Nonprofits and apologies, part II: Apologize like Toyota

In last week’s column on apologies, we talked about how to apologize.

Today we examine for what nonprofits should be apologizing.

Rick Newman’s What GM can learn from Toyota’s humility concludes that the occasions on which a company apologizes conveys company standards quite loudly and effectively to the company’s customers…and to the general public.

Newman contrasts the reactions of GM and Toyota to the losses both have sustained in the recession.

First, Toyota. The auto giant posted an $8.4 billion loss in the fiscal year ending in March, with sales on track to decline another 18% this year. Staggering numbers to be sure, but, as Newman notes, no worse than the industry average in this recession. Further, analysts predict Toyota will continue to gain market share over the next several years, becoming the first foreign automaker ever to sniff the top sales spot in the U.S.

Yet the reaction of Toyota’s CEO Akio Toyoda is telling:

Toyota’s CEO, Akio Toyoda, said at a recent news conference that his company is “grasping for salvation” and is deep in the grip of long-term decline. “Toyota has become too big and distant from its customers,” Toyoda said grimly. Then he apologized for losing money and letting down the motoring public.

Contra GM, notes Newman:

Apologizing for missteps helps explain Toyota’s success—and Detroit’s decline. It’s hard to imagine an American CEO apologizing for much of anything, and GM, Toyota’s biggest rival, has done the opposite for years, hyping even the lamest products. GM famously predicted it would claim U.S. market share of 29 percent sometime in the early 21st century and reach earnings of $10 per share. Instead, its market share has dwindled to about 19 percent, and the company recorded historic losses before declaring bankruptcy. For 20 years, GM has maintained that eight divisions—five more than Toyota—was the right number, until it was on the verge of bankruptcy, when four divisions suddenly seemed like the right number. And, of course, former CEO Rick Wagoner insisted that bankruptcy would be ruinous, instead pleading for an open-ended lifeline from the federal government; four months after declaring bankruptcy, GM seems to be doing OK.

Despite receiving that $51 billion lifeline, notes Newman, GM has never apologized. Instead, emerging from bankruptcy, its new motto is, May the best car win.

It all begs an important question for us nonprofits:

For what do we apologize?

It’s obvious that we should apologize when we fail to remove a deceased spouse’s name off the mailing label.

But what about when we fail to make a genuine difference in the cause?

When I served as President of the Los Angeles Mission, I can recall seeing statistics showing that the number of homeless people in the city of Los Angeles had actually increased during the time the Los Angeles Mission grew from a $120,000 annual budget to a $21 million one.

At the time, I took a GM-like approach to it all, comforting myself by looking at the soaring number of shaves, showers, nights of shelter, and rehab program graduates we were providing.

Now, looking back, I wonder what would have happened if I had taken the approach of Akio Toyoda. Can you imagine the headline in the Los Angeles Times:

Homeless Shelter President Apologizes to Los Angeles Residents
“More homeless people are shaved and showered, but we haven’t made a dent in the homeless problem in the city of Los Angeles”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Great resources for apologizing to donors/champions

All of us nonprofits occasionally do dumb things to our champions. Maybe we accidentally keep sending mail under the name of a deceased spouse even after the surviving spouse called, wrote a change request on a reply card, and sent a death certificate. Hey, these things happen.

Now, you’re not going to do things perfectly, so you’re going to have some grumpy sheep (those who felt jilted)!  But don’t let that scare you away or back off of still trying to care for them.  A few things you need to know is: 1) The better an organization is at resolving champion complaints or queries, the higher its rates of retention will be and 2) champions who complain are generally more loyal than those who do not, even though they are not able to obtain any satisfaction!
Take a look at this chart taken from: Building Donor Loyalty by Adrian Sargeant and Elain Jay:
In the first column is a group of champions who experienced a major problem with the organization and failed to complain. Only 8% of these individuals will offer another gift. However, if they encountered only a minor problem, the percentage of these individuals who will offer another gift rises to 31%.
The next group of champions are ones who had a major problem, and complained to the organization, but the complaint was never resolved.  About 18% percent of these will offer a subsequent gift.  If the problem was minor, the figure will be 47%.
Moving along the graph we find a group of champions who had a problem and complained to the organization, which resolved the issue to the champions’ satisfaction.  Of these champions, 53% will give again if the problem is a major one, and 69%, if it is a minor problem.
Finally, we have a group of champions who had a problem and complained to the organization, which instantly dealt with the matter to the champions’ satisfaction.  The percentage of these champions who will offer a subsequent gift is 82% for a major problem and 94% for a minor problem.
Rather than regarding complaint handling as a necessary evil, regard it as an opportunity to build champion loyalty.
What also happens, as you can imagine, is that the better we handle those complaints, the more likely the champion is to continue in relationship with our organization.
To wit, check out these stats from Building Donor Loyalty by Adrian Sargeant and Elaine Jay:
  • When champions experience a major problem with a nonprofit and fail to complain, only 8% will offer another gift.
  • When champions experience a major problem with a nonprofit and complain, but the nonprofit can’t fix the problem, 18% will offer a subsequent gift.
  • When champions experience a major problem with a nonprofit and complain, and the nonprofit eventually fixes the problem, 53% will give again.
  • When champions experience a major problem with a nonprofit and complain, and then nonprofit resolves the problem instantly, 82% will give again

There’s a message in there somewhere.

While you’re contemplating that message, have your staff closely review the free materials presented on these two sites:

Both sites contain dozens of extremely relevant examples. I’m in the process of training a ministry how to deal with complaints from champions, and I’ve assigned them to pick one of the examples and commit to trying that approach out in the coming month next time they encounter a “nasty” call (funny we characterize them that way).

Why not commit to the same exercise yourself?

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Is the church in recession or just on recess?

AP’s Rachel Zoll provides us with Religious life won’t be the same after downturn, the latest mass media update on how we Christian orgs are all faring amidst this recession:

  • Faith Communities Today’s David Roozen is projecting 320,000 to 350,000 congregations in economic distress in 2010. That’s around 1 in every 7.
  • The Association for Christian Schools International reports the closure or merger of 200 Christian schools, up 50 from last year.
  • 80 seminaries who are members of the Association of Theological Schools have seen their endowments drop by 20%.

My question: Was this something done to us…or something we did to ourselves?

Bishop Noel Jones, pastor of City of Refuge in Los Angeles, in MinistryToday:

We have endured 25 years of health, wealth and prosperity preaching, and the prophets should have told us that we were going to be in this kind of situation and circumstance since they have such ‘prophetic’ words. What happened is the church has capitalized the gospel and we have preached Americanism for gospel, and ultimately we ended up crashing because there is no credulity and authenticity in the whole presentation. The only people who were making any real money were those who were expostulating the theology that left the psychology that debilitated the minds of those who were involved. The debilitation is that everybody expected to bring an offering in church and just get rich though nobody participated and partnered with God. Because at the end of the day nobody receives a check in an envelope postmarked from heaven. It’s your participation that makes it happen. … The ministry and the preachers have taken so much money from the church and lived lavish lifestyles. We need to put something back. We need to equip our people. As James puts it, very explicitly, ‘Faith without works is dead.’ We co-create, we perpetuate God’s creation by functioning responsibly. So what everybody was talking about as God’s blessing was people living on credit. And the Bible says that the borrower is subject to the lender. So Christian America simply joined the capitalistic bandwagon and-in the name of God-articulated a theology that has no credulity.

Ring the bell. School’s now in session.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments