What kind of relationships do you want with your supporters — transactional or communal?
In exchange relationships the focus is squarely on exchange. We may feel that we have a relationship with our butcher or baker, but it typically consists of a reliable series of exchanges that result in the satisfaction of both parties. We get our bacon or our bread and reciprocate by paying the supplier for their services. It is therefore a tit-for-tat exchange of benefits. Neither cares about the welfare of the other per se, they only care about acting in a way that will result in their own satisfaction. Meeting one’s own needs is always the end.
In communal relationships, by contrast, each person feels responsible for the other’s welfare. The interactions that occur between two individuals in a communal relationship are based on genuine concerns they have for each other’s well-being. We desire and/or feel obligated to help the other person when they are in need. We help the other person simply because we can, looking for nothing in exchange. It is not a tit-for-tat exchange of benefits as they may or may not reciprocate. Meeting another’s need can be a genuine end in and of itself, not a means to achieve any personal benefits in return.
Communal relationships are important because they can be loving relationships and of course love is at the core of philanthropy.
Our recent experiments have shown that as relationships are re-oriented to communal, giving increases and increases substantially.
We can help you assess the current nature and health of your supporter relationships and reorient your approach to build more loving communal relationships.
We can give you access to the science of love and help you with testing to put that love at the core of your donor experience.
“I realized, it’s about how they feel when they give … not the transaction. Everything we do should be made with hope, compassion, and kindness. It’s about the reflection of who our donors are and dream to be… We began a new donor journey as soon as we could … and frankly, we went all in with it.”