“We don’t tell our story well!”

When probed, one (or more) of three underlying concerns almost always surfaces:

• A need to articulate more clearly, concisely, and authentically the positive “facts” of how the institution impacts students, patients, the community, etc.;
• A sense that the integration of “our message” is not embraced by all parts of the institution, and;
• A perception that the “stories” told to donors are not the most compelling that could be told.

In general, the idea is that if the institution could share with donors a more integrated, compelling, and concise story, those donors would be moved to make larger and more gifts.

Here’s the problem:  Each of these concerns is internally focused on what and how the institution should message donors and prospects.  Each comes from a misguided belief that our job as development professionals is to “tell and sell” to our donors and prospects.  Each pays little attention to the reality that communication is a two-way process and that our donors and prospects are not empty vessels waiting to be filled up with our messages!

So, when leaders say, “we don’t tell our story well,” they are missing a much bigger, more important reality.  Telling  our institution’s story isn’t nearly as important as allowing our donors to tell us theirs.

And becoming more expert at storytelling isn’t as important as becoming more expert at what I call “story-questioning.”  Asking those thoughtful questions that evoke stories from our donors.  Questions about their values, about their history, about their successes, about their dreams for their philanthropy, about their vision for our institution.

Everyone agrees that donor engagement is a key to receiving a commitment.  But donor engagement doesn’t occur because we tell them what we want them to know.  Instead, donor engagement occurs when they tell us what we want them to know. My counsel is that a donor is ready to make a meaningful gift when she says to me, “Jason, we need that new science building!”

Better storytelling doesn’t get us to that point.  Better story-questioning does.

On the other hand, the term, “pret-a-porter,” is used to describe factory-made, or standardized clothing sold in finished form.  It’s the “off the rack” clothing that is available to the masses.

Here’s the interesting thing.  Because haute couture is extremely expensive to make and because pret-a-porter collections deliver higher revenues, every haute couture house also has pret-a-porter collections.  In fact, some fashion firms quietly have abandoned their haute couture divisions to focus exclusively on their more profitable pret-a-porter collections.

But think about the reaction of most consumers when shopping for clothes.  When shopping in a local store, we are buying pret-a-porter.   But the brand (whose perception developed primarily from the house’s haute couture offerings) suggests that what we are buying is similar to haute couture.  ”It’s an Armani!” we tell ourselves.  So, while we are buying pret-a-porter, we are influenced by the haute couture.  It’s a halo effect.

In the development world, special, customized treatment of major donors during cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship is commonplace.  This is the fundraising equivalence to the haute couture fashion lines.  It costs more to segment and treat these donors personally and differently.  But, unlike haute couture fashion, customized donor strategies provide a huge ROI.  In fact, you simply will not achieve high gift totals without “haute couture fundraising.”

But, institutions don’t regularly leverage the halo effect well.  In other words, most of our other donors don’t perceive a similar haute couture response when giving to our institutions.  There are two ways for us to change this.

First, institutions should increase the application of the Law of Exclusivity, which I recently wrote about.  Our second and third-level major donors need to feel as if they are being stewarded like leadership-level donors.  This means more creativity and energy invested in expanded stewardship programs (it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to spend more money though!).

Second, development professionals must provide leadership to the crafting and implementation of institution-wide integrated marketing plans.  Our marketing plans should articulate compelling reasons why donors of all levels will want to be part of our institution.  These plans should help separate – in meaningful ways – our institutions from others in the minds of prospective donors.  They should position our institutions as a philanthropic leaders -a haute couture institution.  And they should provide all donors with an “It’s an Armani!” feeling when giving to us.

The power of haute couture is more than quality, it’s branding.

And consumers are overwhelmed and not paying much attention anymore.  According to David Shenk, in 1965, consumers reported recalling 34% of television ads.  By 1990, that number dropped to 8%.

Between the messaging deluge and the fact that we are remembering less of what marketers are delivering to us, I remain unconvinced that a strategy of repeatedly delivering fundraising appeals through traditional “channels” (face-to-face, phone, direct mail, magazines, even electronically) will bring the levels of gift income your organization needs or deserves.

What if, instead of focusing so much on the channels, we investigated how our donors experience our institutional brand?  What specific experiences do our donors have when they interact with our institution?  And, then, how do we repeatedly engage the senses of our donors and remind them why supporting our institution is important?

In his book, Brand Sense, Martin Lindstrom suggests that we should craft a “Five Dimensional Brand.”  We should communicate our institutional brand through the five senses:

• Sight – the most seductive and powerful of all the  senses – colors impact our emotions and images reinforce beliefs;
• Sound – has the ability to generate mood – just remember how you feel when you hear a favorite song from your college days;
• Smell – research shows that a full 75% of our emotions are generated by smell;
• Touch – has the power to increase well-being which is why we want to “stay in touch,” or feel “touched” when something good happens;
• Taste – the weakest of our five senses, but the power of eating an agreeable meal with friends is well understood.

So, how can we use the five senses in our work as advancement professionals?  Here are questions that immediately come to mind:

• Does your direct mail packaging always deliver a distinctive touch and sight?  For instance, what paper stock do you use for the envelope – standard #10 or distinctive to your organization?
• What about the smells and tastes you deliver during events?  Have you thought about establishing a branded smell at your events?  I know some admissions offices at colleges that spray the scent of freshly-baked brownies so that prospective new students will be reminded of a “warm, home smell.”
• And what about sound?  What distinctive song or tune could you incorporate on your web-page, at events, or through e-solicitations which would remind donors of why your institution is worthy of support?

Yes, we should strategize around the channels we use to communicate with donors and prospective donors.  But by itself, that is not enough.  When we communicate through all five senses we give our institution the opportunity to create deeply-personal relationships with donors – relationships that encourage donors to remember us fondly.

However, when we ask such a broad question, we typically focus the answers on the organization as a whole.  And this organization-wide focus typically means that we aim to strengthening the brand identity of the organization vis-a-vis the core component of the enterprise.   Building brand identity based on the student experience (in education), the patient experience (in healthcare), or the value of the service provided (in other non-profits) is usually the focus.

I suggest, though, that the development office needs to establish a brand identity with donors as well.  And this identity will be built a bit differently than the organization’s brand because it will focus on other experiences.  To build a strong brand identity with donors – a philanthropic brand identity – I suggest answering questions such as:

• Can your donors expect a thank you note prior to their check clearing their bank?
• Do you report back to endowment donors regarding not only the performance of their funds but of the organization’s endowment overall?
• Are your events – regardless of type – regularly described as “meaningful” or “emotional” or “exceptional” by donors and prospects?
• Do you provide specific and regular feedback to donors which shows how their giving made a difference?
• Do you ask volunteers for your organization to recruit other volunteers?

There is little question that prospects are attracted to your organization based on its mission of service and based on the organization’s brand identity.  But once prospects become donors, the development office should establish and strengthen its own brand identity – its philanthropic brand identity.  If trust is to be created between donors and your organization, this component of brand identity is key.

A distinction is some aspect of the organization – typically a program or service – which has received special recognition.  The recognition usually highlights quality and is proffered by an unbiased third party.  Winning a national award for excellence for your first year university curriculum would be an example.

A distinctive, on the other hand, is some aspect of the organization – typically a program or service – which is highlighted by the organization as being different from (and better than) its competitors.  A specialized, after-visit patient care program at a hospital would be an example.

More often than not, organizations talk about distinction when the evidence is soft at best.  For instance, higher education institutions regularly highlight their “programs of distinction” with little to back up the claim (save their own beliefs).

Instead, most organizations should focus on creating distinctiveness.  Distinctiveness draws a sharp, discerning line in the mind of your constituents between you and your competition.  Distinctiveness calls on members of your organization to summon their entrepreneurial and creative spirit which benefits both organization and constituent.  Distinctiveness, usually, can be achieved easier than distinction.

The trick with creating distinctiveness is to identify aspects of your enterprise which enhance constituent satisfaction.  If you create a distinctive new basket-weaving program which utilizes start of the art computer technology at your two-year college, but no students wish to enroll, it doesn’t much matter that you have this distinctive program.

Your organization can be distinctive if there is capable leadership and execution.  Your organization can have distinction if someone else says so.  Both are wonderful characteristics – but if I had to, I’d choose distinctiveness every day.