Please accept my deepest condolences

Your charity has received a gift in memory of a loved one from a donor. What is the opening line in your reply letter? The unimaginative 'Please accept my deepest condolences' or the equally bland 'Thank you for your kind donation.' Two completely different openings; neither of them particularly inspiring and each with their own pluses and minuses. Would you say there is a correct response?

A selection of thank you letters

I was fortunate to attend a seminar entitled Engaging bereaved donors last week organised by the Institute of Fundraising (London). Reaffirming, yet informative, the course was delivered by the ever-knowledgeable Kevin Kibble. The opening sentiment of the hypothetical reply letter was discussed and it's fair to say the opening gambit split the delegates 50:50. In the end, I found myself leaning more towards 'Thank you for your kind donation' especially after Kevin remarked, "First and foremost, this is a thank you letter for a donation." Of course, a well-crafted reply letter will offer expression of condolences as well, but later in the letter.

In Memoriam giving is an area of fundraising that interests me more and more. It is also an area of growth. Last month JustGiving reported a 32 per cent increase in In Memoriam donations from January to May compared to the same period last year.

In my opinion, many charities struggle to communicate with In Memoriam donors in a professional, appropriate and empathetic manner. Likewise, the ability to devise In Memoriam products that connect with In Memoriam donors are few and far between. Earlier this year, I posed a question on Twitter "What charities are offering engaging #TributeFund programmes in your opinion?" I received a fantastic response. As you can see, opinion was mixed among respondents.

I'm convinced, more than ever, that medical research and palliative care charities are failing to realise the potential of Tribute Funds. Tribute Funds offer In Memoriam donors the opportunity to create a lasting tribute in memory of a loved one; and for the charity, a product that encourages engagement and commitment from one-time In Memoriam donors. The bereaved want to remember loved ones, not forget.

What's my motivation?

Last week I was invited to speak at a seminar held by New Philanthropy Capital in response to the Money for Good UK report.  The Money for Good UK report, published in March 2013 contains a donor segmentation model based on donor motivations. 

Money for Good UK report

On reading the report I found myself unconsciously referencing my own experience in charities in the fields of conservation, animal rights, hospice and now medical research.

For example, I remembered Loyal Supporters at the animal rights charity – steadfastly driven by the cause, giving in private and occasionally embarrassed to give to their chosen cause. 

Echoes of Benefactors at the hospice – donors keen to publicly show their contribution to their network, usually at a black tie event; but frustratingly with little loyalty to the cause.

Even now, in a new role with a medical research charity the concept of Ad hoc givers resonates with me. These donors with a highly personal connection to the cause are extremely difficult to engage with on a repeated basis. 

Myeloma UK is the only charity in the UK dealing exclusively with myeloma, a complex, debilitating and incurable cancer of the plasma cells. What is interesting about the supporter base at Myeloma UK is the notion that the potential donor base is limited to the patient, their family and their immediate network. Very much following the donor characteristics of an Ad hoc giver.

One question that struck me when reading the report was whether donors could migrate between defined donor segments? Should we as fundraisers be designing programmes to encourage Ad hoc givers to become Loyal Supporters or Engaged Champions? Is this even possible? Are we fighting against fundamental donor instincts? Or should we embrace the donor segments and tailor communications to suit the donors, not us?

There's a wonderful blog post on The Agitator website from last month entitled, "The Foibles and Follies of Donor Conversion." Roger Craver reports on a session from the Engage Conference in the US where one of the speakers challenges the audience, "Why are nonprofits mad at about 50% of their donors at any given time for donating in the "wrong" way? And why do they persist in attempting to convert them to behaving differently?"

What in fact is wrong with the donor that sends a £100 cheque every February? Why should I devise a strategy and insist they move to a £10.00 a month programme?

Indeed, does that Ad hoc giver even perceive themselves to be an Ad hoc giver? Perhaps that Ad hoc giver would see themselves as a Loyal Supporter or Engaged Champion?

I'd recommend spending an hour or two reading the Money for Good UK report and I, for one, am very much looking forward to see how New Philanthropy Capital uses the research and implements its findings to work with charities over the coming months.