The Insanity and Stupidity of Ignoring and Offending Women
Women are both a powerful and growing force for growth in giving. So, why in the world do so many organizations stick to “best practices” of 40 years ago when a greater proportion of donors were men?
Maybe because too many nonprofits are led by out-of-touch men… maybe because changing old habits and processes takes too much thought and work…or maybe because too many fundraisers simply don’t grasp the immense opportunity before them.
Even worse than failure to change to meet the opportunity is the manner in which many organizations go out of their way to offend women. This post deals with both.
FAILURE TO SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY
As noted in my post on gender, race and the fundraising myths surrounding them, old beliefs die hard. As a result, our sector too often overlooks the opportunities that exist where giving among women in communities of color and of diverse ethnicity are concerned.
So, in case you failed to read the landmark report Womengive|19: Gender and Giving Across Communities of Color, Indiana University’s Women’s Philanthropy Institute of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy I urge you to put it high on your homework list.
For the audio-inclined I also recommend you take a listen to Blackbaud’s Raise and Engage Podcast Episode 66: Research in Women’s Philanthropy. In it moderator Steve MacLaughlin interviews researchers Andrea Pactor and Kathleen Loehr of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute. This interview will alert you to some trends and opportunities you need to be aware of.
For example:
- Women are often giving more than men. Just as importantly they’re very influential in household giving. So, when you set up a meeting with donors, you’d be well advised to include the woman of the household not just the male. Women want to be on the front end of these decisions and you’re missing the boat if you don’t involve them.
- Be alert to gender differences in the motivation for giving. Research shows that women are more empathetic and caring than men. Consequently, they are more “hard wired” than men toward giving. And the causes they give too often reflect the principal interests in their own lives, e.g. focus on children, families, health which spills over into cultural and international causes.
- More women than men give to special giving days like #GivingTuesday
- Women are far more interested in the “intergenerational transmission of generosity”, academic speak for teaching and encouraging the next generation to give.
- Women make up 70% of the “Giving Circles” in the U.S. – a billion $ bloc of money given mainly to local and community causes.
Of special interest… is the researchers take on giving upon retirement.
With 10,000 Baby Boomers turning 65 each day this phenomenon is worth study, thought and action. Here’s why:
- Conventional wisdom holds that once a donor goes on ‘fixed income’ their giving will decline. Not so, says the researchers. Both men and women maintain their charitable giving. But giving by single women and married couples stays the same. And giving by ingle men fluctuates and generally declines.
- Cultivation by fundraisers before retirement may increase or maintain giving when donors retire and volunteering actually increases. This is the time for fundraisers to step forward
- Older women who have been giving, say $100 for 6 or 10 years, represent among the best prospects for planned giving. In short, Women who’ve been giving small gifts over the years have the propensity and affinity to make a major gift in terms of a planned gift.
You’ll find more information on donors and retirement plus some very useful tips in this Institute paper, How Women and Men Give Around Retirement
STOP OFFENDING WOMEN
Doesn’t do much good to be aware of the potential of women and giving if your organization has bad manners and practices that drive them away.
The always- thoughtful Michael Rosen in a post titled How to Stop Offending Your Women Donors draws on an informal survey by the always-questioning and curious T. Clay Buck in pointing out why 82% of women donors surveyed have had their gifts recognized inappropriately even though they were the principal gift-giver.
As Michael note, “I’m not surprised. This is the flip side of a problem…Charities often treat women as second-class donor prospects. Now, we see that some nonprofits also treat women as second-class donors.” [Emphasis added.]
Does this reflect carelessness? Gender bias? Or just plain laziness and stupidity?
Doesn’t matter. In addition to honoring equality there’s the reality that women will control 2/3rds of total American wealth by 2030.
Here, according to Michael, are the questions you should be asking right now as you review your donor recognition procedures.
- When a woman gives, does your organization assume the donation is from her and her significant other?
- Does your organization recognize women donors by their husband’s name (e.g., Mrs. John Doe, or Mr. & Mrs. John Doe)?
- When a woman provides a contribution on behalf of herself and her significant other, does your organization put her name first or second?
- Does your organization recognize a woman donor even if she uses a man’s credit card to make the gift?
In short, let’s abandon those ‘best practices’ of 40 years ago. No more automatic Mr. and Mrs. John Doe. Recognize donors the way they want to be recognized.
“But, how do I do that. Seems like a lot of work.” As Clay Buck says, “Ask them! If you’re unsure about how to recognize a donor just outright say to donors, ‘We want to communicate with you however you wish—how would you like your name listed in our correspondence? Your family? And then effing do it.”
Ignoring the immense giving power of women –including women of color and diverse ethnicity –in today’s and tomorrow’s world is insane. And failing to properly recognize them is both insane and stupid.
Roger
17 responses to “The Insanity and Stupidity of Ignoring and Offending Women”
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
Thank you, Roger. Fundraising is often so late to the proverbial party. IGNORANCE (such a big issue in our field…”I just don’t have time to read and learn…”) LAZINESS (“There’s so much I have to do that I can’t/won’t be a lifelong learner.”) SEXISM (Amazingly strong & powerful – and so many state boldly that sexism is passé!)
By the way, the USofA is ranked #51 in gender equity. See the World Economic Forum 2018 gender report. And by the way, in 2016, the USofA was #45. Like we’re getting WORSE!!!
Thanks Simone. We owe it to each other to continually keep these stats in the forefront. Reminders that no one should be smug about the great work we’re doing until the metrics move in the other direction.
Keep preaching, keep acting on your beliefs.
Way to go! Many thanks. One of your best posts.
PS. Hope you are well and thriving.
Thank you Phil.
Far, far more gratitude is in order for the work you and the team at The Carter Center have done in advancing gender awareness and equality worldwide. Thank you.
As a woman, opening this article I wasn’t sure how to respond simply from the title. As a reader (even as a female), I immediately felt my chest fill with air as though I was going to need to defend myself for doing something wrong. Of course, as I began to read I quickly realized that this wasn’t an article that was shaming me (phew), rather very evidently chose to shame and blame men. From the start of this article, it disregards the fact that women lead the way as Directors of Development at nonprofits (and therefore are leading the majority of donor communications). Perhaps, a better approach may have been to recognize women as having the means to implement better practices and positive change, or simply should have offered a different tonality to this piece overall. Not only does this article point fingers from the start, but I was incredibly disappointed by the undoubtful assumption in this narrative that these actions or inactions are and must be, intentional. Roger, as (a male and) the co-editor of a renowned blog, I’d like to believe that your role is to critique and inform rather than criticize and reprimand.
Sadly, as of 2015 (the last year for which I could find data), only 18% of the chief executives of $50m+ nonprofit organizations were women. It’s our contention that representation matters — while there are certainly men leading organizational fights for equity that include respecting female donors and women who do not, it matters who the CEO is and that person’s life experiences. You are right on that the leader of development efforts has diversified (although not to the point one would yet want) and that has lead to improvements, but we too often see cases where strong director-level equity initiatives are dismissed, ignored, or papered over by executive leadership.
I absolutely agree with you that it’s more helpful to guide than scold, so if we missed any key points in the tips we argue for to break us out of how databases used to be, we’d love to hear them. And you are right on that such bias can be introduced by inaction rather than by malice — we’d hope to shake up those who aren’t acting as well.
Great post Roger!
There may be a light at the end of the tunnel since so many of the new professional fundraisers coming into this field of work are now female. Perhaps that ratio will apply to CEO’s in the future too!
Let’s hope these marvelous and energetic new ladies bring about change to the age old status quo…
You are sooooo correct Jay. The presence of so many talented, thoughtful women, increasingly and rightfully fed up with the status quo is the bright ray of hope.
Bring on the revolution.
HERE! HERE! Thank you Roger for being evolved and engaged in this issue. Gender and ethnic bias runs deep – and calling it out is key to addressing it.
Karin,
Thank you and thanks for the examples you’ve helped set through your consulting practice.
There’s a lot more evolution needed and, as you note, the only way to speed it along is to shine a spotlight on it.
It’s unfortunate to see that you’ve replied to everyone that responded positively and chosen to delete my critique from your feed. Disappointed, to say the least.
Lindsay,
In no way do I want your critique to go unanswered. So, forgive me for taking time off to attend to some other tasks and sleep.
I started the Agitator to fight complacency and ignorance. When it comes to a key issues like gender and race I’m not about to be gentle, fair and balanced. There’s already too much of that in this trade.
My intent was to shame neither men nor women, but to merely point out that our sector is a few generations behind time in dealing with gender and race and downright medieval in such simple practices as properly recognizing women donors.
I assume fundraisers of both genders share some of the blame. Shame.
Time for male and female fundraisers and nonprofit leaders to wake up.
Roger
Great post, but I need to disagree just a bit on the historical front: when I went to work for Richard Viguerie in 1982, the first thing he told me about writing copy was “don’t write to a million people, write to just one person, a real person. That person should be older and probably retired, because retired folks are the backbone of small giving. And if you are thinking of writing to your grandfather, make it your grandmother instead because women are the better givers.” I am sure, Roger, you were giving the same advice down the street!
Hi Chip,
We’re in no disagreement. When I got into direct response fundraising in 1969 I made a habit of reading all the notes on the response forms and those included in the return envelopes. I quickly learned that most of the notes came from women and most of the handwriting was that of older women.
That’s when I began testing different styles, type of letters to different genders. Found out that women preferred longer letters with both stories and more detail on why their gifts were needed and why they made a difference.
I’ve followed the gender path for 50 years and have recommended others do the same.
Richard Viguerie learned the same thing at the same time and both of us did our best to spread the word. Unfortunately, it’s taken a long time for the sector to catch up. Hopefully, the recent spurt of research from groups like the Women’s Philanthropy Institute will add encouragement and insight.
So, Chip, we’re both in agreement. Let’s work to bring others on board.
The bias is indeed deep.
And for a sector that is so dominated by women (in sheer numbers), female leadership of the biggest organizations (CEO and board leadership) is still male. We have a long way to go!
But treating women donors poorly is just plain stupid. I have been completely erased a few times and turned into Mrs. MyHusband’sName. What these organizations don’t realize is that I usually pick up our mail. And their solicitations? Now go directly to the recycling bin.
This is all good food for thought. I especially second Clay’s suggestion. It’s pretty all-purpose, really. Don’t know what your donor wants? Try asking them! Crazy, but it works! (This can work for gift acknowledgment, too. I used to include how the donor was currently listed in a thank you letter and asked them to correct us if it was wrong.)
Our donor management systems also need to get with the times. So many make it near impossible to accurately record gifts from a couple with… wait for it: two different last names!
I have occasionally been chastised by readers of my blog for defaulting to female pronouns when referring to donors or fundraising staffers. Too bad. I intend to continue! My small way of adding some balance.
Thanks, Roger!
Hi Mary,
As usual you’ve nailed it.
Given the increased difficulty and cost of acquiring donors (not to mention respect and good manners) for the life of me I don’t understand why folks fail to invest the proper time in getting donor recognition correct.
Your suggestion of using the acknowledgement of a donor’s first gift to ask if the title and other information is terrific. As is Clay’s admonition to pick up the phone and ask. Both approaches show RESPECT.
Keep raising hell,Mary.
[…] Is your organization ignoring or offending women? Roger Craver over at The Agitator with The Insanity and Stupidity of Ignoring and Offending Women. […]