Our Job Is to Piss You Off
And get you thinking.
Apparently we’re succeeding, judging from the thoughtful comment by Tom Ahern in response to my post on feedback.
Tom takes umbrage with my snarky and no doubt intemperate comments on what I described as somewhat superficial approaches to ‘donor centricity’, whatever that is.
First, let me apologize for any language that came across as either vacuous or hyperbolic. As a copywriter I’m embarrassed if I wasn’t clear.
Let me try again.
I’m not opposed — in fact I’m a cheerleading fan — of effective efforts to focus on the donor. And few in our trade have done more of this than Tom. (Can you even begin to imagine the sacrifice involved in getting on airplane after airplane to visit and speak and preach at local AFP chapters. That’s a lot of peanuts, trail mix, lousy coffee and waiting lines. Grueling.).
When Tom insists that the ‘you’ pronoun is important, I completely agree. And when he lays out his formulae for winning donor newsletters, I applaud.
All of these recommendations that Tom and others who focus on welcoming, informing, recognizing and otherwise praising and involving the donor are absolutely essential. And the Tom Aherns of our world tell you how.
Bravo!
Part of my job is to thank Tom. To recognize his work and the soundness of his advice.
My role is not to kiss his ass.
The point of my post on feedback was not to snipe or criticize those who focus on donors, but merely to point out that all this good effort simply doesn’t go far enough when it comes to being donor centric.
And, this is where the misunderstanding comes in; we simply should not be satisfied by thinking these tactics are enough. They aren’t.
As far as they go they’re great, and you’ll be wise to follow this advice. But the advice is incomplete and it’s not Ahern’s or any other expert’s job to complete the circle.
What it ignores is abundant evidence and research of why donors quit. Why they’re frustrated. And most importantly, evidence of how you can do a much better job dealing with ’em. As in changing the abusive frequency of appealing to them … presenting them with the correct offers … and, of course listening to them. Empirically, all these count for more than simply thanking them or inserting ‘you’ pronouns.
Our job here at The Agitator is to point out what we think is missing and what other elements of domorcenricity you should be thinking about.
That’s exactly why we pointed out that an essential missing ingredient is seeking donor feedback.
Or, in other posts, the demonstrable, empirically proven, fact that mailing less will actually raise more money.
Or directing you to processes and technology that will help you spot those actions your organization is taking that either helps donors stay or drives them away.
Tom (and dozens of others) including myself are copywriters by trade. We do have good and terrific instincts. And we do read, study and do our damndest to stay up to date with trends.
But nothing in our experience and self-taught careers can equal specific research and empirical findings.
So when The Agitator reports that mailing less, raises more, we’re not giving you our hunches and instincts. We’re reporting facts and studies.
We’ve reviewed case studies, reported on them and hope you’ll give them consideration.
Because The Agitator is affiliated with sister companies DonorTrends, DonorVoice and TrueGivers, there is, of course, a commercial connection. And we make that clear whenever we report research findings. Of course these companies are in the business to make money, just as Tom Ahern and most of our readers are. But the profit motive either in Tom or our sister companies’ case doesn’t equal intellectual corruption.
Tom Ahern makes his living preaching, presenting and writing. Thank heaven he does because the world would be poorer if he didn’t. If we publish thoughts and findings that challenge his opinions, we have no intention of challenging his livelihood. After all, we’re using some of our resources to share other thoughts with you.
Whenever we challenge the status quo and sometimes piss off folks like Tom, it’s not that we’re saying he’s wrong or his wisdom isn’t valuable (it absolutely is). We’re simply saying it may be incomplete and sometimes there’s evidence to the contrary.
This is the process by which the world moves forward. And why we not only piss off Tom, but hopefully, a whole bunch of other talented folks as well.
That’s our job here at The Agitator.
Roger
9 responses to “Our Job Is to Piss You Off”
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
At the risk of pissing you off Roger, I have to say I’m pissed off that you’ve pissed off that Tom Ahern. But I’ll get over it, and on reflection have to say I wish more people were more pissed off more of the time. Anger’s a powerful emotion and we fundraisers, as a sector, have got so much to be pissed off about. Half our problem is we see the state of our profession as business as usual and don’t get pissed off nearly enough about all that’s going wrong with it. We should all be pissed off, permanently. Then maybe things might change.
If the Agitator doesn’t piss people off fairly consistently, it should change its name. How about the Equivocator? Or the Fence-sitter?
Don’t waver, Craver. Keep pissing us off.
Anger and perhaps fear are two of the biggest motivations to change. So I delighted to see a few posts regarding focusing on the donor bringing so many comments.
We have the honor of working with very small, small and medium size nonprofits engaged in fundraising. In most of those cases one truly dedicated person who is WILLING to try a new approach or more importantly a new follow-up with existing donors can create a world of change!
I have personally watched certain organizations raise their donor retention rates from 35% to 60% in just a year or two by honestly building relationships. This is especially true when the donor retention rate is applied to $1,000 and up donors!
The site is called The Agitator, not The Detractor, The Derogator, or The Deprecator. I think there’s a line between stirring shit, and throwing it. For me, the previous post crossed that line…
“Don’t insult the reader. Find a common enemy instead.”
These nine words were some of the first feedback I received as a newbie copywriter, and I never forgot them. They come screaming to mind today.
We have a common enemy, Roger.
Its heart is plummeting retention. Its soul is lack of trust. Its lifeless eyes are poor practices. It limps along on lousy metrics, swayed by shiny objects. Its cracked lips never utter words of gratitude. For some, its stiff hands send too much mail. For some, far too little.
Your role is not to kiss Tom’s behind. Or any of your reader’s hind quarters, for that matter, including mine. It’s your blog, paywall and all, after all.
But to imply (or, as with Thursday’s post, directly state) that what we as donor centrists are doing is merely gut instinct and window dressing does a grave disservice to the entire sector. To be frank, for me it started with “The Dangerous Dictum of Mail More, Make More,” when it was implied that I had no actual results to show for my advice — which if anyone saw, for one, the donor retention case study we presented at AFP 2016, will know is total crap.
I’ve tried to be respectful. I still will. However, I’m with Tom Ahern and Adrian Salmon.
We are here because we WANT to hear what you have to say. We want to understand about donor identities and surveys and how we can help our clients — many of whom are growing and doing what they can in truly sucky conditions — to adapt what you say, even a little. We are gathering results every which way we can to justify and prove that what we’re doing works. So please don’t refer to the 70% retention rate they busted their butts to achieve as fundraising eye candy. Please don’t imply that thank-you letters on pretty paper are laughable without seeing the handwritten notes from donors that we get in return. Please don’t call B.S. on our single-version donor centric newsletters until you hear the story of the legacies it helps generate.
We are the foot soldiers. Show us what’s new and what’s out there, please. We want to learn.
But please don’t meet our hard work with insults, derision, and condescension.
There is a common enemy, Roger. And it is not us.
Sad to see this trail of comments. I’ve immense respect and admiration for all who have posted here. I’ve believed and continue to believe that we are all on the same team – and its a team I’m deeply proud to be a part of.
Fundamentally, all these issues are facets of what it means to be donor centric. I don’t much like the term either but for me what its about is giving at least as much thought to the needs of our donor in fundraising communications as we do the needs of our beneficiary. How many of us allocate time at meetings to reflect on how our communications will make donors feel today – or could make them feel if we designed them better.
I disagree with Roger about the use of the YOU pronoun. There is ample evidence from social psychology that this does impact significantly on how people feel. In one mode of communication the organization is taking the credit – in the other it is the donor. At issue here is the extent to which our charity ‘relationships’ can help us fulfil our fundamental human needs. And they’re fundamental because we all have them. No-one is exempt. Two of those needs are the need for competence (which in the philanthropy space is competence in expressing our love for others) and need for connectedness. I hope when I spell this out I make it clear how YOU is an important phrase. At least it should be if we care about the lived experience of our donors’ philanthropy.
I also don’t buy generalizations – because I’m an academic. When we did work for PBS we were told – a philanthropic ask won’t work. They said ‘we tried it and it didn’t work.’ As though there were only one very specific letter that could have been mailed – one very specific way of asking. So for me suggesting that less communication is good falls into the same trap. It may be – or it may not be. It surely depends on what one is sending. Sending me one less crappy and largely irrelevant mailpack will doubtless impress me – but giving me one more opportunity to experience a deep human connection and the joy of loving others will surely not.
I think Roger is right about feedback – but if I may – that too is a little generic. The sector generally doesn’t think about feedback in a smart way. Donor Voice may – I’m not familiar with it enough to have a view – but here’s what I mean. If you’re soliciting information from donors it is better (at the beginning of a relationship) to stick with superfical details – what they like about you, what their interests are etc. And obviously that can be used to great effect in subsequent segmentation. From social psych we know that to respond to this ‘superficial’ level of sharing we can make people feel good when they realize they have been listened to. So to impact on the relationship it is not enough to simply pose questions, one has to close the loop for the donor
Later in the relationship one can seek more personal disclosures – perhaps asking donors what their support means to them or asking them to share personal stories of how they are connected with the cause. In making people feel good about this kind of ‘disclosure’ the goal must be to close the loop by making people feel they are cared for. That sounds like semantics – it is not. Listening is not the same as caring.
There is much other learning that could be applied to our fundraising – but of course it isn’t because as a profession we still don’t value the body of knowledge that should be informing our work. We all know how to build relationships – right? Its so easy – so intuitive – there is nothing meaningful to learn.. right…?
Yeah — right !
What’s great about this team is that we all know just how complex it is – and we all bring something very distinctive to the table.
Should have been
“but giving me one LESS opportunity to experience a deep human connection and the joy of loving others will surely not.”
It’s been interesting to see so many people I respect deeply in such a vigorous debate. As a former (recovering, with the occasional relapse) debater, I’m a firm believer in smart people making smart arguments based on their view of the facts (not their own facts — that’s a whole ‘nother thing). It makes all of us better. Even someone who is wrong (in our opinion) helps by clarifying what we believe on a subject.
So, far from being horrified or offended or the like, I’ve been reinvigorated by the discussion, especially because it centers around a (perhaps the) fundamental underpinning of fundraising — how we treat donors.
The odd thing is that I think most of the points have been saving similar things — just describing different parts of the elephant. My two contentions of consensus:
1. A “you” focus in communications is a necessary condition of donorcentricity; it is not a sufficient condition.
One need only read a poorly written donor newsletter to see that we can’t declare victory on even this seemingly simple point. I read one the other day from a nameless organization (to protect the guilty) that mentioned the donor once, on the third page, second story, eighth paragraph. That’s a sin, and not a minor one.
Neither, however, would changing these communications to have 10% of the words being you be a total solution. For a simple example, if you have two donors, one who is dying of the disease you are working to end and the other in the “there but for the grace of God” camp, and you send them the same “you are making a difference by helping people with this dread disease, raising awareness in the general public, and working to find a cure” language, you aren’t honoring why at least one and probably both of these people are giving. Likewise, when you are asking the person who just donated to tweet about the great impact they’ve made, you might be ignoring the fact that they just spend 30 minutes trying to navigate your online donation form.
Put bluntly, the person at the DMV can ask you by name how your day is and smile — that makes the experience better. But if they don’t care about the answer and you’ve just been waiting in a line for the third time after they lost your paperwork, it isn’t enough.
2. Focus on the donor isn’t a destination; it’s a journey. Even the worse of us have hope. Even the best of us have miles to go. We face time, money, management, and mental energy constraints every day. We aren’t going to get this perfect. There is no perfect.
What we are continually striving for is a better state of broken: broken less and broken for fewer people.
That means when you take a step — deleting the “big check” photo from your site, adding a survey to assess experience, focusing a piece’s story on the donor and not on the logic model for the charity’s program, etc. — there should ever be two reactions:
1. Congratulations
2. What’s next?
We can all be better fundraisers, better relationship builders, better change makers.And debates like this one are part of how we get there.
If I’m wrong, let me know — I’d love to discuss it with you!
Bravo, Nick!
“Focus on the donor isn’t a destination; it’s a journey.”
I let my subscription to the Agitator slide a couple of weeks ago so when I saw on social media that the headline of the article that set this hare running was ‘Donorcentricity – the missing ingredient’, my first thought (having read only the headline and not the whole article) was:
How can ‘donorcentricity’ be missing from fundraising when everyone has been banging on about doing it for at least the past 15 years? If fundraisers still aren’t doing it, then that has to be either because they don’t know about it (despite all the blogs, books, course etc) or it doesn’t work – if something is not working out in practice, then that’s probably because there’s a flaw in the theory.
Of course, I know that I missed the point because I hadn’t yet read the article. It’s not that donorcentricity is missing from fundraising, but that something is missing from donorcentricity.
However, having resubscribed, I can now see that post, its associated comments, this rejoinder from Roger Craver about the need to piss people off, and the comments on this blog, are not really about donorcentricity at all: they are about how we know what we claim we know in fundraising, and how we challenge and criticise those who we think are wrong.
First addressing Roger’s contention from the first blog that unless you are collecting and collating feedback, then you are not ‘donorcentric’. On a semantic point, that’s a conditional argument that states that IF you are NOT collecting feedback you are NOT donorcentric. The obverse of this is that if you are collecting feedback, then you ARE donorcentric.
That may not be true, because it all depends on how you use that feedback. If all you are using it for is to segment donors so you can better fundraise TO them, then that isn’t very ‘donorcentric’. Rogare’s review of relationship fundraising theory drew a bit from academic thinking in public relations, which says there are ‘symmetric’ and ‘asymmetric’ ways to build two-way relationships with people. The symmetrical way requires you to use their feedback to change your own behaviour, not just use it for better marketing. And Adrian Sargeant’s comment above provide some more context for different types of feedback you’d want to get at different stages of a relationship, again drawn from social psych.
You could spend a lot of time and effort getting feedback, and still not be very ‘donorcentric’.
The second thing to come out of the way Roger defines ‘donorcenticity’ is just that, the way HE defines it – that you ARE donorcentric IF you collect feedback.
That just leaves it open to someone else to say, well, I define donorcentricity a different way so I think you are wrong. This is actually what Roger has done: he thinks people who conceptualise donorcentricity in terms of ‘donor love’ are wrong.
And there’s the nub of the problem. What is ‘donorcentricity’? What is relationship fundraising? I wouldn’t say ‘donor love’ is ‘bullshit’ but it’s a very nebulous concept, isn’t it? I’m really not sure what it’s supposed to mean.
• Is ‘donor love’ a synonym for relationship fundraising and/or donorcentricity?
• If so, the why bother with it?
• If not, how is it different? What does it add that RF doesn’t? How is this evidenced?
• What do we mean by ‘love’ – philia, agape, ludus, pragma – or is ‘love’ being used as a kind of catch all for ‘treat donors really, really nicely’?
Some of things I’ve read on Twitter and in comments about ‘donor love’ in response to these articles do sound a bit like the aphorisms you used to find on those management posters in the 80s that showed elephants balancing on balls.
I’m not saying that ‘donor love’ is ‘bullshit’ (any argument I had against ‘donor love’ would be set out in terms such as I have used above), but it does sound like a buzzword.
As Simone Joyaux says in response to the original post, as we are not a profession, we don’t learn a formal body of knowledge where concepts such as these are defined and laid out with the theory behind them properly explained.
So we’re reduced to gainsaying each other with ‘my theory of relationship fundraising is better than yours’, and getting upset when someone slags off what we believe to be (self-evidently?) true.
But the way to respond to any criticism of donor love, whether that’s Roger calling it ‘bullshit’ or me saying something like ‘it sounds like a nebulous buzzword that doesn’t add anything to the concepts we already have and so is likely to cause confusion’, is to prove us wrong though sound deployment of good argumentation based on theory and evidence, now matter how much you feel pissed off about it.
I was a journalist for 18 years. I think the role of journalists, including citizen journalists, is to inform and challenge. Pissing people off is easy. Any idiot can do that – just ask Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. So I disagree totally, Roger, that your job is to ‘piss people off’. Your job is to challenge their thinking to the degree that you’ve asked such difficult questions that they get pissed off because they realise they might have been wrong all these years (and we will do the same to you). If they don’t like you because of that, then that’s their problem. But don’t set pissing them off as your objective.