Stories Or Metrics?
Much is written and fretted about these days regarding the ‘differences’ — some real, some imagined — between Boomers (and older) donors and the younger generations of donors, especially Millennials.
Over the weekend I read this ‘take’ on the situation — The Great Divide: Millennials vs. Baby Boomer Fundraising, written delightfully by a fundraiser in the local trenches for some thirty-plus years, Norman Gildin.
Here’s a flavor: “I am convinced that there is no word in the Hebrew language that is not also the name of a Jewish nonprofit. If someone sneezes and a friend says: Labriut’, inevitably someone else will say: “Great name for an organization.”
Norman sees real differences — Millennials have no attention span, prefer metrics to stories, demand immediate response, and use different tools to engage. For them, giving must be mixed with fun and social networking.
“The donor of yesteryear was happy to write a check and get an ad in a journal or a plaque on a wall. Today’s donor is no longer satisfied with these amenities. Instead, among their interests, they want to see the nonprofit’s web site, their Charity Navigator rating, mobile device giving, strong social networking outreach, monthly giving options, crowdsourcing and special events that cater to large singles or young couples activities.”
That’s one fundraiser’s view from the ground level. Is it yours?
I note that Norman isn’t complaining about the donor changes he sees. Instead, he’s urging that fundraisers need to move with the times — “We need to adapt.” [Editor: Note “We”, not the donors.]
As he concludes: “The intense competition for the same fundraising dollars will require creative new ideas to reach baby boomers, millennials and others. This will necessitate reaching new fundraising plateaus.”
Sound advice regarding adaptation. But he also emphasizes that some essentials never change: “…managing personal relationships has not changed and is as important today as it was then.”
Amen.
Tom
P.S. I’ll say two things about Norman: 1) Sounds like there’s still plenty fire in the belly; 2) He’s not stuck in a rut. Go Norman … you get an Agitator raise!
3 responses to “Stories Or Metrics?”
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
One question for Norman: What’s a “large single?”
And Tom, it’s important to note that when Norman recommends data over stories, he’s talking about a major gift solicitation he conducted aimed at “a young financial investor” in Los Angeles. Hardly a convincing sample size.
We need to be clear about these distinctions. This is major gifts work, not retail, for one thing. VERY different world: one on one solicitation is not Facebook fundraising (which DOES require storytelling).
If everyone reading you TOO quickly (which, bless your hearts, is most of us … thus missing your editorial distance and nuances) now concludes (because everything The Agitator says is the truest of TRUE!) that Millennials as a cohort in general crave statistics far more than stories, well….
There goes recent neuroscience down the drain hole. There goes a decade of making some progress with lousy, stat-heavy donor communications.
How many millennia of brain evolution did it take to make narrative a dominant force in the way we humans understand our world, no matter what age we are? And now we’re tossing all that because one potential big bucks investor with a business mind who happens to be a Millennial asks Norman to jump to the chase and skip the sob stories?
That’s not a Millennial characteristic. That’s a finance guy’s characteristic. Norman drew the wrong conclusion. You recall the sign, I’m sure, posted at the entrance to NASA: “Beware overly broad generalizations.”
Love you guys. But uncritical cut-and-pasting won’t get us around the corner and into a better future.
To be fair, Tom, you’re over-reacting.
In his piece Norman used the single example of a ‘young financial investor’, but he clearly wasn’t basing his observations on that one episode.
He was reflecting on changes he’s seen over 30+ years of pressing the flesh as a major gifts fundraiser (which BTW would be my definition of ‘retail’, not blasting out thousands of letters/emails to usually anonymous recipients) at a community level.
What I liked about his piece was that he was reflecting upon his experiences with actual donors at the grassroots level; not what he heard from other consultants at the latest webinar or conference.
Hello all. Instead of looking at cohorts like millennials and boomers, shouldn’t we be emphasizing donor age? There is much more that unites the cohorts than separates them. (Just like the differences between giving patterns in different cultures). Like Shakespeare’s seven ages of man, there are probably several ages of giving. I’m sure that’s where we find the major distinguishing traits. How about the Seven Ages of Giving? Sounds like a good title for a new book!