Beware Of Gifts!
As Roger noted yesterday, for many nonprofits it’s budget season, which — at least in theory — involves some performance assessment of the current year.
And not just the performance of ‘the organization’ or its revenue results, but review of the people as well.
Getting nervous?
So, on what basis do you want to be evaluated for your efforts over the last twelve months?
- Your enthusiasm (“Clarice always had a smile on her face and a cheery word for all … until we let her go.”)?
- Meeting your numbers (a usually successful but conservative approach … good enough for the inflation index pay adjustment)?
- The successful innovations you introduced (now we’re cookin’ and reaching for the raise)?
- The — as yet unearthed — potential you hold for breakthrough accomplishments in the coming year (a bolder pitch still, especially if your only alternative is back to #1 … Enthusiasm)?
And if you’re in a position to be doing the evaluating, which criteria will you use?
Beware if the higher-ups approach you bearing gifts (hold out for the salary raise)!
Happy evaluating!
Tom
One response to “Beware Of Gifts!”
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
Consider the distinctions between: Individual performance and organizational performance. Maybe the fundraisers busted his/her brain and heart and and to engage the board and board members and other staff and CEO. But none of them played…or played very well. So what kind of performance review is that fundraiser receiving? Darn good if they enabled as well as possible and and and and and … But didn’t make the income goals because no one else played.