Why is there such a precipitous fall-off between first and second gift, all but guaranteeing a negative rate of return on some 60% of first time donors?  There are a lot of answers to this question, many having to do with specific cultivation approaches and warnings to follow or not follow at one’s peril.

And while “touches” after the first gift would seem inarguably important – even if there is disagreement on the number and type – there is a larger framework or point of view required to more systematically answer this question.

The point of view often espoused, even if not “wrapped up” in the theory that underpins it, is Relationship building. This is the goal and the solution all in one fell swoop.  But, without the theory and understanding of how relationships work, there is something, several somethings in fact, missing; the key ingredients that constitute a healthy relationship, a working definition of each and most importantly, how to achieve each piece.

The word “Relationship” need not connote a soft, fuzzy feeling.  The elements that make for a healthy interpersonal relationship are known and well defined.  These same elements are at play in a strong donor to non-profit relationship as proven in our recent Donor Commitment Study.

Once defined, these elements can be measured and managed.  The process for relationship building is deceptively simple but not easy.  It starts with establishing what we call a functional connection to the donor.  This requires delivering a consistent, reliable experience so the donor knows what to expect when interacting with your organization.  Fail to do this and you fail, period.  Early in the relationship – i.e. after receiving the first gift – the donor has put your organization, by virtue of what was known or perceived about you and the appeal that delivered the first gift, into a mental frame.  This frame is a summary judgment, albeit not well formed or defined at this stage, of who you are and what you are about – it is the proverbial elevator pitch, short and compelling.

Now imagine the 2^nd interaction, with 1^st gift being the 1^st interaction, occurs, and remember this can be an appeal, a thank you note, a website visit by the donor or even a conversation with friends, and the experience is different than before, it is inconsistent with the existing mental frame.  The donor is highly unlikely to try and reconcile their first impression with this different, second one.  There is not enough invested in the relationship, in you as an organization.  They may be very committed to the cause but don’t mistake that for commitment to your organization.

This fundamental failure to deliver a reliable, consistent experience – i.e. let them know what to expect when interacting with you – has prevented the 2^nd gift and any reasonable chance of establishing the personal connection (step 2 in relationship building) and over time, commitment.

A familiar analogy is to imagine you visit a restaurant for the first time and the experience is good – food, service, price.  There is a reasonable chance you’ll go again.  Now imagine the 2^nd visit is a disaster, food stinks, service is lousy and the bill is wrong.  There will not be a 3^rd time.  You don’t have enough invested in the restaurant to try and figure out what went wrong, to reconcile these two competing views of the place.  You are not going to talk with the manager and try to figure it all out.  You are done.  There are plenty of other restaurants out there, plenty that can deliver a reliable, consistent experience.

Fixing this is, again, simple but not easy.  It does require coordination across internally created “walls”  that are meaningless to the donor but prevent delivering this consistent experience.  One example is messaging.  This does not require the fundraising appeal to be written exactly like the newsletter.  It does require some consistency of theme and positioning.  If the appeal, for example, is all about the risk and danger and seriousness of (insert issue/cause x) and another communication channel/department is all about the “cure” then you’ve potentially undercut your ability to build functional connections to donors.