New Fund-Raising Product Stirs Privacy Concerns

August 19, 2008

New Fund-Raising Product Stirs Privacy Concerns

Fund raisers are debating the ethics of a new product designed to help fund raisers attract bequests and other gifts.

Created by two companies working jointly, the product, known as Planned Gift Prospector, offers a presentation on a compact disc that charities can send to donors. The presentation showcases each charity’s work and can be configured to ask donors to make a bequest or other planned gifts that provide tax breaks and other benefits.

What worries some fund raisers, however, is that whenever potential donors view the disc on a computer connected to the Internet, the product can track whether and how long each donor watches the presentation. That information, and other details about their viewing habits, are automatically sent to the charity — all without the donor’s knowledge.

Critics say that amounts to an invasion of donors’ privacy. “Inappropriate, invasive, insulting, and inexplicable,” wrote Roger Ellison, vice president of planned giving at the West Texas Rehabilitation Center Foundation, in San Antonio, in an online discussion list.

The companies defend their product, saying that it relies on the same technology charities use in e-mail campaigns to track which recipients open the e-mail message and other details.

What do you think? Does this approach raise questions — or do you think it’s appropriate? Let us know by clicking on the comment box below this link.

— Holly Hall

Comments

I can see this both ways. On the one hand, this doesn’t sound any different than email tracking, Web site analytics or any other electronic medium. On the other hand, that reasoning usually never holds up, and I can see where this sort of activity would appear to be an intrusion on a donor’s privacy, although one would presume that the donor has an existing relationship with these organizations allowing such information to be shared. I think ultimately it’s a beneficial tool to help non-profits better understand their donors, help make lasting connections and utilize scarce resouces in productive ways.

— Dustin Moody Aug 19, 01:25 PM #
Just as long as it’s not religious in nature.

:)

— David Hickman Aug 19, 02:04 PM #
At this point, just about everyone knows there’s limited if any privacy on the internet. If someone is interested enough to view the product, why shouldn’t the charity that sent it be made aware of this? Isn’t that the point of sending it – to see who is interested in this kind of gifting? Aren’t we all looking for the best ways for our prospects and current donors to make a gift?

— Lorri Greif Aug 19, 02:24 PM #
I agree with Lorri that just about everyone should have zero privacy expectations when it comes to viewing material on a web site, but there is a difference between that and a physical product that you put into a local machine. Unless explicitly told, most people will react negatively in that case to finding out that the material is “phoning home” without their knowledge. In an era when computer viruses and other malevolent software is a routine threat, people should ALWAYS be told when a piece of software is installed on their computer.

— Andrew Aug 19, 02:37 PM #
This is the future of many applications running on “personal” computers or laptops. This may be a question of being certain that the user is aware that the program sends viewing history, etc. back to the nonprofit soliciting it. If the makers offered viewers a method for ‘opting out’ of sharing their viewing, etc. history – that would be helpful, too. There are ways to deal with this. Meanwhile, users need to know that whatever they are using (the Internet, web applications, CD ROMS, DVD’s, or applications on their own PC may be relaying information to an interested party over the web. This is a very modern issue that isn’t limited to this software suite. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds; civil and privacy rights vs. overarching data gathering and or marketing data gathering….

— Arlene Spencer Aug 19, 02:39 PM #
I agree with Dustin. This strategy would work best on an internal list to help the non profit know who cares enough to view the video presentation. In many ways, it is more respectful to the prospect donors, because those who show the most interest in the communication can now be known and be followed up with in priority. Those who don’t view the presentation will be known as disinterested prospects.

— Michael Ames Aug 19, 02:54 PM #
Reading these comments is absolutely revolting.

Mature donors may not be conversant with the details of new technology such as e-mail tracking and website analytics, but you can bet your organization’s future that they expect you to ask permission before tracking their behavior.

However widespread the practice may be, stealth is far from innocuous, and will undermine any trust you may have developed. “Everybody does it” is a pathetic rationalization.

— Jeff Steele Aug 19, 03:00 PM #
Every time Excel crashes on my computer, it pops up a dialog box asking whether I want to send an error report to Microsoft. People who use this donor software should have the same ability to opt out.

For Excel, I usually click “Don’t Send” but mainly because it pops up almost every day. In contrast, when something crashes while I’m using my Mac, I almost always DO send the error report to Apple. Guess which company I trust more?

— Katie Aug 19, 03:21 PM #
Katie,
It does do that.
If the security settings on your computer are set that high (as they are in the way you have your OS configured) then a similar permission will be requested.
Many people are used to granting permission as second nature, some think it through every time the box comes up, others have opened up their security settings to not ask that question any longer.

— Michael Ames Aug 19, 03:27 PM #
In the interest of full disclosure, we are writing to let readers know that Michael Ames is with Pursuant, one of the companies that created the product.

— The Editors, Chronicle of Philanthropy Aug 19, 04:11 PM #
In his article “Do Your Stakeholders Think You’re a Spammer?”, Michael Gilbert points out, “The law is often not a very good guide to either professional ethics or effective practices. There’s nothing in the law that prevents you from insulting your major donors either, but you still don’t do it, right?”

Sending your donors a product that spies on them is insulting. Sending it without disclosing what it does is a breach of trust. Either way, you’re likely to turn off a certain number of donors. In this case, what’s wrong is also unprofitable!

— Dennis Fischman Aug 20, 10:26 AM #
I find Mr. Ellison’s reaction embarrassing. These products have existed for years. His opinion seems antiquated and idealistic. Does this mean our profession should abstain from wealth screenings and background searches, which by definition are much more invasive? No, I think Mr. Ellison would still want these tools at his disposal. Why then, should online activity be any different?

— anonymous Aug 20, 02:26 PM #
This is an interesting debate. It is true that anyone sending out an email campaign today is (hopefully) using metrics to evaluate its traction. If they aren’t they are wasting time and money. Those metrics are telling fundraisers: who opened their emails, who forwarded the email, how long the email was open, did it spur donors to click through to the website, which pages did they visit, if they gave and much, much more.

When you send a direct mail solicitation, you are tracking when it dropped, if it was opened and responded to or if it was returned to sender undeliverable.

With the DVD / CD-rom product NOTHING is being downloaded. No cookies are being left behind. I am simply being told if my campaign piece was opened and if it was watched and shared. Interestingly, if the computer is not connected to the internet it won’t send back the message. Viewers are asked at the end to click on the button to tell me if they are already planned givers or would like more information. If the fundraiser is not contacted then I will know they weren’t interested in my work.

The fact is the every single website you go to is collecting cookies about your visit and your machine. People have come to accept this. Each one these videos can be personalized with the prospect’s name and can even have the narrator SPEAK their name during the presentation. (I heard a presentation by Planned Gift Prospector at an AFP conference and was impressed) there is also another firm See3 Communications that does similar work—also impressive.

Certainly if you are “repulsed” or “revolted” by this technology, then you are probably not going to take advantage of it to advance your NPO’s mission using them to learn more about your donors to connect with them in more and more meaningful ways. If you feel pangs of unease, then be upfront and add the opt in or out option to the presentation or state the fact in the cover letter. If you are worried, do a focus group or test sending cds to donors you told and those you didn’t about the info gathering going on and see what the play rate is. Simple.

Web 2.0 and advances in technology are far outpacing most fundraisers’ ability to keep up with it all… especially ones in small shops who are not up to the minute on these things. True: sometimes those on the cutting edge, bleed. Or they are on the ball and get what they need to advance the org’s mission. I am shocked to see at major AFP seminars how few of my peers have heard of Facebook, Myspace, Linkedin, Twitter and other forms of social networking that they could use to advance their mission and connect with donors. One of my clients even went so far as to ask their board if they could open a Facebook account for their members…and the answer was no. Too bad. They are missing a great opportunity to interact with their donors. These CDs (and the deep communications they facilitate) are no different.

Different orgs have varying degrees of acceptance and adoption of fundraising technology tools and will have to make their own way. I think if a cd-rom campaign is implemented with tact and grace and the honest intention of determining which donors are most interested in the NPO’s work, those donors are going to appreciate the savvy and good stewardship that went into creating the campaign in the first place. Did it raise money? Did it bring the donors closer to the mission? Will they reward the org because they have been visually inspired to give and are being communicated with in uber-personal way on a micro level? I think that this is a, “good thing.”

Jared B. Hughes
Principal and Founder
Bellwether [Legacy] Fundraising
www.BellwetherFundraising.com

— Jared B. Hughes Aug 20, 03:25 PM #
Any email that is sent and opened in a communication campaign would need to be considered “spying” in the same way the word is being used in this discussion. This service should be equated with the kind of service that Constant Contact provides to so many non profits (to send and know open and click-through rates) We extended the same interactive technology to hard media. It’s different than spying.

It is new, so it will be debated, but it is not more progressive than many other products that have been in broad use by NPOs for years.

But, Jared is correct, if you would like to bold a disclosure notice on the packaging that explains that the media on the CD performs as any email campaign does, the messaging is fully customizable for you.

— Michael Ames Aug 20, 05:37 PM #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: How to Raise Money from Companies in a Tight Economy
Next: How to Persuade Online Supporters to Give

Related Articles

Blogroll

New Fund-Raising Product Stirs Privacy Concerns

Comments