Roger Started It!
We have a great conversation going on here at The Agitator this week.
I hope you’re paying attention.
In Who Gets Fired?, Roger started it by advancing the proposition that — unfortunately — no one in the fundraising business gets fired because of lousy retention rates. Which is another way of saying that no one gets fired for neglecting existing donors.
Commenting on that post, Lisa Sargent poured on some fuel, urging fundraising consultants to take her stance — that is, refuse to work on acquisition projects when it was apparent that the client had no plans or inclination to build relationships with donors newly acquired.
She also took slight issue with Roger, saying that it might not be the fundraising team that needed firing, the problem might be higher up in the organization, since true donor stewardship requires an organisation-wide commitment.
Then, in Rejecting The One Acq Stand, I voiced concern that Lisa might not get enough work if she stood her ground about insisting on and accepting only ‘acquisition + retention’ gigs. [Privately, she assured me I didn’t have to worry about that.] I also tried to get other copywriters off the hook a bit by arguing that the responsibility for donor stewardship and retention indeed laid with the nonprofit … not the poor copywriter just trying to write a decent acquisition package.
Well, there’s now been a chorus of comments championing the ‘acquisition + retention’ joined at the hip worldview.
Bob Tigner from the Association of Direct Response Fundraising Counsel raised the stakes further. He argued, noting this was his personal view, not a position of ADRFCO, that: “In my view (not one proposed to the membership — much less adopted), an acquisition campaign conducted for an organization lacking the resources, skill, and will to ‘amortize’ is unethical on its face.”
Hopefully most fundraisers agree that it’s unethical to deceive and bilk donors, but Bob takes it a fascinating step further, suggesting its unethical for fundraisers to deliver donors to organizations that haven’t the will or resources to properly follow through in the stewarding of those donors. That’s raising the bar! Will be interesting to see if ADRFCO heads in that direction.
Now, here’s what I find really curious about this conversation.
As best I can tell, all of the commenting is being done by consultants!
What does that tell you?
I don’t see any voices from a nonprofit — which I will gamely reassert — is where the ultimate responsibility for retention and donor care resides. Not with the fundraising consultants priesthood — all they can do is preach the Ten Commandments, #1 of which is: ‘Thou shalt honor thy donor’. It’s the congregation that needs to heed the message and act accordingly.
I know we have thousands of Agitator readers in the congregation, slaving away in charities and nonprofits out there.
Despite the importance of this conversation, I can only conclude that most of these folks don’t actually give a hoot about donors, donor care or donor retention. Or maybe they indeed got fired at Roger’s direction. [We’ll see if our subscriptions drop.]
This is a conversation amongst some enlightened consultants … the priesthood talking to themselves, while the congregation is off worshipping some golden calf.
Tom
17 responses to “Roger Started It!”
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
Perhaps the lack of response from nonprofits is because most are too busy actually trying to DO the work that all these consultants swoop in and recommend be done…work that in reality takes more time and manpower than the consultant has so poorly estimated.
The consultant gets to drop in, make recommendation based on whatever gurus they’re currently worshipping, leave behind their binder, pick up their check, and then depart without having to stick around to sweat the implementation. An implementation that usually has to take place in the overall management environment that the consultant has so dismally been ineffective in improving.
If so many of your consultants have been so incredibly wise and effective in their work for their long illustrious careers (after all, they all have at least 25+ years of experience, right?) then why isn’t the industry going gangbusters in donor retention? Gosh, thousands of cumulative years of such expert consulting and donor retention is still pathetic? And you’re saying, now, WHO should get fired?
I can already hear their defense: “Our clients aren’t taking our advice.” If that’s the case, I’d question just how tractable the advice is.
It’s easy to criticize when you don’t have to stick around to make it happen.
And few clients will speak poorly about a consultant who they’ve just spent thousands of dollars on. What client likes to admit to the world (and their donors) that they were stupid enough to hire an ineffective consultant? And so they go on to consult again.
There. That should get something started.
(By the way, I’ve been a consultant, so I’ve been on both sides. And my best…and toughest…jobs were when I stuck around to execute.)
Mary,
I could not have BEGGED for a more perfect comment to start the day off. I can’t wait to see what happens next!
Thank you for speaking up.
Tom
This is what first came to mind: “How to Do It”
(Once you get through the ad). Spot on.
https://youtu.be/tNfGyIW7aHM
Mary, I completely get where you’re coming from. However, part of the problem is that often a non-profit will pay for advice but then will not properly invest in its implementation. Or they expect a “quick-fix”, not understanding that fundraising requires time and effort. It depends on the client and their expectations but I will not continue to work for a client that refuses to take my advice.
I screen prospective clients very carefully and have turned down several for various reasons. One, they couldn’t afford my services at that time (eg. less than 200 people on a database of which only 20 have ever donated and that was over 10 years ago). Yes I could write them the pack they requested but I could not ethically do that as it doesn’t take half a brain to realise they will not make their money back on all the printing and postage.
Another big reason I turn down prospective clients is if there is no fundraising champion within the organisation. There has to be at least one person with whom I do not have to argue over long vs. short, using emotive language, etc. and who will fight within reason to use proven fundraising practices and principles. They don’t have to be an expert – although it’s much easier if they are – but they do have to be open to ideas and willing to learn. Otherwise, it’s very hard to be successful under those circumstances. Just today, I received feedback on copy from programs staff of one client who wanted to remove the “negative” and “hysterical” language from the packs we’re working on but the fundraising staff told me just to fix the factual issues and keep the so-called negative and hysterical language. Without this internal support, the copy would be stripped of all the direct response triggers that make it work (and by the by, this client has tried plain language letters in the past to try placating their internal staff – they bombed quite spectacularly).
The same goes for developing fundraising strategies and plans – without a fundraising champion, it’s very hard to be successful.
The best outcomes I’ve had have always, always been where the client (or at least one person) understands fundraising and we can work together and exchange ideas. It doesn’t have to be me that comes up with all the ideas. I understand not all organisations are in a position to do this – if you’re still quite small and the fundraising staff is the CEO who has little fundraising experience but understands that fundraising is important then things can still work if they’re willing to take advice.
I understand Mary’s perspective. I agree with June about qualifying potential clients before taking them on.
Ethical, effective, caring consultants (yes, I’m a consultant) – spend as much time explaining how to do stuff as well as what to do. These consultants are teachers as well as advisors.
The kind of consultant you describe in your second paragraph, Mary, is exactly the kind of consultant that I detest. And the decent consultants I know detest those consultants, too.
There’s something rather drastically wrong with a profession that focuses on “doing the stuff” and not reading and paying attention to new research and and and… In my 40 years of experience in this sector, I’ve found there’s equal blame to share:
— Fundraisers who don’t make the time to read and study. Sure, the job is big and the hours can be long and the fundraiser may not have enough resources. But surely the fundraiser should realize that s/he must reach and study and learn and pay attention to new research. That’s what professionals do. And professionals fight their bosses to have the time to do this. (As well as do it at night on their own personal time.) And if the fundraiser can’t win in the organization, then the fundraiser has every right to find another better job where s/he will be respected.
— Fundraising is part of the system. Fundraising is not just about fundraising techniques. Fundraisers must understand that and professional associations must teach that. And fundraisers have to learn how to manage up and enable bosses and boards to understand the right stuff and and … That’s the job, too.
Some consultants provide a specific product, e.g.: Write a direct mail letter. Design a brochure. Develop an ad campaign. (Oh please no no no no!!!!) To me, that isn’t actually consulting. That’s providing a particular product, not a process. And, as you note, those providing products may not pay sufficient attention to the process to build understanding, the process to ensure implementation, etc. etc.
Other consultants may provide some of those products, but also ensure that the product is usable within the organization’s context, ability, etc.
And some consultants are selling process/learning/execution/organizational change/ etc.
Simone, I think it depends from consultant to consultant.
For example, if all I did was write a DM letter, I would not call myself a consultant. I would just call myself a copywriter. But I never just write a DM letter – there’s a lot of understanding the client, understanding past results, looking at donor profiles, as well as story gathering, and a whole lot of other things that happen before I even write a word. A lot of that pre-writing work has elements of consulting in it – and I know many other copywriters do not do that sort of preparatory work when doing DM. I’m not sure that would make me a fully-fledged consultant though – although I offer other fundraising-related services that would.
But it depends on your definition of consultant. Alan Weiss, in his books on management consulting, says a consultant is someone who “improves the condition of the client”. And that’s a question I often ask myself if I’m wondering whether I should take on a job or a client. Will me doing this work improve the client’s condition?
However, based on that definition, I’ve heard lots of horror stories of consultants who have left their clients worse off. To be fair though, I’m not always entirely sure whether it’s the consultants or the clients to blame!
A consultant is someone who takes your watch to tell you the time. A consultant is someone 25 miles away from home with a briefcase.
I am a consultant, and it’s very fulfilling to give the advice and extremely frustrating to see the excitement “in the trenches!” from folks who are handcuffed! The folks in the trenches do not have support from the C-Suite for the most part.
It’s a rare to find an organization that knows their donor attrition rate or donor lifetime value.
What a joy to wake up to this conversation complete with Dr. Mary’s video contribution.
Thought you might enjoy this digital addition to the consultant bonfire.
Roger
Oof – that stings! I am one of your nonprofit workhorses who regularly read this blog for help and advice. Not commenting doesn’t equal not heeding the “high priests” of fundraising.
Reading this series of posts has mostly left me feeling like I’m not playing in the same league (I’m a solo shop with no budget for consultants or outsourcing appeals and other collateral), but I’m still interested in learning from the experts.
And for the record, as I build our fundraising department and steward the culture of philanthropy in our organization, I have made donor retention job one and have a pretty good track record – so I don’t think I deserve or expect to e fired anytime soon.
We are too busy loving, serving, and cultivating our donors to get into a debate about it. 🙂
Hi – We are a large nonprofit and collect survey feedback from our donors and non-donors both on our email list and website. We track the positive and negative feedback we receive. We pay attention to things that might be frustrating or causing problems and try to fix them. We highlight and share positive and negative feedback internally.
Are we perfect? No. Could we do more? Yes.
Cheers,
David
Hey, hold on. Consultant’s priesthood? Guys. This whole thing has a “War of the Roses” tone. Could we focus on this: that retention, that donors, are what matters. There is no silver bullet, people. Consultants aren’t universally greasy. Getting donors is hard. Keeping donors is hard. That said…
1.) Molly: if you are working hard towards retention and continuing to learn along the way, then you are doing the right thing. And, might I add, you don’t need a six-figure budget to play in the same league. In March of this year, at AFP Int’l Boston, we presented (for the first time, because we do production year-round) a seven-year case study on a charity in Ireland that did great things with donor retention (and not coincidentally, now feeds nearly ninety thousand homeless people each year as a result). Full disclosure: it’s my client. But we co-presented, the material is free, and you can find a write-up from Erica Wassdorp, who was in the audience, here https://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/how-can-nana-murphy-make-you-a-better-fundraising-professional/ Includes links to the free (but copyrighted) handouts, plus (heads up Dr. Mary!) production samples.
2.) Claire and Bob: bravo for taking a stand.
3.) June: I’m with you. I’ve argued with everyone from major nonprofit media outlets to professional organizations, that they allow me to call myself a copywriter instead of a consultant. I lose the fight every time, which irks me, but tbh I acquiesced in favor of getting good, tested content out there. Conversely, I’m thinking of a couple of consultants — Mary Cahalane, for one — with decades of nonprofit-side experience, and a fine writer, to boot.
4.) Simone: also agree. Keep fighting the good fight.
5.) Dr. Mary: You may see me as a consultant. I don’t know. I’ve been in the trenches, writing, with most of my clients for 2, 3, 5, and 8 years now. The ones that aren’t around any longer are often the ones that won’t take advice. Or they say they will, but they don’t ever do it. Or some of them have really valiant intentions, but their powers-that-be won’t let them invest.
Maybe this is Pollyanna-esque balm, but all I was saying when all this started was, we have to take a stand. You can’t turn a supertanker around in a bathtub. It will take time to undo the old churn-and-burn days. We have to take a stand, and keep taking a stand, until things get better.
And I, for one, stand with the donor.
Lisa, thank you very much for that!
Dr. Mary: as someone who spent a long, long time in the trenches and now consults, I’ve got a view in both camps. (Though I don’t think we ought to have camps – aren’t we in this together?)
As a consultant, I’m also sometimes frustrated by the situation you described. Because I’m NOT there for all the implementation. When I’m hired to create a plan, I plan around the organization’s abilities as well as goals. But even so, it’s hard to be sure plans don’t land on a shelf. I’d love to stick around and make sure things happen! But then I stop being a consultant and become a staffer – and lose the perspective that makes a consultant useful.
But the thing I love best about this conversation is the reminder that fundraising can’t live in a vacuum. To succeed, the people at the top need to understand how important it is to treat donors as partners in the work.
I am also one ‘in the trenches’ and read the Agitator regularly. We’re here, we’re here!
Consultants who provide the content expertise + can point out our pain points (why the content matter isn’t taking off) can help an organization immensely. We may not always be as clear on where the pivot point is that can grease the wheel.
And then, I do take it as my professional and ethical responsibility to make good use of that counsel. I’m lucky to have a boss that makes it easy for me to act on what we learn. Are these people unicorns?
Dr. Mary, your comment rocks. Thanks for standing up for the boots on the ground. I feel awful sometimes that the everyday must-do’s so often cloud the clarity and insight that lurks just beneath the daily tasks. So, I come to places like the Agitator and get a dose of reality.
“Fundraising consultants don’t feel empowered to promote culture change, yet research shows that’s key.” via Twitter.
So claimed Linda Wood of the Haas Jr. Fund at this week’s Grantmaker’s for Effective Organizations Conference (#2016GEO). This in a session on helping grantees build fundraising capacity.
Which consultants out there make promoting culture change part of your value proposition to clients?
OK – I have to jump in because, YES, many of us in the trenches are working on multiple projects…..As Director of Development I am responsible for ALL donor communications as well as appeals, major & planned gifts. PHEW! I am in a small shop – so small that I am also the Raisers Edge Administrator and key researcher. I love my mission as well as the diverse nature of my position.
I do know that acquisition alone will never suffice. Fundraising is about developing relationships. To that end, I put 50% of my efforts into stewardship.
That being said, (Lisa did NOT solicit this) Lisa Sargent worked with us in 2013 to create an acquisition direct mail package. We have made a few changes in the package since then, based on analysis of each mailing’s results. However, I believe Lisa would agree in format, style, language and calls to action/donate – we have retained her content.
Once we began our acquisition appeals (mailed only 2X a year – based on analysis) we also began implementation of a welcome series, regular (very simple pictorial postcards) updates and donor survey (mailed within a few weeks of the 2nd gift).
Our welcome series includes a HANDWRITTEN note. Yes – this can be time consuming. However, I have found over time, that I can use volunteers to write the notes. I include the names & contact information of the 3 staff members in our small office. We have had several positive responses from donors and certainly increased frequency and amounts of gifts.
We see our retention rate growing and look forward to greater support of our mission over time.
It is a commitment, but fundraising professionals must look well ahead of this year’s financial goal to accomplish what is possible – not only for our organizations, but for the joy each of our donors experiences when they know their gifts are appreciated and making an impact for a cause that motivated them to give in the first place.
I am, Dan. The entire focus of my work is building a donor-focused development department, from the ground up. Which cannot happen without culture change.