Does anyone believe good donors are born versus created?  That some are inherently and fatalistically destined for philanthropic greatness while others are naturally predisposed against it?  Before you dismiss out of hand, there is some evidence that there is distribution for empathy and most folks have an “average” amount while other, smaller groups are at the upper or lower ranges.  But, unless we are getting into the genetic testing business and are able to target based on those at the upper ranges this “is what it is” – a constant that we cannot impact.

Nevertheless, one might think most believed good donors are simply born – i.e. nature is the root cause of good donor behavior – given the near exclusive reliance on behavior based analysis in the nonprofit world.  This in contrast to the commercial sector that spends a boatload on data mining and predictive modeling with behavior (and socioeconomic and geodemopgraphic) variables while ALSO spending equal boatloads on survey research and advertising, presumably to understand and affect consumer behavior – i.e. nurture.

We believe firmly in the need for the fundraising industry to get far more sophisticated in its targeting efforts, using predictive models, external data and affinity markers or proxies.  However, we also believe the industry had better get much more serious about MAKING more good donors to augment more sophisticated targeting.  Predictive modelers are not concerned with causation.  They deal with the world as it is served up to them and what non-profits need more focus on is changing that world.

Good donors are not born, they are created but behavior based approaches alone will NEVER do a good job at CREATION, hence the dreadful retention rates.

Today’s 0 to 12 month donor is tomorrow’s 13 plus.  Using affinity markers or other behavior based proxies (beyond RFM variables) to get better at targeting those in the 13 plus who are “worthy” of being pulling back into 0 to 12 “status” is worthwhile but it is also a losing battle if not seriously bolstered with far more understanding of the CAUSE of the behavior being observed through the rearview mirror.

In addition to spending more money on modeling and data mining (which we support), nonprofits need to spend more (and smarter) on brand building, donor service and relationship building.

We know that targeting is the number one “variable” to dictate response on appeals – more so than the message.  So yes, better targeting equals better response and more effort should be focused there.  However, you simply CANNOT target your way to long term fiscal prosperity.  The vast majority of donors attrite, they have negative lifetime values and the leaky bucket gets leakier and leakier all the time.   This industry has been taking in its own dirty laundry for too long and the tipping point is already upon us.

Let us also be clear, the case for putting resources towards “making more good donors” (i.e. educating, persuading, motivating and relationship building) need not be some soft, fuzzy, just-believe concept.  It can be done with financial projections and metrics just as rigorous as the campaign and behavior based ones we are so familiar with in the lead generation business now called fundraising.

If however, you believe good donors are born then you have a very simple option; continue waiting for those “good” donors to reveal themselves with their behaviors and along the way, either ignore or grossly “over-service” those who do not show you their good behavior.