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
Do People Really Give to People?
On page 6 of Penelope Burk’s new book titled Donor-Centered Leadership lies a startling little statistic.
“Among donors who have assigned a bequest in their wills, only 4% say they were influenced to do so by a representative of the recipient charity.”
4%?
In other words, 96% of donors were NOT influenced by a representative of the recipient charity?
We all know that more donors give and give more generously if they are asked. So let’s get out there and ask!
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!
This is very interesting information and leads me to what I see as an obvious question: Does the phrase “influenced to do so by a representative of the recipient charity” refer to a face-to-face visit with a solicitation to make a planned gift, or is it more generally interpreted to also include receiving a marketing piece with an urge to action? I have a feeling it refers to the former and not at all to the latter. Which makes your point more important. If they didn’t feel influenced by a marketing piece on planned giving we’re really not influencing our audience to act if we rely on them as a primary source of “solicitation”. Greg, you know me well enough, that you already count me as a member of the band-wagon you are on. Get out of the office at least once a week to visit with a prospective planned gift donor; get on the phone at least one hour each day to connect with prospective planned gift donors and secure those appointments. This should be your primary – underscore the word primary – activity. Editing the next newsletter can wait until you’ve made at least 10 calls. We need to stop underestimating the value of relationship building on fundraising. Planned giving is not a spectator-sport. It’s participatory and that participation is mandatory for success.
Katherine…amen! when we forget we are in a PEOPLE business, we’re in trouble! Thanks for your comments.
I have always had a problem with the phrase “people give to people.” It is more accurate to say: people give to causes they believe in, and they have to be asked. Face to face, and with whatever methods you have at your disposal. The “people give to people” phrase confuses new fundraisers and volunteers. Maybe I feel so strongly about this as I have always worked in niche markets.
Katherine, Margie and Virginia… ditto!!
I think it’s safe to say it’s not one or the other. An effective multi-channel marketing program and a strong donor engagement program need to be in place. The challenge of course is that to have both really requires more staffing and resource allocation then the typical development office wants to commit.
This is very interesting information and leads me to what I see as an obvious question: Does the phrase “influenced to do so by a representative of the recipient charity” refer to a face-to-face visit with a solicitation to make a planned gift, or is it more generally interpreted to also include receiving a marketing piece with an urge to action? I have a feeling it refers to the former and not at all to the latter. Which makes your point more important. If they didn’t feel influenced by a marketing piece on planned giving we’re really not influencing our audience to act if we rely on them as a primary source of “solicitation”. Greg, you know me well enough, that you already count me as a member of the band-wagon you are on. Get out of the office at least once a week to visit with a prospective planned gift donor; get on the phone at least one hour each day to connect with prospective planned gift donors and secure those appointments. This should be your primary – underscore the word primary – activity. Editing the next newsletter can wait until you’ve made at least 10 calls. We need to stop underestimating the value of relationship building on fundraising. Planned giving is not a spectator-sport. It’s participatory and that participation is mandatory for success.
Katherine…amen! when we forget we are in a PEOPLE business, we’re in trouble! Thanks for your comments.
I have always had a problem with the phrase “people give to people.” It is more accurate to say: people give to causes they believe in, and they have to be asked. Face to face, and with whatever methods you have at your disposal. The “people give to people” phrase confuses new fundraisers and volunteers. Maybe I feel so strongly about this as I have always worked in niche markets.
Katherine, Margie and Virginia… ditto!!
I think it’s safe to say it’s not one or the other. An effective multi-channel marketing program and a strong donor engagement program need to be in place. The challenge of course is that to have both really requires more staffing and resource allocation then the typical development office wants to commit.