Who’s Fibbing?
We’ve had quite a robust discussion via The Agitator the past few days over who’s at ‘fault’ for our sector’s present losing approach to donor retention. In fact, that original focus on retention morphed into a broader argument about who’s ‘getting it right’ (or not) more generally when it comes to successful fundraising — consultants or clients.
Consultants say they’re giving the right advice when it comes to retention, and I suspect that’s true of every consultant who can do the basic math. What consultant would not be telling their clients to get the tactics right (prompt and personal thank you’s, donor-focused messaging, responsive customer listening and service, etc) and would not be illustrating the compelling financial benefits of upping retention rates?
And what fundraisers on the client side would not appreciate and embrace the wisdom of that advice (or discern it from their own analysis)?
So everybody seems to be saying: “We get it!” And: “We’re doing it.”
Yet retention rates keep falling and the sector loses more donors than it gains each year.
Somebody’s got to be fibbing.
Somebody isn’t making the changes everybody says are being made (except for the occasional finger of blame pointed at non-fundraising executives and boards).
Why are the claimed changes not happening?
Bear with me a moment.
Here in New Zealand, whose economy is driven by its agricultural sector, a topic of major consequence is how to farm more successfully in dry conditions, especially as global warming threatens to worsen the challenge. And there’s a superstar farmer, once named ‘farming communicator of the year’, who on his own farm has developed approaches that have proven hugely successful in making his operation more profitable and successful. He’s a skilful evangelist, telling his story all over NZ, using photos that compare his property (lush, green, sheep munching away) with his immediate neighbour’s, literally on the other side of the fence, whose property looks sick and wasted.
His own neighbour hasn’t adopted the practices of the superstar. And this isn’t a dispute about theory. The superstar farmer now has years of data to document his success. All his neighbor needs to do is look across the fence.
How does one account for such resistance to change?
Back to fundraising. How does one account for the resistance to improving donor retention?
The ‘right approach’ seems to have universal recognition. And everyone says they’re doing the right thing.
So who’s fibbing? The numbers don’t lie.
Tom
P.S. Interestingly, no one has suggested it’s the donors’ fault. Dare I go there?!
10 responses to “Who’s Fibbing?”
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
Hmmm… Fibbing? Or maybe not truly understanding. Or can’t find the time. Or thought I did it well but I kinda didn’t. Or my boss won’t let me. Or I tried and it didn’t work immediately. Or I got distracted. Or I don’t actually really believe what’s happening next door.
OR…. Wonderful article by Chris Mooney in Mother Jones magazine: The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
AND…. You told me and I listened but I couldn’t quite operationalize it but I thought I was and it didn’t work.
And yes. Probably some fibbing… That people don’t know (or maybe do know) is fibbing.
Oh, this is truly one of my favorite topics. Thanks for bringing it up, Tom! I don’t really know if anybody’s really fibbing, or why, but Simone just described the day-to-day reality, which translates to “we’re not holding ourselves accountable for donor retention.” The urgent, as they say, drives out the important.
We research staff fundraising productivity, and out of 1000+ responses to date, 72% had either no retention practices at all or were “encouraged” to retain donors with no metrics or tactics provided. And if donors play a role here, maybe the lingering impact of the tin-cup mentality (“poor me, we’re broke!’) and arm-twisting (“you owe me a favor”) play a role. Donors acquired that way aren’t deeply engaged.
So here’s the real deal. Persuading organizations to change the way they do things is really, really, really tough. There are zillions of ways to retain donors, no one “right” way, but just handing out encyclopedias of retention practices won’t get the job done. You’re got to change the way you set expectations, measure retention and conduct improvement initiatives when results are undesirable. Which requires significantly more sophisticated management techniques and a willingness to adopt deep change.
But it can be a good reason to bring in outside consultants. They tend to have a little more objectivity. As long as they don’t indulge in “here’s the perfect retention tactic” game.
Perhaps, fundraisers are politicians at heart, and fibbing is as natural as eating.
When you continually ask a CDO about their donor attrition rate and lifetime value, and they don’t have a clue, they may need to take “Fibbing 101” or resign!
Thus far, it appears that 5 of 100 know their vital signs!
Yes Ellen– so true: “Persuading organizations to change the way they do things is really, really, really tough.”
I see — across the board — CEO’s and board members who are not willing to budget for donor retention activities or programming. They don’t want to devote scarce resources to this issue, because they don’t understand it. Alas, regardless of what the fundraising staff is saying.
Of course the other possibility is that they aren’t fibbing at all but rather doing everything right and still not seeing an improvement in retention. Who is the NZ farmer of donor retention? What organizations would you hold up as models that truly prove the concept? I’m all for donor-focused communication, faster thank you letters and high quality donor service because…logic. But have making those changes actually moved anyone’s retention numbers dramatically? Or even slowly but consistently? I’m not doubting just asking. I do suspect that there is more to this story of declining retention rates and I’m skeptical that we as an industry have really figured out what to do about it. Or even if there is anything that can be done. We’ve seen a generational shift in donors and different generations have different attitudes. We’ve also seen a huge change in the way emerging (or fully emerged) technology has changed the way we communicate. And of course we can’t forget the explosion of more competition for the charitable wallet. I hate to be fatalistic but I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think that the solution to this problem is fully within our control. I’m old enough to vaguely remember a time when some organizations routinely made net profit from acquisition campaigns. Times change…whether we like it or not. Of course as consultants we have a vested interest in selling a solution. “You’ve got a big problem and there is nothing you can do about it” is rarely a winning way to start a new business pitch. On the other hand “better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness” I suppose. Probably better to keep striving for better donor-focused messaging than to curse Tom and Roger for their constant pestering about retention. 🙂
We should also note that in some cases, the problem is the lack of investment in fundraising… ahh… those pesky CFOs, fundraising ratios and charity evaluators. How many times have we all agreed that we need more stewardship touches by mail, thank you phone calls or even an impact report or newsletter . . . and it gets cut because it’s not revenue producing. Short term budget thinking keeps us all trapped focusing on this year’s net instead of long term donor relationships.
Ironically, this is why donors who leave a legacy gift actually become better annual donors as well . . . because they are actually getting stewarded! See Russell James’s recent study with his findings in this area: http://bit.ly/1VS147S
Rod, to your question re: “Have making those changes actually moved anyone’s retention numbers dramatically?” The answer is Yes.
This year at AFP Int’l in Boston we co-presented a longitudinal case study on a Dublin-based charity called Merchants Quay Ireland. MQI’s former head of fundraising CFRE Denisa Casement (who led strategy for nearly 8 years and left it in the capable hands of Colin Skehan) and donor-driven design specialist Sandie Collette presented with me, i.e., boots on the ground perspective. By focusing on ongoing acquisition combined with relentless attention to donor retention, over a span of approx 5 years MQI: increased donor retention from 57% to 69%, increased fundraising revenues more than tenfold; and took their house file from 500 to 16,000 donors.
I would also call your attention to what stands as the original, iconic case study on donor-centered fundraising: Ken Burnett’s story on Botton Village. It’s free on SOFII. Just follow this link then also the links in the sidebar once you get there: http://sofii.org/article/donor-centred-fundraising-are-you-prepared-to-take-a-leap-of-faith.
Adding to Lisa’s response to Rod.
In a recent post titled “Please Annoy the Pig” [ http://www.theagitator.net/nonprofit-management/please-annoy-the-pig/ ] where I referenced Botton Village as an example of a proven success story, then wondered out loud why our trade is so reluctant to adopt proven practices. In that post you’ll find links to Ken’s piece and the case study of Botton Village.
And…thank you for your great questions and your sage advice that it’s “Probably better to keep striving for better donor-focused messaging than to curse Tom and Roger for their constant pestering about retention.”
I would second a lot of what’s been said here.
Two things that come to mind for me are —
1. There’s a difference between doing things and doing them effectively. I see lots of organizations that think they’re thanking their donors and reporting back on their accomplishments but when one examines those communications, they’re a far cry from what donors need to see and hear from the orgs they support. So there’s a gap between implementation and effective implementation.
2. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” — I see many orgs going through the motions of donor relations but a quick look beneath the hood and you can see that they don’t really value their supporters as partners. At least, not at all levels of the organization. Fundraising is still seen as undesirable work, work that they’d rather not do. I don’t believe we’re going to move the donor retention needle much sector-wide until there’s a sea change around this culture. Until then, it will be isolated orgs like Lisa’s Merchants Quay Ireland that break the mold where donor attrition is concerned.
I think we have a classic case of selection bias! Agitator readers are proactive fundraisers and consultants who strive to advance our profession and treat our donors well–evidenced by paying for a subscription to a daily blog of thought-provoking ideas and discussion. Alas, not everyone responsible for aspects of fundraising is reading this blog, let alone commenting.
Of course there is also, as many have noted, the ‘too many things on the plate’ issue, the training the rest of the organization and board to actively participate in a culture of philanthropy, and Adrian Sargent’s note that ‘what gets measured gets done’ and very few fundraisers are measured on donor retention in their performance reviews.