The Lost Art of Match Back

There are many ways to explain a declining response rate with new donor acquisition campaigns. More competition, poor quality names, lower list volumes to name just three. But there’s one growing cause that fundraisers are overlooking or just plain forgetting.

It’s when someone responds to your mailer online or through other non-mail channels. You know, when they ignore your unique URL in the package and go straight to your website. All too often, these donations are claimed by the response channel, which distorts the picture and undervalues the mail campaign.

If other channels get the credit for new donors recruited in the mail, you end up making bad assumptions and invest in the wrong programs. It’s a shame to see organizations gut perfectly successful mail acquisition programs, because it puts the health and stability of the entire donor base at risk.

Bottom line, strategic decisions suffer when analytics don’t support fundraising.  And those analytics specific to acquisition must include a way to match back to the original source. This simple step gives you a more accurate assessment of campaign performance, strategy tests and above all list response.

So write this in big letters on your office wall: “Always Match Back!” The cost is nominal, but the impact on future donor acquisition planning is massive. Just ask one of our clients who uncovered this hidden lode of responses from their fall acquisition.


An Age-Old Trap for Fundraisers

I live in one of those neighborhoods the Prism geo-demographers used to classify (maybe still do) as Bohemian. This reflects the diverse range of households by age and family composition, and is probably why so many street fundraisers are dispatched here – at least four a day on our main crosswalk.

Being in the business, I’ve observed a pattern with these fundraisers to button-hole contemporaries – 18 to 24-year olds – and almost never anyone over, say, 35. It must make for very hard and un-remunerative work.

Because as new government data on consumer expenditures shows, our most productive targets are older, much older.  Looking at discretionary spending gives us a keen sense of what the Recession did to younger Americans as compared to those much older.



You can’t blame street fundraisers for aiming at the wrong target; it’s quite natural for them to gravitate toward their peers. But you can blame those managing them and, in turn, the organizations that contracted the companies managing them. I suspect they’ve been swayed by the notion that better opportunities will come from lowering the average age of their donor bases.

But they’re wrong. There is sound evidence that giving, like eating out, comes from discretionary income encouraged by consumer confidence.

According to recently published data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,[1] the bull’s eye is, in fact, the Silent Generation. Especially the core of that generation, people over 75. This may come as a shock to a lot of fundraisers and nonprofit managers and, I dare say, most of their board members who haven’t experienced major donor fundraising for themselves. But as Bloomberg’s Business Week declared in their coverage of the report late last year, “…the Silent Generation has been in the sweet spot of America’s economy for half a century.” And they still are.

Despite the exciting technologies of social media and news-making, but incidental, giving by young people, the pay-off in fundraising is still a matter of engaging donors with resonating cases of support for building value over the long term.

What makes the Silent Generation so valuable? It’s what the St’ Louis Fed calls their “cohort experience.” Cohort experience identifies a common set of experiences that bind a generation together.

Silents were born during or just after World War II to parents who had experienced the Great Depression. From 1962 through 1991, when they were in their prime working years, the U.S. economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.5%, compared with the rate of 2.6% since. Most were employed in situations with defined benefit pension plans paid by their employers.

Silents also experienced relatively soft landing retirement. By the time the Great Recession began in 2007, almost all of them were over 65. That, as the St. Louis Fed’s William Emmons wrote, “makes them the richest generation we have ever seen.” They were hurt by the stock market plunge, but diversified retirement portfolios spared them the worst. Same story with the mortgage crisis as they had mostly paid theirs off.

Capitalizing on the value of Silents is principally a matter of engaging those who are already supporting your organization and, ideally, have been for a number of years. For most organizations it is too late to find and engage new donors over 70. So reliable age and long-term giving data on the Silent donors you have are essential to the task, complemented by research and CRM analyses that tell you about each donor’s specific interests in your mission and program.

Also be aware that Silents-in-waiting – 45 to 54-year-olds –are a lot poorer than they used to be. Their median net worth was nearly cut in half after 2007, prompting the St. Louis Fed to conclude;

“While it is too soon to know how cohorts born in recent decades will fare over their lifetimes, it appears that the median Baby Boomer (born in the late 1950s and early 1960s) and median member of Generation X (born in the late 1960s and early 1970s) are on track for lower income and wealth in older age than those born in the 1930s and 1940s, holding constant many factors other than when a person was born.”

[1] The Economic and Financial Status of Older Americans: Trends and Prospects, William R. Emmons and Bryan J. Noeth, Center for Household Financial Stability Working Paper, Federal reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 2013.

There’s No “Me” in Fundraising

You often see nonprofits teaming up with other organizations when it comes to delivering on their mission – whether it’s with government agencies, for-profit providers, or even other non-profits.  So why not in the fundraising arena?

The likes of The Nature Conservancy and The American Red Cross show how national headquarters and local affiliates can work together toward common goals. By allowing the national HQ to create and manage fundraising plans and to execute on them, local organizations save valuable time, resources and money. Cooperation also lets them focus on what matters at the local level – major gift fundraising, legacy planning, corporate partnerships and donor stewardship.

But you don’t need a national/affiliate relationship to cooperate and collaborate on fundraising efforts. The NextGen Public Media Co-op is proof that like-minded organizations can work together to improve the efficiency and level of service on a local level while working toward making the sum of the parts greater.

Every six months, we put key fundraisers from public broadcasting stations in one room so they learn how to do fundraising better together. They share strategy, data, test results, creative ideas, and sometimes production and list costs (watch the video). The concept is simple: by sharing lots of ideas and information, they learn as a group in a faster way, allowing them to serve donors and raise money in a more successful way, too.

What works for public broadcasters can also get results for animal welfare organizations, food banks and homeless shelters, colleges and universities, religious institutions – anywhere there exists a like-minded mission.

So when you’re slogging through your org chart or staring endlessly at a draft budget and wondering how you’re going to hit your targets, remember that the help you need may be waiting for you at another organization. Fundraising is hard. You don’t have to do it alone!