The Opposite of a Valentine
Ah, what a day! Next week just so happens to be that holiday where so many of us give gifts, send cards or otherwise engage in gestures of love! Whether romantic or platonic love, we celebrate and recognize our connections to other people. For those of us working in public media fundraising, not much feels better than donors letting us know how much they love the programming paid for by the money they help us raise. When that happens (and we all know it does), we viscerally feel how worthwhile our work truly is.
But what can a development officer do in an exchange with a donor that's the opposite of a Valentine? Haven't so many of us found ourselves in the opposite situation? Suddenly, you're conversing with a donor who has pointed criticisms. Maybe it's a mild gripe. Maybe the donor is livid. Your instincts are that they deserve and need a legitimate, thoughtful response. You want to offer one they will receive as a good faith effort to reinforce or restore trust. But you might struggle with how to best proceed. Especially considering such situations often occur without warning or time to prepare.
In public media fundraising, certain formulas serve as instructions or outlines for effective tactics. For example, consider deciding on the components for direct mail creative, producing on-air breaks or, in the realm of major giving, using moves management to get the job done. All these activities share the quality of discrete elements ordered in a certain way. We may alter their accepted patterns in the interest of testing creative innovations. But the time-tested conventions are the starting point. Does such a formula exist for dealing with the critical, complaining or even angry donor?
Decades ago, I managed an in-house phone fundraising program at a joint licensee (These were way different times, and phone fundraising then was cutting edge.) We trained new hires to deal with donors' objections to giving with a three-point technique: The mantra "reflect, deflect and ask" described this effective tactic. One could easily apply this technique, with one slight modification, to dealing with donors' specific beef anytime it comes up. The only change necessary, since the context would be a (perhaps heated) donor conversation rather than a real-time fundraising solicitation, is that the third step wouldn't be a direct ask. An update to the mantra for this different situation could be "reflect, deflect and confirm."
After having heard the donor’s issue:
1. Respond to the criticism or gripe in a way that lets the donor know you've paid attention. You have heard and understood their issue. Stop short of agreeing but signal an attentive empathy.
2. Expound on the nature of their issue. But then transition to a series of facts that diverts the conversation to the bigger picture.
3. Then, instead of an ask, confirm the big-picture value of public media's service and/or confirm that your explanation made sense to them.
Of course, no such technique will ever serve as some sort of cure-all magical spell. But a consistent strategy to follow in a moment of need is a decent starting point.
This may all read as so abstract and dry that it comes off sounding like weak sauce. So let's apply it to a specific situation to more meaningfully illustrate the technique in action.
A donor complains that on-air fundraising is annoying, disruptive and excessive. That's their perception, anyway.
1. Reflect: "I understand what you're saying. On-air fundraising interrupts what you come to [Station Name] for: quality programming. Many of our donors express similar frustrations."
2. Deflect: " In [Station Name]'s big picture, on-air fundraising is one of our most effective ways to bring in new contributors. That's necessary for us to maintain, and hopefully grow, our services. Thank you for being a generous donor who has already accepted that invitation! To you these messages may sound like preaching to the choir, but it's critical for us to keep bringing in new people. Also, it may not seem this way, but in any given year, on-air fundraising only occupies X percent of our 24/7 programming."
3. Confirm: "That might not make you feel any more enthusiastic about on-air fundraising. But perhaps that better explains the important role it serves the institution you value and support. Does that help?"
Two considerations here. You might choose different facts and words to deal with such a donor complaint. That's a matter of individual style. It's the three steps of the formula that are the main point, not word choice. Secondly, there's no guarantee that this three-step approach will placate the irritated donor. It's a method, not a magic spell. They could just come back with a variation on the gripe. In this case, a gentle repeat of the three-step process might be in order. The art of the technique lies in always being politely responsive. You don't want to cross over into seeming argumentative. Your mileage may vary, but rarely is there a downside to meaningful engagement with a donor.
We can adapt the "reflect, deflect and confirm" buckets to a wide variety of complaints. To illustrate their flexibility, consider a perhaps thornier issue. A donor expresses that public media has an extreme left-wing bias.
1. Reflect: “I understand what you’re saying. You feel some of [Station Name]'s programming has a liberal-leaning bias. You're obviously entitled to that opinion. And we, as an institution that serves the public, want to be aware of the criticisms, as well as praise, anyone from the public may have for us, particularly generous donors like you.”
2. Deflect: "[Station Name]'s journalism strives for accuracy and fairness. It is fact-based. We might not always get it just right. But that's always the goal. Beyond journalism, we are many different things to many different people. Public media is a buffet of widely varied programming genres, and no one has to eat everything offered. You've identified one aspect of our service you have concerns about. As a contributor, I hope you appreciate some of those other dimensions of our service as well.”
3. Confirm: “With all that in mind, I do hope you'll continue your support of [Station Name] for those services we offer that you find of value and to your liking.”
Again, not a magic charm. We’re not so naïve as to suggest it will always be effective. But it’s a reasonable and easily internalized three-step approach. A lot of times, the complaining donor, more than anything, wants to vent. They want to know you've heard and understood their issues. Apply this method to almost any objection or complaint. If done deftly and patiently, the donor may feel they've talked YOU into a more reasonable position.
Good luck and, by the way, have a Happy Valentine's Day.