Unethical Fundraising … Or Just Dumb?
Yesterday Roger wrote an eloquent plea for fundraisers to get serious about ethical issues in the business of fundraising … The Fundraising Ethics Gap.
I assume he meant to exclude political fundraising, which seems to know no bounds whatsoever.
I happen to lean Democratic, as least as perceived by Democratic fundraisers grasping at some shred of evidence from my past that I might be simpatico. [Actually I’m more of a libertarian … let’s see what that aside does to my future fundraising in-box!]
So I’m barraged with at least a half dozen fundraising emails a day from various entities and personages inhabiting the Democratic Party solar system. I keep waiting for them to give up, but not a chance. It seems like my very resistance itself raises the stakes in the soul of some young online fundraising warrior within the bowels of the party/campaign apparatus … “I will not stop until I crack the Belford shield. I know deep down he’s really aching to give.”
In the immediate instance that triggers this post, the supplicant is the DCCC.
Here’s virtually the entire email.
Ohio’s slipping away. DCCC is desperate. Somebody, in some unknown way, through a process of indeterminate credibility is waiting to triple match my donation. Apparently even if it’s $1.
God do I hate this crap! The only emotion this seeks to exploit is panic … arguably panic is an umbrella for lots of other giving-inspiring emotions, like fear, hate (as in ‘I hate Trump’), desperation. Sorry, I can’t seem to feel any positive emotion compelling me to give to a DCCC, whatever that is. [I actually do know what the DCCC is, but doubt that could be said for many Americans, so why should they possibly respond?]
As a last resort, I skip to the bottom of the appeal … maybe I’ll identify with the signer. Unfortunately the appeal is signed: Thanks, DCCC. They don’t even offer the more informative: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I guess they figure, why bother … that’s equally uncompelling and would have taken a couple of seconds longer to type.
Are there any ethical issues called into question here?
Surely I must have some UN-type basic human right not to be subjected to this kind of torture. Moreover, as the Rogare paper Roger wrote about suggests, whoever the fundraising guru is who’s advising the DCCC, he/she has an ethical duty not to harm the ‘beneficiary’ — the DCCC brand, such as it is.
Nah, I’m over-reacting. Probably nothing unethical going on here … unless the triple match is a fraud (nothing in the communication substantiates it).
It’s just dumb … and irritating … and not helpful to the ‘fundraising’ brand.
Tom
2 responses to “Unethical Fundraising … Or Just Dumb?”
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
Tom, we can debate whether the email appeal you received is ethical or unethical. However, I think the discussion can be rather brief. If nothing else, the debate can come down to one key point: Has the appeal been designed to provide maximum benefit to the DCCC (and, through the DCCC, donors and beneficiaries of the DCCC)? Yes, there are other points, but this is certainly one of the key issues. Because the appeal is garbage (and the creator of it should have known better), it’s unethical. If we consider the appeal further, we can no doubt find other ethical concerns.
The broader issue you raise concerns the differences between manipulation, motivation, and inspiration. I address this issue in my book, DONOR-CENTERED PLANNED GIFT MARKETING (http://amzn.to/2cMhwG8):
Important differences exist among manipulation, motivation, and inspiration.
Manipulation is the art of using insidious and sometimes unfair means to serve one’s own purposes. This is antithetical to donor-centered marketing. Ethically run nonprofit organizations do not rely on manipulation to trick people into giving. Instead, well-run organizations develop long-term relationships with supporters based on integrity and respect. When the conversation turns to gift planning [or other giving topics], these organizations judiciously learn what might inspire their prospects, and work to encourage giving, while also keeping the donor’s best interests at the forefront of discussions; furthermore, these ethical organizations recommend that prospects and donors seek third-party financial and legal counsel.
Motives are needs or desires that cause people to act. The motives that move one to act are deeply personal and developed over a lifetime. Development professionals cannot truly motivate prospects. And, if they could, it might result in manipulation not motivation. Motives reside deep within the mind and heart of the individual. While development professionals should strive to understand the motives of donors and prospects as a group, as well as those of individual prospects and donors, this should be done so that these professionals can help meet the needs of donors and prospects and help them to fulfill their philanthropic aspirations. By understanding donors and prospects, an organization will be better able to inspire support.
Inspiring donors and prospects means encouraging them to take a desired
action, ultimately supporting the organization in a variety of ways that also
meet the donor’s needs and fulfill his own philanthropic goals. Organizations inspire individuals when they treat donors and prospects the way these people want to be treated, and share information with them that is meaningful and relevant to them on a timely basis.
Manipulation is cheating. Motivation is something that exists within the
donor and prospect. By contrast, inspiration involves understanding the donor’s motivations and making a clear and compelling case for how one’s organization can best help the donor achieve his philanthropic objectives.
Any good digital political that you guys would care to write about?