Communication Versus Transaction
Last week I noted some figures that online fundraising accounted for 6.4% of all fundraising in the US in 2013, while the growth rate for online fundraising was 13.5%. And with some math jujitsu I projected that at that rate online fundraising might take 17 years to break the 50% of fundraising barrier.
Blackbaud’s Steve MacLaughlin, source of the 2013 numbers, commented:
“We are seeing the slow and inevitable shift from one thing to another. And as with any technology it doesn’t happen as fast as we might think.
I would also caution people not to confuse channel of communication with channel of transaction. This is why direct mail, phone, radio, TV, etc aren’t going anywhere.”
His distinction between ‘communication’ and ‘transaction’ channel is an important one.
I wonder how many nonprofits, enthusiastically reporting their ‘online fundraising growth rate’ to their Boards, can actually identify the true source of their new donors.
What communications stimulus actually triggered the donation that was made online? A mailing from the organization? A newspaper mention? A friend’s recommendation (and was that delivered in person, online, in a text message)? An apparently random visit to the organization’s website (or a not-so-random cue from a well-placed search ad)?
Why should your organization recognize and make this distinction? Because you’re presumably wanting to make smart investment decisions about how to reach new donors, hoping to stimulate them to give to your cause or charity. As my examples indicate, only some of the possible channels are actually ‘online’. You need to be able to calculate which marketing channels deliver the best prospects at optimal net cost.
So don’t be confused by how many transactions are consummated online, look behind the veil to their original sources. Yes, you can improve your prospecting performance by increasing your conversion efficiency (leads to gifts), and using the best online techniques can help considerably for that.
But at some point, you need to figure out which channels get you in front of the best prospects, who might then use your online cashbox to give.
Can you calculate what percentage of your ‘online’ gifts were prompted via an offline channel?
Tom
5 responses to “Communication Versus Transaction”
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
I’ve been saying this same thing since social media burst into fundraising. I keep asking everyone: “When you say that your online fundraising is increasing, do you mean the payment of the gift or the solicitation of the gift?”
People then look at me strangely. I explain. “Was the person responding to that great direct mail letter you sent? And then paid the gift online. Because there is a HUGE different between paying and being asked/solicited/engaged. Whatever!”
How could any of us be so silly as to not distinguish between the two? We always have before. You asked me for a gift. I wrote you a check and put it in the mail. Or, I gave you my credit card over the telephone. Or I gave you stock that you sold.
We never confused ourselves there — between the “solicitation methodology” and the “payment methodology.” Too much social media kool aid drinking, folks. Too much fascination with social media — and the big hope that suddenly “everyone” would give through this “no-cost” methodology.
Paying through your website is not the same as “being asked and choosing to give.”
AMEN!
This is so critical. When I ran the direct marketing program at Heifer International, we became obsessed with this issue and began tracking by both source and transaction channel. In fact, we came up with source codes that reflected both, such as direct mail – web fulfilled. It worked very well for us.
Great post! You ask some great questions about the origin of some donations and the best way to attract more. I always strive to have them form a connection with my brand before engaging in fundraising.
Are there more direct ways to get at this information apart from asking the donors? As we know, what people say or remember can easily be very different from reality.
Asking donors is a great place to start (it’s infinitely better than assuming a 1:1 correlation and certainly better than guessing), but are there more sophisticated approaches?