Are you communicating with your supporters too frequently?

When it comes to volume of donor communications, it’s not a matter of how much or how little (especially when it comes to email). It’s a matter of how good!

If the quality of your communications with your supporters is high, the question of volume disappears.

Supporters welcome communications that make them feel good! That means the communications need to do at least one of the following:

– Offer them a chance to feel like a hero in their own life story
– Offer them a chance to be remembered by others
– Offer them a chance to get information that they deeply desire
– Offer them a chance to laugh, cry or feel an emotion they want to feel (usually thanks to a well-told story)
– Offer them a chance to better themselves in some way
– Offer them a chance to improve someone else’s life
– Offer them a chance to make new friends or feel like part of their community
– Offer them a chance to right a wrong
I might be forgetting one or two others but the point is… it ain’t about volume. It’s about quality.

Improve the quality of your donor communications… provide people with value… MAKE THEM FEEL GOOD… and you can pretty much communicate with them as much as you want— they’ll thank you for doing so.

 

Recommendations:

>> 5 Elements of a Stellar Communications Plan That Builds Donor Loyalty
>> The 7 Fundamental Rules of Amazing Donor Communications
>> Stop Filling Space!
 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom
Tom
7 years ago

So true! All of our clients are calling donors with a “thank you” right after they make their donation. They can hear in the donor’s voice that they feel valued. Donors share comments, have great feedback and feel heard. For faith clients, prayer requests are taken and donors know they’re a part of the ministry. You’re so right. The quality of the communication is everything. When done right, retention and future giving is off the charts.

engagementfundraising
7 years ago
Reply to  Tom