Does It Really Matter What We Call a Donor?

In a November 12, 2010 piece on The Agitator blog, guest poster Kevin Schulman of DonorTrends bewailed the use of the word “donor” to refer to those who invest in the mission of a nonprofit organization. The posting was so thought-provoking that I joined my fellow Agitator readers to comment on it at the time.

A recent discussion of this very same subject with a fellow consultant prompted a re-read of the original piece and my own comments on it. Given the timeliness of the topic, a posting here on Advancement Perspectives seemed in order.

“Down with ‘Donors!’” Kevin Schulman proclaimed in the headline of his original column; but his angst derived purely from the semantics and not from these “critical people” themselves.

Make no mistake — this was a great post by Mr. Schulman! It hit a number of sensitive nails right on their heads, and it likely elicited a reaction of perplexed surprise from nonprofit people who always see the trees and immediately recognize a forest. This subject is important, but it is one of those issues that most staffers probably do not think about very deeply while dealing with the day-to-day routine and demands of the nonprofit advancement process and its fund-raising components.

Many of us might not share Mr. Schulman’s apparent level of righteous indignation over the use of the word “donor,” but it is easy to agree with him on the never-ending need for developing a palpable and more purified sense of the relationship between the donor and the organization. In the end, therefore, it is very much a subject that all nonprofit advancement professionals should think about every day, particularly when they engage with donors to ask them for another investment or commitment.

In terms of the conceptual and lexical semantics issue itself, I must confess a longstanding attitude of some ambivalence. I have chronically used the word “donor” over many years in the nonprofit world, but I also like the terms “benefactor” and “mission investor” (one of my own) and have preached their value to many nonprofit clients over the past 16 years as a consultant. When viewed under the microscope of careful and thoughtful consideration, the differences in terminology might be seen as more a function of time and place or organizational culture and style. What really matters, at the end of the day, is the manner in which the organization stewards its relationship with constituents.

In their introduction to Mr. Schulman’s piece, Agitator Editors Tom Belford and Roger Craver cross-referenced the expansive report by software publisher Blackbaud, Inc. on their 2010 State of the Fundraising Industry, as well as a November 9, 2010 column by Joe Boland in Fundraising Success magazine that highlighted four global fundraising trends from the Blackbaud report:

• New fundraising and communication channels, although growing, are not replacing traditional channels.
• Return on investment and organizational effectiveness (social impact) are under scrutiny (by “supporters” or “donors”) and more important than ever.
• There is a new focus on the total supporter journey vs traditional “donor management.”
• Fundraising is emerging as a widely-recognized profession around the globe.”

With all due respect to Mr. Schulman, I must admit that I’m not particularly fond of his suggested term, “customer” — especially for, let’s say, religious congregants or school alumni/alumnae. However, I will readily agree that the essence of marketing and customer-relations concepts from the for-profit world do translate into and apply quite logically and effectively in the nonprofit sector.

In the end, vernacular adjustments or changes do not really affect the way we look at “mission investors” unless we really and truly understand in a profound way the meaning, importance and stewardship of the relationship we have with those same people. And that sort of brings us full circle in terms of Kevin Schulman’s Agitator post.

As for Joe Boland’s piece in Fundraising Success and Blackbaud’s impressive research and helpful sector reports, I’m left wondering what makes anyone think that a relationship-management rather than a transactional approach to fundraising is somehow a shift and a key global trend. This is nothing new!

Way back in the “Dark Ages” of institutional advancement (late 1960s and early 1970s), I was mentored by some very savvy and accomplished folks in university fundraising who saw their job in dealing with donors or investors (or whatever you want to call benefactors), especially alumni, as one of managing, cultivating and sustaining an individual relationship on as personalized and donor-centric a level as possible. In other words, treat and engage with each and every donor as the only person who matters in a crowd of thousands!

The outcome of that process is the kind of activity that Phyllis Freedman documents in her blog post on an approach taken by the University of Texas/Austin — less, of course, the personalization gaffes that today’s amazing computer technology make far less excusable than in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the final analysis, and in terms of effective donor-relationship management, I think the most transformational truth in what Kevin Schulman posted was the following:  “…. no DONOR on the planet engages in altruistic acts. They all want something – that something may be very abstract and ephemeral (e.g. to simply feel good, to know they are making a difference), but nevertheless real and ignored at your peril.” Even if it’s your own alumni/alumnae, pay close attention! Most of what donors really want in return for their support will not cost your organization very much at all — just a little extra effort on your part.

Does it really matter, then, what we call a donor? Probably not!  Is it more important that our advancement strategies and relationship-management tactics are as donor(contributor/benefactor/giver/investor/supporter)-centric as possible? Absolutely!

[Image Credits:  (top and middle) Scott Chan; (lower) Xedos4]

"W is for Worldview": Nonprofit Research & Seth Godin's Alphabet

In an August 3 Seth’s Blog posting entitled “post-industrial A to Z digital battledore,” marketing guru Seth Godin somewhat playfully suggested a kind of post-modern alphabet for those whose mission or professional responsibility is to communicate, persuade and “sell.”

Stimulated by Godin’s piece, Tom Belford, editor of The Agitator blog, in his own posting on the same day, drew the attention of nonprofit fundraisers to the alphabet entry “W is for Worldview.” Belford’s central point was to underscore that, whether in the profit-making world or the nonprofit sector, not understanding the worldview of those to whom you are trying to communicate, persuade and “sell” something surely will lead to failure of the effort.

Belford sets up his piece with a full quotation of the “W is for Worldview” entry from Godin’s alphabet:

“W is for Worldview: I first encountered this term via George Lakoff. Your worldview is the set of expectations and biases you bring to a situation before any new data appears. Some people hear a politician say something and hate it, while others are thrilled by it. Is it the thing that was said or the person who said it? Some people hear that Apple is about to launch a new product and they get out their wallets, others flee -- before they even know what it is. If you don't understand the worldview of the people you're selling to, you will fail.”

According to Belford, “Fundraisers should focus on the last sentence: ‘If you don’t understand the worldview of the people you’re selling to, you will fail.’”

Belford asks fundraisers: “What steps are you taking to really understand your donors … and, through them, your prospects?

He queries further: “Do you:

    •  Conduct surveys or focus groups?
    •  Talk to your volunteers and clients?
    •  Read your white mail and 800# logs?
    •  Engage donors and members face-to-face?
    •  Solicit feedback routinely in any way?
    •  Read “the literature” on your target audience?
    •  Analyze what they pay attention to on your website?”

Finally, says Belford, “Out of all this, you should be able to formulate a pretty accurate picture of your donors’ worldview … the lens through which they process whatever you’re throwing their way.”

I read Seth Godin’s blog piece on his “post-industrial A to Z digital battledore” and reacted as did Belford, making note of those items that carried wisdom for professionals laboring in nonprofit advancement. Clearly, Godin’s perspectives, while focused principally on the profit-making world, also have something of value for nonprofit organizations in their relationship and communication with clients and donors (“investors”).

Belford is right on the money in highlighting “W is for Worldview” for its significance to those in nonprofit fundraising, but the points he raises should not be lost on those who focus exclusively on marketing and communication for nonprofit organizations. In fact, that gets to this author’s personal “worldview” of the nonprofit advancement process -- that fundraisers also should be marketing- and communication-focused and the marketing and communication folks also should be fundraising-focused. It’s all part of the same fabric. Despite the specialization that necessarily characterizes their roles, these professionals all should feel they are integral parts of a single team.

To Belford’s point about understanding donors and prospects, there have been numerous past Agitator discussion threads in which the focus was on the importance of research in donor-file and prospect-list management. Commentary consistently made the point that not knowing what motivates the giving behaviors of those on donor lists is to beg for failure overall. The thought process in those past threads often was prompted by concerns about direct-mail fundraising outcomes. That makes sense, because the direct-response methodology long has played a major and critical role in nonprofit fundraising and has been the object of wide and deep research. Nevertheless, those in nonprofit advancement should remain dedicated to careful constituent/donor/prospect research in all methodologies, from face-to-face and online solicitation to planned giving and special events. To operate without such intelligence is to ignore the worldview --- and the more local view --- of the constituent and to accept the failure Godin promises in the “selling” effort.

In his queries to fundraisers, Belford covers much of the waterfront where research to “really understand your donors … and, through them, your prospects” is concerned --- from surveys, web-clicks analysis and focus groups to dialogue with volunteers, solicitation of feedback and face-to-face interviews. There are other such techniques, and all should be considered. None of this type of activity should seem burdensome or mysterious to nonprofit advancement professionals, because it can be carried out in a virtually seamless manner when it is woven into the substance of nearly all engagements, interactions or “touches” with constituents. Such contacts should, in fact, be the goal of all organizational communications and relationship-management initiatives --- with the aim of discerning the constituent’s worldview and more local view.

With all due respect to Tom Belford of The Agitator, there are at least two other items in Godin’s post-industrial alphabet that should have special meaning for those in nonprofit advancement.

“C is for Choice” suggests that nonprofit organizations always must strive to differentiate themselves from their competition (both within and without their particular mission focus) in their marketing/communication and fundraising case articulation to potential constituents and current donors. The differentiation message must always be based on fact and reality and not on fantasy and hyperbole. Otherwise, prospects (and currents) might decide to walk and choose to support another organization!

“D is for Darwin” suggests that nonprofits must be constantly and consistently vigilant where changes and evolutions in their external environments are concerned. As Godin points out: “the nature of information and a connected society means that 'everything' might change in just a few months. Ideas that spread, win and organizations that learn from their mistakes lead the rest of us.” Clearly, another vote for maintaining the good habit of well-executed constituent, donor and prospect research in the nonprofit realm.

NONPROFIT ADVANCEMENT: It's Not Just About Fund Raising

For all those in the nonprofit sector, successful organizational advancement should be as much about communications and marketing --- building and communicating with constituencies, cultivating and sustaining relationships --- as it is about productive fund raising. Although a fully integrated approach to advancement always works best, marketing all too often is absent from the critical equations. That's where Seth Godin comes in!

If you've never encountered Seth Godin's books or his blog, take a look at this blog entry.

Godin observes and opines on many current topics and issues, but his essential focus long has been on marketing and the product/service-driven process of communication and interaction. His views and theories are laser-sharp, always provocative, and sometimes even a bit controversial. However, he consistently stimulates useful thought and discussion among those whose job it is to establish mutually beneficial connections between companies and customers or "makers" and users."

Much of what Godin says is at least broadly applicable and enlightening to the nonprofit sector, even though some who populate the sector might not like to think of nonprofit organizations as "makers" and those they serve as "users."  However, if you read Godin carefully, it is clear that his perspectives also have something of value to offer in helping us to think more astutely and creatively about the nonprofit organization's relationship and communication with its clients and donors or "investors."

The installment of the Godin blog linked above speaks generally to issues of packaging, branding, corporate story and worldview of the maker or product. While these issues might seem more of a concern for consumer products, they do have real applicability to the work and advancement of nonprofits.

How should nonprofits brand themselves (with a focus on mission and case), and how should they "package" their mission, programs and services so that others notice, understand, care and, ultimately, invest (donors/fundraising)? How can "corporate stories" make a difference to the brand, and are those stories, actually and in fact, a form of packaging? How important are those stories and the worldview (external opinion) to the organizational case for support and the results (ROI) of advancement/philanthropy initiatives?

Effective marketing and communication, fully integrated with constituency building and productive relationship management, are critical to the success of the advancement/philanthropy program for any nonprofit. People like Seth Godin help to make that more clear for the nonprofit sector.

Read the Godin books, and subscribe to his blog. You'll be glad you did. He is a terrific resource for nonprofit organizations.