Tag Archives: donor centricity

Nonprofit Radio for September 18, 2023: Donor Dominance


Ian MacQuillin: Donor Dominance

Donor-centric doesn’t mean donor dominant. Ian MacQuillin shares his research and thinking on donor power structures in fundraising. For instance, let’s work at the sector, organizational and individual levels, to dismantle patriarchal structures. Ian is director of the Rogare fundraising think tank.


Listen to the podcast

Get Nonprofit Radio insider alerts!

I love our sponsor!

Donorbox: Powerful fundraising features made refreshingly easy.


Apple Podcast button




We’re the #1 Podcast for Nonprofits, With 13,000+ Weekly Listeners

Board relations. Fundraising. Volunteer management. Prospect research. Legal compliance. Accounting. Finance. Investments. Donor relations. Public relations. Marketing. Technology. Social media.

Every nonprofit struggles with these issues. Big nonprofits hire experts. The other 95% listen to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Trusted experts and leading thinkers join me each week to tackle the tough issues. If you have big dreams but a small budget, you have a home at Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio.
View Full Transcript

Transcript for 658_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20230918.mp3

Processed on: 2023-09-16T15:16:58.078Z
S3 bucket containing transcription results: transcript.results
Link to bucket: s3.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/transcript.results
Path to JSON: 2023…09…658_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20230918.mp3.650622323.json
Path to text: transcripts/2023/09/658_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20230918.txt

[00:00:38.40] spk_0:
Welcome to tony-martignetti Nonprofit radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host and the pod father of your favorite abdominal podcast. Oh, I am glad you’re with us. I’d be forced to endure the pain of black hairy tongue. If you made me speak the words you missed this week’s show. Associate producer, Kate. What’s coming up this week?

[00:01:10.26] spk_1:
Hey, tony, this week it’s donor dominance. Donor centric doesn’t mean donor dominant. Ian mcquillan shares his research and thinking on donor power structures in fundraising. For instance, let’s work at the sector, organizational and individual levels to dismantle patriarchal structures. Ian is director of the Rore fundraising think tank on Tony’s take two

[00:01:12.74] spk_0:
fourth quarter approach

[00:01:45.45] spk_1:
were sponsored by donor box, outdated donation forms blocking your supporters, generosity. Donor Boxx, fast, flexible and friendly fundraising forms for your nonprofit donor Boxx dot org and by Kila grow revenue, engage donors and increase efficiency with Kila. The fundraiser CRM visit Kila dot co to join the thousands of fundraisers using Kila to exceed their goals. Here is donor dominance.

[00:02:28.32] spk_0:
It’s a pleasure to welcome Ian mcquillan to nonprofit radio. He is director of the international fundraising think tank. Rore Rore aims to help fundraisers better use theory and evidence by translating academic ideas into professional practice and building fundraising’s knowledge base. Ian is recognized as a leading thinker on fundraising ethics. He’s at Ian mcquillan and the think tank, which he founded in 2014 is at Rore dot net from Portsmouth England, Ian. Welcome to nonprofit radio.

[00:02:32.00] spk_2:
Thank you very much for having me, um tony and the way you spelled out and read out a little bio biography about what Roa does. It makes me think maybe I need to change it and make it a bit punchier.

[00:02:42.57] spk_0:
Why I think it’s fine. Uh You, you think it’s why punch you, you think it sounds dull and boring it,

[00:02:47.64] spk_2:
get it, get, it, gets it across, but maybe we’ve had it for a while. Maybe it’s time to refresh the brand of the mission of it.

[00:04:14.95] spk_0:
Oh, all right. Well, brand refreshing. All right. I, I see. But I think, I think folks understand and they’ll understand better how you’re, you’re translating uh academia, academic thinking into professional practice as we uh have our discussion about uh donor dominance and uh donor power structures and how these impact fundraisers, how these impact, impact uh individual uh nonprofits, how they impact the sector wide. Um And what individuals, nonprofits and the sector can do to maybe may uh fight back. I don’t know, maybe that’s maybe fights. I, I hate to be in a uh like sound like an a AAA belligerent American. Everything’s a fight and everything is a competition but uh how we can um manage our donors so that uh these power structures maybe are, are become a more, a more level field for, for, for everyone, for the donors as well as for the, the fundraisers, the sectors of the sector and the uh the individual nonprofit. So I’m, I’m, I’m looking forward to a conversation about donor dominance. What I I what, what got you into this? Uh I know there were some incidents that brought you to the work, maybe uh maybe reveal some of those before we get into uh the substance and, and how it appears, it itself how it shows itself.

[00:07:36.26] spk_2:
Well, well, the one that really brought us to the idea of donor dominance, which is not a phrase that we have come up with donor dominance was used in an academic article way back in the early August in 2003. Uh And it, it is describing an imbalance of power where the donor can exhibit controlling behavior and that can lead to compromising the mission of an organization or its ability to serve its beneficiaries. So most fundraisers will be aware of the idea of mission creep where they maybe the donor tries to exert an, an influence over, over the mission to maybe follow the donor’s agenda or the ends or things that they want to do. So the idea that donors will have and can might have. This power is not new or unusual to fundraisers. And if you kind of just try and think about it from first principles, all relationships can be analyzed and thought of in some term of power differential or power dynamic. You know, when you think of a customer and a retailer, there’s a power dynamic there and one has more power than the other and sometimes that power shifts. So when it comes to charities and their fundraisers, who are their agents asking donors for money, the donor has something the charity wants, which is their wealth, their philanthropy, maybe their influence, uh all sorts of ways that they can support, not just money, um time and treasure and influence as well. And the donor doesn’t have to give that the donor can withhold that. So there’s that power imbalance already. The donor has some something that the charity wants and they have to ask for it and be nice to get it. So there’s not saying that it inevitably leads to any abuse of power, but there is the potential for the abuse of power. You can see that it is just there. Now people in all walks of life behave abominably all the time. People just behave badly. You see it everywhere in all walks of life, people are abusive to other people, they talk down to ST to staff, to people they believe are be beneath the they’re not nice to their friends and relatives. Um It’s not saying that all people don’t behave well. There are lots of saints, there are lots of angels, there are lots of people that don’t behave well. And I think it’s kind of slightly naive to expect that just because somebody is a donor and they’re doing a good thing for society and they’re expressing their philanthropy, that automatically means they will also be saints in the behavior in all of life. So there is, you can see whether donor dominance and bad behavior by donors actually does come to pass. It’s obvious that there is a potential for it. And the thing that really got us at RAA to think about the donor dominance issues was a case uh uh in the United Kingdom. Uh in 2018, I don’t know if you’re familiar or your readers will be listeners will be familiar with this. It was called the President’s Club dinner. And the President’s Club was this annual fund raising dinner where lots of the great and the good would get together for a big uh uh meal in a livery hall in London. And they would spend lots of money, pitch or auctions, raise loads. I mean, a hell of a lot of money at that.

[00:07:46.28] spk_0:
All of the great and good, mainly,

[00:09:34.03] spk_2:
mainly all men and you’ll see why you the bit that I’m coming to, which is completely, completely shocking that I’m coming to around this, um, they would then, like, grant that out to lots of charities. Now, a journalist for the Financial Times went undercover with the event company that was, um, providing the event, we staff for that event and the women were given a dress code which included the color and size of their underwear or a fundraising event. And of course she wrote and, you know, they were being, yeah. Yeah, they were being improperly touched. They were being, you know, slapped, they were using sexist misogynist language against them. Uh And this all came out in a complete scandal. The President’s Club, you know, lots of charities returned donations, refused donations. But it got us to thinking about why did no one know this was going on anyway, people must have been turning a blind eye to this practice. You know, it can’t have been that no one knew it was happening until a journalist went in and, and, you know, worked it out. What was going on. Why were, were people willingly turning a blind eye because they were getting money? Were they allowing their potential donors or arm’s length one removed because they were given to the residents club who were then given to the charity? But they were somehow facilitating um enabling this kind of behavior. And our chair is a uh a is the name I’m sure will be familiar to many uh us fundraisers, Heather Hill and this kind of relationship, um, abuse donor dominance was the thing that was really interesting. Her and she said to us, well, we, we’ve gotta, we’ve gotta look at this in more depth about the same time we were doing that. The chronic of, of philanthropy, uh, had also done its survey about, um, sexual abuse of female fundraisers and uncovered, I think the statistic was something like 25%. It may have been more, more than 75%. But, but a lot, you know, a significant number of female fundraisers that suffered sexual abuse and sexual harassment and a lot of that was apprehensive donors. So 20

[00:10:01.58] spk_0:
percent is, is interesting. II, I would, I would think that’s actually low if, if, if that’s the number the chronicle reported, I I suspect that there’s some, there’s some women who didn’t want to

[00:10:07.44] spk_2:
report it may have been higher. I may have got the 25% with the people that didn’t report it. So

[00:10:12.97] spk_0:
75 70 but

[00:10:22.72] spk_2:
it was a number that was causing concern because 25% is, you know, you say it’s probably low, but that’s, that’s a high number and even even 25. Yeah. And so you can, it was clear that there are some issues that needed to be dealt with and that’s what got us into looking at this issue of power imbalances donor dominance and are the relationships that we have with our donors or rather the the relationships they have with us always the appropriate ones and carried out appropriately.

[00:11:37.88] spk_0:
And you mentioned a few symptoms of this, uh, donors insisting on, uh, you called it mission creep, you know, insisting maybe on a new program. Uh I’ve seen it, uh, I, I saw it, I think the most extreme I’ve seen just anecdotally is uh, uh an all boys, uh, a Catholic school that was offered a very large gift to start admitting uh girls and, uh, and they acceded to that and I, I was not working with them. I was just aware of what was happening. They were not a client of mine. I had no relationship with them uh formally uh but they acceded to that. And II, I thought that was disappointing because it was not what their, what their mission was. But um that’s, that seems extreme. Uh So how in whatever to not

[00:11:38.70] spk_2:
necessarily extreme but not necessarily atypical. So as part of the work we did on this, we, we actually did

[00:11:43.75] spk_0:
it may, it may not be atypical, but it seems extreme to me that you’d go from all boys to, to on the strength

[00:11:51.94] spk_2:
of response from the extreme

[00:12:02.34] spk_0:
response from the charity. Yeah, extreme request on the part of the donor. I see what you, what your perspective. Yeah. So, uh well, go ahead. You, you finished your point. Well, we, we,

[00:15:26.84] spk_2:
we as part of the, the uh project to look at this, we did do a survey amongst fundraisers. Now, this was a self selecting survey. So we said, if you’ve experienced any form of what you might perceive to be down in dominance, please come and tell us how you perceived it. And even if you haven’t do come and tell us because negative results are still results. So it’s self selecting, it’s not meant to be a representative sample. I think something like about 80% or so of our respondents had experienced something like this. That doesn’t mean 80% of fundraisers have all experienced that because it’s not a representative sample that it did give us an idea of the types of issues that people were encountering. So what we identified, you can have dominance in, in three ways. It’s either in direction. So that’s over the governance, the policy or the administration of the charity. So that’s where you get the mission creep from where donors are trying to influence that also over the relationships. Uh So that’s where the because donors are often in close proximity, particularly with fundraising in the relationship. There’s, there’s the way to influence the types of relationships. So that’s where we get the risk of sexual impropriety coming. But also there’s been examples, we’ve had cases reported to us where donors have tried to have people fired or removed because they didn’t like their sexual orientation or something like that. So it’s about hiring and firing who they’re going to work with. Um And then you’ve got dominance in kind of behavior. So this is kind of the expectation that they want of the treatment they’re gonna get, um having, getting, trying, trying to get undue public influence and really trying to get, uh get benefits from their relationships with charities that they’re not entitled to. And then we ask the people responding to give us examples of what they’ve done. So I’ve, I’ve just got saved a few from the research that we did to, to share with you the kind of things that the people were saying to us. So one said that the board member um and donor had a check ready to write. And he looked at me and said, what will, will this get me with you? Uh There’s one here where it says that a donor said that he would make a major gift if we violated tax law. I acknowledge the gift at a higher level. So this is asking the charity to be complicit in illegal activity. Another one said that, you know, if they used their consulting firm, they could expect a nice donations. That’s, that’s corruption, that’s bribery. You know that I’m sure there are, there are, there are laws against, against that isn’t another one? Uh AAA board member, they said was demanding use the charity resources for his own events. You know, this is a he is, is he not her? It’s his own event. Uh They were badged at supporting the charity but didn’t result in any income from the charity. And he implied that we should carry on doing this if we, if we wanted his continued support, and I’ll just tell you one more, um, which related to that point that I made about, um, relationships, um, and strad straddles with the direction of, uh, of, of, of mission creep as well. And one fundraiser reported to us that as they were trying to update their history of the charity and the work they did to a more progressive lens of history. A donor said that we would lose their support if we were at all explicitly non negative. So not just positive, but even if they were neutral about LGBT Q I plus issues and race. Um and the staff had acquiesced in that up to years for years, up until the fundraiser said that they’d had enough and left the charity.

[00:16:11.01] spk_1:
It’s time for a break. Donor box quote. We’ve seen incredible results with Donor box. In the last year. We’ve boosted our donations by 70% and launched new programs in literacy, health, child care and tailoring for our girls. That’s Jennings W founder and executive director of Uganda 10 18. If you’re looking for a fast flexible and donor friendly fundraising platform for your organization, check out donor Boxx, donor Boxx dot org. Now back to donor dominance.

[00:17:23.50] spk_0:
I understand, not, not scientific but valuable examination of the, the, the breath and the, and the different, the different forms, the uh the, these, these power structures, this, this unequal power can uh can take, yeah, I have my own uh anecdote uh, years ago when I was a fundraiser, there was a woman who was harassed by a much older man and uh the, the nonprofit response was just to change the relationship to, to have to have a different fundraiser, uh work with that, that man from, from then on. Uh, but there were still large events where the, where the that donor and that and that previous fundraiser were were together because that’s the nature of large events and it, it was not a, it was not an adequate solution. Um And, and the, the idea of confronting the donor was dismissed, it, it just like it was, it wasn’t a possibility that was not, that was not gonna be a way that we were gonna deal with this to confront the donor and, and explicitly have him uh cease his a abusive behavior. We weren’t gonna do that. Um

[00:18:36.17] spk_2:
And it’s interesting to think why charities won’t do that because yes, they want the donor’s money and they need the donor’s money to help their beneficiaries, but they do have a duty of care for their employees to protect, not just their physical well-being, but their mental well-being as well. Um And it, it does seem to me a little bit that fundraisers are the forgotten stakeholders in all this. And what you said is such a common complaint of so many women, female fundraisers that many have got experiences very similar to the ones that you have just described in your own dot There. But the response is always seem to be left up to individual charities to come up with a response. And if an individual charity does decide to stop working with a donor, that donor just takes their behavior elsewhere, um, and carries it on at a different charity and some other poor fundraiser is now um uh susceptible to that or the, I don’t know if it’s worse, but it’s equally bad. They kick the fundraiser at the charity sideways and bring someone else and neither that person gets um more discriminatory behavior, but those things aren’t addressing a structural solution, which is what we need around this and the code of conduct, which is what you originally approached me about. Maybe, maybe one way to be able to do that, right?

[00:19:05.27] spk_0:
And we will get to the, the, the possibility of a donor code of conduct. But Rore is, is looking at this at, at uh on three different levels. Uh the sector, the nonprofits, the organizations and the individuals. Yeah, let, let’s, let’s flush out some about what uh what the sector could. Is it, OK if we start with the sector, uh it, it, it, it

[00:19:08.25] spk_2:
is. So

[00:19:09.30] spk_0:
others try to start broad and, and become uh and finish with the, with the individuals.

[00:21:28.46] spk_2:
Yeah. So we’ve, we’re doing this So we’re also trying to look at gender issues in fundraising and look at ways um that we can dismantle Patria patriarchal structures in the fundraising profession. Because uh I think one is refusing to acknowledge reality. If you just, one just says, ah, there’s no patriarchy, everything’s equal, everything’s and everything is fine. It is, they, they exist. And the thing what, what, what Becky Slack, one of our project team on this made the point is that the patriarchy is bad for a lot of men as well. It’s a system that is unjust and unfair and it’s mainly unjust and unfair to women. It’s intersectional, it’s unjust and unfair to women of different demographics like people of color. But there are also a lot of men that it doesn’t serve very well. Um because they’re not, you know, if you’re in a situation where you’re supposed to be negotiating your own salary, there are lots of men like me who do very, very badly about trying to negotiate my salary against the, you know, walk straight in, sits down and buttons his coat leans back and like they give him whatever he wants. I would never get back. Um So, so it’s, it’s a, it’s, it’s a structural problem and yet what it seemed to us when we were looking at this is that a lot of the ways people try to address that is by thinking that the problem is just one of human agency that for example, if the problem is about salary bands and negotiating salaries and, and women are disadvantaged in that, then we give women better training in how to negotiate a better salary. And that’s, that’s not a sustainable solution because we do it for every um every new generation of, of female leaders that are coming in or fundraisers to, to negotiate their own salaries. Some people just still won’t be very good at it and will still be disadvantaged and you’re leaving the unjust discriminatory structures in impact. So what we are saying is rather than trying to change people’s behavior in a broken system, let’s just to fix the, try to fix the system. So you’re

[00:21:29.20] spk_0:
referring to your lean in versus lean

[00:23:15.41] spk_2:
out. Yeah, the lean. So, yeah, so the, the approach is to try to help individuals um uh negotiate, navigate the situation they find and lean out is an approach where we try and we said dismantling, we, we, we personally didn’t say smash the patriarchy because when you take a wrecking ball or something, you just have a part of, you know, rubble on the ground. So we want to dismantle it, we want to take it apart bit by bit, you know, with a Wrench and Spanner and then put together all the bits that we’ve taken down in a more just and equitable manner that benefits. So, uh and so at the structural level, what way we, we’re thinking that what can we do, we can, it’s a structural solution. And at the structural level, at the sector level, we’ve got professional bodies, we’ve got um uh that can all play their role in changing those things. So one of the things we suggested that we should have would be um maybe donor code of conduct which could be developed by and tested by professional institutes by talking to their organizations and their members. Then at the organizational level, organizations can implement donor codes of conduct as a way of making it clear the standards of behavior they expect from donors. But also sending a message to their fundraisers that we’ve got your back. We’re gonna look after you and so have all the other charities in, in, in the sector that we work in. So we’ve all signed up to this. It’s a structural approach that we, we, we, we are, we’ve signed up to it. Don’t worry that we’re gonna kick this abusive donor away from our charging and they’re just gonna take their behavior to, to, to, to another charity. Yeah, let it perpetuate. And then at the individual level is the responsibility of everyone, especially men to see what’s going on. Take responsibility for enacting change. That’s when your individual agency comes in. But hopefully we’re doing your acting individual agency in a change system because I think if you just like keep exhorting people to change their behavior, but you leave the, the underlying context exactly as it is. I think we’re kind of wishing against hope that we will make substantial change.

[00:23:44.20] spk_0:
Rore proposed a donor code of conduct. Uh It’s, it’s on your, it’s on your site at Rore dot net and it was not too well received in the US. No,

[00:23:56.19] spk_2:
there was a lot of pushback from that. Um I mean, they, they did have some fans but there was a, there was a lot of pushback against it which slightly surprised me. Um Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but

[00:24:08.23] spk_0:
I’m surprised, I’m surprised that you were surprised.

[00:24:11.08] spk_2:
Yes. Um There was less pushback on this side of the Atlantic about there was some but, but there, there, there was less and I think it’s interesting to try and unpick why that? Let’s

[00:25:33.90] spk_0:
OK. Let’s, let’s uh tick off a couple of the, the uh the elements of, of the, the rore proposed donor code of conduct just so folks understand what we’re talking about. Uh So, uh and then, and then we’ll, we’ll, we’ll talk about the reaction here here in the States. So, uh num number one, there’s, there’s six, there’s six principles. Um I’m making a voluntary donation to a nonprofit, not buying a product or service. I therefore understand that fundraisers are not selling me a product or service that the professional relationship between us is therefore not a customer sales relationship. Uh I will treat fundraising staff as knowledgeable professionals, always accord them the professional respect. They deserve. I will never discriminate against or harass in any way, fundraising professionals or other charity staff based on any of the protected classes or characteristics. Uh I recognize I have a considerable potential power in the relationship. Uh Therefore promise not to exploit that power for personal gain. Uh I may as well read the other two will not put conditions on my donation for the personal benefit of myself, my family or my friends and I will not use my power as a donor to divert the nonprofit or uh from its mission. Uh uh a few of those which, which we talked about. And uh

[00:25:43.96] spk_2:
they all seem perfectly reasonable to me.

[00:26:19.20] spk_0:
I know, I know you do. Well, they seem perfectly reasonable to me. I think they seem perfectly reasonable to everybody. II I, however, the idea in the states of asking a donor to, to sign this because that’s, that’s what you ask you ask them to sign up to this code of conduct that uh I’m not surprised that that the sector and that individual charities and then even individual fundraisers would be uh I’m not surprised that they would object to, to putting this before, before donors.

[00:26:35.54] spk_2:
Well, I think we’re not asking people to literally sign it. Maybe this was a lost in translation thing, but by signing up to something, you know, it’s like we will need to sign up to this, this set of principles to, but it’s like sign up to means like buying into. So it’s the idea we want donors to buy into this set of principles about behavior. But I

[00:26:40.50] spk_0:
still have, I still have to put it in front of the donor. They have to, they have to,

[00:27:40.81] spk_2:
they don’t. So at no point, were we ever saying you have to give this to a donor? You have to give it to them. So, one of the people said, how could I start a relationship by presenting this to them? Well, you wouldn’t, would you, obviously you wouldn’t do that. That’s not what you, how you would start a relationship when you go on a first date with somebody you don’t start with. If we get married, here’s the pre nap I want, you know, you don’t, you don’t do that. Fundraisers are storytellers, they’re expert relationship builders. What you do is you build a relationship and at the appropriate juncture in that relationship as you get towards something. If the donor is a very well behaved donor, you can introduce them to this and say, what do you think of this? This is what we use to protect our fundraisers. You know, how do you think about, about this? I’m sure you’ve got no problem. You know, buying into, I won’t say sign up, buying into these, these printers. Yeah, of course. They, if somebody is, for example, maybe, um exhibiting the idea of Mission Creek, the fundraiser has got a set of six principles with the authority and already the backing of the charity, knowing the charity that can back them, can say to the, to, to this potential donor. Well, well, actually, we would not, um, permit that. That’s not how we would want to because we have a code of conduct that we like our donors to buy into. Would you like me to show it to you now? So you can see what’s expected of you and

[00:28:10.44] spk_0:
there’s the hard part, ok? There’s the, there’s the spot what’s expected of you and, and, and I know

[00:28:32.69] spk_2:
that is presenting a set of principles that it is reasonable for us to expect donors to adhere to. So for example, don’t discriminate against fundraisers on basis of their sex, gender and sexual orientation.

[00:28:38.37] spk_0:
I agree that that’s reasonable

[00:29:59.64] spk_2:
and they do. So at the moment, we know that fundraiser that that donors are doing this, we know something needs to be done to stop them doing it. We can’t, you know, we can’t just put out wish, you know, wishes into the air and, and thoughts and prayers and hope it’s gonna finish. We need to do something to fix this. And this was the first iteration of a set of principles that we think are fair for any right thinking donor to want to buy into and say, yeah, of course, I’ll treat you with respect. Absolutely. I won’t discriminate and the sense that a fundraiser would be scared to in the right way. Using their skill as a storyteller and relationship builder to introduce this. Struck me as a little strange. It struck me that what was being said was not so much. I couldn’t possibly find a way to talk to a donor about these difficult issues. I think it was pretty. It was also a sense that I don’t want to, I don’t think we should do. So, one person that said we shouldn’t have to do this. If they don’t want to work with us, then just tell them to take their money elsewhere. But that doesn’t affect the fix the problem because they take their abusive behavior to someone else and it’s somebody else’s problem. Have a responsibility in this sector, every single one of us to try and confront these issues and make them better and look after our fundraisers. And none of this is anti donors. Donors are some of the most wonderful people on the planet who use their philanthropy to make the world a better place. Some of them probably a small number abuse that power and while they might be making the world a better place, generally on a large scale and a very small part of the world, they’re making some people very miserable.

[00:31:13.28] spk_1:
It’s time for a break. Kela increase donations and foster collaborative teamwork with Kila. The fundraisers. Crm maximize your team’s productivity and spend more time building strong connections with donors through features that were built specifically for fundraisers. A fundraiser CRM goes beyond the data management platform. It’s designed with the unique needs of fundraisers in mind and aims to unify fundraising, communications and donor management tools into one single source of truth visit. Kila dot co to sign up for a coming group demo and explore how to exceed your fundraising goals. Like never before. It’s time for Tony’s take two.

[00:32:46.88] spk_0:
Thank you, Kate. The fourth quarter is coming mid September right now. The all important fourth quarter, I don’t have to remind you, but I do need to send you my good wishes. Uh I’m, I’m sure your fourth quarter plans are well set, probably 90% set. I just hope that you have a successful fourth quarter. I hope, you know what metrics to pay attention to so that, you know how well you’re doing week after week. I know I there was one nonprofit I worked with that had daily goals for some key days too. Uh I, I think that’s an outlier but uh certainly weekly production goals in the fourth quarter and those, those are common. So, uh, try not to get too, um, worked up. I don’t know, maybe this is, are these platitudes? I hope not. I just hope you keep things in perspective, do the very best you can and, and that’s all you can do for the all important fourth quarter. So you have my good wishes for what I know is uh very important. Three months for fundraising, my good wishes. And that is Tony’s take two Kate.

[00:32:48.59] spk_1:
We’ve got, but loads more time. Let’s go back to donor dominance with Ian mcquillan.

[00:32:58.55] spk_0:
I agree with all that.

[00:33:26.81] spk_2:
So, how, how would you, maybe I could ask you if, if you worked at a charity and the charity had, this is what we have a, I mean, instead of a code of conduct, you could call it a covenant, a covenant with our donors if you wanted to change the word around something else to make it sound more, um, more equal, more, more engaging. But, but you’re an expert fundraiser and storyteller. How would you introduce it? How would you, none of it is to say, please read this before we go on. But you know that there are a set of expected behavioral standards that you want all of your donors. How would you introduce it?

[00:33:57.90] spk_0:
Yeah. Uh, in fairness. Yeah, I have probably, uh, 100.5 or 100. Yeah. Uh, uh, you know, relationships on and off with, with a bunch of different, on behalf of a bunch of different, uh, nonprofit clients. Um,

[00:34:37.61] spk_2:
and that, of course, is assuming that in all of those relationships you even need to, it may just be enough to have that pinned up on the charity’s website for people to look at. I mean, just putting it out there normalizing it. And the other thing about having something like this, it just normalizes the accepted standards of behavior. You see, you see customer codes of conduct everywhere. We will not tolerate, you know, in in in the commercial world. The the consumer is always right, the customer is king and yet while the customer may be king, there are still notices up in train stations and service places everywhere and restaurants and we will not tolerate abuse of our staff. You know, they they don’t co commercial organizations have no problem pinning up a notice that says while you may be king and we will do everything we possibly can to make your stay your service your product fantastic. And we’ll do everything you want. We still won’t tolerate you abusing our staff. They have no problem with it. Yeah.

[00:38:15.49] spk_0:
All right. But I don’t want to back down from your, your, your first proposition to me. You know, how would I raise it with someone versus pointing it to, to, uh, pointing someone to a, uh, a web page and saying, you know, when, when you get a chance to take a look at this. But uh so I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna back off the, the original hypothetical. Um I was taught in law school never fight the hypothetical. So iii I try to stay true to that as difficult as it, uh challenging as it sometimes is. Um Yeah, I would, uh you know, well, most of the people I work with are in their seventies, eighties and nineties because I, I work in Planned Giving. Uh, but the, the anecdote that I told earlier about the, the, uh, the abusive behavior with the very much older man, he was, he was in his seventies or eighties and the fundraiser was in her thirties probably at the time. Uh, so I’m not gonna, uh, get off the hook by saying, oh, older folks never do this because I, I have a personal example of one who did, um, I would, uh, I would, I would bring it as, as something that the, the organization wants, wants this to be, uh, a mutually beneficial and, and, and satisfying relationship and, and there have been times when it, it hasn’t been that way for the, for the fundraisers. And so this organization is, is trying to protect its fundraisers. Um, at the same time that we’re protecting your interests as, as a donor that we’re, we’re always going to use your gift in the way you want it to be used and that we’re always going to, um, treat you with respect and not, not treat you as a, as a cash machine. Uh So, you know, so mutually, there’s, there’s respect and, uh, and, and expected, uh, you know, expected behaviors. That’s not such a great word. I wouldn’t use that in a conversation. But, uh, ee expect there are expectations on, on both sides and, and so we’re, we’re to protect the fundraisers and, and protect the organization as, as well as the folks who do the work that I do. Um, we have this, we have this sheet of, uh, sort of mutual expectations and, and where I, I’d like you to, I’d like you to take a look, take a look, see what you think when I would sit there in front of them and, um, and let them, let them think through it and then see what, and then react to, to their reactions, which I think in 90 99% of cases would be. I think this is, I think this is fine and there might be a, a few within that 99% who say, I applaud what the organization is doing, that would be less than 99. But there might be like 15% or so might say I applaud what the organization is doing. So that’s, that’s, I think that’s how I would, I think that’s how you are.

[00:39:31.23] spk_2:
So that’s how we envisage this. We envisage this as being something that set one of those structural changes in motion that then people could say, well, this is good fundraisers. I’ll, I’ll work out how I can build this into my relationships in the most appropriate way, you know, I can like you have just done so as you said, it’s mutual. Um, but all of our duties to donors are all very well codified in, in the donor bill of rights and, and various codes of practice, they’re already well set out what they are. But as it’s a, as it’s a two way exchange, we have some other juices that are commenting on donors to fundraisers, just like, like you said, but they’ve never been codified before. Um, and so one of the things that is, you know, when a number of people have tried to come up with fundraiser, bill, bills of rights, um, and recently I think, um, it was um Jennifer T Holmes and Amelia Gaza in Chicago also did one and people don’t have seem to have the same level of opposition to the fundraiser bill of rights. They did to the donor code of conduct. But if you think about it, they’re just, they’re just, they’re just, they’re two

[00:39:36.20] spk_0:
sides of the same images.

[00:40:14.47] spk_2:
So in, in Jennifer and Amelia’s um uh bill of Rights, it says fundraisers have the right to stop working with the donor based on a donor’s behavior towards their gender. Sexual orientation is very similar to the one that we’ve got in the code of conduct, except rather than saying fundraisers have a right to stop working says I will have a donor will not treat them that way. And then in the um uh as, as what they say um in elaborating upon that, um Amelia and Jennifer say that it’s up to the charity to protect the fundraiser and not work with that donor. So, because rights and duties are correlative. So if have a right not to be subject to sexual, um to, to, to harassment and discrimination based on their protected characteristic. That means someone has a duty not to treat them that way. And one of the people whose duty is not to treat them that way are donors. Absolutely logical.

[00:42:13.81] spk_0:
Very cogent, very cogent, logical explanation. Uh Absolutely. It’s, it’s just, it’s the, uh, it’s, it’s the, it’s the execution that, that varies with the fundraiser bill of rights. The fundraiser has, has the explicit right to, to uh execute uh to, to uh take advantage of, to his or her or, or their right. When, when there’s a, when there’s a, someone crosses the line, I, I had to say, say a violation of the bill, you know, when there’s a, when there’s something inappropriate that violates the bill versus an expectation that, that, that the donor, I it, it’s, it’s, it’s the, the reason, the reason us fundraisers and, and the sector push back is because it’s, it’s, it’s where the action comes from. The fundraisers are happy to um exploit their, their rights but not happy to ask donors to uh control themselves. It’s, it’s the, it’s the executing, it’s the executing party. Look, you know, we, we put our head in the sand. You, the, I would, I, you know what, in 10 years, I bet, I bet, I bet the, the donor code of conduct will be pretty widespread. You, you can, you, you can count on Americans to, to do the right thing when, when they’ve exhausted like all the other, all the other possibilities. Uh So you’re ahead of your time and, and you’re admirable.

[00:42:17.20] spk_2:
That’s not,

[00:42:27.10] spk_0:
I don’t mean that to say you’re naive, you’re, it’s admirable. Um You know, the civil rights was a, was the movement was ahead of its time. Um, etcetera. So,

[00:43:12.08] spk_2:
well, that’s kind of you to say thank you. And I, I think one of the things that you said about when you, when in the most appropriate way you present this as you said to your donors and most of them will go. I I’ve got no problem with that because most of them will be decent human beings and most many of them will say, well, I applaud you for doing that. Some of them might go. What do you really need this? Are you me that some people treat fundraisers that way? Well, I I’m sorry to say, yeah, that that does does happen really. And then when you do that, maybe we’re raising awareness in the philanthropy and donor community about the way some and they may not be aware of this issue. And the next time that they are out with in their fellow, you know, and somebody says, oh yeah, I was talking to a very, you know, this little fundraiser and I gave her a little slap and do you know what I I you really should not be doing that. It just allows, you know, the conversation to come out in different ways and to normalize standards of behavior that really ought to be normalized already. We shouldn’t have to be asking for this.

[00:43:47.02] spk_0:
I agree. I agree. Um, and, and all right, so that, um, so that moves us to, uh, let, let’s, uh, let, let’s look a little broader to, to what the, uh, what the sector can be doing in terms of awareness, consciousness raising uh training, right? Let, let, let’s, so let’s talk about the sector, the, the nonprofits and the, and the individuals a little more, just a little bit more formally, a little more structured. What do, what do you see as the the sector responsibilities?

[00:45:35.31] spk_2:
I think. Um So the first thing to do is to acknowledge that this is an issue. So it’s like having a policy statement and, and nothing will change unless people acknowledge that there is an issue that needs to be changed and we need to change it. So I understand now I wasn’t quite so prepared, but I understand why people will be pushing back against this. But I think some of the pushback against it is a straw man argument. Some of it I think is misunderstanding what it’s supposed to be and likely picking up on things that could be knocked back because it didn’t sit well with the way that in a way um you know, we lionize donors are probably a little bit too much and philanthropists, you know, by, by treating them as the heroes of their own story. And because of you and you know, we’ve gone with this donor centric approach, I understand why people from that position may have pushed back against this. So first of all the sector bodies and so a FP charter initi of fundraising in the UK, they can take a stand on this, they can more, more than they’ve been doing just by, for example, running the. Um so FP has done loads of great work in running the surveys and having, you know, toolkits for women um to be uh to protect themselves to negotiate salaries or that leaning approach is still valid, but we need to lean out approach to complement it and change the structure. So the sector has to have, secondly, it needs to recognize as an issue and develop the will amongst fundraisers to say we want to change things and

[00:46:00.00] spk_0:
that applies. Let, let me just add uh here in the states that applies to all the state organizations too. Every state has a, has AAA uh an organization of nonprofits, uh North Carolina Council on nonprofits, for instance, where I am. Um So it’s not only at the national level, just make that point, there’s also state uh state work to state organizations that uh need to buy in. So

[00:48:24.67] spk_2:
it’s got to be so for, for the organizations, they’ve got to make it easy for fundraisers to report issues. They’ve got to have proper complaints and whistleblowing procedures in place. They’ve got to have hr policies, they’re gonna let fundraisers know that they will be protected. So, not just if a fundraiser makes a complaint about a donor, they’ll just be kicked sideways. Um, and then, you know, and the sexual bodies can actually support the individual organizations to do that by producing, um, policies and proform codes of conduct and hr policies that they can take off the shelf and adapt just in the same way that now lots of those organizations produce guidance on gifting ethical gift acceptance and refusal policies. But you can just take the 10 point thing, we will not accept a if this, if this, you know, and adapt it to your, they can do all the things like that, that are gonna just make it easy and normalize the idea that for some donors in some circumstances, this is a really serious issue in the abuse of the relationship that result and we’re not going to tolerate it and we will, we will do something about it. And so those three levels that we worked out sex, organizational and individual, it’s not like you do one and then progress to the other. So it’s not like a hierarchy. It’s, it’s more like uh for any doctor who fans out there doctor who once said in a famous episode, it’s time is not linear. It’s more wily wobbly, timey wy. And this is a wily wobbly timey wy thing. Some individual does something at the individual level and they may be affecting something that, you know, a big campaign done by the A FP because the A FP is run by individuals after all. And so everybody that does something in affects these interactions and change in the structure at all of these different levels. But this is, I will stress, this is a structural issue, not, not just a donor dominance thing and the, and the, and the power and potential power abuses, but the patriarchal issues as well. And I, and I’m not conflating one to the other because I know of many female donors um cases where it’s been female donors that have been abusing the power dynamics and have been mission creeping and putting demands on who they would want to work with. So it’s not to conflate those um those two issues, but both of them are structural problems. And so we need to change the structure of the profession and the organizations are the best place to change the entire structure of the profession, other other sector bodies. So that’s where I think this starts.

[00:48:51.16] spk_0:
Know what’s interesting the just the, the, the relative proportions, you know, we we we’re talking about 25% of fundraisers. Let’s just use that 25% number. I

[00:48:57.05] spk_2:
really wish I check that figure before I came on here. Now somebody is screaming at the radio saying you’ve got it wrong. So I’m sorry if I’ve got it wrong. But as we agreed to the start, it’s a significant number and it’s too much and any number is too much.

[00:49:43.06] spk_0:
And yet the percentage of donors who are engaging in this, these negative behaviors is probably much, much lower. But that’s just a reflection of, um, maybe 5% of donors may maybe even lower. But that, that’s just a reflection of the fact that there are so many more donors than there are than there are charities and fundraisers. There are tens of millions of donors and only a million and a half or so organizations and a uh uh and, and I don’t know how many fundraisers, but uh there are a lot more donors out there. So just a small percentage of bad, bad acting donors. I don’t think

[00:49:46.09] spk_2:
it is a small, you

[00:49:47.19] spk_0:
think you don’t think it’s small? And the

[00:51:56.80] spk_2:
reason is, is that when we did our survey, we found forms of donor dominance at all levels. So community fundraising, corporate fundraising, direct marketing, all of it was, there was some kind and it’s so we’re not just talking about large scale um discrimination by a major philanthropist. There are, there are, there are, you know, far fewer major philanthropists than there are charities that want their money. So I’ll give you, I’ll just give you an example. Um, an anecdote from my wife’s uh one of my wife, my wife is a fundraiser and she’s worked on a number of charity charities in the UK, now, author of development. And when she was working at a medical research charity, they were doing some going round and dropping clothes bags in letter boxes and saying, you know, we’ll have a collection, fill it up with second with your unwanted clothes. And somebody rang up, um, the charity and one of Sarah’s team took the call and this angry abusive person said next time one of your people comes through and puts this through the letterbox. I’m gonna slam the letterbox down on them and break their fingers and spoke in a way that the, the, the, the woman who took the call was very, very upset about it. Um And there are those little, you know, I don’t want to call that a microaggression that was more than a microaggression. There are, there are, there are behaviors like that. It’s not just about discriminating against a protected characteristic. It’s the way people abuse charity staff in some ways, the way they exert power, the way they have an expectation. Like I was reading out about the undue in the unit benefits. A lot of those examples I read out earlier were from major philanthropist and board members, but there was also examples of friends groups wanting. So one was a friends group wanting to run uh a campaign um using the charity’s resources but not having any oversight or accountability from the charity and refusing to run the appeal if the charity had any oversight over them. So, I think there, it’s, I don’t know how there’s never been any research plans. This because most of the research that academic researchers do into donors and philanthropists is all about the good stuff they do. No one really wants to research the bad stuff they do. And why would they, because he’s gonna pay them to, to do that research. But I don’t know. I, I don’t, I don’t, I think it’s probably, uh, a bit more widespread than we give credit for. Yeah. All

[00:52:19.02] spk_0:
right. All right. Fair enough. Right. What would you like to leave us with Ian? What, what, what, what thoughts do you want? Uh, our CEO S executive directors and, and fundraisers to hear? Well, I would

[00:54:47.87] spk_2:
like to reach out to some of the people that push back against the code and say we’re not anti donor. We’re not anti philanthropist. Um, please read what we said again and we only think we only ever said this is the first iteration. It’s the type of thing that we can do. Each charity will come up with. The one that it, that, that it thinks is appropriate. We’re not trying to impose this on people. We are saying that we need to look at how we find a structural solution for this problem that we know is there. And this is one of the ways that we can do it. So embrace it, think about it, critique it. Give us your considered thoughts on it rather than I’m not doing that because it’s not the way I like to do things. Um And, and there are, there are, there are some other responses to that that um you know, that I would wouldn’t go into now. But when I read them, I thought you seriously cannot, that can’t be what you really think. You cannot be thinking what you’ve just written down is ok. But I digress. So I would like to say to some of those people who think this is an imposition. It’s, it’s not, we’re trying to solve a problem and we need to do it together, we need to do it with your help for CEO S for senior fundraisers. Um, directors of development. I’d say if you think this is not an issue, this is fine. It’s all right. But those poor charities, it happens to you. It doesn’t happen with us calls and maybe critically reflect on how certain and comfortable you are with that statement because it’s very likely that it is an issue and or not very likely. But it is, it’s a strong possibility that it’s an issue and it’s also a strong possibility that you have some fundraising staff whose lives are being made miserable and it might be affecting their mental health and your duty of care is not protecting them. You you’re not protecting them. So I, I would, I would say I know especially American fundraising is very donor centric. It’s all about lionizing donors showing them how great they are. But just because the majority of donors are great, doesn’t mean a minority are behaving very, very badly. And that needs to be addressed. And if it’s not this way, it still needs to be addressed in a way that presents a sex structural approach where we’re all standing together to combat this and not just kicking it down the line to the next poor charity that ending with it,

[00:55:06.82] spk_0:
Ian mcquillan, he’s director of the fundraising think tank, Rore all these resources, the donor conduct uh code and lots of uh other blog posts about um not only gender issues but just donor dominance in general and power structures. It’s all at uh Rore dot net and Ian is at Ian mcquillan. Thank you very much, Ian. Thank you for sharing your, your thinking.

[00:55:32.20] spk_2:
Thank you

[00:55:43.38] spk_1:
next week, Jean Takagi with possible implications of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision. If you missed any part of this week’s show,

[00:55:46.29] spk_0:
I’d be sea. You find it at tony-martignetti dot com

[00:55:58.14] spk_1:
were sponsored by donor box, outdated donation forms, blocking your supporters, generosity, donor box, fast, flexible and friendly fundraising forms for your nonprofit donor Boxx dot org.

[00:56:06.92] spk_0:
Fast, flexible, friendly. You, you sure you don’t mean flexible and friendly or flexible and

[00:56:31.91] spk_1:
friendly. And by Kila, she ignores me and by Kila grow revenue, engage donors and increase efficiency with Kila. The fundraisers crm visit Kila dot co to join the thousands of fundraisers using Kila to exceed their goals. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer, Kate martignetti. The show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Marc Silverman is our web guy and this music is by Scott Stein.

[00:56:59.38] spk_0:
Thank you for that affirmation. Scottie. You’re with us next week for nonprofit radio, big nonprofit ideas for the other 95% go out and be great.

Nonprofit Radio for January 18, 2019: Donor Centric

I love our sponsors!

Do you want to find more prospects & raise more money? Pursuant is a full-service fundraising agency, leveraging data & technology.

WegnerCPAs. Guiding you. Beyond the numbers.

Credit & debit card processing by telos. Payment processing is now passive revenue for your org.

Fundraising doesn’t have to be hard. Txt2Give makes it easy to receive donations using simple text messages.

Get Nonprofit Radio insider alerts!

Listen Live or Archive:

My Guest:

Curtis Bingham: Donor Centric
To keep your donors, think and act like successful private sector companies. Curtis Bingham is founder of the Chief Customer Officer Council and a multi-award winning customer success strategist, conveying corporate methods to nonprofits.

Top Trends. Sound Advice. Lively Conversation.

Board relations. Fundraising. Volunteer management. Prospect research. Legal compliance. Accounting. Finance. Investments. Donor relations. Public relations. Marketing. Technology. Social media.

Every nonprofit struggles with these issues. Big nonprofits hire experts. The other 95% listen to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Trusted experts and leading thinkers join me each week to tackle the tough issues. If you have big dreams but a small budget, you have a home at Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio.

Get Nonprofit Radio insider alerts!

Sponsored by:

View Full Transcript

Transcript for 422_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20190118.mp3

Processed on: 2019-01-18T23:16:44.887Z
S3 bucket containing transcription results: transcript.results
Link to bucket: s3.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/transcript.results
Path to JSON: 2019…01…422_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20190118.mp3.993833249.json
Path to text: transcripts/2019/01/422_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20190118.txt

Hello and welcome to Tony Martignetti non-profit radio Big non-profit ideas for the other ninety five percent on your aptly named host. Oh, I’m glad you’re with me. I’d come down with Stone Battal Gia If I had two mouths. The words you missed today’s show donor-centric to keep your donor’s think and act like successful private sector companies. Curtis Bingham is founder of the chief customer officer counsel and a multi award winning customers success strategist. Conveying corporate methods to non-profits I’m Tony Steak, too. The reason to be an insider. We’re sponsored by pursuant full service fund-raising data driven and technology enabled twenty dahna slash pursuant by Wet your CPA’s guiding you beyond the numbers. Weinger cps dot com Bye. Tell us Attorney credit card processing into your passive revenue stream. Tony dahna slash Tony Tell us, and by text to give mobile donations made. Easy text. NPR to four four four nine nine nine I’m very glad that I can welcome Curtis Bigham to the show. Curtis End Bingham. He is recognized as the world’s foremost authority on chief customer officers, having helped more than two hundred from Coca Cola nationwide. MetLife, Oracle, JetBlue and other marquee companies. He helps build an explicit link between customers, success and the business value. Curtis is the founder and CEO of the chief customer. Officer Counsel, the first pure lead advisory group for see CEOs. The Council is that cco council dot or GE. And he’s at Curtis Bingham. Curtis. Welcome to the show. Thank you, Tony. Great to be here. Thanks to pleasure. You’re calling from Washington State, aren’t you? Just just outside of Seattle. It’s a rare sunny day here, so you don’t get a rare sunny day in the winter. I’m glad you’re with us. That’s right. Make you so, Curtis, you’ve you have consulted with Worked with Cem. Very high profile companies and brands. Um, I gather Ah, well, I know you will believe there are lots of lessons that non-profits can learn absolutely. I think it’s fascinating that some of the non-profits are now where a number of large private sector companies have been were, you know, ten twenty years ago where they started. Many of them started realizing that that they were losing Mohr customers out the back door than they were gaining in the front door. And, uh, and starting to realize that they really needed to start addressing the turn the revolving door out the back, because they just simply could not bring in enough new customers to replace those that they lost every year. And I think that, you know, based on the on my experience recently, I think that the Non-profit world is is kind of at that inflection point now where, where they really need to start focusing on on retaining donors rather than just trying to find new donors. Teo to keep their numbers up. I’ve had so many guests on talk about the difference in cost between retaining a donor and acquiring a new donor, and you’re not gonna have a lot of time to talk about retention. And that’s one of that’s the heart of your your customer centris ity. So that’s interesting. So you feel companies are fifteen or twenty years ahead of non-profits in this in this learning curve? Some of them some of them? Yes, some of them know, you know, fifteen to twenty years is is kind of about the threshold when when when people really start in the commercial sector, really started focusing on on on customer retention and customer issues. And, you know, that was about when I started started really diving into working with chief customer officers on. And it was, you know, it’s kind of fascinating. The very first one was out of Texas New Mexico power almost fifteen years ago, almost twenty years ago. Now it was a public utility company where they recognised that they, uh, that that customers have to have a voice. We have to give a voice to our customers in order to in order to keep them longer. And the rest of the industry started started tagging along, and it was a little bit nascent for a little while with the with the extreme customer focus. But it’s been in the last eleven years that that things have, really. They people have really, really focused on retaining customers almost as diligently and religiously as they are focusing on acquiring new customers. And that’s, you know, I’ve been doing working with the chief customer officer, counsel. I found it about eleven or twelve years ago. And, uh, and so that’s when. That’s when a lot of companies really, really started focusing on it and making it a priority, a sufficient priority that they have appointed an executive uniquely accountable to customers. Yeah, right, right, Theo, the chief customer officer, Who who are the customers of Non-profits? And I’m thinking donors, volunteers, potential donors. Are there others that I’m not thinking of? I think those are the those are the big ones and you know you’ve got within those ranks. You. I think a lot of people focus just on donors, but they miss all of the volunteers they don’t focus on on the volunteer experience, the volunteers who are the ones that were running the events and operating the events and helping Teo helping to bring in the money from from the individual donors. So it’s it’s. It’s fascinating to see that a lot of people forget that. But that’s a huge, huge piece that they need to be that cut that non-profits need to be paying attention to. In addition to just the just the people who give, you know, you can give of your time, you can give you your money and the people who do both or even more valuable to you. Yeah. Yeah. And we’re going to talk about you have some great strategies for stratify ing. The best people are that you need to pay the most attention to because, well, I don’t want to give away everything but, you know, you If you love everybody, you have to love. You can’t love everybody equally. We’re going to get to that, but you know they’re okay. But there are major brands that don’t stay customer centric and fade into irrelevance. You have a couple of examples. Just give us like a give us, like, two examples that have been just within the past. I don’t know. Twelve months or so of irrelevance. Major brands xero becoming irrelevant. Yeah. You know, there was had a fascinating conversation with the CMO of Panasonic a couple years ago, and he was while he was there. He’s since retired, but he asked a number of other company C M o’s Ah, In the high tech industry, what do you have a most afraid of And the CMO is the worst thing that they could imagine possible was that their brands could get lost in the noise and viewed as irrelevant by customers. And and and I think that it’s fascinating. Like you mentioned, a couple of big commercial sector companies have become irrelevant. You know, Sears declared bankruptcy last year. This was serious. Was was originally credited with removing racism fromthe shopping, eh? Experience because skin color disappeared when ordering from a catalog. And yet, you know, a few years ago, the Finance Year Eddie Lampert bought the company, milked all of the profits and refused to upgrade anything. And so now it’s a ghost town. And so they’ve They’ve dropped from twenty three hundred stores down to seven hundred, and they’re closing another seven hundred fifty. And, you know, I don’t know about you, but that’s your relevant in the minds on God. And as important as Ceres was, what? Like what? When did that catalog? I mean, is that? Is that one hundred year old company? I mean, Sears was serious, like the Amazon of its day. When the back in the catalogue day. Right? Right? Yeah, right. Yeah, there’s another one. There’s another one that G was. They used to own NBC Universal Studios, giant appliance company and one of America’s biggest bank. They were just late last year, removed from the Dow Jones industrial average after one hundred ten years. You know, there’s another great example of relevance. And then and then, you know, one of things that a lot of us have have run across here is this with the advent of uber and lift, and they’ve just kind of destroyed the taxi market that the medallions for the taxis in New York City, um, used to cost three hundred fifty thousand dollars originally cost. They now cost about three hundred fifty thousand dollars, but they were up to a million and right, and they’re all going there are going up in auction in foreclosure. I know people who know people who plan to retire on owning a medallion. You know, only a medallion or to have now seen that collapsed like fifteen or twenty per cent of its value. You hold your thoughts, Curtis. We take our first break will come. We’ll be right back pursuant a new free e book they have What’s that passes? They have a new free book. The Art of First Impressions. Do you need more donors? Uh, perhaps because you haven’t yet implemented Curtis’s ideas that we’re going to be talking about if Don’t acquisition is important to you. That’s what this is all about. It’s the sixth guiding principles of ineffective acquisition strategy. Howto identify your unique your unique value and use it, plus creative tips. Tony Dahna may slash pursuant with capital P for, please. All right, now, let’s go back to donor-centric. Alright. Thank you for that indulgence, Curtis. You were just you were just talking about We’re talking about taxi medallions. Extreme loss of value because of Yeah, the news. You know, there’s the sharing and gig economy. Yes. Look, I think that the thing that people are finding here is that no matter how big you are, no matter how great you once were, people are big. Even big companies, especially the big companies, are becoming irrelevant in the face of somebody else coming in and better meeting customer needs. And that’s. And that’s just that’s kind of a mantra. Now of if you don’t understand your customers Ah, and and your donor’s well, what makes them passionate? Then somebody else is going to tap into that passion and then leave you behind. You know, we all run the risk of irrelevance every day, and it’s accelerating because the barriers to entry are so low. It’s so easy for somebody to reach our donors now that I think that there’s there’s a real, a real risk of of non-profits becoming irrelevant if they’re not really, really care, keyed into and attuned to the donors needs and and the passions and and their expectations do this comparison form you have. Ah, really, Ah, lot of very interesting numbers. One I wantto Ah, highlight is, um, the comparison of the donor retention in non-profits with what the private sector small companies consider acceptable retention rates. Compare those two for me. Yeah, absolutely. So this is. This is kind of the leaky bucket syndrome here. According to last year’s study in the Fund-raising Effects treyz project, there’s overall. Across the industry, the overall donor attention is about forty five and a half percent, um, for the key donors that have been donating Ah year over year, that number is about sixty to seventy percent. Um, the acceptable private sector small company retention rate is about ninety three to ninety five percent, so there is a huge gap. You know, there’s a fifty percent gap here in between what we are experiencing in the nonprofit sector versus what is deemed acceptable, turn or eternal in the in the commercial sector. And and that makes it really, really hard for us to ah, for us to actually grow if we’re losing that many out out the back door. That overall retention number is just incredible to me, where the overall number of the forty five and a half percent we’re losing more than we’re keeping. Absolutely. Yeah, I understand. For major donors, it’s different. It’s it’s more like sixty seventy percent for higher level donors. But but that overall rate just just floors me and we have talked about this. I’ve had many guests on Latto, not China trying to overcome this, you know, with strategies. But no one has come with the corporate strategies that that you employ. And then again, major brands like JetBlue etcetera. Yeah, okay, what’s one more real quick point on this okay that I like due to just bring it home here is that is Let’s turn this into Let’s turn this into a practical reality here. So in order for us, if we’re dealing with a forty five and a half percent overall retention Um So what that means is that in order to grow by one customer, you have tow land fifty six new customers every year. We’re in order to road to go to grow by one. What, like go buy one year over year, you have tohave fifty six new ones. Yeah, but in order to have a net growth of one new customer, you’re over a year, you have to land fifty six in order to in order to grow in order, Teo, in order to get it up with one more costume this year than you had last year. Similarly, you know, if if the average donation is about forty forty dollars to grow by a dollar, you need to add two thousand four hundred twenty one dollars to have a net growth of one dollar every year. And so what that means is that we’re the non-profits here are just working simply working too hard just to stay afloat because they’re losing their leaking so much out of out of the bucket or losing too many people out the back door. Okay, you’ve got you’re donor-centric city strategy, which has four prongs to it. Why don’t you? You preview those, and then we’re going to go into detail on each one? Sure, absolutely. So there’s I think that there’s there’s four different things that that really need to be. That non-profits really need to focus on one of them is that Dahna retention is acknowledging and convincing everybody in the in the leadership, the donor retention is the easiest way to protect and grow revenue, you know? And then the second one here is Donorsearch. Imitation is absolutely critical to prioritize our investments in in our in our business. And then the third one here is donorsearch I Gration is the way that we grow profits, and we can talk about what, what exactly that means. And then, finally, the donor engagement is what absolutely drives the the fundamental and powerful results that we all want to show you. Okay? And I said, set them up. We were already into donorsearch tension, of course. Yep, you have again another interesting number that a two percent increase in retention will yield a ten percent decreasing costs. Is that because of the cast? Is that because of the cost of acquisition, right, that’s that’s absolutely the case. Okay, what we see here, there were some studies that were done, Ah, over the last the last number of years here where they where they found that if we a two percent gain in retention is the same as decreasing our costs by as much as ten percent. So a ten percent haircut across the board can be alleviated by just, ah to gain in retention. And why is that? It’s theirs. There’s a There’s a couple of things. It’s far, far less expensive to retain an existing customer than it is to gather to get a new one, right? We know that, and you know it’s anywhere from, you know, to seventeen percent Mohr. Ah, more expensive to acquire to acquire new ones. And the existing customers are are eighty percent more likely to buy again. Ah, because after they’ve already crossed that first hurdle. And so the donors, it’s exactly the same thing. They don’t if they’ve donated in the past there far, far more likely to donate again. But we’re not leveraging them as well as we could. Yes. Okay. Okay. So let’s let’s get smarter about leveraging them. Let’s go to segmentation where this is something we’ve had other guests talk about, too. But you have a little different spin on it. What? Explain it, please. Yeah, Yeah. So one of the things that I like to show on in a presentation here is a collection of of ten men, all in the same suit. Some of them are tall, Some are short, some of her heavy set, some of her extraordinarily slender. And the suit on ly fits one person perfectly well, but it really doesn’t fit anybody else. And so you know the point that that that this makes here is that not all of our customers are created equally, and it’s astronomically expensive for a clothier to tailor the suit. Absolutely everyone. And as much as we’d like to give everyone the perfect fitting suit, we have to be more selective. And so what that means is that we have to be more selective in who we choose to choose to serve, we may be able to create a suit that fits instead of ten people. Maybe it Maybe it fits five, and with a little tiny bit of tailoring, we can make it work for this group of five. But it would be astronomically expensive Teo to address the other, the other five. So the private companies come. Private sector companies have become very selective through this notion of segmentation, which is a division into discrete customer groups that share similar characteristics and and by aligning our, um ah ourselves around this notion of ah segmentation and allows us to do four things really well. It allows us to align people, align our purpose, a mission and values with those people that truly value those things. It allows us to be laser focused on this smaller group of people and figure out what air their unmet needs. And how can we deliver those needs that air more useful toe to this narrowly narrow group rather than a scattershot trying to be all things to all people? It allows us to with a segmentation. It allows us to get greater value from so from high profit individuals and lower profit individuals. And then it allows us if we do it right. You know, the best companies go beyond just segmenting according to how much money are they giving us? But they focus on need and behavior and and the potential to give us more money to donate more money or two participate with us in more ways. And so So the segmentation gives us a ah ah. Lot more room in which we can operate because we’re serving a smaller audience. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. And now, part of what you say in segmentation and it’s it’s it’s absorbed in what? In what you just said, just one make explicit is that, you know, if if we’re gonna love all our donors, we have to love some more because it just can’t be. It can’t be equivalent across. And that’s what you’re That’s what your ten guys in suits. Of course it could be. You know, maybe I should mix out. Maybe should have also beside that ten women in dresses that are only ill fitting that are ill fitting nine, But absolutely Okay. Okay, so But what that means then under buy-in intended. Okay, I understand, but So what that means is, you know, in an impact. I’m thinking, you know, as the guy who doesn’t fly very much me, You know, I’m the one who never gets the upgrade. You know, I have a hotel brand Marriott. I’m very loyal to them, so they take care of me. But if I stay at a Hilton, I don’t get, you know, I don’t get the upgrades. So what you did say, though, that you did mention people at the bottom or the smaller donors there’s there is something for them to so make me make me feel good about this segmentation process. Yeah, You know, this this is this is one of the hardest challenges with with tearing and with segmentation and tearing is that everybody wants to be Ah wants to treat all of our customers equal and and as much as we would love to, we just simply can’t There are not enough resource is there’s not enough people in our organization. There’s not enough money in our organization to treat everybody the same. And so we have to be precisely because we love our customers. We actually have to treat them differently. We have to love some of them Mohr and and the the The reason for this is that loving some of them Mohr enables us to fulfill our mission. It remains it enables us to remain a going concern. We have to focus on those we absolutely cannot afford to lose. So ah, great example of this is the oxygen masks that come down in the what in the or the or that are talked about coming down in the onboarding airline instruction. Even though a lesson even those of us in coach economy. We still get Air Basques, you know, waiting for the time you’ve got to put a quarter in to get the oxygen mask. It’s kind of like putting the quarter in to use the restroom, right? For all of you know, for all the change. I can’t. I mean, I hope they take cards. When that happens, I think I can swipe and then I get the oxygen drop down. Okay. Yeah. So? So the notion here is that they want you to make sure that you take care of the less advantaged First, you know, the children, the elderly, whatever the infirm, so so that you can you want to make sure that they take? I’m sorry. You gotta take care of things here. Yeah, yeah. Good care of yourself first, because you’re no good to anybody next to you if you’ve gone loopy or if you passed out because the time of useful consciousness here on the airplane, if they in a case of rapid depressurization is thirty to sixty seconds or less, you know, fifteen seconds. And so you have to take care of yourself first so that you can take care of others. And so when you come back to ah, looking at our donors in order to keep serving all of our customers, we have to be able to take care of of some of our best customers first, because they keep, they pay the bills, they keep the lights on and enable us to do to serve some of our other customers or donors that may not be paying quite as much. Um, you know, there’s a there’s a great ah, great example of ah, large non-profit here. Who? Who said that every month there’s a there’s a sweet little lady that’s writing out a check for a dollar. Fifty a check for a dollar fifty, and and we’d love her to death. But it actually cost us more to process that. Then the cheque is worth. And so we lover, We want her to continue because it feels good for her, and we love her attitude, inner spirit. But we also need to focus on those on those donors that are going to keep the light on. And when we do that, That gives us the opportunity to create initiatives to create value that trickles down through the organization and that everybody benefits and also subsidizes the processing of that dollar fifty check and the and the acknowledgement letter that goes out to her right. So it enables us another worst thing would be to, say, return that cheque and say, I’m sorry, we don’t want your money. I mean, that would be that would be devastating to that that sweet old woman or two. Not more traumatic or to not acknowledge it, because you just never know if that dollar fifty year donor on that’s a really extreme example. I’ve never really even seen e-giving that small, but but I’ve seen certainly lots of ten and fifteen dollars year donors and they can become your your plan gift donor zoho be the person who dies. You don’t know it because you’re not close to them. You’ve been acknowledging they’re they’re very small gifts, but you don’t know that they died until you get a notice of probate and you find out that there in your will and you have your residual beneficiary. And it’s a very it’s a five million dollar estate. There’s some small, outright bequest to some distant cousins, and you’ve got fifty percent of the residual that’s left. That is not that uncommon you. So just as coming strictly from you come from the corporate side, and I know that you’re not saying, Ignore those people who give ten dollars a year. But you have to treat them differently and not as can’t spend as much time with them as you do the higher level names. I understand that. But I would never say Don’t acknowledge that even dollar and a half a year donor-centric Q. Because you just never know what else might be there. Okay, Just shout out from the from the from the fund-raising side. But you’re not. Not that you’re antithetical to fund-raising I’m not suggesting that at all. Just just bringing in the plant e-giving side. That’s all. Okay, um, we just have about, like, two minutes before a break. Give me a couple of strategies for how we can show that love. On any level. Any level. Yeah, yeah. One of the things that that’s that’s really fascinating here. Problem. Before we dive into that question, here is its figure. Who are your best customers? Your best donors. You know, we look att att these folks by how much money that they’re giving. We also need an add add another dimension of that which is how passionate are they buy-in about your cause. They may not be giving you the most money, but they may be absolutely one hundred percent passionate. And those air really useful to Corral and Teo to invite into the tent, if you will, so that you can invite them to help you invite them to participate in AA in a bunch of your activities. Because they may not be able to give you give you a lot of money. They may be able to give you connections and time and and introductions that could be hugely valuable to you. Okay, we’re going to take this break, and then when we come back, I’m goingto ask Curtis How you how you start to How do you identify those? Those critical to keep donors. When you see piela, they’re kicking off a remote non-profit roundtable Siri’s each quarter a Wagner CPAs C P a bona fide will cover a topic that they know intimately, and you need to know basic understanding. Last week was revenue recognition for grants and contracts. You can watch that archive video at weger cps dot com. Click Resource is then seminars. Now time for Tony’s. Take two. You want to be a non-profit radio insider? It’s time. Why is that exclusive content NUFER The New Year I’m kicking off expanded guest interviews that are exclusively for non-profit radio insiders. Each week, I’m going to go deeper into a topic with the guest. We’re going to do this with Curtis when when the show is over or cover something that we didn’t talk about on the show Curtis and I are going to talk about is he’s got an exercise that we’re going to talk about in the insider video. Now that sounds like something that would be behind a Paywall. And for many podcasters. Maybe it is, but not this one. There’s no pay. Absolutely not so But I do ask you to do is be an insider. I want you to get the weekly insider alerts, and the way to do that is go to tony martignetti dot com and click the Insider alerts button. That’s it. That’s the way to gain your access to exclusive these private five minute videos that are going to be producing for insiders. Now let’s get back to Curtis Bingham and Donor-centric Donor-centric City. All right, Curtis. How do we identify those who are critical to keep? I think it begins with, like, Like I said, obviously we’re looking at some of the metric we may be looking at segmenting our donor’s based on, you know, dollar contribution, recency frequency, volume, whatever that those air traditional metrics here, but there’s there’s a there’s a different, um, different scale toe. Add to the mix here, and that is, you know, passionate. How passionate are they about your about your mission? Are they donating to you because they because it’s mandated by the company, are they? Or do they have a loved one that is, you know, that may have been suffering from cancer or leukemia o. R. Or whatever it is, you know. Are they passionate because they have a family involved in, uh, in the in the benefits that directly benefits from the from the charity? So, you know, it’s it’s really there’s There’s any number of ways in which we in which you could assess that passion, whether it’s through surveys or direct contact or or you know, our Albert calls or, you know, executive executive meetings, whatever the cases. But looking at, they’re at their passion and figure out who are the most passionate. Ah, even though they may not be giving the largest amount of money. And then you look at at a slice at one Mohr way here and that’s looking at Where are they donating? Are they donating, you know, dollar to you in a dollar to somebody else and a dollar to somebody down there down the road more? Are they donating everything, all of their discretionary income to you? And so if you put those on a on A on a force where four square box with passionate about your mission over the top and dedicated donations over to the right, the most valuable people are those people. The most valuable customers or our donors are those that are absolutely passionate about your mission, and they don’t get it. They don’t donate. They don’t spread around their donations. They are donating everything that they have over to, Ah, over to you. And that’s that’s this notion of share of wallet What percentage of a customer spending our donors donations is captured by your brand or your or your firm. And so it’s really valuable. Lot of the best private sector companies here. Commercial sector companies here are really starting to do this segmentation by share of wallet because it shows some very fascinating things, and it uncovers people who are really valuable to your company that that may not have shown up and just be in just sheer dollar volume contributed. And this this wallet share gives us a really fascinating way of looking at our at our donors and figuring out which ones we need to keep, which ones we need to grow and which ones just really. There’s too much competition. Let them go, too, to somebody else. Tio. Thank them for whatever donations that they’re doing. But don’t spend an inordinate amount of money trying to convince them to donate more because they never will. How our company’s measuring share of wallet How are they learning that it’s there’s a There’s a really interesting way of ah, of measuring it. You know, there’s a number of really different, really complex calculations that some of the big companies are doing. But there was a really fascinating article that came out was published in The Wall Street Journal in I’m Sorry, the Harvard Business Review Rather in two thousand eleven, and it talks about the wall allocation rule and I’m happy to send. Send people a link to that if they if they’re interested in receiving this and walking through it. But it was based on a study of one hundred seventy thousand customers over two years, and they found that the share of wallet was very highly correlated with actual purchases in A in a commercial sector. And what they found was that they went just really briefly. What they did was they looked at for each brand or each non-profit what are the the the relevant, the perfectly relevant competing brands that people are choosing to donate metoo and then you, you do a survey. You Ah, you. You call them up, whatever. And you get them to measure to describe how much they are contributing to each of these different different non-profit organizations, and then you convert that into a rank, and the computation is very is very straightforward. And so you get you, you, Khun marry that with a kind of an estimated money that they’re giving to competing brands. And you can. You can calculate the share of wallet, and it’s a fantastically easy back of the envelope. Method for calculating share of wallet And it gives you workable information that you Khun then used in in prioritizing your spending to Trier to acquire and retain some of these donors. That just it just makes a lot of sense to me that the ones you wantto focus on the most are those that are giving you the largest share of their disposable income. Or maybe maybe it was their charitable dollars. Maybe have to narrow it down to that. All right. Yeah. All right. Yeah, I’m okay. I want to make sure we get everything there’s. So let’s move to migration. Getting getting people, getting people, getting people more Mohr. Well, moving them over, moving them over to the today, I think, to the right of that quadrant that you described and and ultimately to the to the to the upper to the upper right. Yeah, the the this this is fascinating because, you know, like you said, the big question is how do we migrate them from one bucket to the to the other? How do we make them more passionate about our cause? How do we get a larger share of wallet? And and this actually came out of some work that Hillary noon and of who is now a pursuant. Ah, and I worked on a number of years ago. She when she was American Cancer Society and she was really interested in How do you retain and activate donors and volunteers and at the time and still is to some extent, loyalty was all the rage, but but But it didn’t really tell us anything. Um, you know, Net promoter score. A lot of people are using this net promoter score, which is your willingness to recommend a brand Teo somebody else. It didn’t really tell us anything because it measures some intense take future action. And, you know, St Jude’s was a great example here. Were with their net promoter scored. Nobody will give anything but a ten. Everybody gives them attend because even though a service interaction might have been miserable, If you give anything less than a ten, it’s a knock against the kids, and you just simply don’t know the kid. So we interviewed a number of CCO Council members, and we found that NPS, the Net promoter score, doesn’t actually measure behavior. But engagement does. And so this this notion of of customer engagement was was built up here, and we found that it. Actually, if we the more we engage your customers, the more likely they are to collaborate with us, advocate with us and and and donate money to us. And so So this notion here is, um, you know, customer engagement here is we defined. I define it as the extent of a customer’s willingness to invest his or her discretionary time with a company for mutual benefit. So how willing if a company of if a person is really engaged, they’re willing to help you do things, they’re willing to collaborate with you. They’re willing to participate in your activities to help with fund-raising. They’re willing to make introductions. They’re willing to do things on your behalf, and then how do we measure it? It’s the measurement is the sum of all of the activities that build a positive, positive emotional attachment between a company and and customers, and that results in greater involvement, greater advocacy and greater revenue and profit. And so, you know, there’s a There’s a couple of things that that people have done to engage. Engage your customers. So so you have to have the basic blocking and tackling, right? You can’t. You can’t be treating customers poorly. But once you’ve got the basic blocking tackling right, then you can start engaging in them. How can you get them to collaborate with you? What can you do to actually, What can you ask them to do to help you with? If they help you, they arm or invested in your success. So are we talking? Are we talking about small things? Like just sign a petition, call a congressman? Things like things like that to start. Yes. And Mohr OK, I think that getting them to do something for you creates this. This need for reciprocity. Um, they the more that you can get them to do for you, the more inclined they are to, um you want to support you. And so when When? When we were together. Ah, A little bit ago at at pursuance conference, I talked to a number of the non-profits that were there, and and there was a couple of really great examples. I mean, one of them, there was one non-profit there who would have you received a call from someone after a podcast saying, Hey, the noise quality on your podcast has really deteriorated. I’m a sound engineer. It’s really bothering me. Can I come and help you fix the problem? And so they said, Well, of course. And they came in. The gentleman came in spend a day crawling underneath all of the cabinets and countertops and fixed, replaced a bunch of replaced on board some wires and and electronics and solve the problem for them. And that’s something that they didn’t have the capability of doing. Now you look at this on the another dream there is another. There was another non-profit there that I could hold on. You hold that example because I gotta take a break. But before, I don’t want to make explicit that thie podcast The person was complaining The sound of was not twenty. Martignetti non-profit radio that was some non-profit had not, Not not non-profit. Okay, tell us, can you use more money? Do you need an additional revenue source? You want to diversify revenue, you get a long stream of passive revenue. When companies you refer to tell us process their credit card transactions through Tello’s, you watch the video and then send potential companies that you could refer to watch that same video You get the long stream the fifty percent of the fee for each transaction that Tello’s processes. And that adds up the video. Is that tony dot m a slash Tony Tello’s We got to do the live listener love. And there is ah lot Tampa, Florida Adelanto, California Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, Brooklyn, New York, New York, New York, Northvale, New Jersey Very close to where I grew up in old Japan. Live love to each of those cities. Wilmington special shout out to you, of course, North Carolina. But the love is see that I can’t do it. Equal, limited, egalitarian Lee. Equally, Curtis has a word. Equanimity, equanimity, But Quinn Emelius Lee, because I just, you know, I live in North Carolina, so that’s there in the like that in the upper quad to the upper right quadrant. But then the live love goes out to everybody else, too. From Adelanto, California to Tampa, Florida and Brooklyn, New York and New York, New York. All right, let’s go abroad to ah, wow! Taipei, Taiwan and Beijing China Knee How Teo to our listeners, they’re Islamabad, Pakistan, Seoul, South Korea. On your haserot comes a ham Nida in Savi, Edo, Japan. Konnichi Wa, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tehran, Iran. Sudan is with us. I don’t believe we’ve had to. Sudan Listener Live love to each of those live listeners in who are abroad and the podcast pleasantries, the vast majority of our audience over thirteen thousand listeners each week. The podcast listeners pleasantries to you. I am grateful and thankful that you are with us week after week after week after week. You’re sticking with us because it’s great value. I mean, there’s like there’s about your questioning. I’m just, ah, having some fun pleasantries to the podcast audience right now. Back to Curtis Bingham. Who, Curtis. You have another example of a non-profit engagement and migration? Yeah, there was there was one person there at the at the event. There was one non-profit here that that there ah, there are a number of their large donors were brought in to help them create a donor survey program. There was another one that had a fantastic example where they brought in a number of employees from Amazon to take a tour of their of their warehouse facility and the Amazon employees. They asked the vast Amazon if they had any advice for them in how to improve their logistics. And Amazon brought in a team of their own warehouse logistics managers and in a couple of days just completely redesigned their their warehouse, using all of the best practices that Amazon has developed over over the years. You know, another great example is that there is one one non-profit has a number of technology corporate partners, and they were able to go to them and say, What is the bait? The best online HR system that you have found and and they had intended to spend. I’m doing some research on this, and the company came back said, Look, we’ve already done The research here is the best one. We’ll even help you implement it. And so, you know, the real question for you is you’re trying to engage your donors is to think about what can you ask them to do for you? How can you help in engage them in helping you fulfill your mission? You know it can be small, like fixing the fixing some of the audio on your podcast. It can be large to helping implement a large AARP system or revamping your warehouse logistics. But the thing is, how can you ask people to help? And one of things that I think people are afraid to do is ask people for help. They’re getting really good at asking people to donate, but they’re afraid of asking people for help. And yet, asking people to help you is allows them to go beyond just kind of a passive donate donate or to someone who’s actively engaged when they’re actively engaged in collaborating with you. They’re more likely to advocate for you. And then it’s not just about telling them, Go talk, go tell your friends and family or bring them to some sort of a you know, Black Tie fund-raising event. It’s here, introduced me to these people or talk to the CEO of this company here. That’s that’s possibly that’s considering making our charity a corporate, you know, a corporate sponsorship. And so, so once they are more eager to collaborate with you, they’re Mohr eager to ah, to be very vocal and advocate for you. And that’s when they start changing their behaviour and donating Mohr and staying longer, donating and advocating. As you said Now, Tio, know what people want to be engaged in where their interests lie. You need to be listening. And you you mentioned possibly surveying for for for for those high level, most engaged owners, the ones in the upper right quadrant that maybe personal meetings, personal face-to-face meetings where you’re finding out what it is that moves the person. Is that Is that your research? Is that your advocacy is that your your program for survivors of domestic abuse? Is that your mental health work? You know What is it that moves them that then you can engage them. You know, appropriately, with opportunities that at least are, you know, we’re going to appeal. Absolutely, absolutely. And you know, this is This is it’s very, very easy to do. There’s a There was an article that was published in the Harvard Business Review just this month that talks about how easy it is to figure out why customers buy from you. Um, and in ten twelve interviews, you confined out the five six reasons why customers buy from you, Ah, and and be able to articulate them better than anybody inside your company ever could. And the same thing could apply here in five or six interviews ten interviews with with some of your most valuable donors. You could find out the hot buttons that you need to start pushing in all of your marketing communications in all of your your your your donor meetings of the hot button that you push on social media in your advertisements. And when. Once you know those hot buttons because you’ve listened to them, you heard it directly from them. You’re far more likely to capture those passion and bring those. Bring them in. You’ve twice. Now you’ve mentioned Harvard Business Review. I have to stop reading U S. A. Today. I think I need to step up. I’ll step up my another another mix. OK. All right. Yes. Diversify. Diversify. Okay, um, so have we. You feel like I mean, just for the hour. We have to wait before I get that. Where’s your book? How come I can’t referred listeners to a book that you’ve written that that covers all this? I’ve been threatening to write a book forever, and and I I acknowledge that I have been remiss in working on too many things. That’s the problem that I have is that I have too many great ideas and and not enough. Not enough assistance, I think, Teo, capture them all and and take advantage of all of the brilliant ideas that are on the cutting room floor. Yeah, no kidding. My God, man, I break last break. Hoexter give. Can you use more money? Another revenue source down. He’s a second way Mentioned one before. You know the way of diversifying mobile e-giving you can learn about it with text to gives very simple five part email, Many course over five days. One e mail a day. You’re only five emails away from raising money through mobile giving. Or at least learning more about it. Lots of misconceptions. Um, so to start the many course, where do you go? You What do you do? You text n pr. November, Papa. Romeo. Two, four, four, four, nine, nine, nine. All right, we’ve got several more minutes before we hit the rap with with Donor-centric and Curtis. OK, All right. So I’ve admonished you about the book. I’m sure I’m not the first person to tell you earlier, monisha if you had one, I would be telling listeners, they gotta buy it. All right. So have we covered migration and engagement satisfactorily? Anything more you want to say about those? Yeah, really, really quick. There’s a couple of things that, um that you can weaken look at in in collaboration and advocacy. So, you know, I have some more resource is if anybody’s interested that talk about some of the ways in which you can collaborate, you really quickly you can get feedback from them. You know, whether it’s advisory board, focus group, you can involve Minya strategic planning process, cubine involvement, innovation activities or excess. Ours is you can enlist their services to help mutually support other other other donors, other customers, other volunteers, you know, participate in in in a lot of your your fund-raising activities and make introductions and so on advocacy, you know, you could use them in your used them in marketing, put put together the stories of why people are donating and, uh, and put him in your marketing. Um, let them generate help generate your marketing. MetLife did a great job of this a little while back where they put together a, They asked some of their their customers to write a letter to the to a family member, describing why it’s so important for everybody to have life insurance. Why, it’s so important for this family member to have life insurance, and they didn’t actually end up running the ads with them. But they got really rich information as to how people view this. This tired old thing called life. And so, you know, how can you use them to help you win your promotions and your marketing? You know what kind of doors, Khun? They open for you. What? How can they help you on social media? What can they do, Teo? Generate content and ideas and donation opportunities for you. So a lot of different ways in which you can get them. You can collaborate and advocate. Okay, Awesome. We still have several minutes left together. So what? What? Have I not asked you satisfactorily that waken going tomb or or something we haven’t covered? What? We still got time left. I think I think you’ve covered. Covered most everything here. I think that you’re kind of the the things to the takeaways here. Is that as much as as sexy as it is to continue focusing on bringing in new new donors every year. You really, really have to start focusing on retaining the year exists thing stopping that revolving door, um, and and we need to figure out how to keep our top tier donors. You know, we one of the things that that we looked at here is, you know, kind of in the share of wallet we talked about, talked a little bit earlier about, you know, segmenting the customers by share of wallets. And there’s a group of customers that you need to focus to focus on retaining. You know, just don’t do anything wrong. They’ll stay with you forever because they have a very high share of wallets. There’s a there’s a group that you have to focus to protect, to make sure that other nonprofit organizations don’t get in there and and lead them away. And then there’s a group that you should that you need to focus on growing because they have, ah, high potential share of wallet. But there’s there’s also this this notion here that, you know, there’s there’s There’s a big thing that people do in the non-profit, which is to share their donor lists. And for these, these categories of customers here, the segments of customers that you’re focusing on retaining and protecting and growing man for the love of God. Don’t share those names on that list. Oh, my God. What? Anybody hearing that you’re destroying that share of wallet? Yeah. Lower tiers. Oh, my God. Sure. Away. Yeah. Yeah. But don’t share these names here because because you want to capture more sure of wallet. You don’t want to incite them. Or in our invite them, too, to go back and and disperse their payments because everybody deserves something. Yeah. Now that well in the sharing of lists also has privacy concerns around it. You know, I don’t know that that seems like a risky that’s that just that sharing of any of any names like that. That sounds like a a risky proposition if if a donor figures that out even even even a low level donor-centric fied, they’ll tell ten people hyre. Right. All right, all right. Cars were going, Tio. We’re gonna leave it there. And so you you offered lots of resource is so I will remind people that they can get you. Ah, Twitter at Curtis Bingham for additional resource is because the man hasn’t written a book. I don’t know. I’m surprised I even had you on No I want to thank you very much. Thank you so much for sharing great ideas. Thank you. Thank you. Been delightful. And for insiders that the additional content is going to be an engagement exercise, Curtis and I are going to share with you next week. Courageous communication with Mary and er sh If you missed any part of today’s show, I beseech you, Find it on tony martignetti dot com. We’re sponsored by pursuant online tools for small and midsize non-profits data driven and technology enabled Tony dahna slash Pursuing Curtis gave them a very good shot out. All technology enabled. Data driven. Absolutely. Bye weinger SEPA is guiding you beyond the numbers. Weinger cps dot com By Telus Credit Card and Payment Processing your passive revenue stream Tony dahna slash Tony Tello’s and by text to give mobile donations made easy text. NPR to four four four nine nine nine Our Creative Producers Clan miree Off Sam Leibowitz is the line producer shows Social Media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our Web guy, and this music is by Scott Stein of Brooklyn, New York They’re with me next week for Non-profit Radio Big non-profit Ideas for the other ninety five percent go out and be great. Duitz. Metoo. You’re listening to the talking alternative network waiting to get you thinking. Cubine you’re listening to the talking alternative now, are you stuck in a rut? Negative thoughts, feelings and conversations got you down. Hi. I’m nor in Santa potentially eight. Tune in every Tuesday at nine. To ten p. M. Eastern time and listen for new ideas on my show Yawned Potential live life your way on talk radio dot N y c. Hey, all you crazy listeners looking to boost your business? Why not advertise on talking alternative with very reasonable rates interested? Simply email at info at talking alternative dot com. You like comic books and movie howbout TV and pop culture. Then you’ve come to the right place. Hi, I’m Michael Gulch, a host of Secrets of the Sire, joined every week by my co host, Hassan, Lord of the Radio Godwin. Together we have over fifteen years experience creating graphic novels, screenplays and more. Join us as we bring you the inside scoop on the pop culture universe you love to talk about. Wednesday nights eight p. M. Eastern Talk radio dot and lives. Thie. Best designs for your life Start at home. I’m David here. Gartner, interior designer and host of At Home. Listen live Tuesday nights at eight p. M. Eastern time as we talk to the very best professionals about interior design and the design that’s all around us right here on talk radio dot N. Y. C. You’re listening to talking on their network at www dot talking all calm now broadcasting twenty four hours a day. Are you a conscious co creator? Are you on a quest to raise your vibration and your consciousness? Um, Sam Liebowitz, your conscious consultant. And on my show, that conscious consultant, our awakening humanity. We will touch upon all these topics and more. Listen, live at our new time on Thursdays at twelve Noon Eastern time. That’s the conscious consultant, Our Awakening Humanity. Thursday’s twelve noon on talk radio dot you’re listening to the talking alternative network. Yeah.