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? 

Check your politics - and your big mouth - at the conference door.
By Jim Hussey

Something disturbing happened at a recent DMA Annual Washington Nonprofit Conference (not this year's).

It occurred at the beginning of the question-and-answer phase of a panel discussion titled “How to Beat a Long-Standing Control.” According to accounts, a member of the audience stood up and harangued the DMA for allowing one of the participants — who works for the national office of Planned Parenthood — to be on the panel.

He lectured the audience and the panel about the supposed evils of Planned Parenthood, and he upset many of those who attended.

When he finished, another person stood up to offer a countering opinion. Before others could jump into the debate, the moderator stepped in and did an excellent job of calming everyone and steering the discussion back to the session’s true subject.

This incident greatly concerns me. In this increasingly partisan world, conferences and other activities organized by the DMA and other industry groups should be a welcome refuge from the mudslinging that often can dominate discussions concerning sensitive issues.

Along with their coats, participants should check their politics and partisanship at the door. No one should feel threatened or open to harassment at these functions.

Like most people, I have my own opinions, but I'm not about to use this blog to argue the complicated issues of abortion, birth control and reproductive rights — or any other issue, for that matter — or to rail against those who oppose my viewpoint.

Industry events should be free of politics. Industry events should offer tools to help fundraising professionals improve their skills and raise more money for their organizations. No one will benefit by transforming industry events into debating societies - unless, of course, you’re debating analytical tools or the use of one direct-marketing strategy over another.

The effectiveness of these events would be greatly endangered if such outbursts become more common. These conferences provide educational opportunities for those seeking growth within our sector and a vital chance for all of us to network.

The next time you attend an industry conference, if you happen to sit in on a session that includes a panelist from an organization that really upsets you, keep quiet or walk out. If you don't think you can do either, pay attention to the information in the program you receive when you register. If someone's participation will be troubling to you, don't go to that session.

Voicing protest at these events will not win converts. Many attendees of the session in question were greatly angered by the incident, according to a source who read the feedback comments submitted afterwards.

If you’re really opposed to a panelist’s viewpoint, what better way to counter it than to attend his session, learn all about the successful strategies the organization is using, and then go back to your office and try to figure out how to apply your new knowledge on behalf of a mission that you do support?

That way, you’ve made a real-world difference without compromising the conference experience for your colleagues — all of whom, believe it or not, are as passionate about their beliefs as you are about yours.

Don't you agree? 

Properly leveraged, good press can power through a sea of
skepticism.
By Jim Hussey

I’m confident that few of my colleagues who’ve been in the business over the past two decades will disagree when I say that potential donors are far more skeptical about fundraising solicitations than they were 20 years ago.

The evidence can be found in numerous places:

• Comments noted on response forms or to telemarketers making calls; 
• Inquiries made to the Better Business Bureau or to state attorneys; 
• More and more additions to the National Do-Not-Call Registry and the Direct Marketing Association’s Mail Preference Service.

What are the causes? There probably are many.

• The increasing volume of solicitations in the mailbox and the increasing use of telemarketing over the past two decades certainly have taken a toll. 
• Internet users are inundated by spam. As a result, donors face an onslaught of fundraising solicitations every day via their mailboxes, telephones and e-mail inboxes.

Major scandals within the nonprofit community, which have drawn attention to irregularities concerning the use of funds, haven’t helped the situation. The United Way scandals, the American Red Cross’ post-Sept. 11 controversy and other hullabaloos have affected many nonprofit donors’ confidence. Unfortunately, the mistakes of a few have tainted all of us to some degree.

So what can you do about it? How can you combat increasing donor skepticism and protect your fundraising program? It's not practical to trim your own use of direct mail, telefundraising or e-philanthropy. If you pull back on your solicitations, some other nonprofit will fill the void with its own fundraising campaigns. Out of sight, out of mind… your donors and potential donors simply will direct their contributions elsewhere.

The best way to combat donor skepticism is by addressing the issue head-on. You need to illustrate your organization’s effectiveness and efficiency within your fundraising campaigns.

The importance of this concept was illustrated in a test conducted by my firm for one of our clients. The organization was favorably noted in an article in a well-known national magazine, which named the organization one of the most effective charities in the country. We developed a small insert that referenced the endorsement, and then tested it as a new component within that organization’s donor-acquisition control package.

The inclusion of this simple insert dramatically boosted results. This positive outcome led to other tests:

• A quote from the magazine was included in the letter, 
• A teaser that announced the favorable rating was placed on the envelope.

And this isn’t an isolated case. Many examples of similar tests with other organizations also have proved to be successful. Organizations that have received favorable comments by publications or efficiency ratings from nonprofit watchdog groups have used these flattering reviews to their benefit. Simple charts that illustrate the fiscal efficiency of an organization have proven successful, as well.

Ironically, the success of these tests also proves my original point that there’s a level of major skepticism on the part of at least some donors. Otherwise, why else would there be such a favorable response to efforts to tout efficiency? This must mean that they suspect many nonprofit organizations are not efficient.

To figure out how to reassure your donors and potential supporters about your organization’s efficiency, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Does my organization spend a majority of its funds on its mission versus administration and fundraising? 
2. Have watchdog groups given my organization good ratings? 
3. Have any magazines, newspapers or other publications given us good reviews?

If you have a positive response to any of these three questions, then you need to convey this information to your donor audience. You’ll be rewarded for the effort.

Do believe donors are getting more or less skeptical? Is your organization making use of these three tools? If so, in what ways?  

A direct-mail twist on a holiday classic.
By Jim Hussey

’Twas the week before Christmas, and out front of the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The mailbox hung by the front door with care,

Anticipating that a deluge soon would be there.

My wife was watching “Oprah,” our dog in her lap,

And I had just settled down for my afternoon nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from my La-Z-Boy to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

Tore back the curtains and threw open the sash.

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a parked, white minivan; maybe a repairman from Sears?

With a tired-looking driver, red-faced and obviously ticked,

From his disposition, I knew it wasn’t St. Nick.

Dragging a heavy gray bag, he slowly came,

And he cursed and he shouted, and he called them by name:

“Oh, American Cancer! Oh, World Vision! Oh, St. Jude!

Oh, the soup kitchens! And all of the other charities, too!

My bag is so full, it’s as high as I am tall.

Oh darn them! Darn them! Darn them all!”

So up to the porch he slowly stewed,

With a mailbag full of fundraising letters, and a few bills, too.

His back was aching, bent down to a bow,

But he was keeping his promise to deliver even in snow.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

And filled up my mailbox, then turned with a jerk.

Trudged back to his van, and slumped into his seat,

Away he drove, another load of mail to meet.

But I heard him exclaim, as he made a hard right,

“Will the new year ever come? There's no end in sight!”

Happy Holidays All! 

Things to know if you haven’t yet delved into this tricky
fundraising medium.
By Jim Hussey

The concept of planned giving is nothing new — churches began the process many years ago — but too many nonprofit organizations don’t have sufficiently organized planned-giving programs. If you're one of them, here’s something of a primer.

Planned giving is a generic name for fundraising programs that seek to generate giving from supporters in their later years who will continue to give once they’ve passed away - in the form of estate gifts and other charitable vehicles. It’s the best long-term resource in which a nonprofit organization can invest.

A relatively small amount of money invested now to conduct some basic marketing and education concerning planned giving will result in a windfall for your organization in five to 10 years, All you need is a little bit of skill and a lot of patience.

Different vehicles
The most common forms of planned gifts are bequests, in which a supporter sets aside money for the nonprofit organization in her will or insurance policy. Other bequests can include the donation of land or stocks. You can promote the concept of bequests through mediums as simple as ads in your newsletters and other publications, or as complex as multifaceted marketing campaigns that use direct mail and personal contact. You don’t have to wait for a donor to die before gaming her support through planned giving. As a matter of fact, the cultivation process has to begin well in advance.

Other options include annuities. Annuities involve the donation of a set sum of money by a living donor to an organization, which then pays the donor a specific amount of interest every month during the remainder of her lifetime. When the donor dies, the organization keeps the balance of the money.

Annuities are great because they can help both the organization and the donor.

While the organization benefits from the donation, the donor also benefits by receiving revenue for the remainder of her life. The older the donor, the higher her return rate. So a 90-year-old donor will receive a much higher return rate than a 70-year-old donor.

How to do it
Many organizations work through consultants who specialize in planned giving to develop their campaigns and related materials. The consultants provide readily available knowledge and marketing materials that require little effort on the part of the nonprofit organization.

Other organizations, chiefly larger groups, rely on focus groups to develop their own materials. Focus groups usually aren’t very effective in gauging direct-marketing response. It’s normally cheaper and more effective to test direct-mail packages by simply mailing them to small test cores.

But you don’t have that advantage with planned-giving materials - it could be years, or even decades, before a “test” donor passes away and leaves your organization a gift. Only then would you be able to judge the effectiveness of your marketing materials. That’s why focus groups have proven to be a valuable tool in helping to develop effective planned-giving campaigns.

Correctly targeting potential planned-gift supporters is a tricky business, and you need to work closely with your consultant to develop the right mix of materials targeted to the right mix of recipients. Demographic factors such as age, gender, length of home ownership and the value of the primary residence often are important elements to examine.

Amazingly, the amount of a donor’s previous donations often is not a reliable indication of her ability and inclination to donate through planned giving. I've seen many instances in which donors who have given only $20 or $25 to a nonprofit organization during their lifetime leave hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars to that organization at their death.

Does your organization have planned giving? 

There’s little we can do about it, so why talk so much about age?
By Jim Hussey

No other donor demographic is more over-discussed and overrated than age.

As fundraisers, we’re obsessed with our donors’ average ages, even though there's little we can do to push this figure up or down.

I wish I had a dime for every time inexperienced or would-be clients blanched when they learned their donors’ average ages, which usually is in the 60s or sometimes even higher. They fear their current donors soon will die off.

Before they panic and begin posting their resumes, I explain to them that charitable giving is dominated by older donors. And as one generation passes on, it's replaced by the next.

Here’s an example I use to demonstrate this trend. I've been affiliated with one organization for almost 18 years, so it provides a good example of how a donor base is affected over time. When I first began work with this group, the average donor’s age was around 66. Today, it’s still in the same ballpark.

In the past 20 years, many of those original donors, maybe even the majority, certainly have died. But they've been replaced by others who've aged and moved into this donor age bracket.

Why are most donors older? Are younger people less committed to charitable causes? Absolutely not. Younger people are just as committed; they just express it in different ways. Older donors typically have more expendable income, while younger philanthropists are more likely to volunteer their services than their cash.

An example of this is Habitat for Humanity, which partners with needy families to build their own homes. The average age of volunteers who work at a building site is less than the average age of typical direct-mail donors who financially support the organization.

But there’s more
Fear of a dying donor base isn’t the only issue of concern to nonprofit organizations. In this age-phobic time when commercial marketers often favor younger consumers, some fundraisers try to exclude older supporters by aiming for younger donor bases.

I hear them say recruitment efforts should be targeted toward younger donors, to help bridge the age gap. In the end, most of these efforts quickly fail for financial reasons. That’s because most such strategies are akin to Apple Computer Inc. spending more of its iPod advertising budget on 80-year-old prospects, since they account for such a small segment of the MP3 player market.

Even if an organization wishes to dramatically reduce its donor base’s average age through aggressive recruitment efforts, it’s difficult to achieve.

In the 1990s, I worked with one organization that had an average donor age in the low 70s. My firm instituted a successful donor-recruitment campaign that brought in more than 1 million new supporters. Our targeting wasn't based on age; we simply targeted every mailing list that could generate an acceptable response.

After such an aggressive effort, in which we pulled in every donor we could find, we lowered the donor base’s average age by only five or six years.

There are exceptions to any rule. Not all donor bases have such high average ages. AIDS organizations usually have a younger donor base. Women’s rights groups often have younger donors. Organizations that have major, short-term successes on the Internet — such as those that raked in a lot of money after Hurricane Katrina — also might demonstrate at least brief downward trends in their donor bases’ average ages.

None of these cases are due to targeted efforts based on age. So why waste breath on the issue?

What do you think?