It’s a simple question, which pair belongs together? The two older white men are an obvious pair. So are the two younger Black women.

Group them by age, race or gender and the rows make perfect sense.

But the man in the upper right and the woman in the lower left also belong together. Both are outdoor enthusiasts and conservationists. If you run an environmental charity, that diagonal line suddenly matters far more than either row.

The man in the upper left and the woman in the lower right may share a professional identity. For a workforce-development charity, that pairing might be the useful one.

The people didn’t change but the purpose of grouping did.

This is where most fundraising segmentation goes sideways. There is no universally correct way to divide people into groups. A segment is useful only in relation to the decision you are trying to make.

Sorting by active, lapsed, sustainer, mid-level or major is useful for deciding whom to contact, when to contact them, how much to ask for and how to forecast revenue.

But it’s when the accounting gets ambitious and decides it understands human psychology.  A lapsed donor is a date stamp, not a personality. “Sustainer” describes how money arrives, not why someone gives. Two sustainers can look identical in the database while having entirely different relationships with the charity.

One may have chosen monthly giving because the mission is central to who she is. The other may have signed up during a persuasive street interaction and kept paying because cancelling requires effort. The observable behavior is identical. The motivation, commitment and likely lifetime value are not.

Demographics have the same limitation. Age, race and gender can be relevant in particular contexts, but they are poor default explanations for why someone cares. People who look alike may have little in common psychologically, while people who look nothing alike may share the identity closest to your mission.

Values and identities also need to be separated. Values are broad principles about what matters to someone. Identities are the ways people understand themselves in a particular context: conservationist, caregiver, survivor, veteran, parent or neighbor.

We all carry multiple identities. The one that influences a decision is usually the one made relevant by the situation. For an environmental charity, the conservationist identity may come forward. For a cancer charity, the same person’s caregiver identity may matter. For a local food bank, it may be her identity as a member and steward of the community.

Useful segmentation therefore starts with the decision:

• Behavioral data help determine contact timing, channel and ask strategy.
• Capacity data help determine what someone could reasonably give.
• Mission identity and motivation help determine what the communication should be about.
• Personality helps determine how that message should be framed.
• Commitment helps determine how strong and durable the relationship is likely to be.

The fundraising mistake is allowing the easiest field to retrieve from the CRM to become the explanation for the person.

If your segment tells you what a donor did but offers no clue why the mission belongs in that donor’s life, you have organized your records. You haven’t understood your donors.

Kevin