Enough about donor, donor, donor.

Organizations count too.

Otherwise, Molly or Mike could take their $25 apiece and save the world from hunger, global warming, Republicans — you name it — all by their little lonesomes.

I always find it difficult to disagree with Jeff Brooks. And yesterday, there I was, nodding along to his latest post, Think like a donor, agreeing with his assumptions about donors:

• They know a lot less about your cause than you do.
• They’re paying far less attention to what you have to saying than you are.
• You can’t educate or argue them into giving. Their hearts are the only way you can reach them.
• Most of them don’t really trust you.

Yep, yep, yep, yep.

But then his last assumption:

• They want to help solve a problem or make the world better in some specific way. They’re not so interested in supporting your organization. [My italics]

Nah! Yes and no. Too simplistic.

I had just finished reading an article my wife had written on happiness after a pile of literature research. She wrote: “We’re hardwired to help others. Whether it’s making a charitable donation, buying someone a gift, being emotionally supportive, or doing volunteer work, altruistic behaviour and the feelings associated with it lights up the same reward centers in the brain as food or sex, especially if the helpfulness promotes increased affiliation and social connection.”

I agree that when it comes to giving, emotion is the trigger. And that, before giving, donors do very little ‘research’ into the bona fides of the organization behind the appeal they’re staring at (as Roger wrote yesterday).

But I’d note that all this is more true at the outset of the relationship — the pre-relationship — between the donor and the organization. More true at the prospecting and lead generation stage.

But as time goes by, other considerations — still packed with emotion but having more evaluative content — begin to come into play.

“They want me to give again … but how did this organization treat me when I needed to change my mailing or email address?”

“They want me to give again … but, wow, look at what this other organization is doing in the same space!”

“Now they want me to give monthly … yeah, I’m deeply committed to the cause, but this is asking for more of an investment in this organization and its strategy and competence. Am I convinced about that?”

And beneath all of this increasingly ‘rational’ assessment, is the desire to belong. To be part of a team — a team of people like me — working collectively toward a worthy purpose.

Of course the ‘team’ is firstly my fellow donors. You might think of ‘the organization’ as the glue holding all those otherwise disconnected team members together. But the glue shouldn’t be invisible. The team needs a coaching staff.

I submit that the most valuable donors — the ones on their way to highest lifetime value — are betting on the coaching staff as much as they are their fellow players.

So sure, celebrate your donors and wear their shoes whenever you think about engaging them. But as you seek to build a relationship, don’t hide the organization they’d actually like to be part of and take pride in.

Tom