As I outlined this “Where” segment of The Agitator’s Who-What-Why-When-Where series, I began by concentrating mostly on the proper selection or integration of  fundraising channels –online, offline, mail, email, phone, tv, print. The “Where” to send the message.

That was before I took a break and glanced at Charity Navigator.  My curiosity was unrelated to this post; I just wanted to see how many organizations working on Haiti relief were listed on that site. But, when I saw that a whopping 78 organizations have all or part of their missions related to Haiti, it set me to re-thinking my Agitator assignment.

You see, like most fundraisers, once I decide “who” the target audience is and “why”, I next turn to “what” message is most likely to motivate them, and then finally to “where” in the mix of media channels I can best reach that particular audience with the tailored message. 

But as soon as the implications of 78 organizations working on Haiti sunk in, I pretty quickly concluded that the traditional approach to ‘where’ is a very one-dimensional and quite limiting process.

When I first began practicing the fundraising craft, there were relatively few organizations whose missions overlapped with each other. A few relief organizations like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Catholic Relief, CARE and Oxfam. A few environmental organizations … human rights organizations … and so forth. But today there’s far more competition within all sectors, and more overlapping missions than a shingled roof. The 78 groups working on Haiti is a striking example, but by no means the only one.

So, in this age of “mission creep” or  “mission overlap”, shouldn’t we be re-thinking the “where” in today’s more competitive fundraising landscape? Maybe the traditional channels where your message runs – social network, banner ad, viral campaign, mail, telephone, tv – isn’t nearly as important as knowing “where’ — besides your organization — your donors are giving. And whether your donors are giving more to other organizations with the same missions than they are to you.

Isn’t it strange that we focus so much attention looking inward at our own organizations and what our donors give us, yet pay so little attention to where and what they’re giving in the larger world beyond our walls? Surely, the vast majority of donors aren’t monogamous when it comes to giving.

Over at DonorTrends, the parent company of The Agitator, there are databases containing nearly 50 million gifts to 22,000 different organizations, plus an additional 50 million records containing professional and  business profiles. This information is used in preparing the company’s TrueGivers™ service that helps fundraisers identify who among their donors is giving to other organizations.

I asked David Lawson, the head of DonorTrends’ Screening and Analytics Division, and a guy who over the past 25 years has pioneered many of the donor screening techniques in use today, whether or not the “where” factor was becoming more important as competition grows and resources seem more scarce. Here’s what David shared with me:

• The dramatic rise of what he calls “niche-mission” nonprofits is a real threat to established organizations with multiple or more encompassing missions. Just like niche-retailers take key customers away from big retailers, small to mid-sized nonprofits with a focused mission do the same to larger nonprofits.
• By knowing where else your donors are giving and to what types of programs, you can not only discover who could be giving far more to you, but you may well find donors for hard-to-fund programs within your organization.
• It may at first be painful to discover that competing organizations are outperforming you with your own donors, but knowing what else they’re giving to will enable you to better focus your messages.
• More than ever it’s important that fundraisers make the transition from the old organization-centric mindset to a truly donor-centric one. This means understanding the entire range of a donor’s interest, not just the slice that relates to your organization.

I asked David if he could develop some simple charts or tables that illustrate all this in terms of actual donor behavior and performance. He agreed, and I’ll share that with you in future Agitator posts.

Meanwhile, I continue to think about the fundraisers in those 78 Haiti relief organizations and what they’re doing about “Where.”

Roger