There was a vigorous debate over at our friends at The Agitator about the nature of being focused on the donor, with topics like whether a “you” focus is sufficient to be donorcentric. Virtual blows were thrown, clarifications made, blood pressures checked.

At the same time, I had the opportunity to be with several nonprofit leaders discussing donorcentricity, where it was interesting to see different perspectives, programs, and sticking points working toward this elusive goal.

Both reminded me of the parable of the blind people trying to describe an elephant.  The one who felt just the leg thought it was a pillar; the one who felt the tusk thought it was a solid pipe; the one who felt the tail thought it was a rope; and so on.

With donorcentricity, I wonder if we are just describing different parts of the elephant. This is great — to hear people passionate about the topic with their own perspective.  As a former (and occasionally relapsing) debater, I believe firmly in the power of debate and discussion to convince and to bring out the best in our own arguments.

So I submit two points for discussion.

1. A “you” focus in communications is a necessary condition of donorcentricity; it is not a sufficient condition.

One need only read a poorly written donor newsletter to see that we can’t declare victory on even this seemingly simple point. I read one the other day from a nameless organization (to protect the guilty) that mentioned the donor once, on the third page, second story, eighth paragraph. That’s a sin, and not a minor one.

Neither, however, would changing these communications to have 10% of the words being you be a total solution. For a simple example, if you have two donors, one who is dying of the disease you are working to end and the other in the “there but for the grace of God” camp, and you send them the same “you are making a difference by helping people with this dread disease, raising awareness in the general public, and working to find a cure” language, you aren’t honoring why at least one and probably both of these people are giving.

Likewise, when you are asking the person who just donated to tweet about the great impact they’ve made, you might be ignoring the fact that they just spend 30 minutes trying to navigate your online donation form.

Put bluntly, the person at the DMV can ask you by name how your day is and smile — that makes the experience better. But if they don’t care about the answer and you’ve just been waiting in a line for the third time after they lost your paperwork, it isn’t enough.  But it is something

2. Focus on the donor isn’t a destination; it’s a journey.

Even the worse of us have hope. Even the best of us have miles to go. We face time, money, management, and mental energy constraints every day. We aren’t going to get this perfect. There is no perfect.

What we are continually striving for is a better state of broken.  We will always be short of perfect.  But we can be broken less and broken for fewer people.

That means when you take a step — deleting the “big check” photo from your site, adding a survey to assess experience, focusing a piece’s story on the donor and not on the logic model for the charity’s program, etc. — there should ever be two reactions:

1. Congratulations
2. What’s next?

We can all be better fundraisers, better relationship builders, better change makers. And debates like this one are part of how we get there.

If I’m wrong, let me know — I’d love to discuss and debate it with you!