The Agitator’s Editorial Stance
Reader comments on my ‘grumpiness’ last week got me thinking — and talking to Roger — about The Agitator’s editorial stance for the coming year.
We do wish we could be more positive about our sector.
We wish we could fill your in-box each morning with a terrific post about innovation, soaring nonprofit revenue, and knock-your-socks off retention and acquisition campaigns. Make every day a “You Deserve an Agitator Raise” day.
But we can’t. Maybe we’re tuned into a different channel than many of our readers. If that’s the case, you need to help us out … bring more of your successes to our attention. But only strategic breakthroughs, please.
Frankly, we’re not that interested in whether you managed to make a net profit on your umpteenth email appeal in December.
The fundamental reality of direct response fundraising (where we focus probably 80% of our attention) is that both acquisition of new donors and retention of current donors is declining. We are disappointing — failing to inspire and connect with — our donors, current and would-be.
Direct response fundraising is seriously broken. And incrementalism won’t fix it … indeed, might get in the way of fixing it.
We think fundraisers need to lift their sights above the weeds. As Roger says in his post tomorrow — discussing a somewhat radical proposition — We Must Think Bigger … And Demand Bigger.
I almost posted today on a routine item gleaned from the blog of Production Solutions, a very savvy direct mail production vendor. It was about mail package variations they believe nonprofits should be testing in the year ahead. Many of our readers would probably benefit from their insights. And normally I’d pass that along. [OK, read them here.]
But if that’s the sort of thing you’re most interested in, sign-up for their e-newsletter. Or check out one of the dozens of excellent blogs we list on our blogroll. They’ll tell you how to write better copy, or email subject lines. And, to be sure, that’s valuable stuff. I’m not knocking it at all. Roger and I, shameless sponges that we are, probably read more of these sources than most of our readers.
That said, that’s simply not the editorial direction we wish to emphasize, although we are certain to pepper our posts this year to some extent with ‘how to’ material.
We’re going to try to express the genuine alarm we feel about the state of fundraising. And we’ll try to deal strategically with the issues and challenges we see.
As Roger does in tomorrow’s post. And as we have with our recent series of a dozen-plus posts — not over yet — on Acquisition (look up that category on The Agitator website).
Yes, often, you can expect to find us grumpy.
We apologize if our tone sometimes detracts from our substance. We’ll try to watch out for that. As Sam Brown said when he converted from antiwar activist to Peace Corps director in the Carter Administration … don’t offend in style when you can offend in substance.
Still, we are alarmed … unapologetically. And we think you should be too.
It’s called The Agitator for a reason.
Tom
11 responses to “The Agitator’s Editorial Stance”
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
I am always delighted to see The Agitator doing what you do (i.e. deliver what it says on the tin!), so please don’t stop. Thank you to Tom and Roger for continuing to challenge us all.
Keep it up!
Good for you! We need grumps!
Count me in! I, too, am alarmed about all the things you list in your blog. I’m even more alarmed by the short term solutions our profession has come up with in response. More of the same won’t make things better. More aggressive, hard-sell methods won’t work in the long run even if we get a little bump now.
I’m becoming quite dismayed by the lip service my colleagues give to “relationship building” while aiming yet another sledge hammer at their donors. We can’t expect the short-sighted sins of the past to dissolve overnight, and certainly not by using the same tactics, or worse. Want different results? Do something different.
Please keep challenging us to look at the root causes and not just the symptoms. Thank you!!!
Your grumpy voice is necessary to balance the perkiness and optimism that color most of the sector. Hope is an important ingredient for nonprofit success; but so is a realistic outlook. We can count on the Agitator to yank our heads out of the sand. The posts last week were some of my favorite reading amidst the holiday season email blizzard. Thank you for what you do.
Keep agitating! Keep challenging. Keep questioning.
I think we live in a too-much status quo world. In general, our society and citizens don’t question enough, challenging their own assumptions and those of others. And, I think, the same holds true for the nonprofit/NGO sector.
I hear this echo of exceptionalism and entitlement in the nonprofit sector. “We do important work. We are important. Send money.” I hear excuses: “We’re so busy doing our mission well that we cannot do fundraising and governance and the other stuff well.” And, “I don’t have enough time to read and develop myself professionally. I know enough to get by.”
The voices that question are important. The grumpies are often the truth tellers. Keep up your good work. Thank you.
I RELY on you for your point of view! Keep pushing our industry – all of us – not to settle for the way we have always done it. I tune in to you every day expecting to read something that will get me fired up.
I’m glad the Agitators intends to keep on Agitating. Here’s to another year of making us sit up and take notice!
I’ve been saying this for some time now. This is the new “normal”. Wake up and smell the COLD coffee everyone.
Your newsletter with the link to the Starbuck’s business model set my pants on fire. I think you are absolutely right about not thinking big enough.
David Krear
I think that you are right and I’m glad if you get us riled up with truth telling. I am with a very small local nonprofit. All around us I see larger groups (and many of the small ones most like us, too!) carrying on AS IF nothing had changed. Our regional association continues to wonder where enrollment in their courses on HR and Development and such, has gone, but the reality is that so many of the small (“mom and pop”) programs in my county have no need for HR advice – they have NO staff. And those of us with programs that are still operating have to use every shred of time and energy on keeping the life support running. Yes, we know this is short-term firefighting. But it’s pretty hard to hold your head up and ask for support when you can’t point to anything you are doing right now, today!
Have to admit I’ve been filing your newsletters away for some time, only peeking at it once or twice — again, too much to do “day to day” to be able to think, although I appreciate how pathetic that is. I will start paying more attention and I’ll try to translate more of it into what our mom-and-pop organization could do to follow the good advice you share.
Thanks for the grumpiness. I’m glad to know I’m not crazy as I feel sometimes when I look around out here.
I love your posts, the grumpier the better! As a Canadian fundraiser who has recently expanded to fundraising in your wonderful country, I find that donors are very difficult indeed! And I believe, as you do, that there may be a lack of respect for donors who are treated more like transactions than people. I wonder if this could be because of transparent reporting that tele-fundraisers must adhere to and publish for all to see; they are so bent on getting a gift (monthly or one-time) they resort to arm twisting and pushing donors to the extreme. The donor finally gives in and agrees to a monthly donation, then later cancels it because it’s really not what they wanted to do in the first place. Could this be one reason for the high attrition rates?
As fundraisers we walk a fine line between good donor stewardship (always trying to leave donors with a positive feeling about supporting their charity(s)) and just making them angry. Personally, I think it’s better for everyone, to accept a little lower response rate but keep your relationship with donors positive. You can’t just keep acquiring new donors and losing them. There needs to be an overall focus and strategy in place to keep them happily giving. I could go on, but this comment is getting too long!!
What I’m grumpy about:
Innovation for the sake of innovation. The panicked idea that “WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!” Rather than innovation that is smart and actually produces results. I know that we sometimes have to fail, but let’s fail smart, and not stupid.
Here’s some innovation that I like:
We’ve been having “Thank a Member Day” call-outs for years, where we call our recent new donors and thank them for their support. The calls are made by staff and volunteers. We call around 2,000 donors, three times per year. We’ve recently been working with the CDP (Contributor Development Partnership: http://cdpcommunity.org/Home.cfm) using a call center to thank our donors (along with a lot of donors from other stations), creating economies of scale. We’ve also been applying coding to our databases and have been able to do analysis on the behavior of donors who received the calls.
Guess what: They renew better, and they give more!
INNOVATION!!! Smart innovation. Innovation that pays off.
What about sustaining member programs. There are public broadcasting station in the US that have over 50% of their donors as Sustainers, and they’re growing that percentage. We’ve seen our Sustainer numbers nearly triple in the last 2.5 years. We’re approaching 20%, and have a lot of room to grow it.
Smart innovation. That makes me less grumpy.
Keep agitating – do it even more than you did ever before.
You are right in your diagnostics, and fundraising is too important for real democratic societies to let be spoiled by by all what you are grumpy about.
I’ll join the battle at my level, retweeting and revoicing