All the talk in fundraising right now is for nonprofits to move towards establishing a deeper, more intimate relationship with their donors.
This is difficult to do. Not to mention more expensive, as deeper relationships – we believe – require more donor touches that don’t involve an ask.
But I woke up last night in a cold sweat with the nagging question: What if we are dead wrong?
What if your donors want less of a relationship with you?
What if they really want to be merely transactional? Sure they will give, but on their terms and timing.
If one looks at the numbers, it seems to be the way donors are behaving.
Check out this very scary graph. This is for a big nonprofit organization. This analysis is comparing the 5-year values of donors acquired in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010 (the last two are projections).
The 5-year values for this have been steadily declining. This analysis projects the 5-year value of a donor acquired in FY10 is worth half that of a donor acquired in FY04.
The whole direct mail cultivation mode is built on inexpensive acquisition and long-term cultivation through PUSHING messages. We already know that inexpensive acquisition is out the door. This analysis suggests that long-term cultivation push may be a thing of the past as well.
What does this mean?
Well, nothing short of a whole new way of thinking. Instead of PUSHING communications, we may have to think of PULLING in donors into short-term transactions.
And thus far no one’s wrote the book on how to do that.
Not all donors are seeking a deeper connection…
What if your donors care just enough to give, but that’s all? What if all our attempts to give them more of our nonprofit wonderfulness are just annoying? That’s the question over at Donor-Central, at Are We Completely Wrong? All the talk in fundrais…
This is a theme lately. Jeff Schreifels just blogged on this last week: http://veritusgroup.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/are-your-donors-qualified/
No doubt in my mind that many donors, especially the strategic ones (with the big dollars) want to engage in philanthropy and not just be part of commodity philanthropy. It is against human nature.
The familiarity of non-profits with the subject matter is what creates differentiation and attract donors that are looking for experts to use their money wisely.
Non-profits need to improve their communication, marketing, engaging plans and content creation efforts.
I am speaking as a donor. One thing that donor strategies fail to recognize is that where a donor is already “sold” on an organzation, numerous “touches” become annoying at best, offensive at worst. I haven’t seen many so-called “experts” in fundraising who recognize that many major, or potentially major donors want less “donor cultivation” because the fundraiser ought to understand that the donor ALREADY has an emotional or personal interest in the organization. Obvious “moves management” strategies on behalf of the Development Director often seem contrived, disingenuous and fake. Some donors just want to be kept up to date on what is happening from a professional distance. When “cultivation” strategies are obvious, the donor feels less than human. He/she feels there is an attempt at manipulation rather a genuine connection with the donor. If a development director who didn’t have a personal connection to me otherwise constantly fawns all over me me when I run into him, it doesn’t make me feel as if he’s my friend, it makes me feel used. I am getting ready to severe ties with an organization I used to love because “cultivation” efforts have become so contrived, so phony, so obvious. Every time I speak to the sugary sweet development director, I recognize he is going straight to his computer and ticking off another “touch”. Fundraisers better beware that the so-called experts are turning fundraising into an art akin to used car salesmanship. If I got a birthday card from a Development Director I’d want to run away screaming.