Whose Donor Is It Anyway?
Whose Donor Is It Anyway? Zach Hinton, Senior Vice President, Direct Response Erik Tomalis, Vice President, Fundraising Services
Feathers fly in Finding Nemo when a flock of seagulls, all cawing, “Mine, mine, mine!” go after Dory and Marlin (Nemo’s dad) in a mad chase across Sydney Harbour. It doesn’t end well for the seagulls, though. Nigel, the pelican who’s ferrying the two fish out of harm’s way, evades the birds right before they smash headfirst into a large sail. As the scene ends, their beaks punch through the sail, and they’re still crying, “Mine, mine, mine!”
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
We hate to say it, but too many development teams in too many nonprofits resemble those annoying seagulls. Special events, major giving, annual giving, planned giving, direct response, and online giving are all examples of the different silos within an organization that chase after and compete for the donor. They look at donors the same way seagulls view fish—as tasty treats. And as far as they’re concerned, donors “belong” to them, resulting in the eruption of not-so-nice squabbles between development officers. “What are you doing talking to my donor?” a major gift officer may tell his direct mail counterpart. “You can’t be sending him mail. I’ve got to call that donor in three months, and if you send him mail, you’re going to gut my revenue. This is my donor.” Meanwhile, the chief development officer (CDO) says, “Well, I don’t know what to do. This donor is going to be making a major gift. I don’t want to jeopardize a $10,000 ask just to get a $50 donation through direct mail.” This syndrome is widespread and it’s something we at Pursuant have observed firsthand in our work at both the top and bottom of the donor pyramid. I, Erik, have watched major gift officers at large and small nonprofits log in to the donor files in Raiser’s Edge (or their databases) and click “Do not contact” to ensure they have sole access to these high-end givers. And I, Zach, have an unhappy memory of a donor mail processor who decided her organization was sending out too much mail. So she filled an entire file cabinet with donor replies that she’d secretly stashed away—her way of protecting “her” donors. But donors don’t belong to anyone, and acting like they do is never good for an organization or its mission. When a major gift officer (MGO) excludes a donor from an organization’s contact stream, vital stewardship and accountability opportunities can be missed. The MGO also risks losing that donor—especially if she is mailacquired and mail is her preferred mode of transaction. After not hearing from the organization for a while, the donor may feel jilted and say, “Well, they must not like me anymore.” And the next thing you know, she’s giving to another organization. The fact is there can be a very positive relationship between direct mail and major donor giving. Consider these findings from the Pursuant whitepaper called Direct Mail Is Alive and Well: •
Among major donors, those who were initially cultivated through direct mail gave significantly more than those who made a major gift through a personal request or other channels.
•
Major donors cultivated on an ongoing basis through direct mail tend to give several gifts over a lifetime, but major donors who come in through other channels more often give a single gift.
•
Multi-channel givers provide 100+ percent more total revenue than single channel users.
Given these facts, the obvious question is, “Why are silos so prevalent?”
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
Before we go any further, we want to make it very clear that major gift officers haven’t cornered the market on silo-driven and, frankly, childish behavior. The direct mail staff can be oblivious and unconcerned about the donor cultivation goals of major gift officers, as well. They might unknowingly create donor fatigue by sending out three appeals a month that only serve to irritate a donor—and all with messaging that runs counter to the large gift appeal a major donor officer plans to present. Or maybe the direct response officer will have an upper donor mailing and insist on the hard ask, pushing for an above average gift. She isn’t being thoughtful of the fact that the MGO has a $10,000 ask right around the corner, and therefore she shouldn’t push for a “reach” ask in the mail appeal. The squabbling isn’t strictly between major gifts and direct mail. It’s major gifts versus direct mail versus special events versus online. Everyone who interacts with donors can exhibit the tendency to sound a bit like those seagulls in Finding Nemo. The key driver for all of this internal strife is getting credit for the gift. Job performance is measured by dollars in the door. It’s how gift officers are judged. It’s how special events staff are judged. It’s how direct mail is judged. Job success and security are directly related to how much revenue each respective person and/or department brings in. That’s a recipe for conflict if you don’t have a global vision for how every part of the donor development cycle and every development officer plays a crucial role in maximizing donor gifts. We’re not opposed to assessing performance by financial results and metrics. This type of accountability is a good thing. What we’re saying is that otherwise healthy incentives can turn perverse when tunnel vision trumps a global outlook on what’s best for the donor and the organization. Development officers need to step out of their silos and work together to cultivate donors from acquisition upward. Competition is good, but collaboration is better. Looking at donor development as a team sport, rather than an individual enterprise, gives everybody involved a fresh perspective on the value of what they do.
But reorienting one’s fundraising approach around an organization’s mission instead of gunning for personal gain and glory is never easy. Let’s face it, major gift officers have more than a little swagger when they stroll into the office with news of a $1 million gift. Well, good for him! But most likely, everyone else on the team played a role in that result too. The major gift guy may have closed the deal, but that gift didn’t arrive overnight. It was the result of a long process of cultivation in which direct mail, online, special events, and major gifts all played a role. The MGO deserves to swagger a little because that gift is a big deal for the organization. But there needs to be a mutual appreciation for all the parties who participated in that donor’s contribution to the organization. Let’s think about this contest for “my donor” from the giver’s perspective. A donor who has the ability to make a large donation starts giving to an
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
organization with a $25 gift. He’s checking the group out—yes, he believes in the mission, but he wants to see how it treats him first. After a while he decides he likes the responses he gets, and he ups his support with a $500 gift. Back at the office, his gift pops up on the radar, and his profile shifts to the mid/ major level. That’s when the first murmurs of “mine, mine, mine” start to sound. A mid-level gift officer is assigned to cultivate this donor, which means phone calls only. So far, so good. Next, it’s time to invite the donor to an event. He loves it and gives $750 at the gala. He’s gradually getting more invested in the organization and its mission. At this point the major gift officer steps in and says, “Okay, you guys quit talking to him. It’s just me and him from here on out.” The abrupt shift in correspondence and cultivation may cause the donor to wonder why he is no longer feeling the love because now he only hears from the major gift officer every three months. He feels isolated and, as we said earlier, reaches the conclusion that his newfound friends don’t really care about him after all. You can substitute the MGO in this scenario with an officer who leads special events, online giving, direct mail, or planned giving. Everyone plays this game and the situation reenacts itself throughout the development department. So what’s the solution? How do you change organizational incentives and establish a new development mentality that embraces a collaborative model to take the donor up the pyramid? What’s needed is a synergistic approach to donor communication and development in which everybody comes together—not with feathers flying, but to hammer out what’s best for the organization. Instead of a scrum of development staff squawking over hapless donors, this process entails a lot of disciplined planning, communication, and transparency. The best way to break up private fiefdoms is to put all the players in the same room and give them a chance to talk through a communications plan, as well as their responsibilities and how their performance is measured. Getting your organization to adopt a global outlook on donor development requires a number of fundamental elements: •
A master schedule
•
Internal communication between fundraising teams
•
A moderator for these discussions
•
Allegiance to a common vision of donor development
•
And, finally, a new approach to evaluating the performance of individual fundraising efforts, one that adopts a global outlook on total donor development and value
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
It begins with a master communication schedule that identifies all of the planned donor touchpoints over a six- or twelve-month period. The communications calendar sets the motivations, themes, and, ultimately, the approaches that will be employed for individual mid/major donors. It can be extremely helpful for everyone to see the master plan on one page. And Pursuant has developed a couple of tools that make this possible. Our Integrated Direct Response Calendar puts every communication element in a 12-month development cycle on one page, giving all parties a “big picture” view. A companion tool, our Communication Channel Plan can be used to map out how you plan to effectively use each channel to communicate with donors, and then advance and deepen donor relationships. Refining the communications plan as it applies to mid/major donors means bringing the direct mail, major gifts, and special events teams together. That means pulling the major gift officer off the road for a while, but it’s time well spent. The gift officers come to the meeting with their donor portfolios and answer the question, “Is there anything in our communications strategy that might be a problem for any of the mid/major donors you’re responsible to develop?” It’s not a tidy process. Feathers may be ruffled and more than a few beaks may get bent out of joint. But that’s okay because there are competing interests and perspectives. That’s why there has to be a moderator—ideally, the chief development officer—who says, “Okay, guys, we’re all looking at this communications schedule. We know what all these people are receiving, so what shall we do with this donor to benefit the organization and the long-term relationship with this donor?” “Well, Dr. Smith can’t receive any mailings for the next three months,” the major gift officer interjects. To which the direct mail team leader shoots back, “Really? It’s that important?” And then the special events director chimes in with the news that the organization’s annual golf tournament is taking place right in the middle of the proposed blackout period. No contact? It’s then up to the moderator/CDO, who has a better picture of both the global and granular concerns at stake, to make a decision about what’s best for the organization and what will enhance the donor’s progress up the pyramid. Everybody isn’t going to agree and the CDO has to make the hard choices. CDOs need to be trained and empowered to step into this role, bringing Solomonic resolution between competing camps and doing whatever is necessary to build a healthy donor pyramid. Robust donor files are not measured in revenue alone, but in the movement of donors up the pyramid. And that progression upward takes place only because donors are cultivated in a coordinated and donor-focused fashion. It takes great donor development counsel to make all of this happen. Fortunately, Pursuant offers advice to help CDOs and their staff adopt a common, global vision
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
based in the donor pyramid philosophy. We want organizations to have a longterm relationship with donors, one that takes their supporters from acquisition to bequest. Achieving that goal requires careful and coordinated management of every communication touch with the donor. Shifting to a donor-focused, global, and coordinated development strategy that optimizes the lifetime value of every donor has immediate financial implications— which, in turn, will accelerate your organization’s mission. And so does failing to make that shift. Here’s one more example of what happens when a cacophony of “Mine, mine, mine!” is the only sound coming out of the development teams’ offices. Let’s suppose, for illustration purposes, that your organization’s communications strategy moves 100 people into the principal gift level this year. These are people with the capacity and giving history to suggest they will give more than $10,000 in the next 12 months. Not all of them will make a gift of that magnitude within the next year; let’s say just 25 will do so. The other 75 are content to do as they have in the past, sending $500 three times a year. They’re healthy donors with a strong affinity for your organization, and they’re motivated to give. But now you’ve placed them in the principal gift category, given them a “Do not mail” status, and they’re not hearing from you. Congratulations! You may have just lost more than $100,000. Not only are those 75 people not going to give you that $10,000 principal gift, but they’re also less likely to fund your mission over the next year with $1,500 as they did before. They may want to give, but you’ve essentially discouraged them from doing so. That “Do not mail” status comes off to the donor as “Do not give.” The fight between direct mail, major gifts, special events, and even online giving is a lot like the kind of behavior for which we’d send our children to their rooms. If your kids were fighting because both of them wanted to play on the Xbox, you’d tell them to use both controllers and take turns. That’s what we’re saying development teams need to do. No more fighting, kids! Share. The bottom line is that decisions about the donor communications strategy cannot be made in isolation. They must be done in thoughtful coordination with all other development chiefs. And everyone needs to adopt a global perspective that transcends their individual or departmental need for gain or glory. We’re not just talking about best practices here, either. When development teams adopt selfish, counterproductive strategies, the people who need help—the ones for whom their organization was founded in the first place—are the ones who really suffer. That means children with cancer are left untreated, building projects never launch, and hungry people don’t get fed. That’s what’s really at stake, and it’s why the answer to “Whose donor is it anyway?” must always be “It’s the organization’s donor.” Any other answer is…well, for the birds.
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
Feathers fly in Finding Nemo when a flock of seagulls, all cawing, “Mine, mine, mine!” go after Dory and Marlin (Nemo’s dad) in a mad chase across Sydney Harbour. It doesn’t end well for the seagulls, though. Nigel, the pelican who’s ferrying the two fish out of harm’s way, evades the birds right before they smash headfirst into a large sail. As the scene ends, their beaks punch through the sail, and they’re still crying, “Mine, mine, mine!”
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
We hate to say it, but too many development teams in too many nonprofits resemble those annoying seagulls. Special events, major giving, annual giving, planned giving, direct response, and online giving are all examples of the different silos within an organization that chase after and compete for the donor. They look at donors the same way seagulls view fish—as tasty treats. And as far as they’re concerned, donors “belong” to them, resulting in the eruption of not-so-nice squabbles between development officers. “What are you doing talking to my donor?” a major gift officer may tell his direct mail counterpart. “You can’t be sending him mail. I’ve got to call that donor in three months, and if you send him mail, you’re going to gut my revenue. This is my donor.” Meanwhile, the chief development officer (CDO) says, “Well, I don’t know what to do. This donor is going to be making a major gift. I don’t want to jeopardize a $10,000 ask just to get a $50 donation through direct mail.” This syndrome is widespread and it’s something we at Pursuant have observed firsthand in our work at both the top and bottom of the donor pyramid. I, Erik, have watched major gift officers at large and small nonprofits log in to the donor files in Raiser’s Edge (or their databases) and click “Do not contact” to ensure they have sole access to these high-end givers. And I, Zach, have an unhappy memory of a donor mail processor who decided her organization was sending out too much mail. So she filled an entire file cabinet with donor replies that she’d secretly stashed away—her way of protecting “her” donors. But donors don’t belong to anyone, and acting like they do is never good for an organization or its mission. When a major gift officer (MGO) excludes a donor from an organization’s contact stream, vital stewardship and accountability opportunities can be missed. The MGO also risks losing that donor—especially if she is mailacquired and mail is her preferred mode of transaction. After not hearing from the organization for a while, the donor may feel jilted and say, “Well, they must not like me anymore.” And the next thing you know, she’s giving to another organization. The fact is there can be a very positive relationship between direct mail and major donor giving. Consider these findings from the Pursuant whitepaper called Direct Mail Is Alive and Well: •
Among major donors, those who were initially cultivated through direct mail gave significantly more than those who made a major gift through a personal request or other channels.
•
Major donors cultivated on an ongoing basis through direct mail tend to give several gifts over a lifetime, but major donors who come in through other channels more often give a single gift.
•
Multi-channel givers provide 100+ percent more total revenue than single channel users.
Given these facts, the obvious question is, “Why are silos so prevalent?”
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
Before we go any further, we want to make it very clear that major gift officers haven’t cornered the market on silo-driven and, frankly, childish behavior. The direct mail staff can be oblivious and unconcerned about the donor cultivation goals of major gift officers, as well. They might unknowingly create donor fatigue by sending out three appeals a month that only serve to irritate a donor—and all with messaging that runs counter to the large gift appeal a major donor officer plans to present. Or maybe the direct response officer will have an upper donor mailing and insist on the hard ask, pushing for an above average gift. She isn’t being thoughtful of the fact that the MGO has a $10,000 ask right around the corner, and therefore she shouldn’t push for a “reach” ask in the mail appeal. The squabbling isn’t strictly between major gifts and direct mail. It’s major gifts versus direct mail versus special events versus online. Everyone who interacts with donors can exhibit the tendency to sound a bit like those seagulls in Finding Nemo. The key driver for all of this internal strife is getting credit for the gift. Job performance is measured by dollars in the door. It’s how gift officers are judged. It’s how special events staff are judged. It’s how direct mail is judged. Job success and security are directly related to how much revenue each respective person and/or department brings in. That’s a recipe for conflict if you don’t have a global vision for how every part of the donor development cycle and every development officer plays a crucial role in maximizing donor gifts. We’re not opposed to assessing performance by financial results and metrics. This type of accountability is a good thing. What we’re saying is that otherwise healthy incentives can turn perverse when tunnel vision trumps a global outlook on what’s best for the donor and the organization. Development officers need to step out of their silos and work together to cultivate donors from acquisition upward. Competition is good, but collaboration is better. Looking at donor development as a team sport, rather than an individual enterprise, gives everybody involved a fresh perspective on the value of what they do.
But reorienting one’s fundraising approach around an organization’s mission instead of gunning for personal gain and glory is never easy. Let’s face it, major gift officers have more than a little swagger when they stroll into the office with news of a $1 million gift. Well, good for him! But most likely, everyone else on the team played a role in that result too. The major gift guy may have closed the deal, but that gift didn’t arrive overnight. It was the result of a long process of cultivation in which direct mail, online, special events, and major gifts all played a role. The MGO deserves to swagger a little because that gift is a big deal for the organization. But there needs to be a mutual appreciation for all the parties who participated in that donor’s contribution to the organization. Let’s think about this contest for “my donor” from the giver’s perspective. A donor who has the ability to make a large donation starts giving to an
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
organization with a $25 gift. He’s checking the group out—yes, he believes in the mission, but he wants to see how it treats him first. After a while he decides he likes the responses he gets, and he ups his support with a $500 gift. Back at the office, his gift pops up on the radar, and his profile shifts to the mid/ major level. That’s when the first murmurs of “mine, mine, mine” start to sound. A mid-level gift officer is assigned to cultivate this donor, which means phone calls only. So far, so good. Next, it’s time to invite the donor to an event. He loves it and gives $750 at the gala. He’s gradually getting more invested in the organization and its mission. At this point the major gift officer steps in and says, “Okay, you guys quit talking to him. It’s just me and him from here on out.” The abrupt shift in correspondence and cultivation may cause the donor to wonder why he is no longer feeling the love because now he only hears from the major gift officer every three months. He feels isolated and, as we said earlier, reaches the conclusion that his newfound friends don’t really care about him after all. You can substitute the MGO in this scenario with an officer who leads special events, online giving, direct mail, or planned giving. Everyone plays this game and the situation reenacts itself throughout the development department. So what’s the solution? How do you change organizational incentives and establish a new development mentality that embraces a collaborative model to take the donor up the pyramid? What’s needed is a synergistic approach to donor communication and development in which everybody comes together—not with feathers flying, but to hammer out what’s best for the organization. Instead of a scrum of development staff squawking over hapless donors, this process entails a lot of disciplined planning, communication, and transparency. The best way to break up private fiefdoms is to put all the players in the same room and give them a chance to talk through a communications plan, as well as their responsibilities and how their performance is measured. Getting your organization to adopt a global outlook on donor development requires a number of fundamental elements: •
A master schedule
•
Internal communication between fundraising teams
•
A moderator for these discussions
•
Allegiance to a common vision of donor development
•
And, finally, a new approach to evaluating the performance of individual fundraising efforts, one that adopts a global outlook on total donor development and value
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
It begins with a master communication schedule that identifies all of the planned donor touchpoints over a six- or twelve-month period. The communications calendar sets the motivations, themes, and, ultimately, the approaches that will be employed for individual mid/major donors. It can be extremely helpful for everyone to see the master plan on one page. And Pursuant has developed a couple of tools that make this possible. Our Integrated Direct Response Calendar puts every communication element in a 12-month development cycle on one page, giving all parties a “big picture” view. A companion tool, our Communication Channel Plan can be used to map out how you plan to effectively use each channel to communicate with donors, and then advance and deepen donor relationships. Refining the communications plan as it applies to mid/major donors means bringing the direct mail, major gifts, and special events teams together. That means pulling the major gift officer off the road for a while, but it’s time well spent. The gift officers come to the meeting with their donor portfolios and answer the question, “Is there anything in our communications strategy that might be a problem for any of the mid/major donors you’re responsible to develop?” It’s not a tidy process. Feathers may be ruffled and more than a few beaks may get bent out of joint. But that’s okay because there are competing interests and perspectives. That’s why there has to be a moderator—ideally, the chief development officer—who says, “Okay, guys, we’re all looking at this communications schedule. We know what all these people are receiving, so what shall we do with this donor to benefit the organization and the long-term relationship with this donor?” “Well, Dr. Smith can’t receive any mailings for the next three months,” the major gift officer interjects. To which the direct mail team leader shoots back, “Really? It’s that important?” And then the special events director chimes in with the news that the organization’s annual golf tournament is taking place right in the middle of the proposed blackout period. No contact? It’s then up to the moderator/CDO, who has a better picture of both the global and granular concerns at stake, to make a decision about what’s best for the organization and what will enhance the donor’s progress up the pyramid. Everybody isn’t going to agree and the CDO has to make the hard choices. CDOs need to be trained and empowered to step into this role, bringing Solomonic resolution between competing camps and doing whatever is necessary to build a healthy donor pyramid. Robust donor files are not measured in revenue alone, but in the movement of donors up the pyramid. And that progression upward takes place only because donors are cultivated in a coordinated and donor-focused fashion. It takes great donor development counsel to make all of this happen. Fortunately, Pursuant offers advice to help CDOs and their staff adopt a common, global vision
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
based in the donor pyramid philosophy. We want organizations to have a longterm relationship with donors, one that takes their supporters from acquisition to bequest. Achieving that goal requires careful and coordinated management of every communication touch with the donor. Shifting to a donor-focused, global, and coordinated development strategy that optimizes the lifetime value of every donor has immediate financial implications— which, in turn, will accelerate your organization’s mission. And so does failing to make that shift. Here’s one more example of what happens when a cacophony of “Mine, mine, mine!” is the only sound coming out of the development teams’ offices. Let’s suppose, for illustration purposes, that your organization’s communications strategy moves 100 people into the principal gift level this year. These are people with the capacity and giving history to suggest they will give more than $10,000 in the next 12 months. Not all of them will make a gift of that magnitude within the next year; let’s say just 25 will do so. The other 75 are content to do as they have in the past, sending $500 three times a year. They’re healthy donors with a strong affinity for your organization, and they’re motivated to give. But now you’ve placed them in the principal gift category, given them a “Do not mail” status, and they’re not hearing from you. Congratulations! You may have just lost more than $100,000. Not only are those 75 people not going to give you that $10,000 principal gift, but they’re also less likely to fund your mission over the next year with $1,500 as they did before. They may want to give, but you’ve essentially discouraged them from doing so. That “Do not mail” status comes off to the donor as “Do not give.” The fight between direct mail, major gifts, special events, and even online giving is a lot like the kind of behavior for which we’d send our children to their rooms. If your kids were fighting because both of them wanted to play on the Xbox, you’d tell them to use both controllers and take turns. That’s what we’re saying development teams need to do. No more fighting, kids! Share. The bottom line is that decisions about the donor communications strategy cannot be made in isolation. They must be done in thoughtful coordination with all other development chiefs. And everyone needs to adopt a global perspective that transcends their individual or departmental need for gain or glory. We’re not just talking about best practices here, either. When development teams adopt selfish, counterproductive strategies, the people who need help—the ones for whom their organization was founded in the first place—are the ones who really suffer. That means children with cancer are left untreated, building projects never launch, and hungry people don’t get fed. That’s what’s really at stake, and it’s why the answer to “Whose donor is it anyway?” must always be “It’s the organization’s donor.” Any other answer is…well, for the birds.
DALLAS I CHICAGO I NEW YORK I DC I 214-866-7700 I pursuant.com
