Discover more from Philanthropy 451
How to Annoy a Long-time Donor
The difference between authentic relationships and transactional relationships.
I got a text the other day that was so disturbing, I had to call several friends and colleagues to help me process it.
The text was from the head of a nonprofit that I’ve supported for years. It was simple — it said that he was in town and wanted to meet “at 1:00 tomorrow”. That was it.
And I found it profoundly disturbing. It felt like I was being called into the principal’s office.
The sender was someone I greatly respect from a nonprofit that’s been hugely impactful and professionally run. I've been a monthly donor for several years, and I’ve supported the organization in other ways as well. I thought that the ED and I had a relationship where we understood each other as busy professionals with families who were trying to help society. Clearly, I was wrong.
Why would someone I’ve known for years text me a specific time 24 hours from the time it was sent, without any context for the meeting, which made it seem clear (by default) that he wanted me to meet so he could ask me for (more) money? He had been texting me often for donations — many with substantial financial asks, and all with a strong push that the money needed to be given immediately — for the last few years. My response, depending on the day, was to either come up with a kind "just can’t do it right now” or to just ignore it.
In case you’re wondering, yes, I found the earlier, exigent asks to be annoying, but I gave the organization a pass by chalking it up to their enthusiasm for their organization’s work.
So why did this particular text message put me over the edge? It’s because I had thought the fundraiser and I had an authentic, mutually respectful relationship, and then I realized that I had been wrong. I was wrong in not realizing that our relationship was in fact purely transactional, with a bit of pretend authenticity only thrown in for color (or to keep me off-base). The difference between the two — the authentic and the transactional — had now become clear. This person who I respected as a peer really had no interest in our discussions about our families and our lives. All those discussions were just small talk to get me to the “give me money” part.
I can only explain that text message by surmising that he assumed I, as a financially secure woman doing nonprofit work, was sitting around during the day, with no life or responsibilities other than perhaps lunch or the gym (!). This assumption made it reasonable to expect that I would be available to meet the next day at a proscribed time. Why would anyone assume that?
And then it hit me.
If I had an authentic relationship with this person, we would have both had a pretty good idea what each other’s life was like. He would have known that I am typically busy with my family, my elderly mom, my charitable and professional work, my social justice activities, the boards and commissions I serve on, and my network of friends. In contrast, those who know me well (many who are professional fundraisers or nonprofit leaders) know that I have a very full life with myriad responsibilities, giving me very little “free time”. That free time is precious to me, and I certainly don’t want to spend it walking into a pitch from someone asking me for money (under the pretension that it’s “just coffee”).
Such is the dilemma of the fundraiser/donor experience. I know that fundraisers have very limited resources, and with a full (and usually unreasonably full) client “file”, they (or their superiors) determine that there just isn’t time to build authentic relationships with donors. And then they are surprised when existing donors don’t continue giving — or even unsubscribe from their mailings and block their calls. The same is true when people stop giving to nonprofits in general, instead sending money to DAFs (Donor Advised Funds). At a certain point, donors have to weigh their interest in supporting causes, causes we deeply care about, against having our minimal free time and family time co-opted by disingenuous people who just want to extract as much money from us as they can.
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t people who do have lots of free time, and maybe they would welcome someone giving them something to do at 1:00 on a weekday afternoon. But if a real, authentic relationship exists between the donor and the fundraiser, the fundraisers would know enough about the donor to know which type of donor is which.
Thank you to everyone who has chosen to become a premium subscriber! I look forward to our next monthly interactive Zoom call.
Save the date: Wednesday, June 26th at 12:30pm ET/9:30am PT
Not a Premium Subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the conversation!
As always, my usual free bi-weekly newsletters will remain free of charge.
Thanks for your continued support!
The Philanthropy 451 Team
Subscribe to Philanthropy 451
Welcome to Philanthropy 451, a weekly newsletter with my thoughts on the state of the nonprofit industry, including anecdotes, statistics, and helpful recommendations. I'm Lisa Greer and I'm obsessed with Saving Giving.
What if we shifted some focus from institutional professional non-profits, and started our own grass roots non-profit right here on Substack?
Based on my current understandings...
- If those Substackers who are making money with their blogs would pay a $1 per month charity tax, that would raise about $200,000 a year in charitable donations for good causes.
- If all Substackers were to pay such a tax, that total would be much greater.
- The amount of money raised would grow organically over time along with the network.
- The above scheme would cost we Substack writers three and a half cents per day.
- Once the system was established, it wouldn't require marketing, promotion, fund raising or begging etc, because the fund raising would be built in to the existing network.
Lets talk.
This is such a horrible story and I'm sorry that this happened to you Lisa.
What you don't mention here (but I'm sure was a factor) was the emotional labour you had to undertake afterwards in:
1. Deciding what the hell to do immediately after receiving this message
2. Deciding what to do after reflecting / processing a bit
3. Doing the thing (whether that was complaining / having a direct and difficult conversation or cutting ties), and whatever you chose to do, it won't have been an easy or enjoyable interaction.
Just so frustrating on so many levels. Thanks for sharing it - Caroline