How to Map the Donor Experience
The word “mapping” has received a lot of buzz lately. We’re unclear how much of this is real versus PowerPoint fodder and welcome any feedback on this open question.
Our latest innovation, TouchPoint Mapping, is, as you can see, an actual map using an online platform built exclusively for this purpose and with the non-profit sector in mind.
One way to think about this is our adding a donor perspective to your campaign calendars since as part of building out this enterprise wide, cross department capture of all the donor touchpoints, we also identify those that really drive the relationship – using donor feedback. This feedback also identifies what we call “pain points” – those experiences that are broken.
(Note: This is not an actual map for Alzheimer’s Association. Click images to enlarge)
More b
roadly this tool can, for the first time in all likelihood,
1) Consolidate all the donor experiences/touchpoints, across all channels, in one place (online, DM, social)
2) Provide multiple views into the donor experience with the click of a mouse – e.g. lifestage by channel, segment by channel, calendar month by channel.
3) Represent all touches in the matrix/grid and color coded to represent the type of touch (e.g. email, social media, direct mail, DRTV, phone, in-person, event etc..)
4) Store meta data in each touchpoint including quantitative (e.g. volume sent, spend, cost to fix if broken) and qualitative (e.g. donor feedback) information.
The benefits are numerous,
*Remove redundant touches
*Streamline “overkill” touches to lower cost
*Optimize delivery of key experiences by focusing on them more, delivering them more frequently and across more channels
*Redistribute touches to more evenly time periods – e.g. lifestage, calendar months
Meta Data can be stored for each touchpoint simply by double clicking it.
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