Tom and I had a productive last week with our series of posts on ‘what’ or ‘who’ is at fault when it comes to the issue of holding on to and enhancing — or destroying — the value of donors.

Tom tossed the first piece of tinder on the fire with his post Who’s Fibbing and Are We Getting Roasted indicating that no one really knows why we’re doing so miserably. Answers, in the form of both aspersions and kudos, were offered up in the form of Agitator reader comments thoughtfully tossed on the bonfire.

Never willing to let well enough alone, I then followed up with Doing The Same. Hoping for a Different Result pleading that we consider moving out of the age of witchcraft, hunch and conjecture … and then tossed the final log on the fire with WARNING:  You’re Prohibited From Contacting Donors After 1/1/17 . That post urged that all of us take these problems seriously and truly get into empirically figuring out what donors really, truly want and need to stay engaged.

Before I move on, let me be clear. We’re not toying with some ‘Chicken Little’ the-sky-is-falling alarm, although maybe it comes off that way to some. (Look at the comments from two bright fundraisers, Michael Rosen and Kevin Schulman on that post, for an honest drawing of distinctions.)

In Kevin’s words, the better analogy to the sky is falling is: “the sky is slowly sinking…. And the slowly sinking vs [immediately] falling sky may be a curse not a blessing. As Roger notes, nothing crystallizes the mind like having a gun to your head (or a hangman’s noose).”

Kevin also notes that dealing with this problem doesn’t require turning the battleship overnight, but it does require a quite different mindset in terms of turning our attention to understanding far more than we do now about, for example:

• Why donors give in the first place?
• Why do they stick around?
• What, under our control causes them to stay — or leave?
• What are their needs and preferences?

I can’t think of another consumer-oriented sector of our size or importance that has fewer answers to these sorts of questions.

SO … where to go?

Here’s what’s next. Tom and I hope you’ll actively participate. (Fear not: for readers who believe the sky isn’t falling or even sinking and could care less about the longer-term future, we’ll continue offering up other goodies along the way as well.)

First, we’re going to begin tomorrow with a look at the 2016 Fundraising Effectiveness Project Survey and use that as our sort of benchmark on where things stand. (By the way, the news this year is better than the year before.)

Next we’re gonna pick up on the issue of finding possible solutions to donor retention and ‘donor centricity’ issues. What’s the current state of thinking about ‘donor centricity’?

I suspect ‘donor centricity’ is a bogus term that camouflages the real issues. Others clearly disagree. Some even make a living mouthing the term. Is it a fad, as Nick Elinger’s post over at Direct To Donor wonders out loud in DonorCentricity: It’s Only A Fad If You Aren’t Doing It

According to some reports, the current ‘thought leaders’ meeting at the DMFA’s Leadership Conference seemed to conclude that at least a partial solution lies in the ‘volume’ of stuff we dump on donors and the idea of reducing it. Does it really? Does this simple-to-execute tactic really matter, or is it just a step that doesn’t require much thought or work? There’s plenty of evidence that cutting back on quantity and frequency doesn’t affect net income; in fact it improves. But apparently the ‘volume-deniers’ aren’t willing to buy that. I guess, like oil companies, some of these folks profit from the volumes produced.

In short, lots of questions over this donor centricity thing. But then, the fundraiser’s life has always had so few easy answers. Nonetheless, how much some long for the good old tactical days of orange vs. blue envelopes, long vs. short letters, the number of “you” pronouns in a letter.

What questions do you have?

Roger

P.S.  Whatever your questions the ultimate ‘explanation’ is in this video:

P.P.S. On Thursday and Friday this week Sean Triner and I will continue the webinar series on Mid-Level/Mid-Value Programs. This one: “The Maths of Mid Value Donors” ($89) will be practical, useful and immediately applicable.

Who should attend?

CFOs, CEOs, fundraising bosses and anyone who wants to make more money for their cause by doing things just slightly different, but with an understanding of the math and priorities involved. It’s just not all pretty stationery and thank you calls.

Below are all the timezones, cities with dates and times. You can pick which ones you want to use that are the most relevant to your audience.

Americas (Atlantic & Central) edition
Thu 19th May 12.30 PDT – US West Coast
Thu 19th May 14:30 CDT – Mexico City
Thu 19th May 15.30 EDT – US East Coast
Thu 19th May 16.30 BRST – Rio De Janiero, Brasil
Thu 19th May 20.30 BST – London, UK
Fri 20th May 05.30 AEST – Brisbane, Australia
Fri 20th May 05.30 AEDT – Sydney, Australia

You can sign up here.