Ahhh… England. Land of double-decker buses, Big Ben, passionate “football” fans, afternoon tea… and some bad fundraising advice.
Recently, our Veritus Group U.K director, Stephen Butler, sent me an article from Civil Society, written by a fundraising consultant, Richard Radcliffe, entitled, “Let’s Give Donors a Break.”
I wanted to address this for two reasons: there are ton of Passionate Giving subscribers from the UK and Europe, and secondly, because I can’t let this slide by and allow him to screw up fundraising in the U.K and beyond.
The last sentence in his article reads like this: “Let’s give our donors a break and tell them we won’t ask for X months and see what happens.”
What does Radcliffe base this statement on? A series of surveys/focus groups he’s conducted with his clients’ donors. Yep… surveys/focus groups.
Here we go again.
Every time Richard and I read any opinion piece based on surveys/focus groups from donors we want to jump out of our skins and scream.
Radcliffe is telling his readers that donors don’t really want relationships with you. He says,
“As I listen to more donor stories every week in focus groups I am increasingly convinced that many donors do not want ‘a relationship’ – however that is defined.”
Hmm… let’s ask a donor sitting in a conference room with a bunch of other donors if she would like to get thanked for her giving. One donor speaks up, “Gosh, I don’t need to be thanked for my gift. They can just save the money and e-mail the receipt to me for my taxes.” All the other donors start nodding their heads and say, “Yeah, you’re right, no need to be thanked, and I wish they would just stop sending so much mail and stuff to me. I’ll give when I want to give.” Never mind that when you actually stop sending that mail they don’t give.
Now, picture yourself viewing this conversation behind a window in a dark room. You and your colleagues are witnessing this donor focus group, and in the emotion of it all you are convinced that donors don’t want to be bothered by your organization.
Yep, based on 10 donors being asked a question about being thanked, you take the group think (not the group DO) and are now convinced they don’t need it, nor do they want anything else from you.
This is absolutely nuts! And, not true!
Of course all of the other research states that when specifically asked why they stopped giving to an organization, donors answer it was for two main reasons:
- They were never thanked, and
- No one told them how their gift made a difference.
Are donors just duplicitous? Sort of. Donors say one thing, but act in another way. This is why forming donor strategy around survey/focus group information is a disaster. Do not do this.
What Richard and I find dangerous with Radcliffe’s assertions as based on his personal surveys of his client donors, is that fundraising professionals, executive directors and board members are going to read this drivel and use it to justify leaving donors alone and not asking.
This will be a catastrophic mistake
There are a ton of non-profit leaders who would love to stop fundraising if they could. They view fundraising as a necessary evil. “Can’t we just tell donors how great they are? Do we even have to ask for gifts? It’s so uncomfortable.”
Radcliffe is feeding into this sentiment… and there are many who are ready to eat it up. This will be at the risk of your organization’s own demise if you do.
Now, there is one thing that Radcliffe does get right. Most donors don’t want a deeper relationship with you. That is a fact. We know this, because when we help non-profits qualify their donors to become part of an MGO’s caseload, only 1/3 of those donors say yes. This is based on doing this qualifying process with hundreds of different caseloads.
That’s awesome. Why? Because now you know which donors DO want a deeper relationship with your organization and you can focus your time, energy and resources on them. It’s an amazing thing that happens. You ask a donor if he wants a relationship with your organization. He says, “YES!” You then feed and nurture that relationship and this donor will continue to partner with you with great gifts.
It’s an amazing thing to watch.
The problem with the Radcliffe article is that he throws the baby out with the bathwater. “Hey, a few donors say they don’t want a relationship… well, I guess all donors don’t want that.”
Don’t allow yourself or your organization to get sucked into that kind of thinking. Steer clear of donor survey-think. It’s NOT what donors say in a survey, it’s what they do with their resources, time and actions that actually matters, and that’s what you should pay attention to.
Jeff
Related Posts
-
Why You Need to Plan Moves for Each Donor on Your Caseload
May 8, 2013
-
Donors Need to be Thanked: Outrageous Donor Service, Part 4
October 8, 2014
-
How to Qualify Donors: The Process of Qualifying
April 8, 2016
Great article! What are some of your tips for an organization wishing to qualify donors for a deeper MG relationship without the resources to hire a consultant? Thanks!
Hi Lisa, thanks for the kind words. We’ve written many blog posts on how to qualify donors. Just go to the blog site on our website and type in Qualifying donors in the search. I will also send you our white paper on qualifying donors.
Jeff
I love it when two of my favourite ‘experts’ agree. Makes me feel I’m on the right track. I think I love it more when two DISagree, as there’s a discussion, debate, facts are pulled out and you often get a great insight. But I hate it when they think they disagree, but they actually agree.
You see, I read Richard’s article yesterday, and I think I took almost the opposite away from it than Jeff did. (Maybe I’m smoking the same thing as Richard).
We don’t ask our major donors for money every time we meet them / contact them – that’s not going to work , well who’s to say that anyone else is any different? I don’t think he’s suggesting ignoring donors for six months, rather not asking.
Richard also said “But donors are fickle. Because what they want does not work”
The qualified Major donors we have WANT a relationship – we know that, we’ve qualified them. The 1/3 we’ve removed DON’T – we know that too. Until we qualified them, well we didn’t know. (and as you’ve pointed out, there are MGOs out there with unqualified prospects wasting a huge amount of their time). A lot of fundraising in the UK is based on lots of people giving smaller amounts regularly (£5/£10 per month), and we don’t always know what they want. It seems to me that Richard’s suggesting that they’re a lot like our major donors, but who’s qualifying them?
A lot of the success from people giving ‘regular giving’ is believed to have come from inertia. Once the direct debit is set up, the donation comes from the bank every month. I’ve heard the suggestion that reminding people they’re giving may increase attrition, but I’ve seen no facts to prove either way. What Richard seems to be saying is that the people who’ve set up a handful of these agreements are now thinking about them, and reducing them from 7 to 3, regardless of whether they’re receiving a lot or a little contact. He knows this from the many many focus groups he’s run. But the ones they’ve kept – aah, now those are interested, and they’re the legacy prospects (Richard’s background is legacy work) . The ones who’ve removed the charities they’re not that interested in, but have kept the ones “that matter”to them?
They’re the ones that have qualified themselves.
Great article and comments and it is really good to get this debate going, please note I am not advocating leaving donors alone the whole time that would be truly awful. What I would love to rest is what triggered my comment on the first place which was the article by Tony Elischer . On this side of the pond we are slowly edging out of a recession but our budget is not too bad. In our recession asking has gone through the roof which has radically changed donor behaviour. We need to look at what changes donor behaviour and offer more thank you events, letters etc then less asking seems to increase loyalty. I am absolutely behind testing NOT asking for 3-6 months but the strategy must be focused on saying thank you and make it plain that a donation is not being requested. Reverse psychology works.
One charity I know is trying this and they want to remain anonymous but they can speak for themselves if they read this. They seem to be increasing ROI but, to my mind just as importantly, the donors are far keener to leave this charity a legacy than their other charities because of the thank you nature and not the please nature of the charity.
In my opinion (which may represent the voice of the donor more than the voice of a target driven fundraiser) we should be more donor centric than ever before as cash runs dry in these tough times.
Richard
Richard, thanks for your response. Perhaps we are talking about two different donor audiences and strategies. In direct-response fundraising where you are communicating to lower-end donors ($25-$250 per year), good direct-marketing fundraisers know that letting your file of donors “rest” (meaning not sending another opportunity to give for an extended time period will reduce revenue, retention rates and the number of gifts per donor, per year. It’s just a fact that was proven over and over in our testing with non-profits. Now, if we are talking about major donors (those donors that are on a caseload of a major gift officer) the solicitation strategy is really built around the relationship you have with the donor. During the course of the year you may have one or two direct face to face solicitations along with all the touch points, thank you letter and calls during the course of the year. Additionally, you may also have direct mail appeals going to those donors, but only if they have traditionally responded to the mail or was “brought up” on the non-profits fund appeals. There is a cycle with major donors that has to be followed in order to obtain continued and greater giving. You made me aware of a problem–> I gave a gift–> You thanked me and then told me how that gift made an impact–> you asked me to help again–> I gave again because I felt good about how my first gift made an impact. That cycle needs to be done over and over. Additionally, while you are providing the donor with the cycle of communication you will also be sending touch points that let the donors know how much you appreciate them, know them and love them. But, as in any relationship, the more you learn about the donor, respond to them, listen to them and understand their passions and interests the more that relationship grows in trust and mutuality. That’s with donors who are part of a caseload of a major gift officer.
Those other donors that are treated in a mass communications way cannot be allowed to “rest.” With our technology today, non-profits can do a much better job of segmenting and being more strategic about who should get what fundraising appeals, but to reduce the number of asks because you think it will turn off your donors is entirely short-sighted and not based on actual facts. All of the testing I’ve ever, ever been a part of with donor files showed us that the less you “ask” the less revenue, less retention and less gifts per donor you will end up with. This was why I didn’t like your premise about donor focus groups or surveys. Donors will always tell you they want less mail. But, they will respond when you send more mail. It’s what they actually do NOT what they say that we need to build our strategies around.
Thanks for the dialogue Richard,
Jeff Schreifels