They Never Even Ask!
Last week I urged you to read Network for Good’s excellent study on online giving.
In case you haven’t, here’s a passage that might interest you. Noting that those who give to charities’ own websites give more over time than donors who give via ‘portal’ or social networking sites, the study observes:
“Charities don’t always do a good job following up with donors who give through portals or social networking sites. At Network for Good, only half of charities that receive funds in this way take advantage of the capability to access donor information for follow-up … Charities that don’t build relationships with portal donors are likely to experience depressed future giving.” [Ed: I’ll say!]
“In addition, charity websites generally provide for donor cultivation; portals don’t. Charity website giving happens in a context where the donor stays aware of the charity, while the portal provides convenience to donors looking to donate in one place, but de-emphasizes the charity and its individual ‘personality.’ Portals are all about efficiently collecting the gift.”
This ‘efficient’ portal giving — left without follow-up — amounts to wasteful, unprofitable ‘catch and release’ marketing. I could go on and on about that.
But let’s stay focused on the fact that half the charities who use Network for Good’s platform never access the available donor information for follow-up. It’s been a long time since The Agitator used its “You Ought To Be Fired” tag, but here I’m sorely tempted!
These must be charities without professional fundraisers on staff or at hand. How else could this malfeasance be explained?
As bad as this example is, the truth is that even astute marketers and fundraisers have lapses where they forget to do the obvious customer relationship building. Two examples …
One. Last Christmas, I purchased a number of gifts online from a kids-oriented website. I’ve never heard back from these folks, even though they have all the data they need at hand to at least ‘remind’ me during the holiday season of my Santa proclivities. To say nothing of following up in the interim … Might the kids I bought for have birthdays? Were they happy with their gifts? Did I find it convenient to shop online? The answer to all three questions is YES … I could be a great customer, but I won’t be, because I’ve lost track of the website’s name.
Second. Well over a year ago, I stopped making gifts in response to online appeals from an organization I had supported previously. Since then, I’ve received additional e-appeals at least every other week from this group — dozens of appeals. But they’ve never bothered to ask me why I’m not responding. Haven’t they noticed yet? Or is it easier to just keep emailing me and hope I’ll have an epiphany?
If I sometimes sound Neanderthal on newfangled subjects like fundraising via social nets and mobile, it’s just that I can’t see the wisdom of charging into these areas — with demonstrably less pay-off — before getting right the absolute fundamentals of donor cultivation. Too often, I’m reminded — as with Network for Good’s study — that too many in our field don’t seem to be getting the basics down.
Tom
4 responses to “They Never Even Ask!”
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
I’ve made an untold number of gifts I’ve made via Facebook Causes – and, while I usually receive a thank you from the friend whom I made the gift on behalf, I have yet to receive a thank you from the organization itself.
Is it possible that the numerous ‘portal giving’ sites are ignoring what we are constantly telling fundraisers to do (‘make it EASY TO GIVE’) and are, in fact, making it difficult for the fundraiser to follow through? How much donor information do they provide to the organization – and WHEN? Is it six weeks after the gift?
Another area where potential donors are falling through the cracks? “In memoriam” gifts.
And speaking of follow-through, how about ridding organizations of the standard thank you letter and putting some thought into their donor retention pieces?
This is so spot on! I have had many similar experiences with a number of major charities that do have a significant size development team. Each experience was unique in itself but, like yours, they all demonstrated a general disinterest in the donor after the initial gift. In one instance, we donated well over a thousand dollars online in the form of 6 or so “gift” donations–where you choose an activity to sponsor and a gift card describing the activity is sent to the honoree–and we never received a personal acknowledgement, only an electronic receipt, and no follow up beyond “Dear Friend” direct mail. In another, I made an online donation in honor of a “social media guru’s” birthday, but never received an acknowledgement from that person, waited nearly a month to receive an unpersonalized note from the organization via email and have never heard from either the organization or the birthday girl since. These are just two examples of the stewardship and ongoing solicitation disconnects that appear rampant in the online giving world. And they are just another example of why I believe social media should be under the fundraising umbrella, rather than any other departmental auspices, since all good fundraisers know that continual personal stewardship is essential to every donor relationship.
Disturbing? Yes. Shocking? No.
Over the past decade nonprofits have shifted the ownership and the impact of their websites from a pure marketing/awareness channel to one that does fundraising and stewardship as well.
Portal sites and social giving sites aren’t there yet. They aren’t there from an organizational alignment perspective and the transaction-to-action lag time really hurts stewardship efforts.
What is happening with portal giving and stewardship is a special case. But certainly what’s happening with giving through social channels and stewardship mirrors what happened 10 years ago with online fundraising.
Traditional fundraising spot the problems very quickly. Those coming purely from the technical or social side may not. These groups could learn a lot from each other.
And just like in the past — the orgs that get it right will be the big winners as online giving goes multichannel.
Hi Pamela,
Great question! I answered it in Network for Good’s Community discussion forum about The Online Giving Study here: http://www.thenetworkforgood.org/t5/Online-Giving-Study/Portal-Giving-Donor-Information/td-p/399 so others can see and comment on the discussion.
And thanks, Tom, for your excellent analysis!
Best,
Julie