OK, if you followed the flow of Spectators Or Fans and Spectators or Fans – II, you could see this coming!
I’m going out on a limb here and proposing a new set of definitions …
A “giver” is anyone who has made only one contribution to your nonprofit.
A “donor” is anyone who has: 1) given twice; and 2) given at least once in response to an appeal directly from your organization.
Givers are nice to have … but only if they become donors. Most likely, every giver who does not become a donor is a drag on your organization … in revenue terms, they represent net losses. Too harsh?
Harsh or not, most fundraisers will probably say: Of course I understand that.
To which I say: Fine. Then next time your boss asks you how many donors you have, don’t count the givers.
See if that doesn’t refocus her — and your — thinking.
Tom
This article was posted in: direct marketing, Don't Miss these Posts, donor retention, fundraising, loyalty, marketing metrics, nonprofit management.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hi Tom,
I was so excited by the heading for your article – and then so disappointed by the content.
Although I fully appreciate what you say about the cost of “one-off” gifts, I had hoped you were going to address the question of the use of the word “donor” (and thereby “donate”). Why do we use this (Latin)word, when we have a great Anglo-Saxon word: “give” (and the words people are always telling us to use the short A-S alternatives, not long Latin ones)? We give our love to people; we give our time; at Christmas we give gifts: why do we “donate” to charities? Why do our red website buttons say “donate now” (which reads as an instruction and not a plea)? Until I became a fundraiser, I’d never even come across the word.
My vote is that we drop the donor/donate/donation in favour of giver/give/gift – it’s somehow so much more personal, and less institutional.
So let’s say the giver just walked in with a check for $100,000 and is sitting and waiting to give it to you. Also i the waiting room are a couple of donors, they have been very loyal giving the organization $5 in each of the last 3 years.
I am not sure how you would prioritize who you would see first but if you have paused to think a bit you have just realized the actual lens to use to “refocus”. You can not design your focus based on the past or what you call people. Focus will be a blend of past performance and future potential….Say I have an idea….let’s say we start calling donors, givers, funders, whatever by their actual names….then again I could be off base regarding this very personal business
Hi Tom,
A good point, to differentiate between the donor and the ‘giver’, Tom. But hardly a new definition. In my 1992 book ‘Relationship Fundraising’ (page 111 and page 156 of the current edition) I stress the importance of differentiating between the donor and what i called the responder – the one time giver.
There really is nothing new Tom. To prove this, if readers of ‘The Agitator’ want to check out the latest in major donor functions i suggest they follow this link first.
http://www.sofii.org/active%20site/Members%20area/FA258The1stmajordonordinner.html
Hope you and Roger are enjoying a delightful summer.
All best,
Ken