It costs to acquire a new donor than retain a current one. A lot . In fact, research shows it takes 7 – 12% effort, time and money to bring in a new donor than to raise from a current donor. Please, please, please… let this sink in. The for-profit world understands…
Details
I find a widespread misunderstanding about the notion of what constitutes being donor-centered. It derives from two misconceptions:
Both of these rationales short-change your would-be donors.
Why?
FIRST: Donors want to be asked because they’re starved for the love that comes from voluntary giving and receiving. Donors have love to give, but don’t always have an object towards which to direct their affection.
SECOND: Donors need to be asked because when they’re not, they don’t know how much you need their help. Consequently, giving feels a bit empty. Almost a bit like a crap shoot. Donors want to invest their money where they feel confident it will be most appreciated and will do the most good.
Let’s delve into both of these misconceptions more deeply, putting them into a donor-centered context.
In other words, what are your would-be donors feeling?
Ever have a well-meaning, yet perhaps overly controlling or risk-aversive, boss say to you:
Our fundraising letter must be no longer than one page.
That’s too simple; we don’t want to talk down to our donors.
We need to say more about our accomplishments.
We need to describe numbers of people served; that’s what’s impressive.
That’s not how I talk.
That’s not our corporate style.
That’s not how we do things.
That’s not what our donors are used to.
That’s not proper grammar.
That’s too gushy and effusive.
I want happy, not sad, photos.
Asking the reader to “please give generously” is sufficient; no need to name an amount.
Asking once is enough.
The development director should sign the letter.
Signatures from both the E.D. and board president will be more persuasive.
We don’t need a P.S.
Alas, these are common fundraising appeal fallacies that will cost you money. Money donors might have given to you, if you’d only understood some fundamental fundraising truths.
I was reminded of some of these truths in a post from Jeff Brooks. He spoke of true pearls of wisdom gleaned from his fundraising mentor, the pioneering direct mail writer Bob Screen. We’ve lost Bob and several fundraising giants in recent years, including Simone Joyaux and John Haydon, but we should never lose sight of the wisdom they imparted. It’s the best way to assure their memories live on and their good works continue.
I did not know Bob, but I’m sure I learned from him without realizing it. Because the good stuff gets passed around. Why? Because it works.
And it takes someone with experience to not just demonstrate it works, but to forcefully maintain the necessity of adhering to tested principles, facts and truth. Even – especially – in the face of doubters (e.g. executive directors; board presidents) who would seriously derail your fundraising efforts. With all good intention, of course.
Never forget this is why you were hired. No one is an expert at everything. And chances are fundraising writing is not your leadership’s key area of proficiency. It’s your job to know what works, and what doesn’t.
Details
You must invite your donor into the story.
Take yourself out of the equation.
Donors don’t care about you, but about what they can do through you.
Stop talking about your good work.
Talk, instead, about the good work your donor wants to do.
How?
You’ve got lots of stories. They’re probably interesting enough to grab your donor’s attention. Don’t make the mistake of trying to talk about your entire mission all at once in a fundraising message. It’s too much for people’s brains to absorb.
What you want to do,
DetailsCan AI help your nonprofit connect authentically with people so you, and the social benefit sector as a whole, do a effective job addressing today’s most pressing problems? In other words, can AI help you drive loyalty? The short answer is yes. But it won’t happen if you keep working as you’ve always…
DetailsThat’s right. Loyalty. Not wealth. Not money. Not even attention. Because merely grabbing the attention of someone with either capacity or inclination to give is no guarantee philanthropy will follow. Today I’d like to illuminate: Truths about what drives philanthropy, Challenges nonprofits have developing and implementing strategies that take these truths into account, and Suggestions…
Details
Wondering where fundraising is heading in our highly networked, overly saturated, noisy-as-all-get-out post-digital revolution world? A world that’s really a jungle, with so much competition for attention — for-profits, other nonprofits, socially conscious businesses, political campaigns, friends, and family?
Your mantra can no longer simply be about “creating awareness.”
The new nonprofit currency is not creating attention. It’s building loyalty.
You simply can’t afford to keep losing 8 out of 10 new donors. Which means it’s time to reframe how you do fundraising. It can’t be primarily about going after money. It has to be about giving, and receiving, love. If you do it the right way, money will follow as a natural outgrowth. [I’m going to talk about this more in an article focusing on “connection” next week.]
Today, I want to explore 4 keys to raising money in our revolutionized technological zeitgeist.
Of course, sometimes it’s easier said than done.
Lots and lots of technology.
AI fuels both predictive models and automation. Software enables multiple, simultaneous email campaigns. New tools allow easy sharing and engagement on social media. High quality photography and video can be made with the ease of a smart phone. Multiple new places regularly emerge to find and connect with potential constituents. And on and on and on… If you feel you’re being hit almost daily with a firehose of new technologies, you’re not alone.
But… possible and probable are not the same thing.
Details
“People do not give to the most urgent needs, but rather they support causes that mean something to them.”
This is the finding from a report done by the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy at the University of Kent: “How Donor Choose Charities.” They begin their study from the widely-accepted premise that charities exist primarily to help needy people and the desire to meet needs is a key criterion in the selection of charitable beneficiaries. Interviews with committed donors found this was not the reason they gave. In brief, the study concludes:
Giving and philanthropy have always been supply-led rather than demand-driven: the freedom to distribute as much as one wants, to whom one chooses, is what distinguishes giving from paying tax. Yet the methods used to encourage donations tend to assume that philanthropy depends on objective assessments of need rather than on donors’ enthusiasms. The tendency to overestimate the extent to which people act as rational agents results in fundraising literature that often focuses on the dimensions and urgency of the problem for which funding is sought. The assumption underlying this approach is that donations are distributed in relation to evidence of neediness, when in fact much giving could be described as ‘taste-based’ rather than ‘needs-based’.
If there was ever a time to commit to finding out more about the folks on your mailing list so you know what floats their boats, this report indicates that time is decidedly NOW. Otherwise, you’re just “spraying and praying” as you buy into the conceit that “if only” folks knew about the need we address, they would give. Because they should. That’s not why folks give.
The truth is people are ruled by emotion more than objective data. We’re affected by stories we’re told and emotions we feel.
The study cites four criteria that influenced donor decision making. Perhaps surprisingly, they are not based on meeting your organization’s or your beneficiaries’ needs. Of course, these things factor in. But only after you’ve captured someone’s attention with something that relates to them and resonates with them personally and met the key influencing criteria.
THE FOUR KEY INFLUENCERS ARE:
Some years ago I happened on an article in the New York Times where the author, David Pogue, asked readers for their very best ‘life advice.’ There was so much great stuff in there! If you happen to have a NYT subscription, I’m sure you’ll enjoy reading the full article. For those who don’t (and really for everyone), I decided to share some of my favorite pieces of wisdom with you. Particularly those that apply to your nonprofit work. And, especially, those that apply to your work/life balance.
Let’s begin!
Not every problem needs to be addressed immediately. Some will work themselves out.
“You’ve never seen a cat skeleton in a tree, have you?” When Alexandra Aulisi’s cat couldn’t get down from a tree, her grandmother reassured her with those words, predicting (correctly) that the cat would come down on his own. “This advice made me realize that, sometimes, you need to shift your perception of a problem to see a solution,” Ms. Aulisi noted.
— David Pogue, NYT
While it’s tempting to drop everything (e.g., whenever a new email appears in your inbox, especially if it’s someone asking for help), it’s important to assess if this situation actually requires a rapid response. If not, you have options.
Ever been on vacation and noticed a flurry of emails, back and forth, forth and back, from members on your team? Often, by the time you’ve returned, the ‘problem’ – as urgent as it may have seemed at the time based on all the email hyperbole – seems to have evaporated. I’m not suggesting you ignore legitimate, pressing problems; just use common sense and exercise judicious restraint.
I’ll never forget some excellent advice I received (actually from one of the donors I worked with during the years I was a young parent). While I was stressing about potty training, she told me: “Have you ever seen anyone at college who still wears diapers? If you don’t potty train your son now, never fear. His college girlfriend will!” It was silly, yet made a whole lot of sense. I didn’t need to oversee and micro-manage every little thing. Sometimes things happen on their own time frame. This was a reminder that patience can be a virtue.
When organizations aren’t raising as much money as they need, they’ll often tell me: “We need to recruit new board members.” This is very often true, but it’s only a piece of the puzzle as to why they’re not being more successful with fundraising.
So, if you’re about to embark on some board recruitment, I strongly encourage you to do a little soul searching first so you can embark on your quest strategically.
Not all organizations are the same. In my humble opinion, the best boards are fundraising boards. You may have a self-described “community board” you’d like to evolve to a fundraising board. Or you may be part of a bifurcated organization where there is more than one board with different purposes (e.g., governance; foundation; advocacy), so your part can perhaps afford to be less engaged with fundraising.
Most nonprofits need a board that is a fundraising engine.
For the purposes of this article, I’m going to assume you’re like most nonprofits. This may mean you believe you need to recruit ‘rich people.’ Or already experienced fundraisers. And since you don’t know any of the above, you make these common mistakes:
Are you, inadvertently, holding yourself back?
You are if either of the two mistakes above sound like you. Alas, this won’t help you resolve your fundraising conundrum.
So, let’s begin someplace else. Before beginning recruitment of the WHO for your board, begin by reminding yourself of the WHY.
Certain skill sets may come to mind first. Such as “we need a lawyer.” But this is only a piece of what you’re looking for, and it’s not the most important piece. You could recruit the most famous lawyer in your community, but if they refuse to use those skills on your behalf – or if the area where you need help is not their area of expertise — this is meaningless.
Begin by answering this question:
Details
