Fundraise Til We Drop?
I just read an article worrying about fundraising prospects in the post-Boomer world. Worryingly, it cited the Blackbaud study estimating that Boomers and older adults account for 69% of giving in the U.S. … and of course with the sub-text: they’ll start dying. There’s plenty of stuff to read about that particular Armageddon, so I won’t go there today.
But the article also mentioned staff turnover, and that did get me thinking.
Today’s oldest Boomer fundraiser is 70 years old, the youngest is 52. What happens when they (we) start dying out or, god forbid, retiring?
Now it’s pretty clear that when Roger and I crumble, we will be found keeled over at our keyboards, with the QWERTY keys embedded in our foreheads. We won’t be abandoning the profession voluntarily.
But seriously, how good is the follow-on generation of fundraisers (the whole crew of practitioners, not just the bright lights who read and comment on The Agitator and other top blogs), and how well — how systematically — are the ‘ancient mariners’ passing on their knowledge and experience?
What I expect is a tension between ‘technocrats’ (fundraisers well-versed in technique, new media channels, and — hopefully — analytics) and ‘intuitors’ (those with grounding in and a feel for the human, emotional, psychological aspects of fundraising, including storytelling). The former focused on ‘how’, the latter on ‘why’.
It seems to me easier to devise training paths and upskilling for the technocrats … and that’s great and should be done. But harder to fashion a program for teaching the intuitive … maybe honing that capacity just has to ‘happen’ over time amongst those temperamentally suited.
So take another look at the greyest-headed member of your fundraising team. How soon will they be gone? Or will they fundraise til they drop?! What can they teach in the meantime … and are they encouraged to do so? And what capacities will you be looking for in the person who replaces him or her?
Tom
5 responses to “Fundraise Til We Drop?”
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
Love your word “technocrats,” Tom. I’ve been railing against the focus on techniques (technocrats is a better word) since my first book back in 1997. See the monograph in my Free Download Library
I talk about great fundraisers as organizational development specialists instead of “mere” tacticians. And you’ve given me the right word….”technocrats.” Thanks!
As a thirty-something fundraiser, I strive to be a balance of both technocrat and intuitor, and I would argue that you can teach both, though the methodology differs. Teaching the technical aspects of our work is fairly straightforward. Teaching the “why” is more nuanced. Some of it can be done through proactively incorporating behavioral science concepts into fundraising curriculum will reinforce it. Whether we’re talking about formal programs in higher ed or conference programs, the emphasis tends to be on tactics. We need a better balance. Understanding how people make decisions and what motivates giving would help instill the intuitive aspect of fundraising. The other key piece, as you said, is seasoned fundraisers modeling intuitive practices and mentoring those growing into the profession. Should be a simple thing, but I hear far too often that there’s a lack of time, patience or both for doing so. Of course, it is a two-way street and newer fundraisers also need to recognize that they need to be lifelong learners, but I know of at least one member association where the list of fundraisers seeking mentors far exceeds the list of those willing to serve in that role. It takes all of us. Everyone has something to learn and everyone has knowledge to share.
You are so right about the intuitive side of fundraising. Much fundraising training often neglects fuzzy stuff like human behavior and psychology. But major gift training requires it.
As a long time veteran, I find that my presentation “Mastering the Soft Skills of Major Gift Fundraising” is very popular with younger fundraisers. They enjoy learning about the social niceties you need when dealing with major doors. Fun to share the subtleties with them!
I think we are perfect for one another, the young technocrats’ and the seasoned- best-practices veterans! We learn from each other, are inspired by each other, and I notice when we make donor calls together, the older donors seem to warm up quickly to the youngsters! Makes them think about their grandkids !? As for me, I love the combination and excitement of the new social media and appreciate the solid proven best-practices! Joy Olso
I typically describe this tension as art vs science. Fundraising is a wonderful combination of both, which is one of many reasons why I love it so much. Personally, I find it much easier to teach science than art.