I was struck by Cindy Courtier’s comment to Nick’s post on the importance of donor identity and commitment when it comes to creating positive and effective communications with donors.

Clearly, Cindy understands what so many fundraisers don’t:  Determining a donor’s identity (the “why” of his/her giving) and level of commitment (loyalty to the organization) makes a huge difference in “what” you communicate.  And, in turn, the substantially higher level of support and loyalty you receive from the donor.

She also understands that this level of insight can’t be found in the conventional RFM spreadsheet or a demographic append.  As Cindy put it:

“I fight this battle with some clients all the time.

“We need more donors. Let’s do a wealth screen of everyone in our market area and mail to the top 20%.”

“[One] guy on our board knows a guy who sells lists. He says he can clone our donors.”

The beat goes on…”

Breakthroughs in behavioral science now make it possible for knowledgeable fundraisers to reap the bountiful rewards that come from a more in-depth understanding of ‘why” a particular donor gives (identity) and measuring his/her attitude toward the organization. (commitment).  Once these behavioral factors are understood the optimal journey for that donor can be properly planned and crafted. Bingo.  A happier donor.  A bigger bottom-line.

Of course, very few fundraisers—especially direct response fundraisers—take advantage of this powerful new knowledge.  Why?  Partly because in the Cuisinart-like existence of many fundraising shops there’s an unspoken fear that any attempt to move from the conventional may lead to not making this year’s numbers.  And partly because most of the trade is trapped in the cult of volume.

Without question it’s a lot easier to sign a purchase order for an additional two or three appeals or a demographic append than it is to reach out to donors to find out “why” they give and tailor future appeals to reinforce that “why”.  And far simpler and presumably “safer” to keep doing things the same old way—rather than pose new hypotheses or theories to be tested– secure in the mistaken belief that the least “risk” lies in maintaining the status quo.

We all know how sticking with the status quo works out.  You might want to read this Washington Post piece on the last of what once were 9,000 Blockbuster stores in the U.S.

Putting forth new theories, testing them using pilot projects (you don’t have to bet the entire ranch to find something new that works) and moving forward with the productive innovations they produce is the way all trades and professions advance. ( See Kevin’s post on the Low Risk Approach for High Reward Discovery)

Modern medicine, for example, evolves and changes somewhere around half of its ‘best practices’ every few years.  Yet direct response fundraisers continue struggling with unchanging ‘best practices’ where volume rules…where readily observable data (RFM) rules…and where the measurement of donor attitudes are gauged using survey techniques circa the late ‘70s.

Frankly, I’d prefer my fundraising medicine to be a bit more modern, bolstered by new theories tested and linked to behavioral data clearly indicating an improvement in performance. Improved performance tied to the use of donor identity and commitment data effectively employed to improve a donor’s journey with the organization.

I realize it’s not easy to get from “here” to “there”.  It never is–until “suddenly” the results of the theory and the innovation that sprung from it becomes obvious.

Take the success of Google.  The genius behind the success of Google’s search engine is the concept of Page Rank. The theory behind Page Rang is that the more people who link to a page the more important that page is and the higher it will rank in the search results.

For several years the founders of Google went around unsuccessfully to all the other search engine companies in an effort to license Page Rank to them.  They failed because what the other search engines wanted was “volume.”  Their business model called for getting the user to spend as much time on their search engine as possible in order to sell more advertising.

Well, we know how that blind adherence to the volume model worked out. Remember Mosaic, Lycos, Excite and AltaVista to name a few.

My point is that as donors become more sophisticated, less dependent on limited sources for information, and as the number of nonprofits and giving options increases,  the organizations that will flourish are those who best understand their donors…understand the importance of securing essential behavioral data like identity and commitment…and understand that their future rests on their ability to craft optimal experiences and journeys for their donors.

With all the emerging knowledge and insights out there no organization should be the next Blockbuster.

Roger