We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Privacy Overview
Login
Your Role
Challenges You Face
results
Learn
Resources
Company
Here are my IN’s & OUT’s for 2019… what do you think about them?
OUTS
Being disrespectful, interrupting & annoying supporters
Spray-n’-pray marketing
Show up n’ throw up presentations
Treating donors like ATM machines
Asking for money (begging)
Counting numbers of new Legacy Society members
Shaming donors into giving at events that cost a lot
Acquiring thousands of new, low-dollar donors
Finding innovative ways to get ‘em to give more
Pre-qualifying major donors mostly because they’re rich
Making supporters feel bad
IN’s
Being fair, building trust & involving supporters
Personalized, relevant & respectful communications
Collaborative conversations leading to proposals
Treating donors like people searching for meaning
Facilitating an exchange of value (fundraising)
Counting realized dollars from legacy gifts
Involving and informing donors at low cost events
Acquiring dozens of new, high-dollar donors
Finding innovative ways to help ‘em realize their dreams
Allowing major donors to qualify themselves (opt-in)
Making supporters feel good
If you like ’em, please share this file online:
Related Posts:
>>Donor Psychology: do you know what really makes your supporters feel good?
>>5 thoughts that might lead your supporters to feel donor remorse
LIKE THIS BLOG POST? LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW AND/OR SHARE IT WITH YOUR PEERS!
Get the book!
Feeling like your job is getting harder because donor expectations have changed and competition for the charitable dollar is growing?
Finding that the old orthodoxies and conventions espoused by so-called experts in online echo-chambers and at conferences don’t work anymore?
Want to help more people make impact by facilitating their acts of philanthropy but feel like too many obstacles keep getting in your way?
Then this book is for you.
Engagement Fundraising was developed from the perspective of a donor who discovered firsthand that the impersonal, spray-and-pray approaches of his beloved charity were not only offensive but also wasteful and ineffective. So he took action. And now, you can too.
Get smarter with the SmartIdeas blog
Subscribe to our blog today and get actionable fundraising ideas delivered straight to your inbox!
I agree with everything on the lists except one: You say a don’t is: Acquiring thousands of new, low-dollar donors. People say it, agencies are selling it. But it just does not work. Not one list broker has that magic list. And if you do projections going forward, the numbers will lead you steadily downward not upward. The real challenge for non-profits is the second year from new retention rate. For most, that is stuck at about 30-35%. Without a huge bump in that retention rate, going after more “high-value” new donors results in a shrinking donor file. It is the age old question: Do I want one donor who gives me a million or do I want 10,000 donors who each give me $100? I will take the latter every day of the week. If I lose my million dollar donor, I am up the creek without the proverbial paddle. If I loose 100 of the other group, I still have 9,900 to work with. On paper and in theory it sounds good, but in practical reality it is a recipe for disaster. Out of the quantity comes the quality.
These are excellent points Christopher. Thanks for sharing them.
I guess I should have elaborated.
What I’m really against is acquiring thousands of new donors by pounding tens of thousands (or more) over and over and with no plan for delivering value to them in a way that encourages retention or migration to mid-level or major giving.
I am a new Leadership Gift Officer. Would you please elaborate on your point about allowing major donors to qualify themselves/opt-in? Thank you!
Hi Kathryn. This is a big topic that requires a lot of space. It was discussed thoroughly in my book and I’d be happy to send you a complementary copy if you’d like. Let me know. But to keep it short and sweet… basically I believe donors should be ‘invited’ to have a deeper relationship with you and your institution. If they opt-in then they should be put on your case load. So in that respect, they should be allowed to self-qualify.
But when you are just beginning to build a caseload or to refresh one, you should consider a donor survey or some other value-oriented engagement experience that includes asking qualifying questions so the donor (again) can decide whether or not they want to lean in to have a deeper relationship with you and your institution.
Bottom line: For some reason long ago the sector decided that donors should be targets. I disagree! I think they should be friends we invite to engage. Then, if they lean in and opt-in, they should be given the chance to self-qualify by letting us know their intentions, where they reside in the consideration process for giving, why they care, how they’d like to give, etc.
Of course, this is what the system/technology I developed does. You can see a video about it on our main web page: http://www.imarketsmart.com
Thank you, Greg. And my apologies for the delay in my reply! (I hadn’t checked the box to be notified when there was a new post or reply.)
You sent me the book (through a different opportunity) and I need to read it.
Do you have any advice about time management? I’m struggling with finding a good balance between planning and doing. Also, there are so many people posting and publishing with advice — I could spend all my time reading and “learning” but not *doing* the work.