Share

Stop focusing all your efforts on finding 'younger' donors

Stop focusing all your efforts on finding 'younger' donors
Blogs

Stop focusing all your efforts on finding 'younger' donors

Fundraising | Jonathon Grapsas | 14 Sep 2009

If I had a dollar for every time a fundraiser said to me “We are trying to recruit younger donors”, I wouldn’t be blogging here right now.

My response to this is the same always: why?

Charities are always looking to recruit "younger" donors because they think that’s what they should be doing. Wrong.

Mostly because they hear, are told, or are in fact seeing that traditional recruitment methods (i.e. direct mail) don’t work as they once did.

So the obvious response is, we need to find channels that “younger” people responsd to.

In fact charities should also be spending time looking for better ways to recruit “older donors”.

Before I move on, I’m taking a pretty broad brush here. My definition of “younger” is pretty loose, let’s say under 35 years old. By “older” I’m talking 60 and upwards. Not a science but works for the point of this blog.

Why?

Because “older” donors give much, much more and are statistically more likely to stay with you. Fact.

Let me prove it to you.

I undertook some data analysis with a client recently, and looked at the key drivers of attrition across their file.

For every channel we looked at we were able to determine that “younger’ constituents were more likely, in some cases two to three times more likely to cancel their giving than “older” donors. And when you translate that into income, both long and short term that meant “older” donors were giving far, far more.

This is consistent with all of the work we have done with our clients at Pareto Fundraising, in each country we have looked at this in, across varying types of organisations.

The message is always the same.

“Younger” donors stay on for shorter periods of time and hence give less. The reasons are pretty simple, “younger” donors are at a different life stage. Less disposable income, more transient, more likely to have a mortgage, possibly with young children. Bottom line, less income to give away to charity.

So what?

Well, reaching out to find “younger” supporters isn’t necessarily the silver bullet. Finding better ways to attract and engage older constituents is. I’m not suggesting don’t recruit “younger” donors at all, far from it.

What I am saying is get the balance right. And when you do reach out to younger constituents, please, please, please talk to them differently. I’ll save that for another blog though.

Joanne Fritz
--
--
21 Sep 2009

You are a brave and wise person, Jonathan. I write a bit about older donors...why they are important, how to be considerate of them...and find that fundraisers are not nearly as interested in the topic as when I write about Twitter.

Young fundraisers are uncomfortable with aging and naturally want to mingle with their own age peers. However, all generations are online now, so it's really not a matter of direct mail vs web 2.0. Using multiple channels is important and will be for some time. Thanks for this blog post!

Leonard Payne
16 Sep 2009

Direct Mail methods no longer work as well because people are getting more skilled at filtering out what they don't want to be interrupted by. Outbound or 'push' campaigns are on the way out or so current wisdom would have us believe. Younger people go for more of the social networking and thats why we see campaigns on Facebook and Twitter etc.

BUT ......as Jonathon notes young people give less for shorter periods of time than older people. (It would be nice to see your research!) Which raises one important question and an observation or suggestion.

Question -- If this is so, how do we approach the older market if direct mail is getting such low responses.

Observation and suggestion --- So younger people give less for shorter periods of time? So what!. Engage then. Talk to them. Give them channels. Give it time. Make it personal. If your cause is worth supporting, you don't just need donors - you need long time evangelists.

 

Annabel Wallis
16 Sep 2009

I take issue with wholesale dismissal of young versus old. Every brand knows that building lifelong loyalty is the holy grail so the sooner you can get people to show an interest in your work, the better. So what if they dip out in the lean years? They may well come back when their pdi goes up. Also, I've found face to face fundraisers are targeting leafy suburbs with a high concentration of OAPs. I'm not convinced of the ethics of signing up the over 80s to a committed giving product on the doorstep. Please discuss.

 

Jonathon Grapsas
16 Sep 2009

Hi Leonard and Annabel

Thanks for your comments. The key I've found is ensuring charities understand the key differences in the way different donors behave (I.e. younger v older). Charities that have the most success in delivering the most value from different constituencies are those that develop separate streams of communications depending on age and recruitment method. We all know face to face donors dont respond to mail, so why send it to them? I often hear people say that direct mail is dead, doesnt work as well as it used to. I'm not denying that its harder than ever. But often (there are exceptions) its down to poor execution. I've blogged about this recently.

Even in a mature DM market like Canada, we're still seeing examples of charities delivering solid results (warm and cold) through the mail. If done properly of course. All of the evidence I'm basing this on looks at value to date of various types of recruits. Not implied lifetime value, but actual value. However, the key is not just about looking at data. It's about applying intelligence to the data and providing insights. Data plus intelligence = insights. So if the data tells you younger donors recruited on the street are twice as likely to attrite in year 1, does that mean you stop recruiting younger donors completely? No. As the model would not work and the channel would cease to exist. The intelligence applied to that tells you to talk to these guys in a different way, open up lines of communication they will respond to (email, video, SMS, phone, social networks etc). Thanks again for the feedback and dialogue.

Jonathon

John Brady
16 Sep 2009

Jonathon glad to see life stages mentioned and I'd also add lifecycle. May sound like old hat marketing theory but if w ego back top basics on marketing and identify different segments we did see that on the whole young singletons will soon reach a stage in the cycle where they will have less disposable income and may choose to ditch the charity.

Research on attrition for face to face giving indicated that whilst young people are the most likely demographic to sign up, (or maybe actually be signed up by the young recruiter), they are also the demographic most likely to lapse. Brennan and Saxton (2007) in their analysis of the family expenditure survey highlight that single women and child free households are most likely to have given to charity in the last month and have given larger donations whereas single parents are the least generous. Full report 

We use face to face and telephone and yes do recruit mixed ages. Face to face was great when introduced and still is as it brought in new younger donors. That said we have to accept the down side of attrition.

 

Jonathon Grapsas
16 Sep 2009

Hi John

Couldnt agree more re younger donors on F2F. All of our clients that recruit significant volumes of donors from the street (in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong etc) see the same thing. When we run the data through some statistical modeling, every time it spits out the same thing.... age is the biggest driver in attrition. I.e. a donor under 30 is around 2-3 times more likely to stop giving within first 12 months than a donor over say 45 or 50. No surprise really. But what this helps to do is solidify the thinking around how to best treat these people, particularly at the key attrition triggers, months 1,2 3 etc...

Cheers Jonathon

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Celina Ribeiro (94) Niki May Young (36) Jonathon Grapsas (30) Michael Naidu (23) Adrian Beney (20) Andrew Scadding (20) Kirsty Weakley (19) Andrew Chaggar (17) Vibeka Mair (15) Jonathan Waddingham (15)
Suzie Who (15) David Philpott (14) Robert Ashton (12) Tania Mason (11) Daniel Fletcher (9) David Burrows (8) Jenna Pudelek (8) Alistair McLean (7) Beth Yorath (6) Leon Ward (6) Stephen Pidgeon (5) Reuben Turner (5) Rowena Lewis (5) Tobin Aldrich (5) Mark Astarita (4) Lucy Caldicott (4) Tony Elischer (4) Joe Saxton (4) Tod Norman (4) Ian Clark (4) David Ainsworth (4) Alan Gosschalk (3) Richard Radcliffe (3) Pauline Broomhead (3) Jeremy Swain (3) Gordon Hunter (3) Ingrid Marson (3) Lisa Clavering (3) Adam Rothwell (2) Beth Breeze (2) Matthew Bowcock (2) Cathy Pharoah (2) Ian MacQuillin (2) Tris Lumley (2) John Tate (2) Garreth Spillane (2) Liz Tait (2) Chester Mojay-Sinclare (2) Allan Freeman (2) Claire Routley (2) Alice Sharman (2) Lindsay Boswell (1) Victoria Cook (1) David Davison (1) Bill Lewis (1) Giles Pegram (1) Jo Swinhoe (1) Derek Humphries (1) Alan Clayton (1) Stephen George (1) Gordon Michie (1) Chris Ingram (1) Martin Farrell (1) Morag Fleming (1) Matt Goody (1) Paul Farthing (1) Jackie Mendoza (1) Max Du Bois (1) Alan Hawkes (1) Ken Burnett (1) Ian Allsop (1) Martin Brookes (1) Tesse Akpeki (1) Anne Moynihan (1) Sara Llewellin (1) Rupert Tappin (1) Julia Unwin (1) Jessica Sklair (1) Scott Gray (1) Stephen Hammersley (1) Keith Collins (1) Joe Jenkins (1) Peter O'Hara (1) Debbie Attwood (1) Joanna Motion (1) Paul Marvell (1) Amanda McLean (1) Jason Suckley (1) Paul Amadi (1) Imogen Ward (1) June O'Sullivan (1) Kath Abrahams (1) Peter Lewis (1) Dan Corry (1) Douglas Rouse (1) Belinda Pratten (1) Jonathan Last (1) Jenni Cahill (1) Paul Emery (1) Marcelle Speller (1) Nick Aldridge (1) Philip Spedding (1) Tom Latchford (1) Sir David Varney (1) Liam Barrington-Bush (1) Lucy Gower (1) Jeff Brooks (1) Vicki Prout (1) Dawn Austwick (1) Dan Thompson (1) Steven George-Hilley (1) Emma-Lynn Houghton (1) Peter Horah (1) Neelam Makhijani (1) George Matafonov (1) Marcus Missen (1) Denise Lillya (1) Jaz Nannar (1) Ali Stunt (1) Robin Fisk (1) Gillian Claugher (1) Lynne McMahon (1) Emma Callagher (1) Making Good: The Future of the Voluntary Sector (1) Angharad McKenzie (1) Raj Rajukumar (1)
Less +++ More +++

Learning from history

3 Oct 2014

With the emergence of the cloud, the number of accounting software options is growing fast – just as...

Brooks Newmark: a knit wit?

2 Oct 2014

Ian Allsop returned from holiday to find many in the sector already needled by Brooks Newmark. This article...

It’s not the minister who counts

1 Oct 2014

Writing for Charity Finance magazine, which went to press before Brooks Newmark resigned as minister for...

Civil society organisations across Europe are seeing their independence come under threat

20 Oct 2014

Voluntary organisations across Europe are coming under pressure from governments not to campaign on issues,...

Focus on ‘independence’ should not distract us from the fact that charities should deliver more public services

15 Oct 2014

Sir Stephen Bubb says that the voluntary sector needs to be at the heart of designing and delivering public...

Charities must play a part in the growth of the enabling state

10 Oct 2014

With the state adopting a more enabling role Sir John Elvidge says that there is an opportunity for charities...

Free eNews