We talk a lot in advancement about the importance of creating compelling stories for our donors and friends. Stories that personify the impact of giving and volunteering. And stories that encourage others do more of both.
We invite donors to respond generously by telling a story of a life saved or changed because of our institution. We invite volunteers to serve by telling a story of the good our organization does for society and the world.
However, we don’t talk nearly as much about the compelling stories we tell ourselves.
Here are 3 such stories. Each is compelling and many people in our advancement field believe them completely. But, simply put, they are not accurate and can lead us to making decisions that are not the best – for our donors, or for the missions we are charged with advancing.
Here, then, are 3 stories we tell ourselves that aren’t fully accurate:
- Major Gift Donors Only Want To Give To Something Specific – For decades this compelling (but inaccurate) story has been told by practitioners and consultants alike. Penelope Burk didn’t start the, “you have to show direct impact from a major donor’s gift,” rumor, but her book in 2003, Donor Centered Fundraising, certainly helped make the story stick. It’s not that all major gift donors will give unrestricted or where needed most. But research over the years – such as the U.S. Trust’s High Net Worth Philanthropy from back in 2016 which found that a full 74% of major gift donors made their largest single gift unrestricted in the year prior – has shown that substantial giving from major gift donors can come to our organizations without strings if we ask for those gifts and educate our donors on their need.
- Great Donor Stewardship Equals Repeat Donors – It’s easy to understand why this story has had legs for a long time in our industry. Who doesn’t like to say “thank you” to donors? For example, many institutions will send a birthday card, a giving anniversary card, a hand-written note (or 2), plus even a phone call from a donor relations professional – all in response to a first time donor who made a $25 gift. But the data suggest that first time donor retention is abysmal at under 20%. With all of the efforts to thank and re-thank donors going on in so many shops, perhaps we should re-evaluate our “donor stewardship leads to more donors,” gospel.
- We Need A Strong Case That Proves Why The Money Is Needed – Major gift donors won’t give, the thinking goes, if we can’t prove our worth and why their money is needed. But case statements, facts, figures, analysis, and data are not the motivating factor some think it is. Paul Slovic’s work on the identifiable victim effect, and the many experiments that followed it, show that one vivid person moves donors more than statistics about thousands. Studies on “effective altruism” messaging find that impact data does little to shift most donors’ behavior, and sometimes dampens giving by shifting people into an analytical mode. Russell James’s work on the neuroscience and psychology of giving points the same way: donors decide emotionally and then justify the gift rationally. The case still matters, but mostly as a permission structure and a justification, not as the cause of the gift.
Compelling stories matter in our work. In fact, in order to raise more money and engage more people, sharing compelling stories is some of our most important work.
But we also tell ourselves compelling stories – and that matter tremendously as well.
Especially if those compelling stories we tell ourselves aren’t completely true.
