Who’s A Poor Fundraiser To Believe?
Who could resist reading a blog post with this title — The most deadly error in fundraising — from esteemed fundraising creative Jeff Brooks?!
I jumped right on it.
Jeff’s most deadly error:
“Assuming your donors don’t like to hear from you — and that too much contact (whatever that means) will drive away donors, causing your donor file to erode and eventually collapse.
There’s no evidence that it’s true. In fact, the evidence shows us that decreasing donor contact almost always leads to not only less revenue but worse donor retention.”
But wait a minute … before you rush out to add four contacts a month to your mail/email schedule.
Roger, who’s a pretty astute (I hear) fundraiser himself, has been giving Agitator readers the opposite message. For example, here in The Dangerous Dictum Of “Mail More, Make More”:
“Perhaps no myth is potentially more dangerous for the long-term health of an organization than the clichéd dictum: “Mail more, raise more.” It leads to the callous abuse of donors whose rising disaffection level is generally unheeded until it’s too late.”
And that post links to several others arguing the same point.
Who’s a poor fundraiser to believe?
Do we need a shoot-out at the OK Corral?
Roger’s just written three great posts — Eminence vs Evidence — on the theme of letting go of reliance on fundraising “myth, folk remedies and pronouncements by the eminent”.
So … more asks, fewer asks? What’s your evidence?
Tom
6 responses to “Who’s A Poor Fundraiser To Believe?”
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
Unless I’m missing something, Jeff didn’t say anything about “asking” more, or “mail” per se. He uses the word “contact” which would mean a combination of in-person visits, handwritten notes, phone calls, personal emails, etc.
Balance. Engage. Connect.
We want to avoid: “The only time I ever hear from you is when you want money. And you keep wanting money!!!”
And probably want to avoid: “Wow. I hear from you daily. Which is kinda lots. But that cute handwritten card thanking me. And a week later, an article about me that you clipped from the paper and said ‘congrats!'” And the telephone thankyou call from a board member the following week. I’m feeling pretty good.
Jeff is on record saying the “optimum’ number of times to mail folks asking for money in a single calendar year is 24. The problems with that statement are too many to count and expand on in a blog post comment thread.
I’d like to point out a couple of things:
1. What I called a deadly error — and it’s literally quoted in this post — is this: “Assuming your donors don’t like to hear from you….” I did NOT say, “Mail more, get more.” (Though I did say basically “Mail less, get less” — which is not the same thing.) The error I’m talking about is attitudinal: If you think donors hate hearing from us, you don’t really understand donors. But there’s a good chance YOUR donors hate hearing from YOU because you don’t do fundraising right — a natural outcome of believing asking is harmful, nasty, and unwelcome. Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe in the power of charitable giving, the question of how often you ask is much less important than what you ask, and how, and how you treat donors the rest of the time.
2. Allow me to correct Kevin’s claim that I say 24 asks a year is optimum. It is for some fundraisers, and I know that as a tested mathematical fact. It’s not optimum for everyone. The way to find “optimum” is an ongoing program of discovery. It comes from your donors, your cause, your brand, and the relationship among them.
To be frank, Tom, I think the more asking vs. less asking debate is a distraction and a waste of time. It doesn’t get at the real issue, which is how do we truly connect with donors and give them the biggest and best possible way to put their values into action through us. Sometimes, that will be asking a lot. Usually, it will be more complex: Other factors, like monthly giving, volunteer engagement, premiums, and many other things have a huge role in the best way to serve donors. Anyone who simplifies it to “You mail too much — you need to do less” is probably a weasel.
The percentage of fundraisers who mail 12+ times per year is TINY. The large majority are mailing once or twice per year. For most of them (not all) “mail more, get more is” good advice. But only part of what they need to know.
“Only part of what they need to know” and “The way to find ‘optimum’ is an ongoing program of discovery.” AMEN to Jeff Brooks for bringing some sanity to all of this.
Thank you, Jeff and Lisa. This argument is absolutely a waste of time. Our focus needs to be on understanding OUR donors and their passions and creating communications that inspire and delight.