By Jim Hussey, President

No one wants to listen to complaints every day. Whether the complainer is a spouse (“Put your dirty dishes in the dishwasher!”), one of your kids (“Why can't you take me to the mall?”) or a donor (“Stop sending me so much mail!”), it might seem easier to ignore the situation than to do something about it.

But just as you don't want your spouse to file for divorce or your child to hitch a ride to the mall from a stranger, you also don't want a valuable donor to say goodbye to you.

Too many nonprofit organizations don’t deal with complaints in the best manner, and many complaints end up in the garbage can with no response. What’s the best way to deal with them? Your strategy should first depend on whether the complainer is a donor or non-donor.

If the complainer is a donor, you need to pay extra-special attention to what the person is saying - and to how you respond. Probably the most frequent complaint from donors concerns the frequency of solicitations. Too often, organizations respond to such complaints by automatically suspending most solicitations to the donor. This is a major mistake.

Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center and one of the early innovators of direct-response fundraising, once told me about an analysis he conducted into the giving histories of SPLC's most frequent donor complainers. He surprisingly determined that these complainers actually were the most valuable contributors on his donor list, with higher retention rates and longer donor histories than other contributors.

Dees realized that instead of suppressing these donors from his mail schedule, which effectively would lower a donor's likelihood of responding again, he should pursue another strategy. Instead, he developed a sophisticated response system to directly address complaints. In the case of a complaint about the frequency of solicitation, he would send a thorough letter explaining the necessity of frequent solicitations, while also explaining the benefits of SPLC's sustainer program, which would allow the donor to contribute on a regular, pre-determined basis.

Dees’ strategy resulted in increased donor bonding, with many donors joining the sustainer program and pledging regular contributions. As he explained, donors just want to know they have been heard. A personal and quick explanation on the organization’s part often will be rewarded with even more loyalty by the complaining donor.

This strategy also will work for other types of complaints.

• If a donor complains about the use of telemarketing, tell her why your organization uses it. 
• If a donor complains about a stance your group has taken on an issue, send a thorough reply explaining why the organization did what it did. 

If the complainer is someone who’s never donated to your organization before, and who probably is responding to an acquisition effort, there are other considerations to incorporate into your response.

For organizations that address politically sensitive issues, complainers might disagree with your stance. If this is the case, a response generally isn’t needed, although do yourself and the complainer a favor by including the individual on a do-not-solicit suppression file, which you should use with each merge/purge.

What if the complainer is belligerent? Calls you names? Thankfully, the days when such characters attach your BRE to a brick and mail it back are long gone. But such individuals still gladly will send you letters filled with vitriol. While it might give you temporary enjoyment to answer these people in kind, such a letter could find its way back to your boss or, worse, the press. Avoid the temptation and just add the complainer to your suppression file.

Any advice on how to deal with complaining donors or supporters? Please share your thoughts with us! 

By Jim Hussey, President

Nonprofit organizations are rising to the challenge by educating the public, organizing support and raising revenue to address these major problems. And while these organizations need to focus on the “big picture” in most of their public-education efforts, often they should do the opposite in their fundraising campaigns. In other words, and in a reversal of an often used phrase they need to “see the trees, rather than the forest!”

Huh?
“What is he blabbering about?” you might be asking right about now. Here’s what I'm trying to say:

Often, nonprofit organizations focus their fundraising communications on such massively big problems that the potential donor believes that no amount of his support could possibly help. This is what I refer to as a “drop in a bucket” scenario.

Here’s a fictional example of how an environmental group addressing global warming might, in fact, create this kind of situation:

Dear Friend,
Global warming is rapidly heating our planet. A huge hole has opened in our ozone layer. Polar ice caps are melting away. Chunks of ice the size of Texas have split away from Antarctica. Current coastlines will begin to disappear as water from the melting ice drowns our coastal cities. Millions of people will be displaced or die from the resulting change in weather patterns.

Please send us $15 to stop this catastrophe.

See what I mean? A recipient who reads this literally could envision a drop of water plopping into a huge bucket… because that's how he’ll view his relatively small contribution in comparison to the problem it’s supposed to address. It will discourage many potential supporters from even addressing the subject.

OK, that example may be somewhat of an exaggeration, but it's not so far off of the mark.

Some fundraisers attempt to fix this problem by changing the ask to something like, “Please send us $15 to stop this catastrophe, and we'll send you this really cute teddy bear.”

In other words, they overcome the donor’s hesitance by offering a bribe for a contribution. I’m not condemning those who use premiums to overcome the reluctance of potential donors. A few of my clients will testify that, in some cases, I’ve urged them to do just that.

Bring it home
But before succumbing to the easy solution of premiums, you should try another method when addressing “big picture” issues such as global warming, war, world hunger or deadly diseases. First, you should attempt to bring the issue down to a level that the potential donor can more easily understand, and can more easily visualize how his $15 contribution will make a difference.

Child-sponsorship organizations understand this strategy better than anyone. Can one person stop world hunger? No way. But can one person, feed one child in a Third World country? Yes... that is a manageable goal. And can a single person stop global warming? No- But one person can support lobbying efforts in Congress to pass higher automobile mileage standards or other regulations that stem emissions that cause global warming.

The next time you attempt to communicate with potential donors about the “forest” of challenges that your organization wants to address, remember to take the time to point out a few of the trees.

How are you successfully showing the "trees" in your appeals?