How do you get a someone to give a donation to your organization?
I’m asked this question often. And as I tell those that ask me that, I think the question itself is problematic — if not inappropriate.
Why?
Because donors are thinking, breathing human beings. They (read: we) don’t much like being manipulated into doing something we wouldn’t otherwise do. And when we are manipulated, we generally resent it — and we will try hard to not put ourselves in that situation again.
Yes, you might say, but if we come back “with a check”, does it really matter? Isn’t manipulation “part of the game”? If manipulation by others bothers you, it’s safe to assume that others will be personally bothered by it as well.
Take a look at these three (actual) examples of wording used in snail mail and email solicitations. Which do you think is the best way to encourage a donor to give?
(a) “Last Chance to Give!”
(b) “Second Notice — Renew Today!”
(c) “Help us Meet our Goal!
(d) “Celebrate Our Anniversary by Giving Today!”
The answer is at the bottom — but read on.
Donors are not aliens from another planet. They don’t operate from a different set of tenets than the rest of us. They have differing hopes and dreams— just like everyone else — and just like “the rest of us”, they include some people who are kind, some who are not-so-kind, some who are arrogant, some who are humble, and on and on. The point is that donors, like anyone else, vary dramatically from person to person.
It’s important to accept that premise, especially now, when we continue to see the decline of giving — both in terms of money raised and in terms of numbers of donors. We also continue to see that the number of donors returning the next year is stuck at about 18-20%. Is it really worth the time and money invested in “getting” that first donation if you know that the chance is 4 in 5 that you’ll never “see” them again in the future?
It doesn’t have to be this way. The manipulative, impersonal, transactional way of raising money just isn’t sustainable. For the donor, it’s off-putting and insulting, and it may make that donor feel like they just don’t want to give to anyone anymore. This seems obvious, but I see fundraisers using more and more money — donor money — to replenish their base year after year. It’s like a never-ending treadmill, and it does does our sector no good.
There is another way.
If you accept that donors are humans, then you can approach your fundraising in a honest, respectful and empathetic way that is much more likely to succeed long term than not.
I was doing some research on this recently and found a study from not so long ago, written by accepted thought leaders in philanthropy. The study classifies donors based on income, education and geography, and then prescribes specific strategies for pitching a cause, based on those classifications.
Here are the main recommendations from that study:
When approaching people with an income of less than $100,000, or those with a high school education or less, emphasize how your organization helps people meet their basic needs or helps people help themselves.
When approaching prospective donors with income of $100,000 or more, or those with a college degree or above: Emphasize how their gift helps them help those with less. Demonstrate how your organization can “help make the world a better place” or, if more appropriate, help make the community better.
As I see it, this is a great example of what’s wrong with philanthropy and fundraising today. It assumes that people — prospective donors — who don’t have a college degree, OR make less than $100K/year (equivalent to closer to $150K/year in today’s dollars) have completely different motivations and different ways of expressing their interest in giving than people who have college degrees or make more than $150/year.
The assumption, as I see it, is that the prospects in the “have degree/have money” category are of more value — and, I’m guessing, are worthy of more time spent by staff — than the prospects in the “lesser” category. This is offensive and just wrong.
Not only does this not make room for the many hugely successful people without college degrees, but it also suggests that teachers, for example (who typically earn less than that that $150K threshold) need to be spoken to about giving in a different way than those whose incomes are higher. Most glaringly, this approach leaves no room for the millions of people in tech, for example, who make modest salaries, but have valuable stock in their companies. Or people who are highly intelligent, make a decent living, but don’t meet that income threshold.
Just to drive home how preposterous this is, think of it as applying to yourself and others in your family. Putting people/prospective donors into different boxes as suggested means that I, personally, would be approached with the “make the world a better place” thing, because I couldn’t relate to the “help people help themselves” thing. Grrrr…
Silly? Yes. Insulting? Completely. Used by many fundraisers today? No doubt yes.
Again, think about yourself as the donor here. (Almost everyone, if not everyone, has been a donor at some point — whether it’s financially or otherwise.)
Do you want to attract donors? Do you want to keep your donors’ support month after month and year after year? If so, let’s stop with the short-sightedness and rigidity that characterizes much of fundraising today. Understand that there are a lot of people out there — all kinds of people — who, when given an opportunity to donate in some way, with authenticity, honesty and with mutual respect, would be happy to.
No manipulation needed.
(Oh, and the answer to the four questions above is “None” — if you want a donor to give to you more than once, that is.)
Thank you to everyone who has chosen to become a premium subscriber! I look forward to our next monthly interactive Zoom call. A. save the date will be sent soon!
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