Passive-aggressive fundraising -- just stop it!

Do you need your donors?

Yes

No

It's yes or no. There's no maybe, no degrees of agreement. You need them, or you don't.

If you answered no, you should stop reading. You're pretty much wasting your time at this blog.

If you said yes, here's a second question: Do your donors know you need them?

Yes

No

Again, there's no room for ambiguity. It's yes or no.

If you answered yes to the first question and no to the second, it's largely because of what you've said -- or more likely, not said.

Too many nonprofits live in a shadowy land where they need their donors to fund vital programs -- but they don't want to admit it. So their fundraising offers go something like this:

Maybe you'd be interested in giving. But don't worry if you don't give. We're a very well-run organization, and if you can't give, we have many other sources of funding. You're a small fish anyway, to be honest.

I'm exaggerating, but only a little bit. These organizations are practicing passive-aggressive fundraising. It tiptoes around the issue of need. It hints at asking. It expects donors to read between the lines and understand what they're unwilling to come out and say. In my experience, this comes from two related fears:

1. If we admit need, it may appear that we are not a well-run organization, and people will think giving to us is not a good investment.
   
2. If we admit need often, we'll be the boy who cried "wolf," and people won't take our need seriously.
   

#2 has some validity. You can overdo "emergency mode" and lose credibility, like that car alarm in your neighborhood that's constantly going off. But if you're truly in need, tell the truth, Your sense of what's "too often" is certainly more sensitive than a donor's. I've seen emergency funding shortfall appeals do well more times than I can count. And I've never seen repercussions to such appeals.

Because donors want to be wanted and need to be needed. So if you need your donors, go ahead and tell them. Let them know the urgency and the stakes. Be direct, strong, and clear. Don't hide behind a passive-aggressive smokescreen.

It works, it's respectful of donors, and (assuming you're telling the truth) it's the right thing to do.

Technorati Tag: fundraising

Comments

[Steve]

Good advice, but what should you do if you tell your donors you need them, lay out a goal, and then don't raise enough money to meet the goal? Is there a good way to handle that?

[Jeff Brooks]

Three ideas, in order of preference:

1. Revise your goal.

2. Go back to donors, tell 'em you didn't meet your goal, ask again -- because it's so important.

3. Go back to donors, tell 'em you didn't meet your goal, ask them what you should do. Give up on the goal? Scale it back? Go for it? Offer donors their money back if they'd rather you not pursue the goal. Ask them to give again if they support the goal. (This would be the radical donor-powered approach that your boss won't let you do, unless she's much smarter than most.)

[Steve]

I worry that revising our goal down could have a dappening effect on donors. That is, people won't give because they'll think if we don't meet our goal it means other people aren't giving. Any advice on that?

[Jeff Brooks]

I doubt you can lose by being honest and open with donors. Why not say to them, "Giving was lower than we expected; now we're having to think about cutting back on programs." Treat them as insiders, not as an audience; assume individual behavior, not mob dynamics.

[a fundraiser]

I love this quote in your "about" section: He'd like to see bad, misleading, fraudulent, thoughtless, and anti-donor fundraising consigned to eternal flames of woe.

I couldn't agree more. Check out my blog and let me know what you think... it's an online hall of shame.
http://donttellthedonor.blogspot.com