Can You ‘Hatch’ A Multi-Channel Donor?
I hope you read Roger’s post Monday — 3 Truths And 1 Lie — comparing online and offline donors, and discussing some of the myths involved. And further, I hope you read the analysis by Steve MacLaughlin on which Roger relied.
What their analysis confirms is that multi-channel donors — those giving both online and offline — are the most valuable donors of all.
Which raises a sort of chicken or egg question — can a multi-channel donor be ‘hatched’?!
Or is this creature just a gift of nature? An oddity for which you should thank your lucky stars.
What’s the path to creating a multi-channel donor? The optimist hopes for one.
Or is it sheer accident — your nonprofit throws mud at every wall in sight, postal mailing today, emailing tomorrow? And by happenstance your donor responds to mail one time and email the next? To me, that suggests a ‘channel neutral’ donor who, thankfully, happens to be more committed than most donors to your organization. By ‘more committed’ I mean they’re willing to pay attention to your messaging however it arrives. Being pessimistic, I’m guessing that their special commitment precedes your communications tactics! Sorry about that. You’re just lucky to have that donor.
Or is there a strategy involved?
Does your organization have a deliberate strategy aimed at encouraging, say, first-time postal donors to offer up their email addresses so they can be approached online? Do you have a deliberate strategy aimed at accomplishing the reverse?
And if you’ve tried to accomplish this conversion methodically, how well has it worked? Is it easier to get a follow-on offline gift from a donor who initially gives online. Or the reverse? In either case, the challenge is to get the donor to proffer that extra second bit of needed information — the other address — you don’t possess at the outset.
If you don’t ask for it, you won’t get it!
But what’s your answer to why you need it?
And if your donor expresses a channel preference, do you honor it?
I guess what’s bugging me in this multi-channel discussion is: if you don’t have an effective plan for actually converting single-channel donors to multi-channel donors, who cares if multi-channel donors are more valuable? For you, it’s a moot discussion.
Unless you find they just hatch.
Tom
4 responses to “Can You ‘Hatch’ A Multi-Channel Donor?”
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
And what about gathering cell numbers? In a few years, I’ll bet texting will be just as an important channel for reaching supporters as mail and email. We are starting to gather those now.
Sounds like an opportunity for measuring “donor engagement” to me Tom…
I think Steve made the salient point yesterday which is that a donor is not online or offline. There are correlations with channel and behavior. Think for example of having access to the internet on a regular basis, having a credit card, being comfortable with putting your credit card or bank card information on the internet etc. So when we look at relationships of “online” versus “offline” donors we see these correlations play out. “Online” donors have a higher average gift, are younger, have higher incomes, etc.
Where we should be careful is talking about “Multi-Channel” donors. By definition they have made at least two gifts. One online and one offline.
Donors giving 2+ gift donors are going to look much better when compared to all donors, because they are not weighted down by the single gift donors.
I am not suggesting that the study from donorCentrix did not correct for this inherent flaw. There were also no conclusions drawn in Steve’s article that this inherent flaw would have contradicted. I do caution however, that we not make conclusions that were not made explicitly by the researchers themselves.
I think to the extent we can make any channel easy, secure, and rewarding we can increase donations through that channel. I do not think to your point Tom, that we can change someone’s propensity for our organization a lot by making it easier to give. The opposite is true however, if it is hard to give, unpleasant, or insecure, then we can diminish someone’s propensity.
When Gutenberg introduced printing, was it just another channel?