Truths & Myths About Online Donors

March 23, 2009      Admin

Last Wednesday the headline in a New York Times story proclaimed “Study Shows First-Time Online Donors Do Not Return.” Sort of a ‘dog bites man” headline since, truth be told, neither do first-time direct mail donors. That aside, Stephanie Strom’s NYT piece is worth a read by all fundraisers.

And worth far more than a casual read – really spend some serious time on it – is the study that triggered The Times story: Blackbaud’s release of the 2008 donorCentrics Internet Giving Benchmarking Analysis.

For several years Target Analytics, now a Blackbaud company, has been benchmarking and tracking internet giving as it has done over the years for offline giving (primarily of the direct mail variety). In the just-released study, you can get a basic overview of the demographics, average gifts, retention rates, etc. of online giving and how that compares to giving offline.

Given The Agitator’s near-constant drumbeat about retention, loyalty and the need for serious channel integration, several findings and insights in the Blackbaud study deserve highlighting.

  • Even in the absence of major disasters like Katrina, online giving continued to grow rapidly in 2007 and 2008, but is still dwarfed by direct mail giving. (Only 9% of all donors studied by Blackbaud gave online.)
  • Higher average gifts and revenue per donor from online givers may well mask issues involving the cultivation and retention of these donors.
  • In fact, the study shows that the “renewal channel” is not strong for online giving. Every year large numbers of online donors migrate away from giving online to other channels –primarily direct mail.
  • However, the fact remains that over the past few years online giving “has become an increasingly significant source of new donor acquisition.”

So, in light of the findings of this study and plenty of other research, including our own DonorTrends 2008 survey, some observations:

  • Effective online fundraising clearly goes beyond technique — such as focusing on “hits” and “open rates” — and must absolutely involve integrating this new channel into the tried and true older channels (dm, telemarketing) to get the most donor value possible.
  • The donorCentrics study notes that “while online giving is proving to be a great source of new donor acquisition, it is not clear that online donors are being cultivated to their true potential once they are brought into the file.”
  • It is clear from the donorCentrics study and from our own DonorTrends studies that currently direct mail-acquired donors produce higher long-term revenue than online-acquired donors. In my judgment, this is not some immutable law that will apply forever and ever. Fundraisers who learn to mesh the online channel into a high producing direct response program will outshine all the others.
  • In terms of those all important qualities of ‘loyalty’ and ‘retention,’ the donorCentric study reflects the fact that while online donors may seem to have higher retention rates this is not the case. As a group, they actually have lower retention rates and value over time. The mirage is created because online donors come in with substantially higher initial gifts than direct mail donors, who have much lower entry gifts. As a general rule, the higher the average gift the higher the retention rate.
  • Be alert to the fact that significant numbers of online acquired donors switch their giving channel to direct mail in the second year of giving. The donoCentrics study of 12 organizations shows that a median of 33% of the donors who were acquired online in 2007 gave offline when they renewed in 2008.
  • And, the online-to-offline migration continues into future giving years as well. The donorCentrics study notes that “a median of 37% of the donors acquired online in 2006 who gave in both 2007 and 2008 never gave online again.”

As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still very much out on the true value of online acquired donors. A lot more understanding and analysis is needed. I suspect that as this occurs and the general rules and principles of effective integration become better understood, the real and surprisingly positive truth about the value of online donors will be finally be revealed.

Roger

P.S. Our DonorTrends survey analysis and actionable recommendations focused on Online Giving and Donor Loyalty are available now in The Agitator’s online Library – the Vault — exclusive to Premium Members. Premium Members, click here to login into the Vault. Not a Premium member? Learn more and join this special community today.

 

6 responses to “Truths & Myths About Online Donors”

  1. Jill Ruchel says:

    It will be interesting over time to see how this pans out. One question in my mind is why online donors are switching to offline direct mail in the second year. Is it because this is easiest for them or is it the only obvious way that the charity communicates with them?

    In my experience charities are still, wrongly I think, treating their online donors exactly the way they treat their offline donors, ie by communicating with them by mail ( if at all).

    I have no doubt that a combination of communication media – and choices for the donor – will over time emerge as the most cost effective, convenient and easy way to maintain and develop donor relationships and that online will have its own quirks and foibles, just as different forms of offline – like newsletters and appeals – have now.

    The challenge for charities is to listen to donors and give them options, trial different ways of communicating and staying open to possibilities, not just channeling everyone into the same channel.

  2. (sorry my english’s mistakes)

    My experience in Latin America is some organizations like Greenpeace (Argentina and maybe Brazil and Chile) is that the process of conversion of online donors in regular giving mean over 30% of new donors (some of the times is over 70% over total).

    So, that charities in the research are not doing well the job and they need follow improving the process and using offline strategies in the online world.

  3. Dave Raley says:

    I have a theory about this whole idea that donors are migrating from being acquired online to giving offline. Actually seems to echo Jill’s earlier comment. Goes something like:

    Acquire a donor online + Poor/inconsistent/infrequent online cultivation + Good/frequent direct mail cultivation = Online donor migrates to direct mail

    We saw this with a client of ours a couple years ago perfectly. We looked at donors acquired online and sure enough by the end of year one they had “migrated” to giving offline. BUT the client had a very young online communications stream at the time. So in my mind, no wonder those first gift online donors “migrated” to direct mail – that was the channel the ministry was best at asking in! We have spent years and years fine-tuning the best direct mail campaigns, but relatively little time in figuring out the best new media campaigns – so of course donors are going to migrate to offline, if only because that is the channel they are being best cultivated in.

    Now, I’m willing to admit that perhaps online is really good at influencing gifts, and direct mail is really good at being the channel the donor actually responds in, but still, I think I’ve got a pretty good theory here… 😉

  4. […] recent study by Blackbaud’s Target Marketing on online fundraising (Roger commented here) noted that many donors who make their first gift online wind up making their subsequent gifts, if […]

  5. I agree with Dave completely. I had that theory in my head as I was reading, and then his comment was just what I was thinking.

    I think about how much easier it is for me to put in a CC # online and not pay for a stamp or cut a check, and I would prefer it that way.

    However the charities that I give to send me DM all the time, with no mention of how I can receive the same incentives online that I would get it I sent them a check. So, I give offline out of necessity, not of preference.

  6. […] couple days ago, I commented on The Agitator blog in response to a report about Target Analytics’ new Internet Giving […]