This post was mentioned on Twitter by PamelaGrow: Your first 100 days as development director: http://budurl.com/e4a6 #nonprofit…

From our supporters, that $1 donation may have meant choosing between donating and buying milk, and we appreciate every supporter.

I find it hard to believe that any organization would choose not to thank donors they consider “insignificant”. That’s just setting themselves up for no repeat donations from that person, as well as just bad PR.

I love that you are bringing this out into the open. I think it’s a very good point you make that organizations and executives need to be more think-skinned. If there was a legitimate problem or issue that led to the low rating, then of course they definitely need to address it in the most effective way possible. But otherwise I think your advice was definitely on the mark. AS Gabe mentioned above, sales skills are key to success in “this economy” and they will be served well if they learn those skills now.

Great job Pam, thanks for the great discussion!

Lisa Garcia-Ruiz

This post was mentioned on Twitter by NonprofitCFOs: RT @PamelaGrow: It’s NOT “what’s the best database 4 our org?” – it’s whatcha gonna do with your database after you get it http://ow.ly/13Kbo #nonprofit…

Excel is definitely NOT a database.

We run a custom, built-from-scratch solution. While not always hassle-free, it allows us to grow our data as we ourselves grow and change.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by joannefritz: Nonprofit Blog Carnival: First Time High from @PamelaGrow is inspiring! http://bit.ly/a32L41 #fundraising #nonprofit…

You’re not going to get that donor back, so it may be better to “let it go” … a hard pill to swallow.

I would also take the feedback to heart, namely that a donor had “planned on making a contribution, but, upon checking out the organization’s Charity Navigator paltry three star ranking, changed his mind.”

What does it take for the organization to get a four star ranking? What strategies could be put in place to get the four star ranking? How long would it take?

If it takes a long time or is unlikely that a four-star ranking will happen, then I would pursue a newsletter article like Tom suggests … and make sure to keep the agency’s strengths and accomplishments in the forefront… and point out weaknesses in Charity Navigator rating. But, only if a four-star ranking is out of the question.

I appreciate that the board president felt safe enough to cry on your shoulder and vent.

Thanks for sharing, Pamela.

~Phil
Editor
http://GrantWritingNewsletter.com

Great post! I truly understand what you are saying about keeping the complaints in perspective. When I looked into it in my new job we hardly had any complaints last year. To mean that meant we were being bold enough so we are changing that.

I’m more with Tom on this issue. What a fabulous newsletter opportunity if approached from a position of educating your donors about how these rating systems work. Charities can also talk about impact as being a more realist measure.

In the past when bad press for charities hits the mainstream media I have sent letters out to all donors saying “You may have read that….this is where we stand (with admin rates, cost of fundraising whatever)’. If a mistake was made an upfront letter apologizing and letting them know what you are going to do. Remember – donors are onto us! They know this game. As Ken Burnett says they give in spite of us not because of us.

In my experience proactive, candid, transparent communications like these most likely increase support and loyalty.

Love your blog! Keep up the great work.
Kimberley

I absolutely agree with your suggestion that the organization look at whether any of their current donors complained about the ranking – continuing to nurture those relationships should always be a top priority.

And, I think you make some great points about how we often take things incredibly personally … when they really aren’t about us.

I also really like Tom’s article suggestion – address the issue head-on and create an opportunity to “blare the trumpets.”

Along those same lines, I would suggest providing current and prospective donors with hard evidence that you’re actually achieving your mission. Personally, I’m not as concerned about a ranking as I am about how effective the organization is – and, having proof helps!

If the real story, in other words, is (1) Charity Navigator’s inflexible, subtlety-deaf approach to ratings (a problem often remarked on by experts); and (2) your organization is truly a terrific charity, well, heck: blare the trumpets.

I don’t believe in leaving “erroneous negatives” unchallenged. They have insidious side effects. Here, a donor told the charity he did not make a gift because the rating was not 4-star. How many others, I wonder, didn’t make a gift for the same reason — yet never bothered to tell the charity?

I’ve heard that some donors restrict their giving only to Charity Navigator’s 4-star picks. If you’re not a 4-star, yet you really are terrific, I think you need an explanation handy. I’d consider that explanation part of the standard case for support.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ben_stroup: DEL.ICIO.US UPDATE Successful Fundraising – Not for the Thin-Skinned | Pamela Grow’s Grantwriti… http://bit.ly/duLYiQ [http://ow.ly/TFhn]…

That said, they could do a survey of all their donors / potential donors that includes one question (among many) about why they didn’t donate (if they didn’t). Obviously they should use a survey tool that allows for conditional questions, meaning that if they answered “no” to “Have you donated?”, then a follow up question would be displayed. Gravity Forms, a WordPress plugin is a good tool for this.

They should be surveying their supporters anyhow.