Should Roger Keep Writing?
Let me begin with two questions. Do donors really care about getting results from the nonprofits they support? And, do they really care about the nonprofits themselves … as in, do they want a relationship with those groups?
I’m prompted to ask these questions for two reasons.
First, because I just read this UK report mentioned by Bluefrog’s Mark Phillips, which says that most donors don’t really pay much attention to results at all. At least not until they’re age 55+ (and then they stop again at age 75). This is at odds with a lot of assertion that it’s the younger rising donors who are more determined to see results.
Maybe the truth is … no one really gives a hoot. Maybe some huge percentage of giving is simply spur-of-the-moment emotion.
If that’s the case, then all fundraisers should just become master manipulators … press the right hot buttons and move on.
The second reason I ask is because I just read the penultimate draft of Roger’s forthcoming book on donor retention. It will become an instant classic. Watch this space.
However, it could be all wrong!
Because Roger believes (as I do) that successful fundraising is increasingly grounded upon donor commitment. And so his book assumes that donors indeed respond both to well-reported results and to consistently-delivered, rewarding experiences from the groups to which they consequently become loyal > committed.
Based upon this romantic but possibly mistaken notion of donor commitment, Roger and I constantly assert that nonprofits can actually build donor relationships, which become the engine of fundraising profitability. And now Roger has elevated this notion into an entire book! Diverting precious hours that he could have devoted to writing about premiums.
After all, how do you build donor relationships when giving — in the eyes of the giver — is just a series of one night stands? Want another gift … just toss them a stuffed panda bear toy.
Your own approach to fundraising will depend in large part upon how you answer those two opening questions.
If your answers are ‘No’ and ‘No’, then please send Roger an email right away … or just post a comment below.
Set him straight. Save him from any further wasted effort on his book.
Tell him to Stop Writing!
Tom
P.S. If you think Roger’s book might actually be on the right track, tell us this … in your nonprofit, what percentage of donors would welcome a relationship?
11 responses to “Should Roger Keep Writing?”
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
Yes, Roger should keep writing!!!
This whole ‘relationship’ confusion is just semantics. We don’t need to be sentimental about the word; we need to be practical. We all have ‘relationships’ with commercials, we just don’t call them that. We step into a Starbucks, download from iTunes, or fly with a certain airline because they’re our default when we want a certain product. Why can’t charities claim the same space when someone wants to cure cancer, end poverty or fight injustice? IF it’s true that a huge percentage give on the spur of the moment they still have to choose WHO to give to.
The difference is commercials understand the causal elements of commitment or ‘relationship’ and employ them. The first step is to deliver a reliable, consistent experience; something people can easily RELATE to. And that’s where our sector fails. We confuse the hell out of donors in our smash and grab, short term attempt to get that gift.
I worked on the first ever two stage mobile to committed gift programme in the UK. The first stage was simple; an emotive and tangible appeal to buy a malaria net and save a child’s life. It worked, people responded on the spur of the moment and response was good. But, when it came to stage two (i.e. where the real money is made) the charity decided it was important to educate these ‘supporters’ (as if that’s what they were at this stage) to the full extent of their programme. So a person who saw a poster about malaria on the tube, felt something, sent a text donation of £3 and forgot about it, was being called a few days later and told all about the work being done to help children who’d been orphaned by HIV/Aids and asked if they could give £12 each month to buy them a text book!!! Needless to say response was dismal until they went with my crazy notion that it was probably a good idea to talk to someone who’d made a donation to fight malaria about malaria.
What chance did that (and the 99% of campaigns in our sector that follow the same ‘logic’) give for people to relate? Imagine how confused donors feel; one minute you ask me for one thing, the next for something else – who are you and what is it you do?
The good news is this is a fixable problem. We’ve cracked the commitment/relationship code. Charities that employ it are seeing an immediate boost in performance, a huge increase in LTV and donors are staying longer.
So keep writing Roger!!! Even if everything in that report is 100% accurate (and I don’t know enough to comment other than if the wrong questions were asked we’ll get the wrong answers) it just confirms that the status quo is broken and we need to hear what you’re saying if we’re going to fix it!
But how many groups are content with ‘smash and grab’?
Don’t ever stop writing Roger!
Not all donors want to know about results and not all donors want to form a deeper relationship — but ALL donors derive a sense of who they are in the world through their association with the causes they support. It helps them create their personal “brand”.
And for those donors who do want more, organizations who share their results and document impact while offering meaningful opportunities for engagement, will be in the best position to secure the largest gifts. That’s why I believe. And I’m sticking to it!
Can’t wait to read the book Roger!
Yes,Yes. Keep writing, Roger! And keep agitating about loyalty, Tom and Roger. Was the research actually looking at “why” (the motivations behind the actions) – or just looking at what people say straight off? We all know that research has to ask the same question in different ways, etc. – to find the real answer.
I think of consumers / customers. Of Apple or Nordstrom or… They are loyal. They stick with these companies. These consumers / buyers (customers/donors) want a relationship. Of course not everyone does. But I’m more worried about those that do want a relationship (however they define that). And we ignore them as if this were some financial transaction. Sure, some giving is a financial transaction. But the big gifts (however the donor defines big) and the values-based gifts, and the volunteering…. that’s all about emotion and connection and sharing and and.
It is so far past time that we get this right. As you say, Loyalty is the Holy Grail of fundraising (just like any business, whether it is Apple or the bakery). And loyalty comes from operating as a donor-centered organization with a comprehensive relationship-building program (which includes donor-centered communications and extraordinary experiences). Keep writing, Roger and Tom. Keep agitating.
Yes, He is very helpful.
Hi Roger
Please WRITE ON because you are RIGHT ON! Wonderful things are happening at our relatively small non-profit community music school as a result of paying more attention to our relationships with our donors and giving them opportunities to see the impact of their giving.
Your work is so important
Thank You!
Well of course he should — for both the wit AND wisdom. But what does Adrian Sargeant say?
I also say, keep writing, Roger! I think it’s interesting that most donors in this study said they don’t pay attention to results or impact. However, we humans often are not as self-aware as we think. I recently read a 2012 study by Cynthia E. Cryder, George Loewenstein, and Richard Scheines which found charitable appeals that include details about an org’s interventions increase donations. I think testing appeals is the best way to find out what donors respond to!
Keep writing Roger.
It’s now more than 40 years in the business and I have never believed that people tell you the truth when you ask them about such things. When asked, they don’t want to appear foolish so they make up an answer that casts them in the best light possible.
Don’t stop writing,… but I think it would be a mistake to take the Steve Jobs approach to this survey and pretend these donors don’t know what they want, and that they secretly care about impact. For example, I just looked at my own giving history for 2011-2013:
* I donated to roughly 45 unique charities overall
* I made an average of 25 gifts per year
* My average gift was $137, and median was $100
The reality is I don’t want anything more than a transactional relationship with these organizations. Maybe I’d feel differently if I was donating all of my money to one cause, but considering that I’m donating to approximately 15 different causes each year, I don’t. While I’d like to pretend that I pay more than superficial attention to the “impact” that these organizations generate, that would be a lie.
Now as I get older, I may start consolidating my giving and that’s where your book is going to be invaluable.
Oh my goodness — don’t stop! Keep it coming! Relationships are at the heart of human community. And they’d best be at the heart of nonprofit fundraising. I don’t have relationships with commercials. I have relationships with people. And so does my board – more and more. We talk WITH them, not AT them. They become friends — personal friends and friends of our organization. If you stopped writing, what would I use to spur my board on? I depend on you to shake me up so I can shake them up!
With our closest donors, we eat and drink together. It’s a personal relationship. And with those we only know through our letters — we hand write notes — so they know we think highly of them, that we care about THEM.
Agitate away, Roger — keep shaking us up. We all need to be less complacent.