The 100,000 Club
I noticed this brief article the other day reporting on publications that had passed the 100,000 threshold in terms of paid digital subscribers.
The list is short …
New York Times – April 2011
Times of London – June 2011
The Economist – November 2011
National Geographic – November 2011
Cosmopolitan – March 2012
The Agitator – we anticipate April 2012
Just kidding on that last one.
But actually, it did get me thinking … there must be a few hundreds of nonprofits who reach paying members/donors with a regular digital newsletter (I’m not talking email action alerts here). And measured against the publications above, you should be proud if you’re holding on to that size audience.
Of course, those e-newsletters are not the reason for or even a key driver of the donor transaction … the mission is. But they surely need to be helping cement the donor relationship by adding genuine informational value and a sense of emotional connection.
If your organization is publishing a digital newsletter, I hope you are approaching it with those purposes in mind. Imagine for a moment that your donor is paying to hear what you have to say … are you giving them value for money?
Tom
One response to “The 100,000 Club”
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
It is interesting isn’t it that so few of us are willing to pay for content on the web when we don’t bat an eyelid over a pound or three for newspapers or magazines. Tom is absolutely right in asking if we as not for profits are giving value to our givers (sorry for me donors give blood and body parts; people give money so they are givers – simples).
Trouble is unless we are confident that we know who our givers are and what they are interested in, how can we possibly give value. Laurence Stround had it right15 years ago when he started asking their supporters how oftent they wanted to hear from the charity (Botton Village – a communitiy for people with learning difficulties). He took the risk that some might say NEVER, Hower they have achieved better than 50% response rates to Christmas appeals because they listened to the givers and gave them what they asked for.