More on Blackbaud’s Online/Offline Fundraising
Roger was fairly strident in his Wednesday post commenting on Blackbaud’s latest Target Analytics benchmark report on online fundraising. His assessment is that fundraisers just don’t ‘get it’ — and maybe don’t even care — when it comes to the importance of integrating online and offline fundraising channels.
Some of our responders talked about the difficulties involved. To which Roger and I would say … Get over it! It’s your job to break down the silos, integrate your donor data, and so forth. Or you can go on cruise control until retirement. Or look busy and innovative by luxuriating amongst your organization’s Facebook friends.
OK, we’ve vented.
Here’s a more ‘moderate’ view of the implications of the study from Mark Phillips, at fundraising agency Bluefrog in the UK.
Mark’s takeaway:
- Direct mail is still king.
- More donors are being recruited via online routes.
- Online donors tend to be younger, richer and more generous than those acquired through the mail.
- But they also demonstrate lower levels of loyalty.
- Robust DM programmes drive up the retention and long-term value of new donors acquired online.
- Online donors also tend to give less once they move offline.
So, what does he make of all this?
“For me, this report offers a challenge. It shows that where we fail to engage donors, we also fail to raise funds. If we are to tackle this situation (and improve the retention rates of all supporters) we need to look again at our websites and ask ourselves if they give donors what they want?
Because when it comes to fundraising, this report firmly suggests that we aren’t.”
What’s wrong with nonprofit websites? According to Mark:
“The trouble is, most websites aren’t built to be fundraising vehicles. Instead the homepage can end up being a battleground where departments fight to get ‘their’ message out – ideally above the fold.
… when we build a site with the goal of retaining and upgrading donors rather than just hoping our current website will do the job for us. We find – as if by magic – we retain and upgrade our donors. The techniques required to do this aren’t rocket science. They are the same rules that we use to create effective direct mail programmes, the most important of which are…
- Show the donor what they have done.
- Make the experience personal.
- Demonstrate need.
- Offer incentives for actions.”
Well put, Mark.
I’ll bet a lot of fundraisers have lost the internal battle for a say in what goes ‘above the fold’. Time to rebel!
Tom
9 responses to “More on Blackbaud’s Online/Offline Fundraising”
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
I agree with all that you have said, and I challenge anyone to find the Fundraising sections of any education website within 2 clicks. GAME OVER!!!!
http://ShivaConnect.com offers Synagogues the ability to support mourners with our free Shiva Registry system and complimentary links on our charity pages to facilitate direct donations. We notice that many synagogues do not have online donation capability! This is truly a missed opportunity.
I totally agree with the assessment that most nonprofit websites are not designed to optimize fundraising. In addition to retaining and upgrading donors, it needs to quickly demonstrate to prospective donors not only who an organization is but also why it matters. Then, it must be clear what they can do to help and easy to donate.
If only we all had unlimited funds, an abundance of talented and technically savvy staff, and minds that are open enough to embrace this kind of change overnight! This dramatic shift will take time – and it SHOULD take time if we are going to do it right. (Anybody out there have donors who will forgive them if they mess up just a few of their gifts along the way?)
Agitator, go ahead and keep agitating us about this. And feel free to ignore or underestimate the “silos” problem and everything else that goes along with the standard fundraising operation today. We’ll still be here every day, reading your blog, trying to guide our institutions through these changes wisely, carefully and slowly if necessary. Because in the end, WE have to effect this change responsibly.
Oh, and in the meantime, our institutions still have missions to fulfill. And donors to cultivate and cherish.
Mark says, “where we fail to engage donors, we also fail to raise funds.” To me, this order is critical. We engage donors (and the general public) by communicating the value of our mission; not by having easy “donate now” buttons. Our websites should facilitate donations (mine doesn’t but we’re working on that – silos, you know) but that will only be relevant after we cultivate donors. And that is done the old fashioned way – by demonstrating our value – albeit with more modern methods (website, social networking, email, etc.).
As for above or below the fold control or presense, I submit that if the organization’s function, mission, purposes, successes and needs are welll communicated above the fold then that communication will also serve the needs of the fundraisers.
Perfectly said, Mark.
And yes, silos are a big problem, even in small organizations. But silos are really just a symptom of the real problem, which comes down to a focus on the mission that’s shared throughout the entire organization. Easy to say, not always easy to do.
When different areas of an organization are given differing goals for their area, then you end up with what’s been described. And too often, fundraising is still seen as somehow unsavory – an unpleasant necessity that’s really better off not talked about in polite company.
And yes, I’m venting too!
It’s interesting to look at the difference in gifts between generations, both in amounts and avenues. I don’t think you can get a read on what will happen as this generation gets older. Too hard to foresee what will be available to them. But what we can say for sure is that a multichannel approach is not a waste of resources by any small stretch of the imagination.
Currently, the decrease in size of the donation etc…for the elderly is due to the fact that the elderly often give small amounts to just about every piece of mail that arrives at their door. Additionally, they get address labels etc…and are more likely to respond to premiums but with smaller amounts.
The other thought of note is that the younger generation is still of the mind that they will be earning a lot more money over their lifetime. As people get older, they start thinking about how to live without a job. Remember, we are talking about the masses here, not necessarily the major gift prospect who is rolling in dough. So they start thinking about how they are living on a fixed income….regardless of how large it may be.
More money, more active, but less loyal?
Loyalty is still there but It comes down to understanding that loyalty is now for a cause, not for an individual charity.
These people want to be directly involved in a cause, rather than having a charity act at arms length on their behalf, with their money.
Where charities will win their hearts and minds (and money) is in teaming up with them to help their chosen cause, empowering them either by supporting their activism or allowing them to spend their own money via your charity with a strong element of control over how its spent.
Shameless plug, but I’ve just written a couple of articles on this very subject – the second of which is here http://bit.ly/ir3LDa
Hi Tom
Tackling the ‘website’ problem is one of the toughest jobs in fundraising.
It’s why Bluefrog created the modular system (uSpace) that you’ve featured in a couple of your posts – MyCareZone for Care International UK and Animal Protector for WSPA.
Our goal was to give fundraisers an inexpensive, adaptable and effective mechanism to build relationships with donors online without having to jump through the hoops of getting the organisational website completely re-purposed.
And the results show it’s working. It’s also won a prestigious award in the UK for best non-profit use of digital media.
But is it easy to get charities to adopt it?
Nope. It’s one of the hardest jobs I’ve had.
The majority of fundraisers understand it and love it. But as soon as we introduce it to the communications team and the digital team we normally get stuck.
The reasons vary – a policy that an organisation doesn’t use ‘micro-sites’, the content doesn’t fit the brand strategy, it can’t be used if it’s ‘off-site’, there’s not enough proof that it works yet, these features can be introduced when the main website is rebuilt in two-years time, we can’t give donors the chance to control their giving as they may cancel their regular gifts…
I could go on.
The discussion becomes one of why the organisation shouldn’t introduce an online engagement service to donors rather than why they should. And though we work with fundraisers to resolve issues and answer questions, it can be a little like trying to run through quicksand.
And though the adoption process is a slow one, there is momentum. We have a number of new sites soon to be launched (including our first one outside the UK). And as we learn more about how donors want to be engaged online we are finding it’s actually improving our understanding of engaging donors across all media.
Thanks for your interest and featuring our work.
Best wishes
Mark