Is Your Organization Really Donor-Centric?
There’s a quick test to determine whether a fundraising organization is truly donor-centered or not.
Sadly, most groups fail the test … miserably.
The test is simple: who in the fundraising/communications department has the most power?
If, as is so often claimed (“we’re donor-centric”), the donor is truly the king or queen, then power will reside with those charged with interacting the most with current donors.
However, when you look at who’s the highest paid and has the most power in most nonprofit shops it’s usually those who sell and market to potential donors, those who re-solicit them, those who run the marketing and communications efforts and, strangely, sometimes even those who count and analyze the money.
This pattern reflects the old model of pretending that the donor is king/queen. Of pretending that the donor is more important than anything else. Unfortunately, this old model is designed mainly to extract more and more money from the donor while ignoring the donors’ needs for two-way communication, and proper service and support — genuine donor-centricity.
Of course it will take some time for this broken old model to wither and die. But, wither it will. The organization that remains relevant and thrives will be organized to deliver excellent experiences, service and support to its donors.
Doing this will require a radical shift in mindset and staffing for most organizations. A transformation like this begins by prioritizing the power and importance of those who deliver donor experience. And that begins with support. Because support — serving the donor’s needs — represents the new model.
The culture of the old model is that everyone is there to support senior management. Pleasing top management comes first. The culture of tomorrow’s organization requires upending that traditional hierarchy and organizing to please the donor.
No more disrespecting the donor by turning ‘donor service’ over to an intern or part-timer to answer the phones at lunch. No more outsourcing support to ‘save money’, or because you don’t care, or don’t have the core competence to properly look after your donors.
Five years ago, in a post titled WANTED: A Roll of Human Duct Tape, I outlined the importance of organizations making a shift in mindset and adding top new positions like ‘Chief Donor Officer’.
“Frankly, I can’t think of a more important new position for survival and growth of a nonprofit in today’s world.
“By identifying and giving authority to a high-level person who is responsible for integration — one who has line authority across the various departments (donor service, communications, marketing, online, fundraising, etc.), the organization is signaling that its top priority is giving the donor what the donor wants and needs.”
Take the test. Is your organization really donor-centered? If not, what steps are you taking to transform it to meet the future?
Roger
5 responses to “Is Your Organization Really Donor-Centric?”
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
Roger: in 2013 Seth Godin wrote a post called “Understanding the Critical Path,” in which he described a project that absolutely-positively-had-to-ship-on-time. To that end (his idea) he had everyone on the critical path, regardless of their position, wear a green button. Non-criticals wore a red button. When red meets green, red’s goal is to help however possible. It’s extreme, true… and it was for a limited-duration project. But it makes me think of the radical shift in mindset you outline. Donors drive the bus. Not focus groups. Not boards. Not the executive committee that thinks they should edit that appeal. Donors. Period. The question is, who’s on that critical path to delivering the donor experience, and… as importantly… who isn’t?
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/11/understanding-critical-path.html
Most organizations don’t want to let go of the notion – we know what’s best for our donors. It’s easier, but deadlier to continue on the path of least resistance.
Brilliant post, Roger (and comment, Lisa).
A few years back I began making two online gifts a week to organizations within my own database, and gauging the response (phone call, email thank you, direct mail thank you, followup of any kind). One organization stood out. My $10 gift warranted a thank you call from their executive director – FIFTEEN MINUTES later. Their systems alerted her to a gift from a new donor. I am now a monthly donor to that organization.
Truly understanding donor-centricity organization-wide: this is the focus of my work.
H Roger,
Am I the only one who has seen the emergence of the ‘brand manager’? Someone highly paid, who’s responsible for upholding the ‘brand values’ of the charity?
First, they have no KPIs against which they are judged.
Secondly, they don’t take into account fundraising. Connecting donors with the cause. They are concerned with the ‘brand’ of the charity.
And so thirdly, they are, more often than not, at odds with the fundraisers. An obstacle that is, to my mind, totally counter-productive. Surely CEOs and trustees should ask how to maximise income for the beneficiaries, in a way that does not jeopardise the values of the charity?
When will charities learn that donors plus fundraising equals more for the beneficiaries?
Agree, agree, agree! Happen to have posted an article today on subject of integrating donor-facing functions, like fundraising and marketing. http://www.clairification.com/2016/02/08/integrate-fundraising-content-marketing-nonprofit-survival/ Your donors don’t care about how you’re structured. They only know ONE organization.
I’ll continue to write on the subject of a gratitude culture or philanthropy culture or customer-service culture — call it whatever you wish; just do it! My enlightened boss used to call me the “Director of Donor Experiences!”
Love the post Lisa cites from Seth Godin. Donors are very much one of nonprofits’ central raisons d’etre. Richard Perry and Jeff Schrefels of Veritus Group often write eloquently on this subject, exhorting organizations to put donors in their mission statements.