Who Gets Fired?
I’m continually amazed so many organizations ignore feedback from their donors. Feedback that would enable them to improve retention rates and lifetime value. They simply hit the ‘mute’ button.
How stupid can you get?
Despite the fact that it’s so much easier to measure how digital things are being used, I doubt that even 1 out of every 100 nonprofits bother to measure the ease or difficulty their donors experience with the simple (in reality anything but ‘simple’) donation form.
Sure, there’s plenty of stupid, phony measurements that lead nowhere. Measurements I call ‘vanity metrics’ like ‘open rates’, ‘page views’ and other such nonsense.
Sadly, there’s little or no measurement of the difficulty, frustration – or, hallelujah – moments when donors attempt to engage with nonprofit websites.
Yet we continue to honor — and pay — the consultants, staff and others who bring us lots of ‘Likes’ on Facebook, lots of open rates and views on our websites. Most of it is absolute bullshit!
Will we never learn?
If we really care about our donors and how easy or difficult we make their experiences with us, then we better wake up and listen to them.
Many donors are not happy. In fact, many are quite unhappy and dissatisfied.
My guess is that a lot of this problem is rooted in the way we pay staff and consulting ‘experts’. If someone’s facile with the ins and outs of the web or Facebook and talks a good game, who are we to challenge them?
We may have an idea of how many donors they’re attracting. But we don’t bother to measure how many donors we are driving away by the complexity and lousy systems we employ.
As a sector we fail to measure satisfaction and retention. We fail to employ metrics that get to the heart of the donor’s attitude about what good or bad experiences we’re offering.
Just imagine any personal relationship you’re in and how well this kind of ‘don’t talk to them, don’t listen’ behavior would work. Unless you’re in love with a rock, I suspect not well.
Yet, day after day, we don’t bother to solicit our donor’s opinions, feedback or anything having to do with our organization. We don’t bother finding out whether our donation page is great or frustrating. We make it difficult to find a phone number to call. We may or may not answer the phone when they do call.
And we wonder why donors are abandoning us in droves.
We need to start paying staff and consultants for their ability to hold on to and satisfy donors.
What are your organization’s metrics when it comes to compensation? Who gets fired when your retention rates drop?
Roger
10 responses to “Who Gets Fired?”
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
Roger, I feel your pain.
What is doubly astonishing, to me, is how very basic our work is. How simple it is, once you’re focusing on the right metrics. You write: “Just imagine any personal relationship you’re in and how well this kind of ‘don’t talk to them, don’t listen’ behavior would work.”
How difficult is it to THINK like a donor? How hard is it to solicit feedback? Why don’t more EDs and DDs and board members make those thank you calls EVERY day? How hard is it to pick up the phone and call a donor?
How difficult is it to FOCUS on what matters? Oh, right, we need to pick up the donated items for our next gala…
Good way to wake up in the U.S. Good morning Roger and Pam!
I think surveys are essential for feedback. So I created the ultimate “how-to” guide for conducting nonprofit donor surveys:
http://imarketsmart.com/resources/reports/the-ultimate-how-to-guide-for-conducting-nonprofit-donor-surveys/
It’s free, of course.
(Full disclosure, that’s one of the products/services my firm sells).
This touches on one of my continuing issues with non-profits that solicit support: websites that FAIL to list the contact info for anyone – or a list of people – working in the Development Department!
If I have an issue with a donation or membership, who ya gonna call (or email)? – When there’s no phone number/email, or just as bad – a list of far too many phone numbers or email contacts – none of whom appear to be the one(s) that one wants, what does the (current, past, or prospective) donor do?
Fill out that generic “contact form” that many non-profits provide on their website? Message them through Facebook? Send an email to “Info@nonprofit.org”? UGH. If you really care about me as a donor, why are you being so secretive about how I can reach you with my question(s) or feedback?
How many donors fahgedaboutit and move on? MANY, I’d bet. How sad – and unnecessary.
Roger, I don’t fully agree that it’s in the way we pay staff and consultants, and maybe that’s what you’re already saying. I see two HUGE problems, all the time: 1.) For successful retention-driven comms, management (and board) must be on board with that investment, i.e., spending money to engage donors after the acquisition (and not just once or now and then, but consistently, year after year, and not just to hit up donors for more money), AND getting staff trained in measuring results. If the C-suite is merely doing lip-service to retention, but not doing or willing to pay for what that takes, including finding good content and stories and worthy stuff to fund, it isn’t their (probably sadly siloed) staff that should face the heat. 2.) Re: consultants and agencies, in my Monday brain the problem begins with acquisition: if an agency or consultant gets tapped to write a one-and-done ACQ pack, we should — each and every one of us — refuse to take on said job until we’re comfortable that the donors we bring into the organization will be properly stewarded post-ACQ — well beyond the thank-you letter that follows the pack. I, for one, refuse one-off ACQ pack jobs because I will not contribute to this jackpot mentality. By this I mean, organizations feel like if they hire a “creative dream team” for a break-the-bank acquisition pack, all the hard work is over. When in fact, getting the first gift is just the start. SO: if the organization isn’t ready and willing to do some kind of newsletter or regular report-back, if they aren’t ready and willing to send some kind of welcome, if they can’t be bothered to have a plan longer than 8 weeks out to communicate with donors (if it’s just “get ’em in the door”), in my mind those leaders/that board should be fired or properly enlightened (which I do, for those ready to listen and change) … along with any consultant or agency that accepts and charges for said shortsighted one-off project in the first-place. As consultants and agencies we need to be asking those follow-up comms questions of potential nonprofit clients from call #1, BEFORE we accept the job. If we don’t… if we opt to cash in on the acquisition-mindset… we are all complicit in the race to the bottom — dragging the kind hearts and goodwill of our lovely, amazing, heroic donors with us. So endeth my retention rant. Love you guys always and forever xoxo, Lisa
Feedback: Tom and Roger, you should have ‘like’ buttons for comments. Because I could not love Lisa Sargent’s comment more. The fundraiser/development director/consultant cannot do this work alone. You must have buy-in from the top down – a commitment to donor-centricity.
You are so on point with this, Roger! Love, love. love it.
One additional point I’d make is that once you survey your donors, do something with the information! Ask actionable questions and then use the feedback to take informed action. I see a lot of orgs asking for feedback, checking it off the list that they asked and then filing the responses away. When you ask your donors for their thoughts, you are setting an expectation that you intend to value and do something with the information. Don’t disappoint them!
One word Lisa: Testify!
Love it.
Hi Pamela,
We do have ‘Like’ button at bottom of our posts, just above where Comments appear.
‘Like’ away!
Tom
Lisa Sargent, I couldn’t agree more. Short-sighted planning ack plan – or worse, a stingy attitude – can do more damage to an org than doing nothing at all. Buy-in must absolutely come from the board and upper management in order to realize the full potential of their ROI.