A Twitter Tantrum to Read and Heed
Last year at this time I was moving along to finish a Year in Review post when a Tweet storm caught my eye. Usually, I ignore ‘em while writing, but this series struck a nerve. In fact, it reveals how we so ignore and frustrate basic donor needs that I wonder how we even survive.
Consequently, given the number of new donors some organizations have acquired in the pandemic and given the need for all organizations to cherish and care for their donors I’m repeating this rant in hopes we’ll pay even more heed to this much-deserved Twitter Tantrum in the year ahead.
THE SERIES: @TheWhinyDonor kicks it off kicks off with:
“My daughter just texted to say she’s having difficulty making joint online donations with a husband who has a different last name. Y’all got to make it easier for her and all the other couples out there.”
Mary Cahalane (@mcahalane) replies with:
“ALWAYS have that problem. Folks it’s almost 2020. Fix this now.”
Then… Tom Ahern (@thattomahern) jumps in with:
“Sim One & I married in 1984. Different last names = already common. Is NGO industry 35 years behind those times? [Wait. RINGING phone. Adrian Sargeant calling? “Hey, bud! What? I’ll let them know. Happy holidays!”]
Adrian says nonprofits are 50 years behind the commercial world.”
A blizzard of Tweets follows. Among them:
Cross words in ink (He/Him) strikes a note of historic revision:
“The fact that any online donation can be made at all refutes the “50 years” criticism. Netscape was founded 25 years ago. What nonprofits have is a technology gap, not a wokeness gap.”
Clay Buck (@claybuck) moves in for the kill.
“GRRRRRRRRRR! Total pet peeve. Try being a same-gender couple—it’s 2020 and many CRMs don’t know how to handle it. Equity and inclusion in giving is not just a good idea! It’s a must.”
The coup de grace is delivered by Clay Myers-Bowman (@claybow):
“Don’t know or CAN’T?!”
Why This Is So Serious
Even the newest, youngest fundraiser, one whose tongue is a pink as the new eraser on my fresh No. 2 pencil, knows that a donor’s name matters. Not only must the name be accurate, but if there are two donors in the same household each name should be accurate, as should their address if you wish to thank them and communicate with them further—as in building a relationship.
It’s ceaselessly amazing how so many in our trade seem to ignore this most fundamental fundraising basic when it comes to getting names and addresses to match donors’ preferences and intent.
Sure, it’s easy to blame the CRMs (and they deserve a good share since most have failed to build this into their systems.) And, it’s easy to rail against the payment processors for often transforming donors’ good intentions into maddening frustration and abandoned shopping carts.) And, we can’t forget the hyper-male influence that goes into the design of these systems (I guess the louts simply couldn’t imagine that a woman may be the primary donor.)
Lots and lots of blather about donor centricity—all shot to hell when it comes to the commonsense reality that the first step in building a relationship is to get the name(s) properly recorded.
Let’s face it. All of us love the tricks, tips and techniques aimed at improving results, but too few of us stop to see if we are getting the basics correct. We tend to assume that “technology” will take care of it.
In reality, I don’t think there’s a CRM out there for nonprofits that does this. We also tend to think someone else will take care of it (An intern? A lowly paid staffer? A poorly trained and overworked data clerk?) while we execute brilliant creative and first-rate strategy. Creative and strategy that will find its way to far too many donors who are pissed off because you obviously didn’t care to get it right in the first place.
One of the reasons The Agitator has harped on the importance of basic data stewardship – here, here and here— is because all the fundraising brilliance in the world won’t help you if your creative treasure isn’t delivered to the proper person.
So, let’s get on the backs of the CRMs, but primarily let’s hold each other to account.
In a world of hyphenated-names, same-sex marriages, and ever-changing forms of relationships we can no longer be complacent about lesser technology, anachronistic donation pages and our own sloth.
Roger
11 responses to “A Twitter Tantrum to Read and Heed”
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
WOW, Roger. Or as my dead mom used to say: “Wowdy dow!” Over&over, the names. Decades ago: Took my car to dealership garage. They couldn’t find me in the database. I didn’t exist. Finally it occured to me…”Hmmm… my name?” Yes, indeed. No Simone Joyaux…But there was a Tom Ahern. I practically launched myself into the guy’s face. WTF!!! Ownership of the car = 2 people. The guy (apparently the only one who mattered) and me. Never bought a car there again.
Commercial company couldn’t even get it right. But we the nonprofit sector? We’re supposed to be better & smarter & more conscious & caring & more aware of justice & & & & & But mostly we aren’t.
Spell my name correctly. Wait, let’s go back. Know my name. “Dear Friend” WTF? I already give you money and you don’t know my name? Do any of your records about me use the nomenclature “Mrs.” Because I don’t. Watch out when you call me – because you’ll likely mispronounce my name. Maybe apologize in advance and ask me how my name is pronounced.
And hey… Maybe that gift came only from me and not the partner in my house. I rarely use the term “husband” – are you aware of that. I use life partner. (However, we are legally married.) Why do you think I use life partner?
We are behind the times in the philanthropic sector. Why? Sure, CRMs can be a problem. But mostly, I think that’s a cheap excuse. I think mostly we don’t “get it”. We’re too busy doing the vitally important fundraising or whatever. And we get sloppy…or never got unsloppy. We’re “special”, this NGO sector. We should get a pass on some of our sloppiness and ignorance because … well because our work is so important.
And, of course, there’s the lack of knowledge thingy. Real statements like: “My boss won’t let me follow research/body of knowledge in fundraising … Because he doesn’t like it, doesn’t believe in it.” My board members (mostly wealthy, white and far too often male), think they know better and best.
Ask me about my “Well,Missy” story. The guy actually patted me on the arm when he told me that he was and I was wrong. (Too bad the IRS paper I had didn’t agree with him!!!”
Okey dokey. It’s not even 7 a.m. yet, Roger. You sure started my day out well!!!!! Thanks???
I have a hyphenated name, different than my spouse. I am also the one who makes contributions. And even if my spouse’s name is on the account, I always put my name first (since I made the gift and it’s my money). And yet…. they always default to putting my spouse’s name first, then default to his last name, etc. I’d rather “Friend” than that. And these are progressive organizations. It infuriates me!
Oh my god. My spouse and I have different last names and we used to joke, “if somebody calls for Mr. Bristol (that’s my name) or Mrs. Perillard (that’s his name), we KNOW it’s a telemarketer.” When the telemarketer turns out to be raising money [or trying to], it’s positively infuriating and they rarely if ever succeed. Stupid and lazy. I agree with everybody about getting the CRM platform people to step up, but that’s the END of the solution, not the beginning. We’ve been married for over 30 years and this b-s, which STILL happens, is gettin’ old, people.
Couldn’t agree more! See the donor comments included in “Fundraising Tuesday: What Donors Think When You Mess Up their Name” https://dennisfischman.com/fundraising-tue-donors-name/.
I once called a nonprofit (back when I had time for stuff like that) to tell them that I had given the donation, not my husband (couldn’t they see that I signed the check????), and to please correct their records (the thank you came to him, not me, not even to both of us). I got lip. I got told they couldn’t do that. So, never again did they get a dime. OTOH, one of my favorite (museum) institutions has, from the beginning, addressed every thank you to both of us, as I asked. I get a kick out of their mailings to Mr X and Dr. Y ZZZZ. Yep, I have the doctorate and they use it, because they asked and I told them to do it that way. Always do what the donor wants!
You are all absolutely correct. No argument. For the rescue missions and some of the smaller non-profits I work with the explanation is more straight forward — very limited staff time and almost no training. They did/do the majority of their fundraising by mail. They get a check, they look at the first name on the check. That’s what goes into the database — and most likely stays there FOREVER. Not an excuse, but not a problem that’s going to be fixed soon.
Unhappily, it’s a deeper than partners and “confusing” names. I am an annual (at least) donor to a well-respected national organization. I am now divorced. My initial pre-separation donation was listed in joint names (a reasonable start). I have sent corrective instructions, along with my annual check, each year for the past four. This year, the letter was addressed to Dear Friend. Evidently, they found my repeated efforts perplexing. I nevertheless sent a correction with my check (for the final time, I promise myself). It is not so much that I am personally offended. It’s that I KNOW they are equally careless with hundreds (or thousands) of others and are therefore squandering donor dollars. I have no power to make them do it better. I do have the power to give to an organization that does.
Thanks for focusing on this today, Roger. Back when my husband and I were engaged, we decided hyphenating our names might cause pandemonium a generation or two down the line. So I suggested he take my name. He looked at me like I had grown another head. “Exactly,” said I.
That was quite a while ago now, so it’s astounding that in 2020, this is still an issue. Our checks have both names. If I make an online gift from us both, I usually have to fudge the fields.
Your name is so central to who you are – why wouldn’t we as fundraisers be screaming for software to make this easy – and for processing internally that make it mandatory. And hey, if you’re not sure, it’s a great opportunity/excuse to check in with the donor.
Another one to think about: former staff members. Nothing says “you’re dead to us” like addressing me as Ms. Cahalane, when not too long ago, I was sharing an office with you. Ask.
“Nothing says ‘you’re dead to us’ like addressing me as Ms. Cahalane, when not too long ago, I was sharing an office with you.”
Ouch!
I love this post and the thread! Thank you all. And I hope when Roger reports back a year from now we’ll see a lot of changes. We all know those organizations that solve these problems first will reap the benefits, which will be significant.
[…] names matter? A few weeks ago, Roger Craver wrote about an issue dear to my heart. Having been caught in a tweetstorm with Whiny Donor, my tweets on the subject were […]