Am I the ONLY person in the world that thinks relationship fundraising is a really just a religion or ideology, and that it doesn't really work? I am constantly amazed at how many times I've tested different principles of it, and they fail most of the time.
I've found that if donors are not asked, they don't give. The idea that you send them purple prose about your good works, without asking for money, is not "donor care" but a good way to go bankrupt.
For the last ten years, I've put together all sorts of test groups of donors, and applied relationship fundraising principles to one group and not the other. Everytime, the control group subjected to relationship fundraising techniques either gives the same (but we spend way more money on them) or, they actually give LESS. They usually give less, mainly because they are not asked as frequently or as agreesively.
Neverthelss, it seems like everyone (particularly in the UK, but less so around the rest of the world) is convinced that this is the "right" way to raise money. Maybe I just need to ignore the data and just blindly believe too?
But it's very hard, when you know how many people need help. The idea of raising less money in the name of having some phoney "relationship" with someone I've never met is just dumb.
Also, reading the book, I've noticed that almost every case study had no control group. How did the entire fundraising profession of the UK miss that bit? And then blindly swallow the pill ten years ago when the book came out? Still scratching my head on that one.
