Statistical Averages Versus Fundraising Reality
Roger and I appreciate when Agitator readers share real world data and experience with others in the fundraising community. It’s the best way for all of us to compare and learn. So thanks to Carrie Miller at SankyNet for the grist for today’s article.
Carrie takes a closer look at ‘industry benchmarks’ and observes that benchmarking averages have a certain, but limited, utility.
In her recent post, Benchmarks: Averages can be Mean, Carrie comments:
“‘Industry Benchmarks’ are (at least to me) always interesting and often useful for:
- convincing your boss (or CEO, or Board, etc.) to start investing, stop investing, or approve or disapprove of some new project
- giving you an idea of how ‘normal’ your organization is
- giving you a lot of anxiety.”
Personally, I’d put the emphasis on the last bullet … but that’s not altogether bad. Anxiety can be a useful motivator!
Carrie goes on to compare a set of industry averages on online and direct response fundraising with the real world data from four of SankyNet’s clients.
She then explains the actual fundraising scenarios that produced these four differing results.
This gives you something more substantial to chew over and compare to your situation. No rocket science here. Just four experiences to reflect upon.
One key observation I’d make from her mini case studies: It’s easy to impress ‘The Boss’ with online ‘growth’ numbers while your organization is merely beginning to enable the migration of existing donors to the habit online giving. But once that migration has occurred, your growth’ curve will flatten … it’s time to produce new donors from somewhere!
Thanks for sharing Carrie … you get an Agitator raise.
Tom
6 responses to “Statistical Averages Versus Fundraising Reality”
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
Hi Tom,
I’ve been following you and Roger here for a while now and I’m breaking my web silence to say a hearty ‘thank you!’. Man, you guys really get it.
I’ve been doing non-profit direct response for 22 years and it’s just nice to receive the truth, simply and directly.
I’ve now lost track of how many times I’ve shouted at my Agitator emails, “Exactly! Is anyone listening to this?! Is this thing on? Forwarding..this..to..everyone I know..immediately.”
So very true.
I do like benchmarking though because I think it’s a good reality check. When boards, CEOs or even fundraisers want to increase their on-line by 100% with a new website, or expect to retain 80-90% of their donors then these benchmark reports can be useful to show that’s just not a reality.
They should [hopefully] encourage us to be conservative, as gleeful fundraising optimism is one of the most dangerous things in the charity sector.
AMEN re: migration of existing donors. I just had this conversation last month where, on deeper investigation, it caused about a $200K migration from direct mail. Multi-channel is our jargon. To donors, it’s just you: the uni-channel. Pay attention to the channel that’s driving the migration.
Hear! Hear! Great job Carrie!
I have this fantasy where all the organizations that have tested and discovered what works share those tests with the rest of everyone. Even if it just works for them, at least we’d have many real life tested examples to choose from.
Thanks for all the great comments! Gayle, I agree with you completely. I am going to look into the data for the 4 organizations discussed on how many of the online donors are actually migrated offline donors (multi-channel donors) and hope to share that in the next week or two.