Fire Them … Or Train Them
Yesterday Roger threatened to fire the direct response fundraising staffs at the top 83 charities in the US. Clearly, he was agitated!
We got this comment from John Whitehead at Water Aid in the UK: “I don’t know if things are similar in the States, but here in the UK I can see a decline in the classic DM skills that underpin so much fundraising, as staffers are seduced by the dubious efficacy of digital marketing.”
Then I saw posts from Joanne Fritz, Guide at About.com for nonprofit stuff, and from Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now bouncing off Joanne’s.
Joanne’s is titled How Not to Thank a Donor During a Disaster, and opens with the words … “I am speechless!” She goes on to describe how lousy a job a group of charities did of acknowledging contributions she made responding to specific appeals regarding the Japan disaster.
Jeff plays off of that, writing How to Create a Disaster Fundraising Disaster. He comments:
“These massive and all-too-common online flubs set back online fundraising (and fundraising in general) every time they happen. They show donors that giving online is frustrating, unrewarding, and often impossible.”
Dead right, Jeff.
Now, what in fundraising could possibly be more elementary than properly thanking a donor?!
Roger complains of complacency and laziness at the top. One also has to wonder … who’s training the folks coming along in the entry and middle ranks of fundraising? Especially in the realm of online fundraising.
Joanne, as she always does, provides plenty of resource links for fundraisers who want to get their ‘thank you’s’ and ‘disaster fundraising’ right.
But will anyone bother to use those resources to improve their capabilities?
Is there any penalty if they don’t? Unfortunately, maybe not in terms of their own jobs. But as Jeff says:
“Every one of us has a responsibility to get it right. Not just for our own organizations’ bottom lines, but for donors and nonprofits in general.”
Amen!
Tom
P.S. I’m surprised at the lack of comment on Roger’s post. Must be that Agitator readers unanimously think he’s on the money.
2 responses to “Fire Them … Or Train 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
This made me laugh – and feel like less of a grumpy obsessive
Especially if it’s such a monumental flub, and it has occured more than once, there should be a line drawn in these instances. Organizations should have a properly capable staff, it’s pretty much a requirement.