Honoring A Quiet Hero
I just received the Fall edition of Solutions, the newsletter of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
[Admission: I used to work there.]
An article titled Honoring A Quiet Hero jumped out at me.
It tells the story of an EDF donor, Anita Goldner, who had made small annual contributions to EDF for 25 years. When she died at age 58 from cancer, she left a gift of $1 million to EDF. According to EDF, the gift “came as a complete surprise to all. No one knew she had named EDF as a beneficiary in her will.”
This story, which most fundraisers have heard their own version of, raises two points.
First, you always wonder when your hear these stories, how could no one know the donor’s commitment or potential? The truth is, in the past, the tools and data didn’t exist to spot potential major donors like Anita from amongst thousands of modest donors to an organization, unless perhaps they displayed obvious wealth. [Anita didn’t … she taught college math for 30 years.]
The gifts just ‘happened’.
But now the analytic tools do exist, including some developed by my fellow-travelers at DonorTrends. Sure, they won’t identify all the prospects, but without question they will significantly improve your ability to target and cultivate.
Second, savvy development officers realize that the “small donor” pool supporting their organization is not a competitor, and not the poor country cousin. Instead, they recognize and nurture it as their seed bed. That was the case at EDF, with Paula Hayes as head of development. Paula always supported investment in the EDF membership program … because she knew how many major gift and bequest prospects were generated from that membership.
Does your development director appreciate that point? If not, tell her this story.
Tom
One response to “Honoring A Quiet Hero”
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
Also, I wonder: can we just accept the fact that some donors would like to stay under the radar until they’ve died? In the fundraising world we whip ourselves into a frenzy to find these people, and for what? If they had found her using sophisticated tools and approached her, how might she have received it. The presupposition is that she would gratefully give that $1m while she was alive.
But what if she would have considered it an invasion of her privacy? What if she doesn’t want all the attention and honor and glory? Is that caring for our donor in the right way?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t always try to seek out shy donors, or donors who are waiting for us to come to them. I also wonder if we don’t get panicked over all those hypothetical donors we should be attracting right now using fancy analytics AAAAAAHHHHH!