“Dear Bernard…”
I’ve been reading The Nation all my adult life. I’ve subscribed to it for thirty years. And I used to give a donation every month–but not any more.
“Bernard, don’t let them win!”
Sorry. There are other progressive organizations. Hell, there are other progressive magazines. If I want to do my part to keep the right-wingers from stamping corporate logos on people’s minds, I can give my money elsewhere.
“Bernard, we want you back.”
Too bad. Because my name is not Bernard.
Now, you might think I’m being petty here. I do read The Nation ever week, right? And I pass along each week’s issue to a friend who reads them too. What’s more, the magazine has moved into the 21st century with a good website and a diverse set of contributing editors that keep it lively and on point.
Why should something as minor as the wrong name lose me as a donor?
First, because no one’s name is minor to them.
Second, because if they’re making this mistake with me, how many others are they offending with similar mistakes? Why should my donation fill a hole they’re digging themselves, because they can’t get a person’s name right?
Third, because when I point it out to them, they don’t respond. I reply to the emails. I tweet the editor personally. And yes, I’m going to call them and find a human being to speak to live. But that’s not the donor’s job. And most donors won’t do it. And you will lose them, maybe for a lifetime.
Is your nonprofit telling donors they are irrelevant?
As a donor, do you feel welcomed and cherished? Or do you feel nameless?
May 5 update: the fundraising staff finally responded and promised to do better. Let’s hope the social media staff learn too!
How right you are about the importance of addressing others appropriately. It is remiss of the organisation not to get this right and they will lose donors as a result. However, the bigger issue is the one you raise of not getting a response. A mistake is acceptable. Perhaps two or even three mistakes of the same type are acceptable. When the mistake is pointed out and is given no response, that is unacceptable and does nothing to instill confidence or good-will in the mind of the person who has reported it.
At the same time, I do think it behooves us all to give the benefit of the doubt – the question is, perhaps, for how long we extend that benefit before we call it quits.
Sometimes, just as do people, organisations – particularly those working on a shoe-string – as most of the non mainstream, philanthropic or not-for-profit organisations are – find themselves in crisis, with staff shortages, sudden disruptions, and so forth. Often they simply don’t have the resources or skills or personnel to do as much as they attempt to do. That can easily result in the appearance of unconcern when it isn’t.
Names, for instance, can very easily be disrupted by a simple change or mistake in a spreadsheet or database entry. One error may re-align the entries in a particular field throughout the entire list. Perhaps the failure to respond is the result of them already being aware of the problem and being tied up with attempting to fix it.
So, yes, I can empathise with what you say and I, too, believe in voting with my feet, so to speak. At the same time, I think it is important to be sure that we’ve considered all possibilities before we take that step away.
You’re right most people wouldn’t be as tenacious about making them hear you, they would just move on. This hasn’t happened to me as a donor but it has as customer at my bank. My name is Diana and they forever call me Diane. They finally got it right on my cheques (after I emailed them, phoned them, spoke to several people in person) but my statements or emails are still, always wrong. sigh.
Diana
Mikisdad, I completely agree with you. I’m a benefit of the doubt kind of guy: some people say, even when it hurts me. I’m also very loyal. But when a long train of abuses (to quote the U.S. Declaration of Independence) shows that an organization I care about is falling on its face in front of its donors, then let Facts be submitted to a candid world. In other words, let me blog about it. 🙂
And as soon as they fix it, I’ll trumpet that. The Nation is too valuable to lose donors because it can’t get their names right.
Diana, do you follow @thewhinydonor? (No, that’s not my alter ego!) She tweeted: “OMG, Bernard. That’s pretty much the easiest way to lose a donor I can think of. No way I would stick around!”
no I don’t, but I will check her out!