Kiss 8 Of 10 Good-Bye
Looking at 2014 data from over 8,000 respondent groups, the Fundraising Effectiveness Project reports that on average nonprofits retain only two out of ten first time donors.
That’s not a misprint: the retention rate for first time donors is a scant 19%. Below you’ll find an infographic from Bloomerang illustrating this and related retention stats.
So eight of ten first time donors simply kiss you off. Was it your breath? What was the reason?
Failure to nurture commitment.
Here’s what Roger reports as the key drivers of donor commitment in his book, Retention Fundraising:
- Donor perceives your organization to be effective in trying to achieve its mission.
- Donor knows what to expect from your organization with each interaction.
- Donor receives timely a thank you.
- Donor receives opportunities to make his or her views known.
- Donor is given the feeling that he or she is part of an important cause.
- Donor feels his or her involvement is appreciated.
- Donor receives information showing who is being helped.
A slightly longer list would add:
- Donor appreciates that you ‘know’ him/her (from spelling the name right to acknowledging the donor’s giving history).
- Donor sees that you respect his/her stated preferences (e.g., method/frequency of contact).
The Bloomerang infographic and the data behind it is neatly analysed by Jay Love in this article, where he offers this straightforward advice: “The simplest way to improve fundraising results is getting the second gift from a first-time donor.” Do so, and the retention rate for that repeat donors jumps to 63%!
How to get that magic 2nd gift? It comes down to donor communications. Here are Jay’s favorite steps:
- A telephone call (to new donors)
- Personalizing the thank you
- A handwritten note (from the ED)
- Stating exactly how the donation will be used
- Having a recipient of your mission personally share their story
- Sending a short survey
- Inviting the donor out to coffee to hear what they expect from the org
As he says: “None of these are particularly difficult to make happen, but few organizations go the extra mile.” Amen!
In another article, Jay get a bit more philosophical on the point. He calls for ‘friendraising’:
“We work hard to acquire new gifts from strangers, then attempt to build a relationship (if at all). It’s no wonder that new donor retention rates are at an all-time low.
But what if we strove to create friendships first, then solicit gifts? Or, worked harder to build a relationship than we did to acquire the gift. Imagine the lifetime value of those long-term donors!”
Friendraising. Great concept Jay!
The alternative? Kiss eight out of ten new donors good-bye … if you even get the chance.
Tom
P.S. Here’s the infographic …
6 responses to “Kiss 8 Of 10 Good-Bye”
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
Thanks Tom and Roger for highlighting this somewhat frightening metric. Just think what would happen to the amount of monies raised annually if the 19% could be just doubled to 38%.
We see the summary metrics for all of our customers and there are quite a number beating 38% for first year donor retention. When talking to them the ironic part is it is not rocket science, but merely good old fashion relationship building and attention to basic details built around a sound game plan.
One key item I hear over and over from those above the average is merely the fact that they have created a basic game plan for proper follow-up with every donor that involves ALL key team members not just the data entry person or system administrator of their database…
A BOMBSHELL …
Wow … thanks Tom and Bloomerang for publicizing this! Professional fundraisers need to know this. Where was retention 15 years ago? Answer: North of 65%! Today … 19%??
Seriously, does anyone REALLY THINK that tweaking the current model is the answer? WHAT PART OF UNSUSTAINABLE IS NOT CLEAR?
Kn Moy has been writing about the shift to the Baby Boomers as the key demographic target for over 15 years … and tweaking a 60+ year old mail-based fundraising model built for the Boomer’s parents OBVIOUSLY isn’t cutting it. Doing a ‘better job’ with a failing model is just FAILING SLOWER.
Thank you, Tom B. I love that depressing little stat to death. Super-glad to see it hasn’t improved at all. Thanks, too, for Mike Browne’s historical and demographic perspective AND especially (smooch, smooch) for Jay Love’s authoritative comment … that statement went RIGHT into my “top 10 things to tell my audiences.” In fact, it may well become the #1 thing I tell my audiences. Heck, it may be the ONLY thing I tell my audiences.
Mike, I’m not sure this is about channel as much as practice and attitude. I’ve been part of an (admittedly small) organization where mail was the main communication channel. Our retention rate while I was there? 74%. To be perfectly honest, due to internal nonsense, I wasn’t really allowed to even use email with our donors.
But every donor was thanked well and promptly. And thanked again. And sometimes thanked without having given a gift recently. We focused A LOT on loyalty and less on giving level. I used surveys to encourage donors to talk to us and to get a sense of what mattered to them.
Some were older. Many were boomers. They were all pretty darned loyal.
I think it comes down to this: if you’re not willing and ready to HAVE a relationship with your donors – put in the time and care – then don’t expect them to want a relationship with your organization!
Just wondering. How much of these statistics are skewed due to the increase in “one and done” fundraising? How is crowd-funding, “ice bucket challenges, disaster fundraising, etc. affecting this already abysmal stat?
Just catching up on my reading…
What Jay Love said X 100.
Good retention is about a good game plan, attention to detail and warm, human communications all focused on relationship building – regardless of the channel.