Yesterday Roger argued that fundraisers need to know their donors’ identities. And he was talking about individual donors … and not just the $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 (or whatever your ‘major gift’ threshold is) variety.

He admitted this would be hard work: “This is an approach that most fundraisers will dismiss out of hand as ‘too difficult’, ‘too expensive’, ‘too time consuming’.”

But did somebody tell you fundraising would be easy? It’s hard, and getting harder. In no small part because donors (like consumers in general) are getting harder to please and lifting their expectations. They’re evolving.

Part of their heightened expectation level is wanting to be recognised (i.e., ‘they know who I am and treat me accordingly’) in a world that more often treats us as indistinguishable widgets. How many times will you eat at a given restaurant before you expect them to know you? And don’t you feel great when they greet you by name … maybe even give you a better table?

Luckily, just as consumers/donors have evolved and become more complicated, so has our ability evolved to treat each one with greater precision and recognition.

The evolution of our fundraising precision might look something like this:

1. Let’s send everyone on the file a year-end appeal.
2. That worked, let’s send those who responded a few more during the year.
3. Hmmm. Let’s send something ‘better’ to the ‘higher value’ ones than we send to the ‘lower value’ ones.
4. Cool. Next time, let’s personalize the high dollar letters.
5. That worked too; some donors seem to be worth more than others. Let’s try segmenting the file by transactional history (average gift, recency, frequency).
6. Let’s find more of these people. Why not rent lists of everyone like us?
7. Let’s try calling them.
8. Uh, Oh … let’s not call the ones who were pissed at being called, anymore! (Actually, this represents a breakthough of sorts … now at least we’re targeting on the basis of something the individual donor said to us.)
9. Let’s try targeting with some of that ‘cluster’ stuff — ‘Urban Sophisticates’ sounds like our donors. Or is it ‘Suburban Stationwagons’? Or ‘Trucks with Gun Racks’? Now we’re really getting in their heads!
10. Let’s go back to basics and see what the focus was in the appeal they originally responded to, and ask them for more money for that purpose. (A bit of inferred identification here.)
11. Let’s do some ‘wealth prediction’ overlays — now we’re getting super slick. Time for a raise.
12. Remember, we got burned when donors didn’t like being called. Maybe they don’t like mail either. Let’s see if anyone only wants to be contacted via email. (Rationale aside, at least now we’re responding again to an individual stated preference.)
13. Gee, donors do have preferences. Maybe we should find out more about those. Let’s do a focus group or survey.

Until finally, we evolve to where Roger wants us to be … Donorus Specificus.

Gee, donors are different — they do have preferences, different motives for giving, different interests, different ways to get involved. Maybe we should find out more about those. Let’s ask each donor as they walk in the door … let’s get to know them.

Is it Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Coke Life … or DASANI, Glaceau Smartwater … or Fanta or Sprite?

What stage of donor evolution is your organization prepared to address?

Tom