One of my favourite Simpsons episodes - and probably still one of my favourite pieces of TV - is called Lisa's Substitute.
For
anyone who hasn't had the pleasure, in this episode Lisa Simpson's
teacher (Mrs. Hoover) is taken ill and substituted with the weird and
wonderful Mr. Bergstrom (a fine, fine performance from Dustin Hoffman).
Lisa is all of a sudden exposed to inspiring, tailored teaching, which
takes into account her learning style, what she thinks and what she
feels. This is a revelation to Lisa and, for possibly the first time,
she gets a look at what her potential is and who she'd like to be; a
peek at that thing that sits at the top of Maslow's hierarchy -
self-actualization.
Not surprisingly, when Mr. Bergstrom's substituting is done, Lisa finds it hard to return to the way she had been working with Mrs. Hoover. She is disillusioned with, and disengaged from, school. Heartbroken, in fact. I'm calling this the Bergstrom Effect.
Of course! you must be thinking at this point (whilst slapping your palm to your forehead, I'm certain), I now see how much substitute teaching has in common with street and door-to-door fundraising! Well, no, you're probably not, but that's where I'm going and you should come too.
These methods of fundraising, at Bluefrog we call them social fundraising, are in fact the Bergstrom Effect for a large group of potential donors that we normally can't access through the more traditional fundraising techniques. I should rephrase that: a large group of potential donors that we can't normally make our causes accessible for via traditional fundraising techniques.
That the methods recruit new demographics is not exactly headline-worthy; How else can you recruit 20-35 year olds? What else recruits men at any sort of volume? No, that's not breaking news - we know it already. But the knowledge could benefit from a little re-framing, I think.
Rising attrition rates, occasionally amongst other things, have pushed us to change some of the ways we go about dealing in and managing social fundraising. But, with the exception of a few interesting in-house operations, we have largely remained reactionary and dealt in things like small changes in costs and non-first-payer guarantees - relevant, sure, but not an actual solution.
If we have found a Bergstrom Effect for this great swathe of donors and possible donors, then surely the answer is to take that learning and have it inform how we look after their subsequent experiences - how we build those relationships (yes, relationships - as this is what was built at the point they were recruited). Social fundraising, when done properly, engages people and makes what could often be a painfully time consuming, over-whelming or just a bit depressing issue accessible, and even empowering, for a LARGE number of people. It's tailored and it's personal. The solution is almost simple when you look at it like that. Why don't we then carry on talking to these donors like that?
We have spent a lot of time in the last 5 or so years (more?) talking about how "this demographic attrits". But what we've not given much consideration to is that it's hard when your Mr. Bergstrom (we've all had one) stops coming to class. It doesn't mean you love the subject any less - you probably love it with a new level of appreciation, actually - but you might not know how, or be inclined, to re-engage with Mrs. Hoover.
That's a very topline description of the problems we're facing with social fundraising, but it's on the mark. Anyone who knows me through work will know I've been hollering on about this for an age. Happily, it is what I am spending a lot of my time working on at Bluefrog right now and we're doing some really, really interesting things. I think we're on the verge of a slow but steady revolution and I'm excited about it.
