The #Donorlove Glee Club
It’s clear from the wealth of thoughtful comments this week that Agitator readers are a donor-centric, donor-loverish, donor-centered, supporter-led tribe.
And contrary to the headline in Tom’s rant, Stop Bashing ‘Donor-Centricity, I’m a charter member of the #donorlove Glee Club.
While I have no desire in Dan Kirsch’s words to see the The Agitator morphed into ‘The Donor Centricity Echo Chamber’ I don’t agree with Dan that we should be heeding Billy Bragg’s admonition that “the temptation to take precious things we have apart to see how they work must be resisted, for they never fit again.”
I think being donor-centric, centered, focused, loverish, whatever you want to call it demands that we get to the heart of what’s being done to donors that is driving them away. In short, approaching fundraising through the eyes of the donors — not the organization. Building relationships rather than tweaking tactics to benefit short-term results.
And that means exposing some current practices that are really not donor-centered regardless of how they’re labelled. That’s why I raised the ‘volume’ issue. In truth the effort to reduce volume is an organization-centric tactic being camouflaged in the name of donor centricity in hopes they will be less offended and thus stick around. All without affecting the short term numbers.
Those who put donors at the center of their thinking (as most Agitator commenters apparently do) and think longer-term about their organizations, don’t have to worry about volume or frequency. For them the correct and healthy solution is to send donors what they want, treat them with respect, kindle and reward their enthusiasm … and the future will be fine.
In fact, the only way to break out of the rut of rising costs, lower returns and poor retention in organizations driven by the economic engine of volume is to change the culture, mindset and metrics that have become far too ingrained. A short-term oriented, spreadsheet-driven culture, driven by an assembly line mentality that, against all evidence, persists in believing that donors give simply because we ask.
There is a better way. And we’ll get into that next week starting with some much-needed history of fundraising and some basic principles.
Have a good weekend.
Roger
13 responses to “The #Donorlove Glee Club”
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
YES! Donor Glee Club…where donors do the singing and we listen and learn and applaud.
YES! Learn more. And DonorVoice helps us with that. And the Hartsook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy at Plymouth University in the U.K. Where both Roger and I are members of the Advisory Board. Read the Relationship Fundraising report that came out in January 2016. And wait for the new research that’s being launched.
Echo chamber. Bull. Chamber of learning. Chamber of secrets (Harry Potter?) Love chamber. Loverish and Loverize and…
In our Indian philosophy, we support a cause dear to our heart in three ways:
1. By our physical body – putting in time, actual working on projects supporting the cause etc.
2. By our “mind” – We think, we make suggestions, our beliefs etc.
3. By our “wealth” – monetary contributions
Unfortunately, most nonprofits focus most on the monetary contributions aspect. We forget that monetary contributions provide only one avenue for support to the cause. A typical donor is more aligned with the cause rather than with the organization. Yet, most communications focus more on the organization. Such communications are one too many. They only reinforce the idea that money is being spent on frivolous stuff rather than for the reason why the donor contributed in the first place. Eventually, such donors leave.
As service provider, we often get asked – how many times should we mail our appeals? As if there is some magic number! What Roger says is so true!
“Those who put donors at the center of their thinking (as most Agitator commenters apparently do) and think longer-term about their organizations, don’t have to worry about volume or frequency. For them the correct and healthy solution is to send donors what they want, treat them with respect, kindle and reward their enthusiasm … and the future will be fine.”
“Those who put donors at the center of their thinking (as most Agitator commenters apparently do) and think longer-term about their organizations, don’t have to worry about volume or frequency. For them the correct and healthy solution is to send donors what they want, treat them with respect, kindle and reward their enthusiasm … and the future will be fine.”
Exactly!
So beautifully said, Roger and Arvind. Committing to putting donors first also leads to clarity in everything you do. You gain focus. And there’s that dreaded ‘C’ word… Commitment.
Sorry, I’m just fatigued by the continuous self congratulations and cheer leading among our fellow Glee Club members for being so enlightened. Equally tired of the whining and hand wringing over those who just don’t get it.
It all seems like wasted energy to me.
Can’t we just stipulate that all present are true believers of the donor centric gospel?
My concern is that the evangelists are preaching to each other instead of developing strategies to convert the masses. I’m talking about people who are not subscribers to The Agitator and would never attend – or approve payment for their staff’s attending – anything labeled #DonorLove.
I’m talking about the hiring managers, the budget makers, the marketing experts, the development careerists, the copy producers, the board/development committee chairs, even the “play it safe at all costs” consultants. These are the people I encounter who are afraid to take their precious things apart for fear they’ll never fit together again.
I’ve read thought leaders here rightly rail about other crises in our field and call for action to counteract serious threats like those brought to light by the UnderDeveloped report. I’m not sure how much we’ve moved the needle on that three years post publication.
What will it take – and how long – to effect real change on the donors first, last and always crusade? Especially when the research shows that we humans become more deeply entrenched in our mistaken views when presented with facts that prove us to be wrong.
On the bright side, any day that Billy Bragg makes it into my work is a good day as far as I’m concerned.
Cheers.
So I’m going to get beaten for this but… I agree with Dan. Good God. He isn’t saying to ditch donor centricity. Of course it matters: this is customer service by any other name and, business or nonprofit, we don’t survive without it. In fact the “customer experience” has been called “the last source of sustainable differentiation.”
Can we not be sharing more re: strategies and practical stuff that people can do? If anyone’s read Made to Stick, you know the way to change entrenched views is partly to expose the bright spots: like ways to change internal culture from an organization that’s done it, or more case studies like the one we shared on MQI, or baby step examples like Food for the Poor’s fabulous pilot test on thank-yous, or bright spots like how one year into a donor newsletter, a client sent me a copy of a reply slip with a lovely message from a donor requesting info on leaving a gift in their will? These are the things that will give quantifiable value to investing in the donor experience. Without it, who in their right minds would listen to us?
I agree, Lisa – sharing the successes as well as the failures would be very helpful – so long as we can resist reducing those to “follow this exactly and you’ll raise money” – because of course, our organizations and donors are not all the same.
But another thought: we’re concerned about focus on short-term goals. So to be more responsive to our donors, one big thing that needs fixing is short-term tenures. How do you even get a good sense of your donors if you’re only there for a year or two? How much richer does that understanding and dare I say it, relationship become when fundraising staff members are there for years and years?
So it’s all of a system.
Mary, did you ever see Ken Burnett’s article on SOFII about the guard book? It can’t take the place of long-term tenure but it’s a great step towards addressing the continuity issue, especially in light of staff turnover as you say.
No worries: we’d never be so puffed up as to assume that if someone did precisely what we did at MQI, for example, that they’d experience exactly the same thing. Missions are different one from the next. But there needs to be some starting point, backed up by hard metrics, for people to even have a case for investing in the right kind of donor care in the first place: especially if they face the kind of obstacles that you and Dan have hinted at seeing, in different ways.
As to the bright spots, they exist across lots of different causes, from humane societies to universities (which we saw in a presentation given by Mikhael Borstein at AFP, find it, you won’t regret it). And good practices can be adapted. Absolutely all of a system, culture to production. That’s why we need everyone chipping in to share their special areas of expertise. Or at least, that’s how I see it. 🙂
One anal point of correction — the bright spots analysis is from “Switch,” also written by the Heath brothers. And the idea of it stems from a public health practice called (you can’t make these things up) “positive deviance.”
The Haas Foundation just published a “Bright Spots” report which makes for extremely compelling reading:
http://www.haasjr.org/resources/fundraising-bright-spots
Agreed the need is for practical approaches and success stories. We have so many client fundraisers who know they are ‘doing the wrong thing’ but find themselves in a death spiral driven by unreasonable demands for fast ROI.
Thanks so much for this discussion!
Absolutely, Lisa! And oh dear, I didn’t mean to imply you would ever do such a thing. I’ll continue to study your great work with MQI. It’s amazing. There’s a reason clients want to work with you for years and years!
I guess what I meant was if it was as easy as a recipe, everyone would be doing it well and donor retention wouldn’t be an issue. It’s always evolving!
GAH: Mark, thanks! I love all things Heath Bros so much that they sometimes flow together like a giant river of goodness.
No worries at all, Mary: I totally got it. 🙂 It is always evolving. It must.
Lisa, your takeaways from your AFP presentation are stunning. I’m still reviewing the materials. What a gift to the sector!
And the Haas Bright Spots report mirrors the results my members (disclaimer: the ones who actually attend and apply – there’s that dreaded ‘C’ word again) achieve ;).
Mark just wanted to thank you for that Haas link. The PDF is outstanding. Practical applications of not just donor-centricity, but the link between development and communications, the process of continuously improving whatever system you have (there’s your word Mary), how it’s characterized by discipline and persistence (no golden ticket mentalities)… and all the good things that result. I like it too because it includes input from donors, and shows what even small shops can do. I’m re-reading it this weekend. And thanks too Pam, glad you’re enjoying the AFP stuff. 🙂
I love what Arvind shared from his background/philosophy. And I do believe most nonprofits would agree with this — if they only stopped to think about it. But old habits are hard to break.
And the sector got into bad habits when there was less competition for donor dollars. And there was no digital revolution giving everyone access to information that was previously the province of the few. Then, “outbound marketing” wasn’t so offensive. It actually delivered content people wanted — because they couldn’t get it anywhere else. Today, things have changed. We always needed the “relationship-building” model for major gift fundraising. Now we need it for all fundraising. We have to help more; sell less. Communicate more; fundraise less. When we come from a place of love, the good stuff follows naturally.
And this is a lot of what the Haas, Jr. Fund’s “Bright Spots” report brought to light. While hard to put a finger on, these successful organizations had something in the air folks breathed. How employees felt in the workplace. How human the organization was. In places where everyone asks each other, regularly, “How can I help you today?” (rather than guarding their own territory or saying “this isn’t my job”), then centering in on helping donors was a natural outgrowth of who they were.
I do think change is happening. Five years ago only a few folks were talking about “culture of philanthropy.” Donor retention was much less top of mind. Recognizing the problem is the first step. And all of you folks are the reason I believe that change will happen.