Does It Really Matter What We Call a Donor?

In a November 12, 2010 piece on The Agitator blog, guest poster Kevin Schulman of DonorTrends bewailed the use of the word “donor” to refer to those who invest in the mission of a nonprofit organization. The posting was so thought-provoking that I joined my fellow Agitator readers to comment on it at the time.

A recent discussion of this very same subject with a fellow consultant prompted a re-read of the original piece and my own comments on it. Given the timeliness of the topic, a posting here on Advancement Perspectives seemed in order.

“Down with ‘Donors!’” Kevin Schulman proclaimed in the headline of his original column; but his angst derived purely from the semantics and not from these “critical people” themselves.

Make no mistake — this was a great post by Mr. Schulman! It hit a number of sensitive nails right on their heads, and it likely elicited a reaction of perplexed surprise from nonprofit people who always see the trees and immediately recognize a forest. This subject is important, but it is one of those issues that most staffers probably do not think about very deeply while dealing with the day-to-day routine and demands of the nonprofit advancement process and its fund-raising components.

Many of us might not share Mr. Schulman’s apparent level of righteous indignation over the use of the word “donor,” but it is easy to agree with him on the never-ending need for developing a palpable and more purified sense of the relationship between the donor and the organization. In the end, therefore, it is very much a subject that all nonprofit advancement professionals should think about every day, particularly when they engage with donors to ask them for another investment or commitment.

In terms of the conceptual and lexical semantics issue itself, I must confess a longstanding attitude of some ambivalence. I have chronically used the word “donor” over many years in the nonprofit world, but I also like the terms “benefactor” and “mission investor” (one of my own) and have preached their value to many nonprofit clients over the past 16 years as a consultant. When viewed under the microscope of careful and thoughtful consideration, the differences in terminology might be seen as more a function of time and place or organizational culture and style. What really matters, at the end of the day, is the manner in which the organization stewards its relationship with constituents.

In their introduction to Mr. Schulman’s piece, Agitator Editors Tom Belford and Roger Craver cross-referenced the expansive report by software publisher Blackbaud, Inc. on their 2010 State of the Fundraising Industry, as well as a November 9, 2010 column by Joe Boland in Fundraising Success magazine that highlighted four global fundraising trends from the Blackbaud report:

• New fundraising and communication channels, although growing, are not replacing traditional channels.
• Return on investment and organizational effectiveness (social impact) are under scrutiny (by “supporters” or “donors”) and more important than ever.
• There is a new focus on the total supporter journey vs traditional “donor management.”
• Fundraising is emerging as a widely-recognized profession around the globe.”

With all due respect to Mr. Schulman, I must admit that I’m not particularly fond of his suggested term, “customer” — especially for, let’s say, religious congregants or school alumni/alumnae. However, I will readily agree that the essence of marketing and customer-relations concepts from the for-profit world do translate into and apply quite logically and effectively in the nonprofit sector.

In the end, vernacular adjustments or changes do not really affect the way we look at “mission investors” unless we really and truly understand in a profound way the meaning, importance and stewardship of the relationship we have with those same people. And that sort of brings us full circle in terms of Kevin Schulman’s Agitator post.

As for Joe Boland’s piece in Fundraising Success and Blackbaud’s impressive research and helpful sector reports, I’m left wondering what makes anyone think that a relationship-management rather than a transactional approach to fundraising is somehow a shift and a key global trend. This is nothing new!

Way back in the “Dark Ages” of institutional advancement (late 1960s and early 1970s), I was mentored by some very savvy and accomplished folks in university fundraising who saw their job in dealing with donors or investors (or whatever you want to call benefactors), especially alumni, as one of managing, cultivating and sustaining an individual relationship on as personalized and donor-centric a level as possible. In other words, treat and engage with each and every donor as the only person who matters in a crowd of thousands!

The outcome of that process is the kind of activity that Phyllis Freedman documents in her blog post on an approach taken by the University of Texas/Austin — less, of course, the personalization gaffes that today’s amazing computer technology make far less excusable than in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the final analysis, and in terms of effective donor-relationship management, I think the most transformational truth in what Kevin Schulman posted was the following:  “…. no DONOR on the planet engages in altruistic acts. They all want something – that something may be very abstract and ephemeral (e.g. to simply feel good, to know they are making a difference), but nevertheless real and ignored at your peril.” Even if it’s your own alumni/alumnae, pay close attention! Most of what donors really want in return for their support will not cost your organization very much at all — just a little extra effort on your part.

Does it really matter, then, what we call a donor? Probably not!  Is it more important that our advancement strategies and relationship-management tactics are as donor(contributor/benefactor/giver/investor/supporter)-centric as possible? Absolutely!

[Image Credits:  (top and middle) Scott Chan; (lower) Xedos4]

An Honor We Deeply Appreciate

We at Trident Communications Group (TCG) were very honored and proud to be named Business of the Month for January 2011 by the Greater Dover (NH) Chamber of Commerce.

Our month "in the sun" began with an interview conducted by the Chamber staff to discuss our approach to business and the process of nonprofit advancement. The transcript of that interview is available on the Dover Chamber's member news blog.

As part of the Dover Chamber's recognition of TCG, the Autumn 2010 issue of our regular newsletter, Advancement Perspectives, was distributed to the full Chamber membership. Here's a link to that communication.

We were delighted to serve as fund-raising counsel for the Dover Chamber's recent, successful capital campaign in support of its new headquarters facility and visitor center. The Chamber represents a vibrant, community-minded business sector in Dover, and we at TCG are extremely pleased to be a part of it.

Thanks again, Dover Chamber! We deeply appreciate the recognition.