In Part 1 I indicated why measuring specific donor experiences represents such a fundamental shift in mindset for most organizations.

However, it’s a shift well worth making because measuring the donor experience at various interaction points — and of course acting on what you learn — is one of the ways a nonprofit can grow. Good donor experiences bring greater donor commitment, higher retention rates, higher lifetime value.

The key, of course, is to measure what really matters. And, as pointed out in Part 1, ‘what matters’ is not general or overall satisfaction. It’s one of those rather meaningless findings or what I call a ‘vanity metric’.

Drawing on the terrific post by Kevin Schulman, the CEO of DonorVoice titled Don’t Measure Donor Satisfaction (it is a waste); Instead Measure and Act on Donor Experience, we cited specific examples of the types of donor experiences that can and should be measured for a health care organization, for a nonprofit event and for a donation page.

Some examples of how the donor experience can affect giving and true donor satisfaction:

• Doing a search for charity x
• Finding the donation page quickly/easily
• Finding a donation page that matches the direct mail offer
• Filling out the form
• The confirmation page
• The email confirmation
• The thank you
• Etc…

Each of these reflects a set of steps a donor might encounter and form opinions along the way. If the experience is poor at any point the donor may simply abandon the effort. Or perhaps he/she may still hit the final ‘donate’ button but mentally commit to never do it again.

Want proof?

Kevin suggests your consider the following chart.

He notes, “Continuously measuring the ease of the donation process by conducting a short, purposeful feedback survey post-donation and acting on that feedback led to a complete reversal in ease of donation scores going from a very crappy experience to a very positive one.

“And the corresponding impact on conversion? Going from 10% conversion (i.e. visitors on the donation form completing it) to 32% conversion. What changes needed to occur? This too came from feedback with those giving ‘very difficult’ ratings being prompted to identify the specific issue(s).”

The reality is that when an organization takes the time and makes the effort to gain donor insights about process improvements this leads to significantly more money being raised. And the effects last into the future. A better donor experience increases the future likelihood that the donor will continue supporting the organization.

It’s way past time that organizations get serious about donor feedback. It’s such a simple, inexpensive process that it’s almost ‘malpractice’ to not be doing it in this day and age.

[This would be a great time to take advantage of The Agitator’s FREE  — that’s free forever! — automated feedback tool. You can install it yourself in about 15 minutes. Go here to watch the video and download the tool]

Added Bonus! As Kevin also notes, when an organization takes the time to seek feedback: “… every single person who provides feedback (good or bad) gets automated and where necessary, human follow-up.

“This is about demonstrating reciprocity, fixing issues as they occur for individual donors, building on positive experiences and aggregated donor feedback to identify systemic, process-based failures and opportunities.”

In brief, measuring specific donor experiences is about raising more money by identifying and improving specific donor experiences — based on actual feedback reported by the donor.

It is this approach that a truly donor-centric organization takes. An approach quite opposed to the uniformed, shot-in-the-dark efforts that old-fashioned organizations take of simply blasting out more and more solicitations.

A flood of seemingly endless requests that ultimately degrade the donor experience and drive donors to the exits.

It’s way past time for most nonprofits to break down the silos with their performance-based metrics and start moving toward becoming truly donor-centric by measuring specific donor experiences.

Which donor experiences are you measuring?

Roger