Who Are The First Movers?
As reported in Direct Marketing News, idea merchant Malcolm Gladwell (Tipping Point, Blink, etc) delivered a speech recently in which he said, when it comes to innovation … don’t be first!
I can just hear Roger now: “He must have delivered that same speech to some big nonprofit fundraising conference … and everyone has taken him to heart!”
Gladwell postulated three stages of innovation — inventor, implementer, and tweaker. And said that the tweaker is often best suited to capitalize upon an invention. As quoted in DM News, Gladwell said: “There is not a great advantage to being first; there is an advantage to being the one who sits back and reacts in an intelligent way.”
So my question, directed specifically to the fundraising community, is … Who gets the ball rolling? Who are the first movers? And is there an advantage to being first?
Personally, I don’t believe much in sitting back and waiting. By the time a fundraising ‘innovation’ is sufficiently proven so that even the slowest learners can copy it, it’s probably already run its course … and has begun to be less effective for everyone.
Arguably, the biggest charities and nonprofits should take — and can afford — the biggest risks (yes, innovation entails risk-taking) and, as a reward, be the most successful. But too often, ‘big’ equates to ‘cautious’ … ‘satisfied’ … ‘stuck’.
Any opinions out there? What do you want on your tombstone — inventor, implementer or tweaker?
Tom
P.S. Gladwell’s clearly a smart guy. Hopefully there’s more to his argument than briefly reported in DM News! I’ll try to find out.
4 responses to “Who Are The First Movers?”
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
Why can’t the inventor or implementer also be the one who tweaks the idea?
Must they be three different people?
You could argue it’s harder to invent and tweak, especially if you’re too wedded to your original version to change it. But, I don’t see that this precludes being able to do all three.
Very interesting post – it got me thinking about something I’ve just encountered.
Is the new Atlas of Giving an example of an invention, an implementation, or a tweak on Giving USA? It looks like it could be a real step forward in fundraising management and strategy. Their new site is https://atlasofgiving.com/
All three are important and necessary. Where would we be without the inventors who are gutsy enough to take the first step? The implementers who are motivated by new ideas and jump on board to try it out? The tweakers who sit back and watch, and jump in when they figure out how to dit better, faster, cheaper?
John,
This morning I asked Rob Mitchell, the CEO of The Atlas of Giving to give his response to your good question. Here’s what he told me:
“There are elements of invention, implementation, and tweaking in the Atlas of Giving.
“The charitable giving forecast provided by the Atlas is an invention. This is completely new. The forecast is very reliable. For 12 months of future forecasts, the Atlas Pro forecast is 90-91% accurate; for 6 months 94-95%; for 3 months 98-99% and for 1 month 99-100%. Like any forecast, however, the level of reliability decreases and the margin of error increases as the forecasting period increases. The forecast is updated monthly to account for changing events, economic conditions and policy changes.
“The Atlas of Giving is an implementation because it uses current charitable giving results and a forecast to create utility for nonprofit managers and fundraising practitioners. Now they can use charitable giving data to raise more money by timing fundraising events, promotions and solicitations. They can also use the information to plan more efficient budgets.
“Atlas is a tweak because it took what Giving USA has done to a higher level by making giving data available monthly and adding giving information by state. These enhancements open up a world of new opportunities for raising more money and making nonprofits more efficient and accountable. Now you can keep your finger on the pulse of American philanthropy.”
And John, your question, and also Laurie’s comments and those of in some other emails Tom and I’ve received, indicate we need to explore all this in more detail. That we’ll do in future posts.
Roger Craver