A Small Change- Fundraising Blog

So how do we really treat donors differently? What does it really mean? What does “Donor-centric” actually look like? It is one thing to talk about new ideas and a totally different thing to have tangible ways of carrying them out. I think that a major key to All Donors as Major Donors is to remember, “people not process.” We cannot forget that our systems can only be secondary to the people that are a part of them. Many donors don’t care about donor lists, quarterly coffee visits, and an annual solicitation. But some do so we should adapt our processes accordingly. I’ve received a bunch of great ideas from you and from a few individuals on LinkedIn. Here are a few tangible suggestions. Please add your own ideas & experiences as a comment below

• Aubrey suggests that when a donor calls take an extra couple minute to actually talk to them and to make sure you thank them for their continued support.
• A few ideas from Amy J. Good, a Nonprofit Management grad student at, Regis University, “Personal invitations/tickets to special events; Let them know you saw an article in the newspaper about them; Phone call from a board member for no other reason but to thank the donor for their gift.”
• Paul Cusimano says, “People cannot be thanked enough. Every step of the way, let them know you are there…don’t forget about people.”
• Marcus Fish recommends, “doing a bit of research about each donor/prospect…check [their] files/database, google their name, and look at where they live.”
• “Send holiday photo cards with pictures of some of our kids engaged in programs, invitations to tour the school, and I always make a phone call to donors on the same day we receive a major gift from them.” Jim Price, Executive Director, The Child’s Primary School
• “Include a series of check boxes on direct mail reply cards that let donors choose how often they hear from me. The boxes would be things like ‘Please ask me for a gift only once a year’ or ‘Please ask me for a gift only during the Holidays’. This let the donor decide how often they wanted to receive mailings from me, and subsequently, my response rates went up while my expenses went down. And my donors were happy.” Sandy Rees
• “A handcrafted thank-you card from an actual service recipient. Of course, this isn’t always plausible; but the underlying theme is right on. Figure out a way to really connect a constituent, funder or supporter with the people they’re actually helping, and they’ll stay with you forever.” Trevor Scheetz, Program Coordinator at Business Volunteers Unlimited
• “Let your donors know exactly where their gifts went. Whether you do it via an annual report, a special end-of-year thank you to all donors, or on your website, make sure people know that even the smallest gift made a difference.” Dana Camacho, Development Manager, American Academy of Periodontology Foundation

Christopher from NPower Seattle:

Connection to mission is what it’s all about right? If a member of your constituency isn’t feeling it, or feels stronger connection to another mission, then what are the chances of that long-term relationship continuing to grow? In my mind the best way to build that relationship is to identify those things to which the constituent connects best and be sure that you are “keeping them in the loop.” The birthday cards, phone calls and events mean nothing if you are not using them to provide a clear and consistent message that your mission is something that resonates with them, and is something exciting to be involved with. We are not selling the mission, we are inviting them to be part of something important.

Wow! I was blown away with the incredible responses in the All Donors as Major Donors post earlier this week. You had some incredible feedback and ideas, if you have not read the comments from Wednesday’s post I recommend that you read it now. To be honest I thought that I was going to be laughed out of the room with that post. What surprised me the very most was that almost every comment that I received said, “I wish it could work that way.”

One major point was that treating all donors as major donors is not possible either logistically or cost-wise. I think that it is more a philosophy of cultivation issue not a logistics or cost issue. Start with the change in philosophy and if you have a capacity problem then it can be solved because people are giving more money so you can hire more people. I would start doing it incrementally first change the philosophy, then start hiring to meet the demand.  As we all know fundraising is all about relationships. One comment that surprised me was from Aubrey. It surprised me because it reminded me that our current “major” gifts systems don’t always work and she gave a tangible example how to cultivate a $25 donor as if they were a major donor. I wish that this idea was simple, uncomplicated, and easy to realize. But we know it is not.

Here are a few questions that were raised in comments that I am going to think about a little more next week:From Cal’s comment, “To be honest, I want so much to believe in this stuff, but I see the real world for what it is. I agree with your premise, but would ask what is REAL generosity?” Roger comments, “This article could imply that if the donor (regardless of wealth) is not giving a substantial percentage of his or her wealth to your nonprofit organization, there is an attitude problem.” J. Erik Potter takes a step back and “stops time” and asks the question, “Even if you could spend all that time with a $25 donor, would you? Or is the idea of unlimited time too far out there to even comprehend?”Allena reminds us not to forget the volunteers. How would/could they fit into this?

Here is a crazy idea. What if we treated all of our donors like major donors? What if instead of cultivating and personally soliciting donors we started treating them all as if they were major donors?

This is a question I’ve been pondering in my head over and over again for a number of weeks. It is linked to the concept of what is a major donor and why do we only personally cultivate donors at a specific level? To get a little more background on where this idea has developed look at Turning it Over to the Donor, and The Rich Young Ruler. I have a follow up article for this ready for Friday and I’d love to include some of your comments, arguments for & against, and ideas.

I think it is a little untraditional and want some of your expert opinions. This idea first crossed my mind when I realized that I am a “major donor” to the church that I go to. I do this out of a passion for the work of my church and because I’m connected to it’s purpose and mission. And I think that is what we want from all of our donors. I’ve struggled sometimes because in non-profit we will often set a value on each donor based on their circle of influence and their giving capacity. But we in non-profit have set our expectations extremely low. I often will spend more time cultivating a give from a wealthy person to give what equates to small gift in proportion to their wealth and forget that the “normal” donors are often giving a much higher percentage of their wealth with a gift of the same size.  There are many wealthy people that are giving generously out of the money that they have-don’t misread me. All that I am saying is that percentage wise a $500 gift costs more for someone who makes $50,000 a year than $1,000 gift from someone who makes $150,000 a year.

Giving is connected extremely closely to the way we think, act, and believe it is often at the heart of who we want to be. Check out What Motivates Giving and a collection of experts answering the same question at the Giving Carnival: Motivation. In non-profit we have a unique opportunity to partner with people and connect to the passions of their heart. This kind of connection doesn’t have a distinction between annual fund and major donor. This kind of fundraising is all about one on one relationship.

I am really interested in your input here. Please comment below if you like/dislike, agree or adamantly disagree. And I’ll highlight some of this conversation in a follow up article.

I thought and thought about posting this article or not. I know that many of my readers do not have a faith background (or come from a different background than me) and was a little afraid they might find a “parable” offensive. Then I started to think more about some of the ideas I found in this parable and how much they benefited my thinking on fundraising. So if you are offended or angry at this post please either post a comment with concrete reasons why or send me an email and let me know.Eric Foley from the Mission Increase Foundation has some really unique ideas about transformational giving that you can read in his quotes throughout this post.

You know the intrinsic problem with fund raising? We try to mediate meaning, instead of assisting others to make meaning. What I mean by this is that we identify a good cause, we share it with people, we ask them for money, they give it to us, and then we send them a letter saying, “Oh, you should have seen little Timmy’s eyes light up when we gave him that new computer we bought with the money you sent us!”…That’s meaning mediation. That makes us the middleman. The meaning goes through us. Instead, let donors communicate with donors. Let donors ask other donors. Instead of jumping in and doing the work, stand on the sidelines and coach. Offer them tools. Challenge them. Most of all, set them loose and stay out of their way.-Eric Foley

You can read the story for yourself in the Bible in Mark chapter 10 starting at verse 17. Here is a paraphrase as to how the story goes. A man approaches Jesus and asks him what he must do to be perfect. Jesus answers by asking the man if he has followed the commandments and the man responds that he has kept them all since he was a young boy. Jesus then tells him that he must sell all that he has and give his money to the poor. Saddened the man then leaves because he has great wealth.Lets look at Jesus as the key leader of his non-profit (or ministry). In that situation if I was asked the same questions by the rich young ruler I probably would have directed him donate to a couple of the villages I was headed to or passed him off to one of my disciples to talk with him about how he can fund a new project that I’m working on. But this is not what Jesus said:

Well, if you want to be perfect, I have put together a great brochure with some of our key ministries that could really use your support, and here are some fantastic testimonials from folks I’ve healed.-Eric Foley

This made me realize that one of the key problems in fundraising today is that we don’t care about the cultivation process of the donor. The process is not meant to help the donor better understand their own reasons for giving and connect them to how they can be fulfilled and make a real difference. The process is built around how can we get them to better understand what we do in such a way that they will want to give more money. Jesus responded to the needs he saw in the life of the rich young ruler.

But Jesus didn’t focus on what the young ruler could do for his ministry. Instead, he perceived that the young ruler had a lack …It wasn’t that the poor needed the young ruler’s money - it was that the young ruler needed to give his money away.-Eric Foley

This is where the idea of transformational giving begins. This kind of giving allows the donor and the organization to be changed. It involves giving that goes far beyond a financial gift and is more about a lifestyle or an attitude of the heart. It involves stewarding and cultivating donors in such a way that partnerships are being really created. This kind of cultivation allows donors to take ownership of the process and invest themselves in the purpose/mission of your non-profit.

As I’ve started to ask how can we fundraise differently I’ve found many different ideas and strategies that organizations are using. As we think about how to do what we do better I thought it might help for you to hear a few ideas.

Person-to-Person Fundraising: Peter Diaz runs a website called Social Actions that exists to help individuals and organizations with peer-to-peer fundraising. I watched a video by him when I first started blogging that I wanted to share. In many ways the internet has made the world a smaller place. His idea is for individuals to create, “blogs and essentially establish themselves as the guide to a specific issue.” This is an interesting idea because it in some ways could replace the community foundation. Donors could essentially be sponsoring an individual to give the money you give them away toward a specific cause or issue.

Friendraising: Advanced Solutions International is taking peer-to-peer fundraising to new levels. They are doing a lot of thinking about how to cultivate and grow a connection to online donors.

Transformational Giving: The Mission Increase Foundation is pioneering this idea. Eric Foley describes transformational giving as, “giving that arises from a transfer of ownership from ministry [or non-profit] to donor—a transfer of vision, responsibility, and equipping.” This is a whole new way of looking at the donor as a partner instead of simply as a donor. Using this model a non-profit can distribute their message out a lot faster and with more ownership.

Many of the above ideas involve person-to-person fundraising or using social networking to connect directly with new donors. Have you have heard of any ideas or had an experience working with any of them? Do you have any new theories or ideas of your own? If you ever have a topic or a question that you want to read about or me to look into please let me know.