I want to show you a smart piece of fundraising I got in the mail recently from Feeding America.

First the envelope:

This is a smart envelope. I don't know what DONOR CONFIRMATION ENCLOSED means, and that's its power. (Also, the organization that sent it is not identified in any way -- there's only a PO Box address on the back flap.

Because it incites curiosity, it likely gets a good open rate. (Wouldn't it be cool if we could measure the open rate of direct mail the way we can for email?

But here's where it gets interesting:

This, along with a return envelope, is the entire contents of the pack.

As you can see in the box on the lower panel, I am a deeply lapsed donor to this organization -- nearly nine years. The amount of my last gift (which I've crossed out to protect my meagre privacy) was enough to put me in a mid-value donor category.

For reasons of my own, I stopped giving to this organization. They have no idea why, and really no way to find out, short of asking me directly. But they want me (and my mid-value potential) back!

For most donors, it would be crazy to keep mailing someone as deeply lapsed as I am. The response rate will be abysmal -- probably lower than 0.2%. A crazy waste of money.

But if the donor's last gift is high enough, all the math changes. Because the small number of those donors who do reactivate at a very high average gift. And be more likely than average to upgrade. Suddenly that terrible response rate doesn't look so bad!

Two more things I want to point out about this pack:

1. It has a good offer -- a match that will "TRIPLE your impact". Smart move, as a match dependably works better than the same pack without a match.
   
2. The pack is dirt cheap. That's not always a smart tactic, but in this case it might be -- over-spending on an audience as cold as I am can quickly undermine the feasibility of the project.
   

Winning back a deeply lapsed mid-value donor is worth a little extra work!

(This post first appeared on February 8, 2018.)

What are you afraid of in your fundraising? What does your board worry about? Here are 3 common fundraising fears and how to face them from the BDI Blog:

1. Am I asking too often? Almost certainly not. If communicating too much were a problem, you’d see donor retention drop as you increase communication. That never happens. Retention increases as you add communication. So does net revenue. You’re far more likely not asking often enough to keep donors on board.
   
2. We send the same messages over and over – donors must be getting sick of them. You are paying close attention to every piece of communication you send out. Donors are not. What seems like mind-numbing repetition from your point of view is just a message starting to get through for most of them. Repetition is your friend!
   
3. Do my communications make my organization look bad? Effective fundraising is about problems that urgently need solving. It’s easy to get the sense that all you have are problems and no solutions. Unless you are regularly reporting back, showing donors that they’re giving makes a difference. Fundraising is a relationship, not just an endless parade of asks.
   

For about a year, I’ve been getting queries from people who wanted to read one of my books -- and couldn’t find a way to get them. Or all they could find were used copies and exorbitant prices. What gives?

What gave was this: They were out of print.

“Out of print” meant new copies weren’t being printed, and nobody who was willing to take your money and ship a book to you had any copies. You may be able to get used copies, but those quickly grow scarce (and expensive).

My books -- and a whole lot of other books on fundraising -- went out of print because the publisher closed its doors. That left literally nobody to handle selling them.

The publisher was Emerson and Church, which specialized in fundraising books, and had a large catalog of them, including the all-time bestseller among fundraising books, Asking, by Jerold Panas. And books by Tom Ahern, Roger Craver, Andrea Kihlstedt, Harvey McKinnon, Andy Robinson, Kay Sprinkel Grace, Martin Teitel, and others. It was a significant loss to our profession.

Fortunately, another publisher has stepped up put much of the E&C catalog back into print: Civil Sector Press, a Canadian publisher that had an excellent catalog of fundraising books already. They also assumed publishing for The White Lion Press, a UK publisher with some major fundraising titles.

So I’m happy to say these two titles are available again:

• The Fundraiser's Guide to Irresistible Communications
  
• How to Turn Your Words Into Money: The Master Fundraiser's Guide to Persuasive Writing
  

You can buy them from the publisher or at Amazon, or at most other booksellers.

(If you’re wondering, I’ve also written a third book, with a different publisher, also available: The Money-Rasising Nonprofit Brand.)

You’ve got a great looking website with tons of excellent content.

You’re getting lots of visitors to the site.

But not many donations.

What’s wrong? It’s your conversion rate -- the percentage of visitors who end up taking action.

Here are some of the common problems that hurt conversion rate -- and cost you revenue, from the Wired Impact Blog, at 6 Nonprofit Website Conversion Rate Killers (and How to Fix Them)

1. Targeting Everyone. Connecting with No One. There’s no cause in the world that “everyone” will support. (Yes, there are many that everyone should support. But they don’t.) Know who cares about your cause and laser-focus on them. Speak their language. Connect with their values. Discover what moves them.
   
2. Your Pitch Isn’t Clear. A lot of nonprofit websites are trying to be tutorials on how your organization works. That will never get people to donate. Keep it simple, clear, and outcome-focused. Donors don’t give to fund your processes. They give to make things happen. Figuring out how to communicate your outcomes is one of the most difficult tasks in fundraising. But it’s a must.
   
3. Broken or Slow Conversion Paths. You might be shocked how many nonprofit websites make it impossible to donate because something is broken. Or frustratingly slow. Periodically check your giving pages from many different systems (including mobile). Fix anything that’s broken, confusing, or slow.
   
4. Overwhelming Visitors with Too Many Choices. There might be a whole lot of different things you want your audiences to do. Don’t pile them all into a massive list. Keep it simple. Most pages on your site should have only one call to action.
   
5. Your Actions Are Too Complicated. Complexity kills conversion. Remove actions that you don’t need people to take. Keep everything as simple as possible.
   
6. Visitors Don’t Trust You. Sadly, a legacy of scam and incompetent nonprofits have made many people not trust you. Give them reasons to trust. Show watchdogs logos. Make financial information available. Make it easy for people to talk to a human. Share your privacy policy. Display a pledge to donors. It all helps!
   

(Tons of details on the fixes at the post!)

Cross-posted at The Better Fundraising Blog.

What do you think when you see this direct mail fundraising envelope?

A mistake? The handwriting goes across the window ... that can't be on purpose, can it?

Turns out, this was a mistake. A miscommunication between the designer and the printer.

Big problem?

Nope. It worked great.

It's the kind of "mistake" that usually improves fundraising. An odd, out-of-place, not-the-done-thing that grabs your eye and makes you cringe.

More often than not, this kind of mistake works for you.

I was once involved in a direct mail piece that included a bounce back paper placemat. Donors were asked to sign the placemat and return it with their donation. The placemat would be put on the table at a meal the donation helped fund. It's a good (and proven) way to increase response to meal-focused offers.

But here's the error: on the reply coupon, there was a quick reminder about the placemat. Despite many layers of quality proofreading, the printed final that went to out donors said:

Please sign the enclosed placenta and return it with your donation.

Are you cringing?

Whether you're cringing or not, the piece broke records for response. A few donors wrote to point out the bizarre error -- mostly along with their donation.

Why did this mistake seemingly boost response?

Our theory: Errors grab attention. And someone who's paying attention is a lot more likely to donate.

So when an error happens, it may not be a problem. It might even be great! So great you'd consider making a mistake on purpose.

Everyone is talking about artificial intelligence and what it will mean to humanity.

And fundraising.

Here are some laws to help us navigate this brave new world:

Brooks’ Warning about Quality and Quantity

People who are bad at writing will also be bad at using AI in their writing; the net result will be no meaningful change in writing quality. But the quantity of bad writing will dramatically increase.

AI Output Law

Garbage in; garbage out. But to those who don’t understand, the output garbage is indistinguishable from really excellent fundraising.

The Snake Oil / Killer Robot AI Conundrum

There are two beliefs about AI and fundraising that you should ignore:

1. AI is going to revolutionize fundraising and take it to a new promised land.
   
2. AI is going to utterly destroy everything in fundraising.
   

More Laws of Fundraising

When someone you love dies, making a donation to a cause that was important to them can be a meaningful and comforting act. That’s why donors do it.

If you’re the health fundraising sector, you already know this, because it’s very common there.

If you haven’t come across memorial giving, it’s worth looking into. It’s a real motivation for some donors some of the time.

Here’s some help from the Boomerang Blog, at 8 Tips for Managing Your Nonprofit’s Memorial Donations:

1. Involve the honoree’s family. Try to find a close immediate survivor of the person people are remembering with donation. Let them know others are giving. This person may or may not be a donor, but you should treat them like one.
   
2. Allow donors to send a note to the honoree’s family. Find ways to let memorial donors be as personal as possible.
   
3. Send thoughtful donor thank you notes. Their giving motivations may be different from other donors, but the gift is real, and heartfelt.
   
4. Communicate the impact of tribute donations. As with “normal” thank you messages, make clear the impact of their giving.
   
5. Keep memorial donation data organized. These aren’t typical donors. Make sure you know who they are. They aren’t “donors” in the normal sense -- yet. They are prospective donors, and should just be thrown in with the population of donors.
   
6. Share information about your memorial donation program. Make sure all your donors can learn about memorial giving.
   
7. Highlight other ways to give. Let potential donors know that giving money is just one way to honor a loved one. Volunteering and other forms of involvement can be meaningful too.
   
8. Facilitate peer-to-peer fundraising. Make it easy for people to recruit memorial donations.
   

There are a handful of results-crushing approaches that happen constantly in fundraising. People use them so often because they seem right.

But they aren’t. They actively discourage donors from giving.

Here’s a myth-busting post from Clairification that can help you leave those unfortunate approaches behind: Before Sending a Fundraising Appeal Do This, Not That:

1. Talk to your donors, NOT at them. It’s easy to think that if you just inform your donors about your track record of success, your excellent methodologies, your talented staff, and your fiscal acumen, donors will be bowled over and they’ll give. That should work, but it doesn’t. Donors don’t give because you’re awesome. They give because they want to change the world. That means you have to approach them on their terms. Keep it simple, emotional, and make your point with stories, not facts.
   
2. Ask donors to change the world, NOT to help you change the world. In the donor’s world, you are a “middle man” in their mission to change the world. They aren’t giving to support your goals. They’re giving to meet their own goals. Your job is to show how their goals and yours align.
   
3. Show what the donor’s gift will accomplish in the future, NOT what others’ gifts (or even theirs) accomplished in the past. Donors give to make something happen. Not to pat you on the head for what you’ve already done. The time to tell donors about accomplishments is after they’ve given. Then they can share in the celebration of success.
   
4. Give a reason to give now, NOT whenever for whatever. In fundraising, “give some time” translates into “don’t bother to give.” Always have a reason to donate now. Even an arbitrary deadline is better than no urgency at all.
   

Thank you letters to donors are an important chance to build the relationship. The way you thank is just as important as they way you ask.

Here are some common thank you letter mistakes you can avoid, from the Get Fully Funded Blog, at 5 Things You Should Never Write in a Thank You Letter:

1. “Dear friend of xyz organization...” Thank your donor by name. When you strip them of their identity and reduce them to what they are in relation to your organization, you fail on a very human level.
   
2. “On behalf of the board and staff at xyz organization...”
   That’s stiff, overly formal, and a waste of words that signal “boring” to most readers. Just thank the donor.
   
3. “Your donation will help us meet our goals...” Donors are rarely interested in your goals. They give to make things happen. Thank them for that, and do it with a story.
   
4. “We have six programs spanning three counties...” Not important to donors. Tell them what their giving helped make possible on a human level.
   
5. “Don’t forget to get your tickets to our upcoming event...” Don’t change the subject. A thank you letter should be only a thank you letter.
   

An effective thank you letter is full of life, connection, and tells a story about what the donor became part of when they gave.

It’s common for nonprofits to be frustrated that they have to “dumb down” how they talk about their work. Like any profession, we put a lot of effort, experience, and knowledge into doing the work we do.

And any time you have to explain all that to someone who hasn’t climbed that learning curve -- whether it’s your mother or your donors -- you clearly see how far their knowledge is from yours.

And if you’ve been involved in fundraising (or talking to mom) for more than a few minutes, you’ve probably noticed that dragging someone up your learning curve ranges from incredibly difficult to futile. Learning is hard work. Teaching is even harder.

The solution is to simplify. Make your complexity easy to understand.

Which can be frustrating. You feel like you’re leaving important things out. You feel like they aren’t getting the whole picture.

Which is why simplifying is often called dumbing down.

Big mistake.

The attitude behind calling clear communication “dumbing down” is arrogant, elitist, and leads to ineffective fundraising. And ineffective fundraising careers.

We aren’t alone in the “dumbing down” challenge. Scientists face it too. Probably more than we do.

Which is what this article in The Brilliant (a magazine for scientists) is about: Scientists, please stop saying ‘dumbing down’. It says the term “dumbing down” should be discouraged by scientists “to the point of extinction”:

The use of this term perpetuates an outdated view in the STEM sector that making complex information more accessible is inherently bad. With the pressing urgency of climate change, we need global engagement and the general public pushing our politicians for fast and lasting change.

So next time someone around you uses the expression “dumbing down”, challenge them to rethink their own biases and to engage with people who aren’t mirrors of themselves.

Like many scientists, we are in the business of changing the world. And we can’t do it alone. We need to bring others along so they can be part of the mission.

If you think of simplifying your work so non-experts as “dumbing down,” your attitude will infect your communication. Your frustration and sneering contempt for your “dumb” donors will prevent making a meaningful connection with allies you need. Because you’ll be missing the whole point of talking about your work outside your organization.

Talking to people who aren’t just like you requires an act of the intellect and the heart. To enter their world, to be relevant to them.

It takes a big heart. It takes an inclusive spirit. And it’s not easy to do.

It’s not “dumbing down” -- it’s “smarting up.”

We all get complaints from donors. Sometimes those complaints sting, and we feel “caught out” by the complainers.

What makes complaints harmful -- or not -- depends on our interpretation of them, and our reaction.

The Betterm Fundraising blog has some helpful thinking about complaints, at The Harmful Big Assumption.

Here’s the assumption it’s so easy to make:

... if this person complained, there must be a lot of other donors who feel the same way but didn’t send anything in.

The root of “one complaint speaks for many” is fear.

Fear that we’re stumbling into errors, that donors are in a constant state of pique about our efforts to raise funds.

I was once told (with great confidence) that research found every complaint has behind it 200 more people who had the same issue but didn’t say anything.

In hindsight, I can see how bogus that claim is: surely the number must vary a lot by the type of complaint, the sector, the audience, and the number of people involved. It may have derived from some kind of customer service research, finally reaching me after a very long game of “telephone” that turned it into a terrifying piece of “data.”

But it was a powerful force that drove us to action. Actually, mostly to inaction.

The Better Fundraising post raises a liberating insight: If complainers speak for other non-complainers, shouldn’t we assume that donors speak for nondonors? That each person who goes to the trouble of giving represents people who felt moved by our message, who agreed with what we said ... but just didn’t get around to making the gift?

This should flip the script on the fear of complaints.

In my experience (and probably yours) the ratio of donors to complainers is typically hundreds or even thousands to one.

Decisions based on fear are almost always bad decisions.

Afraid AI writing is coming for your writing job?

You just need to make your real intelligence to work. Yours comes with heart, experience, and depth beyond anything the artificial kind can imitate.

Here’s a post from the On Message Blog on How to Out-Write ChatGPT. Here are 7 ways to leverage your advantage over artificial intelligence:

1. Draw from your experiences. ChatGPT is a fancy parrot. You are a human being with experiences and a shared life with other human beings. Reach into real life to make your writing real.
   
2. Talk to humans. Learn from the amazing and different ways real people talk.
   
3. Stretch your creativity. You have tools in your brain that ChatGPT can’t match. But you have to use them.
   
4. Show don’t tell. Use all five of your senses to describe things. ChatGPT doesn’t have any of them.
   
5. Expand your reading. ChatGPT has you beat on volume of reading. But it you need to read as much (and as widely) as possible.
   
6. Use ChatGPT as a tool. If you use it as a tool -- and not as a crutch, it can make you better. It can help you start first drafts and explore ideas. It’s just a start for real writing, but as grandma used to say, “Well begun is half done!”
   

I’ll add a #7 to this list of ways you can out-write ChatGPT:

7. You can tell true stories. AI can’t. Game, set, match.

If you aren’t leveraging these innate human advantages in your writing, you’re really just a slow and sloppy version of AI. You might as well hand the job over.

Does your organization need a list of “core values”?

Maybe, sas the Monday Morning Memo at Does Your Company Have Core Values?

But sometimes your published core values can do as much harm as good. The Memo notes that there are only three reasons to have a list of core values:

1. Inspire and reinforce “on-brand” behavior from employees.
   
2. Assist in the orientation and onboarding of new hires.
   
3. Inform investors, customers, [donors,] and other interested parties of what they can expect from you.
   

Notice that two of the three are for insiders, only one for outsiders.

But here’s the key point: If your core values list is just a bunch of abstract aspirational qualities, you’re heading for confusion:

When your core values include aspirational words that describe attributes rather than actions, your core values list will be interpreted differently by different readers...

Some common aspirational words for nonprofits include: transparency, integrity, respect, compassion -- you know, good things, but not clear description of real-world actions.

That leaves them wide open to interpretation -- and confusion.

Worse yet, they generally don’t engage, connect, or inspire.

It becomes a navel-gazing exercise.

Values matter a lot. Knowing and understanding them is critical for keeping insiders aligned. And donors want to be part of organizations that share their values.

But a list of abstractions won’t get you there.

Here are the 5 most-read Future Fundraising Now blog posts in the month of February:

1. The hard part of fundraising: getting attention (the money is the easy part)

2. An easy way to stand out in your donor's mailbox

3. 2 things donors don’t care about -- and one they really do

4. What’s bad about AI writing is nothing new

5. When fundraisers make up stories about their donors
   

The relationship between nonprofits and the agencies or consultants who help them raise funds can be difficult and weird. Even when it goes very, very well -- which it often does.

I've spent the large majority of my career on the consultant side, so I know I'm biased. But I've watched the relationship go right and wrong so many times, I have a pretty good idea what the problems are.

And here's the big problem: You and your consultants aren't in agreement about who the real customer is.

It might seem obvious that you,, the client, are the customer. After all, you're paying them.

But the customer your consultant is aiming at (if they're worth their salt) is your donors. So right away, there's a large possibility of expectational dissonance.

You (and/or others at your organization) want to see fundraising materials that make you stand up and cheer ... feel good about ... that make you feel validated ... that are fresh and new and different from the same-old.

But your consultants want fundraising that works. They're serving up stuff that's so familiar, so old, so disappointing. They have all this high-powered strategic and creative talent, and that's all they can come up with? This is what we're paying for?

Well, in their eyes, yes! They're giving you the stuff that's most likely to bring home the bacon. Which is what you're paying them to do. They know that aiming their messaging at you and your colleagues is the quick road to fundraising failure. And that aiming at your donors means not aiming at you. And they're completely sure that they're doing the right thing.

So you can see the fundamental mismatch of expectations:

• They think they're doing exactly what you're paying them to do.
  
• You think they're not doing what you're paying them to do.
  

Houston, we have a problem!

I've seen three ways consultants approach this problem:

1. The typical way. They're not fully aware of the mismatch. They do their thing. If results are good, they expect results to speak for themselves. Which they do, but not effectively, and not for long. If the client feels underserved, the consultant will eventually get fired, no matter how good the results. I've seen that happen more times than I want to think about.
   
2. The even more dysfunctional way. They aim everything squarely at the client. Clients love it. Thing is, it rarely works in the marketplace. You can get away with this for as much as two years before the fundamental failure of it gets everyone fired. Consultants that routinely operate this way usually go out of business within two to five years. You can only fool so many people for so long.
   
3. The smart way. They put the whole conversation out in the open. They make it clear why they aim at donors. They listen to the client and work hard to find greatness in the client's needs rather than dismiss it because of its surface problems. They test new and fresh stuff ... and sometimes it works! These are the relationships that last for a long time and really create change for both the client and the consultant. It's also where most real innovation comes from.
   

If you're a client, do everything you can to make your relationships with your consultants or agencies operate the smart way. Don't hire the agencies that just plod along with best practices without paying attention to you. And really don't hire the flash-in-the-pan panderers who will make you feel good while they drive you right off the financial cliff.

Hire the smart ones. And be smart along with them.

That's the basis of a long, effective, and satisfying relationship.

(This post first appeared on March 29, 2018.)

Their dream came true. MacKenzie Scott’s Mystery Money Machine chose them. For a seven-figure donation.

It was an order of magnitude larger than any other donation they’d ever received. Transformational for their work. And it was unrestricted money. They could use it to build their capacity and not only accomplish more mission, but also be more effective in all areas, including fundraising.

After the staff of this community social service organization in a mid-sized US city finished celebrating, they asked What now?

Their greatest fear was that donors would be less inclined to give, thinking Scott’s donation meant they weren’t needed. The donation got quite a lot of press coverage, so they figured everyone in town was highly aware of it. What should they be saying to donors who might be feeling dwarfed or crowded out by MacKenzie Scott.

Here’s the reality: while a seven figure donation from a famous philanthropist is a big deal that dominated the minds of insiders for weeks, and was in the news for a number of days, it was not top-of-mind for many donors. A large percentage of them had no idea (or heard and then forgot) about it.

Going into high gear on telling donors, “yes, we got a lot of money, but your support still matters” could cause more harm than it prevents.

Here are some things you might do should you get a large donation from MacKenzie Scott (or anyone else):

1. Stick to your fundraising plan. One of the most damaging things that can happen after a mega-donation is that organizations neglect fundraising because it feels like “the pressure is off” on the need for a revenue stream. That’s partly true, but it’s only temporarily true. Scott is probably not going to be back next year with another donation for you. You’ll need your regular donors in the near future, but if you neglect them, you’ll lose them.
   
2. Put together your talking points about the donation. Rather than give the impression that other donors are no longer needed, treat the big donation as an implied endorsement (she vetted us and found us to be a good investment), and make sure donors know the big donation actually increases the impact of their donations.
   
3. Reach out to those who most need to know. While most donors won’t care that much, some will care a lot. And among that group are many of your most important supporters, including board members and major donors. Beyond that, tell people who ask about it.
   

(To learn who has received these donations, check out Yield Giving.)

If you use AI to write for you, be sure to fact check.

Here’s an example of why AI’s knowledge is not trustworthy:

Harvey McKinnon asked ChatGPT about the world’s top fundraising consultant authors.

Here is what the robot told him:

As a language model Al, I don't have access to the most current data but here are some of the world's top fund raising consultant authors:

1. Ken Burnett
   
2. Jerold Panas
   
3. Dan Pallotta
   
4. Mal Warwick
   
5. Simone Joyaux
   
6. Jeff Brooks
   
7. Lesley Prince
   
8. Harvey McKinnon
   
9. Michael Ivaroni
   
10. Andrea Kihlstedt
    
11. Rick Lafleur
    
12. Penelope Burk
    
13. Tom Ahern
    
14. Gail Perry
    
15. Tom Watson
    

Harvey recognizes good, clean fun when he sees it, so sent this list to some of the people on the list. “For your ego,” he said.

Good company to be in.

I’m not sure if the numbers imply some kind of ranking. More important, you are probably noticing names that are not on the AI’s list. So AI missed a few.

But what about those names you don’t recognize? It’s not just you. Ken Burnett (#1) looked up the three names that most of us haven’t come across in the fundraising world. Here’s what we know about them:

• Lesley Prince. A retired public policy professor in the UK. It’s possible some her research touches on nonprofit issues, but I couldn’t find anything. There is also a labor organizer in Canada with that name.
  
• Michael Ivaroni. Couldn’t find anyone with that name. There is a Michael Iavarone, owner of a horse named Big Brown that won the Kentucky Derby in 2008.
  
• Rick LaFleur. The first “person” who comes up is Ricky Lafleur, a fictional character in the television series “Trailer Park Boys.” Some real people with that name include a Professor of Classics Emeritus at the University of Georgia, a banjo player from North Carolina, and a music teacher in Wisconsin.
  

(At least the robot admitted its information wasn’t the “most current.”)

Where did the information come from? The Internet. That tells you how accurate it is.

The names were no doubt found on websites that also included words about fundraising. The AI, being artificial, but certainly not intelligent, called the information good and spit it out. It took less than a second to do the research and write up the findings.

If you use AI to write something, be nervous. It’s likely to give you bad information. As always, consider it a first draft. Your writing and thinking has just started at the moment the AI flings its product at you.

See also: What’s bad about AI writing is nothing new.

It was one of those weird little news items that make you shake your head and move on. But it caught The Agitator’s attention, at Are You Giving Your Donors the Trump Treatment?

Donald Trump spoke at a memorial service for Rochelle “Silk” Richardson, half of a pro-Trump duo called Diamond & Silk.

When he got up to speak, here’s what he said:

I thought I knew them both, I didn’t. I knew Diamond, but I didn’t know Silk at all. I just learned about Silk. You’re fantastic, you’re going to carry on beyond, beyond anybody’s wildest imaginations.

(Both Diamond and Silk had been frequent White House visitors.)

Weird, right? You have to wonder how he could get the relationship so wrong.

Until you realize mainstream and otherwise professional fundraisers do stuff like that to their own donors all the time. As the Agitator put it:

[They] detail dry and dusty statistics, claims of numbers of Ph.Ds on their staffs, and on and on. Everything except the central importance of the donor to accomplishing the mission.

Sound familiar? The use of irrelevant jargon. The need to show donors how wrong they are about things. The inattention to what actually makes donors donate. Too many nonprofits don’t have any idea what motivates donors, or how they’d like to connect. They just turn on their motor-mouths without engaging their hearts or minds. Like some politicians do.

So listen to The Agitator:

If you aspire to more loyal donors, higher retention rates, and a better bottom line make all your donor communications — whether appeals, renewals, emails, or annual reports -- focus them as a celebration and call to action for your donor heroes and not as a Trump funeral eulogy.