The Donor Pyramid Lie – II
Yesterday’s Agitator post on the donor pyramid (Is it a lie?!) prompted quite a response, so we’ll stick with this debate a bit.
Commented John Sauve-Rodd (a Brit):
"Personally I find the donor pyramid of no practical use, but as seasoned US and Canadian fundraisers told me in my research, ‘It is useful to explain what we do to Board members who then leave us alone to get on with what we do’.
But then fellow Brit, Tony Elischer responded in an email:
"The latest Agitator really made me smile as Mark Rovner now joins a growing club of people who over the years have decided to ‘kill off’ the Donor Pyramid, a short term ridiculous idea that simply proves that they have missed the point!
I can recall at least three running media debates in the UK over the last twenty years where people have declared the Pyramid dead, all of which ended in a strong rallying of support from long term practitioners about the value and challenge of the pyramid."
Tony included an interesting thought paper called Rebuilding the Donor Pyramid, in which he offers a more finely parsed hierarchy of donor categories. For Tony, the underlying "guiding philosophy" should be "donor share, not market share."
On that principle both Roger and I agree 1000%.
And Lisa Sargent writes:
"In my email newsletter this month I summarized for readers a trailblazing multilevel donor loyalty program used by M. D. Anderson, a Texas cancer center that has seen direct mail revenues increase five hundred percent since it started the program. (The original article appeared in Deliver magazine.)
The best part about the program?
They offer a special club for donors that is based purely on — gasp! — longevity in giving, and NOT on any minimum donation: in short, if you’ve been giving to M. D. Anderson for five years or longer, you’re good enough for their Partner’s Circle.
Seems they noticed donors who give for a long time have this weird tendency to leave bequests. Shocking, huh?"
Nothing shocks The Agitator, Lisa!
Tom
8 responses to “The Donor Pyramid Lie – II”
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
On the ‘seven years to a £1000 gift’ assertion, a way to prove/disprove 7 (or any other number of years before a serious gift is made) is * calculate years of giving – easy – from the start year * select those with $1000 gifts * do a cross tab * apply Pearson’s timeless Chi Square test and see if there is any significant connection. Simples.
Bravo John, Tony, Lisa, et al! The donor pyramid hasn’t been a pyramid for a long time – if it ever was. In the best of cases it is a trapezoid – and only then if communications and contacts are well managed, staff work well together through the donor continuum, and all teams are held accountable for results.
At this week’s DMA Nonprofit Federation conference in Washington, I’ll be sharing MINDset’s view on managing these communications. It dovetails well with Tony’s, as included in Think’s whitepaper. Tom and Roger, I’m sending to you under separate cover – feel free to share with the Agitator audience.
Is there any research supporting the link between long-time givers and bequests? I have been pushing for a club for long-time givers and this would be a helpful piece to have in hand. Thank you for this interesting conversation.
Katie – check out the book “Iceberg Philanthropy: Unlocking Extraordinary Gifts from Ordinary Donors” by Green, McDonald and van Herpt, published in 2007. Lots of good research about how bequest donors are typically DM donors, generally NOT wealthy, with a history of giving many small gifts over many years.
This has been an interesting discussion. I have used the pyramid in training and presentations as a way to visualize numbers of donors and staffing issues with institutional leaders.
Rather than comparing it to a ladder, I’ve emphasized that a donor could entered at any level although a goodly portion come through the large base of the pyramid. I’ve also emphasized that one of a Development Officer’s goals is to guide donors at one level to be donors at all levels–annual giving and major gifts and planned giving. Some will continue to give at one level; others at two; and the ultimate donor at all three. In presenting this concept, the pyramid is not as useful a tool.
To Katie: Yes, look at research in loyalty. You might find something at Robert Sharpe’s website.
Thanks for pointing the way, Nancy & Virginia, I appreciate the cites – it is hard to know how to google-search for that kind of info.
Katie,
Mal Warwick wrote about who gives bequests in an excellent article on the website SOFII, called “Just the Facts on Legacy Giving.” It’s free. Well worth a read.
All best,
Lisa Sargent
If I were to follow the traditional donor pyramid (the only kind I’ve known until reading this conversation), I would be put off asking my regular givers to give a one-off donation. So am I right in thinking I can ask now?