queer ideas

What really satisfies a donor?

Adrian Sargeant found back in 2000 that about half of all cash donors give just once to a charity. Even those people who do give again, fall off the donor file at the alarming rate of 30% a year.

 

The figures look even worse in the US, where an initial attrition rate of 70% is considered acceptable by many organisations.

As Adrian points out, "Donor satisfaction with the quality of service provided by the fundraising team is the single biggest driver of loyalty."

The Rockefeller Corporation has studied why customers defect in the commercial sector and found striking similarities with the results of a study that Bluefrog undertook into donor lapsing back in 2007.

They found:

1% The customer dies.
3% The customer moves away.
5% The customer has a friend (who provides similar services).
9% The customer is lost to a competitor.
14% The customer is dissatisfied with (some aspect of) the service.
68% The customer believes you do not care about him or her.

Price and quality are conspicuous by their absence. Most defections are the result of failings in customer care and the subsequent perceptions of indifference.

It is the same for charities. It is how someone is treated – not what a charity actually does – that makes the difference.

Bluefrog research summed up what sort of treatment donors were looking for very simply...

"Special is normal."

Perhaps it's even the name that we give to the people we depend on that causes us to ignore their needs.

A donor, by definition, gives something away. Their money is seen as a gift or a contribution rather than a transaction. But, as we all know, donors do want something – and it isn't just information on what your charity is doing or believes that they are after.

Michael LeBoeuf neatly summed up what people are looking for when they spend their money in his book, How to Win Customers and Keep Them for Life.

"Despite all the untold millions of products and services for sale in today's marketplace, customers will exchange their hard-earned money for only two things:

• Good feelings
• Solutions to problems"

In putting together a recruitment and retention strategy, giving people good feelings is a great place to start.

You don't choose donors, they choose you

Choice is an important concept in fundraising – donors love it.

When we offer choice through simple techniques such as shopping lists in appeals or more complex devices such as post-recruitment questionnaires that give donors control over the communications they receive, we build loyalty and generate more gifts.

There is a piece of research that helps explain why this occurs. Harbaugh, Mayer and Burghart of the University of Oregon undertook an experiment where they gave 19 young women $100 each and then confronted them with a selection of different scenarios...

• The money would be taken away with no explanation.
• The money would be taken away and given to a local charity.
• They were given the choice of keeping the money or donating it to charity.
• They could keep the money, and an extra gift would be given to charity.

All this happened whilst they were in an MRI scanner – a machine that mapped their brain activity whilst the scenarios were being considered.

The researchers found they could divide their subjects into two different types depending on brain activity.  They defined these two groups as egoists and altruists depending on whether their brain responded more to keeping the money for themselves or more to donating the money to charity.

Those whose scans showed a positive response to money going to the charity rather than to themselves were about twice as likely to give money voluntarily.

People obviously didn't like money being taken away with no reason, but if the money was given to the charity, the parts of the brain that became activated were those that respond to basic rewards such as sweets, food or positive social contact.

When the decision to give to charity was completely voluntary, these reward areas produced increased amounts of activity.

In short, active giving produced an extra neural benefit over passive giving. Something that both economists and fundraisers might describe as a "warm glow".

Sadly when giving was voluntary, the charity got 10% less than when a percentage of it was "taxed".

You don't need an MRI scanner in your fundraising department to appreciate what this means – if a donor feels coerced into giving, the rewards they feel are minimal and the relationship is off to a rotten start.

We only have to look at attrition rates associated with different types of recruitment activity to see what happens when there is a sniff of coercion in recruitment – cancellations go crazy.

Face to face, cold telephone and even TV have very high attrition rates compared to the emotionally cooler recruitment techniques such as direct mail and press ads.

One of the ways of managing the high attrition rates delivered by some recruitment channels is by demonstrating just how important the donor is to your work immediately after recruitment. And then giving them complete control over the relationship. If we do this, we help activate that "warm glow", which is just what the altruists are looking for. As a direct result, we stem attrition.

Bluefrog's head of creative, Aline Reed has recently posted a piece on her blog, Bluefrog Creative, about how we are tackling Face to Face attrition for Care International. It's early days, but by offering donors insight into the impact they are having and giving them control over the relationship, we are seeing some rather pleasing figures. You can see this work by clicking here.

As Aline explains, we aim to publish the outcome of this test along with some other research at a major presentation in London on the 13th of November. As usual with Bluefrog research, there will be no charge for attendance or our report. Email me at [email protected], if you'd like additional information or to be added to the guest list.

In the meantime, If you'd like to brush up on where you are likely to find things like the striatum (where all the fun happens), I  suggest you watch this short video to get you up to speed on all things brain related.

The boy who learned how to chat up girls from fundraising appeals

Very funny video from Jeff Brooks from Donor Power that shows what might happen if the techniques used in some fundraising appeals were copied by a boy trying to get a new girlfriend.

No wonder attrition is so high!

The problem of face to face attrition

A few weeks ago I was preparing to give a presentation at the PFRA AGM. With a few days notice, I was told I wouldn't be needed. I'm not actually sure why it was decided I wouldn't be required. I've heard that it was in response to complaints that I would be conducting a pitch rather than giving a considered view on what was right and wrong about face to face recruitment.

The only thing I know for sure is that those people who complained are wrong.

I've always firmly believed that the whole sector is improved if we share our learning. That's one of the reasons why all the Bluefrog research (which has cost many tens of thousands of pounds) is available free of charge either through the main Bluefrog site or here on queerideas.

And though the AGM saw some very positive figures being announced with 680,000 donors recruited in the year ending March 2009 – up 16% on the previous year, there have been more recent press releases that shows the other side of the story – attrition. The projections that we will see first year attrition rates of between 55 and 57% perhaps need double checking.

I've seen the actual data from a large number of campaigns and can say that the actual figures will be at least ten percent higher with real attrition for many organisations now standing between 65 and 70% in year one. And yes, door to door attrition is better - but I haven't seen any results as good as this report would suggest.

The fact is that attrition rates have been continuing to rise year on year - recession or no recession. And though it is likely that the recent economic figures have had an impact, they are not the real problem.

When in doubt about any matter, I normally turn to Adrian Sargeant for an answer and way back in 2003, he pointed us in the right direction.

Working with Elaine Jay, they surveyed 657 active and 431 lapsed face to face recruited donors (from a sample of 4,846) and found that people were relatively happy with the recruitment process. They made the point that it is possible to speculate that...

"...whatever reason individuals might give for lapsing, it has little to do with the perceived quality of the recruitment process".

In order to cast a little light on what the actual reasons might be, Sargeant and Jay looked at the ongoing donor / charity relationship and asked respondents how they felt their charity performed on a number of areas relating to supporter service.

This revealed that charities were scored lowest on two areas that in a commercial setting would be corporate suicide...

• making me feel important
• demonstrating that they care about me

I should point out that their research also indicated that donors said that they didn't rate these components of the relationship as being important. So maybe it is something that we can ignore.

Or maybe not...

The most recent research undertaken by Professor Sargeant shows something very different. By making welcome calls, personalising communications and customising newsletters for face to face recruited donors – in short, using standard fundraising techniques that are proven to increase income and loyalty – their retention can be improved.

In the face of this, I don't understand why so much blame for attrition has been focussed on the recruitment process. On one hand it has benefitted charities, resulting in ever larger replacement guarantees being offered, but the downside has been that the motivation for charities to develop retention programmes for these supporters has been reduced.

The result has been that traditional charity communications have been shoe-horned into service. Sometimes magazines and other communications have been re-designed and re-written to make them more attractive to younger donors, at other times specific communications have been developed for sending to supporters.

In hindsight, perhaps more time should have been given to determining whether these were the appropriate vehicles in the first place, particularly when you consider the problem we were trying to tackle - creating engagement.

I've written before about recruitment techniques that don't allow a donor the necessary time to engage with the cause – or the organisation – and the toxic effect that this can have on a database if the right communication strategy isn't implemented.

To create an effective solution,  we need to prioritise the donor's needs, placing their desires and their actions at the centre of the emerging dialogue. Our first step is to increase the personalisation in our fundraising materials (just as Adrian Sargeant points out in his recent research).

But we also have to look at when we act. The majority of cancellations happen very quickly. Our analysis shows that the real danger period is the first few months. The number of no pays and cancellations seen in this period regularly outweigh those seen during the remainder of the year. Our goal must be to engage immediately.

The materials given out at recruitment must drive this process. Simply giving out information on what your charity does (however well designed) or thank you pieces (no matter how fun or nice they are to have) or even free gifts is completely missing the point.

If our goal is to engage, those materials must have one goal – to pull the charity and the donor together.

By that, I mean they must start the donor on their journey of support before they have even got back to their office or home and had a chance to cancel.

And our follow up communications (and that is in the plural on purpose) – whether they are by mail, phone or web – must focus on the exact point where that donor is on the journey.

So what are the key needs we need to tackle? I've posted before about Bluefrog's work on identifying donor needs and would recommend you check out this post if you haven't read it before.

In it you'll see that there are 4 needs that we have to address.

1. The desire to help - show donors what their gift has helped achieve.

Wildlife Direct have a fantastic approach to donor centric reporting back. This piece on their gorilla doctors in Rwanda is right at the cutting edge of web based engagement. Click through and you'll see how Gorillas have been freed from hunter's snares, meet a baby called Umoja who had his life saved through surgery and read about and see others who were helped through different types of medical intervention.

Alongside this report, there is a fantastic opportunity to help by giving monthly or one-off donations that can fund anything from the support of a gorilla orphan to the purchase of an anesthetic dart.

2. Overcome helplessness – give donors a chance to do something that, as an individual, they couldn't even dream about.

The size of a problem can overwhelm individuals. Talking about huge numbers of people living in poverty or who might die from diseases like cancer can simply leave people thinking their ten or twenty pounds is going to make no difference at all – so why give it?

It's why we use shopping lists. It's not just about prompting a gift, it also helps make a gift tangible in a donors mind.

If I give $20 to buy an anesthetic dart, I immediately imagine it flying through the air, hitting and anesthetising a gorilla, making me part of the process of saving his or her life.

3. Help donors grow – whether you are educating or offering a donor increased self-esteem, your goal should be to give the donor a chance to become the person they want to be through their support of your charity.

Effective information provision isn't just down to telling stories in a magazine. If it was, we wouldn't have the attrition problem we see to day.

It's about providing that information in a way that works for the donor - making them feel part of the organisation and recognised for their role. A magazine, for example, shows a donor they are one of many, whereas a letter or highly personalised report, directly demonstrates that the donor is worthy of special treatment. I'm sure you can guess which is more effective at tackling cancellation rates.

Looking at the gorilla doctors page again you'll see that recent donors are thanked by being named on the page and through comments they can communicate with the medical team and each other. It's a simple technique that offers status, information and involvement.

4. Engagement – This describes the entertainment factor - because every aspect of a donor needs based strategy is about generating engagement. This is about gaining and keeping their attention.

By taking care over the way we write our copy, use and share photographs and show video we can make our work exciting, involving and life-changing. Or alternatively we can show our charity to be dull, self-centred and uninspiring.

The donor will let us know what they think of our fundraising and communication materials by voting through their wallets, purses and direct debit cancellation buttons.

Finding out more

At Bluefrog, we are currently carrying out some tests on some very new approaches to tackling attrition based on much of what I've shared in this post. We'll be making these available to charities at a presentation in London later this year. If you'd like to come along, please let me know by emailing me at [email protected] and I'll make sure that you receive an invitation. I can assure you it will be information that will make your fundraising better and will most definitely not be a pitch.

Why does it always have to be un-earmarked?

Which of the following statements are true?

A. The earth is flat.
B. global warming isn't happening.
C. Lemmings commit mass suicide.
D. Wearing a warm coat will stop you catching flu.
E. Warts are caused by handling toads.
F. Appeals have to be for unrestricted funds.

Yep. You got it. It's a trick question. They are all wrong. 

But that doesn't mean there are some people and some organisations that accept them as unquestionable truths. You have The Flat Earth Society leading their own particular debate, Tim Ball on climate change, Walt Disney documentaries on suicidal lemmings and my grand-mother on the anti-viral properties of warm coats and the dermatological benefits of avoiding HPV laden toads.

And you have a large number of charities that will only do unrestricted appeals.

It's an attitude I've often questioned.

I appreciate that it's normally the statutory funders, trusts and high-value givers that get to dictate how their money is used. This leaves the normal donor as the primary source of much of the administrative and fundraising expenditure that underpins the juicy work that the "serious" funders get to make happen. This income is essential, as without it, much less money would be raised.

All charities need unrestricted funds and if this needs to come from the average donor, then our fundraising strategies must take this into account. But the fact is, not many people are keen on donating too much for covering administration and fundraising costs.

Doble (PDF) found back in 1990 that donors were happy if at least 75% of their gift was applied directly to the cause (though they thought the norm for most charities was as low as 50%) and Glaser (PDF) in 1994 discovered that an "adequate amount" spent on actual work was the second most important factor in influencing the decision whether to support a charity.

In recent (2009) experiments Fong and Oberholzer-Gee (PDF) found that a significant number of donors were willing to pay "extra" to ensure their money was used in the way they preferred.

That's why I ask whether every appeal has to be restricted.

Recruitment can be pretty tough at the best of times. Currently we are seeing some charities struggle to get new donors and there are an increasing number of direct debits being cancelled.

One option to improve this situation is to recruit and re-activate lapsed donors with the guarantee that 100% of the gift will go to core work.

To me, this seems like a simple solution to a big problem. Recruitment income is tiny compared to the overall amount generated by a charity and by taking this approach, an organisation would:

• Stand out from other organisations.
• Recruit more donors and generate more funds.
• Give new (or re-activated) donors an enhanced sense of achievement.
• Have a great opportunity for feeding back, placing the donor at the centre of their work.
• Create a connection on which to move the donor to committed and de-restricted forms of giving.
• Demonstrate efficiency, accountability and effectiveness which I think are rather attractive values for any charity brand.
• Generate more un-earmarked money long term by improving their recruitment and retention rates. 

The downside is that finance staff would have to change the way they work and some big funders might not get 100% of all the great projects.

To me, that isn't such a big price to pay.

But I can hear the arguments against already – we can raise that money elsewhere, the systems will have to be changed, we don't have the resources, what if we raise too much?

Yep - it's easy to come up with the reasons why not. And it is certainly not something I'd suggest raising in a quick conversation with an FD between meetings. 

But if we view the problem of recruitment and disengagement strategically, we might find the finance operation can offer part of the solution.

It will take some hard work. But with organisations like KIva growing at a fantastic rate by offering choice over how money is allocated and what percentage is added to cover administrative costs, it might not be too long before charities have to start changing the way they work for reasons other than improving recruitment and tackling disengagement. 

Donors are already getting increasing amounts of choice in how they give to the causes they care about. And it's those charities that respond most effectively to the changing environment that are going to succeed.

Which brings me back to those lemmings. Anyone need a life belt?

When should you try and reactivate lapsed donors?

There's the old story of the man driving around lost in the countryside. He eventually sees someone up ahead and pulls over and asks for directions to his destination. The local looks at him, scratches his head and says, "Well, if I were you, I wouldn't start from here".

It's the same when it comes to reactivating lapsed regular givers. The best advice I can give is to not let them lapse in the first place. You can only do this by working hard to fully engage them right from the point of recruitment.

Just chucking new donors into a standard warm donor programme is a recipe for disaster, particularly in the current economic climate.

But no matter how good your communications are, it's more than likely you are going to lose some hard-won supporters.

Which leaves you facing two important questions. How and when are you going to bring them back on board?

I'm not going to give away secrets on how, but I am going to share some fantastic information to help you decide when.

I was lucky enough to spend some time in a big planning session with NTT Fundraising on Friday, where Managing Director, Dave Clark did some amazing number crunching on their custom-built data engine.

He'd analysed hundreds of thousands of records, and showed me a number of charts that identified some jaw-dropping patterns on how donors behave. When I saw one chart, I begged Dave to let me share it, and after about half an hour I finally wore him down and he said yes.

The chart shows the impact of time on the success of a reactivation campaign. The X axis is the number of days since the last successful claim.

As you can see, there are some wild swings, but the trend line shows it's better to wait a few weeks before reactivating regular givers. There then follows a gentle decline as it becomes harder to get people to start giving again.

This decline doesn't continue inextricably downwards. As we get closer to the anniversary of the last gift, the success rate starts to increase again.

Start overlaying other factors on to the data such as value of original and reactivated gift, length of original support and length of re-activated support (by looking at two and three year lapsing and re-lapsing rates) and the results are even more amazing.

If you are not doing it already, add when to the who, what and why in your current reactivation arsenal and you'll get better results in return.

You can contact Dave here.

Forget toxic assets. It's toxic donors that we need to worry about

How can some donors be toxic? Aren't they all the same?

 

Sadly, the answer is no.

Just look at attrition rates of regular givers. Some of the most recently adopted recruitment techniques have very high levels of attrition – face to face, TV and telephone recruited questionnaire donors can all demonstrate a toe-curling number of cancellations. 

Whereas donors recruited by routes such as press (and increasingly a number of online routes) can be very loyal.

If we look at how people make the decision to give, it is easy to see why.

Traditionally, a giving decision depends on knowledge prompting action – the bulk of thoughts and feelings happen before we put our hands in our pocket.

I've had direct experience of what happens when we removing this thinking time from the giving process...

Years ago I worked at a charity where press was the main form of recruitment. The organisation had a very long running press campaign that was stopped for a period of about six months. When the ads started running again they didn't work – and I'm talking about proven ads in proven titles. 

There was little alternative to keep running the ads as many had been booked well in advance. 

And what happened was that the ads – over time – started working again. 

The ads had a slow burn impact on the readers. They saw the need, thought about it, took in information from third party sources and (after what was a surprisingly specific number of opportunities to see) finally made the decision to give. As a result, they were very loyal.

The newer acquisition routes, however, compress the time for consideration into a few minutes. This means that emotion is the primary driver of action and the thinking time happens after giving.  

   

If we choose to use techniques that compress thinking time to fit the length of a TV ad or a conversation on a street corner we need to take into account the psychological position that we place the person who is giving. 

After signing up, they are wondering if they have done the right thing. They don't know if their money or they will be appreciated.

As a result, we can't simply drop them into standard donor communication programme. These aren't designed to engage people struggling with a level of doubt.

If we do, we are largely dependent on what Professor Adrian Sargeant describes as passive commitment – a term that refers to the disempowering fact that we are left simply hoping that donors can't be bothered to cancel.

Unfortunately many can be bothered – particularly at times of financial stress – and we are left with growing attrition rates as a direct result. 

So what do we do?

Doing nothing isn't an option. Attrition rates are already too high.

One route is to enter into PI deals with media owners or demand ever larger guarantees from the face to face companies.

The success of this strategy depends on increasing the chance of finding those people who are happy to passively commit. But with tightening belts, this number is dwindling.

We need to recognise that there are a large number of people who will give if we start putting some effort into the relationship. We must actively take their needs into account – otherwise they are simply going to continue to ignore our communications until we get fed up and leave them alone. 

In doing so they'll become toxic, representing a cost rather than an asset. What's worse is that their memory of the charity could be tainted by their experience. Something – just like DDT – that could last in the system for years.

Donors like these are hassle. It's not their fault. Nor is it the fault of the recruitment channel. They are great people. They just need to be understood.

If you aren't willing to take into account the psychological position of the donor when they are recruited you are restricting your acquisition options and should avoid some of the most emotionally powerful recruitment vehicles. 

Otherwise, you might end up costing your charity money. 

But if you are willing to meet a new donor where they are when they first join. If you are willing to respond to their needs. If you are willing to put the time into developing relevant communications. And if you are willing to accept that recruitment starts at the point someone signs a direct debit form, then you've got the chance to achieve some amazing things – no matter what the economic situation we are in.

Results from massive research study into why donors lapse

Bluefrog's research into why donors lapse, The Fundraiser's Guide to Lapsers, is now available for download by clicking here.

As mentioned in a previous post, we were fortunate in having Professor Adrian Sargeant review our work and for very kindly writing the foreword. I'd like to offer him my grateful thanks for the significant amount of time he gave to us.

But perhaps more importantly, without the help of the eleven major British charities who gave us access to their current and lapsed donors for the study this research could not have gone ahead. The sector owes them a huge thanks to which I add my own. They are:

• ActionAid
• Barnardo's
• The British Heart Foundation
• The British Red Cross
• Care International UK
• Centrepoint
• Great Ormond Street Hospital
• Marie Curie Cancer Care
• RNIB
• Sense
• SPANA

But as you might imagine, they were not the only charities that were discussed. Their donors – both lapsed and active – had also given (or were giving) to a range of other organisations.

Over the three months of fieldwork, more than 200 people shared their views, their gripes, their experiences and their recommendations relating to over 100 different organisations.

And if there was one thing that summed up our findings, it is the message implicit in a single statement from one of our participants:

"You keep saying this thing lapsed. Lapsed from what? I never felt I was giving anything up."

The increase in cancellations amongst regular givers (Rapidata's recent analysis now shows this is running at approximately 5% each and every month) shows that the sector is not generating the loyalty that it so desperately needs. 

It is too easy and not entirely true to blame the economy for the attrition levels we see today.

Although many donors are very happy with the way that they are treated, many others feel that they lose very little when they withdraw their support. This points to the most important, yet most overlooked element of donor recruitment and development, which is that people give to charities in order to satisfy their own psychological needs – not the needs of the charity.

The answer to this is to place the focus on the donor. Our paper provides seven practical steps that any charity can implement in order to reduce its level of donor attrition and quickly increase available funds. Though much more detail is available in the actual report, the key recomendations are:

• Actively look for ways to start a relationship. Don't just drop new donors into your standard appeal cycle. Engage donors in a dialogue.
  
• Manage donors' expectations.
  
• Don't think about what you want to tell your donors, think about what they want to hear from you.
  
• Concentrate on answering your donors' needs.
  
• Allow your donors to choose how and when they want to hear from you.
  
• Know your donors - listen and remember. And show them that you remember.
  
• If they do go, part as friends. The best chance you have of reactivating donors is if their last experience of you is a positive one.

A more detailed presentation on specific answers to some of the key problems we uncovered is also available and can be arranged by emailing me at [email protected].

Adrian Sargeant's foreword to Bluefrog's research into the causes of lapsing – donors have a right to feel good about giving

Last summer, Bluefrog presented its findings on a huge qualitative study to identify the key reasons why donors decide to stop giving.

As many of you who attended the event told me, the information was great, but the presentation wasn't.

That's why we have taken a little time to make sure we don't repeat the same mistake with the published document. Over the next few days, the final draft will be triple checked before it is published free of charge to the sector.

Luckily, we have had the opportunity to have Professor Adrian Sargeant review our work before publication. And he has very kindly written a foreword to accompany the final paper.

Often forewords can be skipped as people flick straight to the conclusions (that's what I tend to do anyway). 

But I think that what Professor Sargeant has to say is of such importance that it deserves separate consideration and have reproduced it here in its entirety.

The paper will be available for download via this blog and at the Bluefrog main site on Friday. Should you want to get an advance copy, we will be launching the paper via Twitter. Please follow me here if you'd like to be at the front of the queue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Building donor loyalty is the single biggest challenge facing the sector today.

Finding new donors is generally a tough enough occupation, but in times of recession it is tougher still. The size of the donor pool is contracting and individuals are less than keen to take on new demands on their income. This is not a good time to be losing supporters. If changing patterns of giving in the US are reflected here (in the UK) we can expect to see the donor pool contract by around 2% this year and individual giving by circa 3%. 

These figures don’t make for happy reading particularly at a time when many nonprofits are facing increased demand for their services. Given all this, we would expect the sector to focus on easy fixes to improve their financial position. This is sadly not the case. We continue to waste large sums of money on unnecessary acquisition and neglect that fact that were we to achieve even minute increases in donor retention the impact on performance would be profound. 

Picking an easy number to illustrate, I estimated back in 2004 that a 10% increase in retention could lead to a whopping 200% increase in the lifetime value of the fundraising donorbase. Putting aside the savings in acquisition, if donors hang around for longer they do sexy things such as upgrading their giving, giving in multiple ways, buying from the trading catalogue, recommending the organisation to others and ultimately perhaps, pledging a legacy gift to the organisation. 

The single biggest indicator of whether a legacy will happen (demographics aside) is the longevity of the preceding donor relationship. People who give for extended periods of time are significantly more likely to remember a charity in their will. 

Sometimes at sector conferences I’ve been challenged by fundraisers on these numbers. After all, the increases do seem rather on the large side. Well here’s the rub. Smart fundraisers need to calculate for themselves what difference a 1%, a 2% or a 5% improvement in loyalty would make to their organisation. Really smart fundraisers then ensure that everyone in a donor or customer facing role understands these figures, so that the next time they’re in a position to assist a donor, provide additional information, or to ensure that the communications choices they specify are met, that they do their bit to make these figures a reality. 

Putting aside practical issues such a shortage of cash, previous quantitative research has shown that there are actually three key drivers of loyalty. 

• Donor satisfaction with the quality of service provided by the nonprofit.
  
• How committed a donor feels to the organisation (its mission and values).
  
• The extent to which the organisation is trusted by its donors to spend its money wisely and act in a manner consistent with its values and deliver on its promises. 

There are thus a wealth of actions that a charity can take to build loyalty by focusing on these issues. In the current report the team from Bluefrog build on this knowledge by exploring how donors feel about their relationships with the organisations they support. They paint a rich qualitative picture of why individuals stop giving, how they feel about terminating their support and the role that the charity and its fundraising team may have played in precipitating this action. 

The paper offers a number of fascinating insights and crucially, innumerable practical steps that organisations can take to build loyalty. It is therefore a must read for anyone serious about donor retention, improving the performance of their fundraising and most significantly of all, enhancing the quality of the giving experience for their supporters. 

Donors have the right to feel good about their giving and we should be doing everything we can to facilitate that goal.

 

Adrian Sargeant

 

Adrian Sargeant is the Robert F. Hartsook Professor of Fundraising at Indiana University – Purdue University, Indianapolis. He is also Professor of Nonprofit Marketing and Fundraising at Bristol Business School in the U.K. and Adjunct Professor of Philanthropy at the Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. He is also the managing editor of the International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing.

Are your donors giving out of fear?

I was de-briefed on some research a while ago. During one of the workshops a female donor had said that she dreaded canceling a direct debit because she knew that she’d get a phone call asking her to start again. 

This fear was enough to stop her canceling. There was no enjoyment or value for her in the relationship she had with the charity. They only continued to receive her money because she did not want to go through the trauma of a reactivation programme.

As she shared this view, the other members of the group nodded in agreement. Sadly, this was both an amusing and bonding moment for them. 

It was as if they had united behind her against the charity.