On All Levels, A Failed Donor Call

Shortly after I arrived home on Friday I received a call from Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, a Virginia non-profit which we have supported in the past. After thanking me for my past support the caller did not interact with me, or tell me anything about the organization. Instead he immediately asked if I would pledge to increase my level of support. As a fundraiser I found the call to be most interesting. The caller made several mistakes which ultimately resulted in him settling for a gift that is about 20% of the size of last year’s gift and well below what I would have likely given later.

When the caller asked if I would give at a particular level, about 33% above last year’s gift, I noted that it would be a reach this year. I also noted that I would definitely give but it was too early to say the size since I normally make decisions about gift at that level in October/November. I implied that the gift would likely in the range of last year’s, but would not make a decision in June. Yet the caller asked if he could put me down that day for pledge, send me a pledge card for an amount just above what was given last year and if I could immediately return the pledge. Again, I noted that I only make that size of gift only in the fall.

By this point in the call the fundraiser had made some fundamental errors. First, he was not listening to the donor. I said, a) I would not give at the asked level, and b) that I gave the assurance that there would be a gift in October around the level of the last year. The caller not only did not acknowledge either statements but worse seemed have not heard them which lead to the next error, not engaging the donor as to the donor's desires and plans.

Hence, the second error the caller made by not picking up on the statements when a gift decision is made and not asking if he could call back in early to mid October. Such a request is normally received positively from committed donors as it works from the their timeframe. It also received well by the donor as the caller is acknowledging what the donor's statement and the donor's intentions. This was a perfect moment to engage the donor, to draw the donor closer to the heart of the organization. A less bonded donor could be driven away.

A judicious and donor centered fundraiser would have turned the conversation into a victory by talking about teh organization and why I like supporting it. The fundraiser could have but did not ask if I had any questions or if he could send me any information about the Foundation's work and upcoming projects. Instead, the caller made his third mistake, settling for a far lower gift.

His third mistake was being focused upon the sale rather than the donor. Hence, to make a sale (gaining a pledge that day to be paid in two weeks) the fundraiser settled for a far smaller gift. The fundraiser was in a transactional frame of mind…make a sale, secure a pledge at any level so that he could send a pledge card and add another tally. To this end the fundraiser went on to mention that a gift at $35 would allow me to receive Colonial Williamsburg's magazine for another full year. He then asked if I would commit to give a $35 pledge and pay within two weeks.

There had been numerous stop lights along the way but the fundraising speed through them on. I decided to see what would happen if I replied that if he wanted me to right then to pledge $35 to be paid immediately that I would do so, but that the gift would be the only gift for the year. In other words, I warned him that the ask was premature, and that he was about to get a little now rather than more later. He thanked me for the $35 pledge rather than giving in the fall. He thanked me and said the pledge card would arrive in the coming week.

As noted, the fundraiser was in a transactional frame of mind...make a sale and secure a commitment to give today at any level.

Since Colonial Williamsburg Foundation is a classy organization, I have observed the Foundation and some of its work for several years. I have even used the Foundation in three studies as positive external comparison points for units within my own organization. I have felt it was the type of first class organization to which a fundraiser would be honored to be attached. I was greatly disappointed with the call and the fundraiser.

The message left me wondering if the unproductive call was a training issue or if my positve impression of the Foundation's development program is unfounded. There is another question that lingers in my mind…that Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and Colonial Williamsburg is in such dyer straights that they need cash now so badly that they are willing to sacrifice future larger gifts for smaller gifts today. Dyer finanical straights is definitely not a message or question you want to leave in a donor’s mind.

Am I turned off by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation? Dissappointed, yes. Turned off, not really. Colonial Williamsburg is a cause worthy of support, and I suspect that it is either a training issue or that the Foundation farmed out the calls to an outbound call center...and the wrong call center at that.

Whether it was an internal staff person/volunteer or a call center, the fundraiser did not serve the Foundation well. The fundraiser was out to make a sale, conduct a transaction, gain his short-term goal, and not build a relationship with the donor. Thanking me for my past support was not at the heart of the call but only the jumping off point. I am sure that the fundraiser was happy with the result as he made a sale even though it cost the organization more money in the long-run. A donor centered fundraiser would have focused on the donor and secured the larger donation 100 to 120 days later.

For those friends who read this blog, many of whom are within my organization or are fundraisers other nonprofits, I would note that using outbound call centers can be effective if they are selected well for organizational fit and with proper success metrics in place.

If the Foundation used a call center they have not been well served by the center they selected...it is a firm that I would never use. There are call centers that work well for nonprofits and are sensitive to the differences between the profit and poltical sectors and traditional nonprofit sector. One must be mindful of the call center appraches as some make hard sells. Even when you think you have the right center continue to monitor their texts and randomly listen in calls (a common feature that can be done remotely) as they are being conducted.

By its nature fundraising has a transactional nature to it, particularly direct mail. Direct mail by its mass processes is highly transactional but can be less so when correct analytics is coupled with donor cultivation processes. Whenever one is talking live with a donor, even an annual donor who gives at a low level, it is the perfect opportunity to move beyond the transactional nature of fundraiser. Whether it is a call such as this, or a donor visit, conversations with a donor is an opportunity to build and enhance the relationship between the donor and organization. It is the the opportunity to learn learn a little more about the donor, to record what you have learned on their file, to educate donor and be educated on the donor, and to project your organization’s ethos and mission. Every conversation, even a call to say thank you can be the opportunity to draw the donor into the heart of your organization. The fundraiser failed to do any of these things and as the expression at that moment of the organization, the Foundation too failed to measure up to being a donor centered quality organization that I believe it to be.

Social Networking and Fundraising

The last Presidential election cycle has again stirred the fundraising field to jump into social media as a way to raise significant money. Again we are hearing that the death of direct mail is only a matter of years away and that by 2015 that social networking and the internet will be the primary vehicle through which organizations will raise their funds.

In the mid 80s similar predictions were made about brick and mortar colleges, that the rapid growth of inexpensive videos would transform education. A series of lectures could be taped once, and with graphics, video clips and notes inserted, the finished product would be superior to the classroom experience. By the hundreds of thousands students who did not need highly specialty labs would be studying from home and never darken the campus. Such advocates argued that building of new dorms, recreation and classroom facilities was a waist. Similar arguments were again made with the advent of the DVD, and high speed internet. Are brick and mortar colleges dying….far from it.

After 9-11 predications were made that the internet was the fundraising vehicle of the near-future and any organization who did not move quickly to the net would be left behind within five to eight years. Hundreds of organizations invested tens of thousands of dollars on internet initiatives only to find that they received through the net a small fraction of what they invested.

More sobering predictions were again made following Katrina and now again after the recent election cycle. History has shown that the net is not a magic bullet. The organizations that raise money via net tend to be groups that are involved in political action or those responding to a high profile emergency where the urgency to give is immediate.

Social networking is a vehicle for communication, but it is not a magic fundraising solution. Social networking will work for those groups, like a Habit For Humanity, whose fundraising model was social networking based prior to the creation of e-blasts, blogs, Facebook, Myspace and Twitter.

Most social networking vehicles are shallow tools of communication. They are filled with shallow messages. In looking at TSA Corps social networking sites, the membership indicates two things. 1) Few Corps have a broad base, and 2) most of the member is from within the Army….in other words, we are talking to each other. Let us also not forget that the majority of people who have social networking sites are not as active on the network as we would tend to think!

Nonprofits should be in the social networking space only if the organization has a thoughtful and realistic strategy that works with an organization’s overall fundraising and market strategy. Also, an organization should not spend a great deal of resources developing and maintaining the site. The return on investment is not there. A major reason for being in this space is not for raising dollars but as a component of donor communication and education, and then it should not overshadow more effective donor communication vehicles such as direct mail, newsletters, calling and meeting with donors.

The Social networking should only be one vehicle, and even then a minor vehicle, that is used for fundraising and donor communication. It could pull from existing material that is either suitable as is or with some slight adjustments. Whatever the message may be, it should be cogent and be content focused. What is shared should not be trivial, nor should it be too data packed or ethereal. The messages should be success story and ethos focused. Messages that ask for volunteers and money should be rare (less than 10% in total).

Investment of resources (human and fiscal) should be minimal as the rate of return does not justify a heavy investment. Again, it is an awareness tool that should be part of our communication mix, not a direct fundraising tool. It should be used as such a tool to tell the same or similar story that we are telling via other channels. A thoughtful organization should be in the space, but without drinking the spiked cool-aid.