“DONOR” A Title Earned … Not Given

I’m on a crusade to change the way the fundraising industry “labels” people who give to charity – primarily money, but also old cars, used clothing, outdated furniture, canned food, etc.  Regardless of intent or motivation, we call them our “donors.”

 

We also call people who give blood, tissue, organs or reproductive material donors.  In fact, there is a National Donor Memorial located in Richmond, Virginia that honors people who have donated an organ and/or tissue.   

 

Think about that … a person who is willing to donate blood, a kidney or bone marrow to literally save someone’s life is given the same title as the person who randomly gives $10 or $15 in response to charitable solicitations, often times because they included items such as name labels, cards and calendars. 

 

Don’t get me wrong.  My intent is not to belittle those who donate money to charity or de-value their contribution to society.  In fact, our world would be a better place if more people did so.  I’m just not sure this act of giving warrants the title “donor,” at least not yet. 

 

Becoming a “donor” should be a prestigious title (an honor) and should be reserved for only those who demonstrate through an extended period of time that they are “fully committed” to the organization, regardless of the size of the gift.    People who give contributions are not donors, but donors give contributions.  There is a huge difference between the two.

 

So how does someone earn the title “donor”?  There’s no rule, of course, but perhaps it’s those who:

 

• Are among the 15% who give 85% of the revenue
• Contribute 10% or more of their annual household income to only a few select charities
• Demonstrated a sustained pattern of giving over three or more consecutive years
• Give and who also advocate for your organization, or
• Have a personal relationship to the charity

 

 “Who is a donor?” – someone you can least afford lose.  Someone you’d go to great lengths and expense to retain.    Lots of people give to charity, but a precious few earn the right to become a “donor.”  

 

Join my crusade.  People don’t have to give an arm and a leg to earn the right to be called a donor, but they do have to jump in with both feet!

 

-Greg Fox

 

Comments

[Janice]

Greg, I really hope you wrote this post playing devil's advocate rather than splitting hairs over labels - which is to me, missing the point, or at least not communicating your point effectively.

While you cannot nor should you go chasing after anybody and everybody, and it is important to look at numbers and objectively evaluate performance, numbers are not everything. (I see that you are a numbers guy in your bio.) Maybe that $15 donor just felt guilty about the address labels. Maybe that $15 donor just got laid off but feels the cause is so important that he/she donated anyway. The latter is someone much more likely to champion your cause (maybe sign petitions or volunteer while they're job hunting) but we don't know and we can't know this about each of our donors, unfortunately. Dollar amounts won't tell us any of that.

If you meant to play devil's advocate here, your tone here is just going to put all the former readers of this blog on the defensive rather than getting people to think critically about fundraising practices. I'm not saying that you need to write and think like Jeff Brooks, but for someone who's spent over 20 years in DM, I'd think you'd be a little more cognizant of the audience and audience expectations.

[Peter]

Ed put it best. This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Yet you say you're on a crusade?

Either you're overstating, you didn't think it through, or you're simply misguided. How are we supposed to take this blog seriously anymore?

And by the way: Unnecessaryquotes[dot]com. You should read it.

[David]

Wasn't it established long ago that donors don't care about titled levels? I mean, that's essentially what this is, a dressed-down version of those cheesy puns given to distinguish between basic levels and major donors. No one knew what they meant and, more importantly, no one cared.

I mean, what's the value of being called a donor here? Prestige? Of questionable value and effect. To just make a person feel better about giving (whatever that may be)? You can do that with simple cultivation. No need to get emotional and start a crusade--which is, by the way, an incredibly vague and pointless call to action.

I'm beginning to think this blog is aimed primarily at that segment of fundraisers (and marketing people) who like to read this sort of marshmallow-ey tripe and think if they just let it gestate in their heads it will diffuse and pepper their work, which they'll just get around to doing as soon as they get through another webinar! Oh, let's just hire a consultant!

[Tammy]

I must agree that the tone of this post seems to go against the "Donor Power" idea that those of us on the fundraising side should be thinking from the perspective of the giver, not the getter.

Additionally, being both a fundraiser and someone who gives $10 or $15 here and there when I am compelled to give (be it via a friend's email or a face-to-face ask on the street), I can say from both sides that this argument seems irrelevant at best, and dangerous at worst.

Sure, there's a difference between major donors and a first-time giver who comes in via an internet campaign, but our goal should be cultivating the relationship with that first-time giver and growing their donation, not alienating them because they don't fit our predetermined idea of what a donor "should" be.

You say your intention is not to belittle the $10 donor, but I think that is exactly what you have inadvertently done. I hope future posts will better keep in mind the credo of "Donors Rule."

[Ed]

A donor is someone who has donated something, be it a pair of socks, £5, £10,000 or their kidney.

If you want to differentiate between levels of donations, try:

'Clothes Donor' for someone who donates clothes
'Committed Donors' for someone who donates regularly
'Major Donor' for someone donating a large sum of money
'organ Donor' for someone donating an organ.

This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

[Mary Cahalane]

Your post puts me in mind of the "widow's mite". Is her (small) gift any less important?

One of the things I enjoyed most about Jeff Brook's posts were his steadfast insistence on seeing things from the donor's point of view. (Oh, see, I used that word!).

I dislike the idea of valuing high dollar gifts (which may or may not represent a serious commitment from the donor), over those smaller gifts (the ones that might very well be a stretch and a committment).

Not everyone has the means to make large gifts. Others have the means, but prefer to donate widely. Is either less meaningful or worthy of respect?

[Another irritated reader]

I'm with irritated.

[Irritated reader]

OK, so you don't like the term donor; what term do you propose we use instead? Or do we just ignore the contributions that smaller givers make to our organizations?

I don't know about you, but our group is grateful for each and every donation we receive. We have lots of in-kind support, but money helps pay our bills. And small amounts add up.

We would love to have a sugar-daddy who would pay all our bills, but that is not going to happen. I also suspect it would not be healthy for our organization.

I hate to be too much of a grump here, but one of the reasons Jeff's blog was well read was because it was well written. He used clear sentences to express well developed thoughts. At the very least, please "review" your "use"of quotation marks. Thanks.

[Will Marlow]

Very interesting points.

One of the top challenges, as always, is building a system that gives you an accurate representation of your donors.

This is a concern of mine because, as friend-to-friend fundraising continues to come into its own, I think we will see many donors giving smaller amounts to more and more charities, making these individuals easy to mis-classify.

If someone makes a donation as a result of a friend-to-friend solicitation, then the recipient of the donation should understand that the donation came in due to the primary relationship of the donor to the friend, not the donor to the school or charity. Through this lens, the school or charity has an excellent opportunity to reach out to this new donor both directly and through the original friend intermediary, and can begin to form a relationship that is independent of the intermediary.

This is not a critique of your blog post, just a caution due to the changing environment in which many generous donors are now operating. It is getting easier to look at donors who come in through non-traditional sources as potentially less valuable than they really could be, and that would result in missed opportunities to forge more meaningful relationships.

Will Marlow
www.willmarlow.wordpress.com
Founder, AlumniFidelity