Terrible Fundraising Headline
I love Todd Cohen’s Philanthropy Journal. Excellent range of content. I’m a faithful reader.
But I hate this March 26 headline:
Fundraising out of sync with giving habits
Todd’s story leads as follows:
"Technology is changing the way people give, with different generations preferring to give in different ways, and nonprofits should adjust their fundraising strategies to reflect those giving patterns, a new study says."
He’s referring to recent Convio survey research on generational differences in giving preferences. The Agitator highly recommended the study to readers in this post last week.
Todd’s story is benign enough, so why am I hot and bothered about the headline?
Because it’s terribly misleading. The truth is, most direct response fundraising is in synch with actual giving behavior.
Without question, the data is undeniable, younger donors are considerably more comfortable with online giving than their elders. And any organization hoping to survive another decade had better be mastering the online channel.
But equally without question, the vast preponderance of direct response giving today is direct mail generated. So if you actually want to RAISE FUNDS, you better keep buying stamps.
Indeed, as we noted in our post, the name of the game is recognizing that many, if not most, donors will ultimately respond to and use multiple channels for their giving, and nonprofits need to be strategically attuned, organized structurally and prepared with the necessary skill sets to operate in that integrated environment.
That, in fact, is the primary message of the Convio report as I read it. The PJ article covers that point … it’s just a shame the headline pointed elsewhere.
Hopefully most direct response fundraisers will follow the reality presented by their own hard data. For virtually all nonprofits, their actual giving data will continue to justify strong investment in direct mail programs … even as they begin to see their online giving ramp up.
Surveys are useful guides to the future. I love survey research (and The Agitator and parent DonorTrends do plenty of it). But hard data should drive today’s fundraising.
Am I too hysterical about this?
Tom
6 responses to “Terrible Fundraising Headline”
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’s take is right on. Too many non-profits that we work with are trying to “jump the shark” and leap to the next generation of fundraising in one fell swoop. The fundraising industry is experiencing an evolution not a revolution. Technology continues to race ahead but people’s behavior takes longer to change. Just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it is being done — at least not in volumes that warrant ditching the tried and still true mediums of the past.
Convio’s report was solid in it’s conclusions and we all agree that non-profits MUST be multi-channel and experimenting or they will not be around 10 years from now. But then again, without the current-day revenue from proven channels (like direct mail) the organizations may not be around two years from now to take advantage of this technology-driven sea change.
I wouldn’t say you’re too hysterical. However, in this article you state clearly that if charities want to “survive another decade, they’d better be mastering the online channel”…. and most are not.
Many charities aren’t all that good at fundraising. They are good at paying consultants to do their direct mail. They hopped into direct mail after the hard work was done and the early investment and testing had established a reasonably reliable and risk-free means of raising funds.
I often think about the pioneers of direct mail. The charities who had to invest money in direct mail with little return on investment. Many of the charities who are doing well today are benefitting on the back of those early leaders who tested and invested. They were innovative and they took risks.
Many (if not most) charities today are waiting for other people to invest in online, take the risks, and give them a magic formula that will produce predictable results, with little or no risk to them.
We may well be able to determine some formula’s and standard best practices to help enhance online performance, but the diversity of the audience and the ever changing technology and tools in an online environment won’t lend itself well to that kind of lazy fundraising. I think the title is headline is quite appropriate.
Too hysterical? No. Insecure Executive Directors read headlines, and, wanting to be seen as ‘cutting edge’, direct their staff to follow the article’s advice. Fundraisers who take heed see declining results, and lose their jobs. The savvy ones stay the course, but it’s a constant, exhausting battle to convince your Board and ED that you’re doing the right thing.
What I find interesting about most research like this is how quickly our industry devours it. While interesting points I still believe paredo’s law is alive and well in the business of raising money. The other fact is that while groups might be predictable individuals are not. The more we allow research like this to inform our strategy the further away we will be from trying to understand individual patterns of the people who actually have the capacity to change the world.
However the research does create a wonderful illusion of competency.
Tom, yes, you’re too hysterical about this. Your post reeks of you being heavily attached to the direct mail industry and fearful that progress will result in a lack of people not “buying stamps.” This is understandable, but I think one has to step back and consider that while data determines what IS happening, it is most useful in understanding what MIGHT happen in the future. Change is inevitable. And the Convio data, if one views it with a lens of opportunity rather than fear could in fact represent a boost in direct mail rather than a decline.
From Bob Bland:
This is not an either/or situation. It is a multichannel situation. For SCA, I now manage a weekly session with our postal and online creative and production people so that all our efforts are coordinated. The hardest trick at this date is to predict when the USPS will deign to deliver since we would like an email to arrive on the laptop the day before the envelope lands in the mailbox and then a followup a week after. That is not likely to happen in my lifetime! We are comingling the nonprofit portions of our postal contact since that does enhance predictability and nationwide simultaneity as well as lowering costs. The USPS needs to realize that it is a part of a team and not a standalone vendor.