Pavlov's Dog, a Red Bucket, and your Annual Fund

Most of us know the story of the Russian psychologist, Ivan Pavlov, who (by somewhat of an accident) realized that his dog would salivate whenever it was presented with food, so Pavlov began ringing a bell every time food was available - thus creating a response from the dog that whenever he rang a bell, the dog would begin to salivate. This is a well-known case of "classical conditioning".

Fast forward 100 years. One organization has taken this "bell ringing" idea and replicated it, this time among humans. Being that it is the holiday season, perhaps you get where I'm going with this? The Salvation Army! Now, I am not making the case that every time we see a bell-ringer outside of a grocery store or on a street corner we begin to salivate, but many of us have become conditioned to take the change from our car or coat pocket and drop it in the shiny red bucket. Without even meticulously reviewing the Form 990 of The Salvation Army, stopping to ask the bell-ringer about their mission and strategic goals, or asking for an itemized donation receipt, I put my money in the bucket and walk away with a smile. But why do I do this? Why, when our Alma mater, church, community foundation, or local non-profit calls for philanthropic support, are we so much more critical about how they are spending it, or if they really need the money? Of course one might argue that the size of donation we make to those organizations are larger than those to the Salvation Army, so we don't think as much about it. It's much easier to give $2 in change and forget about it than make a $200+ gift. Perhaps. But I would argue something more...

Before I continue with my argument, allow me to digress (significantly). A few years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Las Vegas for the very first time. I'm not a gambler, or at least not a good one, and as they say, "Vegas wasn't built on winners". On the flight home, feeling defeated, I found myself reflecting on how much differently I felt about money during my three days in Sin City. Losing $20 in Vegas didn't seem to sting as bad as if I would have lost $20 in Ohio. As a matter of fact, I once lost a $20 bill out of my pocket and I sulked about it for three days. I work in fundraising, yet I still spend 5x as long thinking about making a $20 donation to a non-profit than I ever did betting $20 on a Roulette table in Vegas. The flashy lights, music, and people around me holding wads of cash changed (for those 3 days) the way I viewed money. Maybe it was the idea that a little money could get me a lot of money in return? But that thought process is ironic to me, because study after study shows that regardless of income, those who are more philanthropic tend to be the happiest. And certainly happier than those who gamble (See: The Science of Generosity). But in philanthropy, just like in gambling, we want a positive return.

Circling back to the reason we are okay giving our spare change to The Salvation Army. We know that a few bucks isn't going to immediately change the world, but we also know that if everyone who walks by the bucket gives a little, it can add up to make huge impact. Deep down in our psyche, we know that it takes a lot of snow flakes to make an avalanche. We also know that if we have few extra dollars to spare, we can count our blessings, as we are among the minority in the world. But most importantly, it is the immediate satisfaction that we get from hearing "Thank You" from the man or woman who is voluntarily bundled up in freezing temperatures asking for whatever you can spare to make a difference. It's immediate, it's habitual, and it's personal. You donated, you heard "Thank You", it felt really good, you went on with your day, and there is a really good chance you'll do it again next year.

There are so many incredible non-profits out there today that treat their donor's like the Salvation Army bell ringers - giving intimate, immediate, and personal gratitude. But unfortunately, there are many non-profits that don't. They have become so accustomed to the steady stream of support they receive every year, they have steered away from making the experience intimate or personal. Plain solicitation letters, overly scripted callers, non-user friendly websites, disingenuous "thank you" letters, etc...

My recommendation is this - If you work for a non-profit or solicit for a non profit, you should take a "give to myself" test. Make a gift to the organization you are soliciting money for - then ask yourself, how did that make me feel? Do I feel that I am making a difference in the organization with my philanthropy? How did the organization treat me for being a donor - regardless of gift size? Was the stewardship of this gift done in a timely fashion and did it feel personal? Then ask a few of your donors the same questions. If the answer is "no" to any of these questions, perhaps I should revisit with you the story of Pavlov and his dog's, and remind you that if he would have stopped feeding them when he rang the bell, not only would they have stopped salivating, they may have eventually searched for food somewhere else. And if you stop making donor's feel good about their philanthropy after you ring your fundraising bell...they too will go elsewhere.