So many nonprofits have a leaky bucket problem: donors don’t stay after their first gift. We all know retaining existing donors costs so much less than acquiring new ones. Chris Vaughan shares his thinking on keeping donors in the bucket through mission connection; engagement; relationships; retention rate ownership; welcome streams; and more. He’s co-founder of Sequence Consulting.
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
Welcome to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host, and I’m the pod father of your favorite hebdominal podcast. I’m glad you’re with us. I’d suffer the embarrassment of Pacion Nicia if you nailed me with the idea that you missed this week’s show. Here’s our associate producer, Kate, to introduce it. Hey Tony, here’s what’s coming. Low lift donor retention. So many nonprofits have a leaky bucket problem. Donors don’t stay after their first gift. We all know retaining existing donors costs so much less than acquiring new ones. Chris Vaughn shares his thinking on keeping donors in the bucket through mission connection, engagement, relationships, retention rate ownership, welcome streams, and more. He is co-founder of Sequence Consulting. On Tony’s take 2. A book update. Here is low lift donor retention. It’s a pleasure to welcome the co-founder and chief strategy officer of Sequence Consulting, Chris Vaughn. He helps associations grow their membership, revenue, and impact. He’s a frequent speaker and writer on the future of associations, membership, marketing, and growth strategy. The company is at sequence Consulting.com. And you’ll find Chris on LinkedIn. Welcome to nonprofit Radio, Chris Vaughn. Thank you, Tony. Great to be here. I’m glad you are. Thanks. Donor retention. Why don’t you, uh, set the stage. Uh, we’ve, we’ve heard statistics about, uh, dismal retention rates and costs of costs thereof, but It’s, it’s worth repeating because we don’t seem to be getting any better. So please help us, uh, like some motivation about why we should be paying attention to retention. Yeah, first, and just by way of background, uh, our focus is primarily membership organizations, and we’ve been working with them to help them grow for the last 25 years. Um, but we’ve also worked with major fundraisers, right? Folks like American Lung Association, the AARP Foundation, Jewish United Fund, United Way, and so on. And what we’ve observed across the years is that the retention issues are exactly the same. They’re almost identical, right? The struggles are the same, the root causes are the same, and the solutions are the same across membership and across the donor life cycle, which is, is interesting, but also really, really valuable because all the lessons that we’ve learned from helping associations plug their retention leak and grow also work, right, in the fundraising context and, and, and we know this as background, um, so on both sides of the equation, yes, the retention numbers are dismal. Um, fundraising excellence Project says overall retention, uh, fundraising donation, donor, donor retention is about 43%, uh, which is down 4 years in a row, right? So, uh, I believe, don’t quote me, but I believe it’s at an all-time low, right? So the trends have been, uh, declining for a really, really, really long time. Fewer than half. We’re, we’re, we’re keeping fewer than 50% of our donors. Total, fewer than half of your total donors, right? Or put it otherwise, half of your, more than half are walking out the door, right? Every year, perhaps never to be seen again. Um, what really jumps out about me in those statistics is first-time donor retention, right? Which the FEP says is the single most important unsolved problem in fundraising is that less than 1 in 5 first-time donors ever donate again. Man. So think about that, and that 60% of the overall funds that you raise are from repeat donors and you can see where the leaky bucket is, right? And that’s what we call it the leaky bucket. Uh, you’re working hard to acquire new donors, you’re bringing them in the door, but 4 out of 5 of those. are never gonna write a, a check to you sort of ever again. I have this image in my head, right, of Wile E. Coyote, you know, running off the edge of the cliff and his feet are just spinning, spinning, spinning, spinning. That’s acquisition, you know, that’s the way I think about it is you just gotta keep running faster and faster to replace the donor that you just got, you know, last month. The, the, the Roadrunner has the answer. If we, if, if the two could come together, they, they would, they would solve, they would solve this problem because the, the, the Roadrunner knows what he’s doing. Exactly, exactly. But we wouldn’t have much of a cartoon series. Yeah, well, all right, well, we’ll put the kids aside. I mean we’re trying to, we’re trying to solve an an existential problem here. All right, that’s true. Um, and, and we’re also really, really bad at recapturing those lost donors once they leave, right? The report says 3%, 3%, that’s the best we can do. So 3. 123, folks who have, uh, who know about us and have cared about us enough to, to make a gift at some point in the past, um, 4 out of 5 of them are gonna walk and less than 3% of those will ever come back and give again. So it’s, it’s a real challenge. Um, and it’s a real growth challenge, right? It’s like driving a speedboat with a hole in the bow, you know, it’s, it’s really difficult to grow if you’re constantly plugging the hole right behind you. So that’s, that’s the dynamic. I mean, that’s the setup, and I’m sure everyone who’s listening to this podcast feels that, right, every single day. So, what, what, what is it, uh, why, why don’t we get at some of the causes that you’ve identified that you want to talk through and, and we’ll, then we’ll, we’ll make our way through the, the donor experience and how we can improve it. But what are some, yeah, what are some root causes you’re seeing? So, so, so why do donors lapse? Why do members lapse? It, it’s never in the mission, right? It’s not like they, they lose heart, right? Or, or, or they stop caring for the reasons that they cared about in, in the future. Um, it’s that they don’t see themselves in the mission, right? So, they don’t see it in a way that’s personally relevant to them, right? And ties back to the things that they care about personally that kind of brought them to your mission in the first place. I think that’s, that’s one really important one. It’s a sense of impact. Right? People don’t come, they don’t make gifts like this, you know, just because they want to be a part of something, they want to make a difference, right? They want to make an impact. They want to know that they’re part of something that’s changing a world, the world in a way that means something to them, and that connection gets lost. Sometimes it gets lost immediately, right? They, they just, they don’t know where the impact really, really was. Uh, and then there’s the sense of, of relationship, and not in the sense that people are coming to these kinds of nonprofits for, for community. But they want to feel like you know them, right? That, that you, you care about them, that you acknowledge them as, as people and as donors and as part of your organization. And most organizations are really bad about that for a, for a number of reasons, but those are the primary reasons is, you know, it, it doesn’t connect. We don’t connect very well to the people and we don’t connect them very well back to the mission that they just contributed to. So, you know, when we talk about a relationship, I mean, we’re talking about a first gift. So, it’s not gonna be a deep relationship, but are we treating it like the beginning of a relationship, or are we treating it like a mere transaction? Exactly. And I, I would say that most kind of new members, um, feel like a target, right? Less than a partner, right? Sort of, you know, we, we hounded them down, we sort of chased them down, we’ve got them to give one gift and they’re like, OK, now what? Right? What, what’s gonna happen next? In the donor experience, what typically happens next? Nothing, right? Perhaps nothing. We eventually we’ll acknowledge the gift. Um, that could take a long time, right? Small staff organizations that are overloaded, right? That’s sort of one of the things that’s easy to push to the bottom of the pile is donor acknowledgement, donor recognition. I’ve been on the other side of that myself. I’ve donated to new organizations, right, whose missions spoke to me or I felt compelled to, and don’t hear from them for weeks and weeks and, and weeks, and then, and I, I, I literally forget that I did it. I have to look them up and go, OK, who, who is this that’s writing to me? So, I mean, I think that was a missed opportunity or Our first opportunity to connect with one is one that misses the message, right? So maybe we acknowledge the gift, maybe we talk more about the organization and ourselves and what we do, but we miss the opportunity to make that initial connection in such a way that is going to bring them back, right, to make that next gift. Are, are you envisioning some kind of, uh, uh, a, a message about the impact of the gift that you made, you know, because of, because of you, this work continues or we can do this, or what, what are you envisioning in a, in like in an ideal first communication, uh, not a, hopefully, it’s not a tax receipt, you know, you know, right. I mean, let’s not send, uh, OK, let, let’s get that off the table. Like it shouldn’t be a tax receipt. Uh, that can come later or it doesn’t even need to come at all. I mean, you can, you can have a narrative letter that’s, that includes the date of the gift, the amount of the gift, and then goes on to, letter or email. Uh, uh, uh, I’m not suggesting it has to be print, but whatever the channel, uh, that, that ties back to what your gift did. exactly, and so, so, um, Real life case study, work that we did with the American Lung Association, although they’re, they’re quite large, I think all the lessons learned apply, right, to small and medium sized nonprofits as well. But they were in exactly the same place where only 25% of their first year donors would, would ever give again. And, and they had a file of several, several million. donors that weren’t coming back, right? That had gone back about 5 years. So that’s very typical, uh, uh, problem that you might be up against. Their solve for it was, was two parts, and the first part was welcome stream, which we’ll talk about first, and the second part was recapturing last slapsed donors, and they had a lot of success. So let’s talk about that too. But the, the welcome stream acknowledged the fact that the decision to give again is made in the 1st 90 days at most, right? So if, if someone hasn’t recommitted. That they’re gonna support you on an ongoing basis in the 1st 90 days. They probably never will, and often it’s made much faster than that in the first month. So a really effective welcome stream responds immediately to the gift, right? Acknowledges it and then asks questions, right? Tell me more about you, Tony. Why did you give? What is it that you really, you really care about? How is this personally connected to you? So in the lung association, people give, uh, perhaps because someone or someone in their family, right, has, has, uh, you know, been exposed to had an experience of cancer or of COPD. So very personal missions. If we know that. We can communicate with you so much more effectively in the future about the things that we know you care about. So the first message was getting to know you. Tell us more about you and, and what brought you here. That was number 1. OK, well, before we go to number 2, how, how do you get that feedback back? So this is, this is an email and then folks are answering or it’s an SMS. It’s a, it, it goes in an email, but it’s a quick pulse survey. It’s just a really quick 5 questions, Quick survey. No, no more. Takes 10 seconds to answer it, right? But now I have that information on the file and I can segment my communications to you in a way that’s 100% more effective and people appreciate being asked, right? Like, oh, they want to get to know me. I’m not just a number. This isn’t just a transaction. This is more than a tax receipt. That’s week one. Week 2, we give them an offer, right? Here’s other ways that you could get involved. Thank you, Tony. You told us you care a lot about smoking cessation, and here’s some programs that you can get involved with, right? Here’s some other things that you can do. Here’s some other ways that you can give to sort of bring them in, sort of invite them into the organization in ways beyond writing checks. Also important, right? Sort of expands the relationship. And the third week, and this is counterintuitive, is to ask again, right? Make another gift. Three weeks after the first, and the campaign was incredibly successful and many, many people did because it was recent, right? It was personal, right? And we had shown both interest in them as a person and connection back to the mission. So very simple 3 part email series. There’s no reason, uh, any size not for profit couldn’t do that. Um, you know, based on all the modern email systems that we have now, uh, it really transformed their donor cultivation, right? Their first year retention skyrocketed by a campaign really just as simple as that. And over the next couple of years, they grew their donor file by 50%, 50, through a combination of more effective welcome stream and then this lapsed member campaign that we ran. OK, before we get to the lapsed members. Uh, all right, so this welcome stream is, uh, 1 a week, so you’re doing it in 3 weeks. So you’re trying to capture the, the, the, the, capture the folks who make that decision. You said, uh, most people make it within 90 days whether to give again, but a lot of people make it within 30 days. So you wanna, you wanna get, you want, you want the more recent. You’re, you want the within, within, you’re doing it within 3 weeks, 21 days. Yeah, the the the soon, the sooner the better, and I think that’s a big miss in a lot of these organizations is they feel like it can wait. Um, and we see this across voluntary organizations of all kinds of membership and donors. You, you cannot wait. Why, why do they, why do they, I, I haven’t heard that. I mean, I know we have trouble with retention. Obviously, I, I’m, I’m completely on board with, uh, uh, and agree with the, with the, the problem, but I, I haven’t heard, you know, we, we think we can, we figure we can wait. What do we, wait, wait, wait to thank, wait to welcome. Wait to, to engage, uh, that’s, that’s, that’s counterintuitive. All, all, all of the above, and the reasons are, uh, uh, uh, we think are really structural, right? Retention is not a strategic priority. Boards get excited by acquisition, right? How many new donors did you get? No one gets excited about retention, although we can all do the math. Um, that’s one reason. No one owns the number in most of these organizations. No one is accountable to the retention number, right? It’s just a number that’s sort of, uh, out there. That’s true. That’s a very good, uh, I don’t want you to lose your other points you’re gonna amount to make, but that’s, that’s very true. Acquisition, then the, the channel gets, uh, the, the channel gets the credit or the, the, the accolades for the, the number or the percentage of, of, Gifts that we got from the acquisition campaign, whether it’s digital or print. Then, but then no, you’re right, nobody owns the retention number. How many of those donors did we keep? How, how many of those made a second gift within, uh, let’s say 30 days or 60 days, whatever our, you know, we should be able to do this, the welcome stream within 30 days, but how many of those folks do we keep? But nobody, nobody really is accountable to that number. No, right? And that, that’s surprising considering how important it really is, right? Like a, a, a 10% increase in repeat donors will net you far more than a 10% increase in retention because we’re gonna lose 80% of the folks that we acquire. We know that. The, the other number, and again, this holds true across all kinds of organizations for the last 25 years, right? A first-time donor, maybe 30% chance that they’ll repeat. A 3 time donor is 70% likely. To repeat, a 7 time donor is 90% likely to repeat. So the more you give, the more you give. And this dynamic, it’s like a law of nature in these kinds of organizations is that there’s a threshold, it’s typically 3. Beyond which this becomes a long term commitment. It becomes a long term relationship, and 3 is not a lot if you think about it, right? If you make a gift, if I can get you to give again in the 1st 3 weeks and then get, get, get you to give again a few months later, and now I have a, a reliable repeat donor at 70%, that’s way better than 20%. Mhm. Yeah, yeah, that’s excellent. OK. OK. I, I, I, I derailed you a little bit. Uh, uh, we were talking about why, why, why are we, why are we think thinking we can wait? And, and I made you digress around, uh, the thing that boggles me, uh, that, that I’ve heard is that, that, uh, well, that nobody owns that retention rate, but are there other, uh, I want to go back to, other reasons why we, the nonprofit feels that we can just hold off on this? I, I, I think there’s a sense of learned helplessness, right, which is, you know, we’ve sort of trained ourselves that most donors don’t give again, um, which is unfortunate because in our experience, this is something that you can change, but I think ingrained in these organizations is the expectation of, I better go find a new one because this guy’s not coming back. Well, that’s self-fulfilling. Well, yeah, that’s self-fulfilling based on bad behavior by the nonprofit. Agreed. Uh, most of these organizations don’t have a structured welcome stream process like I just described that, that runs automatically, which is the ideal. I mean, this is something, you know, as soon as the donation hits the system, it should trigger this campaign to folks. I think a lot of these associations have a campaign mindset, right, is we’ll wait until the next campaign to ask again. Uh, even if the next campaign is 6 months from now, right, by which time 80% of these people have, have moved on. Well, they’ve long forgotten. They, they forgot the donation that they made 6 months ago. Exactly, and then they go into our lapsed donor file where we generally forget about them. Yeah. Yeah, every couple of years we try to revive them. Exactly. It’s time for Tony’s take 2. Thank you, Kate. Just have an update on my book, which is on schedule to be launched. September 15th, it’s planned giving accelerated, the cut through the shit, no-nonsense, practical, step by step guide to launch long-term fundraising at your small nonprofit within a week, starting with bequests. The title may be longer than the book. Did you need a nap? That’s the book title. So it’s, um, it’s, it’s, it’s interesting. Once you hand it over to the editorial process, which the first editor is the line editor. Which is mostly about substance and organization. Once you hand it over there, then, uh, you, and then it goes to the copy editor. The copy editor is mostly about consistency, rules of grammar, Chicago Manual of Style type editing. And, uh, then it goes back to the line editor, then it goes back to the copy editor. And then it goes to the graphic designer. You notice the writer is out of it. Uh, uh, I mean, they asked me questions, but Once you, once you write your manuscript, you’re pretty much out of the process, except for answering some discrete questions about what did you mean here, or can we say this a little differently, things like that. So. Uh, interestingly, I’m not, uh, I’m not too involved. I mean, yeah, I’m not too involved. They keep me apprised, but I’m not too involved. Oh, and then after the back and forth with the editors, two rounds of that, then you have a proofreader. You don’t want to skip the proofreader either, so that’s a. It’s another iteration you go through. But we’re on, we’re on schedule, so not to worry. Nunja worry, as, uh, as my grandpa Martine Etti used to say, would be Kate’s, uh, great grandpa in his Italian New Jersey accent. Nunja worry, Nunjawari. So, none to worry, it’ll be out by the 15th of September. And that’s just an update on my book. And that’s just Tony’s take 2. Kate, I am excited to, I don’t know. I don’t think you’ve shown me like the cover yet, but I’m excited to see the cover and the whole entire. Title on it. It fits. It fits. It fits. I want people to know this is not some academic text that you’re gonna find at the Columbia University, uh, master’s degree program in nonprofit management and fundraising. It’s not gonna be at Columbia or any, it’s not gonna be in any, any higher education curriculum. This is a, this is a, Practitioner’s book, it’s fun. Obviously based judging by the title, right? I want folks to know this is a fun book, not an academic planned giving text. Well, none to worry. Thank you very much. That was Grandpa Martinetti. Thank you. We’ve got boou butt loads more time. Here’s the rest of Low lift donor retention with Chris Vaughn. Improvements. You you have some ideas for small improvements, like for the welcome stream. OK. 3 messages a week apart. The 3rd 1 is an actual, uh, uh, ask for a second gift. So, so, uh, another really important part of that campaign was targeted segmentation. So, um, these types of organizations have a bad habit of talking to everyone about everything they do, right? So we get really excited about all of the mission work we do and we should because we do such great work and we figure if we tell you about all of it, right, we’ll impress you. Something will stick. We’ll throw it all at the wall and something will stick and, and something is actually gonna stick. Well, actually the opposite is true. I, I can’t, I can’t see myself in that. So Lung Association, again, back to our example, uh, had 30 different segments, 30 that they thought about people and all the stuff that they did, right across their, and, and that’s. Completely unrealistic, right? uh, no staff can operate against 30 segments at the same time, right? You can’t accurately bucket people, even with the resources of an ALA. You can’t bucket people accurately, and you don’t have that much to say about 30 different things, I’m afraid. So we, we did the data analysis and we looked at all the millions of folks in the file and what they’d given to and what they cared about, and at the end of the day it was 3. There’s only 3 reasons why people give, right? It’s smoking cessation, it’s uh COPD and lung cancer, right? Those are the causes, and they seldom overlap, right? So maybe I care about cancer and smoking cessation, but by and large, I’m drawn to one of those things and not the other. What were the other, what, what were some of the other 27 different segments that had, these just things just evolved over time. For years and years and nobody looked holistically over time or, or should you talk to a cancer patient different than a cancer survivor, different than a cancer caretaker? No, not as, not as a fundraising organization, no, that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they care about the condition and the good work that you were doing to help cure it. That was the message that we had to tell. OK, OK. So we were able to, because we were able to go through the file and identify previous donors. What they’ve given to when and why we could pretty accurately bucket them. Into one of these cause buckets that we cared about and that’s all we talked to them about. So if we know that you care about lung cancer, that’s all we’re gonna talk to you about. We’re not gonna try to convince you to care about some other issue. We’re gonna talk about all the great work that we’re doing to cure cancer and how you can personally help and how much difference your donation made to the millions of dollars that we raised for cancer research, etc. etc. etc. and now I’m speak your language, right? And, and for the new, for the newest donors, you have the survey results. You have, you have the quick, you have the quick survey from the 1st 3rd of the, of the welcome journey. Welcome stream, you call it welcome stream. Some folks call it a journey, but whatever, yeah, on, onboarding. But yeah, but you have the survey. Now, you, you had millions of donors who you had to categorize into 33 sort of programmatic areas, but, but for the newest donors, yet you, you do have the survey results at least. You, you do, and that’s, that’s 1000 times more than, than you had before, right? I have some, at least I have some idea. And then the next time you give, I’ve just confirmed it, right? That this is the kind of donor you are. These are your issues. These are the kinds of things that you respond to. And that’s part of why it was so transformational is they’ve never expressed themselves that clearly, right? To, to donors about why should you care? And, and what difference does it make that you’re here. It makes a huge difference. And let me tell you how. So that messaging on top of the urgency, right, on top of the inviting nature of the welcome stream was, was just a radically different experience than anyone had ever had from this organization before. Uh, and, and, you know, the end result was a massive increase in, in donor retention. Now what was that project like to get this down, get millions of records fit within 3. 3 programmatic areas. Uh, the actual analysis wasn’t hard. Convincing the organization was, as you might imagine. All right, so say some more, say, say some more. The analysis was pretty obvious, uh, but, you know, convincing the organization to, to think differently and, and, you know, people are, are attached to their own area and what they work on, but to convince them that we’re all gonna be better off. If we consolidate our messaging and communication around where the donors are at and not where we’re at, we’ll be much better off as an organization and ultimately we did. It’s human nature. But you know, but we have to talk to our, our, our daaf lung cancer donors differently than we talk to our online lung cancer donors. And you’re saying just talk to them about lung cancer. Just talk to them about lung cancer and, and how, how, and how you’re making a difference. And, and people give vehicles. What, what about, we have our vehicle and death lung donors. They are get, they need to get different messaging than our. Online and, and sustainer lung cancer donors. No, all right, so you’re, they don’t, it, it really, it really doesn’t matter. It, it, it really, really, really doesn’t matter. Up to a point, donation size doesn’t really matter. I mean, until you get to major gifts, right? It, it really doesn’t matter. Demographics don’t really matter. I don’t care how old you are. I don’t care where you live, right? I care what you care about. That’s, that’s the strategy here. I’m letting that sink in. I care what you care about. So, so know what folks care about, and then talk to them about that. And only that and that’s, that’s the hard discipline. I mean, part of the, part of this welcome stream was, uh, we call it the no fly zone, which is that’s the only thing the new member is going to hear from you, your new donor is going to hear from you during that 1st 90 days are welcome stream messages. No one else is allowed to communicate with them. Right? So we’re not gonna talk to them about every other program we’re gonna do. We’re not gonna talk to them about, you know, this campaign or this event or whatever we’re gonna do. We’re gonna get, we’re gonna welcome you and get you on board and we’re gonna get that second gift before we start talking to you about anything else, critical, critical, critical, because the noise that, you know, organizations like this can generate in their enthusiasm. Dilutes the message, right, and trains people to ignore them right out, right out of the bat. Oh my gosh, I gave a check and I’m getting 10 emails a day. And sometimes that’s not an exaggeration, um, but my, my welcome message is not gonna break through, right? So you have to stop, turn off everything else, no fly zone for 90 days, focus on that second donation, that’s the win. 90 days. OK. OK. That’s hard. Yeah, well, that’s discipline. All right, but you, you want, you’re, you’re imposing messaging discipline on, on any nonprofit that wants to talk about all the work they do because the, the, the person might be interested in something else. But, but we can get there. We can find that out, you know, we could find that out in year 2, maybe, or in, in 6, in, in, we can find that out maybe in 6 months. But initially, just talk to them, just like, just care about what they care about. For 90 days, for 90 days. And then we can, you know, there’s time. If you get the second gift, then, then, well, the, the second, the second gift means the third gift is more likely, and then the third gift means decades of giving or, or highly. So there’s time, there’s time. And just to be a little controversial about it, who cares if they’re interested in something else, if they’re consistently giving to this? Yeah, yeah, who cares? Who cares? Good. No, that’s not, yeah. All right. Um, that’s excellent. Well, what, so, uh, where, where should we, what would we talk about, um, trying to get some like decision making. We need leadership buy-in. Where, where do you want to go next? I, I just forget what I just suggested. Let’s talk about laps. Let’s talk about laps donors. Oh, the lapse donor. Oh yeah, no, that’s right. We’re capturing, we’re capturing the lap donors. Thank you. So you have a lackluster host. You need to, you need to keep me on track. Yes, the lapsed donor recovery. This is something that I’m, I’m, I’m passionate about because most of these organizations give up way too soon. Right, uh, uh, on, on, on campaigns, and we found over the years that organizations that are successful keep asking much longer than organizations that just sort of stop and give up and figure up they’re gone, right? Um, some of them never stop ever, right? If you were on the file, they will respectfully, right, but they will continue asking. We write them off and that’s where that 3% number comes from of us being able to reactivate, you know, some of our lab’s donors where it actually they should be your low hanging fruit. Why? Because you know something about them already, right? You know why they gave before, you know how much they gave, you know they when they gave before. You can reference all of that in these messaging and communications. They already know you. You don’t have to tell the story. They cared about you once enough that they were gonna give you some sort of money, so you’re, you, you should be way ahead of the game. Than you are versus a random acquisition person, but we give up on them as if we assume they’re mad at us, right? They left because they were upset. No, they left because they were indifferent. That’s a very different problem to solve. So, number one is don’t give up on your lab’s file. In our ALA case, right, they had millions of folks who’d given in the past who’d never given again, and we put them all back on the target list from as old as 5 years ago. So if you’d given within the last 5 years. You, you were, um, you know, you were in this, we called it the winback campaign, and it operated very similarly to the welcome stream. It was targeted. It was segmented. It was based on data that we had about you. Um, it went out in a multi-part stream, um, and it was phenomenally successful. They more than doubled their recapture rate. They recaptured 7%. Uh, of their file, um, over the, over the next year. So between onboarding and this lapsed member campaign, same philosophical right fiber to them, they added 300,000 members to their donor file. Net of acquisition. So simply by reactivating lapsed numbers and activating new donors, they were able to accomplish that kind of growth in their file. So when, when people write off their lapsed donor, they kind of pull my hair out a little bit and say, you know, that’s the money that you’re leaving on the table. All right, let’s go into a little more detail about the Winback campaign. So, it’s also 3, is it also 3 messages over 3 weeks? Or is it long or what, what did you do? I think the winback campaign probably went a little longer because I think we had to, we felt like we had to walk them back into it a little bit more, right? But part of it was acknowledging that you’ve given in the past, right? And, and being very specific about that. Like, we know exactly what you did and exactly when you did it. Thank you again, right? We really appreciate you doing that. Here’s, here’s something new. Tell us about you, right? Again, you know, the survey, you gave them, you, you give, you give them the survey. Yeah, absolutely, right. People want to be asked about that. Tell us about you. Here’s some new opportunities for you. It’s been a while, right? Maybe you didn’t know we were working on this, this, this, and this. Here’s some more impact messaging. Uh, you know, you may have been wondering what happened with your gift, but this is what we’ve done. In the last year, in the last 2 years with, with these gifts to, you know, cure COPD or, or whatever, and then we ask again. I mean, that, that was the stream, uh, and we would continue to, it wasn’t one and done. I mean, we would continue to keep them in this winback campaign pretty much indefinitely. Um, we would communicate less frequently, right? We don’t want to be obnoxious about it, but the philosophy essentially is never give up. And why would you give up, you know, and, and we were successful. The, the, the longer lapse they are, the harder they are to get back, but we were successful, up to 5 years out, bringing people back in as active donors who had been inactive for that long. And this was digital. Did you say this was an email campaign, to win back? It was all email. It was all email, no print, right? There’s no, there’s no print. Print it’s too expensive, yeah. For the, for the low likelihood, uh, of, of, uh, regaining somebody. OK. OK. So, so, you know, they had Salesforce, right? Big expensive, you know, data and email tool, which was overkill for this, right? You don’t need all that. I mean, any, any donor system that you’re running has the capabilities, or you can very easily bolt them on to do this kind of, you know, triggered campaign email that I’m talking about. You know, any organization has the ability to segment their file. Uh, especially now, you know, using AI, it’s actually very easy and very quick to do the kind of segmentation that I’m talking about and put it back in your donor file. So technology is not the obstacle, uh, anymore. I, I think it’s, it’s, uh, right, strategic framing, right? Sort of thinking first, A, the retention is important, right? Uh, and, and B, that it, it, it’s a program, right? It’s not something that happens, it’s something that we have to intentionally design, uh, and activate around. You have, um, some thoughts about, uh, leadership and structural decisions, creating the churn that we’re talking about. What’s your thinking there? The first was one we’ve talked about already, which is prioritizing acquisition over retention as, as, as an, as an organization. Um, well, another one would be dismissing your lapsed donors, dismissing your lapsed donors, uh, for, for whatever, for whatever reason. And again, I think there’s maybe this sort of sense of learned futility, which we haven’t been successful in the past, therefore, we’ll never be successful in the future, even if we do something differently, which our experience says is completely untrue. Um, but I do think there’s just sort of the kind of the ingrained ways of thinking in these organizations that, um, they stop them from even trying, you know, to do things differently. I don’t know. Do you agree with that? Oh, yeah. Uh, well, I said earlier, it’s self-fulfilling, you know, we, we never have in the past gotten lapsed donors back in, in, in decent numbers. So why, why keep trying? But, how about trying something different? Yeah. And, and I think it’s the way that board and leadership measure things, right? So we’re looking at new donors, whereas if the, the key metric was just the total size of the file, we would look at it very differently, right? So it’s, it’s not how many new donors, it’s, you said it yourself earlier, how many of them are we keeping? Are we seeing year over year growth in the total file and the total revenue is a very different way of looking at kind of cultivating your, your total donor base. Uh, many organizations don’t, you know, we, we see this, and we see this in membership too, you know, the acquisition rate is really strong. It’s really great, and no 1 may ever look at the retention number. They may not be able to tell you what their retention number is because they assume all this acquisition activity means that everything is fine, uh, and everything is going OK. So I do think there’s a kind of institutional blind spot around retention for a lot of these organizations, but I don’t know why. Well, I, I think a big part of it is, as you said earlier, uh, nobody, nobody’s, nobody’s measuring it. I mean, no, not you, we said nobody owns it, nobody’s accountable to it, but, you know, the, so the things you don’t measure are just gonna languish. That’s right. But when you start measuring and you start benchmarking and you start setting goals, you can, you can move the needle. I mean, it’s not guaranteed, but at least you’re paying attention to the problem. Yeah, I think that’s right. And I think there’s a structural lack of, uh, urgency that we talked about before around, you know, it can wait, it can wait till the next campaign, right? I just, I think there’s a lack of appreciation for how quickly human beings make decisions like this about what they want to be affiliated with when their expectations are, are not met. Um, it’s true across a lot of organizations. I think people feel like, well, We got you in the door. That was the hard part, right? And we’ll let the rest take care of itself. Yeah, but it doesn’t. Uh, and, and we know that it’s not taking care of itself. All right. Um, you’ve got some ideas, uh, uh, practical, low-cost ways. For small and mid-size, I, I, I appreciated you, you shouting out our small and mid-size nonprofits. Those are our listeners. Uh, American Lung Association probably is not listening. Although I, I think they could, they, they could learn a thing or two from, uh, from our guests, but, uh, we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re produced for the small and mid-size nonprofits. So you’ve got some like small things, low lift, but maybe, uh, outsized impact ideas. Yeah, I, I think, I, I really do think that nothing that we’ve talked about is beyond the reach of, of, of, but perhaps the very, very smallest, you know, organizations who, who have no staff whatsoever. The, the technology has really changed the game, uh, in terms of the ease of lift around these kinds of things. The, the, the first thing I would do would be to pull my lapsed donor file. Uh, and, and really, really understand it. I mean, how many are out there and how long have they been out there and what have we done to try to get them back? I mean, what, what would it mean to try to segment them? Have we, have we ever thought about that before? I mean, I would spend some serious time with that file and ask myself, um, why haven’t we taken another swing at this and what would it mean if we did it? I think that would be step one. OK. Do you have a step 2? I, I think step two would be to start. Thinking about the right way to segment your members and some small organizations may be single cause organizations, and that’s actually great, right? Because that, that solves that problem for you, but other organizations communicate about a lot of different things in a lot of different ways and, and being able to consolidate that to manageable high impact segments is really important. I think I would start giving some. First, be honest about that. I mean, are we overcommunicating? Are we diluting our own message? You know, are we talking about what the donors care about? are we talking about what we care about? Have that conversation with yourself that’s free, uh, for you to do as an organization, and then, uh, think about what you can do in terms of a highly effective. Welcome stream, even if you can’t do multi-part email, and I think you probably can, right? Even if you can’t do targeted segmentation, and I think you probably can, what can you do immediately for a first-time donor to bring them back into the welcome stream and get them to that second gift, right? Using whatever tools that you have, it’s, I, I don’t know that it has to be sophisticated because anything you do is probably better than what you’ve been doing, right, up until now, or your retention numbers would be better than they are. That survey that goes with the, the 1st, 1st message in the welcome stream or in the, in the, in the windback for trying to recapture lapsed, lapsed donors. Um, I, I imagine that that’s, well, I think you said 10 seconds, but it was like a 3 question, 34 question survey. Maybe 5, sort of 5 very, very quick, welcoming kinds of questions. Hey, we’d like to learn a little bit more about you, right? You know, how did you hear about us? What moved you to give this time, right? You know, what, why is it, you know, why is smoking cessation personally important to you? Uh, those kinds of questions. Um, you can take free form answers to, those are easier to process now than they used to be. It doesn’t have to be checkboxes. That’s actually the most important stuff. Uh, we learned that lesson too from some research that we did with, uh, World Wildlife Fund, who does something very similar to this, but their survey responses are open-ended. So I don’t have to do check boxes and, you know, again, the technology is not that fancy now, but to figure out, you know, in Tony’s own words, this is what he cares about, and then they feed your own words back to you. So they will literally communicate with you in your own words that they collected from that upfront server, which I thought was brilliant. All right, that’s a great use of technology. Capturing, capturing their words and inserting them into messages back. Yeah, and it, and it really, really works. I mean, it’s like hugely effective and it a couple of years ago that would have been like Star Trek stuff, right? Like, you know, that’s impossible on their own. It’s not with the AI AI powered tools and a lot of them are built into these donor management systems now, that kind of stuff is becoming more and more automatic. Uh, so I encourage all of our clients, it’s like, look at the technology you already have. I don’t, you, you probably do not have to go out and spend thousands of dollars to buy some new tool. These capabilities are either built into what you’re already paying for or they will be next year. So have that conversation with your vendor. What capabilities are you not using that are right there at your fingertips. OK, Chris Vaughn, you feel OK? Is there anything you want to leave our donors with that, uh, We, we haven’t talked about that you want to. Uh, uh, uh, encouragement, right? I, I would wanna encourage. Did I just say leave our donors? I think I just said leave our donors with. I’m so focused on donor retention. Yeah, you’re donors right now. Leave our listeners. Leave our listeners donor. Well, we’re donor-focused. No, we’re listener-focused. It’s a podcast. It’s not a, it’s not a nonprofit. So leave our listeners. I, I would And it’s gonna sound obvious, but take, take retention seriously, right? Elevate it to a strategic priority. It is far and away your fastest path to revenue growth is to bring that retention number up. That that’d be the most have this conversation. Your board should be talking about this. You should have this conversation. They should know these numbers, the benchmarks as well as your own, and understand the compounding arithmetic. Of repeat donors and bringing them up and, and I think a lot of boards really, really don’t. I mean, so, uh. The problem is solvable, and, and I feel like a lot of folks coming into this conversation feel like that’s just the way it is, right? Donors just don’t come back. I think that’s not true. I think donors that aren’t, aren’t managed well, aren’t welcomed the right way, right? Aren’t asked to come back the right way, don’t come back. But our experience shows and, and, and the example that I’ve been talking about shows that it, it, it can be different. So, um, part of it is encouragement, which is take this seriously, and part of it encourage it, it’s solvable, right? This is not a problem that can’t be solved. It’s not a problem that you can’t solve as a, uh, a small organization, I mean we. Um, you know, this is, this is our mission as a firm is to help organizations grow, right, to grow membership and, and to grow revenue, and we’ve been, we’ve been at it for 25 years, and nothing makes us happier than to see these organizations succeed. I, I think the things that I’ve been talking about today, um, are not complicated, and, and maybe they sound complicated to a small staff organization, um, but it, I. Having done it for all these years, it’s, it’s not, I think, you know, I think what’s hard is to make the mental shift in the first place, that this is important, uh, and that, you know, we need to be more urgent about it. I think once you turn that corner and elevate this to the strategic priority, the, the how and the what becomes, uh, uh, an awful lot easier. Um, so I, I would leave that with your listeners as well as you don’t be intimidated and don’t be afraid to take this on. I think these are, these things are all well within your reach. The company is Sequence Consulting at sequence Consulting.com. Uh, it’s co-founder and chief strategy officer is Chris Vaughn. Chris, thank you very much. Pleasure. Thank you. Thanks for sharing all this. My pleasure. Next week, grants fundraising before you start writing. If you missed any part of this week’s show, I beseech you, find it at Tony Martignetti.com. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer, Kate Martinetti. The show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our web guide, and this music is by Scott Stein. Thank you for that affirmation, Scotty. Be with us next week for nonprofit radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. Go out and be great.
Stephen Christopher Nill: A Skeptic’s View On The Value Of AI In Fundraising
“Holding Fire” is Stephen Christopher Nill’s new book, written by this artificial intelligence skeptic. Launching his book on Nonprofit Radio, he presents his Human-Centered AI Framework, five principles to keep humans at the center, as AI does the work no one fundraiser could do alone. There’s fundraising potential. There are fundraising risks. You’ll find Steve’s book at CharityChannel.com.
Bridge Conference: The conversations happening at Bridge will shape strategies, careers, and organizations long after the conference ends.
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
And 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 hebdominal podcast. I’m traveling, so the mic quality and the sound is not quite up to par. I’ll be back in the studio next week. I’m glad you’re with us. I’d bear the pain of Brady stasis if I had to stomach the idea that you missed this week’s show. Here’s our associate producer, Kate, with what’s up. Hey, Tony, introducing. A skeptic’s view on the value of AI in fundraising. Holding Fire is Steven Christopher Nill’s new book, written by this artificial intelligence skeptic. Launching his book on nonprofit radio, he presents his human-centered AI framework, five principles to keep humans at the center, as AI does the work no one fundraiser could do alone. There is fundraising potential. There are fundraising risks. You’ll find Steve’s book at charitychannel.com. On Tony’s take too. Beach days are back. We are sponsored by the Bridge Conference. Tony will be with more than 2400 nonprofit professionals at Bridge, July 29th through the 31st in National Harbor, Maryland. Info and registration at bridge.org. My thanks to Bridge for sponsoring nonprofit radio for several weeks, and yes indeed, I will be at the conference. I’ll be there speaking on July 31st. Here is a skeptic’s view on the value of AI in fundraising. It’s a genuine pleasure to welcome. Steven Christopher Nill to nonprofit radio. Steve founded Charity Channel in 1992 and built it into one of the world’s largest online communities of nonprofit practitioners. Through Charity Channel Press, he has published dozens of books on fundraising and nonprofit governance across 4 decades inside development offices and advising hundreds of nonprofits. He has helped raise billions of dollars, billions. Woo. His engagement with artificial intelligence reaches back to the 1970s. 1970s. Uh, I, I’m skeptical of some of these claims here. He writes weekly to development professionals at charitychannel.com and he’s on LinkedIn. LinkedIn? No, he is, he’s active on LinkedIn. And his brand new, recently, immediately recently published book is Holding Fire, A Skeptic’s Framework for the fundraiser with AI at your side. The author of Holding Fire, Steve Nell. Welcome to Nonprofit Radio. Thank you, Tony. It’s, it’s, it’s gonna be fun to be here, I think. You think you’re not sure. All right. No, I know it will be. Now, that’s two things you’re skeptical about, uh, AI and, uh, your, your presence here. All right. Um, So, congratulations on the brand new book. I have the very first copy of the book, don’t I? I have these bragging rights. Tell, tell folks how that, how that happened. I got the very first print. Well, we were talking about doing this, uh, this interview, and you wanted to have some sort of a, uh, first. And I admitted I’d done another couple of interviews that haven’t aired quite yet, but, um, if I hadn’t sent them the book yet, so in fact, I hadn’t sent myself the book. I had just been um uploaded and I said, look, I’ll send you the very first copy even before my own, so now you’ve got a bragging right. You got the first copy for better or worse, off the press. The first copy is pristine. It’s outstanding. Uh, yeah, so even before your own copy, I got one. So thank you. All right. I like to work with hard copies. Uh, I, I know I’m, I’m a little bit of a stickler that way. I, I much prefer the hard copy over, over digital. So thank you. Thank you. Sure. All right, uh, the skeptic, the skeptic, uh, we’re gonna talk all about the framework that’s coming, but the, the AI skeptic actually goes back to, uh, a history with AI, uh, from, all right, let’s, let’s, uh, validate some of these claims in the, uh, in the bio. Uh, it goes back to the 1970s. Yeah, 1977, I was in an honors physics course at my university. And I wrote a paper that posited a computing device based on quantum superposition. Of particles, in other words, using particle spin capabilities as storage for computers, and I suggested such a computing device could Be far more powerful at breaking encryption and things like that. I got an F on my paper. Um, because I’ve been invited to the course and no one ever asked me if I’d ever learned calculus, and, and that was a requirement for the course, which I didn’t know. And so, uh, I had to, the night before the thing was due, I had to invent a bunch of math just to substantiate a lot of the things in my paper and the professors, there were two looked at it and said, what is this? And you know, F. And I asked one of them afterwards, I said, look, you invited me to this course, um, at least let me defend my paper. And so they let me come back and they were both sitting there and I Put my math up on the board and, and I explained what every symbol meant, which I had literally invented the night before and I said, this is, this is how you calculate this. And by the end, I defended the paper and I got an A. So that was, um, that was the beginning of my interest in computing and from, from a theoretical, you know, point of view, and I’ve been following. Um, advances in computing ever since 1977, which is when I wrote that paper. And uh I didn’t go into theoretical physics or computer science, although I’ve taken a ton of courses in computer science since, um, but I followed it carefully. I went, I went on to be a lawyer and and working in the nonprofit world and fundraising and that kind of stuff, but it’s always been near and dear to my heart, Tony, and Um, so that’s, that’s sort of my background and so I have a foot in, in, in sort of the computing side and the artificial intelligence side, but and also in the fundraising and nonprofit world, uh, which has been my career. So, So you were, well, you did get an A ultimately, uh, you defended your paper. I got an A and I’m, the weird thing was I’m the only one who got an A. All right, but you started with an F, like you were ahead of your time. I got an F. I, I richly deserved the F because my math was, you know. All right, you were vindicated. You got, you got the A. I guess I did, yeah. And we’re gonna have plenty of time to get into the, the, the details of the book and, uh, like I said, your, your framework, of course. Um, you do say that, that AI can, AI can mimic warmth, but you say it in a way that AI can only mimic. Warmth, the warmth of people. And this is something running throughout the book that, that there’s, there, there are processes and, uh, sort of patterns and changes, you know, that AI can see. But there’s a, there, there needs to be, there will always need to be is central to your, your thinking, the human. Uh, the, the human component of fundraising, that, that, that AI, AI has a, uh, has value, but within certain limits, strict limits, very strict limits, you, you posit, and, uh, the humans must, must be involved in the, in the rest. So, I, I like that, you know, AI can only mimic warmth. Yeah. And, and at the same time, elsewhere in the book, you say that AI can amplify our own humanity. So talk us through your, your high-level thinking before we get into some details. Such an important question. I’m so glad you started the, this discussion from. All right, so are you less, are you a little less skeptical now about, uh, about your, about whether you’re gonna enjoy this or not? No, because we can wrap it up right now. If, if you want to wrap it up in 7.5 minutes, we can do that. We can wrap this whole thing up. If you wanna wrap, you know, if you’re still not comfortable, we can wrap. No, Tony, let me just say, so far you’re the, you’re the one interviewer who insisted on reading the book before the interview, so thank you. I’m sure there will be others. I don’t know how you can talk to an author about their book without reading it. I know, I know. Thank you. Your, your integrity is, is shining through. Um, AI can, can mimic, uh, pretty much any, any kind of human, um, behavior, at least in words, because it’s trained on words, you know, the, the, the whole large language model is literally turn it loose on the internet and feed it all this copy, feed it books, and the more information you feed it, the more it can pretend to be human. And it’s so good that Um, there are people that, that, you know, have written hundreds of novels with it. Although the, the novels are, are sloppy, slop, they call it AI slop for a reason. It’s, it’s not terribly great, but it’s, it’s how good it is. It can mimic even writing styles and, and everything else, and it can mimic human warmth. In a, in a development office, the temptation is to use AI to write our donor communications, isn’t it? Because, you know, development people, uh, in any sized office are under a lot of pressure to try to reach out to their donors, and it’s so tempting to have AI write a, write an email or write a letter. I don’t know anyone write letters anymore, write an email, uh, or, or some other electronic communication or, or, or whatever. And And it, it, it’s on the surface can seem pretty good at it, but the thing of it is, is. It’s not the, it’s not the human fundraiser actually writing that communication. It’s, it’s the machine. And I think it dehumanizes the process, and I think donors are are onto this, and I think it’s only a matter of time before we start to see our donor relationships. Erode even as we’re trying to reach more of them at a deeper level through AI. And what what I have seen happening is a temptation to now that now that these um. Software vendors, um, these, uh, systems, the CRM systems that we all know and love in our sector are incorporating AI. The temptation is to sort of turn AI loose into that process because, hey, we could reach so many more donors now. And the problem is. It’s, it puts the AI between us and the donor. It may not seem like it, you know, if we misuse it that way, we are no longer really driving the communications the machine is. And, and to me, Um, and Tony, you know, you’ve been in the sector for decades and you have a wealth of experience in this, as do I. We know that, and I hope it’s OK to say this, I’ve had a peek at your forthcoming book. We know that it’s all about relationships, right? It’s human relationships, and that’s the thing that we’re sacrificing. If, and if we’re not careful, it’s, it’s gonna move us backwards, not forwards. And so that’s the whole reason I wrote the book. I’m a skeptic. I really wish AI wasn’t here. As much as I find it fascinating. I’m alarmed at the speed with which it’s been inserted into the CRM systems that our development officers are using and absolutely every other tool that we’re using without much thought about the impact it’s going to have on our donor relationships, and that’s why I wrote the book. You just said, uh, you wish AI wasn’t here. You wish I really do this. I really do. It’s, it’s a, I’m in a weird place because I’ve, I’ve been fascinated by the, you know, thinking machines, if you will, my whole adult life, really. Um, and, and maybe it’s because of that that I saw early on. In fact, the outline for my book I wrote at the turn of the century, decades ago now, cause I foresaw this day. I, I just didn’t publish it because AI wasn’t here and no one would buy the book, but I had this outline almost unchanged for the book because it was so clear to me that what was going to happen was AI was going to become so powerful. And so convenient that we were going to replace our own human judgments and efforts with the machine’s judgments and efforts. And while AI holds real promise to let us actually reach out and, and, and. Um Identify opportunities with our donors that we never could before. If we allow it to do too much for us, it’s going to actually hurt those relationships, and we can’t let that happen. You, uh, have a different concept of the, the CRMs, the customer or constituent relationship management, uh, systems. You call them RBSs, relationship building systems. Yes. Well, I don’t think of our supporters and donors as, uh, needing to be managed by us for one thing. So the term itself is just doesn’t fit the nonprofit, uh, world very well. But I think we, we, if the technology needs to help us improve our human relationships with our donors. Grow those relationships and then, but stay out of the way enough that we’re the ones driving it, not the, not the technology. So I do focus in the book a lot on what I call relationship building systems. Because Um, they have raced, raced to put AI. Capabilities into these systems. And so, honestly, I don’t see very much thought into governing those AIs or even trying to train those AIs on Our human values and, and even our fundraising ethics, for example, and Uh, I don’t see a lot of effort being made into having that AI. Uh, suss out opportunities to make a phone call or do a visit with a donor or do the human things. I see the emphasis, maybe by default on, hey, we could write 100 letters now that are all personalized, and we could zip those things out and now you can reach your entire donor base in 10 seconds or 10 minutes or whatever. That’s the wrong approach and that’s what worries me. So little thought seems to have been put into all of this. That it’s going to do more harm than good, and honestly. I don’t think the fundraising profession or the nonprofit world in general has been sufficiently consulted by some of these software vendors before just bootstrapping these AI systems onto them and putting them out there as products. I think there’s been a breakneck race to add AI because, hey, if we don’t, our competitors are going to do it and we’re going to be at a competitive disadvantage. I think that’s the mindset. And so now we in the nonprofit world, folks like you, folks like me who, who actually care about this, have to come along and figure out, OK, how do we prevent the harm while allowing the good to happen because there is a lot of good that can happen with AI if it’s properly used and properly understood. And that’s where I gave a lot of thought and that’s where my outline emerged years ago when I first wrote it. And it, it was, you know, we can actually give AI a set of rules and principles and guardrails. And it could then know when to back off and allow human judgment to take place, human contact with our donors to take place. Also in the, in the very writing of communications, a critical step is rewriting those communications in our own words, things like that. So I wrote up a, as part of the book I released to the, to the world, if you will, through a public license, a uh a specification um that the AI literally reads before every session and knows how to behave and, and that’s, you know, that’s um. That’s a pretty powerful tool. I don’t mind saying so myself. That’s why I released it free to to anyone who wants it. I hope software vendors are listening. Because this, this is the missing ingredient. This is the, to me, this is the moral and ethical opportunity to reorient their AIs as they face the nonprofit world in a way that serves us rather than sort of serving their competitive advantage, if you will. That’s where we want to get into your human-centered AI framework because the, the specification you were just referring to is Is the embodiment of your framework, uh, that puts it in an AI readable format. So let’s, let, let’s now talk about the, the human-centered AI framework that you introduced in the book. Um, you’ve got 5 sort of pillars, uh, pillars to it. Do you wanna, do you wanna tick them off? You want me to tick them off and then we’ll, we’ll go into some detail on each one? Why don’t, why don’t you, why don’t you tick them off and we’ll talk about whatever part you want. OK. Uh, number 1 is the healthy division of labor. 2 is the workflow. 3 is the virtuous data cycle, 4 is the scale shift, and 5 is ethical vigilance, which governs all the others. Putting the donor’s interests first. So, let’s, let’s talk some, uh, let’s, let’s talk about the, the healthy division of labor. What, what do you mean by this? Well, The tendency is, is for nonprofits to Uh, pull back on their human resources, their development staff, and, and try to leverage AI to do much more of their work. Indeed, I, I was a little amazed that there’s, there’s this 11 college I was reading about in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, don’t ask me to name it, I can’t even remember now, but Where the, the college, uh, essentially dropped most of its development team in order to end is using AI in its place. Um And that is probably the most extreme example of what worries me the most about AI, and that is using AI to essentially take the place of the human development officer, and that’s a huge, huge mistake, um. So the, the division of labor is, look, AI can, can the, the, the most important thing it can do for us is it can look at our donor base. Because we can give it access to the donor base. That’s what these online systems have done. And we can have it suss out. Uh, lapsed donors that are showing signals of wanting to re-engage. Uh, we can have it, uh, talk about somebody who has given a fairly small amount for say 3 years and has never received adequate recognition beyond, you know, the acknowledgment letter or something like that. Um, we can have it look at a donor’s capacity, if there’s any kind of well screening built into the, into the system, it, it can, it can look at that. Um, And a myriad of other things and then it can actually give us a briefing, say, um, I like to call it the Monday morning, you know, briefing where it says this week, um, these are the donors you need to focus on and here’s why, and here are, here’s where they fit in our development process. Here are the opportunities and here are the very communications I think you should send and AI can do all of that for us. That is amazing. I mean, Tony, we’re talking about something that, yeah, it winds up in these online systems, but when I was writing this book, I took a simple program um called Obsidian. It’s a note-taking app and it’s, it, it works with plain text files, OK. And I, I dropped a bunch of, of, of fictitious donors into it and I turned my AI on it and that little simple app that’s free, by the way, became more powerful than, than, um, say the Blackbot system or the DonorPerfect system before AI came along. And It did because AI can read unstructured information. So if you just have a like a a a file on a given donor and you throw a bunch of information in and maybe not even that well structured. AI doesn’t care. It can, it can understand what it’s reading and it can then pull things out of that, that we humans just don’t have time to pull out. And, and some of it I think is our capacity too, the, the way it can see trends and, and changes and shifts that are subtle. That, but, but valuable to, to recognize. Yeah. All you really have to do is show the AI how, how your fundraising processes are structured, and that’s where, you know, my framework comes in. It provides a structure so it knows how to assess a given record against that and it can even go outside that record. It, it can know, for example, Um, it can know a lot of information about, say, say, special events that your organization has held and, and, and grab that information and how it might, knowing the donor went to that event is, is important and it can take that into account. As a matter of fact, it is far better at that kind of thing than any human I know, unless the, you know, even a human who does nothing but that 24/7 couldn’t possibly hold a candle to what AI can do. Yeah, that, that’s the, that, that’s the capacity I, that’s the capacity that’s the division. It’s not just bandwidth and time, it’s, it’s, it’s capacity to see trends that, that, it’s just, there are too many data points for us to, to recognize what What the AI can, can recognize patterns that it can find. All right, let’s, all right, so that, that’s a healthy, that’s not just the, you know, you don’t just call it the, like, the right division of labor. It’s the healthy division of labor. Uh, the first, the first part of your, your, do you do that part and then, but we need to make, we need to be the ones that That communication that results in those in that. Human decision making needs to be ours. So that’s the other side of the division of labor, you know, the AI is amazing, but we have to stay in the process, otherwise, it’s not a healthy division at all. That’s the point. It’s time for a break. We are sponsored by the Bridge Conference produced by AFP DC and DMAW July 29th through the 31st at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. More than 2400 professionals will gather at bridge. Tony will be with them. The question is, will you? Thought leaders from nonprofits, associations, foundations, hospitals, higher ed, faith-based, and emission-driven causes across the country come to Bridge, to discover new ideas, solve real challenges, and connect with smart people shaping the future of our industry. From 125+ educational sessions and hands-on pre-conference workshops to Bridge tech, the faith and fundraising forum, and inspiring keynote speakers, Bridge offers something for every mission and every role. The conversations happening at Bridge will shape strategies, careers, and organizations long after the conference ends. Don’t hear about it afterward. Be in the room. Register at bridge.org. It’s time for Tony’s take 2. Thank you, Kate. The beach days are back. Summer is here. And I am enjoying as much time as I can. Out on the beach in the sand under an umbrella. Like almost meditating. Just looking out at the ocean and uh enjoying that, enjoying that. I hope That you will take time for yourself, your family. Yourself too, though, especially. Uh, this summer sometime to get away, relax, rejuvenate, refresh, just change of scenery. I hope you’ve got something planned for your summer that is uh. As special to you as the beach is for me. Just some encouragement, encouragement for your summer getaway. That’s Tony’s take 2. Kate My family and I, we’re going to the camper this weekend, and we’ll be there for almost 2 weeks. Outstanding, outstanding. You love those, you love those getaways, right? Yup, it’s nice and quiet. I mean, cause there’s no like highway around us, as if like we’re at home, there’s a big highway. It’s practically in the back of our backyard, but in the camper’s nice and quiet, you can’t hear anything, wildlife. Nice. Very nice, the sounds of nature. We’ve got Beauco butt loads more time. Here’s the rest of a skeptic’s view on the value of AI in fundraising. Well, folks are gonna have to read the book, uh, for, uh, explaining all five of these. We’re just gonna, we’re gonna hit just a couple of highlights for the, from the five pillars. Um, I’d, I’d like to talk about the, uh, the virtuous data cycle. How AI gets more insightful through, uh, through iteration, through, through the, the data that humans are adding, that virtuous data cycle. Yeah, you know, that in, in a certain sense, um, Uh, we already have something like that, you know, we have usually in a more developed development office, there’s somebody who runs the, the database, you know, the online systems, and they feed things to the other development officers. And all that. And, and in a, in a well-run office, information that, that crops up about a donor that’s appropriate for, you know, to be entered will, will, will be entered. Um, But the reality is in the real world, um, records are, are, are, are really rarely that, you know, that complete. And, but now with AI available, we have a huge incentive to constantly be updating each donor record. If we have a conversation with someone with a donor in the parking lot, or we run into them in a restaurant and there’s a quick conversation or, uh, you know, you name it, we now, we now need to enter that information into, into the system so that the AI becomes aware of it and can take that all, take all that into. You know, into consideration, so. Um The the more, the more that we learn about the donor, the more human interaction we can have that’s meaningful, the more information that we learn about that donor that goes back into the system, so we get this cycle going. And the system just gets smarter and smarter and we’re able to serve that donor better and better as a result. Right, right. That’s the, uh, the virtuous data cycle. And I want to talk about your, uh, fifth pillar of the human-centered AI framework, the ethical vigilance, because it, it, it, it centers the donor. And, and governs all the other parts of the framework, but putting the donor’s interests first. When I was Writing the book, I built a system, an AI aware system with donor records, um, and it became the, um, Uh, portfolios, it’s the, the author forget. It’s the practice portfolio. I’ve got, I, throughout the book, I’ve gotten to know these folks, uh, Doctor, Doctor Sarah Huang and, uh, Robert Okafor and, uh, the Whitfields, who, who lapsed for a few years, but they’re still engaged. The Whitfields are still engaging, but, but they haven’t made a gift. And, uh, Maria Chen. The, uh, oh, and who’s the doc, oh, Doctor, right, Doctor Sarah Huang. She, she, she sees hungry hungry kids in her, in her practice, in her medical practice, and she gives to, uh, uh, nutrition education. So you, you get to know these folks, but they’re all part of this, the sandbox that we can all play in. In the practice portfolio, but I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna come off the ethical, the ethical vigilance pillar of your, of your framework. Yeah. Well, so as I was, as I was building that system for my own experimentation with AI and all that, uh, and I was dumping more and more hypothetical information about these donors, and these are the same donors that are mentioned in the book, so you get to, you get to see them again in the Uh, practice portfolio, which is an online system that you can access for free now. Um, and, and then I began to, to experiment by asking the, the AI to give me a Monday morning, uh, review of, of my donor base and to make recommendations on donor contacts and things like that. And I found that it was so good at it that it would make recommendations on information that Um, I felt as a human was. It was definitely in the in the system, so I could get why the AI was looking at it. It was too good at making suggestions that would cause the donor to, to, to act. In other words, I was, I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with some of the decisions the AI was trying to make. Because I thought it was crossing a line, and, and at first I couldn’t quite figure out why I was feeling so uncomfortable, but the more I worked with it. The more I realized that as a human. I had a a sense, I don’t know, call it, call it my decades of experience working in development offices. I don’t know what it was, but I had a clear sense. of propriety. And when, you know, when you, when you work with donors, sometimes you’re in such a position that you know, you can get them to make a gift, and it’s not overreaching or anything. It’s not like you’re forced, but, you know, something inside of you is telling you, maybe this isn’t the time to push. Maybe I shouldn’t be using this piece of information that I got in a, in a, in a conversation. To frame my ask, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s a human assessment. And I, so I thought, well, how in the world am I going to write about this as, where is a bright line? And there, there really isn’t a bright line. So, I, I asked a question, um, would, if the donor was aware of my thought processes and what went into this solicitation or this communication. Would the donor feel like I was handling them, you know, like trying to get a result, um. Uh, transactional, uh, or not, right? Um, or would they feel that I was honoring them. And so I came up with this handled or honored. Uh, test. And um, You know, it, and it’s, it’s been expressed by others, uh, and I’m not the first to sort of come up with this idea, um. Uh Uh, Professor, uh, James that had similar, similar ideas, uh, expressed differently in some of his books, but it was one that, um, I needed to put in there. That’s Professor Russell, yeah, excuse me, yeah. That’s OK. Russell James at Texas Tech University. Yeah, Russell James. Yeah. So, you know, he, um, He’s endorsed my book, I’m happy to say as well. So, after reading it, and so we had a, a, a brief chat about, you know, that similar perspective. But, you know, AI is terrible at making that judgment. It’s just, and that was what worried me the most, and I felt that the human needs to know, uh, when to make that decision. So you need to train AI when to pause and ask the human fund development officer to make a call. And so when I wrote up this online specification, I actually include the signals that the AI would understand to stop and say, hey, you need to make a judgment here, not me. And so if you have your AI read this online specification before a session, it’s going to understand when to, when to pause and, and call out, uh, uh, you know, your. Duty to make a decision. So that’s a guardrail, and that guardrail has not been existing in the, uh, so far in our sector and the AI systems that have been bolted onto these, these, um, These systems, and it, and it’s high time that we, we do that because otherwise, AI is fighting us and it’s even becoming, it’s even fighting the very notion of ethics in our profession of putting the donor first. And we can’t let that happen. We as a profession have to respond and take control of. This or the software vendors are going to do it for us and you know, I know that they’re, they’re, I’m not here to. To, to critique them, I think that they have different goals and objectives than we do. And so we need to assert ourselves, and this is one way of doing it. Yeah, and you, you give folks that, that specification. We can, we, we, I release it to the public. It’s under a public license. Anyone can use it, even the vendors can use it. I don’t, I’ll never be paid for it. That’s not the point. Um, and they can modify it, uh, if they want to. Anybody can modify it and do what they want with it. So it’s, it’s released to the public and free of charge. Let’s talk a little more about the practice portfolio that, uh, sort of accompanies the book. It’s a, it’s a sandbox, like you said, of Fictitious donors representing different people, different stages of giving, different stages of engagement. Um, and as I was saying, you, you get to know these folks throughout the book, um, There’s also the guy, uh, David, who’s, whose family was fed by the, by the food pantry and his son is now volunteering there. Uh, so just, just say a little more about the, the practice portfolio because it, it can be fun to do the exercises, uh, uh, and see the people, see the records as you’re reading the book. Sure. So, um, you can, you can get a free account, um, with, uh, on, um, Uh, uh, with a website called Notion, and Notion is basically a, a note-taking, um, system, but it’s far more than that. And then apply the portfolio to, to your free notion account, and that’s free. And then if you want, you can for a few bucks a month, you can have the AI from Notion activated. And so what I’ve done is I’ve put the very donors discussed in the book, these are fictitious donors into the system which I call a practice portfolio. And the reason I offer it to readers or frankly anybody who wants to do it. I want them to experience what it’s like to work with an AI that’s operating within the framework, and I want them to see actual fictitious, but actual donor records. That are um tracking the very behavior that I write about in the book. So the book is very tightly coupled with the the practice portfolio and I wanted to give readers a place where they can go experiment with with AI, um, with donor information and query the AI and see how it responds and and what it has to say about. Um, donors and, and all of the stuff that I talk about in the book, but I wanted a safe place for them to do it. I didn’t want them to have to go to, you know, their own organization’s Blackbot account or Donor Perfect account or whatever. I want to be able to work in a safe place where they can’t do any harm, and where they’re not working with real donor data. And so I built this system for that purpose, and It’s, it’s a great way to really experiment. It’s like if, if the book was a cookbook, this is an actual kitchen where you can go try out some of the recipes of the book in a safe way, uh, either for free or for very little, you know, if you want the AI notion charges a little bit of money for the AI, but otherwise, it’s completely free. And that’s the, again, that’s the practice portfolio, the practice portfolio. Yes. Um, one of your chapters, you, you know, you, you, you have several chapters devoted to different Um, different. Needs in, in fundraising, uh, the annual fund, major gifts, uh, stewardship, recovering lapsed donors. Let’s talk about your annual fund chapter, how AI can work to support your annual fund, and, and you see the annual fund as a, as a campaign. Yeah, well, you know, um, the annual, relationship building campaign even. Yeah, I mean, we, we, we tend to look at the annual fund as sort of a massive letter writing campaign once a year or something like that, maybe a phone call campaign, whatever, but not so much as a, you know, like an actual holistic campaign such as say a capital campaign might be. And there’s a good reason for that. Up until now, there were only so many resources in a, in a development office that can be devoted to something like this. And so we tend to take our donors and segment them, you know, our, our, we have our top tier and we have a lower tier and a lower tier from that. And so we can only give our attention to the top tier of donors, and that’s pretty much it. And everyone else gets segmented and they get. You know, uh, mass communications based on their segment and where they happen to fall on the, on the donor pyramid or donor life cycle. And, and that, that, that by itself was, was a massive step forward and only really kind of happened when computing came into its own and the internet came along. But now with AI we have the ability to treat all of our donors um with some degree of, of focus and and attention because AI is able to To, to let us see each donor more as an individual than somebody who happens to fall in a given tier on a on a donor pyramid. So my thought was. The, the annual fund can, can be transformed into something much more akin to a campaign and not just sort of it, it, it, you know, once a year thing, but an ongoing, uh, never-ending sort of campaign that, um, treats each individual, not where they fall on a, on a given tier, but where they are in their journey with our organization. And everyone is at a different place, and even the smallest donors, uh, have a place in the sun under this system because they will not be, um, lost in the pile, if you will, because the AI can, can look at them as individuals and spot opportunities and and tell us, look, you have an opportunity here to, to interface with this donor as a human, and perhaps Deepen the relationship with that donor and they’re no longer just In some segmented tier of, of a donor pyramid that gets a a a a mass email, they are now viewed as individuals. So it starts to look much more, I don’t know, campaign-like or personalized, if you will, than it it ever could be in the past because AI lets us do that. You’re, you know, as I said early on, you’re, you’re concerned about the human element of fundraising. You know, as a, as, I said, you, instead of CRMs, you call it an RBS, you know, a relationship building system. Your, your annual fund, you position as a relationship building campaign. So while you’re, Talking throughout the book about the, the, the value of AI in, in seeing the things that we’ve, we’ve been talking about and, and assisting sort of side by side with the fundraiser. you know, it’s consistent that you, you, you want the, the human element, uh, uh, never, never to be sacrificed, the human element of fundraising. No. We have to maintain You know, the human element. And with, with the AI understanding that properly, it will actually be our ally, and it will know when to pull back and when to have you make the critical calls. And even I mean, they never sending out a communication that it writes by itself, you, you, you, you own that communication, you revise it, uh, you, you, you don’t, you don’t just let the AI run amok in that either. And that’s, that’s critical too. So the human has to be present at every step. But never before have we been able to sort of break down the walls and look at even the smallest donors. Um, as individuals, rather than sort of falling in a segment of our, of our, of our donor pyramid or however you want to take a look at, you know, however you want to think about it, the donor cycle, if you will. So, we, we have this wonderful opportunity, as long as we constrain the AI to, to, to let us be the humans. Um, and not fight us on that, because that’s what it, it wants to take over so much of what we’re doing, that if we let it, then, then we, we will hurt philanthropy because the donors will understand that there’s now a distance between us and them, and they might not be able to put their finger on why, but they’ll feel it nevertheless, and they’ll, they’ll pull back. And that’s the opposite of what we want. And that will have been our fault because we allowed it. Yeah, it will have been, yeah. Exactly right. Let, let’s make the, uh, the final chapter we talk about, uh, the, the, uh, the stewardship, stewardship. You talk about seven touches, um, and how, The, the AI tools can help with uh personalization and and consistency. Well, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s been accepted for quite some time in fund development in our, in our sector that, um, donors need to receive communications, um, from us and, uh, and, um, and you write about it in your your forthcoming book, I, I, I must say in, in a, in a very compelling way. Um, even a, even a modest communication can keep a donor loyal to your organization and result in, in that, in that gift. Um, But far too many donors are, are forgotten. Maybe they’re so small that they just get a, you know, a thank you letter and, you know, but maybe they’re giving 3 or 4 years like that, but nobody notices, you know, they’re, they’re just, those signals are being missed. Well, that falls under stewardship. Those signals should not be missed. And now with AI looking at our donor base and understanding how the fund development works in our office. Will, will alert us. Perhaps in that Monday morning review that I talk about in the book, that that donor has, has Been engaging with us in ways that we have not noticed up until now, and we should be responding in a different way. And here’s how we could be responding. And the whole 7 touches thing, and it’s rather arbitrary, you know, 7 touches. I, I didn’t want to reinvent that wheel. That’s, that’s sort of an accepted thing out there, and you could say, well, 7 touches, 2 touches, whatever. I went with 7 because that wasn’t the point. The point was, we should be engaging with those donors and not letting them slip between the cracks. We humans should be engaging, and not just engaging one way, but several ways. Um. Uh, phone calls, emails, in-person visits if we can, or inviting them to an event that maybe they wouldn’t have been invited to, or, you know, the, the communications need to take place. And now the AI can track that for us beautifully. And it could even suggest to us how to communicate and Uh, it will even tell us what we can say in some of those communications, and that’s fine, provided we own those communications and we work them so that they make sense to us as humans. So, it’s a boon to, um, stewardship, um, and we should let the AI help us there because it’s brilliant at that. It, it is just brilliant at that. The book is uh holding fire. A skeptic’s framework for the fundraiser with AI at your side. You’ll want to look for Steven Christopher Nill, not just Steve Nill, but Stephen Christopher Nill is the author. You’ll find the book at Charity Channel. Dot com. That’s the best place to get it. Steve, thank you for a, a, a, a thoughtful book, uh, a, a, a human-centered book, uh, a, a book that celebrates the humanity of fundraising. But also points to the. The value of the, uh, the AI tools, uh, at, at our side. Well, leave us with some parting thoughts about that, that human AI, uh, potential. You know, I, I, as I was researching and writing the book, I, I kept coming back to the metaphor of fire. You know, AI is so. Uh, transformative and not just in, in our sector, but in so many other spheres. That It feels like We have, we have discovered fire all over again. It’s that powerful, maybe even more powerful. And so Fire has a potential. Um, to. To warm us, to be a good positive influence for us, but misused. Used without care, without a framework, if you will, without the structure, without the understanding of, can, can burn us. And in our context, it can burn and destroy our relationships with donors who support our organizations and underpin all of philanthropy. And so, you know, I don’t want to be sort of melodramatic about it, but I, I really think. AI is the new fire. And so the book, it’s called Holding Fire, because that’s what we’re doing. If you look at the cover, it’s a pair of hands holding fire, but if you look closely, it’s kind of a digital fire. So that’s the metaphor and, and that’s why I called it what I did, but I, I think it really encapsulates. Both the promise and, and the risk, uh, that AI poses for us, uh, in the nonprofit world and particularly in the fund development arena. Steve Nill, Stephen Christopher Nill. Thanks so much. My pleasure. Next week, confessions of nonprofit social media managers and convert your member website into a thriving community. I know we had said last week that that was gonna be this week, but Steve Neill’s book got released. I want to have the bragging rights to be. But one of the first. We, we might even be the first. It depends if somebody puts their podcast out before this one. But, uh, good chance we’re the very first podcast he talks about his book on. So, that’s important, bragging rights, very important. If you missed any part of this week’s show, I beseech you, find it at Tony Martignetti.com. We are sponsored by the Bridge Conference. Tony will be with more than 2400 nonprofit professionals at Bridge, July 29th through the 31st in National Harbor, Maryland. Info and registration at bridge.org. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer Kate Martinetti. This show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our web guy, and this music is by Scott Stein. Thank you for that affirmation, Scotty. Be with us next week for nonprofit Radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. Go out and be great.