The Nonprofit World’s Robot Problem: AI Does Not Replace Donor Engagement

A couple of things happened recently that reminded me of an old saying, “If you don’t want to be replaced by a robot, stop behaving like one.”

In November, a new online artificial intelligence (AI) program called ChatGPT was released in a free test mode. It can hold a conversation, answer questions and create eerily accurate written statements. 

The second thing was an email that hit my inbox:

Hi ken@storyboardhtx.com,

When you see or hear your name you kind of perk up, don’t you?

The email went on to explain how to create a “conversation” with donors by using their first names in emails and how automation could let me do that with a click of a button. We’ve had the ability to merge names and other information into emails for a long time, but, as this one proves, it is only as good as the human entering the information. Since I was probably the human that entered the wrong information on the sign-up form in the first place, I suspect I will be their close personal friend ken@storyboardhtx.com from now until forever.

Nonprofits have a bit of a robot problem on their hands and, as in any good sci-fi movie, the robots come bearing gifts. Automation and machine learning can make our lives simpler. They can save us time, money and even staff positions. Without them we could never hope to reach the number of donors it takes to make our nonprofits successful.

We can already personalize our mass emails with all sorts of:

Hi [first name], I noticed that your dog has a birthday coming up on [pet date of birth]. Don’t you think [pet name] would appreciate it if you made a gift to our capital campaign in [pet name]’s honor?

Systems can also automatically learn from donor behavior and tailor our communications to their specific likes and habits. Now, we are suddenly moving beyond that with AI technologies that write those pesky emails for us, typo free and at little or no cost.

Chat GPT is getting a lot of buzz because it is currently free for anyone to test. It can hold a conversation, answer questions and create eerily accurate written statements.

How good are the new robo-writers? I asked the program to explain the meaning of “if you don’t want to be replaced by a robot, don’t act like one.”

Here’s what I received:

This statement is often used as a way to encourage people to be more human and less robotic in their behavior. It suggests that if people are too predictable or mechanical in their actions, they may be at risk of being replaced by robots, which are often able to perform tasks more efficiently and consistently. On the other hand, if people are able to bring their unique qualities and characteristics to their work and interactions, they may be less likely to be replaced by machines.

Yikes! Couldn’t have said it better myself. What’s not to like about a development assistant that never sleeps, doesn’t require much more than an extension cord and never microwaves fish in the office kitchen? 

Well, maybe a few things. For starters, we are kind of insulting our donors’ intelligence. It’s perfectly OK to use someone’s name in an email to get their attention, but that doesn’t mean you have a relationship, and they know it. It’s also a little dishonest, don’t you think? That is especially true if we pretend a computer-generated email came from the nonprofit CEO.

The biggest problem is that it changes the relationship we have with our donors. The always clever cartoonist Mark Anderson drew a cartoon showing a robot holding up an ATM. That defines the nonprofit world’s robot problem. The more we act like robots, the more our donors look like ATMS to us.

Let’s just ask ChatGPT to explain why that’s a bad thing:

It means that it is functioning in a mechanical and impersonal manner. This can include automating communication with donors and lacking a personal touch in its interactions with them. When a nonprofit treats its donors like ATMs, it means that it is only interested in extracting financial donations from them, rather than building a genuine relationship with them. This type of behavior can be off-putting to donors and can lead to a decrease in charitable giving.

That is so accurate it is creepy!

By way of example, let me tell you about a call I made to thank a new donor recently. I asked him why he had chosen my client, a youth-focused nonprofit, out of the 32,000 charities in Houston. He explained that he had been a juror in a murder trial. He realized that both the defendant and the victim were shaped by their impoverished backgrounds. After the trial, he went looking for a nonprofit that was trying to break that cycle and that is why he gave it to this nonprofit. 

That call told me more about our supporters than any algorithm ever could.

We need to use AI and automation to increase our effectiveness but never let it replace our judgment or our passion for our missions. We need to remember that, like the Tin Man in “The Wizard of Oz,” nonprofits may have the right tools, but they are nothing without a heart.

The preceding blog was provided by an individual unaffiliated with NonProfit PRO. The views expressed within do not directly reflect the thoughts or opinions of NonProfit PRO.