I had just read Tom’s Telefundraising Reveals The Pulse containing Colin Bickley’s terrific analysis of the state of telefundraising, and some very helpful comments from Agitator readers, when up popped this headline in my news feed:

Stanford Hangs Up on Telemarketing—Will Others Follow?

In a Chronicle of Philanthropy piece, writer Timothy Sandoval reports on Stanford University’s decision to abandon its annual giving phone-athon employing student callers.

Obviously the decision — announced in a humorous memo (see below) — is ricocheting around the higher ed and other nonprofit sectors. Those interested in the pro and con views of higher ed fundraisers should read the entire piece.

What impresses me most is not the predictions that the phone-athon, and maybe even all telefundraising, is dying or dead, but that here is a brilliantly executed case of an institution actually listening to its constituency.  Not only listening, but taking action based on what it heard and learned.

Let’s face it. Most organizations don’t care enough about their donors to go to the trouble of finding out and then acting on what their donors needs and preferences. Yet most spout how donor-centric or donor-focused they are.

Earlier this summer I unloaded a rant On Ignoring Donors’ Needs and Preferences. Why failure to truly listen to donors and act on their preferences erodes an organization’s future.

And so organizations keep mailing more and more regardless of their donors’ preferences. And calling more and more regardless of their donors’ preferences. And when this more and more model proves ineffective as donors head for the exits and retention rates drop, we blame it on the channel. As in “direct mail is dead” or “telefundraising just doesn’t work all that well”.

In truth, it’s our mindset, apathy or unwillingness to learn and change that’s at fault.

I hope you’ll read and discover for yourself some of the insights offered both by the Chronicle piece and also in a post titled Death to the Phonathon written by Lynne Wester, a donor-relations consultant.

Lynne’s post showcases the communications Stanford sent to its alums and is worth a read just for the communications in this case study. But to me, the most important message is how far too many organizations simply turn a deaf ear to their donors’ preferences.

Many fundraisers will look to the Stanford decision as confirmation of their inherent personal prejudice against telefundraising. Nothing could be more mistaken.

As you’ll see from the comments by Joe White,  Mary Cahalane and Michael Rosen  to Tom’s Pulse post, effective telemarketing is still a first rate way to build donor commitment and to learn about donor preferences. Sure, the marked increase in mobile phones, and blocked or non-existent land lines make it more difficult, but still well worth the effort.

The problem with the medium is that most organizations won’t spend the time or develop the skill required to get the most out of it in. Nor will most demand top quality reporting on donor comments and preferences that every telemarketer is capable of collecting  — and be willing to pay for that critical reporting.

The days of simply signing purchase orders, pitting one telefundraising firm against another on a lowest price basis are history.  However, those willing to treat –and pay for — quality telemarketing can reap large benefits.

We need to place top priority on honoring our donors’ preferences. And that means changing the mechanistic ‘more and more’ assembly line nature of most fundraising communications in favor of listening and changing to meet our donors’ preferences.

The Stanford decision is but one example of what the future should look like. Increasing amounts of empirical research show clearly that we can indeed raise more by annoying our donors less.

The question is: Will we ignore the signs of donor discontent and blindly steer our broken model of ‘ask more, raise more’ into a bleak future?

What are you learning about your donors’ preferences and what being properly donor-centric requires?

Roger