New and Improved Fundraising Metrics The metrics that will actually lead to improved fundraising performance will not be about tasking fundraisers but about creating the conditions that allow fundraisers to be successful. The usual fundraising metrics have not: 🔹 Reversed the public's mistrust in institutions 🔹 Stemmed the loss of giving households 🔹 Slowed the rate of donor attrition 🔹 Helped donors better understand the impact of their giving 🔹 Substituted for the lack of major gift worthy content 🔹 Addressed donors' declining interest in subsidizing organizations Those metrics, therefore, are geared toward getting fundraisers to produce more without addressing the major obstacles in their way. The new metrics must be focused on creating the conditions that will increase the chances of fundraising success. They could include: 🔸 How many major gift concepts have been tested with current and prospective donors. How many have received a score of 4 or better (on a 1 to 5 scale)? 🔸 The results of a donor satisfaction survey or interviews of top donors to determine the baseline score in the current year, then a plan to address the issues that donors have identified as needing improvement, and how those scores compare year over year. 🔸 The results of service satisfaction surveys or service delivery assessments to quantify how well the organization is delivering on its mission promise for those it was established to serve 🔸 The results of needs assessment to determine if there is a rising or falling need for the service provided by the organization and, if rising, what additional programs and investments will be required to meet that need Without better organizational performance metrics, fundraising metrics are relatively meaningless and counterproductive. Fundraising metrics cannot compensate for organizations that don't sufficiently address what donors have every right to expect.
Excellent post, Jim, thanks. "The results of a donor satisfaction survey or interviews of top donors to determine the baseline score in the current year, then a plan to address the issues that donors have identified as needing improvement, and how those scores compare year over year." One institution for which I worked surveyed donors between campaigns and it was revelatory. These were some of the most authentic, enjoyable, and fruitful visits I had with donors as we administered the survey via individual meetings while on our travels. Unfortunately, the process wasn't repeated.
Haider Ali
1mo
Some good points in there, Jim. If organizations continue to measure themselves solely on 'dollars raised', then fundraising metrics will continue to be dollar oriented. A good starting question might be, 'What is the impact we want to have?" and orient goals around that.. You'll probably end up staffing the right kind of folks for your organization too!
Jon DeLange 🤝
1mo
Creating meaning within major donor populations will be a focus of future successful programs... not extracting value/dollars.
Dan Drucker
1mo
New metrics are definitely needed!Depth of relationships is a key indicator of sustained success.
So would you recommend not using fundraiser performance metrics (I am totally not a fan of these - they tell you nothing and stress out your fundaisers.)
Faith Kinyanjui
1mo
Donor satisfaction is the key to long-term fundraising success.
This is spot on Jim! 🎯 What you’ve proposed are far more meaningful metrics versus what gets measured. Donor satisfaction = long term fundraising success as Faith stated!
Spot on! Metrics that focus on how many donors understand their impact and receive intentional updates would go a long way in building trust and retention. Shifting the focus to donor awareness and alignment with intent could truly create the right conditions for fundraising success.
Enrica Zamparini
1mo
So so powerful and true!!
Director of Philanthropy with Expertise in Fundraising and Campaign Strategy | Championed $23M Grant from Canadian Government | Doubled Online Donations for HIV/AIDS Service Provider
1moAttempts at standardizing, typing, and labeling processes and the people who donate have never been suggested by the donors making significant gifts. Yet we keep beating their heads against the walls our industry creates. Are there commonalities? Certainly. Can certain archetypes be determined? Yes. Does data have a place? Absolutely. I have yet to meet anyone working in development with a similar history of giving as the thousands of wealthy donors I have met. Yet, our models and most leaders exclude them from any input or counsel on the process we subject them to. That we ever called them stakeholders seems curious at best. That anyone wonders about the attrition dumbfounds me. A friend recently confided that after a year of donating every month to an organization where I once worked, she stopped. "It was like being in a toxic relationship with someone." Empower fundraisers not with donor-driven strategies but rather strategies driven by donors, and you will win every time.