Givers Or Donors?
OK, if you followed the flow of Spectators Or Fans and Spectators or Fans – II, you could see this coming!
I’m going out on a limb here and proposing a new set of definitions …
A “giver” is anyone who has made only one contribution to your nonprofit.
A “donor” is anyone who has: 1) given twice; and 2) given at least once in response to an appeal directly from your organization.
Givers are nice to have … but only if they become donors. Most likely, every giver who does not become a donor is a drag on your organization … in revenue terms, they represent net losses. Too harsh?
Harsh or not, most fundraisers will probably say: Of course I understand that.
To which I say: Fine. Then next time your boss asks you how many donors you have, don’t count the givers.
See if that doesn’t refocus her — and your — thinking.
Tom
3 responses to “Givers Or Donors?”
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
Hi Tom,
I was so excited by the heading for your article – and then so disappointed by the content.
Although I fully appreciate what you say about the cost of “one-off” gifts, I had hoped you were going to address the question of the use of the word “donor” (and thereby “donate”). Why do we use this (Latin)word, when we have a great Anglo-Saxon word: “give” (and the words people are always telling us to use the short A-S alternatives, not long Latin ones)? We give our love to people; we give our time; at Christmas we give gifts: why do we “donate” to charities? Why do our red website buttons say “donate now” (which reads as an instruction and not a plea)? Until I became a fundraiser, I’d never even come across the word.
My vote is that we drop the donor/donate/donation in favour of giver/give/gift – it’s somehow so much more personal, and less institutional.
So let’s say the giver just walked in with a check for $100,000 and is sitting and waiting to give it to you. Also i the waiting room are a couple of donors, they have been very loyal giving the organization $5 in each of the last 3 years.
I am not sure how you would prioritize who you would see first but if you have paused to think a bit you have just realized the actual lens to use to “refocus”. You can not design your focus based on the past or what you call people. Focus will be a blend of past performance and future potential….Say I have an idea….let’s say we start calling donors, givers, funders, whatever by their actual names….then again I could be off base regarding this very personal business
Hi Tom,
A good point, to differentiate between the donor and the ‘giver’, Tom. But hardly a new definition. In my 1992 book ‘Relationship Fundraising’ (page 111 and page 156 of the current edition) I stress the importance of differentiating between the donor and what i called the responder – the one time giver.
There really is nothing new Tom. To prove this, if readers of ‘The Agitator’ want to check out the latest in major donor functions i suggest they follow this link first.
http://www.sofii.org/active%20site/Members%20area/FA258The1stmajordonordinner.html
Hope you and Roger are enjoying a delightful summer.
All best,
Ken