New Generational Giving Data
Convio has produced this valuable white paper on generational giving patterns. It’s based on a 2010 survey of 1500 recent donors to nonprofits.
The paper is framed around four segments — Matures, Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y. It’s chock full of data on how different generations give, their giving amounts, how they interact with charities, how they get their information about causes and charities.
Overall, the data reinforces the common perception … younger donors are more "electronic" in their channel preferences and use (and interestingly, that includes receptivity to telephone solicitation).
But three observations struck me about this data …
1. The resilience of mail, even for the younger folks. As expected, amongst Matures, 77% give via check in the mail compared to 25% via websites. But even amongst Gen Y donors, 26% give via mail and 29% via website.
And whereas Matures list their sources of information about their "top charity" as mail (49%), emails/e-newsletters (24%) and websites (14%), for Gen Y the corresponding channel preferences are mail (26%), emails/e-newsletters (29%) and websites (36%). So Matures favor hard copy, but it’s clearly part of the media mix for younger donors as well. And at the same time, Matures use online tools in increasing numbers.
2. So indeed "media mix" is what should be emphasized. Today’s donors — whatever their generation — use all channels. As Convio says in its #1 finding: "Fundraising is profoundly multichannel." And their corollary #4 finding: "Message/channel integration is a more urgent priority than ever."
My warning: if your charity or nonprofit isn’t structurally and culturally organized to ensure integrated marketing, you’re doomed!
3. Our US handicap. In view of Agitator’s recent post on monthly giving, and comments on it by some of our European readers, I was struck by the low percentage — 14% — of US donors giving via monthly debit. In Europe and Asia direct debit giving is universal … checks are as infrequent as wax-sealed letters! And the consequence of that is far greater dominance abroad of monthly giving. US fundraisers … eat your hearts out!
Important piece of research … read it!
Tom
2 responses to “New Generational Giving Data”
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
Tom – thanks for covering the research. We believe there are several telling insights in it for charities. Beyond the increasing necessity to operate multi-channel, we also believe the research indicates that younger donor groups can be economic and that a more concerted effort needs to occur to attract them to grow donor acquisition rates which have been a challenge for many charities stuck in the traditional marketing model. I also believe another key insight was the imperative to develop more of a focus on peer to peer engagement vs. direct solicitation alone.
Vinay
I don’t find the stats on younger donors and mail all that surprising, if you keep in mind a couple things:
a) many organizations still don’t have great online giving programs in place, and I’ve found a lot of smaller organizations where the only way to give is offline.
b) younger people aren’t likely to be on lots of mailing lists just yet, so they haven’t had the chance to get burned out on direct mail. In fact, I’d say there’s probably a segment of younger people who find getting mail almost exciting, just because it’s something of a novelty – I know I used to feel like that! Although, I’d be willing to bet their threshold for being over-solicited is much lower, and if that happens the numbers will decrease at a much faster rate than it did for Boomers. I think that’d be an interesting trend to keep an eye on over the next few years.