Carrot and stick
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
Recent research in the US suggests that many first-time online donors go on to make their subsequent gifts offline through direct mail. So we should probably not bother fundraising online anymore, and stick to DM, right. Right?
I mean, getting people to register for Direct Debits is probably the only way to keep donors, at this time when long-term value is even more important than ever. But then again, DM volumes are falling for the first time in this country, and cancellations of Direct Debits are increasing.
So what can we do?
Well, we should start by going back to basics. Things like thanking people who donate to you. Yes, thanking people. Simple as that.
Everything I read in the press suggests that it’s not a particularly good time to be looking for new donors, so think about how you treat people who already give money to you.
One response to the reasons why online donors may switch offline was given on the Agitator blog – where a commenter, Dave Raley, theorised that the reason people switch offline could be that the communication methods offline were more established than online:
Goes something like: Acquire a donor online + Poor/inconsistent/infrequent online cultivation + Good/frequent direct mail cultivation = Online donor migrates to direct mail
I couldn’t agree more. Whilst many charities have well established offline donor journeys, I’ve barely seen any with online donor engagement programmes. Very few even thank their donors – and if we don’t thank people, why should they bother to donate again?
Even more worrying is the fact that many charities don’t even thank ordinary people raising thousands of pounds on their behalf. A donor may give you £20, but someone taking part in an event or getting donations instead of birthday presents will raise hundreds, even thousands. Do you have a different way of communicating with them that demonstrates how important they are to you, that takes into account the amazing sums they raise? Do you even talk to them at all?
Are you spending all your time with your digital agency on fundraising campaigns, or on thanking campaigns? I’ve yet to see a really micro-site created with the specific aim of thanking people (although I’d love nothing more than to be contradicted here).
We can all talk about the value of social media, and how charities can use the power of the internet (and don’t worry, I’ll be writing plenty on that in due course) but if you don’t do the basics right and thank people, you may as well stick to offline comms and not bother with having a website at all.
Jonathan Waddingham
31 Mar 2009
Thanks Paul - I think you make the point really well, that these are the most important things, ahead of any new fad or trend. It's why I wanted to start with this subject rather than the latest thing I've seen online that I think is quite innovative or interesting. Andrew - thx for sharing the story of that site, it's absolutely, totally brilliant. Just the sort of thing I wish more charities would do - and could do.
Paul Whaley
30 Mar 2009
I second, third and fourth this - for the life of me, I cannot understand how any fundraiser can give themselves the title if they don't, as a matter of routine, thank people for doing things for them - from small favour to major gift. This, far more than Twitter or Facebook accounts and whatever other social media one might bandy about, is *the* cornerstone of any relationship.
As someone working in an association with a tiny budget, I'm dependent on favours and therefore good relationships all round. Acknowledging other people's effort is critical for me having any success at all. The same is true of cultivating donors (if you'll forgive the ghastly phrase). People help people with whom they have relationships. Fundraisers might ask themselves - how many people do they work with who show zero appreciation for their efforts? Besides the boss to whom they are beholden, I'd guess about zero. Then they should ask themselves - how does this translate if they were a donor?
How many charities who don't acknowledge would they give to? I'd say about zero.
Andrew Robinson
30 Mar 2009
Great post and couldn't agree more. I've just come across a really good site that's sole purpose is to thank people. It's by the Canadian Blood service - so why not specifically thanking for donating money, it is thanking for donating time and something quite precious - their own blood. What I like about it is that the thank you is beneficiary generated.
You can find the link and more about it on my blog here: http://www.andrewjrobinson.net/?p=75
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
21 May 2012
How do you solve a problem like a pension deficit? David McHattie tackles the issue.
15 May 2012
David Davison mounts his soapbox to call for pensions reform.
24 May 2012
Charities, like businesses should be held to account over their environmental standards, says Katy Wing.
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
17 May 2012
Men may have ruled the political panel, but women packed the punches from the audience in the Civil Society...
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
19 Nov 2012
Peter
1 Apr 2009
I completely agree. My father died 3 years ago, and left a sizeable part of his estate to 4 charities. We asked for confirmations of receipt. 2 charities never even acknowledged their cheques, 1 charity acknowledged but did not thank, 1 charity both acknowledged and thanked and told us what they were doing with the money (they built a new care room) and they also checked and told us the 2 non-acknowledging charities had, in deed, received their cheques.
[Reply]