Author: Steven

Steven Screen is Co-Founder of The Better Fundraising Company and lead author of its blog. With over 25 years' fundraising experience, he gets energized by helping organizations understand how they can raise more money. He’s a second-generation fundraiser, a past winner of the Direct Mail Package of the Year, and data-driven.

From Higher Ground to Common Ground

Steven  |  Ask
ground

Most nonprofits have a “higher ground” understanding of their work and their cause. 

And they should!  They are experts.  They understand the cause they are working on, and they understand the complexities of what needs to be done.  They’ve built programs that are effective.  Their expertise makes them good at what they do. 

But when organizations create fundraising that invites individual donors to join the organization on its higher ground – instead of creating fundraising that meets donors on shared common ground – they put barriers between their donors and giving.

They make their fundraising exclusive.

The hallmarks of higher ground fundraising are things like:

  • Spending more time explaining the process the organization uses (your programs, or a particular approach) instead of the change in the world that the process makes possible…
  • Focusing more on the organization itself, and less on the cause or beneficiaries…
  • Sharing statistics to illustrate the size of the need or the scope of the organization’s work…
  • Educating the donor about everything that the organization does, rather than focusing on what donors tend to be most interested in…
  • All while using the organization or sector’s jargon to sound professional.

It’s like higher ground fundraising requires the donor to know about the organization in order for them to help the beneficiaries.

Two Problems

Higher Ground fundraising causes two problems.

First, it raises less money.  Every one of the bullets above, in our experience, causes individual donors to give less.  Individual donors tend to be more interested in what’s happening with the cause or beneficiaries today, and the change that the donor’s gift will make (or has made).  Individual donors tend to be less interested in the organization itself.

The bulleted points above are highly relevant to staff, organizational partners, grant-funding organizations, etc.  But they aren’t as relevant to individual donors.  Hence the old phrase, “Individual donors give through organizations, not to organizations.”

Second, the “higher ground” approach results in exclusive fundraising.  It creates a filter where the people likely to donate are the people who are willing to put in the time, the people who are willing to learn about the organization’s approach, and the people who are willing to speak the way the organization speaks.

Each of these is a barrier that some people will not cross.

From Higher Ground to Common Ground

Do the hard work to make your fundraising simple and inclusive.  Have a good offer.  Create fundraising for individual donors that any person who cares about your beneficiaries, at any level of understanding, at any reading level, will find relevant.

This means consciously deciding to leave the high ground.  It means you’ll have to defend your fundraising from internal audiences who love the high ground and want everyone to join them there.

Here’s why: there are a LOT of people out there who care about your beneficiaries and would like to give a gift to help.  There are far fewer people out there who are willing to wade through an education in your work before they can give a gift.

So if your communication and fundraising are always on the higher ground – and inviting donors to join you there – you will remain smaller than you could be.  You will remain doing less than you could be.

If your communication and fundraising are aimed at the common ground you share with donors, you will raise more money and have a larger impact.

In fundraising, the high ground is lonely.

Free Resource: The GoodNewsletter

Steven  |  Report
news

OK, it’s time for some good news. (This month we had a loooooong series of posts about complaints. I’m sorry? You’re welcome?)

There’s a free daily email called “GoodNewsletter” that I encourage you to subscribe to.

It has nothing to do with fundraising – it’s a daily email with a couple of stories of good things that have happened in the world.

It’s nice to have a bit of good news in my inbox every morning. Sign up here if you’re interested.

It’s a great reminder that progress is being made.

On a related note, I think the highest form of fundraising program shows donors both the needs for action and progress that’s been made (the good news). It sends out pieces of fundraising that focus on the needs and ask donors to help. It sends out pieces of fundraising that focus on the progress that was made and thanks donors. (This is why there’s both an “Ask” and a “Report” in fundraising’s Virtuous Circle.)

Because seeing only one side has negative consequences. Seeing only good news leads donors to think that the problem your organization works on isn’t particularly big or harmful.* Sounds like things are going great and no help is needed today! And seeing only bad news leads donors to think that the problem is unsolvable. Sounds like things will never get better.

So, share both.

If your organization shares both the needs and the progress, you’ll create donors who both understand the need for action now and know that their gifts (and your organization) have made a difference.

Those are the kind of donors you want. And you can create them with the right mix of messages.

* This does not apply to some organizations where “bad news” of problem they work on personally affects the donor. In other words, the donor doesn’t need to hear the “bad news” from the organization because they are living it. This happens with causes like Cancer – when a loved one has it, you never forget what it was like. Or with the environment – when you live near a place that’s been damaged, you’re constantly reminded of it. I’m convinced that’s why some organizations don’t need to share any bad news in their fundraising, yet they still succeed. And I’m convinced that if you’re at the type of organization whose “bad news” doesn’t affect any of your donors, you should share the “bad news” with them if you’d like to raise more.

Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

Steven  |  Repeat
complain

I had three main goals when putting this series together. I want organizations to:

  1. Not fear complaints
  2. Know how to respond to the complainer
  3. Have a right-sized internal reaction to complaints

But that’s not easy. Complaints are a scary subject for many organizations.

An organization doesn’t usually just “flip a switch” and become comfortable with complaints. It’s a journey with a handful of ideas on the way:

I hope it’s obvious that I’m not saying you should attempt to get complaints. It’s just that, in my experience, every organization that’s reliant on individual donors is going to get a complaint now and again.

So it’s better to have an understanding of what causes complaints, and to know how sophisticated organizations deal with complainers and their complaints.

Furthermore, as organizations grow they begin to see that the better an appeal does, the more likely it is to also generate complaints.

That’s because a great appeal or e-appeal tends to tap into peoples’ emotions. Most people will respond by sending in a gift. But the more people whose emotions you stir, the more likely you are to receive a complaint.

My hope is that organizations will realize that complaints are a cost of doing business for a growing organization. And that receiving the occasional complaint (or even five complaints) is worth it in exchange for raising more money, retaining more donors, and doing more good.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints (this post)

“Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences

Steven  |  Ask
complain

Previously we’ve been focused on complaints from external audiences: donors and the occasional non-donor.

Today it’s time to talk about friendly fire: complaints from internal audiences. 

I’m using the term “complaints” as a catch-all for actual complaints and internal feedback/suggested changes like, “I don’t like this part because…” and “We can’t say that because…”

Just like complaints from external audiences, complaints from internal audiences happen for lots of different reasons. 

Let’s look at some common reasons Fundraisers receive complaints from internal stakeholders.  (In case it’s helpful, at the bottom of the post I’ve provided the beginning of a response to each complaint.)

Reasons for complaints:

  1. The fundraising letter or email “doesn’t sound like us”
  2. The fundraising shares a situation where a beneficiary needs help
  3. The fundraising shares a situation where the organization needs help
  4. The fundraising seems overly simplistic
  5. The fundraising only shares part of a beneficiary’s story, not all of it
  6. The fundraising only shares some of what the organization does
  7. The fundraising lacks data and statistics
  8. The fundraising does not talk about the quality or effectiveness of our programs

Complaints from internal audiences are complex because they come from stakeholders who wish for the fundraising to succeed, and they are actively trying to help.

However, they are also coming from people who often don’t have the domain knowledge about fundraising to individual donors to know what’s likely to work best, nor do they have the time to learn.  To make things even more difficult, what works best in fundraising often appears counter-intuitive

Add those things together and – even though everyone has good intentions – of course you get conflict and tension.

There is no easy way to help internal audiences begin to understand.  It usually takes a long-term approach.  And a real generosity of spirit, because you’re occasionally challenging peoples’ core values.

First – help internal audiences understand that the fundraising they are providing feedback on is purposefully created to be inclusive in order to grow the organization and its impact.  All the complaints above are made about fundraising that is intentionally crafted to be quickly understood by non-experts.   Almost by definition, fundraising materials that are created ‘to be quickly understood by non experts’ will not be attractive or motivational to internal experts.  Beginning the conversation with an internal stakeholder by showing them how the fundraising is created to be inclusive is successful because it appeals to a value the stakeholder has, instead of telling the stakeholder that they are incorrect and then asking them to learn a whole new way of thinking.

Second – warm, long-term fundraising education is needed.  Work with Board and program staff for an hour, every quarter, for at least two years.  Share what the experts share.  Teach the reasons behind the tactics (like this, for example).  Share stories you heard at conferences, and test results shared by experts. 

As with external complaints, there will always be internal complaints.  In my experience the organizations that live successfully in this tension allow comments on fundraising by anyone, and all comments are responded to.  But only a select few people (less than five) have final say about what’s included and what isn’t.

***

PS — The following is in no way meant to be comprehensive, but here are a few quick thoughts to have at the ready when one of these complaints comes in… 

  1. The fundraising letter or email “doesn’t sound like us”
    • In direct response fundraising, “directness” and “clarity of communication” give you a better chance at success that any particular voice.
  2. The fundraising shares a situation where a beneficiary needs help
    • One of the purposes of nonprofits is to bring awareness to the public of the need that exists.  If we only share successes, we are accidentally hiding the need.  Because some donors are motivated by need, and some donors are motivated by success, if we never mention need we are reducing how much money we can raise and how much good we can do.
  3. The fundraising shares a situation where the organization needs help
    • People understand that we are a nonprofit and that we need help sometimes.  If we never share that we need help, one of the consequences is that it sounds like we’re “taking care of everything” and less funding will come in.  It is good to be vulnerable.
  4. The fundraising seems overly simplistic
  5. The fundraising only shares part of a beneficiary’s story, not all of it
    • Staff and Board members are experts in our work, plus they have the time and interest to know and understand the whole picture.   Most of our donors and readers are non-experts who only look at our fundraising for a few moments.  If we require them to know the whole story before they donate, we’ve put up a barrier to them making a donation.
  6. The fundraising only shares some of what the organization does
    • Individual donors tend to have different values than foundations or grantors.  They are less interested in “all of our work” and tend to be more interested in “one part of our work.”  So our direct response fundraising to individual donors focuses on the parts of our work that they are most interested in. 
  7. The fundraising lacks data and statistics
    • Data and statistics are valuable to experts who have the context to quickly understand them.  The vast majority of individual donors don’t have the knowledge and expertise that we have.  That’s why a compelling story about a beneficiary is more likely to make an impact on a donor than a statistic.
  8. The fundraising does not talk about the quality or effectiveness of our programs
    • As a rule, fundraisers have found that individual donors are more likely to give gifts when their emotions are touched, as opposed to when they are told that an organization’s programs are effective.  (This is in contrast to Foundations or Grantors, who rightly pay lots of attention to the quality of an organization’s programs.)  So our fundraising to individual donors is purposely designed to engage a donor’s emotions more than it’s designed to communicate that our programs are effective.

***

PPS — I should mention that there are more and more people in the nonprofit world who do not like fundraising at all.  They believe that organizations should not have to fundraise. 

As you might imagine, people with this belief tend to dislike almost everything about fundraising because the whole operation offends them.  They can find something to change or complain about in any piece of fundraising.  Your organization could win a big award for having compassionate and effective fundraising… and a person with this belief would criticize the practice of giving out awards for fundraising.

While I sympathize with some of their thinking, I try to keep them as far away from the creation and evaluation of fundraising as possible. 

Here’s why, and it’s important: in my experience, people who do not like fundraising (and/or believe that it shouldn’t have to exist) tend to desire and create fundraising for the world they would like to be living in.

And fundraising that’s created for any world other than the world that donors are living in will not work very well. 

So, if they are working on your fundraising, the changes they will make will tend to make your fundraising raise less money. 

But what can you do about this?  Frankly, you have to remove them from the creation and evaluation of fundraising.

To illustrate, say you’re at a nonprofit that has two main programs, Program A and Program B.  If there’s a person on Program A who has a philosophical difference about how Program B’s work is done, that person is not invited to participate in program B’s activities.  That person should be valued and celebrated for their work on Program A.  They can be incredibly effective.  But they don’t help Program B do its thing so they aren’t invited to help.

In the same way, if there’s a person on a nonprofit’s team that has a philosophical difference about how the Fundraising team’s work is done, that person is not invited to participate in Fundraising’s activities. 

Easy for me to say – I’m a consultant.  I don’t have to deal with the friction and personal conflict this can cause.  But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out how this situation causes organizations to create less effective fundraising and achieve less of their mission work.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences (this post)
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

Turning Complaints into Gifts

Steven  |  Ask
complain

In my experience, about 2 out of 5 people who complain about a piece of fundraising will give a gift immediately after complaining.

You read that correctly.

Here’s what it looks like…

  • If the complainer can be spoken to in person or on the phone, and…
  • The staff member does a good job listening & asking questions, and…
  • The staff member gently asserts that what the donor read in the fundraising was true and that the donor’s gift will make a real difference…
  • Then about 2 out of 5 complainers will make a gift on the spot.

This makes perfect sense if you think about complaints the way I do. (Note: I’m talking about complaints caused by the content of a piece of fundraising. I am not talking about complaints caused by poor data or mistakes, or generic complaints like “too many organizations ask me for money!”)

A high-performing appeal or e-appeal tends to tap into peoples’ emotions. It reveals tensions donors hold between the way the world is and the way they would like the world to be. Most donors respond to that tension by sending in a gift.

But some donors respond to the tension by sending in a complaint. (There’s no blame or shame here, by the way. Who among us has never said or written something they regretted while experiencing tension?!?)

So when a complainer gets to speak to a compassionate staff member who really listens to their complaint… who commiserates with the complainer about the situation… and who confirms that what was in the fundraising was true and that the donor can help by making a gift… gifts happen.

Not every time. But more often than you’d think.

In these conversations, many donors will even bring up making a gift without being prompted. Many times in my career I’ve had organizations share stories about donors who send in a note complaining about how a piece of fundraising made them feel… and include a gift to help.

Complaints and gifts are often more closely related than we think. They are both responses to tension.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts (this post)
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

The Harmful Big Assumption

Steven  |  Report
complain

When a nonprofit is discussing a complaint that’s come in, someone invariably says…

“…and if this person complained, there must be a lot of other donors who feel the same way but didn’t send anything in.”

This is a big assumption. And it’s made out of fear.

It’s a completely understandable assumption. It’s the same assumption I made at the beginning of my career.

I think people naturally assume that a complainer speaks for more people than themselves because fundraising can be awkward. Fundraising makes us feel vulnerable. Many people just plain don’t like it.

But if we’re going to make the assumption that every complaint indicates that there must be a lot of other donors who feel the same way but didn’t send anything in, I counsel organizations to make another similar assumption: that every gift indicates that there must be a lot of other donors who feel the same way but didn’t send anything in.

After all, it’s hard to argue that only one of those assumptions is true, no?

Put it this way: if you argue that each complainer speaks for other people, you also have to argue that each giver speaks for other people.

Say a complainer “speaks for” 5 people who didn’t send a complaint in. And a giver “speaks for” 5 people who didn’t send in a gift.

If you received 2 complaints, that’s 10 people who had a complaint but didn’t send it in. If you received 50 gifts, that’s 250 people who considered making a gift but didn’t send one in.

So, what’s best for the organization: making changes to the fundraising so that the 10 donors avoid thinking about making a complaint, or making changes to the fundraising so that the 250 people who were thinking about making a gift go ahead and make a gift?

Seems obvious, right?

What’s more, there are multiple proven tactics to help people who are looking at your fundraising to go ahead and make the gift:

  • Custom reply devices on each mailing and custom landing pages for each email
  • Custom gift ask amounts for each donor
  • Ensuring your online content echoes and reinforces your offline content, so that more donors will see the same message multiple times, which increases the likelihood of them giving a gift.

Now we’re in the realm of proven tactics instead of worry.

Big Picture

Complaints are going to happen to any growing organization that’s reliant on individual donors.

When a complaint comes in, don’t let a reasonable-but-fear-based assumption harm your fundraising efforts. Don’t focus on the negative.

Instead, choose to have an abundance mindset. Move from worry to making proven improvements.

The whole goal of this series of blog posts on complaints has been to help organizations get used to complaints, because complaints are a natural part of growth, and set up a system to handle complaints with the appropriate amount of energy.

When you do this, you’ll spend less time and energy on complaints. And you can spend that time doing concrete things that will help your organization raise more money in the future.

If you’re going to make an assumption about donor behavior, also look to see if the opposite assumption is true.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption (this post)
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.

Steven  |  Repeat
complaints

Donors complain for all sorts of reasons.

To illustrate, I’ve compiled a list of complaints that we at Better Fundraising have seen firsthand.

For context, all of these complaints were received by nonprofits that were growing, raising more money, and achieving more of their mission work than ever before.

Let’s get to the list. All of these are real complaints…

  • The donor whose spouse had passed away a couple days before and they couldn’t believe the organization would send them a letter at a time like this.
  • A donor did not like seeing pictures of what a particular disease did to the people who have it.
  • The donor whose name was spelled incorrectly.
  • The non-donor who did not like that the organization had their home address.
  • The donor (and Board member) who didn’t like being asked to provide matching funds.
  • The email subscriber but non-donor who felt the organization talked about the need for funding too often.
  • The female donor who was annoyed that the organization always put her husband’s name first.
  • The donor who received an appeal the day before from a different organization.
  • The longtime donor who didn’t like that the growing organization is doing more fundraising these days.
  • The donor who didn’t like the way the appeal letter made them feel, so they sent in a complaint and included a gift.
  • The donor who wished the organization would emphasize the positive more often.
  • The donor who complained that they receive too much email from all the charities they support
  • The legacy donor who complained that the organization published her name
  • The legacy donor who complained that the organization did not publish their name

This list could be a lot longer. You’ve almost certainly received a complaint of some kind that isn’t on this list.

Some of the complaints are legit. Some are unique to the complainer’s particular situation.

And remember, all these complaints were received by organizations that were applying fundraising’s virtuous circle to ask people for gifts, thank donors, and reporting back to donors on what their gift helped accomplish. Their overall fundraising was going great.

The Lesson

Once you see a list like this, you begin to realize that many of the complaints organizations receive are unique to the person making the complaint at that time and place in their life.

Their particular set of circumstances + that particular moment in time + your fundraising = their complaint.

In other words, the complainer is speaking only for themselves. They are not speaking for anyone else.

Of course, all complaints should be responded to warmly, and with the right “internal level of reaction.” And of course you want to fix data errors, use people’s preferred salutation, etc.

But too often organizations will receive a complaint, not ask any questions to learn more, and assume, “well if this person complained there must be loads of others who feel the same way.”

If your fundraising is going well, that’s a massive assumption.

Our advice: assume that a complainer is only speaking for themselves until proven otherwise.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain. (this post)
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints

Steven  |  Repeat
complaint

There are two times smaller organizations get more complaints:

  • When they start to send out more fundraising. For instance, the organization sends out 4 appeals instead of their usual 2.
  • When their fundraising starts to include more details about what life is like for the people they serve. For instance, the organization includes a description of how a person suffers before the organization helps them.

What makes this situation emotionally complex is that – in both these cases – the organization also raises more money.

When organizations send out more fundraising, they receive more complaints and they raise more money.

When organizations send out fundraising that clearly shares the “need” that the organization serves, they receive more complaints and they raise more money.

This is when organizations realize that “receiving more complaints” and “raising more money” are correlated. They almost always happen at the same time. There’s something about powerful fundraising that causes both more complaints and more gifts.

Then the organization realizes it has a choice. It can raise a lot more money (and do more of its mission work) and, in return, handle a complaint now and again.

Or it can change its fundraising so that no complaints are generated, and raise less money (and do less of its mission work).

Each organization gets to make its own choice.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints (this post)
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

Natural, But Not Productive

Steven  |  Repeat
complain

It’s good to recognize that it’s natural to focus on complaints.

Unfortunately, it’s also natural to focus too much on complaints.

Here’s a story I just heard that illustrates this perfectly.

A famous person went to a basketball game in New York. They were shown on the jumbotron and the arena erupted in applause.

And as they were leaving the game, a heckler let them have it for a few seconds.

This person spent the entire limo ride home talking about the heckler and reliving those few seconds. The applause was never mentioned.

The famous person forgot about the avalanche of positive feedback and focused on the one negative.

A lot of nonprofits have the same reaction to a complaint; they forget about all the gifts that came in, and they focus on the one negative. (Funny thought: if the famous person were a smaller nonprofit, couldn’t you see one of their Board Members saying, “Well, you certainly can’t ever go to a basketball game again”?!?)

It’s part of the human condition to put more attention to negative information than positive information. It’s natural, but not productive.

As people who are fundraising on behalf of beneficiaries and causes, our reaction to a complaint must be more emotionally sophisticated than, “Well, we need to make sure that never happens again.”

In the same way you & I know that the person at the game shouldn’t let one heckler be more important than an arena full of people applauding… we also know that we shouldn’t let one complaint be more important than 100 gifts. Or 10. Or even 1.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive (this post)
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints