Much of what we fundraisers practice and preach will eventually be shown to be wrong or out of date.

Sometimes, if we’re lucky, disturbing trends and startling events arise to speed up the re-evaluation and change process.

Events like the imposition of new regulatory rules in the U.K. requiring charities to get donors’ permission to make future solicitations. Trends like the skyrocketing acquisition costs and plunging retention rates in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Some of us believe that the new and hopeful antidote to these trends and events is to put the donor in control. For organizations to become ‘donor centric’ in a way that goes far beyond just using a lot of ‘you’s’ and ‘thank you’s’ in your copy and calling that donor centric.

But what does it actually mean to put the donor in control? And how many fundraisers (and CEOs and Boards) actually have the guts to relinquish past practices and place the donor at the center of their actions?

Jackie Fowler, head of Burnett Works, raises and answers key questions and offers a powerful illustration in her post Donor-centered fundraising – are you prepared to take a leap of faith? over at 101 Fundraising. This is a ‘must read’.

As Jackie notes, when it comes to making the sort of far-reaching changes required, “the issue for so many charities is that moving from their existing model to a model like this [donor-centered] represents a real risk requiring a huge leap of faith.”

She pointedly highlights the critical questions that many fundraisers and agencies (particularly those whose fees are driven by mark-ups and volumes) must ask as they jump into what for them are the unfamiliar waters of donor-controlled fundraising:

• “How will I meet my targets if more than half of my donors choose to hear from us just once a year?

• “How much might we lose if we did not suggest gift amounts, lead people upwards, ask people to upgrade, phone them to ask for a regular gift?

• “How do I know that long-term lifetime value will improve and, in the meantime, how do we fund our work?

• “And how do I persuade my fundraising director/chief executive/trustees that we must make these changes?

• “Will the results only be evident five years down the line when I might not be here anyway?”

Jackie cites as powerful and inspiring example the success one organization has enjoyed by following this path:

“Camphill Village Trust long ago chose a path that decided to honour and value donors, speak to them as friends and never to push or lead them, or treat them in a way that might make them feel uncomfortable. They opted for a philosophy that they felt was respectful, and ethical — that was aligned with the charity’s values. Because of this, perhaps most controversially, they chose not to test other approaches to establish what fared best financially. They simply believed too passionately in treating donors as partners and weren’t prepared to compromise on that.

“CVT sets out how it will respect its friendship with donors in its cold packs. It offers all donors, in every communication, the chance not to hear from CVT again; to receive information, but not appeals; or just to hear once a year at Christmas. It welcomes calls, offers visits, and offers more information. CVT does not suggest how much you should give, but leaves you free to choose. CVT will not telephone you. They will not ask repeatedly, or suggest you upgrade your regular gift. They will not pass on your details.

“CVT tries to bring you as close as possible to the people living and working in Camphill communities, showing their pride and sense of achievement, sharing (often in their own words) their lives and the fulfillment that they experience.”

Now for some mighty impressive results:

• One group of nearly 10,000 Christmas-only donors responding at over 61% with an average gift of over £64.

• 60,000 people raising £1.2 million after costs last Christmas, with an overall response rate of nearly 28% and an average gift of over £60.

• The average donor giving for over nine years, with many giving for much, much longer.

Nearly a generation ago, at the height of the ‘burn and churn’ era of direct mail, Ken Burnett, in his classic Relationship Fundraising, argued that we should spend far more time and effort determining and abiding by the donor’s desires.

Thankfully some of the fundraising world is now catching up to Ken. And perhaps the new ‘opt-in’ regulatory environment in the U.K. and abysmal retention rates in most of the rest of the major markets will hasten the transition.

As with Jackie’s report on the Camphill Village Trust, elsewhere there’s also ample evidence that respecting the donor’s preferences and intent pays huge dividends both financially and in terms of loyalty.

I believe the greatest barrier to change lies in the inability of many to change their mindset from the current model of ‘pushing’ as many asks and ‘touches’ as possible the donor’s way, to one of determining the donor’s preferences and then acting on those.

This change in mindset, as Jackie notes in her post, requires a leap of faith.

For those not willing to leap on faith alone I recommend you read – or re-read—the Agitator’s four-part series titled Raise More, Ask Less for a discussion and examples of the ins and outs of transitioning to a more donor-controlled organization. [Part 1 here ; Part 2 here ; Part 3 here and Part 4 here.]

Are you ready to put the donor in control?

Roger

P.S. For those concerned (and that’s probably everyone) that asking less will lead raising less money, I recommend you read Kevin Schulman’s Ask Less, Make More. It’s packed with plenty of examples and insights. You can download it free right here.