Just A Trump Bump?
I was browsing the latest update on online fundraising trends from Network for Good (via dashboard courtesy of the Chronicle of Philanthropy), which indicates a 21% increase in amount donated online in March 2017 over Mar 2016.
Online gifts were up 23.9% and the number of donors was up 22.4%.
Not surprisingly, December was the best month and New Year’s Eve was the best day, capturing $13.3 million (or nearly 5% of the total for period) from the 34,655 organisations processing their online gifts via Network for Good. The ‘loser’ day was August 13!
Impressive stats.
But got me wondering … is this growth a reflection of better fundraising practices, a confirmation that donors are switching their customary transactions to the online channel, or simply a windfall reflecting a ‘Trump Bump’?
If your nonprofit scored equally impressive online fundraising growth — up 21% in amount donated — Mar 2017 over March 2016, to what do you attribute that?
Can you identify what you did better, smarter? And what are your plans to build on that growth?
Or are you simply riding the wave?
Tom
6 responses to “Just A Trump Bump?”
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
You make an interesting point. Reminds me a bit of the Ice Bucket Challenge. Just like ALS, charities who’ve been beneficiaries of the “bump” — an outpouring of online philanthropy — must truly double down on donor stewardship and gratitude practice if they want to keep these donors.
Giving in the U.S. has consistently been 2% of the gross domestic product over the past 40+ years.
Like him or not, Trump has instilled confidence in businesses to start hiring again and inspired confidence in consumers to start spending again.
If the economy grows, giving will follow.
As my dad used to say, “It’s hard to argue with results.”
But time will tell. I think it’s too early to do cartwheels.
I find it hard to believe that confidence is Trump has inspired this increase in giving. Quite the contrary! “Rage giving” is more likely the cause. I’d be curious to know how the spike is distributed across the sector.
Tina, we have definitely seen the largest spike in advocacy organizations in the data we have processed. There are also smaller bumps in areas like social services, which I think may be related to the budget cuts proposed. So I think you are right that this is more related to reaction to the political climate on both sides of the aisle, and not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats.
Very interesting, thanks for the added info Ben!
I’m with you Tina and Ben – “rage giving” has inspired a flood of giving to many nonprofits, from safety net organizations to arts and culture to environmental groups, to senior services. (remember Meals on Wheels?).
Will be interesting to see if it continues. Instability in US governmental policies continues to inspire people to take action, not just sit around. That includes giving.