Uneasy Rhetoric

I have been inundated with all of the “old school” fundraising techniques and theories, one of the most important of which is that, in order to keep a donor coming back, you have to engage them, make them feel a part of the organization. In return, you would receive the donor’s loyalty. Be responsive to the donor, and they would return year after year. Pay enough attention, and they would upgrade their membership from time to time and perhaps you would become one of the handful of organizations that donor decided to make a major commitment to - be it a big check or a line in her will.

That model still largely holds true, but the always-erudite Mark Schmitt argues that the nature of the relationship between the donor and the organization is changing from a “membership” model to a “transactional” one. Once upon a time, being a “member” of an organization meant so much that people would simply open up their wallets and give. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Sierra Club may see peaks and valleys in their membership numbers based on whether a particular issue was hot, but they could always count on a base of supporters who would come back year after year because they believed in the mission as much as the message or the methods.

Mark seems to be saying that the cachet of being a “card carrying member” of anything is losing its charm, and that organizations, and especially political organizations, would do well to embrace the idea of a “transactional” relationship with its constituency.

How would this work? Take the Sierra Club as an example. Under the “membership” model, people would (ideally) become members of the Sierra Club because they believed in the concept of protecting the environment. “Members” would not necessarily care about or agree with every action the Sierra Club pursued, but they would support the concept and would continue to give to the organization.

The transactional model works a little differently. The Sierra Club provides a service, for example, they fight an effort to develop environmentally sensitive land in Southern California. They solicit the support of their constituency. Those who support and feel strongly about the effort give money. The others wait until the Sierra Club does something they do feel strongly about. Donors will not be giving to the Sierra Club because they “protect the environment” but because they fought a particular law or worked to pass specific legislation. At a dinner party they might say “I gave money to save the freckled redheaded newt” instead of “I give to the Sierra Club.”

To some degree, though, donor relationships to membership organizations have always been transactional. As Mark says:

As long as the transactions work for them, they remain and their engagement deepens, but if the actions seem to be ineffective or participants disagree with their viewpoint or the issues aren’t engaging, they’re gone.

NARAL saw its membership numbers decline during the Clinton Administration as people felt that abortion rights were somehow “safe.” (When will people learn that politics happens in the short term, and thus requires long-term vigilance?) The ACLU and the Sierra Club can also expect to see membership rise and fall depending on the media profile of their issues.

But in the past, all three organizations could depend on a stalwart set of supporters who identified themselves as members and supporters of the organization, and not just the issue. Mark is arguing that those days are numbered. (Except perhaps for the ACLU, who will probably have strong membership identification at least until those of us who were of voting age during the Bush-Dukakis race forget what it means to be a “card-carrying member” of the ACLU.) I tend to agree, but I think it is more true for political organizations like Moveon.org than it is for more narrowly-defined issue organizations.

However, issue organizations would do well to embrace the newer, transactional, nature of their constituency. It may be that Mark is right, and that, as the population ages, fewer people will care about being identified as a member of anything. They won’t care that the organization be around for the long term to protect the environment, or civil liberties, or the right to an abortion. They will only care what the organization is doing right now.

Fundraising gurus have recognized this, but especially with regards to technology. To raise money via email, they are saying, you have to give the donor something to do. At the very least, there need to be links to click that go somewhere besides your contributions page. Better, you should allow your donor to take some kind of action. The transactional donor doesn’t give because your organization is doing something he can’t do, the transactional donor gives because your organization is giving him the ability to do something himself.

Someone once told me that people give to organizations because they did not or could not “throw the brick at the system” themselves. Now, people still don’t want to mess with building the brick, but they sure would like to touch it before it gets chucked.

What does all this mean for my work? Probably not very much. Fundraising has always been somewhat transactional, and the best nonprofits know that the member/donor/constituent has to feel, always, like they are getting something for their money, even if that something is peace of mind or a less guilty conscience.

For political organizations though, it means a lot. People will only continue giving until the next big thing comes along. In 2004, the hot organization was Moveon.org. Who is to say who it will be in 2006? Or in 2008? If Moveon wants to survive it needs to find the next hot issue on which to hang its hat. If someone else beats them to it, they may well become irrelevant. Although I have my doubts, it would appear the era of institutionalized political organizations is coming to an end.

Is that really so bad? I think so. Go back to what I said earlier: When will people learn that politics happens in the short term, and thus requires long-term vigilance? Without institutions who exist for the long term, this kind of vigilance can’t happen.