People Want to Know if They Can Trust Your Nonprofit and You
What’s in a name?
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” said Shakespeare.
But, would it?
Seth Godin thinks words matter. As do I.
Just?
The meaning of the word is the reason we used the word.
If we don’t agree about the meaning of the word, we haven’t communicated.
Instead of, “that’s just semantics,” it seems more productive to say, “I’m confident we have a semantics problem.”
Because that’s all of it.
The way we process words changes the way we act. The story we tell ourselves has an emotional foundation, but those emotions are triggered by the words we use.
Not just.
Especially.
— Seth Godin
Are your words communicating the right message?
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion it has taken place.” So says Hugh MacLeod of Gaping Void Culture Design Group, noting your words may or may not incorporate ‘signifiers’ that open the listener/reader to the possibilities they might encourage.
Opening people up to new possibilities is, after all, at the heart of what organizations seeking to enact change do.
The meaning of words changes over time. Your task is to assure the ones you use will be understood as you intended.
For example, when someone considers contributing to your organization, what does your appeal actually communicate to them? Does asking for a ‘donation’ make them feel uplifted by the possibility they can create a positive outcome. Or does it convey all you care about is their money? Does saying “any little bit helps” make them feel important and empowered? Or does it convey their gift is but a drop in the bucket?
Choose words appropriate to what you want your audience to feel.
You have the power to give would-be supporters the meaning they seek.
Let’s look at how some of the words nonprofits commonly use get their meaning, how this meaning may be interpreted by your constituents, and how you may wish to express yourself differently in order to choose the words most appropriate for your group and for the purpose of your communication.
What do you call the folks who respond to your fundraising appeals?
Are they donors?
Maybe that’s okay. Or perhaps it causes you to process these folks in your mind simply as people who contribute to your cause, rather than three dimensional people with deeply-held values that align powerfully with the values your organization enacts. If you’ve ever thought to yourself “Oh, she’s just a donor,” you might see the potential problem with this transactional categorization.
Are they investors?
I prefer this. The word intimates these are people who have a vested interest in the outcome. They want to stay engaged to learn about what happens with the money they’ve given to you. When you use this word you understand, ipso facto, the need to keep these folks informed. At the very least, these people are not just defined by a one-time transaction. Investment has the quality of putting something away to provide for a better future. By its nature, it’s a transformational act.
Are they philanthropists?
This is how I most prefer to characterize folks who take a “voluntary action for the public good.” This phrase is how Robert Payton, the first full-time Director of the Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University, defined philanthropy. He saw philanthropists as people with a spiritual (not necessarily religious) calling. Philanthropy can be seen as a special kind of occupation — a vocation — that isn’t incidental. It’s, in fact, a part of these folks’ essence. It’s done absent coercion. For the benefit of the commons. To me, this aligns with the literal translation of the word from the Greek – love of humankind. Philanthropists are passionate lovers.
What do you call what you do with folks to build their loyalty and connection to your cause?
Is it cultivation?
This popular term in fundraising circles lends itself well to the analogy that if you water and fertilize your donors, they’ll bloom. The first dictionary definition of cultivation, after all, is oriented towards the raising and tilling of crops. Alas, this may cause you to think of your supporters as potted plants. As such, they’ve little agency of their own and are totally reliant on you to tend to them.
This may not feel so wonderful to them. Because, rather than empowering these philanthropists to enact their passions independently, you remove their agency and assume the full burden of ‘growing’ their ardor. To use another metaphor, if you give them a fish, they’ll eat. If you don’t, they’ll starve.
Fail at cultivation and your folks will wither and die.
Is it stewardship?
This term is often used interchangeably with cultivation. In fact, I used to use ‘cultivation’ to describe touches and moves prior to a gift being made, and ‘stewardship’ to describe the very same actions subsequent to a gift being made. It worked as an internal framework but, in retrospect, I see that makes it all about process and not about the philanthropists themselves. In fact, the dictionary definition of stewardship refers to the investment, not the person. You want to steward the resource given to you so it is preserved for its intended purpose.
There’s also a theological definition of stewardship holding that humans are responsible for the world, and should take care of it. In this context, the philanthropists themselves would be considered the stewards. The orientation is towards that which they are endeavoring to care for, with you, not what you are doing to them. If you’re going to use this word, you might want to think about it more this way.
Empower folks to act as good stewards of the work in which you engage in, together.
Is it moves management?
I confess to being guilty of using this phrase as an internal management tool. It’s a major gift prospect approach to plan, make and keep track of a targeted number of “moves” or “touches” per year to folks in your portfolio. Each “move” is targeted to move your prospect along a relationship continuum – from awareness… to interest… to involvement… to investment — depending upon where they currently are in relationship to your nonprofit.
Again, it works as an internal framework. However, it also causes you to think about your supporters a bit like pieces that can be moved around on a chessboard. That’s why I prefer to think about this terminology more broadly. If you use this phrase, you might want to think about it a bit differently
Emotionally move folks to enact their values and passions.
Is it relationship building?
This, in my opinion, is where all the other terms lead. The only way to sustain any kind of loyalty with folks you want to make a voluntary investment in your cause is to build a positive relationship with them. Once they make their first gift, you must reassure them you are worthy of their continued love and support. When you show you have their back, their more likely to show they have yours. Trust is the foundation of all lasting relationships. Thank them promptly and personally to show you can be trusted. Communicate with them regularly. Listen to assure them you care about them not just for their wallet, but for the values you share.
Relationships require give and take. Don’t just tell (“we are so great”) and ask (“will you give us money?”). Ask (“what’s important to you?”) and let them tell (“I’d like to learn more about XYZ”)! To relate you must get inside your constituents’ heads. Ask critical questions about what they think you’re doing, and why they care. Consider their answers, and think seriouslyabout what they may mean for you moving forward. When you’re relating to folks in a manner that makes a real human connection, you’ll ipso facto build your communications plan differently.
Connect with folks, and the money will follow.
Nonprofit Fundraising: Semantics Matter
Both emotions and actions can be triggered by the words you use. Consider the meaning your words convey. To you, to your supporters, and for the change you seek to make.
What could you reframe to communicate more effectively?
I encourage you to consider yourself as, first and foremost, a philanthropy facilitator.
Do unto your philanthropists – these ‘lovers of humankind’ — as you would have them do unto you. Even better, as my friend Craig Cline puts it: “Do for all others, both directly and indirectly, what you would want done for you.”
Remember: donors are people first; philanthropic partners second.
Get to know these people.
Think of them as three-dimensional, not two-dimensional.
Begin to build a relationship, taking into account your audience’s values.
Individually, not as a category.
That’s how you’ll move them to enact their values passionately.
All philanthropy is a value-for-value exchange.
Commit to giving them something of value through affiliation with your organization. Not just once a year, but regularly.
Metaphorically, teach them to fish in your pond. Enable them to be actors, not just passive bystanders.
Nurture them.
Become friends.
Stay in touch.
Remain relevant.
Demonstrate to your friends and partners their significance to you. In this moment.
Become a part of the family.
Then, and only then, will they decide to become part of yours.
Want to Learn More about Keeping Donors Loyal?
Grab my Donor Retention and Gratitude Playbook. You’ll get six volumes that walk you, step-by-step, through everything you need to retain and upgrade donors. Increase retention by 10% and you can double the amount of money you’re currently raising from your database! As with all Clairification products, this comes with a 30-day, no-questions-asked, 100% money-back guarantee. Are you a Clairification School student? Log in before you make your purchase, as you’ll save almost 50%. Either way, you really can’t lose.
Questions? Just ask me.
Image by Jess Watters from Pixabay
