We Pause The Year In Review for This Serious Rant
I was moving along to finish Part 2 of my Year in Review post when a Tweet storm caught my eye. Usually, I ignore ‘em while writing, but this series struck a nerve. In fact, it reveals how we so ignore and frustrate basic donor needs that I wonder how we even survive.
Consequently, I’m postponing Part 2 in order to devote proper attention to this much-deserved Twitter Tantrum.
THE SERIES: @TheWhinyDonor kicks it off kicks off with:
“My daughter just texted to say she’s having difficulty making joint online donations with a husband who has a different last name. Y’all got to make it easier for her and all the other couples out there.”
Mary Cahalane (@mcahalane) replies with:
“ALWAYS have that problem. Folks it’s almost 2020. Fix this now.”
Then… Tom Ahern (@thattomahern) jumps in with:
“Sim One & I married in 1984. Different last names = already common. Is NGO industry 35 years behind those times? [Wait. RINGING phone. Adrian Sargeant calling? “Hey, bud! What? I’ll let them know. Happy holidays!”]
Adrian says nonprofits are 50 years behind the commercial world.”
A blizzard of Tweets follows. Among them:
Cross words in ink (He/Him) strikes a note of historic revision:
“The fact that any online donation can be made at all refutes the “50 years” criticism. Netscape was founded 25 years ago. What nonprofits have is a technology gap, not a wokeness gap.”
Clay Buck (@claybuck) moves in for the kill.
“GRRRRRRRRRR! Total pet peeve. Try being a same-gender couple—it’s 2020 and many CRMs don’t know how to handle it. Equity and inclusion in giving is not just a good idea! It’s a must.”
The coup de grace is delivered by Clay Myers-Bowman (@claybow):
“Don’t know or CAN’T?!”
Why This Is So Serious
Even the newest, youngest fundraiser, one whose tongue is a pink as the new eraser on my fresh No. 2 pencil, knows that a donor’s name matters. Not only must the name be accurate, but if there are two donors in the same household each name should be accurate, as should their address if you wish to thank them and communicate with them further—as in building a relationship.
It’s ceaselessly amazing how so many in our trade seem to ignore this most fundamental fundraising basic when it comes to getting names and addresses to match donors’ preferences and intent.
Sure, it’s easy to blame the CRMs (and they deserve a good share since most have failed to build this into their systems.) And, it’s easy to rail against the payment processors for often transforming donors’ good intentions into maddening frustration and abandoned shopping carts.) And, we can’t forget the hyper-male influence that goes into the design of these systems (I guess they simply couldn’t imagine that a woman may be the primary donor.)
Lots and lots of blather about donor centricity—all shot to hell when it comes to the commonsense reality that the first step in building a relationship is to get the name(s) properly recorded.
Let’s face it. All of us love the tricks, tips and techniques aimed at improving results, but too few of us stop to see if we are getting the basics correct. We tend to assume that “technology” will take care of it.
In reality, I don’t think there’s a CRM out there for nonprofits that does this. We also tend to think someone else will take care of it (An intern? A lowly paid staffer? A poorly trained and overworked data clerk) while we execute brilliant creative and first-rate strategy. Creative and strategy that will find its way to far too many donors who are pissed off because you obviously didn’t care to get it right in the first place.
One of the reasons The Agitator has harped on the importance of basic data stewardship – here, here and here— is because all the fundraising brilliance in the world won’t help you if your creative treasure isn’t delivered to the proper person.
So, let’s get on the backs of the CRMs, but let us also hold each other to account.
In a world of hyphenated-names, same-sex marriages, and ever-changing forms of relationships we can no longer be complacent about lesser technology, anachronistic donation pages and our own sloth.
Roger
9 responses to “We Pause The Year In Review for This Serious Rant”
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
A huge pet peeve of mine, too! Especially as the primary giver who *shockingly* didn’t take my spouse’s last name. Having worked with many CRMs throughout my career as a fundraiser, I know it’s just a matter about giving a flying f*!@ about the donor, and including that detail in data/gift entry process isn’t a huge burden.
Totally agree! We are leaving our current CRM (which shall REmain nameless) and moving to Salesforce. This issue will be addressed.
Salesforce does not address this either – though they try. I’ve been in the biz for 25+ years and this problem has only gotten worse. Also – never seen so many typos in one of your articles before. 🙁
I’ve had internal debates (internal = in my head, and with other staff) at multiple organizations about the cost/benefit of adding more fields to online giving forms to capture spouse/partner names, as well as preferred salutation.
The basic debate has been: it’s donor-centric to get their names right, buuuuuuuuut more fields on the page makes it more burdensome to donate, and so may cause fewer donations.
I think we used to lean more heavily on the latter point, but I’ve firmly shifted to the former and am advocating more and more to give people the added options (but not making them required fields)!
It is very frustrating that this continues to be an issue with many CRM platforms and fundraisers. I can’t speak for every CRM, but I do know that EveryAction allows for you to log preferred names and salutations and automatically apply them to direct outreach campaigns. Hope this helps!
I got married this year, and without asking me, my girl’s school alma mater added my new husband’s name to MY gift record.
I wrote the check from a joint account, so the communications now go to both of us, and they are thanking him as well as me.
And I’ve been a leadership donor for over 30 years. NOT happy.
Susan
We get the same number of complaints from women when we leave out their spouse or significant other! It’s like we can’t make anyone happy! If you will just politely let them know how you would like to be addressed, most are thrilled to comply!
After reading all of the above, I am inclined to lay the blame where I think it belongs – and it’s not the software. It’s the lack of will and attention. I have just mailed in a year-end contribution to a respected, large voluntary health organization. It will be the fourth year in a row that I have made an address correction on the reply slip. The first two reflected the fact that my submitted change of address resulted in my ex-spouse’s name moving along with me. She didn’t, actually. In year three, someone listened. That year, my year-end appeal came addressed to “Friend of Org.” Seriously. Now after two years of that, I’m not so sure I’m still a “friend.” But born to forgiveness, I sent in one more correction along with my gift. I could be wrong, of course, but I think these lapses speak to an institutional carelessness which in turn needlessly costs Org donations and donors. It begs the question: why should I keep donating to an organization that throws away donor dollars?
We, at the Human Rights Campaign (working for LGBTQ equality), have always had the challenge of households that include people with different last names. Our long-time CRM and trusted business partner, ROI Solutions, has helped us meet that challenge every step of the way. That is not to say it has been or continues to be easy. So I agree with my colleagues who place the responsibility on the NGO (assuming they have a true partner in their CRM provider). Also, you can keep your online donation forms simple – with one named donor – but you have to be sure the donation is credited to the named donor AND the householded account. And if you think differently named donors are a challenge – try dealing with “dead” name changes (for our transgender constituents) and insuring they are honored across all of your platforms!