Your Secret Donor Hates You
The online portal (and Charity Navigator partner) Network For Good states that 20% of the people who use their service do it anonymously. Here’s how it works: donors that use their site to make a charitable gift get a receipt from Network For Good, and the charity gets their donation, but Network For Good conceals the donor’s identity from the recipient group. In 2006, anonymous giving accounted for over $7 million in donations made through the popular online site; at an average gift of $100, this is a ton of people who have no interest in their charity of choice having the opportunity to thank them.
This is one of the things that makes Network For Good a quality service, but I think it should scare the hell out of those non-profits that do it the right way, and have respect for their donors.
First of all, the rise of anonymous online giving keeps reputable charities from ever having the opportunity to cultivate donors as the donors age and get wealthier. The charities will never have the chance to convince the givers that they concentrate their philanthropy on that charity's particular ambitious goals and plans for measuring them, because they’ll have no idea who the donor is.
And secondly, and even more ominously for charities, the next step for exasperated donors, after they’ve decided to give anonymously because they feel disrespected by their charities, is to simply stop giving. Deciding to give anonymously is a warning. Donors are revoking the right of the charities to know who they, the donors, are. If that doesn’t work, the next step is to revoke their gifts altogether.
According to Penelope Burk, president of Cygnus Applied Research Large, the majority of American donors who stopped supporting a particular charity did it because they no longer received prompt acknowledgments of their gifts, they received no confirmation that the contributions were used as they intended, and they were given no evidence of measurable results about what their donations had achieved.
These are the same reasons people elect to give anonymously. Don’t kid yourself into believing that most donors are choosing this route as a result of some sort of higher calling; they’re doing it because they’re sick of being treated like pieces of meat.
If your donor doesn’t want you to know who he is, how much trust could he possibly have in you?
Labels: anonymous donors, Network For Good, Penelope Burk
posted by Trent Stamp at 6:12 AM
20 Comments:
Perhaps that is part of it, but I think you should not dismiss another reason. According to Jewish teachings, there are different levels of giving charity. The highest level is donating anonymously. I know that many Jewish donors do so for this reason. I don't know if this idea extends to other religions as well.
I had not heard of Network for Good but will use them in the future for a reason not stated above. I do not want to be continually bombarded with requests for more money. I have limited means but enjoy supporting organizations in whose work I find merit. However, I find that the more generous I am, the more often they return to request more. I am sure this is because as you say, they wish to cultivate donors. However, I am not and will likely never be a Bill Gates with seemingly limitless funds. As a small donor, I feel overwhelmed by some charity’s appearance of greed regardless of how thankful they are in the numerous letters sent to me. The more I give, the more they want as is evidenced in their increased attempts to contact me. This increase in requests is what turns me off as a donor. Perhaps a thank you without but please give more would elicit more future and larger donations.
In addition to bombarding donors with more solicitations, some charities sell their donors list to other charities.
Note: Network for Good charges a 4.75% fee for donations. A better way is to set up a donor-advised fund through Fidelity, T Row Price, or Vanguard. I'm planning to set up one with Vanguard in the near future. Only drawback is the minimum --- $25,000 at Vanguard, $5,000 at Fidelity --- needed to set up the account.
- larry
Most non-profits know that repeat contact is critical to retaining donor interest but I think responsible groups allow any donor to 'opt out'. We have donors who ask not to be contacted and some who say once a year. We observe their wishes. Smart ones will. Nedra's point above is well taken also.
Network for Good is ok except for the 4.75% fee, seems a little high and we have received donations with names but no address which means we can't even say Thank You!
We also communicate with our supporters via email but we do it periodically and Do Not ask for a donation in every email. We really focus on progress we're making, news worth sharing and only 1 out of 5 months do we ask for $$.
Thanks for putting this blog up. I'll try to check it out more often. Phil
In concert with Ms. Weinreich's comment. My family has always been taught that the highest gift was one that required and received no recognition or thanks. For generations we have learned that recognition and reward for one's charitable deeds is from the creator. If you publicize or brag about your gifts here on earth - you are seeking recognition now from men rather than waiting for recognition/reward from God. I see how anonymous giving creates a problem for charities in developing donors. Perhaps development simply has to focus on those supporters who want to be recognized now.
Interesting blog. I choose to give anonymously to my church because I think it's a conflict of interest for the priests to know how much individual members give. If all members gave anonymously, then it would allow the priests to minister based only on need, without the worry of pleasing the biggest financial supporters.
Instead of subjecting donors to a barrage of solicitations, how about having charities list on their websites the needs and how to donate? (And preferably by providing a regular mail address. I tend to write short notes and mail them with a good-size check. I keep a record of those letters and checks. When more income becomes available, I look up in my records and/or visit the websites looking for opportunities to donate to.)
I expect prompt acknowledgements of donations. I've noticed for some organizations that I send them a donation, then 1 week later I get a request from more money, then 1 week later comes the acknowledgement!
- larry
Though I have not tried the Network for Good method of giving, it appeals to me very much. I, too, have gotten tired of the endless solicitations, unwanted gifts, and self-addressed stamped envelopes. Sadly, I have discontinued support for charities that use these marketing tools. It seems anonymous giving may be a good way to get the message across.
I wish to give to organizations that don't bombard me with mail, that have respect for the environment by limiting their mailings, and that make use of all funds possible for those in need. Perhaps, we could have a list of known charities that fit the description.
Trent,Thanks for the subject. I don't want to be "cultivated" by charities. But I do like to give. There are fine charities I would support but who require registration and more personal info than they should need, passwords, etc. Fortunately some fine charities let me give without collecting an invasive amount of personal information,selling my info, or bombarding me. Charities should have detailed regularly updated websites, send brief one time thank you notes with receipt (email fine),and regular but infrequent newsletters (could be by brief email directing us to website updates). They should not collect information that is not required to process the donations. And they should prominently state they will not sell or share our info. Just common courtesy.
I like to help kids, but I was really, really, really (can I stress this enough) turned off by the constant bombardment from some groups like Feed the Children. If they had been satisfied with my monthly gift, I would still be giving to this day. It is so simple. Some people only want to give once or once monthly. Set up a box to check for this option so that the giver doesn't feel harrassed, and it saves the charity money from senseless, unappreciated mailings. Also, this practice of selling your info. is evil and predatory. I'd rather drop a large amount of money in a Salvation Army kettle than deal with the hassle and all the guilt trips which some charities force on you. Lastly, I was sponsoring a child with one charity which seemed quite good about only mailing me monthly for my monthly sponsorship. Then, they started sneaking up the amount for each month without asking. Finally, they raised it a lot. I sent them a letter saying I did not appreciate not being asked if I wanted to increase my monthly gift. I got a form letter back from the president apologizing saying they would end my sponorship immediately. Instead of taking what money I could give monthly and maybe creatively combining it with someone elses to help sponsor the child, they just gave up! Charities should be FLEXIBLE, appreciative, and willing to accomodate givers who have budgets. If I can only give $20 monthly for the rest of my life be thankful for that and stop trying to push me around. I am really turned off to a lot of charities now who come across as greedy. That $20 is better than $0, but they were to busy printing form letters to notice.
Attention charities: why make it hard for skeptics to get more info. ? If I give you my email address that should be sufficient for you to answer some of my concerns. You don't need my personal information........yet. It should be casual and EASY. Then, when I feel comfortable with you, I will tell you more about me. After all, you are the one requesting money. Make it simple. Make it easy. I don't care how good your rating is on whatchamajig's website. Stop intimidating & scaring people away with your complicated forms or requests for detailed info. up front. Think about it! Thank you.
Why would donors want to be hounded by organizations more than they are! What is insulting, is not the lack of acknowledgement of a donation, (that's just some bogus form letter...who cares about that) but the idea that a donor wants to be cultivated! And where do you get off saying secret donors hate? Maybe donors just want their privacy.
As Ms Weinrich politely mentioned about this being the highest form of charity. The specific reason it is the most esteemed is that it spares the recipient embarrassment and removes the possibility/obligation of the donor being "fawned over".
Its understandable that charities may want to at least send an initial thank you message or packet of information detailing how your donation will be used. Perhaps Network for Good or similar organizations could act as a proxy for this one-time reply.
One very imortant point about giving anonymously is that it actually helps the charity in question keep their adinistrative costs low. Every time a charity has to send out a letter soliciting funds (usually once per season) or thanking the donor, it costs them money. They need to pay for the cost of printing the letters, postage and envelopes, not to mention use precious volunteer hours that could otherwise be allocated elsewhere. By donating anonymously, the charity has no idea who you are, so they can't solicit you, which, in turn, saves them the cost of doing so.
Well, email can be used to keep such costs low. This too, could be forwarded back to the donor on behalf of the charity by the 3rd party organization.
All of you have made really good points.
You should be able to request that you not get any more mail from an organization and that your personal info not be shared with other organizations. Granted it's a pain but is it any better with catalogue companies or online ordering (for email spam)?
Email and web page updates aren't everyone's preference as some people don't like to read computer screens or don't have constant access to a computer and/or the Internet.
"Cultivation" is an unfortunate term for what's really an attempt to build a relationship with donors. Deeder made the comment that it saves an organization money when the donor remains anonymous. This is absolutely untrue, just the opposite. Organizations have to spend *more* money on mailings because they have to go out looking for new donors who are willing to give their name and address/email and be further "cultivated." Typically a "fresh" mailing to donors doesn't cover the cost of the mailing, but charities have no choice because they need to keep building their donor files to account for donor attrition.
Other points made here are totally valid, i.e., receiving constant requests for more money before/instead of being thanked, attempts to "upgrade" monthly giving amounts, etc. Don't be shy about criticizing the organization about such practices.
However, don't interpret the constant asking as greed. Charities need long-term involvement (financial and otherwise). Grant money is a competitive arena and government funds are scarce.
Good work is about small efforts coming together to produce a larger effort. Don't let charities make you feel like whatever you give isn't good enough just because they keep asking. They realize that you give of your extra funds and that fluctuates from month-to-month. So they keep asking!
Aila
I think charities could turn this to their advantage. Offer donors the option of making an anonymous gift through a third-party if they want to. Give that option back to the donor. Have a policy that you only mail to those who have given you permission--send receipts and a quarterly update on results to the rest of the file. There are many ways nonprofits could turn this into a win--it's fear and a lack of creativity that prevents it from actually happening.
It's worth considering what impact the internet has on anonymous giving. Charitable giving is probably one of the few areas where one had the option of anonymity before the internet.
Anonymity (and pseudonymity) are essential components of internet culture. Anonymity is freedom. I can honestly say what I actually think when I'm anonymous, without fear of it's impact on employers, families, and friends.
(I was first attracted to the internet via alt.support.depression, so the consequences of being easily identified - like loss of employment - could be significant. Consider in the context of Wayback Machine and employers Googling prospective employees.)
Anonymity frees me from maintaining the same degree of historical consistency; I am able to change my mind more freely. I can share ideas and opinions without being forever defined by them.
And like many people, if I am forced to register, I lovingly spin data-garbage into a haphazard inversion of my actual self. I typically make more money, change sexes, adopt a more lucrative profession (teasingly increasing my data-value), and inhabit an exotic land.
(There is no measure of kindness. A database never has anything nice to say about a person.)
The internet is a gift culture, so anonymous giving is to some extent, built in. Traditional motivations for anonymous giving (see: Nedra) are extended and reinforced by the internet.
Trent says some donors “feel disrespected” and “they’re sick of being treated like pieces of meat.” But he doesn’t identify what behavior is eliciting this response. Others here have identified it as the constant solicitations (which are seen both as an annoyance and as a waste of money) and the selling of donor contact info.
It is not just NetworkForGood which allows anonymous giving. Donors get the same opportunity to remain anonymous when they give through a Donor Advised Fund or Community Foundation.
Another time some people might want to give anonymously is when they donate in a friend’s name, in lieu of giving a traditional gift (after all, how many of us really want another fruitcake or pen & pencil set). When you, dear friend, make a donation in my name to my favorite nonprofit, you may not want to hear from them, yourself.
A new website facilitates such donation gifts by providing tangible donation opportunities (books for children, sight for the blind, computers for schools, etc.); wish lists and registries; and personalized printed greeting cards to announce them. That site is http://www.ChangingThePresent.org. It, too, allows you to remain anonymous, or not. Also, more of your money will reach the nonprofit you care to support. The transaction fee at ChangingThePresent is just 3% and 30 cents, which is much less than the 4.75% charged by Network For Good.
That's an interesting take on giving anonymously that I hadn't really heard before. I guess I've been lucky in not having been hounded by these kinds of organizations.
Also, I wanted to make a note on the more personal side of things. Giving anonymously to individuals can be extremely fulfilling as well. Unfortunately, there are some struggles with personal anonymous giving too, like making sure the person got the gift and getting feedback from them without giving away your identity as the donor.
Luckily for us (small plug coming up), we have a new service at our disposal. GivingAnonymously.org just started up and is designed to help do exactly that. It can be used to donate to other charities or directly to a person.
The way it works is similar to Network for Good in that Giving Anonymously writes a check to the recipient and doesn't release the identity of the donor. We get confirmation of the donation's acceptance 2 ways. First, the check being deposited. Second, we give the recipient a 1-800 number to call to leave a "thank you" message to the donor. We package that up as an mp3 audio file and send it via email to the donor.
Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it because it seems to pertain to the issues you're discussing, and seems to solve some of the problems people mentioned about anonymous giving in that Giving Anonymously only contacts you once the recipient receives the gift. Never more than just that. Pretty simple stuff.
http://givinganonymously.org
Post a Comment
<< Home