
As I was reading the industry news on AllTop today, I came across an article from November that I’d apparently missed. From Pamela’s Grantwriting Blog (which, if I’ve never mentioned it before, I love and read anytime I get a spare minute, which clearly at this time of year is once every six weeks), it’s an email from a development director at a large non-profit in New York to board members, asking them to place a call to a donor that had contributed $20 online. A thank-you phone call. The email is reprinted in full below, as it appears on Pamela’s Grantwriting Blog:
Dear Board Members,
I usually ask you to call and thank those who give donations of more than $500. Today, I’d like to ask someone to call and thank someone who gave $20 to the annual campaign.
Why?
Her name is Mary Smith and she sent a note with her donation letting us know that she is unemployed. She could have chosen not to give, but she didn’t. Her note means that she wishes she could give more. Giving when it is hard to give is an exceptionally meaningful act.
If you would like to call her, please let her know that $20 is an important gift. Last year, nearly $15,000 was contributed by hundreds of people who gave less than $100 each – many of these were $20 gifts. We need each of these people to make that choice to give every year. She is part of our community and it takes all of us together to make our work successful.
If you would like to call her, please let me know and I will share her number.
There are three reasons to make a call like this. First, everything I said above is true. A stretch gift is a deeply meaningful gift, whether a person is stretching to give $20 or $20,000.
Second, a healthy annual campaign is built on a broad foundation of small gifts. (yes, it’s the gift pyramid again!) We want all of our $20 donors to repeat their gifts each year and increase them over time, while many new $20 donors come into the campaign for the first time each year, filling in the bottom of the pyramid as other donors move up.
Third, Mary probably won’t always be unemployed. She has told us that she wishes to give more, and one day she will be in a position to give more. How much more depends on how she feels about us. Also, she is likely to make or revise her estate plans at some point in her life. The single most likely prospect for a planned gift is a long term donor who gave small or moderate gifts every year for more than ten years.
I spent a lot of time writing about one individual who has given us $20. It’s not a waste of time – but it also underscores why it’s so important to have a large team building and nurturing our many relationships, from our $20,000 donors all the way to Mary.
Thanks,
The development director’s commentary (again from Pamela’s Grantwriting Blog about the request described above was as follows:
The Chair responded right away, pleased to make the call. I look forward to hearing how it went.
I share this for a couple reasons. First, does anyone think I made a mistake? Why? Does anyone have a story like this to share? I’d love to hear it.
I have been with this organization for two years. When I first arrived, I was told there were issues with donor fatigue. One of the first things I did was put a comprehensive donor stewardship plan in place and jumpstart our cultivation efforts. My plan had a lot of deep personal cultivation with major donors, and more generic, less frequent outreach with those giving smaller donations. After two years I’ve seen a huge increase in giving in the major donor group, and not much movement anywhere else.
The reason for having a stewardship plan that has more personalized activity at the top of the donor pyramid is not actually that major donors are more important, it’s that there are fewer of them, so a deeper plan is more manageable.
OK.
Before I get started on my reaction to this post and to this matter in general, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for anyone trying something new, developing fresh ways to connect with donors, or doing their best to fix broken or tired methodologies around donor acquisition and cultivation. It’s exciting to hear non-profit staff as excited, motivated, skilled and devoted to donor acknowledgement as Rene, the author of the email above, from Cinema Arts Centre in New York . All that said, my strong feeling is that this email and this anecdote are far, far more exciting in theory than in practice.
Because I’ve heard this story before.
I worked as a waitress all through college and I’m quite familiar with this type of inspirational example. It’s the one where the manager tells you to treat every table as if it were they could award the joint a Michelin star. It’s the one where they tell you that you need to treat the table spending $10 on two cups of clam chowder and the table of 8 ordering a $400 meal the exact same way. Now, before anyone gets the idea that I was a mean waitress (god forbid and also, yes, I sure was) or that I’m turning up my nose at small donors, my point is not that there is inherently more value in either type of table or either type of donor. The couple eating those cups of clam chowder likely wants one set of extra crackers, a water refill and to be left alone. The group of 8 that want their colleague’s birthday dinner to be really special wants to be taken care of, attended to. Yes, as a server, you make more money off the larger tables- but the smaller tables with less extensive needs give you a needed respite from the constant expenditure of social energy and often end up being an extremely enjoyable experience for all parties. And Rene is absolutely right: proper and thorough acknowledgement of your smaller donors is what will eventually turn them into large donors. Treating that table eating clam chowder with respect and attentiveness may bring them back with all their friends the next time a birthday rolls around.
The assumption that both tables- both levels of financial contribution, both types of donors- want and need to be handled in the same way is in itself problematic. As is the execution. If you spend the amount of energy required to effectively thank a major donor on small donors, those resources will eventually run out. Cultivating great relationships with donors of all sizes is about being strategic in the expenditure of staff energy, resources, time and skills. If there’s enough staff energy to put the same amount of time and resources into a $20 donor as a $20,000 one after you’ve completely developed, tested and proven your email acknowledgement system, then by all means go for it, but as said above:
‘The reason for having a stewardship plan that has more personalized activity at the top of the donor pyramid is not actually that major donors are more important, it’s that there are fewer of them, so a deeper plan is more manageable.’
My issue is not that the idea isn’t good- all donors do count and I particularly appreciated Rene’s description of ‘stretch gifts’ as extremely meaningful. Her point about sustaining donors (lifelong donors who contribute a small amount every year) is another very good one- building solid links with modest donors will help increase the chances that the relationship will be longterm and fruitful. The objective of the anecdote about the Board member and the $20 donor is to show that organizations should make small donors feel just as appreciated as large donors- this is totally true, of course! However, being aggressively pragmatic, I think the overall concept fails in the implementation- because this is not a sustainable or realistic way to show appreciation to small donors, it doesn’t hold up well as a confirmation of Rene’s point. Yes, creating lasting relationships with donors of all financial levels is integral to organizational success. Yes, acknowledgement is extremely important (in fact, I’ve written about it dozens of times on this blog and will likely continue to harp on it ad nauseum in future posts). And, also yes, $20,000 can do more financially for your organization that $20. There’s no getting around it; it’s not a commentary on the quality of the donor or the level of sacrifice necessary to generously contribute to an organization in hard times or good ones- it’s just a simple reality. And whether the donor has contributed $20,000 or $20, the process of thanking them needs to be customized, appropriate and, above all, replicable. Focusing personalized energy on the top of the donor pyramid is both befitting and necessary to strengthen and assure longevity in relationships with major contributors.
Well, then what about the small donors, you spoilsport?
For smaller donors, who typically outnumber those who are able to give $20,000, the thank you should be set up the same way: personal, genuine, fun and replicable. If you’re lucky enough to have a couple hundred or thousand small donors, spend time crafting a thank-you email that will blow their socks off. I mean, honestly, do I think it’s a terrible idea to have a board member with some spare time call a $20 donor. . . no, not exactly. I just think the example feels more like an overly-simplified management exercise then a good example of how to be really appreciative of donors of all levels.
Small donors do not matter less than large ones- but they do have different needs.
Organizations can do, operationally, a lot more with $20,000 than $20 and to me, calling a donor that gave $20 online to give them a profuse thank you from someone high up in the organization seems a little tone-deaf. Like many people, I give about $25-$100 per year to several organizations and they are absolutely organizations that send appropriate, personalized and concise donor acknowledgement. I appreciate being thanked, of course, like all donors do, but I think receiving a call from any of the organizations I contribute modest amounts to would seriously throw me for a loop. I don’t need to be treated like my contribution is the same $50,000 or even $500 gift. If I gave an organization 20 bucks and got a thank-you call from a board or staff member, I think my reaction would be more along the lines of a boggled ‘Jesus Christ, get back to work!’ than . . . warm and fuzzy.
Donors, large and small, are the lifeblood of any organization. I’m in absolute agreement that all donors should be treated with respect and genuine gratitude, but the reality of most non-profit staffing situations doesn’t look like a management exercise and I think it’s really important to sort fantasy from reality, achievable and measurable from ideal and esoteric. Having a board or staff member call a $20 donor is a conceptual ‘teaching moment’ about the value donor relationships; setting up a sophisticated, kick-ass, efficient system for donor acknowledgement of all different contribution levels is an achievable, scalable task, the benefits of which your organization can reap for years to come. Instead of taking the long way around with an after-school special style message, I’d rather hear a rallying cry: ‘We’re going to make this years email thank you the best ever, and here’s how. . . . ‘
No, seriously, here’s how:
- set up a clockwork-reliable internal donor acknowledgement system before you send out your annual or holiday fundraising ask. It’s likely your receipts are not going to serve as your actual acknowledgements- your receipts should go out automatically when the donor makes a contribution. Set a system that kicks into effect after the initial payment has been completed. Send your special acknowledgement email, changing only the name, in the next few days after your email and be sure to send a post holiday email that engages the donor in an ongoing relationship with your organization, maybe with news of what’s on the docket for you this year and some opportunities for non-monetary contribution to the cause.
-Make it special. Add a link to a video of your staff singing a holiday carol or doing something fun and holiday facing, or just saying a heartfelt thank-you. Add a staff photo or a picture that illustrates that work your donors gift helps make possible. Set all these things to be as automatic and as minimally consuming of staff time as possible (i.e. record 1 or 2 awesome videos before the busy season, to be used in all online donor acknowledgement, have your designer or email service create a special template for acknowledgement etc.).
-Write thoughtful, concise copy for your acknowledgements. Look at donations as a call-and-response type system- your acknowledgement is the second volley in the exchange of information, so it better be awesome if you expect the donor to come calling again.
-Get your whole staff involved. Before any major fundraising push, have a brainstorming meeting about the message your organization wants to send to donors, as a whole. Having a united front and incorporating input from everyone on staff will make the donation/acknowledgement system seem that much more personal and comprehensive.
That’s about it for today (exhausted yet?); I want to reiterate again how much respect I have for all practices related to donor acknowledgement and how much I believe all non-profits would be positively impacted by such a motivated and savvy ED as Rene.
Happy Fundraising!
-AJ
Filed under: Fundraising, Non-Profit News, Online Fundraising by AJ
2 Comments »