors a preference?

Roger

P.S.  Coincidentally Ken Burnett will lead off the Agitator’s/DonorVoice/SOFII free Webinar on Tuesday, April 12^th with some great history and current commentary on the state of Face-2-Face Fundraising and How to Reduce Face-2-Face Attrition in the First 90 Days. We’re holding seats for Agitator readers and you can register free of charge here.