It's easy to talk about the subject of respect, serving, and empowering donors as if those are interesting options for forward-thinking nonprofits. It's not going to stay that way. If you don't give donors power, they're going to seize it, leaving you all goggle-eyed and confused, like Marie Antoinette, wondering what happened.
In Your Secret Donor Hates You, Trent Stamp's Take notes that 20% of those who use Network For Good to give charitable gifts choose to be anonymous when they give. Their gift goes to the nonprofit of their choice, but their receipt is issued by Network for Good. The organization they gave to can neither thank the donor, report back, nor ask again. It's not a very attractive situation for nonprofits.
Last year, anonymous donations through Network for Good were more than $7 million, with an average gift of about $100.
While some donors may choose anonymity for noble or spiritual reasons, Trent sees something more ominous:
. . . they're doing it because they're sick of being treated like pieces of meat. If your donor doesn't want you to know who he is, how much trust could he possibly have in you?
Go ahead and call him jaded, but Mr. Stamp raises a scary point. A significant group of donors like what nonprofits do (like it enough to shell out a sizeable gift), but they don't like the nonprofit -- they don't want a relationship at all!
The old contract with donors was this: You give to us, and we have the right to do whatever we want with you after that -- send as much mail as we want, telemarket, rent their names to others . . . Worse, many nonprofits fail to report back on the impact of their giving, fail to offer donors meaningful choices, and don't treat donors with respect. Many donors don't buy in to this contract. They want to do good deeds, but they don't want the stuff that follows. And now, with places like Network for Good at their disposal, they can opt out of the contract.
This is going to get bigger, not smaller.
Your only defense: earn the right to have relationships with donors. Make it so being on your list is the coolest experience around, and they spread the word.
Technorati Tags: fundraising, marketing revolution
Trent says some donors “feel disrespected,” but he doesn’t identify what behavior is eliciting this response. Others identified it as the constant solicitations (which are seen both as an annoyance and as a waste of money) and the selling of donor contact info.
It is not just NetworkForGood which allows anonymous giving. Donors get the same opportunity to remain anonymous when they give through a Donor Advised Fund or Community Foundation.
People might also give anonymously when they donate in a friend’s name, in lieu of giving a traditional gift (after all, how many of us really want another fruitcake or pen & pencil set). When you, dear friend, make a donation in my name to my favorite nonprofit, you may not want to hear from them, yourself.
A new website facilitates such donation gifts by providing tangible donation opportunities (books for children, sight for the blind, computers for schools, etc.); wish lists and registries; and personalized printed greeting cards to announce them. That site is http://www.ChangingThePresent.org. It, too, allows you to remain anonymous, or not. Also, more of your money will reach the nonprofit you care to support. The transaction fee at ChangingThePresent is just 3% and 30 cents, which is much less than the 4.75% charged by Network For Good.
Posted by: Robert Tolmach | 23 February 2007 at 17:59
The concept of "giving donors power" strikes me as backwards. They are the ones with the power in the first place! Most good companies don't treat their customers the way that nonprofits treat their donors. I blogged on this last month encouraging nonprofits to see donors as customers, and then adjust their behavior accordingly.
Posted by: Matthew Monberg | 22 February 2007 at 22:29
Giving donors power is scary, but inevitable, as you point out. I think that's why there has been some concern from some people about the GiveWell project. The message has been, "if you don't have anything nice to say about nonprofits, don't say anything at all".
That's not a long term strategy.
Posted by: Sean Stannard-Stockton | 22 February 2007 at 16:21