A sure sign that not much of anything worthwhile is being done in the area of donor relationships is the growing presence of lots of buzzwords surrounding this subject.

In reality, my guess is that more folks have married Kardashians than there are organizations that have become seriously engaged in building true relationships with donors.

The buzzwords and talk signal that ‘donor engagement’, ‘donor experience’, ‘donor loyalty’ are supposed to matter. In practice — as measured by expenditures of time and money — they really don’t.

Donor loyalty for most organizations is a one-way street. Donors are expected to be loyal to the organization. Sadly, the idea of the organization’s duty of loyalty to the donor is a passing thought at best and an annoyance at worst.

The central point of my book, Retention Fundraising: the new art and science of keeping your donors for life, is that real human relationships take time and effort. Not only time and work, but consistency and reliability — the fundamental pillars of trust, on which donor and all human loyalty is grounded.

Loyalty and commitment are powerful emotions, and in the case of donors can mean as much as an average of 130% more value in a donor base. But organizations seem to want to get loyalty and commitment on the cheap.

Although technology reduces the cost of building relationships most nonprofits simply don’t want to bother. In post after post Tom and I’ve tried to drive home the necessity of focus and work when it comes to improving loyalty, retention and lifetime value.

From Fixing Donor Experiences to offering a New Feedback Tool. Free. Forever, we’ve attempted to roll the rock up the hill.

So, while fundraising managers exalt in their latest creative acquisition techniques and special appeals efforts, dissatisfied and frustrated donors are pouring out the exits, because no one’s paying attention to the organizational stepchild called ‘Donor Relations’.

Since Tom and I’ve obviously been unable to break through on this vital topic, let’s give Penelope Burk a shot. In a recent post last week, the author of Donor-Centered Fundraising asks, “Does Donor Relations Matter?”

Specifically…

…”Can the value of donor relations (and by extension, donor relations staff) be objectively measured?”

…”Are those measures reliable indictors of fundraising success?”

Penelope considers ‘donor relations’ as anything other than fundraising appeals. Meaning thank you letters, update communications, impromptu phone calls and a host of related human touches.

She argues persuasively that “donor relations is singularly responsible for fundraising profit.” So does The Agitator. See our post on Attribution.

Penelope goes on to point out, and I don’t want to put words in her mouth but can’t resist, that donor relations folks should not be treated like the mad uncle in the attic. The donor relations staff is an organization’s central profit producer. To treat it otherwise is pure idiocy.

Listen up! Because this is a key part of Penelope’s and The Agitator’s point when it comes to donor relations: “The Ask Only Works Once.”

Here’s why according to Penelope:

“According to donors, the ask is the critical trigger that turns potential supporters into active donors. But once they are acquired, asks give donors the opportunity to answer the question, “Will you give again?” but that answer is always decided long before the ask is made. The decision to give again (or not) and to give more (or not) is the product of the particular mix of stewardship options that is offered to donors in the down time between appeals. Donor retention and average gift value are, therefore, the concrete bottom-line performance measures for the donor relations staff.”

Take the time to read Penelope’s post in full. Not only does she outline — and chart — how to measure donor relations activities from the standpoint of ROI, she also has links to her advice on how best to secure the all-important ‘second gift’.

Come on, Agitators, let’s really get serious about this business of donor relations. So much is at stake.

What are you really doing — seriously — about it?

Roger

P.S. I want to be clear that there are plenty of folks like Tom Ahern, Jeff Brooks and others illustrating how to make copy and communications donor-centric. And that is truly valuable.

But when you assign a junior assistant intern to answering the donor service lines at lunch or have your donors listening to a recording that endlessly assures them — ‘Your call is important to us’ — you need to be rethinking your priorities. Without putting donor relations at the top of your list, all that good copy and creative is simply going down the drain.