Canadian Squirrels, Fear and Fundraising
Tom and I each maintain a sort of electronic compost pile where ideas, press releases, reader suggestions and the memorable blog posts of others accumulate.
Then, about this time of year I begin working my way through “This Year’s Pile” setting aside those items I want to carry over into the “Pile for Next Year”.
As I leafed through the folder marked “CANADA” I couldn’t help but appreciate how much good campaign work fundraisers like Harvey McKinnon and those representing progressive advocacy causes contributed to raising the public awareness resulting in the much-deserved overthrow of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
What a pleasure to look at the clips and realize that, as the year ends, all this work and skill has resulted in a massive change of priorities by Canada’s federal government — from dispensing paranoia and fear just two months ago, to today’s humane and caring contributor of solutions to the vexing problems of climate change and war-torn refugees … to name just two.
Just as I was smiling over a Toronto Star clip reporting that an exceptionally warm winter [Tom and I carefully monitor climate change] was giving Canadian squirrels more time than usual to stuff their cute faces and bulk up before the snow flies, my incoming email bell sounded.
Serendipity.
Loyal Agitator reader Pamela Grow had just sent a breathtaking post from Canadian blogger and communications strategist Sheena Greer. It poignantly makes the case that only fearless fundraisers –and truly fearless nonprofits — can effect true change.
In her post titled A Moving Train: Neutrality in Fundraising Sheena, who describes herself and her firm Colludo as “kickass at doing good” takes issue with this statement that appeared on a Tweet:
Unless you’re a political fundraiser, you shouldn’t risk losing donors by tweeting your political opinion.
Nonsense! says Sheena as she vigorously — and in language that would do a stevedore proud — outlines why fear in fundraisers is deadly. (Be sure to read the entire post for a full flavor of her wide-ranging use of language.)
Of course The Agitator couldn’t agree more. Fundraisers with a ‘go-along-to-get-along’ fear of offending donors, colleagues, or board members by telling the truth as passionately and effectively as possible need to move on.
If you need a few wall plaques worth of quotations to reinforce the wisdom of not simply rolling over and agreeing, in an effort to avoid rustling feathers when the chips are down, Sheena provides them:
- From social activist, historian of people power and playwright Howard Zinn:
“The power of a bold idea uttered publicly in defiance of dominant opinion cannot be easily measured. Those special people who speak out in such a way as to shake up not only the self-assurance of their enemies, but the complacency of their friends, are precious catalysts for change.”
Zinn also said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train!” Thus the title of Sheena’s post.
- From fundraising storyteller Vanessa Chase Locksin:
“..in order to be successful, our stories need to have some kind of moral. A point. A theme. A set of values and beliefs which distinguishes our story from someone else’s. In order to stand out, our stories need to take a stand.
“For many nonprofits, this idea causes some hesitation. The conundrum of many organisations is though each and every one of them stands for something, [they] yet want to remain neutral in order to please a broad audience.”
- Finally, from Vu Lee of Nonprofit With Balls:
“There’s no gentle way to put this: The nonprofit sector is full of brilliant people paralyzed by fear. Boards fear liabilities and getting sued. Executive Directors fear not having sufficient cashflow for the next payroll; we fear firing staff who are clearly not a good fit for our organizations; we fear the perceptions from the community with every decision we make; we fear giving funders and donors feedback.
Development Directors fear losing individual donors; we fear that our org’s brand is weak, or that we are not up to date on the latest fundraising techniques. Program Directors fear our outcomes and metrics are not strong enough; we fear we are not doing enough for our community members; we fear that our programs will shut down and harm the people we serve.”
It’s fine to want to please your donors, your clients, your CEO and board. It’s not fine to remain in fear-inspired silence when far more than good manners, contributions or fees are at stake.
Roger
P.S. In listening to Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate I was reminded of another great quote from activist/historian Howard Zinn. “If the gods had intended for people to vote they would have given us candidates.”
9 responses to “Canadian Squirrels, Fear and Fundraising”
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
Hat’s off to Harvey McKinnon for his principled and generous contribution to Canadian politics! Harvey, you are a terrific role model for us all.
We fundraisers have so many skills that — if used more boldly and strategically — can have a huge impact like Harvey was able to have.
Roger, thanks for highlighting so many examples of boldness and passion. I wonder how many original founders of, now, mid to large size nonprofits were afraid to be honest and bold?
I am betting the percentage is pretty small…
I can’t begin to express my delight and surprise this morning upon seeing this post. Thank you so much for reading and for sharing.
I am also humbled and honoured to have individuals like Harvey and yourself as teachers and guides. Harvey’s bold intelligence and outspokenness is an inspiration.
Thank you once again for all you do to agitate the masses.
Sheena rocks. AND she’s right.Thanks for pulling together all these threads from people I really admire.
It’s good advice and it’s right on.
Hmmm… I’m going to have to advocate for a little balance please. I’m passionate about a range of social justice issues and I know plenty of people, equally as passionate, who have differing political views.
I don’t think any of us should be fearful about expressing our views and the values that drive them. But I don’t want to see the non-profit sector become as sharply divided and partisan as politics.
I’m appalled by the continual litmus tests being applied to people and organisations. Some of the problems our organisations address do naturally divide people along pretty strong idealogical lines. But many of the problems we are trying to solve are best served by broad cooperation among people and organisations that don’t neccessarily march lockstep on all issues across the board.
Much of the public trumpeting of every single political view a person holds is about building their “street cred” as a bona fide .
But the part of this non-stop trumpeting that I find most worrying is how quickly it degenerates into “everyone who agrees with me is good and everyone who disagrees with me is evil and destroying the world”
Continual demand for public attention to every single one of our morally superior opinions will push each of us deeper into an echo chamber of moral superiority. My experience has been that people living in these echo chambers are actually offended when someone they disagree with tries to accomplish positive change. Because they deeply believe that positive change springs only from their world view.
Make no mistake these people live and thrive at both ends of the political spectrum.
What has happened to the concept of a civil society where good people can passionately disagree but still work together for the better of our communities?
Are we sacrificing common ground and goodwill for the ego boost of constantly trumpeting our “rightness”?
Maybe sometimes we should just – “Shut the f%*k up and get s*%t done.”
Universities, hospitals, animal shelters… these are all examples of organisations that have supporters across a broad spectrum of ideologies. I can imagine that many of them would appreciate staff who are passionate but don’t feel the need to trumpet their political views in the course of carrying out their job.
Hi Denisa! I agree with you in terms of balance at the organisational level. As I say, I don’t think we should come out swinging and slapping. And certainly, I’m not advocating for people to shut down in terms of having conversations, debate and finding common ground with “the other.” Communities need a broad range of voices and ideas to solve problems. I never intended to suggest otherwise.
My issue here is threefold:
1) Organizations shouldn’t be afraid to speak up when a political decision changes their work. It’s not about constantly trumpeting “rightness” vs “wrongness” – it’s about being able to express an opinion about the work being done. Our mission IS an opinion, with many eccentricities, that naturally fall along the political landscape we find ourselves in.
2) Individuals who work at nonprofits shouldn’t be silenced, shunned, or feel unsafe to live their truths. After writing this, I heard privately from many people who have been told to “shut up and do their jobs” and it has taken a huge toll on their ability to engage in the work they do.
3) And I touch on this in my follow up (http://colludo.ca/blog/shout-sister-shout/), when the individuals who fundraise for nonprofits (a majority of which are women) are told to keep their mouths shut, I believe this is making a much larger statement about how we view fundraisers, and how we treat women.
Having an opinion and taking a stand doesn’t mean becoming closed, disagreeable, and unapproachable, unless you are a 6 year old refusing to eat meat balls. Every organisation has an opinion: and an inability to express it means weak fundraising and little progress. When a (any wing) government cuts funding to adult education, organisations and individuals who are affected shouldn’t be silenced. When Donald Trump is parading his disgusting misogyny and bigotry, a fundraiser shouldn’t be afraid to tweet about him being a farce of a human being.
And sometimes, “shutting the f%*k up” means no progress at all.
We have supporters from every walk of life/spectrum, but when our organisations are negatively affected by government policy, we shouldn’t be afraid of saying “this is bad for us and I disagree” on the grounds that our donors might be offended that we disagree with their party of choice.
At the end of the day, it is each individual’s personal choice about how they represent their beliefs and opinions. Having beliefs and opinions doesn’t make you antagonistic, unless you aggressively attack others. That’s not the point.
The point is we stand for something, which is the opposite of neutrality.
Hi Sheena, Yes, I absolutely agree on an organisational level. Organisations have a duty to fearlessly address the issues they work so hard to alleviate. On a personal level, we all have to make decisions about whether or not the oragnisations we work for are a good fit for our values as do our donors.
I was very much addressing the personal. In my opinion social media/blogging has magnified the problem. What used to be discussions are now public broadcasts of every single opinion on every subject.
Its becoming a challenge to find tha balance between a person’s freedom to express their opinion and their responsibility not paint their opinions all over the public face of their organisation.
People who work in agencies or as consultants don’t have to deal with this on a daily basis like those of us managing the day to day communications and advocacy in a charity with hundreds of employees.
There are two issues we deal with most:
1) Employee’s who are active across the sector and represent the organisation in some capacity in working groups & task forces can easily be seen to be speaking for the charity when discussing or posting about policy and ideology. The lines get blurred very easily especially on social media when there are a number of postings about their organisation mixed in with personal political opinions that are not reflective of the organisation’s well considered public stance. This employee’s opinions are given more weight than the average joe on the street because of their profile as an employee of their organisation. I do think they have a higher level of responsibility based on the platform and gravitas that wouldn’t exist without their position in the organisation. (This issue is not the same as internal discussion and differing opinions which need to exist in a healthy organisation.)
2) Employees who are just plain immature and sincerely believe they should be able to constantly trumpet their every opinion to the whole world. They’re very proud of the work they do for their organisation and strongly identify with the mission. But they have a hard time imagining how anyone who has wrong” opinions could be involved in saving the world alongside them =) Unfortunately I’m seeing this translate into very public disdain for anyone who disagrees with them. Social media has made this behavior normative.
#1 Can be dealt with using agreed guidelines but when it comes to social media the lines are still easily blurred and create problems. It can be tricky when an organisation is advocating for policy change and some of their employees are having a very different discussion on social media. It’s a hard balance to find at times.
#2 These people are mostly just cringe inducing but in some settings can damage important stakeholder relationships trumpeting their opinions on subjects not particularily related to your mission. Again, it’s about balance. It’s kind of like learning the difference between when to use your “inside voice” and when it’s okay to use your “outside voice”. It used to be much easier. You just used your “inside voice” in work related situations and used whatever voice you wanted outside of work. But now, depending on your generation and your personality, everything private can be public.
We really do need to have a further discussion on how to balance our employee’s personal freedom against potential damage to an organisation’s mission. It’s just not as simple as “standing for something”.
I popped back over to Sheena’s blog on neutrality and read the comments. Really insightful… but I noticed the take on the subject is very different from consultants than from people on the ground, every day, trying to run an organisation. I found Stephanie and Joe’s comments from the trenches particularly helpful. http://colludo.ca/blog/neutrality-in-fundraising/