Frugality Persists
Citing data from Giving USA 2013, back in June Roger discussed the very slow recovery of charitable giving since the 2008 recession — giving in 2012 was up 3.9% (only 1.5% adjusting for inflation) over 2011. At that rate, it would take 6-7 more years for giving to reach the pre-recession high of $344.48 billion reached in 2007.
Earlier this month, he reported on the latest Blackbaud Index, which showed overall giving up 2.2% for the first half of 2013 over the same period in 2012.
This recent Harris Interactive survey indicates the frugality that persists amongst American consumers … a mindset that can’t help but affect their inclination to give to charities and causes.
Listen …
- 38% of Americans would switch to refillable water bottles instead of purchasing bottles of water;
- 44% report ‘brown bagging’ their lunch instead of purchasing it;
- 29% report canceling one or more magazine subscriptions and 18% cancelled a newspaper subscription;
- 22% stopped buying coffee in the morning.
No coffee, only tap water, peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, nothing to read … no wonder grumpy Americans would give less.
Seriously, the data seem pretty clear that frugality is upon us … and perhaps to stay.
Where would fundraisers see that? Lower average gifts, tougher prospecting (i.e., less willingness to try ‘new’), and giving to fewer organizations.
We’re seeing all of the above. Are you?
Tom
6 responses to “Frugality Persists”
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
As the administration keeps raising taxes and promoting policies that retard growth and wealth creation, growth in giving will continue to slow. One article last week detailed how the administration has begun harassing non-profit hospitals. The goal obviously is to force as many as possible to convert to tax paying profit making enterprises to increase funding for GOVERNMENT financed care. Mr Obama has openly advocated for the removal of tax deductions for charitable giving. Every dollar given to a charity is one less dollar in federal funding and control. Yes it sounds like something from the lunatic fringe, but the feds have been very open about their hostility toward non-profits, especially any non-profit associated with a religious denomination. For more than two hundred years government has viewed non-profits as partners delivering services to the vulnerable. The current administration sees nonprofits as an impediment to their political goals to be subjugated at all costs.
wow, a lot of anger there Dave!
dave cearley says: “Mr Obama has openly advocated for the removal of tax deductions for charitable giving.”
Actually, he advocated capping the charitable deduction at 28%. During Ike’s administration, the marginal tax rate was over 90%. You could deduct 90% of your donation! Perhaps it would be better to go back to those times.
And yes, it does sound like something from the lunatic fringe.
This has been going on for some time now. We have copied McDonald’s one dollar items by instituting a program of downgradeing. Segments of our file are not profitable if we continue to puseh to “upgrade” them. These same people return a small profit when we suggest a gift of 75% of their 12-month high gift. McDonald’s does not see this changing for a long time and neither do we.
I’ll have the $1 coffee please.
How unfortunate that adjustments in non-essential spending habits are presented as ‘negative.’ There are numerous environmental and social problems with bottled water; making your own lunch is healthier than purchasing prepared foods; and coffee is overpriced no matter where you buy it. Any trending away from gluttonous consumption can only be a good thing. A decent, caring person would abandon superfluous spending and allocate those funds to charity. Okay, I’ll wander back to my fantasy world now…
People who live on income are more pinched than ever. People who live on assets are skittish. Europe is making them nervous. The volatility of the world is causing people with assets to hoard them. The rest of us who are making peanut butter sandwiches and worrying about the price of a latte are not as able to upgrade, not open to new ways to be generous. We are doing more than our share already. We are wondering how we are going to not be a burden to our children in old age and help them graduate without six figures in college debt. The disparity in haves and have nots is here.