Bernie’s Magic Mittens and Abusing Your Donor
One of the light and bright photo by-products of the horrid trifecta of January events in Washington, D.C. – Insurrection, Impeachment, Inauguration—was the terrific photo of Senator Bernie Sanders seated at the Inauguration swathed in parka and hand-knit mittens.
Of course it didn’t take long before that photo was transformed into an endless stream of mostly humorous and creative memes. I’m sure you received several from friends and colleagues. I even made one implicating our dog Pickle, who’s trying out for the position of Agitator mascot
A Metaphor for Donor Abuse?
Below is one that arrived in my inbox. It got me thinking how well it would serve as a metaphor for a post on abusing donors.
Assume Bernie-as-Donor had once given to a conservation or environmental organization to help save Polar Bears. Assume also that the organization followed the conventional more-and-more-is better practices of all too many nonprofits. The outcome of all that flood of communication? An irritated and lapsed Bernie-as-Donor.
Today, more than ever for reasons of the pandemic and the economy, we really need to be seriously asking ourselves: Are we abusing our donors?
If you haven’t done so already, please read Kevin’s recent post on Donor Retention and Loss in which he illustrates the negative effects of too much donor communication. His point? Sending more stuff creates more irritation and it doesn’t matter if the communication asks for money or not.
Over the years (here , here and here for example) we’ve raised the issue of whether or not the business model of many (mainly large and mid-sized) nonprofits is built on donor abuse. This was bad enough in the ‘old’ days before digital. But today –with “multi-channel” (email, postal mail, social media, crowd funding, texting, you name it) as the watchword aren’t we simply adding even more donor abuse?
We all know that donors give at different frequencies and amounts. So why can’t we accept that donors have different preferences and tolerances for communications?
I’m sure that a lot of this abuse is unintended and often occurs in the name of creating more “experiences” and “engagements” for donors.
BUT…shouldn’t we be setting our communications strategies –whether ‘ask’ or ‘non-ask’ according to the preference of the donor?
We’ve offered advice on ways to seek and use donor preference. You’ll find some of those posts here, here and here. And please read the comments to Kevin’s post from other fundraisers.
Seems to me that if stronger two-way relationships are a key to building more loyal, higher value donors that you don’t do this by piling on the abuse with the addition of an extra channel or so. Are we in denial about this or am I wrong? Are there fundraisers out there who actually believe that lousy retention rates are unrelated to the “stop sending so much stuff” complaints we’ve all heard from donors?
Roger
5 responses to “Bernie’s Magic Mittens and Abusing Your Donor”
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
If the focus is all on the quantity of communications, rather than quality (including how useful/interesting/meaningful it is to the recipient), then of course it will be seen as annoying at best.
There’s no real shortcut. No magic formula. You need to know your donors, ask them what matters, AND watch what they respond to.
But I think far too many smaller nonprofits (and they make up most of our organizations) don’t communicate enough. So I’m concerned the nuances of this may be lost on them – and cause them to stick to the “one appeal a year and why aren’t we raising money?” process.
Also, judging from my inbox and mailbox only, too much of the communication is what the organization wants to say, not what I want to know. Clever won’t make up for a lack of real feeling, well-told stories, and attention to small but important details like names and giving history.
Hi Mary
I absolutely agree with all your points. I too worry that smaller organizations may communicate too little. That’s why I noted that in my experience the biggest abusers are the large and mid-sized organizations.
Roger
Mary – your last paragraph is spot on, and frankly should be emblazoned upon the foreheads of everyone in this profession. Thank you for that Monday morning jolt of clarity!
Mary speaks for me, and for the organizations that I work with. The goal of nonprofit communications should be that the recipient sees your mail in their (physical or virtual) mailbox and says, “Oh goody, I always get something valuable from that group!” Whether it’s information that makes the donor feel smart or a story that makes her feel good, send MORE of it.
I think we need to get away from the “piling on the abuse” framework. It’s “fundraising” seen as the ‘F’ word. It’s why I encourage a mindset of facilitating “philanthropy” — which literally means ‘love of humanity.’ If we do more of what Mary suggests, and with what other commenters seem to agree, then NOT offering meaningful opportunities to engage and participate in the true joy that derives from giving, that is the real abuse.
But the offers we make must be relevant and meaningful. The same communications can’t go to everyone, nor can they go via the same channels or with the same frequency. That’s why we need you all to constantly highlight for us both the art and science involved. There are right and wrong ways to do things. Not doing things — out of fear — is seldom the wise choice.