Doctors find wrong cure for fund designation problem

A donor moved to respond to the Haiti Quake through Doctors Without Borders will end up on a giving page that has, in part, this copy:

We are now asking our donors to give to our Emergency Relief Fund. These types of funds ensure that our medical teams can react to the Haiti emergency and humanitarian crises all over the world, particularly neglected crises that remain outside the media spotlight. Your gift via this website will be earmarked for our Emergency Relief Fund.

I understand the problem. A large-scale disaster like the Haiti Earthquake can motivate so much giving that it swamps an organization's ability to spend the revenue effectively. At the same time, lesser-known situations go under-funded. Naturally, it would be better if the funds that are pouring in for Haiti relief could be used more flexibly to save lives in Haiti or in the next disaster.

But why are they taking the decision out of their donors' hands? By doing so, they force each donor to make a decision:

1. "That's okay, no problem. I was moved to give by the situation in Haiti, but I see your point and I'll gladly help in this way."
2. "No, I specifically want to make a difference right now in Haiti, not elsewhere."

I'll guess a lot of people go with #1. Those who say #2 have to go find another place to give. Or not give at all.

Doctors Without Borders is missing an opportunity here. If they would let the donors choose whether their gift goes to Haiti or the Emergency Relief Fund, they'd see three things happen:

1. They get the revenue that they're now turning away from those who are determined to give to Haiti and nothing else.
2. They'd also get the revenue from the others who are okay with the beyond-Haiti choice -- probably more of this than they get when they don't give a choice.
3. Better yet, they'd see improved giving across the board. Testing shows that giving donors meaningful choice increases average gift as well as subsequent gift frequency and retention

By unilaterally taking choice away from their donors and would-be donors, the organization limits their own revenue. That's too bad.

Donors don't automatically do exactly what we want them to do. Rather than limit their options and force their behavior, why not act in partnership, treating them as adults who can make meaningful choices?

Thanks to Prospecting for the tip.