Choices - Do Donors Want Them?

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently featured an article by Thomas Barlett, partially entitled..."Save Us From Our Own Decisions."  He summarized a recent presentation by Dan Ariely, Eldar Shafir, and Sheena Iyengar (Ariely and Iyengar are featured on End|Start's resources link).  Two obvious take-aways for nonprofits are:  too many choices can overwhelm, deter, distract, a donor; people respond better to more concrete choices -- save one particular life than "end poverty for one million people."

Many organizations give donors a menu of possibilities -- sometimes under the guise of donor choice, sometimes because the internal politics of choosing one program over others is too overwhelming, sometimes because the organization is so large and complex.

But choice is, I believe, the future.  Giving will, in fact, be more and more directed.  With increasingly sophisticated consumers who are used to having more and more choice in how they spend their dollars, the change is coming.  Get with it, get ahead of it, or get caught in it by not being ready, open, and creative. 

Choice is key to engagement; engagement is key to support. 

Donors Want Data -- Great Option for Design

Donors do want data but not if it is mind-numbing.  It should be clear, honest, and relevant.  It should tell a story. It can tell a story.  Check out Nicholas Felton, data design guru, and his personal annual reports.   MUCH MORE INTERESTING than corporate or non-profit annual reports. 

Storytelling -- non-fiction -- is what generates the emotions that inspire giving.

Ariana Huffington and the 20+ generation

Yesterday at the annual Council of Foundation's meeting being held in Philadelphia this year, Arianna Huffington spoke -- quite early indeed -- about the the critical need people have to be involved -- to take action.  Even with technology providing ways to communicate in faster, better more constant ways, people want to engage.  Actually they want both -- technology but not replacing human interaction.

This was a theme of the Millenium Donors Report 2011 that was released by Achieve and JGA.  It was their second such report and they found that Millenials prefer to give online or using online tools but that they also volunteer in person and their giving follows links to their volunteering.

One of the other findings was that organizations have to prioritize gaining and maintaining the trust of their donors.  Some of  their suggestions to do that?  endorsement by family or friends; report financial condition, opportunities to meet leadership.

Forces for Good - Donor Engagement a Critical Practice for High Impact Nonprofits

Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant outline six critical components that are common to great social sector organizations in their book Forces for Good.  One of the six focuses on donors and volunteers.  "Create meaningful experiences for individual supporters and convert them into evangelists for the cause, "they write. 

Just what is a meaningful experience?  Their examples include special events that engage volunteers and donors in the work of the organization, as with Habit for Humanity and Teach for America, and VIP events such as Environmental Defense Fund's exclusive rafting trips or the Heritage Foundation's invitation-only VIP gatherings.

Each of the experiences described are highly focused on the work of the organization and the social needs they are working hard to meet.  When organizations forget the mission in creating and executing their special events, volunteers and donors begin to forget which charity event they are attending.  It's just another party.

Every event hosted by a non-profit offers the opportunity to provide new insight into the organization's work, and even more importantly, the reason behind their existence -- why is everyone building a house, or rafting a river, or eating another chicken dinner.

There is not enough hard data that shows the net benefit of investing in building strong donor relationships.  But Forces for Good is an excellent invitation to explore why some nonprofits are so successful in maximizing social change. 

Tin Cup or Tin Ear?

The other day I received a piece of direct mail from Oxfam, the international famine relief organization. I have supported Oxfam as a pledge partner for at least 10 years, and I assumed that the mailing was an invitation -- which I receive at least annually -- to increase the amount of my monthly support.

As someone who makes my living advising organizations on how to build donor trust and increased giving through best practices in stewardship and donor relations, I was impressed that a message on the outer envelope noted that Oxfam meets Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance "...standards of operation, spending, truthfulness, and disclosure" and that it is "rated highly by leading charitable watchdog organizations, including the American Institute of Philanthropy." These are important reasons why I have been a longtime Oxfam supporter.

So imagine my surprise and chagrin when I opened the envelope and read the beginning lines:  "Here's what you won't find accompanying this letter:  address labels that "guilt trip" you into giving; an expensive calendar that you don't need (and we can't afford)...." Actually, what I did find as I read a generic "first-ask" letter was an organization that, for all its wonderful work, hit a very sour note in donor relations.

Although my support for Oxfam is modest -- about $500 per year -- I  was annoyed to receive this letter. It seems reasonable to expect a sophisticated fundraising operation like Oxfam's to be able to manage purchased list data for a mail appeal to exclude existing donors, particularly those who, like me, demonstrate their commitment and loyalty to the organization every month.

Receiving this solicitation made me wonder whether I actually matter to Oxfam as anything other than a check writer. That's the kind of response that no organization raising money today -- large or small -- really can't afford.

Donors Want More

Check out “Wealthy Donors Are Demanding a Bigger Voice in Catholic Schools,” from the February 7, 2011 New York Times.  The story is about wealthy donors who want more accountability and transparency from the schools they help. Fundraisers often use the term “investment” to make a compelling case to business-savvy donors for supporting cultural and social causes. If we follow the term “investor” to its logical outcome it shouldn't be a surprise when donors want to know about return on their philanthropic investments, to have concrete data on which to base their choices and, increasingly, to have a say in how decisions are made in the organizations they support.,  Philanthropic investment may be different from Wall Street, but in a world with increasing demand for transparency, accountability, and purchaser satisfaction, we will need to rethink some of the ways we engage and involve donors.  Much good can come of it.

Donor Bill of Rights

Not being harassed is not specifically listed on the Donor Bill of Rights.  So, technically the Darmouth and Cornell senior class fundraisers who put a full court/class press on peers to donate to their class gift didn't violate anything official. But is that what donors want or deserve?  The Chronicle of Higher Education story included student comments which were both positive and negative (the majority included) about the experience.  We know that generation Y is more likely to vote early and vote often with their feet.  So giving them reason to feel the giving experience wasn't good in the very beginning seems to out weigh the goal of getting them to give early.