Donor Insights From Fenton Communications
Fenton Communications has just released its latest survey of donor attitudes and behavior, looking at 1000 nationally representative US donors who have given at least $20 in the past year.
Plenty of interesting findings to chew over here regarding giving plans for the coming year, attributes of nonprofits that donors find most important, most trusted sources of communications, most highly regarded charities, issues of most importance, and more.
Two items in particular struck me.
First, in light of some recent posts re Boomer giving (and some evidence that this is the “gloomiest” generation), I note that donors aged 50+ are the least likely to increase their giving in the coming year (only 21% say they will give more, compared to 36% for the entire sample). I must confess I’m getting “gloomier” about Boomer giving, but then I’m a Boomer so maybe this is just a negative feedback loop or something!
Second, the survey asked folks what communications channels they most trusted. I was stunned to see that information “directly from organizations through reports, mail, etc” (with 5% choosing as “most credible”) was only one point from the bottom of the list, ranking below advertising … and only one point above social networks and celebrity spokespersons.
OK, “organization’s website” gets 13%, but these are donors talking about the kind of organizations they contribute to, right? And they are given the same credibility as celebrity spokespeople? WOW! I must say, that response surprises, disappoints and mystifies me. Are nonprofit communicators that bad?
I can’t wait to hear what our friend and frequent communications commentator Nancy Schwartz has to say about that!
Tom
3 responses to “Donor Insights From Fenton Communications”
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
Another really interesting stat in the article is that 20% of donors under 35 believe the performance of charities is only average, while only 12% of the over 50 donors feel the same way. Lets hope that over the next 15 years we can pull a large amount of the under 35 donors in the right direction, towards the “excellent/good” side of the fence, instead of the latter.
I love a challenge.
Tom — thanks for sharing this research. The first point I’d make is that I’m not terribly surprised by the list of “most credible sources of information.” My sense is that most people look to see unbiased or unaffiliated coverage of an issue versus a nonprofit’s naturally biased communications, regardless of the channel. That then leads to the second point I’d make — that nonprofits need to invest in PR efforts so that their own communications are being reinforced in the media.
Amen to Rich Anderson’s comment! Too many organizations now confuse a website with PR, believing that through search optimization, “friending” on facebook, and other technical tools, having a website can get you in front of the “right” people — a foundation, a government funding agency, your donors. But what gets them to the web? If you look at nonprofits who’ve been around awhile, almost all of them built their donor bases at a time when a certain issue was THE issue in the news and politically — when their organization’s mission embodied societal or political goals. When economics affected lifestyle and elevated certain concerns to top of mind. And PR — radio, TV, newspaper, magazine coverage ubiquitously reflected and reported on those concerns. That was the rise of the star system of celebrities and reporting. We know this as marketers for non-profits. But try selling PR to a board glamored by the potential of the internet and social media, with the costs involved. Sigh. Oh — and one point about this study. Look at the issues listed as top of mind — now think about what is in the news today. The list has shifted dramatically. What jumped out at me was the violence against women issue, given the coverage on national rape laws. That is the power of PR.