The Marble In Your Ashtray
Last Friday was drizzly, the kind where the rain isn’t sure of itself. I went for my pickup truck’s annual inspection.
In the corner of that musty garage, mechanics’ hands as greasy as the floor, there was the usual bulletin board; an artifact with layers of oil change reminders and lost dog flyers.
Among this community collage, a cartoon—its grays and blacks fighting through layers of dust—snagged my attention. A car laid out like a jigsaw puzzle gone wrong, parts scattered with careless abandon. Two mechanics presiding over this metallic chaos definitively explaining the source of the problem to the customer: “Turns out it was a marble in the ashtray.”
We fundraisers aren’t much different than those mechanics. Minus oil-stained coveralls, we dig around the engines of our operations in search of sources of problems and seek solutions.
But here’s the thing: in the buzz of new technologies, the brave new worlds of behavioral science and AI, we risk missing the simple stuff. The marble in the ashtray.
You see, nearly a third of all donors walk out the door, not because we didn’t have the shiniest tools or the latest data-crunching gizmos. They exit because we forgot the prompt and heart-felt thank you note. All they may have needed to stick around was to hear they mattered. That’s the marble—right there in the ashtray. [See Is Gratitude a Top Priority for Your Organization ]
Take our mailing lists, for instance. Did you know a nonprofit with even a below-average bad address rate of 1% and, let’s say with 25,000 donors, can bleed over $150,000 in five years if addresses are left to gather dust. This is the most basic of basics—keeping names and addresses current, avoiding the clutter, expense and embarrassment of the outdated. [ See Two Low/No Cost Tips to Boost Year-End Revenue ]
And when the sad news comes that a donor has died how quickly do we act? Although only 1% of the attrition rate in the commercial world is attributable to death it’s quite different when it comes to nonprofit retention. In our sector we lose 16% of our donors to mortality. We’re not good at doing even simple things about deceased donors.
Most organizations don’t do anything proactive to identify or be alerted to our loyal, now lost supporters. We don’t’ stop the mail that’ll only serve as a blunt reminder to those left behind. Nor do most bother to reach out with the human touch of condolences and respect to donors’ spouses or families. Failure to address the issue of deaths of our donors with proper procedures and grace is more than an oversight—it’s a breach of the unspoken covenant we hold with those who trusted us. [ See The Case of the Disappearing Donors ]
Now, let’s talk about relationships. You ever get the feeling you’re the only one talking at a party? That’s us, too often. The Agitator’s been harping on feedback for years. Few seem to heed our plea. It’s not just good manners; it’s good business. Feedback’s a handshake, a pat on the back, a two-way street that’s one of the least costly ways to keep our donors close. Mail, website, email, social media—you can seek everywhere. It’s mighty important when it comes to retaining donors. [ See Kevin’s series on the three levels of feedback: here,here and here.
And then there’s knowing what to measure. You don’t need a fancy gadget or high paid analyst for this. Retention rate and lifetime value are basic measures—the GPS of fundraising. They’re vital signs, not noise such as “likes” or “clicks” or the digital chatter that we sometimes mistake for meaningful feedback and guidance. We live in a landscape where the fundamental is in danger of becoming obscured by the unnecessary. [ See Fundraising Metrics That Matter ]
It’s time to get back to basics. It’s time to look for the marble in the ashtray. Before we tear the engine apart, let’s make sure we’re not just chasing after that rattle with a toolbox full of fancy, forgetting the essentials.
Remember the Marble.
Roger
7 responses to “The Marble In Your Ashtray”
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
Loud and emphatic cheering for you from my side of the keyboard this Monday morning, Roger:
AMEN and hell yes to all of this. Reason #35,999,897 why we love The Agitator. Now and Forever! Lisa xx
Thank you Lisa. Thank you delinquents can gain expiation at your treasured Thank You Letter on SOFII.org. https://sofii.org/article/how-to-write-a-better-thank-you-letter-and-why-it-matters
We all owe you our gratitude for this treasure trove.
Cheers
Roger
Hear hear – on both counts!
As always, very wise counsel from the Oracle! Many thanks to you and Kevin for your
dedication to our sector.
Best regards, Denny
Roger, I was just considering the status of where the FUNDRAISER is in the traditional development as a profession. You sit in a unique position as, perhaps I do, the field is growing and diversifying both in personnel, challenges and opportunities. Under Covid, we saw the greatest scientific community take a step or two forward only to back up a step in developing a treatment of this disease. Those steps backward were frequently, other scientists challenge the approach invoking “peer review” frequently.
My point is Peer Review is going through a challenge to its procedures and methods. “Peer review” is simply senior, recognized professionals reviewing your methods of research and action anticipated in outcomes. I thought at the time, the world is moving so fast while the intent of peer review is honesty, integrity, and validity. Perhaps we need to modify Peer Review acknowledging visionaries participation in that process.” Simply asking a rich person do they give in part to get the Chartiable Deduction? They respond it is to help humanity, is not a valid research method.
All of that is to say, absent Visiting Hartsook Chair, John List, U of Chicago, we have few others that are taking the now large body of fundraising research with little testing of those conclusions in a valid “clinical’ way to cerify the researcher’s conclusions. So while a group of well intention research is convinced ‘…the bag lady syndrome’ (that women are reluctant to give after losing a spouse out of concern for having enough resources.) And my practice would illustrate they are right. No testing of the best way for fundraisers when working with a donor on how to use that information. Just one of many conclusions of prominent studies don’t afford our professionals with how to effectively use that information.
Certainly direct response is doing this sort of testing, but at the large gift levels, we are told the average giving of a person worth $10 million+ averages only $35k a year. I am sure that is accurate, but it leave a fundraising trying to attract donors of this net worth with an impression all that hard work results in modest rate of return. I raised million dollar plus gifts for 40 years from wealth people and the research which I am sure is correct, averaging the number is not helpful.
Recently, I was flattered to receive a note from John Lis thanking me as one of only few that understand this–what he calls Field Testing– is vital for donor and fundraising alike to maximize giving.
While philanthropy in America and in major parts of the world is ancient history. Identifying and educating donors of the opportunity for impact is still in it early life. Thanks for the call to look at the fundamentals again of our work.
Thanks, Roger
This is IT! This is all of it — thank you for saying it once again. The basics matter so very, very much. I’ve just done five different database/CRMigrations, hundreds of thousands of records, and ever single one of them is and will be limited by the actual quality of the data and the structure that supports. The best, coolest, most advantageous technology — the one that promises to Xx your fundraising results – will only go so far as the quality of the data, and therefore, the quality of the relationship allow.
Guess what? AI using bad data is still, well, bad data — just faster. Possibly.
awesome Roger… i literally just wrote a blog post last week about exactly that. Can we stop talking about AI and focus on the BASICS? Thanking and clean data… you beat me to it!
cheers, erica