10 Bad Fundraising Decisions
I’m sure most Agitator readers have seen or made some bad fundraising decisions. Think about it … what’s the worst fundraising decision you’ve observed?
If you’re lucky, perhaps the one that comes to your mind was an anomaly … a one-off’er. And even better, maybe an important lesson was learned.
On the other hand, maybe what comes to mind is a pattern … some organization or person making recurring bad decisions, never learning.
As you think about it, exclude conscious experimentation … deliberate efforts to test, innovate and learn. In my book, one shouldn’t get ‘penalty points’ for testing thoughtful, grounded hypotheses. This is not the same, however, as obsessing over ‘new’.
So with that caveat, what do you come up with?
Here would be my ‘top ten’ list of worst fundraising mistakes.
- Botching the ‘thank you’ — the most important tactical mistake. [Followed by not building a robust sustainer/monthly giving program. OK, I’m already cheating … that’s two mistakes.]
- Appealing to reason over emotion — the most important messaging mistake.
- Not driving your program, including acquisition, toward maximizing lifetime value — the most important strategic mistake.
- Not systematically seeking, listening to or addressing donor feedback/preferences — the most important organizational culture mistake.
- Thinking your donor thinks like you. [But at the same time, never ‘wearing your donor’s shoes’. Oops, cheating again.]
- Not watching your competition — the ‘hubris’ mistake.
- Not committing to continual fundraising training/education/up-skilling — the ‘pure lazy’ mistake.
- Investing in your fundraising program to ‘meet budget’ instead of to ‘seize opportunity’ — the ‘bookkeeper’ mistake.
- Tolerating ‘silo’ or ‘go-fer’ or ‘bolt on’ status for fundraising within your organization — the ‘inferiority complex’ mistake.
- Not appreciating how your donor’s broader life as a consumer affects how they respond to and what they expect from you — the ‘donor in a bubble’ mistake.
What mistakes would you add or substitute?
Tom
10 responses to “10 Bad Fundraising Decisions”
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
Great piece, Tom. This is a cool idea for a workshop. Like I could take your top 10….. Add some….. And engage the audience in explaining why it’s a mistake and adding their mistakes.
Wouldn’t that be cool? And, of course, I’d give you credit.
I’m enthused.
Most of those mistakes relate directly to “It’s about me.” The donor’s desires, likes, wishes, etc are secondary if considered at all.
Awesome list!
“Assuming anyone will care”
or perhaps
“Believing everyone should care”
Maybe that is an over-arching theme of all points. Too many shops take the “street corner marriage proposal” approach – that is, assuming that their audience is simply the general public and leaving it at that.
It is so interesting that emotion and connection to your mission’s emotional impact wins every time! And that is what connects you to your donor! Everytime!
These are great. And also interconnected. Organizations that don’t prioritize donor relationships (fundraising) won’t fork it over for skills training or investing in the program. When you think of donors as dollars it all just becomes “git ‘er done”. Short-term and ugly.
And Simone, I was thinking “there are at least 10 blog posts right there.” 🙂
Responding to Sheena’s comment… about anyone caring… It’s our job to make them care. Why do so many fundraisers not get that it’s our job to explain and enable and make matter and engage and lead change and and and …..
And Mary… Yes, indeed…. At least 10 blog posts. Or may an entire article in my column for the Nonprofit Quarterly. What do you think, Tom Belford?
Yes, it IS our job to make them care – assuming anyone automatically would care without doing our job, and assuming that everyone should care (“because we’re so awesome!”) is a bad decision.
I think the old saying is “trying to be everything to everyone is as good as being nothing to no one” or something like that. 🙂
Go for it Simone! I know you’ll do a brilliant, ‘must read’ job.
As I look back at my original comment, I’m a bit annoyed at myself. I should have said something like this: We can’t make anyone care. It’s not our right and should be our aspiration. But we can aspire to tell some people a wonderful story or multiple stories…. And see if they might care. But we can’t actually make them care.
My dad died of cancer. I still don’t give to cancer organizations. I don’t want people to die from cancer. I wish my dad hadn’t died from cancer. But I give else. To other interests. Even my dad’s death from cancer didn’t make me give to cancer. Of course, there is the scholarship fund at MSU in my dad’s name – for students to study in a French-speaking country.
An excellent list. Perhaps add, “Assume people who care will give just because they care. Need to ask.