I’d be shocked if there were any, or many, Trump supporters among this community of fundraising hipsters. But I wonder how many emulate him as fundraising practitioners.
What do I mean? Well, if I (as ‘the Donald’ is wont to do) were to let fly a barrage of sweeping generalisations about gender, what would you call me?
A sexist.
If I were to let fly a barrage of sweeping generalisations about race, what would you call me?
A racist.
And if I were to let fly a barrage of sweeping generalisations about donors, what would you call me?
A donor-ist!
Trump says he has “great respect for women”, but acts like he has anything but. Proponents and practitioners of donor ‘relationship’, ‘engagement’, ‘love’ etc., are guilty of a similar (though far less disgusting) contradiction.
They talk about what donors need (donors ‘need’ to be shown impact, they ‘need’ us to say thank you etc.). How they should be addressed (we ‘should’ always use pronouns, ‘should’ always make donors the hero etc.). And how often (they ‘want’ us to send more/less depending on our point of view).
Trouble is, no matter how well intentioned these statements are, they are based on pure assumption. We think/feel these things are true, but we don’t know, because we don’t truly know donors.
Sure we know when they gave (frequency), how much they give (value), how often (frequency), and their social label (demographics). But we don’t actually know why they give, or why they stop.
Without the ‘why’, statements like ‘donors need to be shown impact’, are obviously donor-phobic.
What if for one group of donors ‘impact’ means cure but for another it means treat? What if for one group of donors ‘impact’ means feed a child but for another it means lift them out of poverty? What if for one group of donors ‘impact’ means saving a specific species but for another it means saving them all?
What if one group of donors have a high emotional connection but a desire for a low behavioural involvement, but another have an equally high emotional connection coupled with a desire to get more deeply involved?
You get the point. And if you’re anything like the majority of fundraisers who want to do better but are increasingly frustrated that they can’t, this is why.
So, the next time you’re at a conference, or reading a blog, and you hear someone pontificating with certainty exactly what donors want and need, stand up and proclaim “You Sir are a donor-ist!” We’re better than that. And we can do so much better than this. Let’s campaign to abolish donor-ism and make fundraising great again!
Charlie Hulme is Managing Director at DonorVoice.
15 total views, 15 views today
from UK Fundraising http://ift.tt/2du2B4V
0 comments:
Post a Comment