queer ideas

Thoughts on the roots of the fundraising crisis and what might happen next

For all the headlines, news reports and criticism of fundraising over the last year, the point that seems to have escaped attention is just how we found ourselves in so much trouble.

It's all too easy to blame elements of the media for whipping up a storm that didn’t exist or pass the buck to "irresponsible" agencies. But that simply deflects us from examining the real causes of a problem that remains ongoing.

And when I say ongoing, I don't mean we are going to see another bruising set of reports from the media (which we may). I'm concerned about the fact that however you look at individual fundraising, over the last few years there has been very little growth. Indicator after indicator shows that fundraising is in the doldrums. And we are likely to be stuck here for a fair number of years to come.

Let’s take some recent reports. First, CAF’s UK Giving. Though some people criticise their methodology, the study has tracked attitudes to giving for a decade. That means it provides a very reliable indicator of trends. And what do we see? Flat-lining of income, donor numbers and direct debits.

Second. Last year’s review of the sector by the NCVO, A Financial Stability Review (PDF) demonstrated that charity income had decoupled from growth in the wider economy (graph here). It also highlighted that where there were gains, it was often down to fees for services rather than through increases in voluntary income.

Third. The Top 100 Fundraising Charities Spotlight published a few weeks ago shows that income has grown for the largest 100 charities over the last year (graph here). But when you dig into the annual accounts of the charities that did well, you find that success rarely comes from traditional mass fundraising. Instead, massive hikes in expenditure, large legacies, events, major gifts or one off appeals are responsible for growth.

Alongside this, we've seen a drop in trust.

So what actually happened to cause all this?

To understand, I think we need to go back the best part of twenty years, to the late 1990s when two things happened to dramatically change the fundraising landscape.

The first was the introduction of paperless Direct Debits. These fundamentally changed the role of TV advertising – allowing direct sign up to a regular gift when a donor called in. It might sound rather quaint, but before then, if a donor agreed to a Direct Debit, you had to send them a mandate to sign. And as you might expect, less engaged donors tended to forget to complete and return these pesky forms.

Second was the massive commercialisation of face-to-face fundraising. Combined, both techniques allowed charities to sign up regular givers without going through the process of engaging them first. TV didn’t really start flying as a recruitment medium until the £2 a month request was introduced. But once that was in place, the two approaches meant that pretty much anyone was a prospect. Whereas once charities wanted donors who had a connection to their cause, now that wasn't particularly important.

Some early face-to-face agencies actually advised their clients not to communicate with these new donors at all, apart from periodic calls to upgrade their gifts.

These techniques worked. There was sector-wide growth in income. Each year, thousands of new regular givers were recruited and, importantly to finance directors, costs and income were ‘guaranteed’. For many organisations, cash programmes took second place. Budgets were often shifted to RG acquisition and it became common for warm appeals to be pitched out to different creative agencies or freelance teams as and when they were needed. 

The result was that much continuity was lost. Then in the 2000s, in the drive for more donors, many charities began to adopt commercial branding practices. We saw a number of organisations develop new visual identities and introduce guidelines that dramatically changed the way they described themselves and their work. Some charities even ditched their names and evolved into new entities that were completely unknown to their supporters.

The combined result was that the relationship between charities and their supporters became ever more fragmented. But at the same time, many charities flushed with short-term fundraising success, moved forward with increasingly ambitious plans that required significant growth in giving. Individually, such ambition was fine. But when many organisations were doing the same thing, it’s understandable that without further expansion of the number of people who give, donors would come under pressure.

And that’s just what we saw happen. Charities, with a few notable exceptions, mailed the same lists, stopped the same people in the street and advertised on the same TV channels with similar offers asking donors to take out yet another low value Direct Debit. It became a little like a merry-go-round with donors switching from one charity to another.

Engagement fell and donors actively voiced their irritation. I remember back in 2009 when Bluefrog published the biggest UK study ever undertaken into why donors lapse, being shocked by the findings. Donors said they valued the work of charities. But they felt increasingly under-valued as supporters. As a result, charity communications started to become something they tolerated rather than welcomed.

Obviously, many donors continued to have favourite charities that they deeply valued. But, at the same time, they reported feeling under pressure from the wider charity sector. And our research since then shows that nothing has improved. So when the news stories broke and donors could see they were not alone, very few spoke up to defend us.

The sad fact is, when some charities started to treat donors as a commodity, people reciprocated by losing trust and patience with the fundraising practices of the sector as a whole. Lapsed files grew as complaints about 'selling names' became widespread. Continued requests for Direct Debits tired many donors out to the point that they found the solution was simply to agree and then cancel the Direct Debit shortly afterwards. Why else is attrition such a problem?

It is a strange state of affairs that I don’t think the introduction of the FPS is going to resolve. For all the complaints, many donors really do want to stay in contact with some charities and a 'reset button' is not going to be something that 'charity people' are going to happily press. However, the fact is, we need to build an understanding of which donors want to give us the odd gift and those who really value our work enough to give over the long-term.

We'll find more of the latter by focusing on the people who send in unprompted gifts (and they do exist) and actively recruiting people who have more than a passing interest in our particular organisation’s work. And that's rarely achieved by requests for micro donations or tiny Direct Debits.

Which sums up perhaps the biggest problem the sector faces. Donors who don't want a relationship with a charity they 'support' probably won't even notice the change to a donor-centric approach. And heaven knows what will happen to that simple opt-in request when it lands on their mat, arrives in their in-box or buzzes up as an incoming text?

The fact is, over the next few years, opting-in is going to be the new proving ground for fundraisers. Getting someone to sign up to receive our communications will require a real appreciation of donor needs and great fundraising technique. What's more, we are going to have to deliver information and materials to donors that they actually value. The days of the self-congratulatory magazine or heavily branded mailing pack are numbered. And those charities that have spent millions recruiting un-engaged donors might find things rather tough.

The focus will need to switch so donors can support us in the way that actually works for them - rather than working for us. Growth in event fundraising for example, shows that successful innovation is more than just about channel choice.

The reality is that fundraising is going to change as we tackle a daunting learning curve, But, if we get it right, the rewards will become immeasurably higher. The future of fundraising is not more low-value text gifts, automated Direct Debits or premium-led, catch-all direct mail packs. Instead it will be focused on delivering a far more enjoyable experience of being a donor and that will bring people much closer to the causes we work for.

And that could be a very, very good thing not just for fundraisers but for society at large.

How do we change the public perception of fundraising?

With the ongoing media storm, improving the public perception of fundraising is near the top of every fundraiser's list of concerns. But luckily, not only do we have the Commission on the Donor Experience working on the problem, senior staff from the UK’s top charities recently got together to look at what they can do and, of course, there is the magnificent #DonorLove movement in Canada.

You can probably guess my opinion - more power to them.

As anyone who has seen my presentations or read my blog posts will know, I’ve become increasingly concerned that much of the sector’s work over the last twenty-five years hasn’t necessarily achieved much in terms of developing the nation’s philanthropic spirit.

To help illustrate this point, can I point you in the direction of The Logic of Charity: Great Expectations in Hard Times by Beth Breeze and John Mohan. Published last month, this excellent book takes a look at the historical impact of fundraising – principally since the early 1990s. Beth and John found the following…

• The number of people giving to charity and the amount they donate has remained stubbornly stable.
• There are regular upward swings in giving (driven by international disasters) though these increases are not maintained.
• There remains a widespread belief that ‘charity begins at home’ but no sense that charities should replace the role of government as suggested by the proponents of the “Big Society” idea.
• Less than a quarter of people think it is everyone’s responsibility to support charities.
• More than half of people think we should not rely on charities and look after ourselves instead (up from just 28% in 1991).
• Almost 40% of people think charities are wasteful and over 80% think there are too many voluntary organisations.

It’s not a great picture. So what have we done wrong? Why aren’t we seeing growth in giving and why hasn't there been a positive change in public attitudes?

The answer is perhaps summed up by an anecdote featured by Beth and John. The Labour MP, Frank Field gave a speech to the Charity Commission in 2015 where he shared a story about Margaret Thatcher. The former Prime Minister was asked what was her greatest disappointment in government. She responded by saying…

“I cut taxes because I thought we would get a giving society. And we haven’t.”

In all Bluefrog’s private and public research there is one key sentiment that comes through. People don’t give more just because they can afford it. They give more when they feel rewarded by their philanthropy. And sadly, very few people feel rewarded by being on the sharp end of some modern fundraising techniques.

We’ve seen far too many innovations that are based purely on the way we ask people to give. Whether it’s face to face, digital, mobile or even direct mail, if all we are doing is changing the way we ask for support it’s not going to make a blind bit of difference to how much we raise - nor will it increase the number of people who give to charity. All those presentations about the future of fundraising have amounted to little more than the splutterings of a faulty hair dryer.

So what can we do?

For a start, we can recognise one simple fact. The people who we have to influence are donors.

And talk of commissioning advertising campaigns to show people what their donations achieve misses the point by a mile. Donors won't judge us by what we say. They will judge us by what we do.

And what we need to do is to ensure that we recognise and respond to their needs as donors. Of course they want to solve problems. But they also need to feel part of the solution that we offer. And they must be thanked and rewarded for what they do, in a way that actually enhances their lives.

And the reality of the situation is, this needn't cost the sector anything.

In my experience, when we treat supporters in a way that provides a more enjoyable experience of being a donor, we raise more money. Attrition is also reduced, repeat giving increases and the number of legacies are boosted.

In fact, the first piece of advice I give to anyone who asks me how they can raise more money from their appeals, is to concentrate on improving how they thank and engage their donors.

But of course there is an if – and it’s a big one. It only works if those donors actually care about your work in the first place. That remains one of my concerns with industrial scale face-to-face and mobile giving programmes. They generate a great deal of chaff that hide the few grains of wheat.

In all the fundraising programmes I’ve seen that have taken a long-term approach to donor development rather than focus on cheap recruitment and quick wins, I've also seen positive growth rates that last. And at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

When you break it down, it is all achieved through the use of a hugely technical and scientific strategy that I like to call, being nice.

And that’s how we can change the public perception of fundraising. Simply by being nice to donors.

If the public start to enjoy giving, the headlines from 2015 won’t be repeated. It might take some time, but through focusing on Feel Good Fundraising, we will create a future that both the next generation of fundraisers and donors will thank us for.

So at your next fundraising brainstorm, why not make this simple suggestion….

When people have tried everything else, they might just decide to focus on what we know actually works.

Best of luck.

It's time to listen to the Hamster of Fundraising Wisdom

When I was child, we lived in a flat (that's an apartment or condo for my north American readers). Like any small boy, I wanted a pet. I'd have liked a dog or a cat, but the architectural restrictions we lived under meant this was impossible.

So instead I got a hamster. I called him Herman. Both because of the alliterative quality of the name and because I liked Fred Gwynne's character in The Munsters.

Getting him was far from easy. I only got the go ahead after an extended period of pleading and negotiations that meant I had to agree to a series of tough conditions.

I had to feed him and change his water, I had to make sure he received plenty of exercise and most importantly, at least in my mum's eyes, I had to make sure he didn't smell. That meant that I had to regularly clean out his cage.

I readily and excitedly agreed to every single one. And I kept to them too. For or at least the first month. It was then that my mother realised that I needed "support and encouragement" to ensure that Herman had the nice clean home and interesting life that he deserved.

So a whole range of privileges became dependent on how well Herman was treated. A request for a little extra pocket money was met with the suggestion that it might be forthcoming once his cage was cleaned. Asking for a bar of chocolate would generate a response that focused on me being asked when Herman was last given a good run outside his cage.

In short, I discovered that having a hamster wasn't like having a toy that could be put away and forgot about until the next time I decided that I wanted to build Thunderbird 2 out of Lego.

No. A hamster came with responsibilities. It was all well and good having Herman as a little playmate, but it was when my mum said that if I wasn't prepared to actually care for him, I shouldn't have asked for a hamster in the first place, that I actually started to understand.

Having a pet, was as much about care as fun. And the more care I put in, the better my relationship with Herman became and the more fun we would both have. We even developed a trick where he would climb up my trouser leg and finally emerge through the neck of my T-shirt.

So, what's this got to do with fundraising?

To get the most out of your relationship with donors, you need to look after them.

So many of the complaints that we've seen from donors over the last few months are based on the fact that many charities aren't bothering to build a relationship with them and instead are replacing engagement with repeated requests for a regular gift and upgrades.

Back in 2004, nfpSynergy found that the fundraising method that irritated donors the most was direct mail. Today, it is what can be broadly termed as interruption techniques – face to face, telephone and text messaging.

The fact is, these techniques can raise significant amounts of income. But it's really hard to engage people recruited through these methods. I've written about my thoughts on the type of donors these routes can generate before.

A focus on them tends to build a file that is highly unresponsive to anything other then telephone calls. Cash appeals, legacy campaigns and newsletters struggle. The result is that fundraisers often give up and just focus on upgrade calling, keeping their fingers crossed that regulars givers won't cancel. It's got to the point where some charities are attempting to upgrade regular givers every nine months.

This sort of misses the point. Just because these donors aren't direct mail responsive, doesn't mean that they should be treated like living ATM machines. If they only respond on the telephone, use that to engage them. Ring them up and say thank you. Ask them why they support you and concentrate on that in your future communications – this is particularly important for healthcare charities.

As a sector, we are in danger of building a feeling amongst the next generation of donors that we don't really care about them.

In Bluefrog's private research we still find older donors tend to be very forgiving when it comes to charity communications. The fact is they actually don't expect that much from us. It's a far different situation with younger (middle-aged) people. They are much more likely to actually get angry when they feel they are being treated poorly by charities.

We need to remember that donors are not 'ours'. We share them. We need to consider the fact that we are all responsible for caring for them. A poor experience can hurt us all. And though an over-reliance on interruption techniques might recruit more donors for your charity in the short-term, that may well come at a significant cost to the sector.

Which might make all our good ideas, hard work and innovation a waste of time. When we look at the numbers, we'll see that we resemble a hamster on a wheel. No matter how fast we run, we simply don't get anywhere.

Which brings us to a little friendly advice from the Hamster of Fundraising Wisdom...

And if you are thinking of calling your donors with a thank you call, now might be a great time to start. Many telephone fundraising agencies are struggling as charities cancel their campaigns. I know that they would be glad of the business.

The fact is we don't have to stop using the telephone. We just need to use it differently.

The 2014 fundraising decision making flow chart

At the heart of any fundraising programme lies a plan.

That plan identifies an audience, details what they will receive, through what communication channels, timings and what actions the recipients will hopefully take.

They can be hefty documents akin to a telephone directory or something a little more accessible. The Children's Society for example, has been able to refine their fundraising strategy to the point where it fits on a business card.

But no matter what size, a plan is essential. And if you are currently looking at your charity's fundraising plan for the next financial year, you might find this flowchart useful. We use a similar one at Bluefrog to help charities break free of the but that's how we've always done it syndrome.

As you'll see, if you have legions of fully committed donors who give to every appeal and have pledged huge legacies you carry on just as you are.

But if your charity's income is flatlining or in decline, if your second gift rate is poor, if your expensive new donors are leaving you, if your direct debit attrition rate is far too high or your legacy pool is shrinking, this flowchart might just help you to make a very difficult decision.

To do something different.

All too often, change (at either a tactical or strategic level) is doing the same thing in a different guise.

After all, a request for a cash gift, a direct debit, an SMS gift or even a legacy is still just a request for a gift.

As a result, many strategic plans are often underpinned by fundamentally very small changes which result in simply asking for a gift in a slightly different way. Perhaps three of the most popular approaches are...

• Asking for smaller gifts
• Asking more often
• Asking people to give to a different area of work (often following a rebrand)

And because the strategic change is so small, it rarely generates much positive impact. As a result, it can be soon forgotten and another round of consultation takes place that will have the much the same result.

So what change will make a difference? What can be done without a major strategic overhaul that can make a real difference to the bottom line?

Here are four suggestions that are worth looking at.

1. Put recruitment and development in the same team

It can seem a sensible division to make. One team focuses on recruitment. Then once the new donor is signed up, they are handed over to the development team who manage the relationship from then on.

The trouble is, if you are judged on how many people you bring through the door and at what cost, you might not be that focused on the long-term potential of your new recruits. The result is that the development team can find themselves struggling with donors who simply aren't interested in any sort of relationship.

All acquisition should be focused on donors that are going to keep on giving. By having recruitment and development as part of a single process, the focus remains very firmly on the long-term.

2. Thank well

One of the simplest ways to improve retention is to look at your thanking programme. Keep your thank you letters fresh and different. Keep updating them and make them relevant to each appeal. And thank in real time too. If you have an email address on file consider thanking donors twice – once via email as soon as the cheque arrives and then by post as soon as your systems allow. And whenever you can, add a handwritten comment. It makes a huge difference to lifetime value.

And don't forget the telephone either. Penelope Burke found that donors who received a thank you call within 24 hours of the receipt of their gift were 39% more likely to give again than those who weren't called.

3. Asking again when you thank

Don't be frightened of offering people an opportunity to give again in thank you letters. It might not be for everyone, but I've seen response rates of up to 26% from a well constructed thank you. This piece on asking again from Derek Glass is worth a read. It can dramatically improve life time value and retention.

4. Don't make giving easy. Make it attractive.

There's a great deal of talk about making giving easy. Of giving people the chance to give without hassle. A very low value ask, a simple click button on a website or a text giving option can all help in driving response. But don't stop there. Rather than build strategies around making giving easy, focus on what will make giving attractive. The question that any great fundraiser needs to answer is  what will encourage a donor to give more?

How to raise $65,000 in a day without spending a penny. Like a boss

Reddit.com is a social news website where users (called redditors) submit content. Other redditors then give each post an upvote or a downvote depending whether they like it or not.

A post with plenty of upvotes will find itself on the front page where thousands of people get the chance to see it.

Redditors aren't the type of people that you would normally see on many charity lists. The audience profile shows the average user is likely to be male, under 25 and browsing whilst at school.

But that didn't stop them from giving when a two line post appeared on Reddit, accompanied by this picture…

"Meet Omari. Two days ago he returned from the hospital after being hacked in the face by a machete defending an orphanage of 35 children by himself. Think we could raise the $2,000 need for the remainder of the cement/barbed wire to keep both him and the children safe?"

Omari is the son of the female carer who looks after the Faraja Orphanage in Ngong, Kenya.

The Orphanage had been broken into a few times and Omari was expecting another burglary. He woke in the night to hear some men trying to get through the door. As soon as the door opened he threw a hammer at the first person he saw and chased three thieves away.

The next night they returned for revenge and though he put up a fight, Omari was outnumbered, hit in the face with a machete and woke up in hospital.

It was clear that the attacks would continue until the wooden fence protecting the orphanage and the small vegetable garden could be replaced with a high wall and barbed wire.

There were few donors to ask for help, so this simple appeal went out on Reddit. No branding. No case for support. No registered charity number. No celebrity involvement. No simple, one click donation form. Gifts were received by the US based Longonot Education Initiative.

Within a day, $65,000 had been donated (a few hours later the total had risen to $79,000). The wall could be built many times over. But Redditors still carried on giving.

So why did this appeal work so well?

First off, Reddit is a community. When members vote on which posts they like, the people who put the posts up receive karma (or lose it on downvotes). The higher your karma, the more trust and kudos you get in the community. In short, redditors (to varying degrees) care about what other redditors think of them (just like the rest of us!).

Take a look at the comment stream and you'll see hundreds of redditors talking about their gifts. How much they gave and why. 

One gift of $10,000 was given by Weebly (who happen to host the Longonot Education Initiative's website). The result was an outpouring of love for the company on Reddit and Weebly's Facebook page – accompanied by offers of new business.

Second, it was authentic. A number of redditors questioned if the appeal was genuine. Within a few minutes, posts had begun appearing from other redditors who either knew of, or had undertaken research into, the organisation.

Third, it was a story people (particularly redditors) could relate to – one man trying to protect an orphanage from a group of thugs. He was a hero and people could show their support and actually become part of the narrative by donating.

But it didn't stop there. In addition to gifts, redditors also offered their time and skills. Within a few hours, this had grown into a new group called Redditors Without Borders where hydrologists, web designers, medics, journalists and a whole host of different people with different skills volunteered to help out the Faraga project and others.

Finally, donors were connected to the cause with rapid feedback. As the gifts came in, the story unfolded online. The wall was going to be built but so much more could be achieved – the school could employ two security guards to protect the children and Omari. And it was going to be done tonight!

A second photograph soon appeared with Omari thanking donors and before long a second post appeared detailing what else was happening as a result of redditors' generosity.

I think this is a fantastic example of effective fundraising which offers five important lessons to those of us working for more established charities on how we can improve our appeals..

• Make the content appropriate for the audience. Feature work in your appeals that donors are interested in funding. Remember that this isn't always work that your organisation deems the most important.
• Move quickly. If something happens and you need help or you think your donors want to help, get in touch as quickly as you can.
• Real beats designed. In my experience authenticity always wins – photographs with a few lines written on the back are better than those reproduced in a leaflet. Hand written is better than the organisational font.
• Show donors what they have done with specific feedback on the projects you have featured (not the general work the charity has done).
• Let your donors show off. Give your supporters the chance to show others what they have done. This can be something as simple as a sticker enclosed in a mailing pack or a recognition flash on an online profile.

And not surprisingly, whilst I've been writing the story is continuing to unfold on Reddit (it has even made it to the Huffington Post). If you'd like to become part of it you can make your gift here.

Why giving to charity can be like buying a Polaris submarine

My dad was a printer. When he worked night shifts on the national newspapers I always went to bed very excited. That's because I knew he'd come home with a gift for me. As soon as I woke up, I'd rush downstairs to find a toy car, a model plane or an American comic sitting on the kitchen table.

The American comics were perhaps the most exciting. Unlike British comics, they had glossy covers and featured exotic characters like Richie Rich or Casper the Friendly Ghost.

As well as the stories, they were packed full of ads that featured the most amazing products that seemed perfectly designed to separate a seven year old boy from south-east London with his hard earned pocket money.

The choice was mouth watering. Within a few pages you could find 'Real' X-Ray spex, instructions how to build a 'working' laser pistol, a 100 piece plastic soldier set with tanks, ships and planes packed in a footlocker, or the ultimate toy - a Polaris nuclear sub - that at over 7 feet long was "big enough for 2 kids".

To my young mind, this submarine was fully functional. The advert described it as the "most powerful ship in the sea". You could actually release nuclear missiles and torpedoes (if you were so inclined). And encased in "200 lb test material" you'd surely be safe at the bottom of the ocean.

All this was available at $6.98. The only thing that stopped me from buying one was the fact I had no idea how to get hold of a dollar money order.

Instead I was left imagining the thousands of Polaris submarines containing children of my age that were undoubtably a hazard to shipping all along the US coastline.

It wasn't until much later (after I met real Americans) that I found out that most of these toys were little more than cheap junk. The soldiers weren't a patch on our own homegrown Airfix variety and the submarine was actually made from cardboard. A mild drizzle would see it turn into a pile of sodden pulp. The fact that the missiles were fired by a rubber band would also mean that the world's population could sleep soundly knowing that a rapidly emptied money box wasn't going to bring about a nuclear winter.

If I had managed to get hold of $6.98 (plus 75c to help cover shipping charges) I'd have spent the weeks waiting for delivery in breathless anticipation only to be left with a huge sense of disappointment once the "best toy you ever had" arrived ready for assembly but not for a quick trip over to France from Hastings beach.

Such was the seductive power of the ad, even the fact I could get my money back wouldn't have erased the pain of the unfulfilled dream of sinking slowly below the browny-green waves of the English Channel in search of pirate treasure.

I'm a little older now, but I still have dreams. And, like many other people, I try and make those dreams come true by supporting charities. A cure for cancer, the end of poverty and prevention of animal cruelty are all on my list, but just like buying a submarine, the result of giving often leaves me feeling a little flat.

Instead of being invited to be part of something life changing, I get a polite and formal letter that informs me that my money has gone in to a big pot and will do something good, somewhere at some point in the future.

I'd like a little more than that. And when we see just how few people give a second gift in response to cash appeals, it looks like I'm not alone.

Fundraising isn't just about asking. If it was that simple, charities would be awash with money. It's about giving something to your donors that they need and value.

That doesn't mean simply telling donors what your charity does (yet again) in a welcome pack.

It's about grabbing the one chance when you are virtually guaranteed that a donor will open your communication and read it. You can then give them just what they want...

• Recognition for what they've done.
• The opportunity to demonstrate that fact to others.
• Authentic, personal treatment.
• A reason to smile (or cry).

If we do that, we'll find people will actually want to open our appeals. And though they might not get as excited as I did about the thought of my own personal submarine, it will go a long way to encourage a one-off donor to become a long-term supporter.

If you'd like to dig a little deeper into the world of comic book ads, this is a good place to start.

600 thank you letters

Charities spend a huge amount of money and time on creating appeal packs but the most important part of the relationship building process – the acknowledgement – is often little more than an afterthought.

If you think your own set of thank you letters might be in need of a refresh, the Donor Relations Guru is on hand. Lynne has compiled over 600 acknowledgement letters from around the world to give you some inspiration.

It's quite surprising how similar many of the examples are, but a few do stand out. I thought this handwritten example from the University of Queensland was particularly good.

The full archive is available here. Happy reading.

Have you got a magic drawer?

This is a photograph of Shanon Doolittle's magic drawer.

As you'll see, it's packed full of cards - greeting cards, thank you cards, anniversary cards – every sort of card that might be useful to show a donor that you appreciate their support.

Of course, she could just send an email, but as Shanon says...

"That’s too easy. You could type that email in your sleep. With a card, you’re telling your donor that they deserve a special kind of greeting. One that takes time, effort, and most importantly, thought. It’s touches like these that move your relationships forward and deepen the bond between your donors and your organization."

I think it's a fantastic idea. You can read more on Shanon's blog, Do Good, Feel Better.

Now, it's about time I visited Paperchase.

A topp way to raise money

There is one simple way to dramatically increase income and improve your donor retention. You don't need to employ expensive consultants, install a new database or develop a brand new welcome strategy.

Instead, you thank donors.

That's it.

You thank your donors.

All of them.

You thank them quickly, personally and memorably.

With this simple action you could improve your donor retention by 400%. Research by fundraising consultancy, McConkey–Johnstone International UK found that first-time donors who receive a personalised thank you within 48 hours of making a donation, are up to four times more likely to give again, when compared to those who aren't thanked promptly.

The word personal is important here. It can be a massive temptation to mail out a computerised thank you similar to Nigel Molesworth's famous self-adjusting thank you letter, as featured in every schoolboy's favourite guide to life, How to be Topp...

Packed full of customisable fields, you can insert the donor's <name>, <salutation> and <gift amount> and still come over as impersonal and uncaring – even if you do get your thank you letter in the post within a week of receiving a gift.

The result is that you'll lose a significant number of your very expensively recruited donors.

Instead, why not send a thank you that is designed to make the recipient feel special? Something that shows the human face of your organisation? It might take some effort, but that is the secret to building donor loyalty.

Here are two rather good examples...

• Pamela Grow shared a great thank you on the SOFII blog, where a pack of chewing gum was enclosed with the letter as a means to define the donor.
• Marc A. Pitman on the Fundraising Coach blog, described how after a ribbon cutting ceremony, he gave donors a pair of scissors that had been inexpensively engraved with details of the event.

What makes these approaches so special is that they do more than just show the donor they are valued and appreciated. They also create a memory that will positively influence the donor's response to the next appeal that lands on their mat.

And that is what great fundraising is all about.

Fake philanthropy

I've seen one or two fundraising campaigns recently that seem to have taken a strategic leap in a strange direction – they tell people that it gives you a nice feeling when you give to charity.

I can understand the thinking behind the approach. When you speak to donors in order to uncover their motivations, it doesn't take too long to discover that donors really do give because it makes them feel good.

The trouble is, you can't stop there.

You have to dig deeper.

When you do, you'll see that if you give donors even a sniff that they might be giving with selfish aims, it completely destroys the reason to give in the first place.

It happened to Larry David when he gave a very large donation to fund a wing in an environmental resource centre. To thank him, the charity concerned named the wing after him.

However...

His friend, Ted Danson, also donated a wing. But he did it anonymously.

Though it wasn't as anonymous as Larry would like. All of which makes him feel rather uncomfortable...