Speed Dating Or Donor Commitment?

May 11, 2015      Admin

It seems to me that two conflicting streams of thought regarding donor relationships are percolating in fundraising circles these days, particularly amongst those focused on direct response fundraising.

[I’ll posit for purposes of this post that no one engaged in major gift and foundation fundraising would quarrel with the notion that the deeper the relationship cultivated, the better.]

On the one hand, we have a heap of advice urging fundraisers to be ‘donor-centric’, which implies, at least at first blush, a goal of building the relationship and deepening the commitment (presumably to elicit more giving) by listening, respecting preferences, tailoring asks … getting as close to a one-to-one engagement with the donor as possible.

On the other hand, we have a (may I call it) ‘realist’ school of thought that says, effectively, ‘Balderdash!’ Our interactions with most donors are not much more intimate than speed dating.

The suggestion here is that most giving is driven by events, headlines, and fortuitous timing in gaining a nanosecond of attention and sympathy from the donor, who has as much intention to build a relationship with any given nonprofit or charity as they do to build a relationship with the person who answers their bank’s 0800 number. [I grant that the response of that person can build goodwill, or not, but only in the rarest of cases will it cause me to move my account elsewhere.]

To the ‘realists’ it’s best to ascertain very quickly which donors are casual speed daters/donors — with a corollary assumption that most are just that — and not waste any time or money attempting to cultivate them. Just mail or email or telemarket each individual ’til they’re no longer profitable. The rest of that ‘donor-centric’ stuff is a bunch of costly fluffy nonsense.

Perhaps I’ve painted the ‘realist’ school too harshly. Maybe no Agitator readers see themselves in that light.

Or could it be that it’s hard for many fundraisers to admit that at the end of the day, it’s money they’re after, not donor intimacy or commitment. All that ‘donor-centric’ stuff is just a means to an end … if it produces more cash, great; if not, chuck it.

Of course it is the donor who will determine the nature and depth of their commitment, if any, as Derrick Feldmann points out in his recent Philanthropy News Digest article, What Does It Really Mean to Be an Engaged Donor?

He writes:

“…we have a pretty big disconnect between what we would like and even expect our donors to be and do and what they’re willing and able to be and do.

“Which begs the question: Why do so many organizations feel they have to create programs for their donors that demand a higher level of engagement? And to what end? Isn’t it enough that most donors already see themselves as being engaged with your organization?

“In other words, many organizations are over-communicating and trying too hard to move donors to a level of engagement that donors themselves are uninterested in. Those organizations need to be reminded that, when it comes to donor engagement, as in life, less is often more.”

So I ask you two questions:

  1. What percentage of your donors (again, I’m not talking major gifts) do you think really want a relationship with your organization? Versus those who just want to feel good about their last donation?
  2. And given your answer to that question, are you doing too much or too little to encourage donor commitment?

Tom

4 responses to “Speed Dating Or Donor Commitment?”

  1. Jay Love says:
    May 11, 2015 at 8:32 am

    Excellent points Tom, I honestly believe there is a certain percentage of major donors who desire a relationship with the organization they support. Some prefer bigger events and some prefer more intimate gatherings or just sharing an occasional meal with their main contact.

    There is something special about any additional friendship in this fast paced world that rings true to many.

  2. Giles Pegram CBE says:
    May 11, 2015 at 10:08 am

    Hi Tom,

    Two points.

    The first is to agree that many donors first give for reasons other than building a relationship. However, they should not be ignored. They should be so wowed by the donor experience that they want to become involved. A charity that made this real would soon find itself at the top of the list of charities a donor supports

    The second point is that if a donors experience is a thank-you, two newsletters, and six appeals, designed to increase RFV or ROI, then that’s not much of a donor experience. ” at the end of the day, it’s money they’re after, not donor intimacy or commitment” Donors will soon cotton on to that..

    Finally, my understanding of speed-dating is that occasionally you find someone you bond with.

    Best

    Giles

  3. Mary Cahalane says:
    May 11, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Great questions!

    And maybe the answers come down to: “it depends”?

    For the small to mid-sized, community-based organizations I’ve worked for and with, relationships do matter. But the donor gets to decide how much of a relationship she wants. When you’re told “one solicitation a year, please and that’s IT!” the donor-centric thing to do is to ensure their wishes are obeyed. Who knows what place the organization holds in the donor’s heart? Maybe it’s living in New England, but I found many donors who give regularly, for many years, on or close to the same date every year. That’s how they like it.

    And I don’t think we can disconnect relevance from frequency when looking at how donors react to more communication. More bad communication isn’t going to be much help. The trick is finding out what they want to know, not sending what we want them to know.

    I’m sure we’ve all gotten to know a donor who made smaller gifts. But over the years of being treated like a person, not an ATM, those gifts grew. I know I can look at donor lists from organizations I worked with years ago and think “Oh, look, there’s Helen. I remember chatting with her when she first started making gifts. For her, involving young people was so important. And now look how involved she is!”

    It happens.

    I don’t know if it has to be different for the large national and international charities. I do know their appeals rarely move me. Too often, they feel like the churn/burn mailings they are.

  4. Mike Cowart says:
    May 11, 2015 at 11:21 am

    A fundraiser and friend of mine, who has personally raised +$3 BILLION dollars would argue that donors do desire a relationship, as it is a basic human need to feel needed and valuable.

    His dissertation subject-“The difference between great fundraising organizations and average fundraising organizations”.

    In his first development job, he decided to see if his doctoral research would work “in the trenches”. In his first development assignment, he was given a stack of papers with 92 lapsed donor records, which no one wanted to work.

    He immediately purchased a 12 foot section of butcher paper, made a calendar, and developed a strategic “touch plan” with his 92 stale donors.

    Five years later, he was moved to the office next to the President of the university for having raised +$50 million dollars, which began with 92 lapsed donors.

    Do donors desire a relationship?

    http://www.eddiethompson.org

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

    Behavioral Science Q & A

    The Agitator Tool Box

    Ideas, applications, tools, processes, and case studies of break-through solutions in fundraising, including: