Yesterday Tom asked, What Fundraising Skills are You Lacking?, and commenced to offer up his preference for metrics-oriented skills as the ‘most important’ while conceding equal importance to qualitative skills like ‘getting serious about planned giving’, ‘better story telling’, and ‘building a retention culture’.

The evening before Tom’s post appeared I received a surprising email and an equally troubling opinion piece. “Surprising” because both reported the lousy, rude, awful, very bad treatment of donors.

Frankly, I was under the belief, apparently mistaken, that virtually every fundraiser possessed the fundamental skill of decent manners and respect for donors. After all, there are no skills in fundraising more basic.

The email came from Agitator reader and fundraiser Janice Fonger. Here’s the disturbing essence of her message:

“I’ve seen and done a lot in my 30+ years working in and with nonprofits….  That said, I’m seeing a bit of a disturbing trend….  There are lots of folks new to nonprofits and development who are heading up their organization’s fundraising efforts. Many of these of newbys are clueless: Clueless about what a nonprofit is and how it should work….  Clueless that fundraising is so much more than just filling a bucket.

“Over the last few weeks as we recover from year end-itis, I’ve seen numerous posts on a Facebook group bashing donors. Yes, donors can be demanding. They can be arrogant. They can make our work a challenge.  But when development “professionals” talk about donors in a disrespectful way, like they are a bother, this is concerning. Members of the group have talked about a donor who “only gave $25” having the audacity [to give a small gift that size.] Or the $1,000 donor who expects a return on their investment. These are concerning. These show a lack of understanding and a flaw with the organization’s culture of philanthropy. No wonder donor retention rates are so low.”

“Donors are not perfect, but until we understand what motivates them, what inspires them, and what royally pisses them off, we are doomed to mediocrity.”

No sooner had I finished that email and thanked Janice for her thoughts than I received an opinion piece by Agitator reader, veteran fundraiser and philanthropist Bob Hartsook, Chair of the Hartsook Companies. Over the years Bob has given millions of his own money for education and research in philanthropy. He’s been there, done that  — on both sides of the giving transaction.

In a column titled Honoring the Donor’s Hard Earned Money, appearing in The NonProfit Times, Bob reports on the uproar caused by Wayne State University’s handling of a $40 million gift because the donor specified how the gift was to be used. Fortunately, the university and the donor worked it out in a manner satisfactory to both. But, as Bob warns, “Misunderstandings between donors and their charities are occurring more frequently”.

He cites other examples of callous or inappropriate violations of donor intent. Included is an example of his own giving, where he offered his law school’s $20 million campaign a gift of $500,000 payable over a 10-year period. This gift was rejected by email from the law school dean: “We only accept pledges over five years.”

Bob’s story has a pathetic ending. “He [the dean] obviously didn’t get the memo that it was a gift of my money. I wanted to give $500,000 over 10 years, not five. That was five years ago and the last I heard, the school languishes at less than $5 million raised in five years.”

With donor treatment like that, no wonder!

Here’s Bob’s take on this kind of behavior toward donors:

• “Short-sightedness, lack of creativity, and misguided, institutional or personal ego have led to many a fundraising failure. When will fundraisers — and those who have many opinions about how other people should spend their money — learn that giving is a personal endeavor?

• “When you give your money away you can direct how you want to spend it. The beautiful part of a “strings attached” gift is, the institution can always say no.

• “Fundraisers and organizations must understand “you reap what you sow”. They will either be embarrassed and ashamed when they see large gifts go to other institutions. Or, they will flourish as they focus attention on donor intent, values, and assets (now and later) to attract gifts at the highest levels possible.”

Amen Bob. Amen Janice.

Roger