Community-centered or donor-centered fundraising?
I attended a conference last week (thank you, Liberty Bank Foundation). The estimable and hysterical Vu Le offered the keynote address.
If you know Vu, you know we were holding our stomachs and behaving in otherwise undignified ways because we were laughing so hard. (If you don’t know Vu, get acquainted with his blog. You’ll thank me.)
But the humor was the delivery method for some important points. And a concern for our sector – and our world.
Over the years, Vu and I have disagreed about one point in particular. Vu contends that one big problem in our sector is our celebration of donor focus. To Vu, that’s wrong-headed. Donors as heroes undercuts the need for us to focus on the community.
I see what he’s saying. And of course, wearing my best bleeding heart, I get it. We’re all about healing the world together, right?
But I’m also an experienced fundraiser. I know the power that caring about donors has on our fundraising… and on our missions.
So, a deadlock, right?
No.
I don’t think so, anyway. And I’d love for you to chime in. Let’s talk this through together in the comments.
Community and donor-centered fundraising
The solution to this problem is bypassing a win/lose, right/wrong frame. We get there with some synthesis.
Donors care give because they care. Fundraisers work hard to be sure donors understand their power. Because powerful people can change the world.
When we share a culture of philanthropy, we can have both a community-first and a donor-loving mindset. We credit our donors because it shows them they matter. Empowered, they help more. We all win.
Surprisingly, one of the most donor-centered things I heard that day was offered by Vu as an example of community-centered action.
What happens when an organization gets a gift – and then suggests other worthy organizations to the donor?
The community gets stronger. Instead of fighting for scraps, nonprofits are working together to help each other do more. So a win. An example of trusting behavior. The power of thinking abundance, not scarcity.
But to the donor, this is also a tremendously donor-centered thing to do. You’re saying, “We’re so grateful for your support. And we know you care about {hunger}. We want you to know about a few other great organizations that are fighting the good fight along with you.”
It recognizes the donor’s desire – to fix a problem or stop an injustice – and places care for the donor and the community above the organization’s immediate needs.
Being both community and donor focused is not easy. Everything we’ve been taught about marketing our organizations screams for recognizing our unique value and selling it in the marketplace.
Everything in that mindset is about scarcity. That there are only so many donors and so many dollars to go around.
That scarcity mindset is self-fulfilling
When we act out of a fierce need to protect “our” territory and fear of losing “our” position, we create a community where we all scramble for scraps.
And donors feel it, too. Giving isn’t just about a good cause and some money to share. Giving becomes fraught with all sorts of social and emotional math. “What do I owe my friend, who supports this group?” “Will this improve my reputation?”
There are people who enjoy math. But this kind of math is not usually joyful.
This is all about trust.
Trust that together, we will have enough. Trust that if we agree to stop competing the other groups will, too. And trust that funders and donors will be willing to embrace a new way of thinking.
As community needs change, this might even mean the largest leap of faith. Knowing when to close your doors and celebrate, because your mission is done – or done enough that a separate organization is no longer needed.
So many of our organizations should have going out of business as their real goal. Wouldn’t it be great if we conquered disease or hunger or racism?
But I don’t think we can get to Vu’s community-centered vision without embracing a donor-centered outlook first.
And I don’t think we can expect our organizations to take that leap of trust until we’re ready to take the step of trusting our donors.
If we focus on cause more than organization, will some other new organization take our place? Will we lose funding? Will donors move to the place that’s best at selling themselves?
If we introduced our donors to another organization, would we lose them?
I don’t think so – or not enough to matter.
Not if we also treat our donors well – really well. Not if we celebrate their generosity and commitment.
Not if we do an outstanding job helping them fulfill their dreams of a better world – or at least a better community.
We’re only going to get there together.
What do you think? What’s the best way forward not just for individual organizations, but for our communities?
I can’t agree more about your suggestion for helping your donor find other organizations that match their passions. We should be able to encourage our partners to partner with other organizations. It reminds me of a post I wrote years ago, using the Miracle on 34th Street as an example.
Good job, Mary
Wholeheartedly agree. Donor-centricity leads to community.
Thanks for another great read, Mary.
Mary, I tend to agree with you. Being donor centered does not mean we ignore community. Quite the opposite. By being donor centered, we’re able to accomplish more for our communities.
As you already know, the idea of “your donor” and “my donor” is a myth. Donors are independent people with ideas and motives of their own. We don’t own them. That’s why it’s important to respect, understand, and care for them. Then, together, we can build better communities and a better world.
In my experience, people who criticize the concept of donor-centered fundraising don’t really understand what it means or its power.
Thanks, my friends. It does all come down to service, doesn’t it? Serving the community, serving the people who need help and the people who want to help.
Mary, it was so great to meet you in person in Connecticut! I wish we had had more time to hang out. Thank you for reflecting on this. I’ll have been working on a blog post to expand on these thoughts, and it’ll be published soon, likely next Monday. I don’t think we disagree that we should have strong, respectful, and transparent partnerships with our donors. But the fundraising field will need to discuss more challenging issues with our donors, including systemic racism, wealth disparities, the need to increase taxes, the savior complex, poverty tourism, and other uncomfortable subjects and whether we as fundraisers (I am one too) are avoiding talking about them and thus unintentionally perpetuating them. I heard a development director say last week that she attended a workshop on fundraising and was told to put up pictures of poor, starving kids from developing countries because “that’s what moves donors to give, that’s what’s emotionally appealing.” Yes, that’s probably true, that this would tug at heartstrings and motivate people to give. This trainer was probably–rightly or wrongly–interpreting this as being donor-centered. But how do practices like this affect the entire community, especially the people we serve? We need to explore these questions, and I’m glad to have your leadership in these conversations.
So great to see you, Vu!
There is a lot the entire sector needs to wrestle with. And as outward-facing people, fundraisers do have a responsibility to help build a better community for us all. Donors are key to that.
As to starving kids… if that’s the problem your organization is focused on, that’s the problem you’re asking donors to help. Sugar-coating it doesn’t help. Honesty does. And yes, research shows that showing the problem for an appeal is what moves people to help. Showing the solution only communicates that help isn’t needed. And it’s human to feel relieved we’re not needed and move along.
So yes, program staff see layers of complexity in the people we help. The good days and the awful ones. Depths of character and lives lived fully. But you can’t communicate that in a photo or an appeal. You have to simplify it to problem -> solution. Personally, I think pictures of hungry kids that help communicate the need for support and get that support are a whole lot less offensive than hungry kids who don’t have any support.
The world is full of hope and fear; need and generosity. Fundraisers help donors see that and encourage them to do something to tilt things in the positive direction.
Looking forward to your thoughts on Monday – as always!
The funny thing is, when you put your primary focus on mastering donor-centricity, rather than jumping on every latest bright shiny object, everything else flows. Because donor-centricity is, essentially, love. This is pretty simple. Pretty basic. But our sector loves to overcomplicate everything.
“…donor-centricity is, essentially, love.” Simple and powerful.
We build community with donors, who become partners in serving the mission. The organization’s leaders, staff, fundraiser, and donors share in serving the mission for the benefit of community. The work wouldn’t get done without everyone sharing. Making the donors center feels like a strategy. If there were only donors and no people willing to make their careers serving missions or community leaders willing to serve as leaders, the mission wouldn’t be served. It seems as partners we share in building stronger communities.
Mary,
Very well written. It seems to me that we’re about service…both to donors and to our clients. There isn’t a dichotomy. We’re introducing people who need each other.
Thanks. And agreed!