Let me suggest that for fundraisers there are three levels of analysis — three forms of perspective — about what’s going on with donors. Here are my terms for them:

1. Ignorespective

2. Retrospective

3. Introspective

Now, ‘Ignorespective’ (pronounced IGno-respective) really means no analysis or perspective at all. Just keep on doing. Pedal to the metal. No context. No reason except it’s what’s familiar, has always been done, reflects unexamined ‘best practice’. Too busy to change or question. Laziest approach. Ignorant.

‘Retrospective’ is focused on yesterday, the month before, the year before. It’s all about transactional data — response rates, average gifts, incremental testing, last year’s event. This of course is much better than Ignorespective. At least it reflects some intellectual curiosity. An effort to find an empirical or evidential basis for planning next steps. An opportunity to assess comparative success of tactics.

But Retrospective alone can be problematic. Historical data obsession. It can lead to ‘rear view mirror’ driving. Not anticipating important changing factors or circumstances.

And as Charlie Hulme of DonorVoice writes in this 101 Fundraising blog post — How to reduce attrition 50% by doing (almost) nothing:

“But that data can never tell you just how much money you could have raised, but lost. And it can never tell you why you lost it!

It can’t ever tell you why someone went to your donation page but didn’t donate. It can’t ever tell you what they like about your e-news and how it’s affecting their decision the next time they receive an appeal. It can only tell you what happened. It can never tell you why.”

“It can never tell you why.”

‘Why?’ is the most crucial question to answer … and it’s the one requiring  ‘Introspective’ analysis. Gathering and reflecting on information that reveals what the donor is/was thinking, feeling, doing, or trying to do.

‘Introspective’ analysis demands the hardest work. It requires inquiring of the donor about his or her experience of the organization. Gathering, interpreting and acting upon feedback. It distinguishes the fundraiser from the analyst. The feedback mechanism can be automated and mechanical (here is DonorVoice’s free tool), or person-to-person in the form of telephone surveys and live donor call-in or ‘customer service’ lines. Either way, it inquires into donor experience.

The important point is that you are searching for the answer to ‘Why?’.

What are you doing to get ‘Why?’ answers?

Tom