Gift Receiving vs Fundraising
Yesterday the Chronicle of Philanthropy was reporting $210 million raised in the first six days after the Haiti earthquake (for comparison, $457 million was raised in the same timeframe after Katrina).
The lead sentence of their story caught my eye: "Contributions continue to pour in for relief efforts in Haiti." Then they referred to the "pace of giving" and the "outpouring of gifts."
And the thought occurred to me …
Can we call any of this "fundraising" … or is it simply gift receiving?
As I see it, "fundraising" involves presenting a case to a pre-selected (or somehow targeted) audience, connecting the needs and solutions of a cause or charity (and its end-beneficiaries) to some corresponding interests and needs on the part of a prospective donor, along with a convenient means to donate.
That is not what is happening with respect to Haiti relief. Here, donors are responding spontaneously, emotionally to human suffering … brought directly to their attention by every conceivable form of media. All the various relief groups are doing is holding out the bucket for the donations to drop into.
Nothing especially demanding in that, in fundraising terms.
The Red Cross and other mobile campaigns are the epitome of gift receiving. In the case of the Red Cross, an especially strong brand and an innovative collection bucket.
That’s all it takes (and even the brand isn’t crucial) in disaster response gift receiving.
Don’t get me wrong … I’m glad all of these humanitarian groups are out there, but personally, I appreciate them more for what they will accomplish on the ground in Haiti than for "fundraising."
"Fundraising" will occur — if it does — when the Red Cross converts any of its presumably 2.1 million $10 gift givers into actual donors. Same for all the others now processing gifts.
Of course, to the people in need, my distinction is totally — and rightfully — meaningless. And I’m enormously gratified that serious dollars are flowing into the pipeline to bring them the immediate support they desperately require. That’s what’s important.
For that they can thank the innate generosity of the American people (and others around the world, to be sure).
Fundraisers, on the other hand, will earn their thanks when they manage to sustain the flow.
Tom
5 responses to “Gift Receiving vs Fundraising”
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
An interesting distinction – and one that I think the Red Cross already recognizes. I donated last week through the Red Cross and have already received two emails, one last week and one today, incorporating thanks with an update on the relief effort. This is in addition to the initial gift acknowledgement.
They are also targeting their emails. I was already on their email distribution with a different email address not connected to my most recent donation. The first relief effort update that I received that went to the email connected to the donation referenced my donation; the update that went to the email not connected to the donation asked me to give.
My biggest concern is whether there will be any accountability THIS TIME for this outpouring of gift giving. We all rememder TOO well the issues and controversies surrounding the Tsunami, Katrina and other tragedies. The Red Cross has a heavy lift to prove to me that they can be trusted to put all these millions to the use for which they were intended by the giver and not swallow them into the maw of “administration and operations and whatever.”
I for one will be looking for and demanding an accounting of the results of all this – especially because the people of Haiti, now more than ever before – need a long term commitment of generosity and effective delivery of assistance to literally rebuild their country.
I so agree with Andrea Stander about accountability for all the money so generously donated. The Red Cross can email thank you ’til doomsday to every donor, but no one knows where that donation is going. If I hear that the Adminstative staff has received an increase in salaries at any of these agencies I am going to be so upset — and extremely disappointed.
I would love to see a game plan that goes five years in the future. A promise that the country of Haiti will be rebuilt, that those who have suffered physically with amputated limbs and lost families get long-term help from all countries — not just ours.
Two thoughts:
Maybe the challenge for organizations is to make their case for giving so compelling that people respond with a sense of urgency and immediacy that is somewhere on the same continuum as it is for Haiti relief.
The real fundraising will come in what relief organizations do to sustain and grow the relationships they’ve created through their Haiti relief programs,
Your distinction between “fundraising” and “gift receiving” is puzzling.
Creating, and then activating, an infrastructure for mass response to an extraordinary circumstance is, in my view, a perfectly legitimate category of fundraising.
Why should these $10 texters and others have to commit to a long-term relationship with the ARC to merit the appellation”donor” ?
Helping a country devastated by natural disaster is “real fundraising.”
What it isn’t is institution building.
But why should it be?
I wrote a lot more about this at my own blog: http://tacticalfundraising.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-can-we-learn-from-haiti.html