New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Over at the Queer Ideas blog, fundraising consultant Mark Phillips has the answer for charities facing plummeting donations: talk to your donors more. According to Mark, if charities properly involve their supporters in their work, then the giving apocalypse that appears to be on the horizon will never come to pass.That’s a nice idea, and it’s one that online fundraising experts – like Steve Bridger and Rachel Beer – have been plugging for some time. But is it true?
Well, as with most questions in fundraising, a definitive answer is almost impossible to find. No two charities are the same, so comparing them is tricky. In fundraising lore, for instance, a charity like the Donkey Sanctuary, will always have an easier time raising cash than Mencap, however excellent Mencap’s fundraising efforts are.
But there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that charities which really engage their donors get more cash. Mark says one of his clients, for instance, has just run one of its most successful appeals – because it took the time to communicate in a meaningful way with its supporters.
Either way, though, I think there’s more to donor engagement than just the money it brings in. Almost every charity wants to change society for the better, and the most effective way of doing that is often by motivating supporters to take action in a charity’s name – campaigning, protesting or even just by writing letters.
In other words, if charities start talking more with their supporters – and realize that these people are more than just money-taps – then maybe the recession can be weathered more easily than some of the gloom-mongers think.
I agree communication with donors is important.
However, will anyone on here be persuaded not to cancel or reduce payments to a charity simply because of being kept in touch?
Speaking as both a donor and ex-donor (for some charities and causes), having the organisation talk to me isn't going to make much difference.
The causes I feel strongest about will be last to have payments stopped but if it comes down to things getting tight for me, non-essentials have to be stopped.
No matter the cost to others.
How do others feel? Will they try and carry on with payments regardless or is there a stopping point?
Martin
Talking to donors is always a good idea but I suspect it's not going to be a panacea for very many charities.
Top marks on another sensational headline, Adam. You have a remarkable knack for an attention-grabber :)
However, I confess it was seeing my name in your post that really made me sit up and take notice. For the record, I don’t think I’ve ever talked about there being a 'giving apocalypse' or suggested that talking to donors is all there is to fundraising, and I don’t believe either is the case.
After reading the post by Mark Phillips that you reference, I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean that either.
Anyway, I just wonder if your post might be missing the point a bit, because in its essence fundraising IS talking to donors.
Charities may often have to forego actually talking with people individually for practical reasons (cost mainly) and have to do their talking with donors via letter, email, blogs, and so on instead, but the aim is the same – to let their donors know why their support is needed, and tell them how it is making a difference.
Charities do need to do this because it helps to keeps their donors engaged with what they do, and means that they are more likely (statistically) to continue giving support – which is vitally important to their work.
There are certainly people that give to particular charities because of a personal connection or experience – and it may be that more of those people will continue that support regardless of any communication, or not, from their chosen charity – but many more give because they were asked to, or reminded about what the charity does; because the charity has ‘talked’ to them and they have felt moved, seen the need, or heard the rationale, to do so.