Why do donors give?  And how do we build our segmentation and “journeys” around who they are and why they give?

If we need or want a label to guide us, and of course most of us do, enter the elusive term “donor-centric”.  This is our sector’s magic unicorn that is rarely seen and yet, claims abound to know where to find one (e.g. how to become donor-centric) or to be one (e.g. we are donor-centric).

So, how do we go about growing a real donor-centric unicorn?  Here is a case study that has been slightly anonymized.

We identified (using this method) two different types of donor identities for a community based, social services charity – parents who are into helping children (e.g. tutoring, preventative wellness) and those into helping adults (e.g. job training, financial literacy) because they themselves (or more likely, a close friend or family member) needed similar help at some point – i.e. a personal connection.

These identities, just like your identity as a fundraiser, activist, sports fan or hobbyist are core to who these folks are.  But they don’t need this charity to reinforce and ‘live-out’ a particular identity that might have some connection to your cause.  That is a choice for the supporter and an opportunity for the charity.  In the latter case, the goal is to demonstrate (explicitly and implicitly) that supporting the charity’s case is a way for the donor to reinforce the values and goals that go with a particular Identity.

The identity of “parent” and “personal connection” are the number one motivators for why these folks will give to this charity;  and failure to market in a way that reinforces this identity will result in them leaving.

Despite the huge benefit that comes from reinforcing these donor identities, the vast majority of organizations –let’s call it “control world”—will treat all these donors the same. This one-size-fits-all approach serves neither group well and any reinforcing of identity is done by accident or in a way that requires way too much mental effort by the donor (hence a major reason for lousy first year retention numbers).

A true new and improved world order tests  the conventional  “we know nothing about your “why””  marketing vs. identity-based marketing using two segments and a separate donor journey for each. Note how fundamentally different this segmentation scheme is from what is far more typical – past giving (for current donors) or even worse, acquisition channel/campaign (for new donors).

How can we build a better, more productive journey for these donors?

Enter step two for this client:   asking folks to self-identify at the point of acquisition (F2F, TM, online).  The identity request is baked into the process, the data is collected for everybody) as either being a parent or having personal connection to adult social services.

Getting this identity information is as important as capturing the donor’s contact and bank details.

Why?

Because knowing identity means we actually have permission to send the next something. Not legal permission, not moral or ethical permission but internal mindset permission that says, “I now know something about you because you told me.”  My next job is to send you something that is responsive to your interests and identity.

Without this information and approach everything we send is likely to feel more like well-intentioned spam than “donor-centric”, “relevant” content.

The welcome kit/onboarding process is a perfect example. Almost without exception, the conventional onboarding process can be described as a “send-them-everything-communication.” The proverbial kitchen sink.

Instead, for the donor experience test group, let’s send them what could be internally branded as “getting to know you” communications but with two versions, one for each Identity group.  You can imagine how images and messages should change based on Parent vs. Personal Connection.

The purpose of the welcome is twofold: to demonstrate that we know who they are and why they support in order to 1)  reinforce their decision and 2) to learn at least one additional thing about the donor in order to have additional permission – in fact, obligation – to send something in return and be responsive to their interests.

It’s important to emphasize that the additional something is not random; not the ubiquitous, sham ‘donor survey’ asking them to identify issues they care about or some other rhetorical tactic suggesting we care about their individual preferences.

In this case, based on additional donor insights, the organization will ask donors to indicate if they have interest in advocacy actions, volunteering or simply being “quiet supporters”, meaning they want low behavioral involvement (not to be mistaken with low emotional involvement) but will donate regularly with very little spend required by the charity or desired by the donor.

What is the point of asking this of donors?  It is a recognition that not all Parents are the same. They share the same identity (parents), yes. But, how they want to manifest that with this charity and the specific engagement opportunities it offers will differ. In short, there are sub-segments within the ‘Parent” group of donor preferences/interests depending on the charity’s program.

At this point we start to shift donors into sub-tracks or journeys – still living in their Parent or Personal Connection identity cohort – that are built out based on donor expressed preference.

(Note: we can and should augment self-expressed preference with behavior data – e.g. they opened, clicked, replied or otherwise indirectly expressed a preference. The cautionary note is we should recognize that a behavior-based choice is not the same as a preference)

All the content that goes into these sub-tracks or journeys already exists. In fact, in this test folks in the control group get all of it. All of it.

But—and this is the other half of the test – what about a “less is more” approach?  In this case the “less” is determined by understanding donor identity and preference and serving up only content, offers, interactions, communications that match identity and preference.

If this is starting to seem a lot like personalized, relationship building work that is because it is.  Importantly, this is still very doable at a mass market level.  All the content exists, any time and effort into reworking it or repurposing and developing outside-in journeys (vs. navel gazing, inside-out ones) represents a one-time R&D spend of the sort that pays dividends for years to come.

So, which approach do you think will win?

Control World: Sending 60 plus push communications (mail, phone, email) over the course of the year that adhere to an internally crafted production schedule covering any and all aspects of the organization’s business;

OR…

Test World: Matching what is sent to the donor’s identity and preference. This will, in most cases, result in far fewer push communications going out but only as an incidental outcome of using a different strategy, not because sending less is “the” strategy.

This may seem like a loaded question:  Who is going to pick the Control World?

Well, every day the vast majority of charities choose the Control World option and donors, unfortunately, experience it every day.

The Test World group won.   It won on 13 month retention (up 4.3 points) and it won on ‘engagement’ (open and click behavior). But this isn’t even the best part, though it is pretty darn good.

The best part is that we’ve changed the economic engine of the nonprofit. The results of this pilot project test make clear that the way to scale and grow has nothing to do with sending out more stuff.  It has to do with getting greater donor understanding in order to deliver greater value– and in return, receiving greater donor value.

In short, the improved results are really about changing mindset.  Most charities have chosen to make “the ask” and the volume model the central part of their economic engine.  Making this engine “work” doesn’t require knowing anything about your supporters other than some very limited past behavior to making some slight efficiency improvements for future volume.

This is why the conventional “ask” and “volume” engine sooner or later hits massive, and unavoidable diminishing returns.

Kevin