I agree that our fundraising job titles usually suck. Mine was “Director of Advancement”, and now it’s “Regional Director of Development”. It’s a good observation to see those titles are focused on the nonprofit organization’s objectives, and not on the donor’s needs and wants. Usually, donors don’t mind speaking with the field staff person who is actually delivering the services to the clients the nonprofit organization serves. Donors are also happy to speak with the President or Executive Director, because they think they might actually learn something interesting about life in general, as opposed to receiving just a bare minimum sales pitch for the organization, followed by a request for a gift.
However, I find it interesting that sales-oriented titles don’t hurt in most for-profit businesses. Why is that? I think it’s because customers *want* a product or service, and they *need* a good salesperson to get the right product at the right price. Customers don’t want to be pressured, but they also get frustrated and angry when they want to buy something, and they can’t find a salesperson to take their order or explain the features and benefits, and offer comparisons and some product knowledge. If this is true, how can we make “fundraising” roles more like “sales manager” or “account director” roles and job descriptions?

“Donor Engagement Facilitator” seems like excessive verbiage, and very confusing. (I can see a donor reading the word “engagement” and wondering if we’re getting in to wedding planning as a side business?!?!) As a fussy English major, I’m all for brevity and clarity, and a title like this seems just the opposite. That said, “Director of Development” can still be confusing to some donors, too. (for years, I dutifully filled in the “career mentor” form for my undergraduate alma mater, and never got a single request for information–I often wondered if the reason was that my job title was confusing, and students thought I was in real estate development, as in, building strip malls and fast food joints! hmmm…)

I’m technically the Development Director for my company, but on my signature with donors I put Donor Relationship Director or Donor Relationship Manager. It makes it clear that I’m there for the donors and for a relationship with them.

Hey Greg, great comments!
Quick story: When I was preparing for my first campaign, way before Dr. James began his research, I hired a fabulous Director of Major Gifts, and we included the title on the name tag development and events staff wore at our many activities.
One of our loyal major gift donors noticed it immediately. He did not react positively.
Clearly, “protect the wallet” was his gut reaction.
Fortunately, we were able to diminish his fears, and all was made well. He continued his support on many levels for years to come.
However, this experience caused a rethinking of that position title, followed by many others. Today, my beloved “alma mater” is building each year on the foundation of listening and adapting that we worked to put into place.
A key learning from our experience is:
Pay close attention to how supporters view their contributions in the context of a family. Especially a family that has expanded greatly from the one they originally signed up for!
Applause to you, Greg–for bringing up this point to your ever-expanding audience!
PS– Love the “Chief Donor Love Officer” comment above from Mazarine! Go for it!

Greg, the job title that has proven to get the best results is “Board Member.”

How about Director of Donor Impact?