Passion Assassins
In his post yesterday, Proud To Be A Fundraiser, Roger cited an article by our UK colleague and fellow curmudgeon Ken Burnett, titled Keeping the right fundraisers.
Now, given that The Agitator’s niche audience consists entirely of fundraisers of various stripes and capacities, one might think that both of those titles would attract a fair bit of reaction.
If for no other reason than: Are they writing about me?
But I’m embarrassed to admit two things …
First, the Agitator post itself, while read by the customary percentage of Agitator subscribers in its first 24 hours, generated not one comment. Nada. Maybe our long tail will yield something.
Second, and worse, our stats indicate just a handful of readers checked out Ken’s provocative article.
Maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised. I know that if we wrote warning about email subject lines not exceeding 9 words we’d get plenty of response, and folks would download the supporting white paper or case study. So all is not lost. The Agitator can still get a rise.
But c’mon. No response to Proud To be A Fundraiser? Where’s the pride? Or what are we doing wrong?
No response to Ken’s ‘in-your-face’ writing about “passion assassins”? Those are fundraisers “with skills they consider readily transferable between causes. They’re more about analysing than feeling, more about spreadsheets and RoIs than lump-in-the-throat testimonials and transformational storytelling.”
Tough words … an indictment! I would have expected at least a few passion assassins to claim they were misunderstood.
Maybe everyone’s just running on empty … too out of passion. National holidays are coming up Monday in the US and UK … maybe everyone’s already tuned out and gone home.
I wonder what it will be like when World Cup Soccer begins playing from June 12th to July 13th?
Roger, maybe we can take a month off!
Tom
24 responses to “Passion Assassins”
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
I have a response lined up, but I’ve been busy! Direct mail campaign has just dropped and I’ve been thanking donors, calling relatives who’ve let us know their loved ones have died to offer condolences, and, yes, analysing response on my spreadsheets. Because it is possible to combine the head and the heart in fundraising and still be a ‘radiator’ I hope! Cool head, and a warm heart, that’s my fundraising motto 🙂
Dear Tom and Roger,
A quick line to reassure you that you’re not entirely alone. I at least read each of your words of wisdom. To be frank, until I saw the piece above this morning I was rather pleased with the volume of responses I’ve had to my ‘Proud to be a fundraiser’ article, including more than a few from across the dear old USA (thanks Agitator). Traffic on my blog has been growing nicely and I now get hundreds of visitors every day. Yesterday this shot up by three times. As my article appeared simultaneously on the popular Institute of Fundraising site I had expected less, I have to say.
But it is true that those who wrote to me yesterday (and a few more this morning) were all in agreement with my main point (though one of your readers did chastise me gently for my remark about creationists and climate-change deniers). I was hoping to provoke more constructive controversy, but the chill of dissent has yet to descend, it’s true. Maybe the Agitator’s readers self-select, and we’re preaching only to the converted.
The weather here has been very fine of late, so perhaps those less committed fundraisers – the drains – are all outside enjoying the sunshine. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? I hope it’s fine with you too.
Keep up the good work guys. Even if no one’s listening, we can still be right.
Best,
Ken
Not only did I read your post, then Ken’s article, I immediately POACHED his language for use in a direct mail pack I was writing. Which goes like this:
Dear [Salutation],
Do you feel it?
Somebody called it “the warm glow of making a difference.”
You certainly should feel it because …
… you’ve made that difference in your own community … with your generous gifts blah blah blah……..
Two points to build on Ken’s piece.
First, and following from Adrian, it’s not only possible to combine a cool head and a warm heart, it’s often vital. (I just accidentally typed ‘war heart’ and was tempted not to correct it!)
I’m a total heart-on-my-sleeve fundraiser. I can’t write any other way. But cool heads around me are vital for two reasons:
> it’s vital for me to have trusted cool heads around me who can constructively challenge my work before it’s let loose on the world. They don’t stop passionate, emotional fundraising. Instead they ensure that my passion is properly purposeful.
> fundraising is a team game; different skills and mindsets enrich what we do.
Second, and this is the one that causes me greatest concern, is that the real enemies of emotional and inspiring communications are rarely fundraisers (least not in my experience). They are often policy people (ie the people from whom fundraising folk try to wrangle ‘approval’. This is especially so in the development sector where, increasingly, any fundraising of raw emotion is described as impinging on the dignity of those we want to help. The arguments are way too complex and bone-headed to go into here.
I was pleased to see the UK’s Institute of Fundraising offering free paces at their Convention to CEOs. That great, and important. Beyond that, we need to find a way to have a constructive debate with policy people. We all want pretty much the same thing, but at the moment the relationship between policy and fundraising is often unnecessarily adversarial.
Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Derek
Here’s a comment on yesterday’s post – “AMEN”
I’m fascinated, depressed but not at all surprised by what you report today. The silence speaks volumes! I think my credentials on this subject are pretty clear (I have a post going out on IoF, today I think, that makes the same point).
Of course the challenge is that the people who need to read post’s like Ken’s don’t read. Why are the results of mystery shopping always so predictably appalling? Because the people who didn’t read Ken’s books 20 plus years ago (when he published damning results) are hiring and training in their own image.
What can us ‘readers’ do (besides keep reading)? Never despair, never give up hope, never give up the fight. You don’t subscribe to a blog like the Agitator if you don’t have an enquiring mind and a passion for fundraising. I doubt you have few, if any ‘drains’ among your readers. The fact that so few clicked through to Ken’s blog says to me that either:
a) They also subscribed to Ken’s blog so they’d already read it (I’m in that camp)
b) They agreed, punched the air to know they were not alone and carried on with their work feeling there was nothing they could add (Ken and Roger always nail it)
I hope that’s true! As the saying goes ‘All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing’. Yes, ‘evil’ may be a touch strong here, so I’m happy to substitute it for ‘apathetic’, ‘lazy’, ‘indifferent’, ‘mercenary’, ‘stupid’. We can insult these people on blogs all day long, after all they’re never going to read them!
Yes! I did read Ken’s blog and punch the air! Ken’s passion for his work is the reason I’m still in fundraising. After 9 years in fundraising I was deeply discouraged by the bloodless, lifeless, corporate career ladder that fundraising seemed to have become in the US.
I attended Ken’s session at AFP in Atlanta. Ken made me realise it WAS possible to maintain your passion and sense of humour through decades of fundraising. I knew if he could do it, I could do it. I am now 17 years in and having the time of my life. It’s that passion to change the world that also drives that passion to continuously learn and excel and bring your best to the charities you love. Thanks Ken for reminding us.
I loved the post, shared it with others and put it in my hiring file to remember who I should be hiring.
Must poach Tom’s ability to poach so beautifully…
Thanks Denisa, you’ve made my day. And Tom A, you do poach delightfully. The invoice is in the mail. No, of course not. I’ll just try, as so often before, to return the complement.
Ken
Doubtless you’re correct: your Agitatettes (don’t you like that? like “the Rockettes”) didn’t click through because we already subscribe to Ken’s blog. We love Ken. Universally and abundantly. Just saying. 🙂
xoxo, Lisa
PS Damn honored to be a fundraiser, btw. I even have the temerity to tell people I write *GASP* direct mail appeals, after which I tell them how awesome it is to help change the world and communicate directly with the best most generous people on earth. (At this point, many of them lift their heads a little higher… smile a little brighter… and say, “You know, I support Charity XYZ. I have for years.” If we’re drinking our own Begging Letter Kool-Aid, how the hell can expect donors to be proud of giving? Again. Just saying. Let’s have a little pride out there.
I am proud to be one of those fundraisers that Ken Burnett detests. With skills transferable across a variety of causes, with mind-numbing spreadsheets, a focus on transactional data and the understanding that fundraising is a product, much like any other product, indeed!
The real reason Ken Burnett can’t stand fundraisers like me is this: our work works. And our analyses and spreadsheets often reveal that his theories don’t work.
I’m also offended by the de-humanizing manner in which he portrays “professional” fundraisers. Understanding the numbers doesn’t mean you have no heart. Doesn’t mean you don’t have passion. When the numbers don’t add up on Relationship Fundraising, Ken’s response is to de-humanize the critic, and then go on a crusade to rid the profession of anyone who might doubt him or question him.
Well good luck to you Ken. There are more and more people just like me entering the sector everyday, and charities are much better off as a result.
Whoa. Shots fired, Derek, and challenge issued:
For years we’ve applied Ken’s strategies to great success. (We do track the results and have some pretty good-looking spreadsheets ourselves.) If you have some techniques that work better, and would share the tips and the results “mind-numbing spreadsheets” you mentioned — so we can compare apples to apples and see how your methodologies pull — I would challenge Tom and Roger to post your article right here next week. You would, of course, be doing the industry a great service by sharing the new tactics you have. I would especially ask that you show a few of your first-year and longitudinal donor retention and growth numbers in database and net profits. I don’t think it’s necessary to be publicly disrespectful to Ken — we’d be so much better served, and emerge so much more professionally, by having a rousing and educated debate over tactics, results and numbers.
That’s my challenge to you, and to Roger and Tom: what say you three? I’m sharpening my pencil and know Denisa is ready to do the same!
We’re all here to learn. I second Lisa’s challenge. Please, do share, Derek — and Roger and Tom, will you post Derek’s new techniques — and his results — next week?
Nice try Lisa and Pamela. You both know that releasing client’s data is career suicide.
And you both also know the dirty little secret I do too, which is that Relationship Fundraising, in practice, doesn’t work. And never did. It all sounds great on a blog, in a book, and in the speeches at the conferences that you all go to and air-kiss each other at.
Transactional data, product-isation of fundraising, economies of scale and the globalisation and commericalisation of fundraising has raised far more money than any of the “inspiring” insights you all try and pass off as “expertise”.
And there lots of us who know the real “score” and we are under no obligation to post the numbers here. This is not college, this isn’t some “University of Fundraising”. And our work is not subject to “peer review”.
Ouch. Sorry you feel that way, Derek. We do indeed share results so others in the industry can learn and decide for themselves. (As recently as last month, in fact.) So far those results have been superb… and it hasn’t been career suicide for me yet. But hey, the year is still young!
That’s the last post from me on this. Wishing you all the best, Derek.
First, I hadn’t responded before this because it seemed a waste of good space to say simply, “YES”.
Second, all I can say to you, Derek, is that this has obviously hit a nerve, and I wonder why.
I don’t know of any successful fundraisers who work only on emotion. I know of many who are driven by it, who understand that people are driven by it, and – surprise, can also wade into the numbers with a lot of skill. As Adrian says, it is possible to combine the head and the heart. It’s just better to understand which one leads.
Derek,
When I first saw your comment I drafted the following response:
“Before I turn the matter over to our spam filters I think you should know that some nut is commenting on the Agitator using you name.”
But then I re-read your comments and also took at look at your website to get a better sense of where you’re coming from.
So here’s my more thoughtful response:
On your Ask2 website you note, “Derek believes that fundraising is not just about raising money, it’s about glitter, gold foil, embossing and die-cuts too. He thinks data cooperatives are the next best thing to sex. He’s worked with everyone from Ben & Jerry’s to Telstra to PETA, and his daily affirmation is ‘ask early, ask often, and prosper.’
I certainly have no problem with asking early and often, I do have a problems with glitter, foil and most stuff lumped into the category of “premiums” (See “Premiums, Crack Cocaine and Nonprofit Suicide” in the Agitator.
If you believe that ‘data cooperatives are the next best thing to sex” then…well, I just don’t want to go there.
Indeed, as you note, transactional data are important and essential, but not the end all and be all. And certainly not the generally crude “analysis” I’ve seen come from far too many copy and paste spreadsheets (See Agitator’s “No More Mr. Nice Guy” )
As for your unfounded or maybe just plain malicious attacks on Ken Burnett’s work, Lisa is right. In the years since Ken first published “Relationship Fundraising” in 1992 his insights and recommendations have been proven –empirically—valid by studies done by Adrian Sargeant and the folks at DonorVoice.
In fact my bet is that you could put Ken’s wisdom to work in selling Ben & Jerry’s and Telstra down there.
Sharing information and findings—data can be anonymized you know– and other practices is essential to advancing change and growth.
You wouldn’t want to go to a physician who ignored medical best practices on the latest drugs, dosages, and other treatments. Nor should fundraisers ignore the developing body of knowledge out there. That’s not professional suicide that’s just plain idiocy.
The practice of good fundraising, like good medicine requires both data and compassion. Facts and emotion. Head and heart.
As for the back-handed, mean-spirited, ad hominem attacks and snipes aimed at Ken, Lisa, Pam and others generally, they simply have no place on the Agitator.
So, Derek, be decent. Share facts. Be civil. If not, you’re outta of The Agitator.
And at the next conference you can air kiss my….
Roger
I’m happy to share our results. You can see them here.
http://denisacasement.blogspot.ie/
I have had the distinct privilege of working in two different countries (US & Ireland) with two very different philanthropic cultures. I’ve also had the privilege of working in an agency and as the Head of Fundraising for a number of charities.
I’ve seen the big charities & their agencies in the US lead the whole sector down the churn & burn, low engagement path. That path to the hell of high attrition was paved with fancier and fancier premium packs and caging companies and fulfilment companies and a thousand other horribly efficient ways to never engage with your donors as humans.
And then I moved to Ireland to start a fundraising programme from scratch… in a recession. I got to take all that “relationship fundraising” advice and marry it with my direct marketing knowledge and the results have been remarkable. I LOVE my spreadsheets!! But every time I look at them I think… “How can I make these lovely people feel even more special? How can I give them that warm, glowing feeling that comes from making the world a better place? How can we as a fundraising team be more human and more connected to these lovely people? What matters to them?”
P.S. Two of our secret weapons of high returns and good retention… warm, fuzzy Thank You letters and emotional, donor centered Newsletters, neither of which ask for money.
Roger, thank god I don’t need your permission to practice fundraising, or Ken Burnett’s, or Lisa Sargent’s, Adrian Sargent’s or anyone else in this inbred echo chamber.
Derek,
You certainly do not need my permission. Nor, apparently my help in making a fool of yourself.
Roger
The Fool is often the only one telling the truth.
I have fallen behind in my Agitator reading and am now catching up on this (US) holiday weekend. Looking forward to reading Ken and Alan’s posts.
As for our egoistic fellow commenter…I can only say that the most successful organizations I have worked in were filled with open-minded, thoughtful people. And the sinking ships were filled with proud, defensive, petty folk.
Bit of a shock picking up those comments half-way through before realising it was another Derek who had got everyone’s backs up!
“Relationship Fundraising doesn’t work”? Wake up and smell the coffee. It was so ahead of its time. As for results we’re doing just fine at SolarAid using the basis of engagement to get donors to advocate on our behalf and open doors to major gifts, grants, other donors. Its not about getting money out of them its about them sharing. Now everyone is channel and in this super connected world you just don’t know who people know. So for donors to engage their network you need to inspire them. The time of the emotional fundraiser has come!