Last week, I raised the question of whether your donors relate to your organization as "friends" or merely "acquaintances?" The hypothesis being that donor loyalty requires building a "friend" relationship.
I suggested a simple first step, like including photos of the signers of your letters and emails. So far, no one has dumped on the idea.
Ray Mitchell commented a few days later, and I didn’t want his observation lost in Comment never-neverland. Says Ray:
"What you posited is a critical concern, and what you suggested is so very far from dumb!
My own view of organizational relationship management dynamics — and the one I try to pass on to all clients — is that it’s rather the same as in the personal relationships between people. The more important and valued a personal relationship is, the more personal one should try to make the communication and interaction with that individual.
It’s not complicated. We all do it — by instinct! A greeting card with a friendly note on a birthday or anniversary. A phone call of concern when someone is ill. A gift of flowers when a friend is grieving over the loss of a loved one. In all of those situations, we personalize the message and the “touch” as best we can.
So, too, should organizations in every “touch” with a constituent/donor. Put faces to signatures. Communicate with them as we do with friends, and they will be inclined to feel and respond as friends. It’s not rocket science. It should be just everyday instinct!"
Well said, Ray.
Tom Belford
This article was posted in: charities, communications, copywriting, Don't Miss these Posts, donor retention, fundraising, loyalty, Uncategorized.
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.
Loyalty is an interesting word. It may be able to imply victory, meaning we have been successful in having a donor be loyal. It is unhealthy for any relationship to assume victory, or the relationship is finally what I want.
To operationalize what you’re suggesting I would encourage nonprofits think continuous attraction. Meaning you always have to be thinking and acting on renewing the key relationships. Keeping things interesting and fresh.
I plan on writing a blog post on this, thanks for the inspiration.
Hey, Tom! Thanks for considering and posting my comments in reaction to your post last week on nonprofits making friends as opposed to just acquaintances.
I’m amazed that there were not many more reactions/comments on this subject, because it is such an essential aspect and DNA-like component of constituent/donor/customer-relationship management (CRM) — in any type of business, but particularly in the nonprofit world.
I was struck by the comments of our colleague, Jay Goulart, in response to your follow-up posting on this subject earlier today. Where I had not, Jay picked up specifically on the key word “loyalty” in this matter, and I think he hits one of the more critical buttons in the CRM process.
I believe we all would agree completely with his points on constituent/donor/customer loyalty — and I hope, Jay, that I’ve got them straight and correct. One (an individual or an organization) can never ASSUME loyalty or that it is forever. One must always be conscious of reinforcing the reason/s for mutual attraction and loyalty. One must be always thinking about and acting on renewing key relationships (in order to maintain that loyalty). One must always be looking to keep things “interesting and fresh!” Just as in life and love, isn’t it? Jay hits the nails on the head! I look forward to his blog on this topic.
It happens that Henry Winkler, the actor we all know and love from the TV show, “Happy Days,” once made a comment that sums up all of this really well: “Assumptions are the termites of relationships!”