In Part 1 we noted that the days of launching an acquisition campaign without setting aside substantial additional time and funds to properly deal with new donors is a principal reason why organizations find themselves on the decline or plateauing when it comes to growing donor value and net income.

Also noted is the importance of concentrating on three key factors essential for substantial growth in donor value and income — donor identity, donor experience and donor commitment.

The focus of this post — Part 2 in the series — is on donor commitment.

‘Donor Commitment’ is not some warm and fuzzy concept. It’s a math-based way to measure, score and improve donor attitudes — a proven, leading indicator of future donor behavior. (For details see here.)

While the concept of scoring donors on their level of Commitment is proven and simple to understand, it does, like many of the recommendations I’m making in this series, require expertise and investment to realize its full potential. I firmly believe digging into this is worth the effort for those seeking more than tactical or incremental improvements.

We know from studies on thousands of donors over hundreds of organizations in the US (executive summary here) and UK (presentation here) that a high commitment donor will give on average 131% more than a low commitment donor over a 36 month period.

The level of a donor’s Commitment is determined by asking three simple questions and calculating the score as illustrated below.

By properly scoring donors on their level of commitment — from low commitment to high commitment — fundraisers can discriminate among donors and focus spending using this metric, which is more accurate as a predictor than RFM.

This is the process followed in the example of ‘Commitment’ used in Part 1: “Another organization that segmented its donors by their commitment to the organization has had three five-figure gifts from donors who had been raising their hands in the past but were not called on because transactional data alone (RFM) hadn’t identified them as targets.”

[NOTE: For those wanting to dig into the Commitment Scoring process and how to apply it, see pages 49-99 in my book, Retention Fundraising: the new art and science of keeping your donors for life. You can also learn more about it in this video presentation I did with Sean Triner of Moceanic.]

Benefits of Measuring ‘Commitment’ for New Donors

Because the Commitment Score is a far more accurate predictor of future behavior than RFM (Recency, Frequency, Monetary Value) you can put it to work immediately — as soon as the acquisition gift transaction is made. You don’t have to — and you shouldn’t — wait for months to go by before applying it.

Why? Because with a new donor’s Commitment Score in hand you can begin immediately to discriminate among new donors; deciding who deserves more spend, who deserves more — or fewer — communications, and what types of communications.

Some examples of the effectiveness of using Commitment Scoring?

• Cutting Attrition in first 90 days on newly acquired Face-2-Face donors. By using commitment scoring immediately following the acquisition of a new F-2-F the problem of donor attrition (non-payment) can be dramatically reduced.  In short, it’s now possible to quickly identify who is going to leave long before they hit the exit and take corrective action.

For details on how this works see Charlie’s Hulme’s post at 101Fundraising.

• Target spend, type and frequency of communications for maximum effect. Because a new donor who scores as ‘high commitment’ is likely to produce 130% more revenue in the next 36 months, the commitment score can be used to focus greater spend on those new donors likely to produce more value — higher retention, higher Lifetime Value.

And, the score can also inform you as to the type and frequency of communications. A recent study by DonorVoice shows that your best, high-commitment donors are turned off by additional informational communications. While this might increase retention for your less committed donors (who don’t already know your mission), telling your best donors what they already know decreases retention.

• Targeting for Special Efforts. E.g. Sustainers. The higher the commitment score the greater the likelihood the new donor is interested in a higher level of involvement.

Consequently, the responsiveness and ROI of more costly programs like sustainer conversion and cross-selling (e.g., for additional child sponsorships or other more investment-intensive offerings) are enhanced by use of commitment scoring.

The time to begin discriminating is at the start of the donor’s journey; not waiting until there’s enough additional transactional data for RFM segmentation to kick in.

Next up in the approaches that help you ‘discriminate’ … donor experience and donor identity.

Roger