Don’t Just Thank Them
I’ve said some irreverent things about thanking donors in the past few weeks.
So I had mixed feelings about this recent post by Katya Andresen.
I agree with her main point 1000%: “The single most powerful thing you can do as a fundraiser is to take great care of the donors you have.”
Amen … Amen … Amen!
However Katya then focused almost exclusively on the ‘thank you’ process, providing an excellent checklist on what makes for effective thank you’s.
But to me, ‘caring’ for donors involves a whole lot more than thanking them after the fact. Indeed, your pre-gift behaviour might be even more important … definitely more important than any boilerplate “good manners require a thank you, so here’s yours” wasted effort.
Katya does touch upon some of the other ingredients of “caring” for donors when she talks about ongoing communications. She mentions:
- Regular reporting to donors on their impact (even better if you can wrap a story around your report);
- Asking donors for feedback (asking for feedback on something specific and meaningful is far better than a tossed off “we welcome your feedback’); and,
- Including donor voices (which signals that you indeed listen to donors and appreciate what they have to say, not just what they give).
I’d add one more, respecting what your donors have already told you — from correct spellings and addresses to contact preferences and programmatic interests.
True donor appreciation begins well before the thank you.
Tom
2 responses to “Don’t Just Thank Them”
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
I agree with both you and Katya. At base, it’s all about building a relationship. That’s the key. Just as with any relationship, you listen. You respond. You give. You take. You thank for gifts received. And you keep on keeping on. It never stops. When it does, the relationship ends.
What Claire said. It’s far too easy for fundraisers to see their relationships with donors as a 1:XX relationship, when they should be looking at it as a 1:1 relationship. It’s not an institution-donors relationship; it’s a relationship between two people who care about the same thing enough to want to do something about it. Donors can sniff out a canned, non-reciprocal, no-true-emotion-present communication a mile away.
And just like I’m not eager to watch the kids of the mom who can’t be bothered to learn my name, I’m not eager to give my hard-earned cash to the organization that can’t be bothered to get my contact preferences right.