What can we learn from Haiti fundraising efforts?

Over at The Agitator, Roger Craver and Tom Belford are having a provocative, and somewhat surprising, debate about whether the work of the American Red Cross in the last week really deserves to be called "fundraising." Tom says it's merely "gift receiving."  Roger, if I may paraphrase, considers it a laudable success, saying they "are doing everything right."

I side with Roger.  Assuming the money is well spent, I think we should applaud the American Red Cross, not criticize it.

But can those of us not in the disaster field learn from this success?

Yes.  And no.

Yes because, it seems to me, the American Red Cross's response was a case study in preparedness.  When the awful quake hit, they were up and running right away on multiple channels -- Website, texting, Facebook, Twitter, etc.  I didn't hear many stories about crashing systems or scrambling to get a strategy in place.

And so I disagree heartily with Tom when he says that what they're doing is mere gift receiving.  All of the work that went into having the right infrastructure in place for quick and robust response was first-rate fundraising.  But fundraising of an unusual variety.

But on the other hand (this is the "no" part) it would be illogical to transfer the mass response techniques of national and international disaster organizations to the contexts of most other kinds of fundraising.  I cringe at the thought of a board or staff somewhere saying "let's stop all of this direct mail/grant writing/corporate sponsorship/major gifts/special events nonsense and just get people to text us $10 at a time.  It works for the Red Cross!"

What surprises me about this debate is the bitterness which some participants seem to feel about the lack of sustained engagement in this immediate-response form of fundraising.  As if it's somehow a betrayal of our fundraising values.

We need to distinguish between the kind of relationship-building fundraising that sustains our organizations, and the ability to raise significant amounts of cash quickly in extraordinary circumstances.

So what if most of those $10 texters don't sustain a relationship with the Red Cross?  Why should the ARC (or any of us) be worried about that now?

As long as they are maintaining and building other relationships -- and maintaining the infrastructure to handle surges of response -- why do they also need to have a long-term relationship with an enormous category of people who may only ever want to respond in ultra-intense situations?

And God knows: when catastrophe strikes, we don't want our disaster response nonprofits demanding a long-term relationship before they'll accept a donation.