COIF Scottish Fundraising Conference 2026 - book now

Lapsed Donors – part one of a diatribe in three parts

Howard Lake | 15 June 2010 | Blogs

Q. When is a lapsed donor not a lapsed donor? A. When they don’t think they are.

I have been thinking a lot about lapsed donors lately. In part this is probably because we are engaged in some “reactivation” work for a client in this area, but more so because very recently I received a letter from a charity we personally support asking me to renew my support for the organisation.

This gave me pause for thought.

Advertisement

Posthub advert. Meet the postal partner that saves time and money for charities. Like yours.

The thought being if I needed to ‘renew’ my support, presumably I was now considered a lapsed donor.

My first response to this thought was one of irritation.

Irritation that I was considered a lapsed supporter when I considered myself anything but, and irritation that the charity I was supporting (or should that now be had supported?) didn’t realise this. Granted I hadn’t given to an appeal for a while, but I had sponsored someone quite a significant sum who was doing an event for that same charity – so to my mind, I had still given relatively recently.

My irritation was petty maybe (well definitely), but it is often the small things in life that annoy the most. In fact, I have found this irritated response is relatively common from “lapsed donors”. Last year on more than one occasion, I was doing Focus Groups for a number of clients that included groups of lapsed donors. In one I made the mistake of referring to the fact that none of the group were actively supporting the charity any longer, and got a unanimous and very robust rebuttal of such a statement. Without exception they all considered themselves to be supporters still – they just hadn’t made a financial gift in a while. For some, that might have been quite a long while, but irrespective of this, they were not pleased at being told they had stopped supporting the charity.

Of course, on reflection I appreciate that a charity cannot know whether each and every individual still considers themselves a supporter or not. Equally, a charity has a duty to spend funds wisely and not waste money communicating with those people who no longer feel engaged or wish to hear from the charity, And I believe it is sensible to try and establish whether (after a certain amount of time) someone is still interested in hearing from you or not.

But I do think we could be a wee bit more careful, even thoughtful about the language we use and the impression it can create.

After all who wants to annoy a donor, lapsed or otherwise.

Loading

Mastodon