I’m Dead, Since 2003
Yesterday’s post, When To Give Up On A Donor, kicked off a good discussion of how to approach lapsed donors. And I want to preview … Roger has written a spectacularly thorough post on that subject which we’ve scheduled for Monday. It’s an entire mini-course with a treasure of pertinent links. A post you’ll want to study and archive.
It’s heavy lifting. Too heavy for a summer Friday, so on the lighter side …
You can’t do much fundraising without accurate data on your donors, including your lapsed ones.
I’m not sure of the source of this terse message — either from the eternal digital afterlife of a once-alive contributor, or just a cheeky reply from a defecting donor:
“I’m dead, since 2003.”
When was the last time you cleaned your donor database? Maybe now — during the end of summer lull — is a good time. Once September arrives, we all know what the growing fundraising tsunami rushing toward year-end will be like. Too late to fix things then.
Just don’t give the database job to Wally …
Have a nice weekend. And don’t miss Roger’s Monday mini-course on lapsed donors.
Tom
2 responses to “I’m Dead, Since 2003”
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
At the very least, EVERYONE should be using NCOA. The printer I recommend to my clients runs it as a standard part of their mailing process.
Hi Cindy, in fact, NCOA is now required by the USPS in order to get any sort of automation discounts. If anyone is interested, our sister family MMI Direct offers a great (and free) eBook on data hygiene including info on dealing with lapsed donors, deceaseds, non-responsives and other ways to clean your list and thus improve ROI. Here is the link: http://mmidirect.com/free-guides/data-hygiene-roi/