Blog - Reinier Fundraising (Reinier Spruit)

The growth recipe: more, better and more diverse

Reinier Spruit — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 05:56:00 +0000

At the Ifunds Customer Day, the central theme was data-driven fundraising. As a speaker, I took the opportunity to explain best-practice fundraising. One of my points was: growth occurs when you consistently combine three things: more donors, better quality, and from more diverse channels. Together, those three form the growth recipe for any fundraising programme: more, better and more diverse.

I am always somewhat surprised when there is no growth in the donor base and at the same time no internal alarm bells go off. Of course, people work hard and we’re all doing our very best, but the fact that we’re not growing often goes largely unnoticed.

So, more, better and more diverse is the recipe.

Every charity loses donors. Without acquisition you will eventually be left with no one. So you have to recruit new donors. And, let’s not make it more complicated than it is: if you want to grow, you have to recruit more donors than you lose. The loss is of course related to quality. I’ll come back to that in a moment. But the volume you recruit certainly does play a role in the net equation.

There are too many charities whose active donor base has been flat for years. Whereas if they were to recruit just a little more, and manage to maintain that volume year after year, they would start to grow.

Better

It is less immediately visible, but another area where you can make a big difference is quality. You can define quality as (1) a higher gift value so that a donor gives more in gross terms, (2) lower investments so that a donor gives more in net terms, and (3) higher retention so that donors stay longer and therefore give more over the total relationship across the years. In this blog, it’s about higher retention. But all three obviously have an impact on long-term ROI and LTV.

Major acquisition channels with low retention are currently contributing significantly to the absence of growth, but potentially they are a game-changer. Read that previous sentence again.

Because every percentage point of retention that we can improve in such a large acquisition channel has a huge impact on the long-term business case. Every conversation about those larger acquisition channels should therefore be exclusively about quality, quality and quality. More tips in this blog. Note: retention is also something you can steer. Don’t let it just happen to you; give it the attention it deserves. Not only once donors are already with you, but especially at the point of acquisition.

Improving by a few percentage points every year will eventually generate so much more income.

More diverse

Having a greater variety of acquisition channels has many advantages. What matters here is that the quality of your recruited donors almost automatically improves. This is because nine times out of ten, new channels deliver better retention than your existing acquisition channels. So diversification of your acquisition portfolio almost always leads to higher retention of your newly recruited donors.

Risk diversification is, of course, the other important aspect of a more diverse acquisition policy. Imagine: your most important channel disappears, is restricted, faces new laws and regulations, etc. What then? For many charities this would mean sheer panic. So as a sector we need to invest more in diversification. If I zoom out and look at the past 25 years, the overall acquisition business case has deteriorated considerably. Investments have increased and retention has decreased. But large-scale investments in new channels, staff or innovation remain on the back burner for the majority of charities. So there is work to be done.

The rules of the game

“More, better and more diverse” is not spectacular. The secret lies in a few simple rules of the game.

Work with pre-planned monthly targets per channel, and evaluate each monthly batch on all three of the quality indicators mentioned above.
Continue to follow these monthly batches over time to make the monthly retention pattern visible from every angle (for example: agency, type of acquisition, location, age group, value segment, fundraiser, etc.).
Constantly think about which new ways of acquisition you can test, which new propositions you can develop, which new target groups you can reach (not young people!), which new techniques you can use, etc. etc.
Plan several large and small tests each year.
If quality thresholds are met, scale up; if not, move on to the next idea to test. This way you prevent “more diverse” from becoming a hobby and make “better” the standard that “more” has to live up to.
Ultimately it is about finding the balance between quantity (volume) and quality (retention) in order to generate as much net income (profit) as possible for the organisation’s mission. So keep long-term (12–60 months) ROI, LTV and net income in mind as the main KPIs for evaluating your acquisition.

It is not a secret recipe. We more or less all know how it works. But often knowing and acting on it are too far apart. You have to plan growth. Do the maths yourself.

Plan your long-term growth on the basis of more, better and more diverse. And then you will grow.

What’s holding back individual giving? The top 10…

Reinier Spruit — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 05:58:24 +0000

Successful individual giving requires vision, ambition, and courage. But what actually stands in the way of growth? To gain insight, I asked the Fondsenwerving.blog Expert Panel about the biggest obstacles and challenges they face in their work. No fewer than 40 Dutch fundraising managers responded. And this is the Top 10…

10. Restrictive laws and regulations (35%)
Especially GDPR and other privacy rules hinder effective fundraising and data analysis.

9. Slow digital transition (35%)
The digital transition is progressing slowly, not just in tools and technology, but also in skills, culture, and organizational processes. Fundraisers often work with outdated systems or lack the digital capabilities to respond effectively to donor behavior online.

8. Limited room to invest (38%)
Growth costs money. But investment capacity is often scarce, in both large and small organizations. Budgets must be shared across departments and objectives. And fundraising is still too often seen as a cost rather than an investment that generates returns.

Click on the image for a larger version

7. Insufficient ambition to grow (38%)
Some organizations lack the internal drive to substantially increase their individual giving income. This may be due to leadership, culture, or the degree to which fundraising is a strategic priority. Without ambition, there is no substantial growth.

6. Lack of compelling stories from within the organization (40%)
Fundraisers can only do their job well if they have access to inspiring and authentic stories. Yet this access is often limited. Internal collaboration with program departments, communications, or project staff proves to be a recurring bottleneck.

5. Increasing competition (40%)
The battle for the donor’s euro is real. More organizations are fishing in the same pond. The public is critical and easily distracted. This demands stronger distinctiveness. Meanwhile, the withdrawal of institutional funders like governments increases pressure on the individual giving market.

4. Lack of a long-term growth vision (43%)
Successful fundraising requires a multi-year horizon. Yet in many organizations, the short-term focus dominates. Project budgets and next-quarter targets often win out over structural investments in sustainable growth.

3. Not data-driven enough (53%)
Being data-driven is a buzzword in many plans, but in practice, it’s difficult. Fundraisers often lack insight into the metrics that truly matter, like retention or LTV. And even when that data is available, it’s not effectively used in decision-making.

2. Lack of innovation capacity (55%)
Innovation struggles to take off in many organizations. There’s too little space to experiment with new propositions, fundraising approaches, or digital techniques. The sector knows renewal is needed, but daily workloads and a risk-averse culture keep the status quo firmly in place.

1. Lack of scalable acquisition channels (80%)
By far the number one: the absence of scalable methods to acquire new donors. Many organizations rely on channels that are becoming less effective for recruiting large numbers. Newer channels are often more profitable, but still too small in volume. Many organizations are seeing this reflected in a stagnating or shrinking donor base.

Nearly three years ago, I conducted this same survey—and the number one answer, unfortunately, hasn’t changed. Which of these obstacles do you recognize most? And which one should be tackled first? Bring this list to your next team meeting to start the internal discussion.

Conclusion
The top 10 shows that the biggest barriers are rarely external. They’re mostly internal: strategy, culture, systems, and collaboration. That’s encouraging—because these are things you can influence as a fundraiser.

Usually, when fundraising results are strong, the fundraiser receives all the praise. Poor results, on the other hand, are often attributed to external factors. Yet under normal conditions, the impact of external causes tends to be greatly exaggerated. YOU are the reason for your results.

Fundraising inspiration with a big discount!

Reinier Spruit — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:03:57 +0000

The world stands at a crossroads. Our planet teeters on the brink of ecological catastrophe. Poverty, which had been declining for so long, is on the rise, and the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Images of war are taking over our screens.

The world needs us now more than ever. As we face unprecedented challenges, the power to bring about change lies in our hands. Every action we take, no matter how small, has the potential to create a wave of positive impact. It is up to us to take that first step, to sow hope and create a better future for all of us.

Humanity is at a critical juncture. The time has come to harness our collective power and come together to ignite a movement that transcends borders and is bigger than any one cause. It is time to rise.

Let us unite our voices and fight for a sustainable world where nature and humanity coexist in harmony. We must commit to eco-friendly initiatives, embrace renewable energy sources, and combat plastic pollution. Our planet deserves our care and attention, and it is up to us to protect and cherish it.

Together, we can put an end to the growing inequality that divides us. By showing solidarity and compassion, we can strengthen communities and create opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background. Let us invest in education, healthcare, and social justice, so that every individual has the chance to reach their full potential.

War and conflict must give way to peace and cooperation. We have the opportunity to build bridges between different cultures and nations, fostering understanding and mutual respect. By pursuing peaceful solutions, we can create a world where everyone can live in safety and freedom.

Let us inspire and encourage each other to actively participate in saving our world. The time to act is now. Together, we can ignite a movement that is stronger than any obstacle we face. Let us combine our strengths, chase our dreams, and leave a legacy of hope, peace, and equality. Rise up and join us in this fight for a better world. Together, we can make the impossible possible.

IFC 2024 is more than just a conference; it is a rallying cry, a call to action. It is an urgent and unapologetic declaration that the power to drive change resides within each of us, and that together, as a united force, we can alter the course of history. Join us in October 2024, as we come together to shape a future that prioritises our planet and defies these waves of oppression, war, and inequality. Like the tide, unstoppable, we rise.

The best closing plenary ever by Kumi Naidoo (2024).

I personally urge you to come to the International Fundraising Congress (IFC) 22-25 October. Having participated more than twenty times at the IFC in The Netherlands, I can attest to how it has shaped and inspired me as a fundraiser.

Consider, for example, the (best) closing plenary (ever) by Kumi Naidoo, director of Greenpeace International, or the SickKids VS campaign that completely set aside traditional fundraising and chose a new direction.

This internationally renowned conference not only offers an unparalleled opportunity to learn from the best in the field but also to create valuable networks with like-minded professionals from over 70 countries. The sessions are rich with innovation and offer new perspectives that can transform your work. Do not miss this opportunity—come to IFC 2024 and experience the power of a global collaboration committed to a better future. Together, we can make a lasting impact.

EXPLORE THE IFC EXPERIENCE - WITH DISCOUNT!

Four days of rich and innovation-led learning and sharing, brilliantly curated by the independent IFC Advisory Panel, a group of leading fundraisers from across the globe. IFC 2024 will give you the opportunity to connect with more than 1,200 fundraisers and social impact leaders from over 70 countries, both in person and online.

The IFC early-bird offer ends in late June, providing a GBP 250 discount per ticket. If you want an additional GBP 75 discount per ticket, use the discount code "Reinier75". This discount code can be used after June as well.

IFC tickets can be purchased here.

IFC Tickets

Ken Burnett’s ‘Relationship Fundraising’, the 3rd and FINAL edition!

Reinier Spruit — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 10:38:38 +0000

Ken Burnett proudly holds his Fondsenwerving.blog mug.

In 1992, the first edition of Relationship Fundraising was published, one of the most acclaimed and best-selling fundraising books of all time. The book is a timeless classic for our field and mandatory reading for anyone who calls themselves a fundraiser.

This month, 32 years later, the 3rd and final edition will be published. I am very grateful that the author and fundraising legend Ken Burnett wanted to answer my questions. In this unique interview Ken explains where Relationship Fundraising comes from and why it is still so popular.

RS: What inspired you to write Relationship Fundraising, and how do you feel the fundraising landscape has evolved since its publication in 1992?

KB: “I started fundraising in my home country UK in 1977, long before fundraising was considered a proper, respectable career for anyone with any potential. Nevertheless I enjoyed considerable success in building the development organisation ActionAid from a tiny charity to be one of the UK’s top 20 by fundraised income. At the end of the 1980s there was no good book available for fundraisers in the UK, nor any good guidance at all. I had recently started my agency, Burnett Associates Ltd, the first direct marketing agency in the UK (and Europe, I believe) to specialise in working with charities.

So, I set out to write a detailed and competent ‘How to’ book that would help and inspire would-be fundraisers. Midway through the process of writing it I discovered relationship marketing, and for me, a light went on. So I changed tack, and moved from just the immediately practical towards something philosophical, with what my business partner George Smith called A Great Big Point of View. This was to suggest that fundraising should change. Fundraising shares some similarities with commercial enterprise, but mostly it’s distinctively different, particularly in its relationship with customers. Fundraisers, I believed, should understand the differences, and revel in them.

The fundraising landscape has changed significantly since 1992, particularly as communication (which is absolutely central to fundraising) has advanced so much – the Internet, mobile phones, social media, AI — all have arrived since the first copies of Relationship Fundraising appeared. But for fundraisers, far more things — most of the really important things — have stayed the same. In very many ways, the key components of our craft as set out initially in Relationship Fundraising are even more important now. And after the findings of The Commission on the Donor Experience (CDE) in 2017, the right way forward has never been clearer. Those findings were built upon the Great Big Point of View described in my 1992 book.”

RS: In what ways do you believe Relationship Fundraising has influenced the practices and strategies of nonprofit organizations over the years?

KB: “Initially I had very limited ambitions for the book, but consistently since its first publication I’ve been getting enthusiastic feedback from fundraisers around the world. Sales far exceeded my initial expectations — the book has had to be reprinted multiple times (of course this did my fledgling marketing and communications agency no end of good :-) ). It quickly became clear that readers were picking up the point that George highlighted in his brilliant foreword, that the book revolved around a Great Big Point of View. From the many positive comments I’ve received over the years, this from Professor Adrian Sargeant is one of my favourites. He described it as, “THE most influential, well written and beautifully warm text in fundraising.”

As far as I know, Relationship Fundraising was the first book to attempt to define the donor experience and work to deliver it at optimum. It encouraged all fundraisers to focus specifically on a lifelong mutually beneficial commitment: monthly giving leading to a legacy. It defined both of those as products and also encouraged creative storytelling and much improved communication. And it devoted a lot of space to presenting positively a career in fundraising. Robert Kawalko, chairman of the Polish Fundraising Association, said, “Ken talks about fundraising in such a way that everyone would like to become a fundraiser!””

RS: The third edition of Relationship Fundraising is set to be published soon. What inspired you to revisit and update the book at this particular time? Are there any key insights or new perspectives you're excited to incorporate?

KB: “After 20 successful years the book’s second publisher, Wileys in the USA, came to the end of their copyright period. As there was still evident demand, a Canadian publisher Civil Sector Press International then stepped up to avoid the book going out of print.

Yes, there are many important new perspectives, mostly in the 15 new appendices I’ve added to the 3rd Edition to bring it up-to-date and relevant to all. The appendices detail how fundraising can go badly wrong, how relationship fundraising works brilliantly in practice (the Botton Village story, see below), the primacy of delivering an exemplary donor experience, transformational storytelling, legacy fundraising, target-setting, how giving is good for donors and fundraisers, the power of words, investment in fundraising, the vital importance of a distinctive organisational culture, giving every fundraiser the best possible start, retaining and developing fundraisers, creating a new covenant with donors and the dream of a new era of responsible fundraising, with some nods along the way to false economies, the advent of AI, the essence of good fundraising and understanding what really matters.”

“YES, THERE ARE MANY IMPORTANT NEW PERSPECTIVES, MOSTLY IN THE 15 NEW APPENDICES I’VE ADDED TO THE 3RD EDITION TO BRING IT UP-TO-DATE AND RELEVANT TO ALL.”

Buy the book

RS: Given the rise of digital platforms and social media, how do you see relationship fundraising adapting to these new channels of communication and engagement? What advice would you offer to organizations navigating this digital landscape?

KB: “I’m no digital expert. Whatever the channel through which fundraisers communicate with donors, both current and potential, all the tenets of relationship fundraising unquestionably apply. I’ll just say two things here: 1) communicate carefully, tell your stories powerfully and truthfully using clear writing and correct grammar and punctuation, because you won’t inspire many donors if you are careless with words, and 2) learn to write succinctly as well as powerfully, because your readers’ attention spans are now generally assumed to be getting shorter. As always the key thing is to be interesting, relevant and passionate — then your readers will stick with you, come what may.”

RS: Building and maintaining relationships with donors is at the core of relationship fundraising. Can you share some practical strategies or tactics that organizations can employ to cultivate meaningful connections with their supporters?

KB: “Believe in your donors and let them drive your strategies. Put the donor experience at the heart of all your communications. Fundraisers should be famous for frequent, fast, fabulous feedback (the 5Fs). Integrity and honesty are essential: ‘the truth, told well’, is a mantra I use a lot. Use real named people, make them accessible at times that suit your donors. Let your principles and your passion show through, clearly.”

RS: In recent years, data-driven fundraising has been increasingly embraced by the charity sector. In your opinion, how can data-driven fundraising strengthen relationship fundraising?

KB: “In the 1st Edition I said, “The fundamental core of relationship fundraising is the creative use of your database. It is the keystone.” Without the ability to use supporter data smartly, safely and securely, most fundraising initiatives will fail. Like me, most fundraisers won’t be data experts, but we do need to know what we want to get from our database and to have a clear grasp of what today’s databases are capable of. I strongly recommend Steve MacLaughlin’s book Data-driven Nonprofits, for it shows how fundraisers seriously underinvest in their data and spells out the consequences of this short-sighted approach.”

RS: What are the most common misconceptions or myths surrounding relationship fundraising? How would you debunk or address them?

KB: “It’s now abundantly clear that successful fundraising is based on long-term relationships and that a donor-based approach to the business of raising money works very much better than any alternative. So I think most of the myths are being overcome. It’s now accepted that relationship fundraising is not a soft option, it’s not difficult, nor is it expensive, time-consuming or unprofitable. There are many case histories around that show it leads to happier and more successful fundraisers and to donors who stay longer and give more, not the reverse. There are however many organisational barriers, such as short-term thinking, lack of investment particularly in research, unwise target-setting, poorly briefed suppliers, ill-informed and unengaged boards and SMTs, poor training and leadership. The best advice for anyone still in doubt is to read my book, and to buy extra copies for their board and SMT, as well as for all fundraising and ancillary staff.”

RS: The concept of donor-centricity is central to relationship fundraising. How can organizations ensure that their fundraising efforts remain genuinely donor-centric, especially in the face of competing priorities and fundraising goals?

KB: “Donors’ interests are the same as the organisation’s. If donors are happy, inspired and get easy access to all the benefits of being a donor, then they’ll keep the fundraisers happy, for sure. I don’t believe any fundraising organisation should have priorities and goals that run contrary to those of the people who pay for everything our organisations do.”

RS: Can you share a standout recent example of successful fundraising that exemplifies the principles outlined in Relationship Fundraising? What made it so effective?

KB: “Two case histories spring to mind, one from the start of my career, the other just recently. I learned much about relationship fundraising from Botton Village (now fundraising as part of the Camphill Village Trust). Botton Village’s story is told in detail on SOFII.org. Starting in 2017 I’ve been privileged to help the UK’s National Youth Orchestra build from scratch a robust donorbase of regular donors that through donations and legacies will provide for all their fundraising needs into the future. We began fundraising with Botton Village in the early 1980s. Recently the fundraiser who started the programme with me estimated that over the years their legacy income alone from these activities has been between £100 million and £180 million. In both cases, what made them so successful is putting the donor experience at the heart of their strategies and culture, and doing fundraising right.”

THE BOTTON VILLAGE’S STORY AS CASE STUDY ARTICLE AND AS LIGHT BULB MOMENT VIDEO.

RS: Looking ahead, what do you envision as the future of relationship fundraising? Are there any emerging trends or innovations that you believe will shape the next evolution of fundraising practices?

KB: “This is a sliding doors situation. It could be one of two or possibly three things:

1. We could see transformational culture change across the charity sector leading to dramatically and consistently improved donor experiences with widespread understanding of enhanced benefits from giving for donors, which leads to reduced attrition and substantially increased income for good campaigning fundraising organisations...

2. ...or we could see a major decline in trust and confidence among donors, following a repetition of the Olive Cooke fiasco, leading to a widespread decline in fundraised income, legacies cancelled, high donor attrition and expensively escalating staff turnover as fundraisers manage decline...

3. ...or, it could just be more of the same, individual examples of charities doing a good job overshadowed in the public mind if not eclipsed by the majority who employ short-term, cash-now tactics that do nothing to improve the low opinion our publics have of the fundraising practices they’d love to be able to avoid more easily...”

Thank you so much for this interview Ken.

Needless to say, I recommend every fundraiser to buy and read this book.

Buy the book

Don't be seduced by the large numbers!

Reinier Spruit — Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:49:56 +0000

What should be a fair battle between quantity and quality is far too often, and too easily, won by sheer numbers. We should all be recruiting fewer higher-quality donors, instead of more lower-quality donors. Yet, year in and year out we are replacing very large numbers of donors with large numbers of too low quality. That can be done differently. That has to be different. Because it yields too little. And it costs too much.

What do I mean by “lower quality donors”? Suppose you recruit 100 new donors. In other words, people who make a donation to your charity for the first time. How many of them will still give next year with low quality? For one-off donors, <25% give again in year two. For regular donors, <50% are active after 12 months. That is not high and therefore not good.

I speak to dozens of fundraisers every month. They are all good, but some are better. They understand that quality always wins in the long term. In extreme terms: One donor of the best quality donates more than a hundred donors of the worst quality.

An example:

3,000 structural donors with a 12-month retention of 75% and a monthly value of 10 euros will give approximately one million euros over 5 years.
5,000 structural donors with a 12-month retention of 50%, and a monthly value of 10 euros, also gives approximately one million euros.
So you raise the same amount with 40% fewer donors!
The differences become more visible over time. Of the 3,000 donors, about 1,000 are still active after ten years. Of the original 5,000 you only have a few hundred left.

If fundraisers have mastered the concepts of quality and long term, you will make better choices and raise much more income. Guaranteed. The above numbers could amount to tons (!) in the long term.

Lower quality yields less. Better quality yields more. Not very strange. But the large numbers distract from the discussion that really needs to be had. If you were to ask any fundraiser whether they wanted to recruit 3,000 donors or 66% (!) more… far too many fundraisers would choose those 5,000 donors. Directly and without hesitation.

In my opening I also said that it costs too much. That can be explained briefly.

Suppose you recruit 5,000 lower-quality donors year in and year out as outlined above. After five years you have recruited 25,000 new donors. How many do you think will still be active after five years with the above percentages? More than 9,000 donors. In other words, you have now lost more than 15,000 donors along the way.
In the scenario where you recruit 3,000 donors of higher quality every year, you will have recruited 15,000 donors after five years. Of these, just over 9,000 are still active at the end of year five.
If you want to maintain your support base “in terms of numbers”, then you have to recruit many more donors from the '5,000 group', because they simply leave more quickly... Normally I talk about investing in the context of fundraising, but I would rather want to mention costs. This approach costs a lot of money.
And we're not even talking about the high-pressure area this creates on the consumer market... Quality fundraising = sustainable fundraising.

I also know that recruiting new donors is not easy. But the temptation of large numbers is too great and greatly hinders our attention to quality. If the opportunity arises, you make quantity completely dependent on quality.

Let's pay attention to quality. Let's reward, celebrate and cherish quality.

But above all, let's educate fundraisers so that they understand what this discussion is about and are not seduced by the large numbers.

In an ideal world, quality and quantity go hand in hand. You need both, and so you must pay attention to both.

>> Would you like to examine your own acquisition business case yourself? Forward was created to teach fundraisers the importance of quality and the long term. Once learned, it becomes anchored in the organization over time, with all the positive consequences that entails! Want to know more? Request a demo here.

Automation vs laziness

Reinier Spruit — Sat, 20 May 2023 18:28:28 +0000

Fundraising is a craft you have to practice to learn. Doing it yourself is the best learning experience. Unraveling the process and understanding how everything works. Presenting the best story. Doing the calculations. And then taking the right actions to recruit donors and grow income. However, due to increasing automation, I see many fundraisers skipping steps in their learning curve. Fundraisers get lazy.

Nobody knows everything. Not me. Not you. Say goodbye quickly to anyone who behaves like they know everything. You always have to keep learning. That is the only way to become a better fundraiser.

Fortunately, more and more organizations have dived into data in recent years. More organizations employ data analysts. Reports and insights are everywhere nowadays. And therefore we generally make better choices. It's going into the right direction. But where I used to complain that there were far too few data analysts in the charity sector, my concern has now shifted. I come across more and more fundraisers who look too much at the analysts for answers and no longer learn to think for themselves.

Fundraising is a profession that you learn by doing it yourself. You have to write the business case yourself and understand how the investment dynamic behind individual giving works. I am 100% convinced that fundraisers who have done it all themselves are much better fundraisers.

These are just some of the questions that fundraisers should tackle themselves:

What is the 60-month lifetime value of your acquisition channels?
Which donor type is more profitable? Regular donors or one-off donors?
What is the impact of missed payments on your monthly direct debit run?
What happens to future income if your existing donor retention improves by 10%?
How many donors will we have in 5 years if our acquisition budget does not grow?
How many donors will we have in 5 years if our acquisition budget doubles?
What is the difference between 72% and 32% retention after 12 months?
What is the break-even point when you have earned back your investment in acquisition?
What is the impact of higher loyalty costs on longer term ROI?
Suppose you recruit 1,000 regular donors throughout the year, how many of them are still active at the end of the year?
How many new donors do you have to recruit next year in order not to shrink your supporter base?
Which has more impact on lifetime value? 10% lower costs, 10% higher average gift or 5% better retention?
What effect does an upgrade program have on profitability?
How many non-financial supporters will you have in 3 years if you keep recruiting at this rate?
What is the impact of 5% less pre-debit attrition on the costs per donor and thus on the ROI after 12 months?

These questions help you form an opinion about what works and what doesn't.

Fundraisers, take control yourself. Don't ask for all the answers, but play around with the data and unlock the deeper secrets of a profitable fundraising program. You can automate a lot and outsource it to an analyst, but please make sure you really understand what is happening.

(By the way, did you know that Forward helps you answer all the questions above?)

This blog was previously published on Donorbeats and Fondsenwerving.blog in Dutch.

A new product: Forward

Reinier Spruit — Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:13:57 +0000

Every fundraiser wants certainty about future income. Every director and board, for that matter. After all, there are no small amounts involved. In addition, everyone should understand the business case behind private fundraising. And because the best fundraisers are data-driven fundraisers, I'd like to present a new product: Forward.

Data-driven fundraising starts with understanding the investment dynamics behind private fundraising. What do you put in and what do you get out of it in the short, but especially in the long term. You can do that in many different ways. Over time I have worked with dozens of investment models worldwide. Based on that experience, I built the best planning tool I've ever come across myself.

What is Forward?

Forward is a long term planning, profitability and monitoring tool for fundraising organizations. With Forward you can now plan your entire fundraising program into the future. It is a long-term planning tool that gives you insight into future income, investments and donors. In addition, you get crystal-clear insight into the profitability of your investments. Finally driving long-term ROI and lifetime value. In addition, during the year it can facilitate the monthly monitoring process. A must have for any fundraiser!

Do you want to be a data-driven organization? Do you want to include your management and board in different investment scenarios? Do you want a manageable and transparent annual plan? Do you want to understand how all your investments will pay off in the future? Do you want to grow your long-term income? Then Forward is indispensable.

Forward uses cloud-based software. It has the flexibility of a spreadsheet with the power of a database.

The people who have known me for years have heard it for years: a long-term planning tool is seriously indispensable in a well-functioning private fundraising program. And now everyone has the opportunity to get started.

My promise: Every fundraiser who starts working with Forward will become a better fundraiser. Any fundraising organization that starts working with Forward will make better choices. The logical consequence: more net income in the long term. No doubt.

Interested? Visit the website, book a demo and I'll be happy to show it to you.

Forward

We are the world sing-along

Reinier Spruit — Mon, 20 Dec 2021 05:47:00 +0000

More than 36 years ago, the most beautiful fundraising song ever was released: We Are the World, by the charity supergroup USA for Africa. The proceeds of the single went to the victims of the famine in Ethiopia. In the absence of end-of-year drinks, it seems a very good idea to sing We are the world in your last online meeting of the year. For more fun, divide the roles per singer(s)! So, put your volume on 10 and sing along with all your heart. Happy holidays and see you in 2022!

Lionel Richie: There comes a time | When we heed a certain call
Lionel Richie/Stevie Wonder: When the world must come together as one
Stevie Wonder: There are people dying
Paul Simon: Oh, and it's time to lend a hand to life
Paul Simon/Kenny Rogers: The greatest gift of all

Kenny Rogers: We can't go on | Pretending day by day
James Ingram: That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
Tina Turner: We're all a part of God's great big family
Billy Joel: And the truth
Tina Turner/Billy Joel: You know, love is all we need

Michael Jackson: We are the world | We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
Diana Ross: There's a choice we're making | We're saving our own lives
Michael Jackson/Diana Ross: It's true we'll make a better day, just you and me

Dionne Warwick: Well, send them your heart | So they know that someone cares
Dionne Warwick/Willie Nelson: And their lives will be stronger and free
Willie Nelson: As God has shown us by turning stone to bread
Al Jurreau: And so we all must lend a helping hand

Bruce Springsteen: We are the world | We are the children
Kenny Logins: We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
Steve Perry: There's a choice we're making | We're saving our own lives
Daryl Hall: It's true we'll make a better day, just you and me

Michael Jackson: When you're down and out, there seems no hope at all
Huey Lewis: But if you just believe there's no way we can fall
Cyndi Lauper: Well, well, well, let's realize that a change can only come
Kim Carnes: When we
Kim Carnes/Cyndi Lauper/Huey Lewis: stand together as one, yeah, yeah, yeah

All: We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day so let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day, just you and me

All: We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
Bob Dylan: There's a choice we're making | We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day just you and me

All: We are the world (are the world)
We are the children (are the children)
We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving (so let's start giving)
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
Bob Dylan: It's true we'll make a better day just you and me

Ray Charles: Oh, let me hear you!

All: We are the world
Ray Charles: We are the world
All: We are the children
Ray Charles: We are the children
All: We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
Ray Charles: So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making | We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day just you and me

Ray Charles: Come on now, let me hear you!

Stevie Wonder: We are the world
Bruce Springsteen: We are the world
Stevie Wonder: We are the children
Bruce Springsteen: We are the children
Stevie Wonder: We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
Bruce Springsteen: So let's start giving
Stevie Wonder: There's a choice we're making | We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day just you and me

Stevie Wonder: We are the world
Bruce Springsteen: We are the world
Stevie Wonder: We are the children
Bruce Springsteen: We are the children
Stevie Wonder: We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
Bruce Springsteen: So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making | We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day just you and me

All: We are the world (are the world)
We are the children (are the children)
We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving (so let’s start giving)
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day, just you and me

James Ingram: We are the world
All / Ray Charles: We are the world
James Ingram: We are the children
All: We are the children
James Ingram: We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
Ray Charles: There's a choice we're making | We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day just you and me

All: We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day so let's start giving
Ray Charles: There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day, just you and me (faded)

Conductor • Quincy Jones

Soloists (in order of appearance) • Lionel Richie • Stevie Wonder • Paul Simon • Kenny Rogers • James Ingram • Tina Turner • Billy Joel • Michael Jackson • Diana Ross • Dionne Warwick • Willie Nelson • Al Jarreau • Bruce Springsteen • Kenny Loggins • Steve Perry • Daryl Hall • Huey Lewis • Cyndi Lauper • Kim Carnes • Bob Dylan • Ray Charles

Chorus (alphabetically) • Dan Aykroyd • Harry Belafonte • Lindsey Buckingham • Mario Cipollina (Huey Lewis and the News) • Johnny Colla (Huey Lewis and the News) • Sheila E. • Bob Geldof • Bill Gibson (Huey Lewis and the News) • Chris Hayes (Huey Lewis and the News) • Sean Hopper (Huey Lewis and the News) • Jackie Jackson • La Toya Jackson • Marlon Jackson • Randy Jackson • Tito Jackson • Waylon Jennings • Bette Midler • John Oates • Jeffrey Osborne • Anita Pointer (The Pointer Sisters) • June Pointer (The Pointer Sisters) • Ruth Pointer (The Pointer Sisters) • Smokey Robinson

Songwriters: • Michael Jackson • Lionel Richie

My challenge for you: be like Marcus Lemonis

Reinier Spruit — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 05:06:00 +0000

I am a big fan of the TV program The Profit. In this program the successful entrepreneur Marcus Lemonis sets out to rescue ailing family businesses. Ideally, he sees a bright future and invests his own money in exchange for a share in the company. In the process of making such an offer, he tries to get all the information on the table. And the numbers are always a part of that.

In the program it becomes clear time and again what role data play in arriving at the right insights. His famous statement is: “If you don't know your numbers, you don't know your business.” And the right insights are always about getting grip on long-term profitability. All the time.

Now my question to you is:

WHY WOULD IT BE DIFFERENT FOR CHARITIES?

Seriously: why? Long-term profitability is also important for charities. The underlying business case must be sound to achieve revenue growth.

That's why I have a challenge for all smart fundraisers reading this.

Suppose you are Marcus Lemonis!

You are going to invest one million euros of your own money in the fundraising program of one of the ten largest charities with the aim of raising the most net income in the long term.

How do you decide in which fundraising program you want to invest? By asking the right questions. Which 5 questions do you want to see answered to come to a decision?

Be like Marcus Lemonis! Invest in the most profitable fundraising. Invest based on data!

Beautiful mobile experience from World Vision

Reinier Spruit — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:42:20 +0000

The success of your fundraising is largely determined by the experiences you give to your donors. At least once a year you should try to really touch your donors. A wow-moment, a 9+ experience, a goosebump-moment, or whatever you want to call it. And World Vision has created something impressive like that.

I am convinced that you can consciously make the best giving giving experiences. You just have to take the time for it. You must invest in the best donor experiences. And if donors read, see, or hear something that touches their hearts, then that investment will certainly pay off.

World Vision has made a beautiful two-part video about the life of a refugee and how that life can be turned upside down in the blink of an eye. Watch the two videos on your mobile for the best experience: vertical and sound on!

Samuel Visser, Manager Fundraising & Communication of World Vision Netherlands says the following about the videos:

“With these videos, we hope to inspire people and involve them in the subject of refugees. We focus on new contacts via social media in the see phase. But we also use these videos in email newsletters to existing donors to confirm their choice for World Vision. We think it is important to have a good mix in our content and not just go for the ask.”

And part two:

The 2 biggest 'online' problems we face

Reinier Spruit — Tue, 01 Jun 2021 09:05:19 +0000

Online fundraising has been the next big thing for years, but it also seems to have failed to live up to its potential for years. There are several underlying problems. I'm going to highlight two. The results are still too focused on the short term. And we are not investing enough.

‘Online’ problem 1: the short term

Obviously, there are several organizations that are good at it. (Or consider themselves good.) But I mainly come across organizations and fundraisers who have not yet mastered “online”. Looking at the results, we're getting better at it, but we're not there yet. And certainly not on a large scale.

In online fundraising we are looking for what I call the 3 Ds: data, donations or donors. Naturally you want to further develop the acquired data (name, address, email and/or phone) into donations (one-off donors) or donors (regular donors). Donations can be a goal, but ideally you would also like to develop further into donors. Direct recruitment of (regular) donors is usually the best of the three when you look at long-term value.

I mostly see data and donations being recruited. Most organizations have great difficulty recruiting regular donors. And by that, I mean in large numbers.

Ultimately, fundraising is about creating long-term value. On the one hand there must be a decent volume and on the other hand good quality. And as it often happens where you can achieve large volumes, the quality is far below par.

Let's zoom in on those large numbers of one-off donors that are being recruited. Of the new one-off donors you recruited 13 - 24 months ago (through digital channels in this case), how many have made a second donation in the past 12 months? I see varying results in the market: percentages between 5% - 30% are not strange at all. And that painfully exposes the problem. We are getting better at recruiting new donors, but apparently, we are not so good at retaining them in the long run. So, then it’s rather useless.

And also for online fundraising success lies in the long term. Only if we can keep our donors we create long term value. Only then it makes sense.

Qualitative acquisition and a long-term perspective are essential for the business case to work. Of course, this applies to every recruitment channel.

You can only keep your online recruited donors by having them give again. So you also have to keep asking them for individual donations. Or you must ask them to give as a regular donor. In my experience, the most successful way to convert one-off donors to regular donors is to follow up as quickly as possible using the telephone number obtained at the point of acquisition.

And yes, the online recruited regular donors are of good quality. However, the numbers are still too low…

For the time being, 5% - 30% retention is unfortunately more the rule than the exception. Or the numbers are too low. We are all looking for new acquisition channels. All eyes are on online. Can online live up to that expectation soon?

‘Online’ problem 2: lack of investment

Problem number two: we are not investing enough. Online is usually presented as one channel, while the expertise we ask from our online fundraisers is many times broader. The online fundraiser is now too often a generalist. Responsible for far too many different things at once. We need more specialists. More investment is needed.

Like all other channels that we can distinguish in individual giving, online fundraising is a profession. However, there is a very big difference. Where the label DM, TM, F2F or events often indicates one and the same channel (or very similar variants), the label 'Online' is the collective name for a wide variety of different channels and expertise.

Everything that even smells like digital or new media is shoved under the heading of 'online'. To name a few: SEO, SEA, Facebook, content management and creation, website conversion, from micro-sites to landing pages, retention programs, journeys, data enrichment, media buying, campaign management, social media, display, SMS, marketing automation, growth hacking, lead generation, email marketing, mobile, copy writing, layout, analytics, CMS, CRM, YouTube advertising, re-targeting, customer data platforms, etc.

And in small organizations you can generally add a bit of ICT to that, because if the printer or your email doesn't work, the online person is often the first to be asked ...

Online is a broad field and we try to unite that in one person. If you are lucky, you will get someone who understands this and brings focus to the work, so that you become better in one of the many parts. If you are unlucky, you will do a little bit of everything and that will not help. Having a good overview and making choices on what to focus on is always a good idea. But a little extra capacity wouldn't hurt either. So, we must invest more!

Within individual giving you have different disciplines and angles. You can approach it per channel, or product, target group, etc. The set-up of a fundraising organization does not determine its success. The people who work there do. They make it work or not. And that can be done in different compositions. But in general, there is a chronic shortage of people. And therefore, also within online.

Too often there is a lack of investment. That is a certain frugality in the non-profit sector that is justified on one hand, because we do not want to make useless expenditures. But on the other hand, completely unjustified, because in fundraising you should never only look at the cost side. We are not making costs, we make investments for which we get something in return.

As a sector, we have been looking for new acquisition channels for some time now. Let me make it clearer: as a sector we have a huge need for the development of new acquisition channels. The dependence on F2F for some organizations is unhealthy. Online, with its 10+ channels, can possibly compensate for that, but then we must invest in it seriously.

And then beautiful things can happen.

Merci beaucoup et adieu Simone Joyaux

Reinier Spruit — Tue, 04 May 2021 07:31:42 +0000

A sad message. Last Sunday Simone Joyaux, fundraising consultant, gifted author and speaker passed away. She appeared at fundraising conferences worldwide to wake up people. With her death, the fundraising world loses a beautiful and unique person.

Simone was known for her cage-rattling questions. Loosely translated this means that she was good at stirring things up. She always advised her clients to question everything and start a discussion that would take you further than where you started. Great advice. At the hundreds of fundraising organizations she has worked with, this has triggered the much needed change process.

The last time I saw her has been a while. In 2017 she attended the Fundraising Summer School in Ireland. With fire in her eyes, she urged every fundraiser in the room to join a non-profit board. This way everyone can experience what it is like to run a charity. And that knowledge can be used in your own work as a fundraiser. She thought it was important to better understand each other's perspective. This resulted in much better discussions in the organization.

She was one of my favorites of the many fundraising speakers I have seen over the past 20 years. And I can imagine that she was also an expert in her consultancy work. She was different from the rest. Dared to swim against the tide. She created her own sound. She was honest, but also brutally hard if necessary. She delivered change and growth in non-profits through communication, transparency and connection. She was 200% committed to the non-profit world.

The memories about Simone are currently flooding the internet. Everyone has their own memories of this special woman. Fortunately, her advice and books will have an impact for a long time to come.

I wish her husband, Tom Ahern, and everyone close to her a lot of strength in dealing with this loss.

Merci beaucoup et adieu Simone.

The latest trend: best practice fundraising

Reinier Spruit — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:50:00 +0000

The new year has started some time ago. Although it seems as if 2020 has been extended and we are now in month 15 ... But we are looking ahead. What should we do in the new year? I have a few suggestions.

Last year mainly showed that we need to get our things in order. Who included a pandemic in their risk register? Nobody, of course. But you immediately see the charities who can adapt more quickly. In general they have a better organized and functioning fundraising program.

As far as I am concerned, the opportunities are mainly hidden in what I call best practice fundraising.

Fundraising is not an exact science. And there are quite a few different opinions and ideas about the best approach. And that approach also differs per organization, because every organization is in a different situation, with different capacity and investment opportunities, with different experience, culture, leadership, institutional memory, etc. But nevertheless there are valuable similarities that result in best practice fundraising.

donor-focused. This is not only about thank you campaigns. It's about an inclusive respect for donors that results in better experiences, longer relationships and more income.
data-driven. We must make the most efficient choices when it comes to our investments. The right insights can lead to exponential growth.
authenticity. Fundraising is not slick marketing. The best fundraising puts the finger on the sore spot in combination with a healthy portion of goosebumps. The mission, the dream, the story touches you. And therefore donors want to (continue to) give.
distinctive. With limited resources, we have to do everything in our power to stand out. That is certainly not easy. But we do far too much the same in our industry. We have to keep innovating to stay relevant.
leadership. Experienced leadership is crucial for the right vision of the future and the right choices. The right leaders appoint the right people, ask the right questions, set ambitious goals, and take on the hardest challenges.
expertise. No fundraising without a fundraiser obviously. But do you want great fundraising results? Then you also need great fundraisers. And I can assure you that they generally do not come naturally. You have to invest to get the best fundraisers.

As with innovation, trends are often the things we are already surrounded by. We just have to zoom out every now and then to see them. A trend is nothing more than a development. And the developments of the past two decades have led us to best practice fundraising.

I spy with my little eye...

Reinier Spruit — Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:23:20 +0000

Because it is the time of year I would like to give you a warning. I regularly come across something in market research or long-term strategies I don’t like: fundraising potential within a target group (or channel, or segment) that, so far, has brought convincing success to hardly anyone in the market. And why? Because the organization has been convinced of its own exceptional characteristics, or because of the little competition in the market on this so called potential. Sometimes this comes from internal voices, but often this comes from external consultancy firms or exotic freelancers.

This specific external group has no knowledge of fundraising. Unfortunately, it is not superfluous to say: if you are going to work with an external party on your fundraising program, in whatever form, then it is wise that they understand fundraising. An occasional assignment for charity does not qualify. Extensive experience is very welcome. And then still you have to be very critical.

Such a party is often accepted for three reasons: they have elevated the strategy process to an art, know how to turn it into a beautiful presentation, and they are happy to discuss the popular topics: millennials are interesting, online is the holy grail and offline is passé. All very intoxicating for an executive director looking for success. Forgetting that in the end fundraising is a profession.

What else can you recognize them by? The income growth that is promised is always too good to be true. And if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

But let's not forget that the charity is to blame when such an agency or interim manager is hired. Because why on earth would you do that? For the fresh wind? To force change? For some energy from the corporate world? When I go to the dentist, I go to a licensed dentist. Not to someone who says he wants to be a dentist. Believe me, the second is really going to hurt.

In fundraising, we have to make choices every day to use the limited resources we have as efficiently as possible to achieve the greatest return. Incorrect choices create inefficiency and therefore lower returns, also known as less income. Everything we do affects that, but some things more than others. And not surprisingly, many of those choices are embedded in the strategies and plans we make. So when you get advice from an outside party without any experience in fundraising, you won't get anything useful in return 99 out of 100 times.

Forewarned is forearmed!

Dan Pallotta: dare to dream and invest

Reinier Spruit — Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:53:05 +0000

Have you heard about Dan Pallotta's new online training? In line with his views as presented in his now famous TED talk (The way we think about charity is dead wrong) and book (Uncharitable) he has given trainings to nonprofit boards and directors worldwide in recent years. He has now translated that training into an online format.

The training is about two important themes: dare to dream and invest. As non-profit organizations, we don't dare to dream big enough. This is largely because we are trapped in our own reality that strongly limits our potential. We grew up with a world view where charities should not invest big. At least, not at the level of commercial organizations.

Dan emailed me the following:

“It doesn’t matter what your geography is - the stifling double standard between the profit and non-profit organizations is everywhere, and I’ve spoken twice in the Netherlands and heard testimonials from people who work in the trenches about how it keeps progress against that. The Bold Training is universally applicable for anyone who wants to use their limited time on Earth for maximum impact for positive change.”

— Dan Pallotta

What I personally like about the training is that the success of the charity's mission is logically linked to their growth in fundraising. After all, with more resources, the organization can achieve more. If you figured that out, the need to invest is suddenly a lot clearer. By formulating a (measurable and time-bound) dream, you are forced to invest in the growth of your organization. All obstacles are then seen as challenges in a practical blueprint for change. And the desire to innovate in fundraising is getting stronger.

A wonderful example is the University of Southern California (USC). From 1950 to 2011, they raised more than $ 6 billion in donations. They raised the second 6 billion in 2012-2018. In just 6 years. How? By investing enormously in their Major Donor program in a very short period of time. During that period, the number of Major Donor Officers more than doubled from 225 to 470!

If you have a dream you want to realize and understand the investment dynamics of private fundraising, investing is the only logical choice.

I have just followed the training and I can recommend it to every board and management.

In my evaluation I informed Dan that I will try to bring him to the Netherlands in 2021. Time to shake up some Dutch boards! Would your board benefit from this?

The top 10 most harmful statements for fundraising

Reinier Spruit — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 18:42:13 +0000

The readers of my Dutch blog have chosen the top 10 most harmful statements for fundraising that they encounter in their day-to-day work.

The responses I received unanimously showed that fundraisers feel hugely hampered by these statements. Fundraisers are fed up. It’s never great when someone interferes with your expertise. The nice thing about fundraising is that everyone has an opinion about it. Especially the non-fundraisers.

And some themes always come back. The absolute winner is: the (unjustified) desire in new donor acquisition to focus on younger people. But the rest of the top 10 is also a trip down memory lane.

This is the top 10, chosen by Dutch fundraisers:

We need to focus on young people, because the average age of our donors is too high.
Everyone finds calling annoying, so we better not do it. / Let's stop F2F because nobody likes that. / I always throw away those charity mailings right away, so why do we do that?
Those pitiful images are really awful ("So 1980’s"). You just have to tell the positive story.
Donors don't want to be attached to anything. Regular donor relationships are in decline.
Yes, but our organization is really different. That does not work with us.
Online is the future. I do everything online. We have to do everything online.
You have to approach companies, they have plenty of money and are eager to contribute.
If you invest enough in your brand, the donors will come automatically.
If someone makes a (large) gift, then they certainly do not want to be called / thanked about it.
We need someone from outside the sector to innovate.

The responses I received were also unanimous about the following: these statements are often attributed to boards, executive directors, management teams and Supervisory Boards. That is a serious problem, because we really need them. If decision makers don't understand what they have to decide on… then things go wrong.

The big question is of course: how do you as a fundraiser deal with these statements?

There is only one way to respond: make yourself heard! Open your mouth. We are fundraisers: we have plenty of evidence to disprove the above, or to get the truth out in a good discussion.

And at the same time I hear you thinking: but those discussions are never happening, or they never listen, they push ahead, or they don't understand, they don't take the time, or they don't care, they do whatever they want, or it's like I'm talking to a brick wall, etc.

To be clear, not everyone, of course, there are good leaders out there, but it is obviously still happening far too often.

My advice remains the same: start the conversation, every time, take them on your journey, educate them, teach them what fundraising is and what their role is in that story. Fundraising is fun and great, but above all a profession. Use everything you have to convince them and get them excited about fundraising. That is also your responsibility as a fundraiser, because you need everyone in the organization. Show test results, do research, map downward trends, etc. If you can't do it yourself, hire someone. Sometimes you need some stamina, sometimes even a few years, but in the end you have to make progress.

Tried everything? Are you really not making any progress and have you really done everything? Maybe this organization does not deserve your knowledge and skills and it is time to look for a new challenge elsewhere. If they don't want to listen…

Finally, for the fundraisers: you are the change yourself. So if you want to get rid of these kinds of opinions and prejudices, try to join a board yourself and help educate the sector.

And finally, for the directors, board members and trustees: a fundraiser on your board works wonders. Time to create a role with a specific fundraising portfolio and specialty?

The most sincere thank you ever written

Reinier Spruit — Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:32:28 +0000

As you know I often use this quote:“We need to value donors as much as we need value from them.” I think it’s a beautiful way to express the core of our work. When I recently used it Wim Desmedt from Sightsavers Ireland responded. He shared underneath example with me. I’ve seen lots of thank you’s coming by in my career, but I think this is the most sincere thank you ever written.

I happens a lot that as an organization you are in contact with relatives of a donor who passed away. Your administration needs to be updated. It’s never something someone is looking forward to. But to avoid unnecessary pain on one side, and cost on the other it needs to be done. But above all, it’s an excellent indicator of how donor focused you as an organization really are. Do you make it an administrative process or an experience people will not easily forget?

Wim is doing the introduction himself:

“Michael, our customer care officer, joined the organization 21 April this year, about a month before this conversation took place. He had no experience in fundraising, but had worked in call centers for many years. When I gave him his first induction via Skype, I insisted that “Sightsavers has to be purposeful” for its donors. We must make it clear to people what their impact is through the donations they make. We had an interesting discussion about how he, as a customer care officer, could play a prominent role in this.

The email conversation below followed a notification from the daughter of a regular donor to report that her father had died. The death notice was used by Michael to help our donor's daughter understand the impact her parents made through their gifts. Something she didn't know until then!”

The donor's name has obviously been changed. The rest of the email is the original that was send out.

Dear Dorothy,

From our small team at Sightsavers Ireland, we wanted to share our sincerest condolences for the passing of your mother and father. They were both generous supporters of our work and we are so very grateful for their kindness. With their first donation dating back to 2005, they were supporting our work for nearly 15 years. During this time, their donations were enough to provide 20 sight-restoring cataract operations, or to relieve the pain of trachoma and prevent blindness with medication for over 1,260 people. What an incredible gift to have given!

Each of these numbers is a person and a life that they have transformed forever - a pair of eyes that they helped to see again. There are no words to truly show our gratitude, but on behalf of all those people whose sight they have protected and restored, we would like to say a big heartfelt thank you. Through all of these people, your mother and father's kind and thoughtful spirit lives on, and every day their generosity is appreciated by those who can see their family and the world around them because of them. They have left an incredible mark on this world and we wanted you to know how very humbled we are to have been their charity of choice.

Thank you for taking the time to let us know, Dorothy. I understand this must be a difficult task, but it is also a time to celebrate their kindness and generosity and we are so grateful for this. I have removed their details from our mailings list so there should not be any more future correspondence from us.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. I would only be too happy to help.

Take care and kind regards,

Michael.

Michael Breslin
Fundraising and Supporter Care Coordinator | Sightsavers Ireland

A brilliant email right? Wonderful to see that as a donor at Sightsavers you are not just a number in a database. You get the feeling that you are both appreciated and taken seriously. And also that the organization lives up to the mission it has promised to its donors. This type of communication contributes to the satisfaction, commitment and trust of your donors.

And don't forget the answer from the donor's daughter:

Hi Michael,

Thank you for you very thoughtful response. Both Mum and Dad had eye problems which was managed by regular treatment so this may be why they were a regular contributor to your charity. I passed your response on to the rest of the family who were also very moved by your response.

I have signed up to contribute by way of monthly direct debit and I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two of my family do also.

Kind regards.

Dorothy

Also the donor’s daughter was clearly impressed. And that is not surprising, because she has just discovered how greatly her parents' donations are valued.

Great example, right? Compliments for Wim, Michael & Sightsavers!

My fundraising vision on a beer mat

Reinier Spruit — Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:42:18 +0000

Ever since I started working as an Interim Manager & Senior Advisor 5 years ago, I have been constantly thinking about how I can best share my experience in individual giving with my clients. One of the subjects that I always thoroughly investigate is my own vision on successful fundraising. I do not only ask myself whether I am doing things right, but especially whether I am doing the right things. So this is the latest version of my vision. On a beer mat!

I have expressed my own vision on fundraising as follows:

“The central theme in my work is how to build long term growth by servicing our donors. We need to value donors as much as we need value from them. And we need to do that with a donor-centric and data-driven approach where we make long term choices based on the lifetime value of our donors. The success of your fundraising depends on a combination of donor-centricity, controlling your data, authenticity in your communication, differentiation from other causes, great leadership and expertise development.”

Click on the image for a larger version.

Where many people immediately start writing down a strategy, or even worse, an action plan, I am convinced that great fundraising can only come from a clear vision. The vision is the point on the horizon where you want to go. The strategy is how you will get there. The plan is what you are going to do to get there.

In the course of time, I refine my vision. Because I am still learning and based on my experience I form an opinion about what works and what doesn't. It is a very educational exercise to write the most important ingredients for successful fundraising on the back of a beer mat. Give it a try!

I will briefly explain the individual components. In random order.

Donor centricity; the logical idea behind donor-focused fundraising is that donors are central to every decision we make. The relationship with donors is the most important thing we are working on. Money follows. We do this by giving donors the best experiences, among other things.
Data-driven; the big challenge is to quantify the qualitative relationship with our donors. A long-term vision of results ensures focus on both quality and quantity. Maximization of lifetime value is only possible if every part of it is made transparent, and in particular all retention perspectives.
Authenticity; fundraising organizations face the challenge of keeping the passion for their goal alive. Slick marketing is the natural opponent of an authentic, passionate story asking for help to solve a problem.
Differentiation; our market is not saturated, but very busy. A distinctive character is terribly important because we are with many and largely we do the same. Creativity, inspiration and the element of surprise are core values to distinguish yourself from all those others who also need money.
Leadership; Great fundraising management can be the difference between success and failure. Establishing, facilitating and coordinating a realistic, ambitious and infectious point on the horizon is crucial. Good leaders are scarce and can be recognized by good results.
Expertise; the fundraising team implements the strategy. They can only do this if they have the right knowledge and skills. Daily prioritization of activities through proper self-management ensures focus on results. Effectiveness and efficiency go hand in hand if you work with the best fundraisers.

What is your vision on fundraising? What is your beer mat?

It's not rocket science. It's more complicated than that.

Reinier Spruit — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:25:00 +0000

Last week I was at the International Fundraising Congress, right here in The Netherlands. As always a great experience. (If only it was for my “best dressed” nomination at the Gala Night for my shark costume.) Next to the many fundraising friends from around the world there was plenty of choice to get my annual fix of fundraising inspiration. This blog might seem like an advertisement for the IFC, but this year I have attended the IFC for the 15th time, so I am simply a big fan.

I picked great sessions about leading change, branding, storytelling, data-driven fundraising and donor trust. I took away a few excellent insights. But, for a change, I will not repeat those here. Check #IFCHolland for the Twitter summary. I will share my overall conclusion with you. Hopefully I can convince you to attend IFC next year.

The diverse and rich IFC program the attendees can choose from is a perfect example of the difficulty we all experience in our daily work as fundraisers. Where to focus on? The separate parts of fundraising don’t seem overly complicated. It is when all those parts get together things get more difficult.

Love this - from @reinierspruit #donorlove #IFCHolland pic.twitter.com/ViIkNl63C2
— John Lepp (@johnlepp) October 18, 2018

So many… types of fundraising, people to convince, investments to ask for, campaigns to launch, analysis to do, insights to use, learnings to understand, donors to service, mailings to send, systems to connect, processes to optimise, stories to tell… So many choices to make!

The IFC teaches you to make choices and focus. For a few days you can zoom out of your daily work and see things in perspective. Eventually it will help you answer these questions: Why am I doing the things I am doing? Am I doing things right? And, maybe even more important, am I doing the right things?

In line with this year’s conference theme (Together we can) I have been thinking about my own work. Collaboration is essential and a prerequisite for any result I want to achieve. If I want to change the world, and I do, then I need to connect the best way possible with the charities I work for. If I want any of my advice to be implemented I need a basis of trust. The only way to do that is with open communication. In my world open communication is transparent, inclusive, positive, explanatory, friendly and honest. It’s not that I didn’t know this already, but first of all it’s much clearer now, and secondly, confirmation of a chosen direction from time to time is always very welcome.

So this is my conclusion for IFC 2019. And just like fundraising: It's not rocket science. It's more complicated than that.

See you next year at the IFC?

Good ol' direct marketing

Reinier Spruit — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 16:20:58 +0000

The overall theme of the presentations I gave recently during the Greenpeace NORDIC strategy days was using windows, not mirrors. Respectfully borrowed from a Tony Elischer quote shown below. To learn from the outside world, to get to know the unknown.

In one of my sessions I’ve shared trends and developments in our sector. One of the developments I’ve mentioned resonated a lot with my Scandinavian audience. That’s the one I call: Good ol’ direct marketing. It’s the trend of email programs not using good old direct marketing techniques.

I am a fundraiser born in the 70s, raised in the 80s, studied in the 90s, and started in the 00s. When I started in my first fundraising job for Médecins du Monde in 2001 direct mail was still alive and kicking in the sector as a massive acquisition channel. We were applying RFM to our file to create potentially more profitable segments: Recency, Frequency, Monetary Value. And it worked pretty good. The file grew. Income increased over time. But the file was volatile and looking back the shift in focus to regular donors (direct debits) was very welcome.

Nowadays most organisations have captured thousands of email addresses. From e-news subscribers to existing donors. But the weirdest thing happens. The most sophisticated segmentation I’ve seen is “donor vs. non-donor”... And even that is not always happening. Why is that? Yes, I know it’s cheaper to send email, so we can keep emailing them. But what’s the purpose? Don’t you think the right segmentation makes a better and relevant offer for your supporters? Why are we not sending segmented communication? I suspect the low-cost characteristic of the online medium makes us a bit lazy…

We are all very excited about dynamic content, based on the click behaviour of our donors, to come as close as possible to their thematic preferences. But their it stops.

I’m guessing that if we shake our email tree very hard that more than 50% - 75% of our email addresses will fall off.

Are we afraid of adjusting our email supporters downward? It’s a vanity metric if we don’t look at what’s happening on the inside of our email files.

Let’s try segmenting based on past behaviour: did your email subscriber recently opened or clicked your email? Let’s test and offer them other propositions to make the next step in the funnel and get closer to that first donation or the next step on the engagement ladder.

PS. Will I see you at the IFC? I will be there 17 - 19 October.