A theory for the migration of online donors to direct mail.
A couple days ago, I commented on The Agitator blog in response to a report about Target Analytics’ new Internet Giving Benchmarking Analysis.
The report shows that “significant numbers of online acquired donors switch their giving channel to direct mail in the second year of giving.” [emphasis added]
Here’s an excerpt of the theory I shared for my hunch as to why online donors are migrating their giving to direct mail:
I have a theory about this whole idea that donors are migrating from being acquired online to giving offline. Actually seems to echo Jill’s earlier comment. Goes something like:
Acquire a donor online + Poor/inconsistent/infrequent online cultivation + Good/frequent direct mail cultivation = Online donor migrates to direct mail
We saw this with a client of ours a couple years ago perfectly. We looked at donors acquired online and sure enough by the end of year one they had “migrated” to giving offline. BUT the client had a very young online communications stream at the time. So in my mind, no wonder those first gift online donors “migrated” to direct mail – that was the channel the ministry was best at asking in! We have spent years and years fine-tuning the best direct mail campaigns, but relatively little time in figuring out the best new media campaigns – so of course donors are going to migrate to offline, if only because that is the channel they are being best cultivated in.
Now, I’m willing to admit that perhaps online is really good at influencing gifts, and direct mail is really good at being the channel the donor actually responds in, but still, I think I’ve got a pretty good theory here. . . .
Tom Belford’s response.
Tom, one of The Agitator’s main contributors, thought enough of my comment to feature it in a post yesterday — Too Important for Techies.
Tom agreed with my basic theory, and hypothesized that a major reason for this “migration” is that “Direct mail fundraisers know how to raise money; online ‘fundraising’ is left to techies who don’t.”
I agree with Tom. One of the reasons online fundraising has been stunted is because it has long been considered the realm of IT professionals, not fundraising or development or marketing professionals.
The ensuing commotion.
After that post yesterday, a number of comments poured in, both supporting and arguing my basic premise and Tom’s subsequent thought. So much so, in fact, that Tom posted on the topic again today, in Too Important for Techies – II.
In today’s post, Tom quoted feedback from Ryann Miller. She offered some great thoughts — including the fact that online fundraising typically gets the short end of the budget stick, overburdened staffers, the physicality of direct mail creating a deep experience, and fundraising firstly being about human relationships. She also argued a few of my points well. But I won’t recount her thoughts in detail here, because you can read them for yourself.
But the specific reasons why aside, what I’d like to think we all agree on is that fundraising via new media channels still has a lot of growing up to do (if Tom or Ryann don’t actually agree with this, I’m sure they’ll let me know). And it’s going to take all of us to get there.
And in conclusion . . . this is what it’s all about!
Impassioned debate around these kinds of things will ultimately increase all of our abilities to be effective using new media in the future.