Seth Godin posted a blog entry yesterday claiming that charitable agencies need to place a greater focus on the community benefits that come from making a donation. His assertion is that nonprofits don't do a good job of promoting the personal reward that comes from supporting one's community, instead placing too much emphasis on providing tangible benefits in exchange for giving.While his intentions are honorable, Seth's assessment and understanding of nonprofit marketing are surprisingly incomplete.
I’m not suggesting that giving out a nifty tote bag will drive donations, but it may be enough to convince someone to give one organization their charitable dollars over another organization just as deserving. On the other hand, it may work against you, since many donors don’t want charities to spend their money on gifts. They want them to spend their money on the mission. But every donor is different. And while many may claim they are donating to be philanthropic, just as many donors still take full advantage of the tax deduction they receive for their donation. Does that make their gift any less honorable? Of course not. But they're still recieving a tangible benefit in exchange for their gift. The only difference between the tote bag and the tax deduction is that the tax deduction is coming from the government, not the charity.
My point is that Godin's argument is overly simplified and doesn’t take into account the complexity of convincing a donor to choose one charitable organization over another. We live in a very competitive environment, and every charity is fighting for its survival, just as corporations are. There are a lot of good charities that fund great causes. Which one should you support? A charitable agency can pitch the personal rewards of giving all day long, but if the message doesn't resonate with donors or prospects, a group sometimes has to shift gears and find another way to gain access to charitable dollars. If that happens to come in the form of a Persian rug discounted at a silent auction…so what? It’s bringing in money that at the end of the day is still helping an important cause.
Many businesses do not give to charity purely for the philanthropic rewards that come from doing so. Corporate Social Responsibility is a strategic business decision to help position practitioners as good corporate citizens in order to convert their customers and prospects into brand advocates. In many cases the community benefits are secondary to the corporate reputation. By allowing employees to take days off for service projects, many businesses aren't just trying to make a difference in the lives of others. They're also seeking stronger employee loyalty in an effort to reduce turnover and improve productivity. So what? Does that make the corporate effort any less meaningful? Of course not. So why shouldn't a charitable agency promote the tangible benefits of supporting it, whether it be in the form of an improved bottom line or a tote bag?
There are many reasons why people give to charities. While the mission will always be (and should always be) the driving message, an organization cannot survive using a one size fits all strategy. It has to understand the motivations of the individual. Of all people, I would think Seth Godin should understand that.
Personally, I completely disagree with Seth's assessment that many nonprofits are ineffective in communicating the community benefits of giving. I think that by and large, most charitable agencies do a very good job of it. However, those subjective rewards are not always enough, especially in a challenging economy where every competitive advantage can make a difference. It requires that nonprofit agencies diversify their sources of income by finding new and innovative ways to generate revenue.
At Goodwill of Greater Washington, the community benefits continue to be the primary message used in its cash appeals, but they are a secondary message in its retail and donated goods appeals. The majority of Goodwill's retail customers aren’t shopping in its stores to benefit the charity or the community. They’re shopping to benefit themselves and their families. They're trying to find quality, low cost goods that will allow them to stretch every dollar. Many of Goodwill's household goods donors aren’t donating to help the community either. They’re donating out of convenience because they don’t want to throw their items in the trash or because they want a tax deduction. And that's fine with Goodwill! So for a marketer to ignore the true motivations behind the reasons a donor gives is simply foolish.
I can tell you this with 100% certainty: If congress were to eliminate the tax deduction for the donation of household goods, those donations would all but dry up, and our landfills would overflow. Look at what happened after the tax laws on vehicle donations changed only a few years ago. Donations dropped by 40% virtually overnight. Was that because charities did a poor job of promoting the community benefits of donating a car? Of course not. It was because the tangible benefit for making the gift disappeared.
So while I appreciate Seth's sentiment, he should give nonprofit marketers a little more credit for understanding the nuances of securing disposable funds in a very challenging economy. The importance of the mission is critical, but it simply isn't enough anymore.
