A bit of an online debate has developed this week, sparked by a Thirdsector blog from a Ms Felicity Donor. She states that she genuinely isn't bothered about being thanked by a charity she chose to support.
"Why would I want to be patronised by a soft, fluffy letter thanking me for my help?... if they're spending my cash on [research] rather than a letter, it's fine by me."
A number of sector notables, including Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now have (politely) suggested that Ms. Donor is entitled to her opinion but that she's wrong. Ubiquitous 'research' has been cited which suggests that charities MUST thank supporters in a timely fashion. If we're honest this also passes the basic common sense test.
But hang on just a tic...
Felicity Donor is entitled to her opinion and surely we can't believe that she is the only donor on the entire planet who holds this opinion. In fact it's more than likely that her opinion is shared by many people but we, as communicators and fundraisers, tend to base our decisions and activities on majority rule. After all, most research only ever illustrates this point and seldom recommends a 100% trusim.
Consequently, perhaps it's not for us to tell ALL of our donors what's best for them? A recent penguin blog suggested several reasons why the donor or customer is not always right.
We are told by various experts and research that our world is changing faster than at any time in history. The explosion in new media, an ageing population in the western world, significant cultural differences impacting on each society and the much documented 'different view' of the world held by Generation Y, all have a bearing. Therefore the expectations placed on any charity by its target audiences are increasingly varied.
Isn't it time we started to think more seriously about ways of capturing communications preferences at the start of our relationship or a donation process? We could then apply them appropriately throughout a relationship; appealing to Ms. Donor, me, my parents, my grandfather - everyone (whether today's donors actually want a 'relationship' in the traditional sense is a big topic for another day).
After all, the first rule of supporter engagement is to listen then act, not assume then act.
Thoughts?
Comments
I regularly donate to three charities myself and donate to others on an ad hoc basis, but I never open anything that I get through the door from a charity, and I certainly don't expect a thank you from them for donating - unless it's a very obvious automatic email, which just gives me piece of mind that I entered my email address correctly.
I don't mind receiving email newsletters, but everything that is actually sent to my home address by a charity gets put in the bin unopened - whether I donate to them or not.
Over time this issue will disappear, on the assumption that more and more donations will be made digitally by phone, web etc. The near instant acknowledgement by email, text etc is already a given on most such systems, and donors will know that the cost to generate these is infinitesimal.
Until we reach that point (if we ever do, of course), there is the issue of whether to thank via letter or phone. I'd suggest a default position of always thanking, but give the donor the chance to opt out of receiving these. That way we can meet their needs.
That said, you can just bet that that approach will generate letters to the editor or complaints: how many donors are going to remember which charities they said they'd prefer not to receive a thank you from, and feel rather put out that that charity didn't say thank you?
One practical issue arises: where on some donation forms are you going to fit in this extra line and tick box? Do we really want to complicate a DM form with yet another tick box option - having included Gift Aid, data protection, plus the logo of the FRSB etc?
One final thought, which probably is the most important. How much of an issue is this? Should we encourage all charities to add a new database field and enter a heap of new data simply to meet the needs of a tiny number of donors? My instinct is to thank by default and expect to have to deal with a small number of complaints. I'd change that policy if/when the number of complaints grew appreciably.
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
Thanks for all the comments - very thought-provoking. Howard, I think there's a lot of common sense in your thoughts. I agree with most of your points but would suggest a further idea or two as well:
1 - we shouldn't make database management more complex than it needs to be (although with many of today's tools it's not difficult and preferences could be populated automatically from the online and SMS systems you mention)
2 - we added communications preference boxes on a whole raft of forms when I first started my career in the early 90's. They should be as simple as possible and all the feedback we ever received (and still do) was that it is a positively perceived action. I think a very valid concern is a charity's commitment and ability to stick to these preferences once they have been expressed and collected. Many websites and other services like banking already ask if a user wants to be communicated with by email, phone etc as an integral part of their processes so donors / supporters will have been exposed and may even expect the same?
3 - I absolutely agree that nothing should distract from the core message in any communication. Therefore, perhaps the ask is not the place for it to go - we could consider newsletters, email updates, magazines etc as means of getting the message across.
4 - perspective is a key issue here (see my previous blog on the customer not always being right). I think your last point is so important. We should always try to undersatnd how significant or impactful an issue, question, trend, whatever is before leaping into action.
Thanks again all for useful comments.
Kevin
Kevin Baughen is the founder of Bottom Line Ideas (www.bottomlineideas.com), a charity Trustee and a volunteer speaker for Make A Wish Foundation UK
I agree that there should be some relationship-building going on here.
It costs something like 10 times as much to recruit a new donor than it does to retain an existing donor so it is important to look after those we have.
Where I would possibly take exception here is the '...a soft, fluffy letter thanking me for my help...' bit!
What donors need to know is that their contribution is going to make a positive difference to the charity and it's benefactors. They need to be informed of what the charity has achieved, what its aspirations are and what that donation will pay for.
So perhaps a little less '...a soft, fluffy letter thanking me for my help...' and a bit more information.
Keith Grinsted
Here to make a positive difference...
07530 927815
keith.grinsted@gmail.com
Check out Charity UK on Linkedin
Follow me
I thought I'd contribute a particular experience I had several years following a significant personal donation I made to a charity. I'll spare its blushes by not revealing its name but I will never support them again, and here’s why:
I wanted to support a very particular piece of work for personal reasons and so wrote in outlining what I wanted my donation, enclosed as a cheque (remember those?), was intended for and my reasons. I simply requested that the charity simply acknowledged my donation via email.
After about a month, as I hadn’t received any such acknowledgement, I emailed in an enquiry along the lines of "Did you get the money? Was it helpful? etc". After three weeks I finally received a response apologising for the delay in getting back to me and saying “…but we have been trying to find somebody to sign a letter to you”! To add insult to injury, this email continued; "However, please find attached an unaddressed template letter that we would have sent you which we hope is suffice." In actual fact, the "template letter" was not attached though, frankly, who wants to be sent a mail-merge template?
I've never received any other correspondence from this charity, no updates on the project I supported, zilch. Needless to say, I'll never bother supporting them again and, even as I write, I can't quite understand how this was ever allowed to happen. I still feel quite angry to be honest!
www.changingbusiness.com Change today for a better tomorrow