Online Fundraising: Red-headed Stepchild?
Agitator readers tend to reveal their true passion more often through direct emails to me and Roger than via public comments.
Here’s an example, name removed, on a topic that might stir your juices.
“Hello Agitator Editor,
I am an online fundraising professional who has been in the “business” for almost 10 years now.
I have a question for you: Do you ever write articles about senior executives’ reluctance to invest in or properly develop their online fundraising staff or departments?
I have found that although many .orgs are raising millions online, they are unwilling to promote, respect or appropriately staff those who facilitate this unique area of expertise called internet marketing.
Furthermore, many orgs are still lumping online fundraising under the management of antiquated direct mail managers, yet are expecting ground-breaking results.
Lastly, if you look at online fundraising job posts all over the country, you will see that most orgs still have no idea what to look for in a good candidate as it relates to a online fundraising manager, nor are they willing to appropriately compensate someone who could potentially manage, or strategize for their multi-million dollar program.
Forgive me for rambling, but I am truly agitated this morning. I am so tired of the glass ceiling in this field. In many ways, the “Agitator” is the voice of online fundraising professionals. There are many high-up executives who smugly read this column daily, and instruct their staff to make “this and that” adjustment to their efforts…all the while overlooking the big picture – which is you get what you pay for.
Side note- Some nonprofits in the DC area are ahead of the curve, listing VP of online fundraising positions, etc.
With all of this being said, the online fundraising industry as a whole continues to be ageist, and shortsighted to say the least. “Older” direct mail folks are mismanaging talent across the board, not investing in future leadership, and continuing to do what they know best – which is manage direct mail and treat online fundraising like the red headed step child.
As for me – yes, I am well compensated, but only because I stay in my position years at a time and earn raises … not because I am a seasoned professional, who is acknowledged for the skill sets required to manage a multi-million dollar program, i.e – strategic skills, graphic design, web design, analytics, and management.
Please do consider writing about this topic, if you haven’t already, as it will agitate many.”
OK folks … do you agree? Is online fundraising treated like a “red-headed step child” in your organization? Are “older” direct mail folks capable of managing a significantly different marketing channel?
Tom
P.S. I’m gratified that this writer sees The Agitator as “the voice of online fundraising professionals’. We probably write more that, at least on the surface, makes us sound like direct mail fossils. And we do believe there are some fundamentals of human nature that consequently play out in all direct response fundraising.
But I don’t disagree with this writer that online fundraising comes with its own unique challenges, and those beginning to excel in that arena should be acknowledged with greater responsibility and authority, as well as compensation. That said, the optimal direct response fundraising programs of the future will be skillfully integrated blends of all the channels donors now use to receive, respond to, and even create (their own) information. So, direct mail fundraisers and online fundraisers must get their heads together and smoke the peace pipe.
8 responses to “Online Fundraising: Red-headed Stepchild?”
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
Amen. This is the area that is probably the most rapidly changing in fundraising. I had the same challenge recently. The person with the title “Annual Giving Manager” had traditionally done direct mail, but was really a whiz at online strategies and evolved into that area more and more. Much more of her time was spent interacting with the marketing team than the fundraising team. Now the position reports to marketing, who reports to development. The marketing head, however, knows very little about direct mail fundraising. So… it’s confusing. A discussion is definitely warranted here, as I imagine org charts all over are whipsawing back and forth as we all try to figure this out.
I’m so agitated by this post, “…the online fundraising industry as a whole continues to be ageist, and shortsighted to say the least. “Older” direct mail folks are mismanaging talent across the board…”
Really, accusing the fundraising industry of being ageist? The assumption that experienced fundraisers who began their careers in direct mail are too old to learn the new techniques and strategies of e-marketing- and e-fundraising is just plain insulting.
Does the writer know what Roger and Tom’s roots are? Being pioneering direct mail fundraisers didn’t stop them from starting The Agitator and it hasn’t stopped them from getting the full picture.
To the writer – grow up and look past age at skills and expertise or your program will pay the price in other ways. It’s not age, it’s incompetence. Traditional techniques must go hand in hand with new and changing ones. Organizations ignore – or underinvest – in one or the other at their own peril. It has nothing to do with age and everything to do with best practices and competence.
I think Tom’s second PS comment hits the nail on the head – I completely agree that Fund Raising professionals should be recognized for their tangible contributions and that the skillful use of ALL channels is the ultimate goal. I would suggest that qualifications / skills are only valuable if they are delivering strong results. We find our clients are too often seduced by the glitz of ‘marketing’ including having an on-line presence only to find that the investment made does not return an equal or greater income (or other direct benefit). Amy Leveen’s ending statement is spot on – and I would add nothing to do with background, age or previous experience – everything to do with business savvy for utilizing the appropriate best practices and competency to do so effectively.
Everyone at any level should be recognized for the work they do – however if I read between the lines this is certainly an agitation to the writer that they don’t feel they are recognized and respected. I would ask the following questions: Is Direct Mail still the work horse for the organization? In other words does it bring in significantly higher dollars than online – if so then you need to show the value of how online can be a part of the entire fundraising picture not a competitor. As the online executive have you offered options on how to integrate online with other DR channels, such as an option for donors to recieve an instant email once a telemarketing contribution has been recieved? QR codes on a direct mail piece to drive donors to the website to view a video? Or a detailed Lead Generation plan showing how you can acquire consituients online and the projections for conversion at 1/3 the length of time of a DM acquisition? As one of the “old” marketers discussed I would argue that age doesn’t make a difference – fundraising is fundraising – and if someone brings ideas to the table – and finds a way to work within an organizational structure they will always be rewarded.
I completely agree with both Amy and Frances. I’d just add that an important characteristic, regardless of age, is an eagerness and willingness to learn.
For the young internet fundraiser that means going back to the “old” direct mail every bit as much as it means understanding the challenges of online fundraising for those who know their direct mail.
My department is so small, we don’t even have a budget for an online fundraiser, So the role of online fundraiser belongs to our whole team. We make do with our varied talents, knowledge, and experience. Bad idea? I don’t think so. We’re using our in-depth knowledge of direct marketing techniques to integrate our direct mail, telemarketing (both have been integrated for years), email, web, and social media marketing to raise more. One team of people working together to make sure it all works. What comes first, next, last? And how can we take it yet another step forward?
As a result, we raised significantly more online last year than in the previous 5 years combined. And we’re more determined than ever to make sure we think through the best use of every channel, how to use stories better, pre-test our direct mail copy in email, and plan our homepage messaging, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, and more.
Red headed step-child or long term foster care placement who needs and deserves to be “adopted” and made fully a part of the family?
I believe many organizations invested in online fundraising with a “we’ll try it and see if it works for us and then decide if we’ll keep it” philosophy years ago. Many loved the results and found a permanent place for online fundraising and continue to work with it to evolve the benefits. Others never fully moved past the “wait and see” attitude – even despite growth in the area.
This is evident in lumping it under direct mail in many cases – online giving is as much about donor giving preference as it is about structured campaigns, etc. I am working in a smaller organization that initially tracked online giving separately by GL Code (i.e. online gifts, direct mail gifts, event income, etc.). We are now realizing it’s about how the donor wants to give not how we want to segment the income- if a major donor prefers to do all their giving online that’s their choice but we know it’s still a major gift secured through relationship building by our gift officer and leadership volunteers. Our event fundraising is being shaped by opportunities which can only be successful in an online environment. Online giving is needing to be recognized across all fundraising areas.
While the original email may have looked at it through their personal perspective, they are right in that as a profession and our organizations do struggle with the role of online giving within the larger picture. How we evolve online fundraising and develop (and reward) expertise is messy and does not have a clear cut answer. Online fundraising should have a clear place to call its own.
Maybe we need to do a better job of formalizing its place in the fundraising family while acknowledging that we love all the kids.
While I understand some of the red-head’s comments, blaming others for your lack of success will get you nowhere – especially if you blame older people, which itself is ageist. Every generation must blaze its own path. Just because you haven’t been able to convince your senior management of the value of the web does not mean this “business” is rigged. Take some ownership of your life. You want to break the “glass ceiling”, go get an axe.