Komen Lessons

The Susan G. Komen Foundation’s recent public relations disaster should sound a cautionary note for anyone in the fundraising and donor relations business. The announcement that Planned Parenthood would be disqualified from further Komen grant funding because it was “under investigation” – a violation of new rules the Foundation had put in place for its grantees – clearly touched a nerve among not only the Foundation's donors, but a substantial number of its own affiliates as well.

Reaction was swift and loud, reverberating across the news spectrum. Social media played a particularly important role in publicizing and challenging Komen’s decision. The Foundation seemed blindsided by both the volume of negative response and its emotional intensity.

However one may feel about the issues at play in the Komen Foundation’s policy decision, and its sudden reversal in the face of criticism, there is little doubt that this episode will have longer-term consequences for Komen’s fundraising efforts. 

The blogosphere has been particularly harsh – “Not another dime of my money will go to Komen, which has now shown its true colors” is a common refrain. And the Foundation’s suggestion that there were “other reasons” for disqualifying Planned Parenthood for further Komen grants in the future didn’t placate anyone.

From a fundraising perspective, there are two critical takeaways: 

1) Fail to understand your donors at your own peril; and

2) Don’t forget that social media can be a double-edged sword. 

Clearly, the Komen Foundation had not anticipated the outcry from people who had been its loyal donors and event participants for years – people for whom the fight against breast cancer is completely outside of politics, but who also see this fight in the context of larger issues related to health equity for women. They care about access to healthcare for poor women, and part of the reason they supported Komen was because it funded Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening and referral services for those women.

Ironically, using the same social media tools that Komen has cultivated so effectively for fundraising purposes, these disgruntled donors communicated -- far and wide -- their displeasure with the Foundation’s decision.

And using the identical networking tools, Planned Parenthood had one of its best fundraising weeks ever. Actually, Komen also had a pretty good week, thanks to some counter-backlash giving. But political polarization around an emotionally charged, non-political issue in women’s health may just exacerbate Komen’s fundraising challenges.

The Komen Foundation’s most urgent priority now is restoring the trust of its donors. How it addresses that stewardship challenge could have enormous potential impact on the success of its fundraising and event-marketing in the future.

Recognition versus Gratitude

It's sometimes easy for fundraisers to focus on recognition of donors -- which can be described on paper and be part of "stewardship systems" -- but can miss the opportunity to express real gratitude to donors.  Gratitude can be simple.  It can be short and to the point.  One of the best thank you letters I ever received was for a small gift I made to a local school. The principal wrote a short note telling me how she would make use of the money and thanking me.  It stood out.

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. 

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. 

Let's Lose the Industrial Model to Fundraising

Seth Godin did a webinar for Network for Good on the 12th and suggested that the industrial model of mass production and maximum efficiency may be bad for fundraising because it's time has gone.  He's right that ours is not a profession know for flexibility, delivering the unexpected or using technology to deliver the personal. However, here you have an organization like Network for Good doing ALL that by enabling practioners in the field to hear Seth and ponder his ideas (and maybe buy his books)

But don't we have potential.....we deal in a world where emotion rules, relationships abound, and proximity to the best minds (our volunteers) is close.  So how do we move the needle and ratchet it up some notches?  It's going to take risk, mistakes, investment of time and money. 

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.