Are We Getting Any Better?
In a recent column, the editor of Direct Marketing News, Ginger Conlon, delivered an inspiring pitch on behalf of direct marketing. She spoke of direct marketers being able to ‘out market’ the competition by “using data to gain a unique understanding of customers that will allow marketers to drive evangelism, purchasing, and loyalty—to predict their profitable future by using data to define it.”
We would expect nothing less rousing from the editor of DMNews.
Her column was titled, The Future of Marketing Is Direct, and she talked with insight about what has — and hasn’t — changed in the marketing arena.
Here’s the observation that most struck me …
“Today, marketers are awash in more customer data than they ever dreamed they’d have access to. They have technologies at their fingertips that allow them to attract, convert, engage, and retain customers more effectively and efficiently than ever before—often because many of those technologies also allow marketers to collect and use data to gain an understanding of individual customers that’s as good as one a customer may have with a favorite local merchant, but at scale. Marketers also have social and mobile tools that allow them to interact with customers and prospects to a degree unavailable in the past…”
Without doubt, the tools for marketing — including fundraising — are incredibly better.
So why are we stuck a rut in terms of giving’s share of the GDP pie, in terms of retention, in terms of acquisition?
We don’t seem to be getting any better at the craft … at using the new, more capable tools of the trade.
Sure, there’s the occasional shining star performer out there, but is their success the result of more brilliant fundraising or, instead, some happy confluence of events that make them appear simultaneously both more needed and more visible?
What’s your nonprofit’s growth curve looking like over the last ten years? Are you beating inflation? If you’ve grown, how/why? How has your fundraising become smarter?
Tom
P.S. Sorry to sound so grumpy. I just hate to see Roger Federer lose another Grand Slam.
4 responses to “Are We Getting Any Better?”
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
Hated to see Roger lose too…
This is what stood out to me:
“There are plenty of marketers who would like to take a more omnichannel approach, but they’re mired in an older, more siloed approach to marketing, often because their team and processes are designed around a more traditional marketing approach. Ending fiefdoms, bridging silos, and facilitating the collaboration needed to shift to a more omnichannel approach takes tremendous will—as well as C-level buy-in and significant staffing, process, and technology changes.”
Tom, many nonprofits simply are not using the information that’s available to them.
Many spend tons of time and money on data only to noodle it by looking at amazing charts that present thrilling potential.
The key is to build systems that take the data and put it to work automatically. Thankfully these systems exist today and are available at relatively low cost.
Of course, in full-disclosure… I invented such an automated fundraising system. All it requires is approval. Then it works to generate major and planned gifts (yes… gifts $$$) and highly qualified leads (so fundraisers can more easily arrange meetings with hi-value prospects).
It’s not hard. And it isn’t expensive. In fact, it lowers fundraising costs dramatically.
It simply requires the elimination of inertia.
Tom, I’m so glad you enjoyed the article.
I had a conversation with a top-notch data-driven marketer today who I’ve known for many years. He said marketers today have no excuse for saying they don’t understand their consumers because of the reams of data available to marketers.
Thanks for your post!