A recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article talks about how Habitat for Humanity, worried about the fatigue from donors giving to disaster after disaster, created a major disaster preparedness program, “Habitat Strong”, to minimize the impact of disasters by creating dwellings that can withstand natural disasters — while also engaging/re-engaging donors. The program has been hugely successful.
No surprise! This is somewhat of a “pivot”, and it’s used in business all the time.
I hope that other nonprofits can learn from Habitat for Humanity’s foresight. Donor fatigue, whether it’s because of outside factors or just because of our need to ask for money again and again and again, is a real issue.
Psychologically, I think there’s something wrong with the way fundraisers work with “regular” (repeat) donors. The concept — that many use — of “give till it hurts, and then give a bit more”, is, for lack of a better word, icky. Insulting. Maybe creepy. Yet, that sentence is used all the time, especially in religious institutions. I’m not sure who came up with that line, but what a crazy concept!
Knowing that we ask and ask and ask, and always for “more than last time”, is it any surprise that more than 60% of one-time donors don’t give a second time? Subsequent donations — when the donor is no doubt asked to “increase your donation this year” — continue to drop.
“Marketing for the Nonprofit” says it well: “If in year 1, you receive 1000 individual donations, by year 2 only 400 donors will give again. By year 5, only TEN of those same donors will still be giving.”
Something tells me that maybe asking the same donor for more and more and more might not be a productive strategy.
I know, I know. The other side of this is completely valid — rising costs, creating or expanding programs, increasing capacity — I get it. Once a donor is engaged with your organization, you want to them be “more engaged” by giving more. But here’s where the math doesn’t make sense to me. If so many donors are dropping off after the first donation, then shouldn’t we be more focused on “widening the net”, so to speak? Shouldn’t we be finding new ways to engage new donors?
As a donor, this is how it feels.
I engage with your organization and maybe give a modest amount. I’m happy and start to get a deeper understanding of your organization, and I start to feel invested and “part of” your mission.
Somewhere between a quarter and a year from the first donation, I’m asked to “increase your gift”. Sometimes/often I hear “increase your annual gift”. Note that I never said — nor did we discuss — anything about an annual gift. It’s just implied (by you, not by me.) At this point, I may give more money than last time (if I’m in the naive, just-starting-out-being-a-donor category), or I might (if I’m in the seasoned and slightly cynical donor category) tell the fundraiser that I never intended this to be an annual gift, and that I would be willing to give a gift in the same amount as last year, but not more. (Fundraisers take note — I might give a gift in the same amount, but now I’m a bit suspicious of the fundraiser, as I never promised an “annual” gift.)
If I really love the organization, and the past quarter/year have made me feel good about the staff and the organization’s accomplishments, I may give more than previously. I’m rarely asked for the same amount as last year, but if I am, I generally will give the same amount — or more. Often more. Because it’s done nicely, respectfully, and I get to feel good about the relationship with the fundraiser/organization, instead of feeling like I’ve let them all down by not increasing my gift.
If I give a donation/gift that’s the same or a bit more, and the next year I’m asked again for more (increasing my gift from the previous year), then I start to become wary. Now I’m wondering if I’ve been “had” and that the relationship I thought I was building was really just a ruse. I start to feel like I should apologize for not giving a bigger gift, and if I give a smaller gift, I actually do apologize. (Do I feel good about apologizing? No. Do I continue to do it in these situations? Yes.)
And that’s how it goes. If I give off and on, I get to avoid all of this, actually. Giving erratically lets me be “courted” by the organization and get a big thank you when I do give, as if I’m a new donor all over again. It’s kind of like working the system — after a few rounds of this, the organization stops assuming that I’m a “regular donor” and so I don’t get the “annual gift” assumptions. The down side, of course, is that it’s a waste of energy to manage the game-playing, and it doesn’t help the organization.
So, nonprofits/fundraisers, maybe think more about the idea that once I give, I’m an annual donor who, with a bit of prodding, will give more each year — forever. This strategy will work on some donors, but certainly not all. Maybe not even most.
Widen the net, please.
Can't get enough? Read more on Twitter or follow me on Pinterest.
- Lisa