We need to embrace #donorlove, not Donor Love

One of the more consistent drumbeats I hear on #Fundraising social media and at conferences is around the concept of donor love. It is a pretty powerful idea, where our organizations need to center the donor in the work that we do. John Lepp outlined the core concepts of donor love in a great post but the basic concepts are:

• Give [you donor] opportunities to be a hero, swooping in to fix your problem with her gift.
• Share the amazing and inspiring stories that happen every day with her.
• Connect to her values and emotions, as a human, that we cherish and treasure.
• Care for her. You must surprise her. You must get to know her.
• Ask [you donor] for specific help with something.
• Consider who (or what) is the right voice to tell the story you need to tell her.
• Thank her with passion. Emotion. Creativity.

Yet I am seeing a concerning trend when it comes to the practical application of donor love, becoming something to bludgeon those who do not immediately conform to the concept of Donor Love.

I'd like to take the time to outline the differences between what I feel is #donorlove as a philosophical paradigm to cherish, adopt, and deepen and then Donor Love as a literalist principle that all must fall in line with.

#donorlove versus Donor Love

The concept of donor love can best be thought of as a decentralized movement that speaks to many people as opposed to a small subset of hardliners dictating the rules.

#donorlove is open, creative, innovative, contextual, nuanced, and empathetic at all levels.

The beautiful thing I've seen around embracing donor love as a philosophical concept is the immense amount of support that flows from the fundraising community when great examples of this are found.

The ultimate goal of applying donor love is to grow our missions, address falling retention rates within our organization, and create a culture of philanthropy that makes the donor feel part of the story, not simply an accessory.

Yet the flip side is that I've started seeing both technology companies and consultants start to apply a more punitive approach to the concept of donor love. Concerning trends have been:

• Applying the terminology of "professionalism" and "best practices" to reinforce oppressive systems
• Ignoring contextual and historical barriers that some organizations have in applying what is considered Donor Love
• Downplaying the power dynamics between affluent donors and vulnerable staff members

The central concept of donor centered fundraising is to ensure that the donor's support of the mission is the central rhythm that all interactions the organization has hum to. Especially if your community responds differently to what is considered a "best practice" or that your organization has needed to address abusive donors, then listening to what is actually going on in your own organization is going to be the truest application of #donorlove as a movement, not Donor Love as a literal interpretation.

No baby, bathwater situation here

What I am not saying is to ignore data and to ignore what works. Things like direct mail, handwritten notes, and personalized language should never be thrown out and beware anyone who immediately dismisses what has worked for a long time. Yet there is no sacred cow in our industry when it comes to true #donorlove. What works at one organization may not work at another. Some concrete actions I feel we can take as an industry:

More Case Studies, Less Best Practices

There's been a lot of discussion around the best usage of time when it comes to professional gatherings in our industry lately, with questions arising around some long time conferences that have led to spirited debate on the economics of networking with peers and learning from each other.

We should have a concerted effort to focus on practical examples of success that speak to the technical details an organization has suffered and succeeded with. Generalized best practices have been long established around concepts of Donor Love, so we need to find, celebrate, and learn from more examples of #donorlove in the field.

#donorlove isn't always about the donor

We need to focus on the impact of our work as the central concept of our messaging, not the role that the donor plays. Donors want to hear that they gave to your organization because you're going to actually help people, not tell a kickass story about their involvement in telling that story.

We need to answer the simple question of why we exist - what is stopping someone from walking down the street and handing money directly to a potential service participant or feeding a stray dog on their own. If the answer seems obvious to you, then in turn that answer should be obvious to your donors.

This isn't easy, but we're up to the task. It really should be stressed that I see so much good happening and I imagine even some of the instances of Donor Love I'm seeing lately is centered around frustration of adoption and out of concern for making a difference in the lives of the organizations we care about. Yet it is important for us to approach all of this work with care and understanding on how we are delivering the message of #donorlove to truly respect the core philosophy driving our work.

What do you think?