I wonder how many donors give in spite of the fundraising machine, not because of it?

Here at The Agitator and over at our sister company DonorVoice we focus on that question a lot. In fact that’s what led to the research and eventually our recent Agitator/DonorVoice/SOFII  Webinar on How to Reduce F2F Attrition in the First 90 Days. You’re welcome to download the recorded webinar here.

Our interest in all this was triggered by the press and public’s outrage over Face-2-Face and telemarketing techniques that’s spilled forth in the UK. We  kept asking: “Why or how in the world could a sector this sophisticated have allowed this to happen?”

After all, as you’ll see in Ken Burnett’s recap of the history of F2F, it was in the UK where direct debit/monthly giving first proved itself and served as a model for much of the world. And then the process, the machinery ran amok. Telemarketers called too often and too intently. Canvassers flooded the streets. Finally the public threw up.

Whether all this was allowed to happen because of greed, arrogance, ignorance or incompetent and inferior leadership, I have no idea.

What I do know is that lousy fundraising — meaning neglect of and/or contempt for the donor — is not unique to the UK. It is the global norm.

Fortunately there’s a silver lining as some of the bigger players in the sector are beginning to see the light … mainly because their business-as-usual fundraising machinery is causing them to feel the heat. If not in the form of an outraged press and public, then in the more quiet and deadlier decline in retention and lifetime value.

My hope is that we not miss the opportunity to get at the root of all this: our failure to involve, listen to and build true relationships with donors. Or as Kevin Schulman makes clear in the Webinar, the continued insistence on the part of all too many organizations to approach the business of  fundraising as though it’s an assembly line business producing widgets.  Mindless to the experiences, concerns and attitudes of the donor.

We need to get specific and share our insights into what makes for effective and real management of the donor experience. The sort of effort that avoids jargon, abstraction and platitudes. Because frankly, if we go that route nothing will improve.

‘Donor experience’ as we’ve noted in several posts — here and here — can be measured and acted upon. But, as noted in my post Ask The One Who Matters Most, we must begin by listening to the donors.

Our donors can and do provide important insights into how to repair or re-design some of the machinery we use. Their feedback provides essential information to keep us on track.

Here’s an illustration of what I mean by involving the donor to keep the machine on track. A charity I’m involved with as a volunteer conducts major Face-2-Face efforts. They have built immediate donor feedback and equally immediate organizational response into the process.

Meet Bret Maidman. A face-to-face fundraiser recruited him on Monday, last July 13th. He agreed to the monthly contribution requested.

Now in most of the current fundraising world this action would be called ‘success’ as Bret is reduced to a ‘1’ (for a ‘yes’), coded into the CRM. Bret is now a statistic on a spreadsheet showing a projected break-even for the campaign, knowing that he has, at best, a 50% chance of sticking around.

But not in this case. Not with this charity. They have an automated process in place to ask for the donor’s feedback immediately after an interaction. It is a prominent request; in fact it is the most important task in the solicitation process.

The charity understands that not all ‘1’s are created equal. They know that half do leave and that the vast majority do so within the first 3 months. So they place a feedback mechanism to identify and discriminate among the 1’s by asking them for feedback immediately after they sign up and as part of the email confirmation.

Here’s how Bret, in his own words,  reported his experience with the charity.

 “Put systems in place so people who are interested can contribute what they want on a single basis rather than being manipulated into repeat payments that they have to cancel. You have a good cause, but the way that you direct your representatives to solicit donations lacks integrity – so much so that I am not comfortable with you. It is a shame. I wanted to give something. I did not want to be forced to have to cancel ongoing payments so I could contribute anything. It makes me very uncomfortable with who you are.”

 And this is how the charity responded. 

An immediate email went to Bret apologizing for the experience being less than ideal. And then, in the most simple and human of ‘next steps’, they telephoned Bret to set things right.

They solicited a one-time donation from Bret, canceled his monthly pledge, and also received an agreement from Bret that they could send materials over the next 3 months showing how his gift made an impact. Finally, Bret agreed that he would take a call from the charity at that point to see about increasing his support in some way.

From One Voice to Many

The charity makes use of this feedback by periodically aggregating and analyzing comments and input from all donors, making system-wide changes to the donor experience. This has the dual benefit of improving the donor experience and raising more money.

Of course this illustration is not a once and done thing. It is emblematic of a mindset, a method of operation … a key starting point in a new world order where donor experiences — and the process of measuring and managing them — truly matter.

Please share what you’re doing to listen to, and act on, donors’ experiences with your organization.

Roger