Stop Bashing ‘Donor-Centricity’
I stormed into Roger’s office yesterday (actually, ranted via Skype), ready to carry the torch for ‘donor-centricity’. [Not that I consider the term one of the most warm and fuzzy I’ve encountered for talking about putting the donor first.]
“Why are you dismissive of fundraisers being donor-centric”, I yelled, waving these words from his recent post, Fighting the Fundraising Excuse Machine, at him: “I suspect ‘donor centricity’ is a bogus term that camouflages the real issues.”
My rant continued …
“Whaddya mean ‘bogus’? What can be a more “real issue” than treating donors like ATM machines? And worse, our pal Kevin Schulman at Donor Voice is calling donor-centricity ‘an empty, vacuous platitude’!
“Did I miss the company memo?
“Aren’t we absolutely, positively certain that fundraising (and fundraisers) will be far more effective if we approach our work through the eyes (and hearts, minds, needs and motivations) of the donor, as opposed to selling the agenda, staff and needs of some organization?
“Isn’t fundraising all about empowering the donor? Both in the tactical sense of respecting their preferences for how they want to relate to our charity or cause, and in the strategic sense of presenting our charity or cause as a vehicle that can enable them to act upon their pro-social motivations (not in those words, obviously).
“And isn’t doing this being donor-centric?”
Roger was stunned into silence. I saw his hand move.
Appeared on my screen.
So I turned back to Kevin’s blog.
Where he makes this observation:
“Donors want to donate. They don’t want massive frustration and irritation in doing so, which is precisely what volume causes … And it doesn’t irritate some tiny, minority of folks who really aren’t “good” donors anyway, it irritates the majority of your donors.
In short, most give in spite of the fundraising volume machine and the irritation it causes, not because of it.”
Now, I can say ‘Amen!’ to that. But isn’t the answer to adopt a donor-centric approach to every aspect of what we do?
Doing so almost certainly means less volume for most organisations … and that’s the immediate target of both Roger and Kevin. But we would all agree it means a lot more, and that’s where our future discussions should go.
In the meantime, though, I’m not going to be a ‘donor-centricity’ basher until someone comes up with a better shorthand term for: ‘approaching fundraising through the eyes of the donor’.
Starting point: the donor sees herself/himself as aiding, helping, saving, connecting … by giving. The sooner fundraisers adopt that perspective, the better.
Roger, still reeling from my fusillade, promises an answer soon … when Skype is back up.
Tom
10 responses to “Stop Bashing ‘Donor-Centricity’”
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
So, Tom, you’ve learned that “storming” is not the best approach always. (Although I personally like it lots!!) So maybe the more subtle stealth approach to surprise the Roger? I’m just saying…
“Approaching fundraising through the eyes of the donor.” (Wonderful!) Some shorthand ideas:
— “Loverize” from Jen Shang talking with Tom Ahern
–“Thru the donor’s eye” (Not so short but…)
–“Donor-centered” is like customer-centered which is like donor centricity which isn’t that friendly.
— Hey, how about “donor friendly” or “donor conscious” or “donor aware” or “donor committed”
#donorlove. An expression of a value that makes your donor the hero. Everyday.
YO, lads!
How did we go from “what the heck is donor-centricity … and how shall I explain it to my boss?” directly to “donor-centricity is an empty, vacuous platitude” (“Captain Snarky, reporting for duty!”) while utterly skipping the actual application of donor-centricity in the real world?
See, lads, it’s the actual application of donor-centricity where you make all these mountainous gobs of extra money from your delighted donors.
I’m going to guess that maybe 1% of charities now practice any consistent form of donor-centricity in their communications; certainly it’s just 1% of what I see, and I see a lot. And that 1% tends to be those orgs serviced by great agencies like Bluefrog, Agents of Good, Pareto, Good Works, Blakely and the like.
The other 99% are plugging along with their conventional, traditional, egomaniacal, and least productive org-centric approach, blissfully ignorant of the riches that await. They wouldn’t know donor-centricity if it started a fire in their wastebasket.
Fundraisers: approach your donor as a treasured puppy would approach its human, just returning home from a hard day at work: “YOU’RE BACK!,” tail wagging like crazy, spit flying, paws on shoulders, big doggy unrestrained tongue kisses, “I LOVE YOU! YOU’RE HERE! I THOUGHT YOU’D LEFT ME! DON’T EVER LEAVE ME!!!”
THAT’s “loverizing,” as Jen terms it. “Donor-centricity” is just the technical term, borrowed from customer-centricity. Because DONORS are fundraising’s CUSTOMERS.
Sheeeesh. April Fools’ Day was over a month ago. Please stop this ginsufnoc discussion.
Amen, Tom!
The ugly truth may that when you cut frequency, you raise less money. There’s certainly a case to be made for that view in online fundraising.
We did a study of high net worth donors with Convio and Edge Research in 2009. We found that these donors tended to fall into three roughly equal camps: those seeking an authentic relationship with the organizations they support, those who want to make their gift and be left alone, and another third falling someplace in between. The trick is to give the relationship seekers a relationship but recognize that one size wont fit all.
All that said, i tell clients donor-centricity (hate the term) is the right thing to do whether it raises more money or not. I only get laughed out of the room 60% pf the time.
Best to Brooks.
I’m afraid The Agitator has morphed into The Donor Centricity Echo Chamber.
Brilliant, agitating thought leaders all preaching to the other choir singers. Wringing their hands about why so few are heeding (and some are scoffing at) the message in their song.
Speaking of brilliant singers, Billy Bragg once wrote a line that I think sums up the phobia that everyone is running up against with our nonprofit employers/clients:
“The temptation to take the precious things we have apart to see how they work must be resisted, for they never fit together again.”
Thank you, Tom (Belford) for inserting some real emotion into the discussion again. And thank you Tom (Ahern) for making me laugh out loud. Good thing I’m alone in the office!
All the research, good practices, data, etc. are enormously helpful. But I think they can’t overcome a basically crappy attitude – which is what comes across loud and clear from too much of what I see in my mailbox. To some extent, that’s what talk about #donorlove is – let’s fix our attitudes toward donors (NOT ATMs) to begin with.
Then let’s use the technology we’ve got at hand to communicate genuine appreciation, concern, need.
Maybe for some donor-centricity is a platitude. I can’t work that way, myself. Why would I be doing this – in a sector with famously low pay – if all I was really doing was selling a different kind of widget?
Thought I’d share my Rogare blog from earlier in the year, where I suggested we might talk about “supporter-led” as a way of thinking about the underlying business model for our fundraising.
http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/criticalfundraising/2016/03/04/opinion-time-to-reassess-our-production-values/
Personally I’m not a fan of the term “donor” and always encourage “supporter” instead. I feel strongly we have to break down the internal siloes that artificially separate “donors” (who are seen to “belong” to fundraisers) from campaigners (owned by advocacy teams), volunteers (owned by volunteering teams) etc. Guess what – people don’t think of themselves in those terms, don’t want to be owned by a team and only really care about the difference they want to make in the world and the way that makes them feel. If we want to offer rewarding experiences and generate maximum value for our causes we need to see the whole supporter and organise ourselves to meet their needs as well as our own.
I have long been a fan of donor-centered fundraising. Heck, I even wrote a book demonstrating that: DONOR-CENTERED PLANNED GIFT MARKETING. If you don’t like the term “donor centered,” that’s fine. A rose by any other name…
If you truly practice donor-centered fundraising, and don’t just pay lip-service to it, congratulations! You have happier supporters and are raising more money than you otherwise would.
If you’re not a believer in donor-centered fundraising, thank you! You’re leaving money on the table to be collected by my clients. We appreciate it!
Finally, wise fundraising professionals no longer follow The Golden Rule (read: “Stop Following the Golden Rule!” — https://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/stop-following-the-golden-rule/ ). Instead, they follow what Tony Alessandra, PhD, CSP, CPAE, President of the Assessment Business Center, calls the Platinum Rule: “Treat others the way THEY want to be treated.” Simple. Effective.
We talk about donor-centricity. Is it brilliant fundraising copy – copy that hits every emotional trigger and includes the ‘right’ amount of yous? Does it have to do with frequency of communications, or whether you refer to your organization’s friends as donors or supporters?
Donor love speaks directly to what the donor’s contribution is making possible. It means giving your donor an actual seat at the table (do you have a donor on your board?) Donor love penetrates deeply, embracing a true love of humanity itself. And to do it right means making a commitment, from the top down. Speaking as someone who has come from the trenches, I can tell you that when development/fundraising is committed to a donor-first experience, but the rest of the organization isn’t, you won’t get far.
If you haven’t already, I urge you to read two great reports, The Haas Fund’s Beyond Fundraising: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy? And Fundraising Bright Spots, from Kim Klein and Jeanne Bell. Their work mirrors what I have seen in my own trainings and membership program: the greatest success comes when the entire organization is on board. And, frankly, I’ve learned more from being a donor than all the webinars and workshops in the world.
This is a fantastic discussion! Never thought I’d see Billy Bragg’s lyrics woven into a fundraising discussion.