queer ideas

The secret life of a donor – video evidence

I recently had the fantastic opportunity of appearing on stage in front of an audience of over 900 fundraisers as part of Tony Elischer's amazing experiment – Theatre of Fundraising - at AFP Congress in Toronto.

One of the areas that Tony asked me to look at was fatigue.

This was a theatre, so it had to be entertaining. With the help of Raindown (who are an excellent production company that I highly recommend) we put together a short video where we attempt to demonstrate what it's like to be on the sharp end of so many fundraisers' efforts.

I don't believe compassion fatigue actually exists. If anything, I think people today are kinder and more compassionate than ever before.

The problem is that they are worn out by the approach of charities that think fundraising is just about asking more often in more intrusive ways.

Great fundraising is not just about demonstrating organisational need. It's about answering the needs of our donors.

It's about engaging and empowering them. It's about inspiring them with creative ideas that emotionally connect them to the causes that we raise funds for (you can read Aline's post on how we did this for UCL by clicking here).

It's the easiest thing in the world to just ask people for money.

What takes time and effort is the creation of the feelings of joy that every donor should receive when they see the impact of their giving.

That what we should be concentrating on. We are fundraisers. That's our job.

Should you wish to use the video or share it, feel free. All we ask is that you let people know that it was produced by Bluefrog.

Why don't people care as much as you?

When you are committed to a cause it's easy to think that the only reason other people don't feel the same is that they don't understand.

Your reaction might be to bombard them with evidence – facts, figures, statistics  – anything that supports your position.

The only trouble is that this is exactly the sort of information that is likely to act as a barrier to your unengaged prospects.

Though your most committed supporters might be happy to wade through an avalanche of information, few others have the interest or the time.

Instead, they want you to do the hard work for them and provide an arresting and emotionally rewarding route in to your charity.

This facet of human nature was neatly summarised in diagramatic form by a chap called Poliakov in his Pyramid of Engagement published by the CoFSiM Research Centre.

So rather than than trying to create a 'rational' argument for your next mailing pack, focus on moving someone emotionally instead.

If you need some statistics to back this up, you can find them here.

Donors don't like giving when it doesn't feel good

Face to face donor recruitment is back in the spotlight following the publication of a survey that reported 44% of respondents thought chugging was the most aggressive form of fundraising.

The PFRA was quick to respond, questioning the validity of the sample, the questions and the results.

I have some sympathy with their point of view.

As we've seen from the recent FRSB annual report, it takes thousands of face to face solicitations to generate an actual complaint. So it's worth taking a minute or two to ask what this research actually tells us?

Unfortunately, I don't have a full set of tables, but the details provided by Third Sector and Fundraising magazine show:

• When asked which technique was the most aggressive form of fundraising...

– 54% chose doorstep campaigners

– 44% chose high street chuggers

– 43% chose telephone calls to the home

• 39.7% said that they had stopped supporting a charity because of the way it tried to raise funds.
• 60% said 'chuggers' had put them off supporting the charity they were representing.

I agree with the PFRA that this isn't a representative sample – but that doesn't mean the respondents aren't donors. Far from it. The survey was featured on easyfundraising.org.uk (a shopping site that ensures that a donation is made to a charity every time you buy something via one of their links).

It appears most users are recruited via charity partners, social networks and old-fashioned PR. As such, I'd think that the self-selecting respondents (70% of whom are women) are more likely to be active donors than we'd find amongst a sample that was representative of the UK population. On that basis, I wouldn't be surprised if the age-profile was significantly older than average.

Even so, I was surprised so many of the respondents described face to face recruitment as aggressive. 

Adrian Sargeant, back in 2003, actually found that most people who signed up to a charity through a face to face interaction reported a high level of satisfaction with the process of recruitment.

And the donors (and non-donors) we've spoken to about face to face recruitment in the last few years have never shown any concern about aggression. People have described recruiters as annoying, irritating or even as 'creepy', but none said they were aggressive.

The real problem with such a simple approach to assessing opinion is that that no matter the reality of people's experiences of being asked for a gift, the method of asking that most intruded into a donor's personal space was always going to be ranked according to whatever negative characteristic that was on offer – in this case aggression.

Focusing on aggression seems a rather odd, arbitrary, decision. If anything, the emotions that bother people the most when being asked are to do with embarrassment, not knowing how to say no, being inconvenienced by the interruption. Nothing to do with the emotions we associate with the results of aggression - such as intimidation or hostility. They asked the wrong question. And they were always going to get those answers.

But does that mean we can dismiss this survey?

I'd actually say no. Even though there is an obvious sampling bias and poor wording, I still think it has some use. Taken as a whole, it serves to highlight one very important point – people judge charities via the interactions they have with them.

In Bluefrog's 2009 research into lapsing – which can be downloaded here – donors told us that poor quality and inappropriate communications actively pushed them away from charities.

This is because inappropriate and unwanted communications generated negative emotions that donors didn't particularly enjoy. And when giving doesn't feel good, donors don't like to give.

So what makes donors feel bad about being asked for money? Well, this is what our research sample told us...

The charity makes changes that the donor dislikes or doesn't value

A change in name, purpose or a way of operating can cause an uncomfortable feeling. We found a significant number of donors voicing concerns over charities becoming too 'political'. This could also relate to exposure to different fundraising techniques.

Taking donors for granted

This takes many forms. Not thanking appropriately, asking too often, sending inappropriate communications or not recognising what a donor has done. 

Breaking promises

A broken promise tells the donor you don't care about them. It could be ignoring a direct request or failing to meet an expectation. This was particularly important for donors who were recruited face to face. Many described an enjoyable and engaging recruitment experience which was followed by communications that left them feeling let down.

Not paying attention

This isn't just ignoring what a donor does, but also what a donor doesn't do. Donors expect charities to understand what they like and what they don't like. For example, a number of donors said that when they refused a request to set up a committed gift, they tended to mean it. If they were asked again it made them think that they weren't very important.

When the ask feels inappropriate

Donors know that charities need money. They also know that they have to ask for it. But being asked at the wrong time, or for the wrong amounts, or by methods they don't like can generate negative emotions. And no donor enjoys to feel that they're being asked too often.

By not knowing when to stop

Donors were particularly irritated by the fact that they still received appeals from charities when they had asked for them to stop, or if instead of an acknowledgement or thank you, an appeal was the first communication they'd received since cancelling a regular gift.

The key point is that communications need to be relevant and appropriate for the audience. Mass-marketing techniques are always going to present a charity with difficulties. The goal is to have a strategy in place to mitigate any problems. My top three tips would be...

• Don't be pushy
• Respond to complaints as a priority
• Keep a close eye on your data and treat your donors according to their wishes.

Why do younger people seem to ignore your appeals?

An interesting set of studies has been published by UC Berkley that looks at how our emotional strategies for dealing with upsetting issues change as we age.

As psychologist, Robert Levenson explains:

"Increasingly, it appears that the meaning of late life centres on social relationships and caring for and being cared for by others... Evolution seems to have tuned our nervous systems in ways that are optimal for these kinds of interpersonal and compassionate activities as we age."

One study looked at how 144 healthy adults in their twenties, forties and sixties reacted to neutral, sad and disgusting film clips.

Younger and middle-aged participants were best at using 'detached appraisal' to tune out and divert their attention from unpleasant and upsetting scenes. This approach draws heavily on the prefrontal brain's executive function, a mechanism responsible for memory, planning and impulse control that tends to diminish as we age.

Older people were best at reinterpreting negative scenes in positive ways using 'positive reappraisal' – a coping mechanism that draws heavily on life experience and lessons learned.

A second larger study used similar techniques to test how our sensitivity to sadness changes as we age and found that the older cohort showed more sadness in reaction to emotionally charged scenes, compared to younger people. The results, as explained by psychologist Benjamin Seider showed that:

"In late life, individuals often adopt different perspectives and goals that focus more on close interpersonal relationships... By doing so, they become increasingly sensitised to sadness because the shared experience of sadness leads to greater intimacy in interpersonal relationships."

Which, in short, explains why younger people are less likely to respond to your appeals - they are emotionally programmed to ignore them.

You can read more on the studies here.

Picture credit: Melanie Hayes

Understanding the barriers to giving

Donors don't particularly like to say no to charities.

That's because charities are great. When you give to them, you demonstrate to yourself and others that you are both kind and generous.

But what does refusing to give say about you?

It might be something a little unpleasant. As a result, many donors create emotional 'barriers' to help them deflect any accompanying negative feelings.

At Bluefrog, we've identified three main barriers that any good fundraising strategy needs to tackle if it is to be effective:

• Feeling unable to give
• Thinking that a gift will be ineffective
  
• Feeling unengaged by the charity or the cause.

You can read more about the barriers and how you tackle them here.

I mention them because I've been writing a paper on higher value donors and have found a couple of good pieces of research that will add to our understanding this particular part of the fundraising process.

The first was produced for HMRC by Ipsos Mori and can be downloaded here (PDF).

The second was produced by Barclays Wealth in co-operation with Ledbury Research and can be downloaded here (PDF).

As you'll see, only a third of wealthy people currently donate more than 1% of their net worth to charity.

But both papers identify that this group could give far more – both in terms of time and money – if it wasn't for the barriers that restrict their engagement. The Ipsos Mori paper is particularly interesting as it uncovers a growing desire amongst wealthy donors to retain control over the timing and destination of their donations.

I've also discovered a video that takes a look at a group of very wealthy people discussing why one of them doesn't like giving to charity. You won't necessarily learn much from it, but it will hopefully make you smile.

What can a few billionaires teach you about fundraising?

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have put together a group of 40 billionaires who have promised to give away at least half their wealth to philanthropic causes.

That's pretty good news. But unless your charity is in line for one of the resulting gifts, you might think that's the end of the story.

You'd be wrong.

Before you get back to putting together your next appeal, can I suggest that you take a quick visit to The Giving Pledge and have a look around. Within a click or two you'll find details of the actual pledges.

When you do, you'll see that Bill and Warren have given us all a rather special gift – a copy of the original letter from each billionaire that explains just why they are giving so much money away.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

Just a click away are 40 letters written by the wealthiest donors in the world explaining just why they give, what they are interested in and what motivates them.

That's a priceless resource.

When you'll read them, you'll see that time after time, what comes over is the joy that people get from giving. Take this quote from Peter G. Peterson, Chair of The Blackstone Group:

"As I watched and learned from my father’s example, I noticed how much pleasure his giving to others gave him.  Indeed, today, I get much more pleasure giving money to what I consider worthwhile causes than making the money in the first place.  As I checked with other philanthropists, I found this was a very common experience."

Or this, from Gerry Lenfest, Chair of the Telvue Corporation:

"One is not measured by how many homes, yachts or airplanes you have. The ultimate achievement in life is how you feel about yourself. And giving your wealth away to have an impact for good does help with that feeling."

Or perhaps, most importantly, this example from Bernard Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot.

"I share this with you because of happiness one can conceive by watching the joys of their work.

I remember very vividly a child that I had seen about a year ago that was severely autistic in my walk through MAC. Someone pointed this child out to me and when he looked at me he went into total hysteria, e.g. screaming, butting his head against the wall, etc. These actions happen with children of these disabilities.

Approximately one year later we were doing a documentary with NBC and I walked into a classroom where the producer asked me to appear with one of the children.

There was this same young man and I was horrified he would have another episode as he had in the past. Instead he came over, sat in my lap and talked! By the way, he had not spoken for the six years of his life before going to MAC.

I cried, the teachers cried, the cameraman cried, and the parents cried. What a blessing this was to have changed one life and to have had such an impact on a life.

I encourage you to always try to see the faces of the recipients you help."

Few of these super-wealthy donors talk about the detail of the causes they fund. Expense ratios, cases for support and brands aren't mentioned at all. Just one donor talks of giving because of guilt.

Instead they concentrate on describing the emotional reaction they have when they see the impact of their giving.

And in that respect they are just like everyone else.

They are normal people who just happen to have massive bank accounts. They have the same motivations to give as the rest of us. The only difference is that their power, their wealth and their influence results in them being able to regularly see the impact of their actions, first hand.

As you read their letters, you'll see stories of involvement and engagement. The writers are not just giving money and walking away. They are staying around for the long-term.

They are building rich and rewarding relationships with the people and causes they are helping.

You can see that they enjoy their giving. And the more they enjoy it, the more they give away – millions of dollars more.

And that brings me to the point of this post. Why can't all donors receive this same level of insight and enjoyment from supporting a charity?

Take a look child sponsorship charities like ActionAid and World Vision and you'll see that providing good feedback to donors on an individual level isn't impossible and it certainly isn't expensive. In fact, the levels of income and donor loyalty that these charities generate demonstrates the complete opposite.

Great feedback raises more money. And donors love it. It doesn't matter if you are giving away ten pounds or tens of millions. What all donors actually want is to see the impact they have had on someone or something's life.

It shouldn't require a billionaire to tell us what we should be doing. But just in case, I've reproduced the pledge from Ronald O. Perelman. Should he every fancy a change in career, I think he might just have a bright future as fundraiser ahead of him.

Why people don't give

There have been a number of recent posts on various blogs looking at the reasons why people don't give to charity.

Last week I added to the debate when I wrote about nine techniques that donors use to avoid giving to appeals.

Reading them, you'll see that they could more accurately be described as the techniques donors use to avoid making a decision about giving.

They allow the donor to distance themselves from having to refuse a gift. If you are a nice charitable person, saying no to a good cause can generate some real self-esteem or guilt issues. Handily, the blow can be softened by placing the blame elsewhere.

But donors do actively make decisions not to give and at Bluefrog we see tackling these barriers as a central part of any fundraising strategy. As a result, we've spent a fair amount of time in research looking at what they are and how we address them.

We've identified three main reasons.

Unable

It's an obvious one. But one that perhaps too few charities give consideration too. If you don't have much disposable income or feel uncertain or insecure about the future, there is a negative impact on giving behaviour. We also discovered that a significant number of people going through a major transition in their life – child birth, divorce, job change, house moving – also restrict giving.

Ineffective

This covers the age old complaint of admin costs, concerns over corruption and mismanagement and the relative lack of worth of the cause. Interestingly, it can also relate to gift prompts that are seen as being too small to make any difference to the problem being tackled.

Unengaged

There may be no awareness of the organisation or the cause. The potential donor may be emotionally occupied elsewhere and 'can't be bothered' to give. The emotional distance between the donor and those in need might be too great and, of course, the donor may be emotionally withdrawn to the point that don't have any need to give.

These barriers can be tackled in different ways.

The first, by offering a very low entry price – an example of which is detailed here – and through making giving easy.

The second requires an emphasis on efficiency and demonstrating beneficiary need. Being open and developing credibility is an essential part of this process.

The third is the most important and can only be tackled by taking the donor perspective and responding to their needs. Which you can find more about here.