The Donor’s Decision to Cancel (and Buckaroo)

A lot of the posts in here have been about point of recruitment, that moment when someone decides to join your organisation and donate to you, but what about the other end of the journey, the cancellation point. This is harder to talk about,  but in many ways more important.

We all dream of recruiting donors who stay on until they die, but the reality is that most of our donors will decide to cancel at some point and the more we know about their reasons for doing so, the better equipped we are to stop them. There are a few different pathways to the cancellation, but let’s start with the most common the donor decision to stop giving.

This journey to the cancellation point generally starts with a mild discomfort. Its fairly safe to assume that to a greater or lesser extent this mild discomfort is present in most if not all of your donors. If your totally honest with yourself you’re also likely to notice this in your own giving patterns. There is often a nagging part of your brain that asks if money is best directed towards The Human Fund or would putting it towards Far Cry 3 be a better investment. It doesn’t make you or your donors a bad person, it makes you and normal.

These nagging moments are usually prompted by something, which for dramatic effect we’ll call “straws”( as in those things that break camel’s backs, a metaphor I will decline in a couple of paragraphs). These straws come in several basic categories.

Specific Personal Straws

Something that affects the individual and probably none of your other donors.  This could be loosing a Job, a big bill coming in, saving for something. It could even be someone having a getting out of bed on the wrong side. 

Values Straws

Anyone who’s been to a school reunion will vouch that people change over time; their priorities change, their start to care about new things and stop caring about some other things. They may have may have starter giving to your environmental organisation when they were an idealistic geology student with dreadlocks, but now they work for a mining company, they not so hot on you. On the other hand it could be that your organisation has changed and the donor hasn’t changed in the same way,

Public Straws

These are things that affect people on a wider scale. The most obvious example would be the GFC. But others could be along the lines of the natural disasters, cost of living increases, changes in legislation etc…

Communication Straws

This is a specific thing that the organisation has done which has annoyed the donor.  This cold be on the level of organisational mission such as policy the donor dislikes or negative media involving your organisation. Or it could be the way in which you’ve interacted with then from the tone of a letter they received or an-opt out auto upgrade.

Now imagine the game, Buckaroo.  If you don’t know the game it involves placing bits little plastic items on a spring loaded plastic mule.  One wrong move or too much weight and the mule kicks and who ever placed the last piece is the loser. The crucial thing is you never know what is going to be too much, it could be the first piece or the tenth piece.  The more items are placed on the mule, the more chance the next piece will set off the mule.

Now, prepare for a stretched metaphor.

Donor’s decision to cancel is a lot like the game.  Their donation is the mule; the different straws are the items.  The straws are placed on the mule, without you knowing what’s being placed, when it’s being placed or whether it’s being placed in a way that sets off the mule. You do know however that different items are being placed on the mule at all times and as time passes, the more items are being added. When the mule kicks, the donor cancels and you both loose.

You’re not privy to the any of the pressures being put on the donor’s desire to give and each donor will be loaded to spring under a slightly different weight.  You do know that as time passes and more items are being placed on the mule, the more chance there is of the next piece setting off the mule.  This means you have to be ready for the mule to spring at any time. Identifying the potential influences, especially the ones that  tip donors over the edge most regularly, will help in objection handling with individuals. The bigger question is how we can use our knowledge of the model to improve our retention long term.

The Do’s and Don’ts of Framing Donation

Creating a connection between donor and charities is the greatest influencer of retention at point of recruitment. But not far behind that lies the way in which that donation is framed. The language used during recruitment, qualifications used to select donors and the way any longevity objections are handled directly influence how far along the bell curve of attachment a donor sits. Here are some of Dos and don’ts of donation frames.

Do – Get the donor to sign some sort of commitment to longevity at point if recruitment. A common example of this is the commitment on a F2F form where a donor signs a pledge to give for at least two years. It’s not a contract but it gets the donor to think about the donation in terms which turn a decent return for the charity. Also it should reduce the number of people who sign up with the idea of only giving for a short while.

Don’t – Limit the donation length with this commitment. Sadly it’s really easy to frame the commitment in a limiting way. Phrases such as “you only have to give for two years” or “it’s just a two year donation” make it sound as if it is a burden that the donor will only have to endure for a relatively short period of time. After that, the world will be saved and the donor has “done their bit”. It’s the opposite of what their RG should be; it’s a joyful contribution to a cause the donor believes in and the languages used should reinforce this framing  In addition by suggesting that the gift only goes on for a limited time, cancelling becomes a question of when, rather than if.

Do – Frame the case for support as something won’t that be solved overnight. Although its important to use pressing cases and current issues to encourage people to  join  today rather than putting it off, any such examples must be put in context of the wider work your organisation does. For instance if there has been a recent disaster your charity has responded to explain the work that you did but be clear that you’ve responded to that disaster; what you need is money for future disasters whenever they arrive.

Don’t – Let people off when they say they’d like to give for a limited amount of time. In one to one recruitment it’s common for people to let the recruiter know they’re going to cancel before the pledge breaks even. It could be that they’re an International student, people they change charities every year or they just aren’t that into your cause. Although the minimum term commitment will catch most of these it’s sadly relatively easy for a fundraiser to get around it, if their unscrupulous enough.

Do – Counter the above objections. If someone does not have the ability to give long term, direct them to other forms of donation.  If they are wavering whether or not they really care enough, put them on the spot.  Be clear your looking for long term supporters, ones there for the long haul.

Don’t – Say cancel. Ever. It’s the original sin of fundraising. It primes a donor to do just that, quickly and without caring for the repercussions

Minding One’s Language

A few weeks ago Rachel Beer wrote an excellent piece  which discussed the language fundraisers use and how that can reinforce  fundraiser’s cynicism towards their donors. This really hit home for me. Recently I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with the way in which I and my colleagues bandy around terms that dehumanise the people who do fantastic things. It seems incredibly odd that people, who spend a significant percentage of their professional life deliberating about which adjective will get the best emotional response from a supporter, feel it appropriate to label those same supporters in ways which caricatures them by and with a single trait. I understand this is MASS marketing, but forgetting that we are marketing to individuals is as ineffective as it is lacking in integrity.

In February 2012 a series of news articles in Australian media used some of the language used by fundraisers (F2Fers and others at a conference) as the crowbar with which to pull a hatchet job on the industry. Morally correct principles such as not targeting vulnerable people and making sure donors could afford a donation were spun to suggest a lack of empathy as they were trained using an inappropriate acronym. (They were told not to sign up people who were POYSN “poor, old, young, stupid and non-english speaking” households.)

But this goes far beyond risk management. It’s about setting up a frame which views the wonderful donors who give or who may give to our organisations as great people. Even if you are the most hard-nosed and weather beaten of fundraisers, you know that in 2012 marketing requires a two way line of communication and that relies on trust. If you’re going to market something on Facebook, you will need to be prepared for people telling you exactly what they think of your think in no uncertain terms and with no control from yourself.

One of the greatest lessons I was taught as a F2Fer was when a manager redefined our lexicon. He took a verbal and in some cases literal red marker to the way in which we spoke about our work, to our teams and to ourselves. No longer were we allowed to talk about “trying” to do something. We did, or did not. There was no try and therefore no room for excuses. Similarly we were banned from wishing anyone good luck. Luck suggested a lack of responsibility for the results. It worked, or was at least part of the reason teams grew and individual results increased.

So in his shadow I vow to put a red line through the following terms and the more positive ones in their place.

Attrition: stop focussing on the negative Instead talk about retention. Focus on giving people an experience and relationship with you that makes them want to keep giving

Upgrade. They are people not personal computers. Instead, be honest with what you’re asking them to do. Increase their donation

Payment. Your charity is not a phone company. The people who give your money are making a gift or donation

Marketing: similar to the above. There is a lot to be learned from marketing but I will never try to sell you double glazing. I work in fundraising. I raise money for important causes that I believe in. It is different

What are your worst words?