When Donors Speak Do You Listen?
More importantly, the question should be, ‘when donors talk do you listen — and do you respond?
My guess is that very few organizations take the time and care required to respond to the comments, insights, complaints and suggestions of donors and other constituents.
Our sector isn’t alone of course. Failure to respond to customer messages is a prime component of poor customer service. And, according to NewVoiceMedia poor customer service costs U.S. companies alone $41 billion each year. Talk about a barrier to retention.
Of course, most groups realize (even if they don’t act always act on it) that donor emails and telephone calls from donors should be answered. But what about social media? Lots of bragging about the number of Facebook ‘likes’, Twitter followers, etc.
But how many of the messages, questions and comments that flow in on the river of social media actually get responded to?
According to the latest report from the Sprout Social Index 7 out of 8 messages on social media go unanswered within 72 hours!
That’s like your donor service team failing to pick up the phone 88% of the time. Or answering only 1 out of 8 calls and waiting 3 days to do it.
No wonder social media often is so unproductive when it comes to building donor loyalty and retention. And even if you’re not using social media for fundraising purposes just imagine how many inquiring constituents are being turned off and turned away.
“Yes, but it’s free!” I can hear the excuses flying forth. Is that why, on average, 160 social media posts are pumped out to every 37 replies to customer/donor questions?
The worst abusers? Realtors with 184 posts to 21 replies. The best? Utilities (321: 237) and Retail (240:109). In the middle? Nonprofit education at 159:40.
Here’s a terrific infographic from the Sprout Social Index titled The Urgency of Social Customer Care. Take some time and study it.
Why would any organization that cares about motivating and building loyalty among its constituents — whether they are donors, advocates or simply interested followers — fail to understand that if you’re investing in moving folks to the point where they care enough to speak up it’s absolute insanity not to engage them.
Are you tracking the number of your social media post vs the number of your replies?
Roger
4 responses to “When Donors Speak Do You Listen?”
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
No sooner had my post appeared this morniing than I heard from the ever-vigilant Pam Grow with a marvelous example that appeared in Gaye Gifford’s blog.
To see Gayle’s experience as an Amnesty International donor and the price organizations pay in good will and $for not responding properly to the comments, questions of their donors click here: http://www.ceffect.com/2015/09/09/donor_services_matter/
This is a very important issue in several ways.
First and foremost, as you note, success with donors is predicated on listening. The way we show we are listening is by acknowledging what we are hearing. It is the way to show we value those who speak to us. In fact, I believe the things we do to show we are listening to our charitable investors is the most critical aspect of donor retention. After all, if we look like we don’t care about them why should they care about us?
Second, social media is the preferred platform for communications among all of our donor segments today. Even those who say they hate Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and so forth are often users themselves. That is why nonprofits are there. Is it “free”? Sure. (Of course, that’s only true if you believe our time has no cost, but that’s a discussion for another day.) But the chief value of being on these platforms is because that’s where nearly all of our current and all of our future donors are living and breathing. Therefore, if we don’t want to look like we are just spamming, we’d better be using these platforms to listen first and talk second. And our talk should focus on the interests of our current and future supporters. It should be about them. Not us.
You quote some statistics about the worst abusers. I believe them all but one. Nonprofits. I believe that our sector is the worst by far. While universities and colleges may be responding to 1/4 of the messages which concern them, other NPOs largely ignore the conversation.
For the last several years, I have informally testing nonprofits by posting on Twitter (https://twitter.com/gordonjayfrost) and sometimes Facebook. These are almost exclusively positive comments and shares. They have ranged from retweets to posts about their employment searches, from applauding fundraising successes to asking simple questions. I have posted with and without their handles. And I have posted concerning organizations that would not know me and others that definitely should, including organizations to whom I have contributed, substantially in a couple of cases. It is exceptionally rare when any of the organizations have acknowledged any of these posts. And I know that I am not being treated any better or worse than anyone else on these platforms.
Of course, I have the thick skin of a fundraiser. Most donors don’t. When some nonprofit ignores me, I see an educational opportunity. When a donor is ignored, they might well feel slighted. Or be less likely to renew their support. Or at least not compelled to make an extra effort to share information on the organization within their own social networks, which is the single greatest opportunity for a nonprofit with social media.
There are notable exceptions. An organization like the Humane Society of the United States comes to mind as a place that has committed itself to responding to nearly every social media communication. In an environment where the vast majority of organizations either do not monitor mentions or choose to ignore them, this simple decision, appropriately resourced, has brought significant social and financial benefit to the Humane Society.
We all teach our kids to say “please” and “thank you.” To acknowledge others. We know it is polite. And we also know it’s pretty helpful to us. The same is true in fundraising. For 25 years, the Institute for Charitable Giving, and its founder, Jerry Panas, have been evangelizing for similarly simple and effective approaches to major gift fundraising. Treating people like people. Human beings who have something to say. And who, being heard, are more likely to bond with us, support the mission together with us, and tell all their best friends about us.
Social media provides us the best single opportunity we have ever had in the field of fundraising to see, acknowledge, welcome, and empower our donors as partners. It all starts with listening. And demonstrating we are doing so. Right now, our field is failing miserably at this. But we can change that–and make much of the donor retention problem fade too–simply by doing what we know is right. Listening and showing that we’ve heard.
It is sort of ironic and a touch sad that the mere fact that a nonprofit responds to a social media post directed right at them sets them apart as much as making a thank you phone call to a new first time donor…
#notthathard
This issue goes deep. It goes to making an organization-wide commitment to the very principles of donor-centricity. Because, let’s be real here: who is primarily responsible for donor service? Typically, it’s underpaid administrative staffers (usually women) or volunteers. Your board members need to be making those thank you calls, your ED needs to be making those thank you calls.