This blog is the second of a multi-part series on shifting attitudes in our society and how we, as fund development professionals, continue to thrive.
At least in Montana, there is a suspicion, even a distrust of formal education and expertise. As a result, there has been a reliance of amateur experts. This phenomenon has accelerated when we can watch a few YouTube videos and declare we “know all” about the subject or issue in question. These videos, however, rarely dive into the nuances of any subject; instead, they typically portray the issue in the most simplistic ways for the length of the video. The design is to be “simple, persuasive and effective” to maximize page views.
If you spend any time perusing fundraising messaging videos, you’ll find that formula of “simple, persuasive and effective” as the framework of how we should craft fundraising messages. In our work, we then dutifully strip the nuances from the cause we serve and identify the words and images to summon the donor’s emotions around the cause.
Using that exercise, we can create fundraising messages that are incomplete or, worst, biased. In doing so, we may be successful in raising funds for our cause, but at the cost of our integrity, long-term relationship with donors and mission to the cause.
Recently, I attended a training where a CEO of a cancer resources referral network discussed the temptation. His organization recruited cancer patients and their families and then gave guidance and referrals to them of other organizations that provided the actual resources, services, and support. The patients and their families could call his organization once or multiple time during and after their journey with cancer.
It is, we would all agree, a vital organization in the web of cancer resource organizations.
The temptation was this: the simplest, most persuasive and effective images and messages would have been the patients and their families receiving the cancer support services and their resulting gratitude. That is, give to his organization and support services for cancer patients and their families. But. But, his organization didn’t provide direct services to cancer patients and their families. His organization provided referrals.
When we fall into the trap of “amateur experts,” we strip out the nuances for purely fundraising efficacy. With our simple, persuasive and effective messages, we mislead donors at a time when these donors look to us to understand the causes they care about.
It reflects on our integrity. It shows up… when we have to write a paragraph explaining why the simplistic message is “technically” correct…. when we begin blaming donors for not understanding what we really do… when we dismiss the criticism of organizations similar to ours as jealousy… when we state that it’s not our fault that other organizations are bad at messaging.
It undermines our long-term relationships with donors. When a donor dives more deeply into a subject and sees how they were mislead, they reduce or stop their giving. And, they are more likely to share their frustration in their circle of influence.
It damages our mission to the cause. All of our organizations exist in a web of connected organizations whose missions further the cause together. When our organizations become over-funded with donors re-directing their giving from other connected organizations based on our simplistic fundraising messages, we are causing other organizations to be under-funded. As those under-funded organizations struggle to provide the services related to their expertise, the cause (the people, animals, land, etc.) suffers.
How do we swim against the tide of our culture for true fund development? Minimally, we should seek a life of integrity even if it involves the harder work of nuance.