Sorry, Hard Work Required
As The Agitator bangs away on improving donor retention, we’re mindful that success requires a key ingredient … hard work.
We all know how to chuck out (more kindly, ‘dis-invest’ in) our most marginal donors, and we know how (or at least we have a plan) to cultivate those with demonstrated high value.
The more challenging group is what our DonorVoice colleague, Kevin Schulman, calls the ‘muddled middle’ — a mixed bag of conflicting signals and potential value.
Figuring out this group is where the hard work comes in. But it’s this group that’s probably the largest for most organizations. It’s the group where retention rates start to head south. And it’s the group where simple segmentation approaches aren’t adequate to the task of identifying where the hidden value might lie.
I mentioned yesterday that this is a nut that Roger, Kevin, and I have been working on cracking … and we’ve made some important progress we’ll be sharing next month.
But meantime, here’s a great article tackling the same subject by Convio’s Michael Rogers, blogging on Connection Cafe.
He talks about this middle group and the need to get beyond simple RFM segmentation. And he’s right on the money.
This isn’t an Agitator ‘product endorsement’, but it is a ‘mentality endorsement’. Fundraisers are going to need to think harder and harder about your ‘muddled middles’ if you want to protect and build the value of your house files.
Just another way your job is getting harder!
Tom
P.S. Thanks Cheryl
One response to “Sorry, Hard Work Required”
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
Hey Tom, no problem! Glad you liked Mike’s post and I hope it helps plenty of other folks.