Donors don’t want to be 𝙖𝙘𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙙.

Nov 05, 2024

Funders aren’t livestock or land.

Or other items you acquire.

So calling it acquisition objectifies the fundraising experience. Because the definition is to buy or obtain an asset or object.

“Even if we successfully solicit a gift, we still haven’t acquired a donor; we’ve caused a generous person to take a tentative step in our direction,” says Jim Langley. “They are never ours.”

There are three problems with acquisition. ⤵

1. It’s dehumanizing.

Every donor is a human relationship that involves trust, values alignment, and mutual benefits.

Obvious.

“Prospective donors… crave organic connection and impactful collaboration,” says

Lisa Greer

— a major donor herself — in her book Philanthropy Revolution: How to Inspire Donors, Build Relationships and Make a Difference. But “donating to charities feels onerous, dehumanizing, disrespectful, manipulative, and just exhausting.”

2. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

The acquisition mindset promotes short-term thinking. And leads nonprofits to prioritize immediate donations vs. long-term donors.

So the cliché in our sector about “friendraising” might be cheesy, but it’s the right idea. Because you never would say you need to acquire a spouse. Or acquire a community.

No, these relationships grow over time.

3. It’s being fundable (first) that gets funding.

Obsessing over donor acquisition makes nonprofit leaders push to do more, more, more outreach and campaigns and awareness raising.

Instead, your foremost focus should be getting fundable and findable. First. And like a famous comedian once told rookie comics trying to break through the noise, “be so good they can’t ignore you.”

That’s brand building. And that’s why we should think of it as donor building too.

Not donor acquisition.

Because donors are people, not prey.

Stop the hunt.

💪🏽💛

The daily bonus

One type of funding that most of you would love to acquire: big bets. Like the multi-million-dollar prizes or out-of-the-blue MacKenzie Scott grants.

But getting this type of massive cash infusion isn’t so straight forward. That’s why we’ve loved watching the debate this year in Stanford Social Innovation Review across the four different articles below (in chronological order).