|
The Monthly Donor “Rip Off”
By Liz Attfield on September 22, 2010
There’s a commercial I like on TV. It’s a simple premise: a man hands a kid a large wheeled, shiny red truck, telling him to “Have some fun with that truck!”
The truck is as big as the kid’s torso. The kid’s rolling it around, bouncing on it, having a grand time. Without warning, the man reappears and – yoink – grabs the truck from the kid, handing him a chintzy cardboard cutout instead.
The look on the kid’s face at that moment is what makes the commercial work – he’s so genuinely perplexed and annoyed – eyes are wide, the jaw drops, and his next line is priceless… “It’s a piece of junk!”
After seeing this commercial two or three dozen times, it dawned on me: some charities make similar decisions to figuratively rip the ‘red truck’ right out of donors’ grasp. This happens right from the get-go, at the point when the donor changes their giving from occasional to monthly gifts.
Single gift donors receive a series of communications: mail campaigns; telephone calls; newsletters; emails; and even invitations to events. Sometimes a donor will even receive multiple communications each month.
But when that donor signs up to make a monthly gift, or perhaps (if we could be so lucky!) agrees to make a bequest, often their regular communications cease.
The charity somehow wants to protect their monthly donors. They think “if we talk to them, we draw attention to ourselves and they may cancel their support.” So, starts the “ignore the monthly donors” plan.
In my head, I imagine donors having the same reaction as the boy with the truck: slack jaw, wide eyes, and they are left wondering:
“What just happened? I don’t hear from them anymore!”
And yet, despite this lack of communication, the donors are expected to maintain their support.
Charities:
- It’s vital to make sure your donors don’t feel like the kid with the red truck.
- Talk to them! Don’t leave them wanting more!
- Give them the opportunity to choose the level of correspondence.
Sure, some donors may prefer to receive fewer communications, but at least they won’t be surprised when that change happens. That red truck will still be firmly in their grasp.
They’ll reward you for your good stewardship in the end… with their continued support.
Lorie wrote, on 13:01 at Sep 23, 2010
You’ve hit the nail on the head Liz. As a Monthly Donor to many charities, I still want to know how my support is helping those organizations meet their objectives – even more so than those charities to whom I make a single gift.
Geoff Lloyd wrote, on 18:57 at Sep 23, 2010
Great post Liz.
If only if we thought of the donor relationship as an actual relationship, which of course it is to the donor. This would be like agree’ing to date someone and then not call for a few months . . . We’d never do this with a “real” relationship, right.
With monthly donors worth $800-1200 and donors that leave a gift in their will worth $20k+, these are relationships worth nurturing. Maybe a little less a focus on volume and more on value.
Keep up the great work ST!
Ken Burnett wrote, on 11:30 at Sep 24, 2010
Spot on, Liz. Of course you are right. And what you suggest is just basic common sense and politeness. If communications are good – which they too seldom are – donors usually welcome them. Yet as a sector we still provide feedback to donors so erratically. Of course, nothing shows indifference as much as silence. That we subject our committed supporters to indifference while we shower the cold public with appeals to the point of irritation perhaps illustrates a fundamental flaw in the way we fundraisers view ourselves.
Well said.
All best, Ken x
Liz wrote, on 22:43 at Sep 24, 2010
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and feedback. Ken I particularly like your point about silence as indifference. We view it as ‘protection’ of our monthly donors by being sensitive to what we assume are their needs. But most of us are monthly donors too – when the shoe is on the other foot, it’s a completely different feeling.
Katherine wrote, on 12:20 at Sep 25, 2010
Great post Liz. Being a monthly donor in a few charities I am often both under and over communicated with. None of which I have requested.
What I would like is someone to ask me what communication I want (an annual report for example) and in what format. It is a simple survey that I have included in the work I have done in the past in the for-profit world. Of course, once you ask it is expected you will follow-up with the appropriate level, type and format of communication. And perhaps this is the stumbling block for many charities – but investment in communication management may have a better ROI than expected.
Pamela Gignac wrote, on 09:39 at Sep 26, 2010
This is spot on, thank you. I have tried to point this out for sometime but its always about budgets and planning. Most charities need to include it in their annual communication plan to all donors which too often is not an overall plan but one designed too often in isolation of fundraising let alone inclusive for all donors and supporters. As fundraisers we do many things to “protect” our donors who we have identified as prospects for s certain type or level of gift. For example, major donor prospects are “isolated” and marked as don’t touch – hands off. They too are used to get regular communications and then all of a sudden nothing. This is all while we are crazy busy trying to line up the rt person at the rt time with a huge proposal for the rt ask. All the while they sometimes “move on” and we don’t kno why. With today’s technology, we can certainly integrate our communications better with our funraising let alone one “type” of fundraining with the other. Sorry for thr rant! Keep up the great leadership you atke! Pam
Paul de Gregorio wrote, on 12:49 at Sep 27, 2010
Brilliant post. It seems once on board some charities can appear to want their monthly givers to forget about their monthly gift! The very best continue to enagage and inspire their supporters, making subsequent asks and the cross sell of other other fundraising products much more effective.
Liz wrote, on 18:19 at Sep 27, 2010
Thank you for this excellent feedback!
Katherine – agreed! We survey our donors far too infrequently, make too many assumptions (from no communications to too many). And right on – the effort put into a more tailored communication stream could pay off in the long run, through saved expenditures and more donations.
Pamela – or should we call you Rick Mercer for that Rant!
Thank you for the tie in to major donors. It’s funny how the best sources of revenue are both in the same situation. Those are old rules we need to break.
Paul – another great international commentator! Thanks for your input. I didn’t touch on cross-selling but it’s a vital next step in moving monthlies up the donor chain.
Cheers everyone!
Casino Bonus wrote, on 01:30 at Oct 24, 2010
hey your blog design is very nice, neat and fresh and with updated content, make people feel peace and I always enjoy browsing your site.
- Thomas
rachat de credit wrote, on 23:48 at Oct 25, 2010
Man, really want to know how can you be that smart, lol…great read, thanks.
Onlinecasino wrote, on 11:02 at Nov 04, 2010
I should digg your post therefore more folks can see it, very helpful, I had a tough time finding the results searching on the web, thanks.
- Mark