Blame It On The Boomers
Matt Thornhill of The Boomer Project is one of my favorite marketing pundits on my generation.
In Blame The Boomers (Again) on the blog Engage:Boomers he takes on those who say the Boomers are to blame for America’s decline — e.g., the theory of NY Times columnist Tom Friedman.
Since we’ll all be trying to raise money from Boomers for the next few decades (the youngest Boomer is 47 years old), it’s useful to compare theories on what these rascals are all about.
Says Thornhill:
“… more than any other generation today, Boomers are waging an economic revolution that will slowly but steadily shift societal views of economic success from what’s happening on Wall Street back to what’s happening on our streets.
Signs of this change are already showing up in the personal finances of Boomers and how they are consuming goods and services.
For example, Boomers are now hoarding their nuts rather than displaying them for all to see. How? The old-fashioned way, by prioritizing their needs over their wants and living on a budget.”
He continues:
“We know it’s easy to blame Boomers for, well, everything. But maybe it’s the Boomer generation’s ultimate legacy to shape a new ethos for our society — responsible consumerism.
It seems the message of Depression-Era parents has finally taken root in the Boomer brain: save money and live within your means. Boomers account for only one in four Americans, but they are responsible for over two-thirds of consumer spending. If they consume in a more responsible manner, so too will others.”
If Thornhill is right, where does charitable giving fit into the Boomer mindset of ‘responsible consumerism’?
Less impulse giving? More demand for evidence of results and performance? More loyalty once they’ve found a charity that ‘works’?
What do you think?
Tom
4 responses to “Blame It On The Boomers”
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
You ask some vital but tough questions, Tom.
I’d say yes to all of the features of “responsible giving” you outline above, PLUS a crucial role for charities to educate and nurture responsible giving, as part of the larger rubric of responsible consumerism.
Consider a charity providing guidance (webinar, direct mail?) on giving practices as a whole, beyond its own ask. Think the tact has great potential.
“If Thornhill is right, where does charitable giving fit into the Boomer mindset of ‘responsible consumerism’?”
I would hope that would translate into more charitable giving as they are less likely to spend on ‘wants’ and direct their resources to real ‘needs’ charitable organizations are addressing.
As a baby boomer bmyself I identify with this sterotype, but not all boomers are the same – especially if you extend to those born 1960 – 1964. They grew up with punk rock not the sixties flower power!
Boomers of which I am an early member, have at our roots in the skepticism of the 60’s – “Never trust anyone over 30.” We have the indulgences of the late 80’s and 90’s and now, out of necessity, we are taking stock in our good and really poor decisions.
Many have little wealth, unless inherited. Many of us are hoarding what we do have and social conscience may have taken a back seat to our personal needs. In my opinion, we will see fewer major gifts, lower valued wills and estates, less upgrading without a specific reason and not by the 1x, 1.5x, 2x ask strings.
Once we get a donor we must make sure we are communicating at their level and commitment and deepen the relationship. As this blog has long said, donor loyalty is the key. Lots of boomers and we need to find out the ones in which to invest.