We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Privacy Overview
Login
Your Role
Challenges You Face
results
Learn
Resources
Company
The problem with participation rates among fundraising shops in higher education
I think colleges and universities should STOP worrying so much about DONOR PARTICIPATION RATES and become much more concerned about QUALIFICATION RATES.
Just think about how much time and money gets invested in driving up participation. And, how many crass solicitations result from that investment (which drive plenty of donors away).
Sure, it might drive the vanity metrics up at first. But so what? If donation revenue isn’t increasing too, what’s the point? Is comparing favorably with your peer institutions that important?
Plus, according to my free Fundraising Report Card app, new low dollar donors (under $100) only retain at 13.7% while new high dollar donors (+$5,000) retain at 44.15%. That’s about 3.25 times better retention!
I’ve seen the best fundraisers and most successful operations concern themselves with QUALIFICATION instead of taking a populist approach.
They invest more in finding people who are pre-qualified for outreach because they have a reason to give big, they have capacity to give big, and the timing is right.
This kind of qualitative data can only be collected from a properly engaged supporter, not from wealth screening and predictive analytics or traditional prospect research.
Of course, qualitative information is what my company supplies (in addition to helping highly qualified major donor prospects arrange meetings with gift officers when the timing is right for them).
The traditional populist approach costs a lot, generates very little, harms the environment and drives donors to disengage as a result of its overly-solicitous nature.
After all, the fundraising pyramid is a myth. Every day I see major donor prospects self-qualify even though they’ve never given to a particular organization or institution, and these folks never show up on wealth screenings.
Think of it this way: You can’t get people to buy Ferrari’s by starting off trying to sell them Matchbox toys. It just doesn’t work that way these days. Plus you don’t have time to drive them up the pyramid.
You can skip all that with a hyper-focus on donor SELF-QUALIFICATION.
Agree or disagree? What are your thoughts?
Related Resources:
- Fundraising Report Card
- 3 Donor Related Fundraising Challenges Keeping Your Revenue Down
- 7 simple steps to qualify your donors
- Why QUALIFYING donors might be the silver bullet you’ve been looking for
LIKE THIS BLOG POST? LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW AND/OR SHARE IT WITH YOUR PEERS!
Subscribe
Login
0 Comments
Get the book!
Feeling like your job is getting harder because donor expectations have changed and competition for the charitable dollar is growing?
Finding that the old orthodoxies and conventions espoused by so-called experts in online echo-chambers and at conferences don’t work anymore?
Want to help more people make impact by facilitating their acts of philanthropy but feel like too many obstacles keep getting in your way?
Then this book is for you.
Engagement Fundraising was developed from the perspective of a donor who discovered firsthand that the impersonal, spray-and-pray approaches of his beloved charity were not only offensive but also wasteful and ineffective. So he took action. And now, you can too.
Get smarter with the SmartIdeas blog
Subscribe to our blog today and get actionable fundraising ideas delivered straight to your inbox!