40 Nonprofit Trends
I finally got around to reading Sean Norris’ compilation of 40 Nonprofit Trends for 2017, as published in NonProfitPRO.
Part of me wants to ask, if there are actually 40 trends, is there any direction? Or are we talking chaos?
But actually his list, reflecting the views of a few dozen nonprofit practitioners and commentators, makes for interesting reading, even if you just want to test your own pattern-spotting abilities and prognostications against ‘the experts’.
The 40 trends are grouped in five categories: Big Ideas; Fundraising and Marketing; Tech, Online and Digital; Giving Trends and Donor Relations; and Leadership.
Here are the biggies as I see them:
- Continuing decline in numbers of donors and retention rates (the big kahuna trend).
- The Trump Administration (which might reverse the trend above, which would represent a windfall for fundraisers, not necessarily a triumph of strategy or skill).
- Increasing value of peer fundraising (reminding us it’s the donors who matter, not the professional fundraisers).
- Emulating the ‘Amazon Experience’ (growing recognition that ‘donor service’ — which includes knowing and respecting donor preferences — is a necessity and an investment, not a luxury or cost).
- Obsession with Millennials (paid for by Boomers who actually donate).
- Tapping the insights of behavioral science (we don’t have to rely on myths and gut instinct any more).
That’s a more manageable six trends.
Do you agree with/dispute those? Have others to offer?
Tom
2 responses to “40 Nonprofit Trends”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Hi Tom…great reduction of a very helpful much longer report. Well done. I would add a few more, namely;
Globalisation of fundraising, massive growth in fundraising and philanthropy in Asia (including China), Latin America and still growing in continental Europe
When ranked in terms of markets to invest in by international NGOs based on the comparative best return on investment the USA and Canada now rank very low as cost of acquisition is high, average gift value medium and attrition rates appalling (esp in the USA). (When will 90% of USA monthly donors pay via EFT like the rest of the world??)
We have a global crisis of the shortage of senior fundraising leadership and new generation leaders taking over from the baby boomers in markets such as the USA. Lack of diversity at the top of fundraising is a disaster in all markets. I should know having hired 458 posts for over 186 clients in 122 locations worldwide.
I hope that this helps Tom and Roger and keep up the great work at the Agitator!!
Cheers
Daryl
I’m preparing a talk on the State of Philanthropy for early March. I’ve challenged myself to ground it in data as much as possible.
Here’s my absolute biggest concern:
Wealth disparity continues to rise. The biggest NGOs in the US (less than 1%) are eating up virtually all of the philanthropy. The Chuck Collins IPS Gilded Age study raises important questions about who gives and who gets. The overwhelming majority of US public charities, those small and medium sized organizations, simply don’t have the funds to compete for talented fund development staff or new technology to keep up. E.g. according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Dana Farber boosted its donor relations staff from 11 to 28 over the last decade for 14 percentage point gain in retention.
What if we stopped blaming the small guys and started talking more publicly about the severity of the disadvantage under which they operate. No, I’m not letting small organizations totally off the hook for improving their fundraising practicese. But they are being overwhelmingly outspent, out big-data-ed and out-performed by those at the tippy top. And as our society becomes even more segregated by wealth, will the richest even care about giving to help the rest of us? Again in CoP, 20% of dollars given by the top 50 donors went to universities with endowments of more than $3 Billion! What does this mean for society when the richest wall themselves off in private enclaves with private security forces and private clubs and private beaches and elite institutions, no longer participating in civic society? This is the most important conversation we need to have, IMHO.