The Trap of Complacency and Denial
Kodak invented the digital camera in 1975, but the company’s leadership was so attached to their profitable film business they ignored it. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and emerged a year later a much-diminished enterprise, significantly downsized today with a focus on printing and digital imaging technology.
Kevin’s post, Pogo Was Right, reminded me not only of Kodak’s fall, but also that of Blockbuster, Nokia, ToysR Us, Sears. The list goes on –all caught in the trap of complacency and denial.
The same trap –maybe even more widespread—lies in wait in Fundraising & Nonprofit Land. Sure, it’s easy to think that doing what worked in the past will keep working. Premiums…one-size-fits-all copy…continued focus on weak metrics like RFM…ask more, raise more mindsets…treating the thank you and recognition process as a cost center..focusing on volume rather than value –you know the poison.
Even as you witness declining numbers of donors, poorer retention rates, rising costs and are aware these are problems with known solutions, you continue to feel comfortable relying on the same strategies, the same donor management techniques, the same fundraising tactics.
Maintaining the Status Quo is High Risk
The status quo feels safe. It feels steady. But that feeling is exactly what puts you and your organization at risk. Despite a decade of breakthroughs in technology, behavioral science, data analytics many nonprofits remain stuck in the past, clinging to old methods and refusing to invest in the future. Change seems so complicated, so unappealing, so expensive it’ s easy to understand why the status quo feels safe.
But, just like the hackneyed metaphor of the boiling frog, this sense of the safe status quo is an illusion. The water is getting hotter, and unless you’re willing to leap out, your organization risks being left behind. Change isn’t coming—it’s already here, and it’s sweeping across the nonprofit landscape.
In today’s world, donors are different. They expect transparency, some thanks and recognition, communication that relates to their values, and Amazon-like one-click ease in making their transactions with you. They don’t want to be treated like anonymous numbers on a list and blasted over and over and over with those one-size-fits-all messages. If you’re not meeting them on their terms, you’re losing them.
Direct mail , cold calls, digital appeals flooding in-boxes and static appeals no longer have the pull they once did. Yet too many nonprofits rely on the same tired playbook because it feels familiar. But the truth is, if you don’t innovate, if you don’t invest in new skills, tools, and strategies, you’re falling behind.
AND…just as in the commercial world others will rise to take the place of the fallen. Netflix from the ashes of Blockbuster, Apple and Samsung from Kodak’s failure to seize the very digital trend it invented. Charity:Water in for WaterAid, American Heart Association in for March of Dime, Nature Conservancy in for the Izaak Walton League.
Happy Endings
But not every story ends this way. Look at Microsoft—they could have stagnated when their traditional software business began to slow. But they didn’t. Under a new CEO, they invested in cloud computing and artificial intelligence, committing to a future that was still uncertain at the time. That investment paid off, transforming Microsoft from a declining tech giant into one of the most valuable companies in the world.
These aren’t just cautionary tales from the business world. Nonprofits face the same risks if they fail to evolve. The American Red Cross, once struggling to keep up with digital engagement, transformed itself by investing in the tools and skills necessary to succeed in a digital world. They didn’t just tinker around the edges—they overhauled and invested in a new approach: re-training their staff so donors are recognized as important across the organization whether you’re “in fundraising” or some other department, upgrading their technology, and creating systems that allow them to connect with donors in real time. They learned the lesson that innovation and change isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity.
So, what does investment really mean? It means money—yes, but it also means time, commitment, and risk. It means creating a culture within your organization where innovation and change is not only encouraged but expected. It’s about training your staff to understand and use new technologies (and yes, getting rid of some who won’t or can’t), about giving them the freedom to experiment with new fundraising models, about being willing to fail sometimes because failure is part of innovation and change.
The Investment Mindset
Investing in the future of your organization means recognizing that the old ways aren’t working as well anymore. If you’re an increasing number of your donors are digital-first, you need to meet them there. If your donors expect transparency, you need to show them how their dollars make a difference. If they expect real-time engagement, you can’t rely on a quarterly newsletter to keep them interested. Equally, if they want to give but be left alone you need to honor that. In short, you need to invest in understanding your donor’s values, needs and preferences. Then meet them where they are, using the data, appropriate communications tools and strategies that make them feel connected to your cause.
Investment is also about taking a long-term view. It’s tempting to focus on short-term gains, to keep cutting costs and squeezing more out of the same resources. But that’s like thinking you can heat the water a little slower and the frog won’t notice. Eventually, it catches up with you. If you don’t invest in the future, you’ll find yourself stuck in the past, watching as other organizations—those willing to leap—thrive.
You can’t expect to thrive on yesterday’s strategies. The old rules don’t apply anymore, and sticking to them isn’t just dangerous—it’s suicidal. Every day you wait, the water gets a little hotter. Every day you fail to invest in new technology, in new training, in appropriate staffing, you’re inching closer to irrelevance.
You must decide—are you going to jump out of the pot, invest in the future, and adapt to a changing world? Or are you going to sit tight, stick with the familiar, and hope the water cools down on its own?
Because here’s the truth: the fundraising water isn’t cooling down. It’s heating up. Fast.
If you don’t start investing now, you’ll find yourself boiled before you know it.
Roger
Totally agree Roger, as the person who first introduced the fax machine to the legal community in the Midwest then introduced running databases over the Internet in the late 90’s it is so easy to identify the forward thinking Nonprofits.
I firmly believe it starts with the Board of Directors. How is it structured and maintained over time. They must lead with concepts and actions centered around innovation, change and disruption. Far too often they are doing just the opposite and then it trickles down.
Fingers crossed…
Thank you, Roger, for continuing to be an important voice for change! We’re amazed that everybody isn’t shouting this from the rooftops: The root cause of most shortfalls in fundraising is lack of investment.
The logic is the less spent on fundraising, the more left for operations. Unfortunately, the opposite is true, assuming a well-staffed, well-run fundraising business model.
A big part of the problem is the still lingering idea that it is “wrong” to spend significant money on fundraising or to have fundraising costs ever exceed a certain (always arbitrary) percentage of funds raised. It takes an investment to innovate, to communicate more relationally, and to change long out-of-date practices.
Steve
Hey Roger, hope you are doing well.
This post couldn’t have come at a better time. It just so happens that I am in the middle of reading Originals by Adam Grant, and he brings up Polaroid and there decline. They also had a digital camera and decided not to pursue because of the margins that film had. What is interesting about Polaroid though is that it’s founder Land was a prolific innovator and they did take chances, but the wrong ones. They put a huge bet on Polavision the Instant Home Movie camera, but it cost them dearly eventually going bankrupt.
What Grant calls out as a major reason why they were not successful is that they did not allow for divergent thinking. Land isolated himself from dissenters and this led to group think. There were in fact people at Polaroid that believed digital was the future, but their voices were shut down. Grant goes on to say that even if the dissention is incorrect, it helps make a better outcome.
Applying that lesson here, I would encourage nonprofits to encourage challenging the status quo and avoiding group think. I think it is time to change the game and if there is no dissention within your organization, then you have to question why that is.
Cheers,
Ben
I doubt I’ve read a more important and valuable 1500± words in my 63 years of marketing than Roger Crover’s Agitator article on October 21, 2024, The Trap of Complacency and Denial.
Like Mozart, in the movie Amadeus, said to the Emperor who commented that Mozart had too many notes in his music, “What notes should I take out?”
Roger’s every word is on point and important.
Don’t just read it once—read it over and over and encourage all in your marketing world to do the same.
Roger’s message is that important.
Richard