Down With “Donors”!
Our DonorTrends colleague Kevin Schulman got a hair up his nose this week on the very concept of “donors.”
You might recall that a few days ago we noted Blackbaud’s report that a key global trend in fundraising was a shift from a “transactional” approach to “relationship management” approach.
Kevin has some strong views on the matter, as today’s Guest Agitator. Here they are …
Down with “Donors”
The biggest problem with nonprofits is the DONOR. Not that they exist or are relied upon for funding but because at some seminal moment, unrealized at the time, the nonprofit community through no formal vote, explicit agreement or vested authority, elected to call these critical people DONORS.
This fateful decision set off a devolving, reverse metamorphosis in donor relations that now resembles none of the hallmarks of a relationship, collaboration or partnership. Instead, donors are relied on for donations. Virtually every “communication” is a solicitation, a request for more with some bizarre presumption that altruism is the only motive for the DONOR, the only reciprocal need. And yet paradoxically, the vast majority of direct mail is a premium offer, which suggests this is a transaction based exchange – a rational, cost benefit calculation.
So which is it – a purely altruistic act on the part of a DONOR, a rationale exchange of goods for money or a nascent relationship withering on the proverbial vine?
Before delving into what building a relationship with a donor actually means, consider a simple, albeit two-part question, what else could we call Donors and might this change in vernacular have a disproportionate impact on how we view these people?
Here are a few alternatives: supporters, contributors, stakeholders, constituents, customers.
Before discounting customer out of hand, consider some of the synonyms for donor, courtesy of Visual Thesaurus – bestower, conferrer, subsidizer, Indian giver.
I’d take customer 10 times out of ten if there is even a fleeting chance that by calling them donors, it conjures up any of these associations. To extend this point of view, consider a stark observation; no DONOR on the planet engages in altruistic acts. They all want something – that something may be very abstract and ephemeral (e.g. to simply feel good, to know they are making a difference), but nevertheless real and ignored at your peril.
Do you want a relationship with your supporter, contributor, constituent? Don’t offer a quick yes unless you know why you are saying yes. Do you actually know what the benefits are of building that relationship? Have you quantified it? How do you systematically go about doing it?
The negative comparisons of the nonprofit community with its brethren in the for-profit space are often over-stated and unfair. However, in this case, they are light years ahead in knowing the answers to these questions. I hear the term “relationship” used a lot in nonprofit circles these days but rarely with any sense of what it means, the benefits or how to achieve it.
There is a large body of academic work dedicated to understanding and explaining what contributes to good and bad interpersonal relationships. In the for-profit marketing world these basic relationship principles have become the accepted framework for what is required to maximize profitability.
There are two main constructs in a healthy relationship, functional and personal. The former (functional) includes a sense of reliability and satisfaction. The latter (personal) includes factors like trust and affective feelings. When a supporter has a relationship with both functional and personal connections there is a sense of commitment to the relationship and the stakeholder will work to maintain it. The committed supporter, like the committed customer, will give more, do more, refer more and overcome obstacles to interact with the brand.
There are commercial models and metrics available to measure the strength of your supporter relationships, to know which fundraising, marketing and communication levers impact it and the empirical connection to the key behaviors you covet (contact us for more information). Using these gives you a well grounded, empirical foundation for knowing what truly drives the key behaviors of your most important supporters. You’ll quickly find it isn’t the next appeal. In fact, you’ll likely find you have very, very few committed supporters at all. Maybe they are committed to the cause, but don’t mistake that for something it isn’t.
Once that reality sets in and the empirical connection between strong relationships and key behaviors is established, the mind is free to drive innovation and come up with lots of good, smart ways to build relationships that have an enormous impact on the ROI of the next appeal.
To get there requires breaking down the sizeable barriers to this paradigm shift from donors acting altruistically to supporters in need of reciprocal care and feeding. Remember, your mission only exists because people elect to support it. Building a relationship with those supporters should be considered an obligation – one that happens to pay for itself many times over.
Kevin Schulman
P.S. To be sure, there are examples of nonprofits embracing relationship-building models. Here is one from the University of Texas (Austin), courtesy of Phyllis Freedman at Smart Giving.
9 responses to “Down With “Donors”!”
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
Ok, great piece all the way through the ps. Just when I was saying YES YES someone is truly articulating where the industry should be focused you site, as a great example, a marketing piece that doesn’t even use a persons name, the cornerstone of great relationship building. I can only imagine the excitement when the ability to merge personal data into printed materials hits the University of Texas. The good news for them is they will be able to seek some meaningful advice from folks using this innovative technology since the 1990’s.
Dear Valued Blogger,
Thank you for the article.
Indian giver? Really? What century is this? I don’t see other racist stereotypes on your little chart. Before you get all “I’m not down with political correctness” go wiki it so you understand the genesis of the term.
Kevin, love it!!
From the time I began my fundraising career five years ago, the word donor has driven me nuts. We call our partners our “investors” with all that it implies and it helps everyone (staff, volunteers, and investors – not mutually exclusive) to understand their role much better. Kudos for the article!
As a “donor” I am very clear about what I am doing by supporting an organization: I am INVESTING IN CREATING THE WORLD I WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN.
It’s that simple! I don’t want or need any “extras” from these organizations (bags, stuffed animals, cards, wrapping paper, address labels, calendars) but would appreciate a simple annual (or quarterly) report on how supporters’ funds are being used. The organizations’ accomplishments are my Return On Investment.
I also appreciate newsletters and magazines – especially from national conservation and humane organizations that offer news stories that the corporate news media ignores. I happily pass these on to my local library, friends, or other organizations (Boys & Girls Club, Senior Center) where they can both educate the public and possibly encourage others to give.
I hope that those organizations that I support see me as a contributor, supporter, and partner (this term is not in the above list) in their efforts to create a better world. In the future, I look forward to being a benefactor.
On the other hand, and in regards to how non-profits compare to the for-profit industry — I think that any cursory view of sites like Yelp or Chow or Trip Advisor will demonstrate the sad state of customer relations in the USA today. For-profit businesses annoy and exasperate their web-savvy customers at their peril!
As a “donor” I am very clear about what I am doing by supporting an organization: I am INVESTING IN CREATING THE WORLD I WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN.
It’s that simple! I don’t want or need any “extras” from these organizations (bags, stuffed animals, cards, wrapping paper, address labels, calendars) but would appreciate a simple annual (or quarterly) report on how supporters’ funds are being used. The organizations’ accomplishments are my Return On Investment.
I also appreciate newsletters and magazines – especially from national conservation and humane organizations that offer news stories that the corporate news media ignores. I happily pass these on to my local library, friends, or other organizations (Boys & Girls Club, Senior Center) where they can both educate the public and possibly encourage others to give.
I hope that those organizations that I support see me as a contributor, supporter, and partner (this term is not in the above list) in their efforts to create a better world.
On the other hand, and in regards to how non-profits compare to the for-profit industry — I think that any cursory view of sites like Yelp or Chow or Trip Advisor will demonstrate the sad state of customer relations in the USA today. For-profit businesses annoy and exasperate their web-savvy customers at their peril!
Great post by Kevin Schulman! It hits a number of sensitive spots.
While I may not share his apparent level of righteous indignation over the use of the word “donor,” I do agree with him on the need for developing a palpable sense of the relationship between the donor and the organization.
In terms of the conceptual and lexical semantics issue, I must confess a longstanding attitude of some ambivalence. I’ve chronically used the word “donor” over many years in the nonprofit world, but I also like the terms “benefactor” and “mission investor” (one of my own) and have preached their value to many clients over the past 15 years.
Sorry, Kevin, but I must admit that I’m not particularly fond of the term “customer,” especially for, let’s say, religious congregants or school alumni/alumnae. However, I will readily agree that the essence of marketing and customer-relations concepts from the for-profit world do translate into and apply quite logically and effectively in the nonprofit sector.
In the end, I think that vernacular adjustments or changes do not really affect the way we “view these people,” unless we really and truly understand in a profound way the meaning, importance and stewardship of the relationship we have with those same people. And that sort of brings us full circle in terms of Kevin Schulman’s post.
As for Joe Boland’s piece in Fundraising Success and Blackbaud’s impressive research and terrific sector reports, I’m left wondering what makes anyone think that a relationship-management rather than a transactional approach to fundraising is somehow a shift and a key global trend. This is nothing new!
Way back in the “Dark Ages” of institutional advancement (late 1960s and early 1970s) I was mentored by some very savvy folks in university fundraising who saw their job in dealing with donors or investors (or whatever you want to call benefactors), especially alumni, as one of managing, cultivating and sustaining an individual relationship on as personalized and donor-centric a level as possible.
The outcome of that process was the kind of activity that Phyllis Freedman documents in her blog post on an approach taken by the University of Texas/Austin — less, of course, the personalization gaffes that today’s amazing computer technology make far less excusable than in the 1960s and 1970s.
In the final analysis, and in terms of effective donor-relationship management, I think the most transformational truth in what Kevin Schulman posted was the following: “…. no DONOR on the planet engages in altruistic acts. They all want something – that something may be very abstract and ephemeral (e.g. to simply feel good, to know they are making a difference), but nevertheless real and ignored at your peril.” Even if it’s your own alumni/alumnae, pay close attention!
Thank you, Kevin and Tom!
Great rant, Kevin. Thanks! And the problem is even bigger. We view supporters as “donors” because we view the work as “fundraising.”
The whole damn industry needs a new name!
And while I agree with Raymond that changing the name doesn’t change the view, our words have power and NOT changing the name certainly doesn’t change the view.
Thanks again for an outstanding piece.
Thank you for passing along this well-written article.
One additional thought: another option for describing supporters is “members.” This term communicates ownership and participation, as well as contributions of time, talent, and money. This comprehensive view can be especially valuable when individuals are drawn to the organization because of its work to change a situation that needs improvement — or because they want to fix a wrong.
And use of the term “members” does not have to imply voting for officers. It embraces the concept of a group of people brought together for a common cause. Many organizations — especially advocacy groups — identify their supporters as members to reinforce that support is more than financial. It includes a voice, a vote, perhaps even a volunteer.
Thanks for a great blog.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
If you are going to refer to them by any other name is this somehow going to magically transform the issue? Don’t get me wrong it’s a great post, but are we really just splitting hairs here?