If You Must Deal With The Boss And Board
I guess I just started out in a grumpy mood this week, on Monday implying that for most fundraisers, hanging on to their donors was too demanding, beyond their ability.
Roger on Tuesday tried to find some good news in a Bloomerang study indicating that somewhat more nonprofits were monitoring their retention rates these days, an ‘accomplishment’ I treat as akin to tying your shoes before you run a race. Maybe it’s sad, but true, that our sector needs to begin giving prizes for tying our shoes.
I said as much in my Wednesday post, where I attributed woeful attention to donor retention to one simple reality … the incompetence of too many ‘fundraisers’.
Most of the comments on that post — mostly from consultants — deflected the blame away from actual fundraisers and onto the bosses … especially nonprofit boards.
So yesterday Roger gamely tried to urge everyone to refocus and educate their boards on what really matters — donor lifetime value. Of course that requires fundraisers to first master the ‘tying your shoes’ step … measuring retention. So don’t we seem to have a Catch-22 here?
Anyway, I got to wondering … why do the consultants tend to point the finger at boards and chief executives? Maybe because it’s the fundraising staff that hires the consultants. Let’s not bite the hand that needs us … and feeds us.
I’m not sure in the first place why one would need a board to approve measuring retention, but maybe I just led a charmed life during my fundraising and consulting stints.
Faced with a dumbfounded board or CEO, I’d suggest finessing the problem Dilbert style …
The sun has just come out for the first time in a week. I’ll try to be in a less snarky mood next week.
Tom
10 responses to “If You Must Deal With The Boss And Board”
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
Tom, my comment on the LTV post was to turn the responsibility for measuring retention, and sharing the importance of this with boards (and E.D.s if necessary), squarely back onto the development directors. That’s why development staff are hired — to be the inhouse experts in acquiring and retaining donors. N’est-ce pas?
Tom, I politely beg to differ.
In my past years as a consultant, I have found many fundraisers who knew the right things to do, totally understood retention – and worked toward it.
But board members and CEO’s wanted more and more high profile events – diverting resources from smarter fundraising strategies.
They didn’t want to invest in donor loyalty programs – because they didn’t understand it. The fundraisers were on a hamster wheel running and running to execute the wrong fundraising programs.
In survey after survey, I hear fundraisers say they can’t get agreement from above on their well-crafted fundraising plans. If there is a plan, the board members insist on the new bright shiny fundraising strategy and divert resources away from the plan.
It’s more of a culture thing in many nonprofits. That fundraisers are smart people, and the leadership is ignorant. More than one CEO has said to me “should I believe my fundraising staff?”
I don’t think you should beat up on the beleaguered fundraisers. Really now.
And in my experience, its the CEO and board members who hire the consultants. Not the staff.
Gail
I’m with Gail on this. Whitepaper to come.
Gail hit the nail on the head. I’ve had the same experience, over and over again, with my clients
Thanks, Gail! I second Mark.
We offer a class called Charting Your First 100 Days specifically created for new development directors. The first assignment is to measure your organisation’s donor retention rate. Lots of instruction for both enlightening your board and staff – and leading them in the fundraising and measurement processes.
And then, just today I had a conversation with a subscriber/student who reported that she was not allowed to interact with her board “They kicked the last dev. Director out of the board meetings….he monopolised.”
On the other hand, I also firmly believe that no one gives us permission to lead. We really need to take the bull by the horns.
I too side with Gail on this. And yes, I am also a consultant but that comes with the benefit seeing many organizations ‘in action’ from all perspectives. I have come to believe that good governance is one of the biggest challenges facing smart, thoughtful and effective fundraising. Boards (huge generalization I acknowledge) need to be more philanthropically literate. The fastest, brightest, most trendy fundraising ‘gadget’ is not the magic bullet. The grapes way is not the best way with the most impact and returns.
That being said, I do agree that there are too many fundraisers who don’t like to ‘ask’. They get mired in process and could also benefit from a healthy dose of philanthropic literacy – understand the deep difference and symbiosis between fundraising and philanthropy!
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that fundraisers deserve the blame. Any more than I’d say boards or E.D.s deserve blame. Rather, everyone deserves support. No on is born knowing how to do this stuff.
I see it all , and sympathize with all.
Development staff who are desperately trying to do the right thing, and getting rebuffed. After awhile, if I see no inclination on the part of their leaders to change, I counsel them to look for new jobs. I hate to sound jaded, but more and more I’m learning “you can’t make stupid people smart.” Move on and work with the smart people.
I also see executive directors and/or boards trying to do the right thing, but who don’t have a clue how to reach their goals. If they’re lucky enough to hire a smart fundraiser, they can work together to get to where they need to go. If not, then it’s the blind leading the blind.
I believe everyone in leadership needs more training and coaching (particularly the latter). It’s not fair to blame folks for failure when they’re is no consensus on what success looks like. Everyone needs support!
Hi there, Tom. I’m an expert in fundraising, governance, and strategic planning. Contrary to far too many fundraising consultants, I don’t approach governance as a strategy for fundraising. Governance is its own body of knowledge and different than fundraising. (Although corporate governance also includes a level of fundraising …. which is different that board members helping with fundraising outside their governance responsibility as a group.)
Anyway. I was digressing a bit. One of the biggest problems I experience in the NGO sector is the belief (by board members, bosses, and too many fundraisers) is that there is no true body of knowledge, research, expertise for fundraising. Everyone and anyone (who can tie their shoes!) can be a fundraiser. There’s no research, no academic and practical knowledge. Blah blah blah.
One of the biggest concerns I ever get from fundraisers is: “I read Craver and Ahern and Sergeant and Shang and the FEP and Joyaux and Perry and more and more. And my boss won’t sign the DM letter. And my board chair is one of the wealthiest people in the state and won’t acknowledge what I’m saying.”
And then, of course, there are the fundraisers who ask me to spell: The Agitator and Sergeant and are part of the grammar club and ignore retention and chase millennials and and and …
So much accountability to go around. And so much denial of research and fact. So much embracing of opinion.
It’s a mess. And there are days when you want to run away. Hell, you’re already in New Zealand.
So many of us need a so long vacation. With no connection to the NGO sector or fundraisers or bosses or boards or anything or anyone!!!!!!!
And then, just around the corner is that amazing NGO with the CEO who listens and the CDO who reads everything and explains it all to the board and staff colleagues and the boss. And fights and changes minds and builds culture and………
Love it, Simone! You nailed it!
Ditto – what Gail said (about what Simone said, smile)! And yes Tom, I am a consultant, though I was in-house for the first 14 years of my career and have frankly felt pretty much the same way about these challenges throughout all of my staff and consulting tenures.