Many years ago, I accompanied an administrative leader of a nonprofit organisation to a prospect meeting. Rather than discuss the important work the organisation was doing, and the positive impact it was making, he only talked about how the organisation needed money. For nearly an hour, he presented the budgetary gaps, the projects that were in the red, along with all the projects that would not be possible without support. This administrator viewed fundraising as a means to meet the organisation’s budgetary needs and not as a tool of empowerment.

That meeting has stayed with me over the years, and as I have gained more experience in raising money, from annual gifts to major gifts to legacies, I have learned that to attract and retain donors over the long term, a nonprofit must view its relationship to fundraising through the lens of its mission and not through the lens of its budget. A fundraising coach once said, “Money is not why donors help, it is how they help.” And I believe that donors must become partners with an organisation, not only seen as a source of funds.

Taking a different view

But first, what does this mean? When we as fundraisers present our organisation – whether through a project, a campaign, or communications materials – the message should always be that donors can help further our mission. Fundraisers must move beyond focusing only on money and move towards creating a relationship between the organisation and the donor.

I came across the statement that when a nonprofit starts out, it is truly focused on meeting its mission, and with time, this message becomes diluted through an overabundance of projects and seeking support for those projects. I would counter that the opposite is true, at least in my experience. I began my career in fundraising at a veritable institution that, like most organisations, began as a project, which was to raise money to build a hospital for Americans in Paris. This meant a one-time gift from donors to make the project a reality.

By the time I joined, the organisation’s mission evolved to “provide medical excellence.” In every project, every mailing, every newsletter, the capital campaign – the message always came back to its mission: providing medical excellence.

• By contributing to the annual fund, donors help acquire the latest medical equipment, thus contributing to the best medical care available.
• By giving to help build a new building, donors help provide the best environment of care, a key factor in improved medical outcomes.
• By supporting medical exchanges with doctors and nurses in the U.S., donors ensure that the team has the best medical training, impacting the quality-of-care donors and their families receive.

One reason for the hospital’s success is that donors believe that it is THEIR hospital— any investment would be returned to them in the form of excellent medical care. They were partners, resulting in the organisation’s extraordinary fundraising success, over the long-term. Its annual renewal rate is around 85%, with more than 4000 individual donors, mostly local.

Later, I joined a much younger organisation which began as musical ensemble and has since evolved to a foundation dedicated to protecting and promoting French cultural heritage, whether tangible (restoration & gardens) or intangible (music). When the project began over 40 years ago, like the hospital, its fundraising goal was very simple: raise money to cover the costs of concerts and tours.

Les Arts Florissants rehearsing at the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris

The transition to mission-based fundraising

When transitioning to mission-based fundraising, we first developed a phrase for our annual fund brochure that encapsulated our mission: ‘Cultivate the spirit of baroque’, which touched upon music, gardens, education and visionary projects. We then implemented the broader goal of having ‘unrestricted donations’, especially for minor gifts.

Doing this not only helps an organisation remain agile, it also psychologically nudges donors to invest in the mission. Donor fatigue can result when a donor is asked to contribute, each year, to the same project, due to financial needs. Donors can think that the organisation is 1) not working to expand the number of donors and 2) that it is taking their support for granted. When donors begin to invest in the mission, however, rather than a specific project, it is much easier to ask them to give again next year. Because we can show them ALL that we have done, thanks to them.

I see in many organisations, even today, that any amount, even for the annual fund (unrestricted support by definition!) can be dedicated to a specific project, creating accounting difficulties and a lack of flexibility. To encourage unrestricted giving, we have set a minimum gift amount of €3000 that can be dedicated to one of four priority projects. Thanks to the implementation of online giving and several new campaigns, our number of donors has more than quadrupled in less than two years. Not a single gift received via our online platform has been restricted, and there have been no complaints.

Last year, we created our first publicly accessible annual report, presenting our mission on the very first page, followed by testimonies which introduced each section. The words and images of a musician, a craftsman, a teacher and a donor gave a human face to our various projects and reinforced donor connection to our organisation. The annual report was then used as a fundraising tool to request an additional (and unrestricted) donation from current donors. And it worked.

Donors already seem themselves as partners with our organisations. As we move from budget-based to mission-based fundraising, we will also begin seeing them as partners. Several weeks ago, I invited some of our donors to a concert rehearsal. One of them said to me “I feel like this organisation is my friend”. That sums up our goal: partnerships that lead to long-term, recurring support.

About Rebecca Allaigre

Rebecca Allaigre

Rebecca Allaigre, CFRE, is a senior fundraising executive with more than 20 years of experience across sectors, including education, health and culture. An American in Paris, Rebecca is committed to advancing philanthropy and to the continued professionalisation of fundraising. Rebecca is head of philanthropy at the Fondation Les Arts Florissants – William Christie, in France.

The current rules of power are fast changing. Grassroots campaigns are taking hold while traditional powerhouses; corporate giants and leaders, are in danger of losing their foothold.

In today’s world, individuals and groups have the ability to quickly and easily come together, to connect and self-organise. And as the success of mass decentralised and people-driven campaigns becomes more visible, there is greater recognition that the paradigms of power are indeed changing, further inspiring the public to rise up and bring about change.

From the #MeToo movement, which toppled some of the most powerful men in Hollywood and beyond to the recent uprising of people calling for urgent action on climate change, it’s increasingly evident that the public – if the cause is sufficiently compelling – are willing to take action. After all, in years gone by, who would have thought that Government policies in multiple nations could ever be swayed by the actions of one 15-year-old student – Swedish climate change activist and initiator of the #FridaysforFuture campaign, Greta Thunberg?

Shifting dynamics of power

The transition of old to new power has never been more evident. While old power refers to strict leader-driven and hierarchical structures, new power is collaborative, inclusive and agile (see New Power by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms). It embraces decentralisation, using methods like crowdsourcing, online toolkits and social media campaigns to engage the masses and inspire a response, equipping them to take part in their own way. Old power requires a leader, but new power is fed by the crowd, moving with the tide of public sentiment. It is relevant, timely and fluid. 

Eduard Marček, chair of the Slovak Fundraising Centre, says:

“The public is increasingly frustrated by the inaction of politicians or even destructive counter-action and they are more than willing to take action into their own hands. We can see these signs of civic disruption across Europe, from the Yellow Vests in France through climate protests all around to protests against the government here in Slovakia.

“Driven both by technology and civic empowerment, the traditional structures are shifting towards the power of an individual – with the capacity to speak with a strong voice, to mobilise communities and to bring about change.”

Community action has long been at the heart of what charities do, but what can the sector learn from the success of these mass movements?

The movements uniting public spirit

Over the past six months alone, Extinction Rebellion (XR) has swept across the globe initiating a ‘non-violent rebellion’ against the world’s governments for criminal inaction on the ecological crisis. Launched in the UK, the campaign has now amassed more than 650 operational groups in 45 countries, including Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Italy, Norway, Spain and Denmark.

Paul de Gregorio, digital engagement and mobilisation strategist, and founder of Rally says: “Extinction Rebellion may lack formal structure, but it is extremely well organised at the centre. It is open source, free and accessible, with a compelling call to action for to join up, to be a rebel for the cause. It makes it easy for people to that, giving them tools to take action.

“Rather than traditional models of activating support, people are encouraged and equipped to self-organise and promote the mission in their own way.”

The only real proviso is that people who operate under Extinction Rebellion’s brand, must adhere to the core principles and values. This is a common theme for the most successful mass movements; they are all values-driven, with a clear vision and simple messages about what needs to be done, uniting people around a common cause.

de Gregorio also highlights examples from the US political scene.

“Look at the Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. He achieved a massive impact through a distributed digital organising model, attracting the public who shared his values and then giving them a series of valuable and useful things to do to power his campaign.”

In a similar vein, Knock Down The House, the story of four women and their journey to challenge some of the most powerful people in US Congress, demonstrates not only the appetite for public uprising and shift in power, but new ways of achieving this. The producers of the film launched a screening toolkit, encouraging community groups to make use of Netflix’s free educational screening facility to share the documentary and build support.

He adds: “Bringing supporters together at events like this has huge potential for charities and voluntary groups. They can be a great way to enable supporters to share your story and inspire others.”

Implications for charities and fundraising

Charities have the ability to achieve change on a mass scale

Technological innovation and the strength of social and online communities mean that there is an abundance of tools for charities to arm supporters to engage even more actively with the cause. Not only to become donors, but ambassadors; an important transition when it comes to engaging with millennial donors who are often looking for greater engagement and want to clearly see their impact.

de Gregorio says: “The challenge is that the sector isn’t always as tech savvy as it needs to be. We’ve got the tools, but fundraisers need to know how best to use them and keep up with changes in the marketplace.

“The charities that keep up with human behaviour, successfully innovate their methods of engaging the public at scale by putting their values front and centre, as well as offering the very best experience, will be the ones that succeed over the next 15 years.”

The public really does care, but giving money isn’t always their answer

As Daniel Fluskey, head of policy and external affairs, at the Institute of Fundraising recently underlined in a blog for Civil Society, passion is very much alive: “Look at Extinction Rebellion, environmental causes, protests about human rights, rise in donations to media and journalism, calling out sexual harassment, promoting equality, or even responses to Notre-Dame… People care, but how they express their feelings (and what action they take), may well be changing.”

Indeed, several European nations (including France and the UK) have reported recently that the number of people donating to charity is declining. There are many options to engage with a cause and people often want to find their own ways to tackle problems. Giving to charity isn’t always the default route to market, and the sector should not be afraid of giving them other options to step up and take action.

Marçek adds: “If charities want to remain relevant and succeed in fundraising in this changing environment, they need to offer something individuals cannot find or achieve by themselves. That might be a unifying brand, shared values, unique expertise, networks or something else.”

“Ultimately, charities need to redefine their position, what they offer to these individuals and how they connect with them. This means re-defining their approach to fundraising and adapting it to this disruption.”

Values should be the focal point

“We need to focus on values, not fundraising products,” says de Gregorio. “And those values should be central to our attraction strategies. This is what will help to build an engaged, committed crowd of like-minded individuals at scale.”

Giving the public greater control enables them to feel empowered and more closely connected to the cause. This can be said of peer-to-peer and crowdfunding initiatives, sponsorship or challenge events and – at a broad sector level – GivingTuesday.

“All this means recognising that we are not at the centre of the movement, but that we need to find the people who are already in it or share our vision and values. And we need to inspire them to give us some of their time, money or voice.”

Fluskey agrees: “It’s our challenge to meet people’s values and expectations, not theirs to find us.”

“For the amount of money I give, I ought to have the keys to the kingdom,” so said one donor to a fundraiser.  “What will this get me with you?” said another, as he handed over a cheque.

Sadly, these experiences are all too common in the fundraising world. It’s vital that supporters are always treated respectfully, but there are times when the scales of power tip too far into donors’ hands.

Donor dominance is best described as an imbalance of power wherein the donor exhibits controlling behaviour that compromises the mission of an organisation and/or its ability to serve its beneficiaries.

Perhaps the most infamous example is of the Presidents Club’s annual fundraising dinner in the UK, which was exposed when the Financial Times sent an undercover journalist into the event. She was hired by event organisers to act as a hostess – a job for which she was told to wear a little black dress and skimpy underwear. She witnessed and reported all sorts of inappropriate behaviour from influential men who had gathered together with the purpose of giving to charity. Many were shocked that such bad behaviour was tolerated at a charity fundraising event.

I was not.

I’ve been talking about the issue of donor dominance – in all its various guises – for a long time. The sector needs to do more to address the issue; to protect fundraisers, beneficiaries and the integrity of the good causes we represent. But to do this, we first need to identify how widespread the problem is.

Investigating donor dominance

Together with Ian MacQuillin and through international think tank, Rogare, we launched a study calling for fundraisers to share their experiences.  Over the past few weeks, it has attracted responses from over 330 fundraisers in 10 European nations and 7 others. 120 examples of donor dominance have been cited.  The anecdotes range from deeply concerning accounts of sexual harassment and discrimination, to demands for access to services or programmes, or even getting family members admitted into universities. (The survey is open until this Summer and we encourage any fundraiser to contribute their views).

With this study, we are exploring the concept of donor dominance in general, as well as manifestations of it, such as mission creep/mission drift, demand for special treatment and sexual harassment. And the initial findings tell us that, yes, donor dominance is an issue that many fundraisers come up against regularly. Specifically, 72% of respondents reported experiences of donor dominance, with an additional 21% who have heard of it but haven’t experienced it themselves.

Two thirds of respondents encountered instances where donors had tried to influence how their donation would be used in a way that was not in line with the non-profit’s mission or objective (mission creep/mission drift).  Three-quarters of our respondents encountered a situation where donors had tried to get benefits they weren’t entitled to. And, consistent with other reports from the sector, over half of respondents reported sexually inappropriate behaviour from donors, including one report of sexual assault.

Who are the donor groups identified as the main culprits?  For the most part it’s major donors, board members and corporate funders. In other words, those who have the highest levels of power; the highest influence and impact on a charity’s voluntary income. The more significant the donor, the greater the potential for abuses of that power. It is especially concerning when there is the compounding effect of those in governance roles who also are significant donors, further exacerbating the imbalance of power.

One respondent even said: “I’m afraid I’m not comfortable sharing an example for fear of repercussions on my career.” And that was in an anonymous survey.  For those who did report concerns, one quarter to one half (depending on the type of behaviour) were explicitly or implicitly told to keep quiet about the situation, so as not to rock the boat. It makes you wonder what stories aren’t being told.

Addressing the root causes of donor dominance

There’s an inherent power imbalance in relationships between donors and fundraisers. As fundraisers, we are told to put the donor first. At the same time, the number of charities continues to grow, creating a crowded and competitive sector where donors have multiple options to choose from for giving to any particular cause. As these two things converge, the idea of telling a donor “no” is quite challenging.

What if another donor can’t be found to replace the one lost? What if a ‘competing’ charity gets the gift instead?  What if that’s the difference between meeting a fundraising goal and being fired? It would seem donor dominance is perceived as “cost of doing business” in the charity sector.

These challenges, along with other factors, are what make charities vulnerable to donor dominance. Compounding this, fundraisers have few resources available to them to address abuses of power by donors and no codes that define appropriate donor behaviour.

We need to identify and address the root causes that allow donor dominance to occur. In a sector dependent upon public trust, maintaining the integrity of the donor-fundraiser relationship is essential if our missions are to succeed. It’s time to raise our voices, for the sake of our beneficiaries, our colleagues, our sector and for ourselves.

Find out more about Rogare’s research into donor dominance or complete the survey.

About Heather Hill, CNM, CFRE

International advisory panel member of Rogare and chair of the CFRE International board of directors, Heather Hill is a highly-rated international speaker, AFP master trainer and consultant working across the philanthropic sector. She has an extensive background in leadership and management, fundraising, marketing and communications, grant seeking, strategic planning and analytics. A member of the Association of Lutheran Development Executives (ALDE), she received the ALDE Creativity Award in 2017 for her “thanksGiving Tuesday” initiative and the Jay Bleeke Award in 2014 for outstanding service as a young ALDE member.  Heather is also a member of AFP’s Growth in Giving Working Group.

The giving cycle is a simple schema for how your supporter communications should work: first you ask, then you thank (for the donation/support), then you feed back about the difference the support has made, then you ask again. Ask – thank – feed back – ask again ad infinitum.

We all do it – right? Particularly in individual giving, it should form the bedrock of your communications plan. But too many organisations are still struggling.

Making the giving cycle work for your organisation is part of a supporter-centric culture, and that’s not a quick fix. But if you’re wondering how to start improving your donor retention rates, building donor loyalty, and maximising your income, here are my top tips:

Say thank you

Why? Donors notice. They really notice. In Ask Direct & Bluefrog Fundraising’s recent research, thank you communications were some of the most valued:

“They send me a thank you letter straight away and I have a read of it. I’m pleased with what they’re doing and how they’re doing it.”

In fact, in DonorVoice surveys of charities small to large and across different sectors, 8 of the top 10 donor experiences that predict long-term loyalty are donor care experiences. Things like being thanked promptly, getting a good response when you phone, and having your queries answered effectively. They might seem too basic to bother with, but if you’re not doing them, other charities will – and your donors will become more committed to them than they are to you.

Thanking is not only the basis of good donor care, but thank you letters mean more money in appeals, as this experiment demonstrates:

“Those who received the thank-you gave on average $45.32 more than those who did not receive the thank-you.” (Shang, Sargeant, Carpenter & Day, Learning to Say Thank You, 2018).

I recommend reading the whole Shang et al paper, but the basic conclusion is that a thank you boosts subsequent appeal income without affecting response rate. And it’s no coincidence that the charities delivering the best donor care (according to our research) also tend to achieve the best fundraising results.

A prompt, personal, specific thank you communication is the bedrock of everything else. If you need inspiration, SOFII has an amazing archive of thank yous to start you off.

Give (and get) feedback

It makes sense, right? As a supporter, you want some reassurance that your donation has done the job it was supposed to do before you give again.

In our research, a good newsletter was usually valued, but supporters wanted more feedback on how their support has had a real impact on the specific need that they’ve responded to:

“There’s one type of communication I’d like to see although it would probably be difficult, you see images of children and they’re absolute skin and bone ….now it would be nice to know in a few months how that child is, whether he or she is still alive. I’d like to pick out somebody and I’d talk to my grandchildren and I’d say look at what happened there with the few shillings we put in…. he was almost gone and we brought him back to a healthy life.”

Too often I see ‘feedback’ communications that just give a general update on the amount raised, with nothing about the actual impact on the issue they care about – or worse, charity newsletters that are all about the charity instead of what the supporters have done and could do.

At Abortion Support Network (ASN), e-newsletters are the bedrock of the charity’s fundraising. Using beneficiary quotes and stories makes the connection between supporters’ donations and the real change clearer than anything we could say:

“I remember when I got the first newsletter email… it was literally the first time in my life I felt like something I had done had made a real difference to someone else.” (ASN supporter)

Giving feedback – whatever format and channel makes most sense – is crucial, of course. But at ASN, the charity also asks supporters for their feedback. And in doing so, managed to create the most successful regular giving appeal it had ever done. You can read more about that here.

So make space in your communications for genuine, specific donor-centred feedback – and don’t forget to ask your supporters for theirs.If budgets are tight, you don’t have to introduce a new communication – start by using the back of the response form for donor feedback, or inviting supporters to email you back with their thoughts. It costs nothing, and you’ll learn a lot about how your supporters think and feel – which makes your appeals better too.

Think long-term

We all know long-term KPIs are what we should be focusing on, prioritising them over the vicissitudes of appeal-to-appeal income, response rate, and (personal pet peeve) campaign ROI. But when your senior management or board is only focused on the latter, you are forced to focus on the KPIs they want instead of the ones that matter. And when you’re working on that gala dinner or one-off appeal, you might not have the time, resources, or expertise to dig into your database to find the numbers to back up your case.

Good fundraising is about building relationships with supporters; it takes knowledge. It also takes time. If you don’t know where to start building your case for more long-term KPIs – and more time to see results – start by tracking your basic second gift rate and lifetime value with the free calculators available here.

The giving cycle seems simple. And many organisations just don’t believe something this simple could make such a difference. There’s got to be something more sophisticated, more innovative, more interesting that will solve all their fundraising problems! They go from channel to channel, brand to rebrand, and agency to agency trying to find that holy grail.

The giving cycle works. The evidence tells us that. One of the most successful fundraising charities in Ireland tells you that. And ASN’s individual giving income, which increased by 1250% in five years using the giving cycle certainly tells you that.

Ask-thank-feedback seems too simple. It is simple. It’s not necessarily easy to implement, create, or follow through.

But it is worth it.

About Caoileann Appleby

Strategy director at fundraising agency Ask Direct in Dublin, Ireland, Caoileann Appleby works on donor research, donor development, multi-channel recruitment, legacy, and alumni fundraising. Previously she worked for clients like the Stroke Association, the University of Leeds, and the UN Refugee Agency at On Agency and Bluefrog Fundraising in the UK. She has also been a Trustee and volunteer fundraiser for the tiny-but-mighty Abortion Support Network, and is proud to have played a part in Together for Yes‘s awe-inspiring fundraising efforts earlier this year.

A version of this article was first published on Ask Direct’s blog on 12 November 2018.