The Donor Pyramid Lie – III
Here’s yet another view on Donor Pyramidgate … the debate over where major donors actually come from … and how to depict their evolutionary path graphically. It appears fundraisers take their geometric preferences quite seriously!
As you can see here, Kristin McCurry of MINDset direct prefers a trapezoid.
Can we all at least agree on these fundamentals?
- Donors who initially make small gifts can indeed be cultivated — dare I say it?! — up the ladder to make bigger gifts … and even bequests. Even HUGE gifts and bequests.
- Database marketing approaches that utilize personal giving history, donor-expressed preferences, etc. can contribute mightily to moving donors up that ladder.
- Eventually, at giving levels that vary by organizational experience and capabilities, more personal interaction with donors needs to take over from direct marketing.
- This "hand-off" from "membership" to "major gifts" staff/units of a nonprofit is often institutionally sensitive … and often botched.
- Any major gifts fundraiser who does not think that a significant portion of her major gift prospects come from, or can be found within, her organization’s loyal small givers is a dunderhead.
- Screening tools exist to help identify — even amongst the small gift donors — those who hold most potential (if you don’t believe that, visit DonorTrends).
- Moving people up the ladder is not all about technique and tactics; effective messaging is rather important (and we’ll turn to that tomorrow).
Disagreement?
Tom
3 responses to “The Donor Pyramid Lie – III”
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,
No disagreement on the numbers side. Each time I analyze an organization’s file, I pull out all multiple gift $1,000 plus donors and look at their giving history. Generally speaking, I find that 30-40% of major, multiple gift donors start with a gift of $1,000 plus. Usually 50% or more started with a gift of $100 or less. Those starting with a gift of $25 or less can make up about %10 of the file. The lower the gift, the longer it takes to move up the ladder. A $20 join might take seven years to move up, and a $250 join might take two or three years to become a major donor.
Thanks to all for the excellent discussion on this hugely important topic.
Rick
No arguments here! A colleague and I wrote a white paper last year on engaging major donors online – yet another way in which direct marketers and major gift officers can work together to maximize a DM file, deepen relationships and make the transition from 1:many to 1:some to 1:1.
Our paper can be downloaded here:
http://www.npcdivision.com/downloads/WP_Engaging_MD_online.pdf
The pyramid is invaluable in understanding donor commitment and engagement and helping decide the amount of effort to be applied to their further cultivation.
In terms of development, and in order of effectiveness, most charities do focus on legacies, encouraging donors to increase their regular gift commitments, encouraging non-financial supporters, e.g. campaigners, to give, converting occasional cash donors to regular givers and prompting cash donors’ to raise their cash gift levels.
In my experience the last one, although almost universally used, has least success. Cash donors seem to have a very clear idea of the level at which they support any particular charity and stick to it. In the 1990’s several UK charities were recruiting donors using a £2 or £3 cash ask with a coin carrier cut out to hold the requested coins. Few of these donors ever budged from their initial low gifts on subsequent asks.
John Whitehead
wateraid.org