Recipe for a Successful Direct Response Fundraising Career

data

Here’s my recipe for how to succeed in direct response fundraising.

FYI: anybody worth their salt is endlessly repeating steps 3 through 5.  And they’ve used their learning to get better at all types of fundraising – not just direct response.

Step #1

Develop a point of view that’s based on the best data you have available, or based on data from someone with market experience, at scale, that you trust.

This is hard for Fundraisers starting at smaller shops.  But there’s more good info available today than at any point in fundraising history.  There are quite a few people working to share the data and “point of view” that used to be available to only a privileged few.  Erica WassdorpJeff Brooks, Lisa Sargent, Tom Ahern, Mike Duerkson and Jen Love and John Lepp immediately spring to mind.

To give you an example of how much this has changed, I asked my mentor many times why he didn’t write a book to share all that he knew.  His response was always, “Why in the world would I give to my competitors all of the knowledge we worked so hard to learn?”

My attitude is that it’s the right thing to do to make this information more available to smaller nonprofits, and that it’s not a zero-sum game.

Step #2

Apply your point of view in your fundraising practice.  If your results consistently outperform previous results for your organization, your point of view is more accurate than the point of view that was previously used.

This means you have to practice for a while.  And you have to track results.  You build and test your point of view over time.

And some points of view absolutely work better than others.

Step #3

If you get new data that seems to contradict your point of view, investigate that data to see if a) it applies to your situation, and b) stands up to scrutiny.

Things go sideways on this step all the time. 

First, you must actively be looking for or testing for new data.  No “leaning back” here; you have to lean in.

Second, when new data arrives, you must always ask whether the new data applies to your situation/context and is a good next step.  In my experience, this often goes awry when smaller orgs apply learnings from bigger orgs that don’t apply to them.  For instance, Bill Jacobs at Analytical Ones helps medium and large nonprofits create “statistical models” that help the nonprofit know who to mail each appeal letter to.  It’s an incredible tool, but the “appropriate next step” for most small organizations is probably to start using standard RFM segmentation instead of “mailing every name in our database.” 

Third, does the “data” stand up to scrutiny?  A lot of studies get published in our industry that report what donors say they are going to do.  I pay almost no attention to what donors say they are going to do because there’s often a huge difference between what they say they will do and what they actually do.  Humans’ predictions of what they think they will do in the future are not nearly as helpful as data about what they’ve actually done in the past.

Step #4

If needed, update your point of view.

If the contradicting data applies to your situation/context, and the data stands up to scrutiny, then you need to update your point of view.

Step #5

Stay on the lookout for new data.

This is hard for people who don’t work at a fundraising agency, or don’t work at a nonprofit that runs tests.  Thankfully, there’s more information publicly available than ever before.  Here’s what I recommend to get some of it:

  • Subscribe to blogs that are data-based and share test results
  • Cultivate friendships with people who do testing
  • Get on mailing lists where testing results are occasionally shared, like SOFII
  • Pay attention to other fields, like psychology and behavioral economics – for instance, I’ve learned a lot about fundraising from Brené Brown, and Annie Duke’s Thinking In Bets, and Seth Godin’s The Practice – even though none of those books are about fundraising

As I said earlier, the professionals I respect are always on the lookout for new data.  I’d describe myself as a person who “lives in fear of finding out that there’s a better way to do something than what I currently recommend.”

Data that proves you wrong just shows you that there’s a stronger, more complete point of view out there for you to develop.

As you build and refine your point of view, do it consciously.  Take notice when you’re wrong.  Take notice when you’re right.

And then magically, after years of practicing, you’ll be able to help nonprofits of all kinds do even more of their world-changing work.

“Donor Pointer”

Someone called me a “donor-whisperer” last week.

While I was complimented, that term has always felt a little… off… and I finally figured out why. 

A “whisperer” sounds like it’s an innate skill.  It sounds like a talent that a person was born with, that they probably can’t teach, for something that very few people can do. 

Being a “whisperer” also seems a little manipulative, like you’re using a talent to make people do something they didn’t want to do.

None of those things are true.

What I do in fundraising is teachable, and almost anyone can do it.

Instead of “whisperer,” the term I’d use is “pointer.” 

Because what I do is point out things and let donors react.

I help organizations point out things that are happening in the world. I help organizations point out the concrete ways a donor can change the world by giving to them. I help organizations point out the concrete ways the donor has changed the world by giving to them. 

There’s no manipulation.  Everything is true.  There’s no secret skill.  It’s just a series of choices for what to point at.

Your fundraising can point at what donors are most interested in… or not. How donors react is up to them. (Because remember: fundraising doesn’t create tension in donors, it reveals tension they already hold.)

Ultimately, every post on this blog is an attempt to share what we’ve learned about what to point your donors’ attention towards if you’d like to raise more money and do more good. It’s a learnable skill and you can do it.  

How to Raise Money like an Organization that has Twice as Many Donors

Out perform.

So. You don’t have very many donors. But you want to raise as much money as those other organizations that have a lot more donors.

What can you do?

Well, if you can’t change how many donors you have, you can change how much of your donors’ attention you have.

An organization with 1,000 donors can raise just as much money as an organization with 2,000 donors IF it can earn and keep twice as much attention from its donors.

Small But Mighty

For most smaller organizations, in my experience, their “number of donors” is not the main factor that limits their fundraising.

The limiting factor is how much attention, engagement, and loyalty they earn from their donors through relevant donor communications.

So how can you increase attention, engagement, and loyalty? They are a function of your donor communications:

Donor generosity is astounding (which is one of the main lessons of the past 18 months). Trust in it. You can raise more money from your current donors than you currently are. But you must earn and keep their attention with relevant fundraising communications.

So. Want to raise money like an organization that has twice as many donors as your organization has? Click on the links above – they’ll show you how you can modify your donor communications to earn twice as much attention, engagement and loyalty.

But the first step is to believe that you can be raising more money from your current donors. An abundance mindset is what unlocks an organization’s ability to raise money like an organization twice its size!