Should we focus on donors – or users?

Tweet

In a fascinating post yesterday on Duct Tape Marketing, John Jantsch presents a podcast with Aaron Shapiro who has written a book called Users Not Customers: Who Really Determines the Success of Your Business.

As you probably figured out already his premise is that the experience that users have on a website and interacting online with that business are as worthy of attention as those who actually buy. Those who find the interaction satisfying and valuable will share those feelings online and the collateral benefit will generate future business. Using the example of Nike’s tag application, he says that forward thinking companies provide users with the tools to share that experience.

Using his premise, Shapiro says that companies shouldn’t be measuring conversion rates but rather compiling user satisfaction analytics.

So, as it relates to the fundraising sector, the question becomes are users more important than donors? Can improving the quality of the experience that someone has on your site or interacting online with your organization (whether or not that person ultimately becomes a donor) lead to increased donations? And if that’s true, should your website and online strategy be focused less on leading people to the donate now button and more on providing unique and useful experiences that people might want to share?

Not an easy question as is illustrated by two recent posts by prominent fundraising bloggers.

In detailing the online strategy of the Humane Society of United States, Beth Kanter asks When Is One Million Fans on Facebook Worth More Than A Million Bucks? In the end, she doesn’t answer the essential question. Can HSUS correlate a million Facebook fans with an additional million dollars in donations? But, her take is clearly that the visitor and online interaction surrounding HSUS’s 1 million fans campaign will lead to increased donations.

Tom Belford writing this morning in The Agitator isn’t so sure. As he sees it the HSUS campaign increases activism but not necessarily fundraising.

The empirical always has to come first. Is there any data that directly links increased online interaction and positive online presence to increased donations? Without those numbers, it could be hard to justify shifting resources to concentrate on the user as opposed to the donor.

Intuitively however, my sense is that Shapiro and Kanter are right. Clearly the way you choose to approach this issue has a lot to do with the size of your annual marketing budget (a point also made in The Agitator post). However, there is no reason not to take another look at your site and see if you can improve the visitor (who is not necessarily a donor) experience. And minimally, you may want to at least find out what is being said about your organization online.

I have some detailed ideas on what can be done – even on limited budgets – that I’ll share in my next post.

In the meantime, what do you think? Should we focus more on the user or the donor?

Targeting Affluent Donors

Tweet

The most recent daily post from e-marketer may be worth taking note of as it relates to high net worth donors.

While I appreciate that it was brands/companies and not brands/non-profits that were the subject of this study, the results can still be instructive to fundraisers. Certainly those with financial means are going to be of interest to any charitable organization and understanding their online behaviour may help in building relationships.

While the most traditional and still most effective way of approaching affluent donors is in person, it would be a mistake to assume that social media can’t be an important tool in building relationships with this cohort. To that extent the study is very useful.

Some of the results were predictable. I would have assumed that “affluents” aren’t looking for bargains online so the differential in the responses to “I wanted to get deals/discounts” and “I love the brand…” isn’t surprising.

But the responses to the next four statements are far more telling. For the sake of analysis I would organize them into pairs. “I noticed someone following the brand/company profile” and “the social network recommended it,” both indicate the greater degree to which people in this category are influenced by the opinions of their peers and sources they trust. It’s not news to any major gifts specialist that the most important factor in any solicitation is the person doing the asking or who has brought the philanthropic opportunity to the donor’s attention. This is in fact borne out in interviews with Canada’s top philanthropists that I have been conducting as part of a book project.

The to do list regarding this factor would be to find ways to extend the influence of your current affluent donors. Perhaps consider setting up a Facebook page that reflects the interests/concerns of affluent donors. Make it easy for donors to convey information about your organization. Create giving opportunities targeted to affluent donors and strategically use social media advertising to create awareness and drive traffic.

The last pair that caught my attention was “An ad (print, tv, online) led me to it” and “It was mentioned in an article.” Both of these underline the need for cross channel marketing. It has been well documented that marketing and fundraising efforts that use multiple channels enjoy better results. In practical terms this may mean considering ads in targeted publications to drive traffic to an “affluent-focused” Facebook page. Perhaps the content of that page can be unique enough to attract media attention (with a little pr help of course).

There are undoubtedly many other practical ways to use these research findings to create and enhance your relationship with affluent donors and I’d love to hear some of your experiences and/or suggestions.