Fundraising Channel Performance

We currently have the largest potential donor class in history. Baby Boomers are reaching peak giving age with unprecedented wealth. The number of high-net-worth households has grown substantially. Yet the percentage of American households reporting charitable donations is actually falling.  How do we explain this paradox? There may be an answer in the data: The decline in reported giving correlates directly with plummeting church attendance. As fewer Americans attend religious services regularly, collection plate giving has fallen dramatically. According to data from Giving USA, the percentage of total charitable giving happening at Church has fallen from 50% in the 1990s to roughly 29% today. Meanwhile, direct marketing channels are capturing a larger share of those who do give. While traditional giving methods like collection plates see declining participation, direct marketing is actually growing in importance. Direct mail continues to outperform expectations. Despite being declared "dead" repeatedly, it consistently delivers stronger response rates than many digital alternatives. This makes sense when you think about it. Our physical mailboxes are less cluttered than they were 20 years ago. Meanwhile, our email inboxes are overflowing. A well-crafted direct mail piece stands out today in ways it couldn't when everyone was doing it. At the same time, electronic giving continues to grow. The convenience of digital donations aligns perfectly with modern lifestyles. What does this mean for nonprofits? 1. Double down on direct marketing. As traditional giving methods decline, these channels become even more crucial. 2. Focus on integration. The organizations seeing the best results combine direct mail with digital touchpoints. 3. Use data to drive decisions. Track which channels perform best for which donor segments. 4. Test timing variations. How quickly you follow up after initial contact dramatically impacts results. The fundraising landscape is changing rapidly. But these shifts create new opportunities for organizations willing to adapt. What changes are you seeing in your donors' giving preferences?

Most nonprofit organizations default to social media for growth. More reach means more donors, right? Not always. Let’s break it down with numbers. ROI (Return on Investment) Email marketing: $36 for every $1 spent (Data: DMA) Social media ads: $2.50–$5 per $1 spent (Data: HubSpot) Email wins. Less spend, more conversions. Donor Retention Email campaigns: 45% retention rate (Bloomerang) Social media donors: 4% retention rate (M+R Benchmarks) Email wins. You don’t own your social followers. Platforms do. Scalability Email lists: Grow predictably but require nurturing Social media: Explosive reach but volatile (algorithm shifts) Social wins for awareness. Email wins for conversions. How to Use Both (Smartly) Capture leads on social. Turn engagement into email subscribers. Nurture via email. Donors need consistent, direct messaging. Test and track. Measure click-through rates, not just likes. If your fundraising strategy relies only on social, you’re building a house on rented land. Own your audience. Email wins for retention and ROI. Social wins for reach. Smart campaigns use both. Agree? Disagree? Drop your thoughts below. With purpose and impact, Mario

Your fundraising dashboard shows impressive numbers. Here's what it's hiding from you. You celebrate email open rates without measuring conversions. You track social media followers without monitoring engagement. You count event attendance without measuring follow-up. You report total dollars without analyzing source sustainability. These vanity metrics look good in board reports. BUT they tell you nothing about your future. The organizations that grow don't just track more metrics. They track meaningful ones. Pull up your last dashboard report. For each metric, ask: Does this predict future growth? Does this inform strategic decisions? Does this measure relationship strength? Does this connect to mission impact? If you can't answer "yes" to at least two of these questions, you're tracking a vanity metric. The most successful fundraising teams I work with measure: Second gift conversion rates, not just first gifts. Donor relationship depth scores, not just giving totals. Content engagement-to-action ratios, not just opens. Volunteer-to-donor conversion, not just volunteer hours. Your dashboard isn't just a report card. It's a growth tool that either focuses your team on what matters or distracts them with what doesn't. Stop measuring what makes you feel good. Start measuring what helps you grow. Because in fundraising, what you measure determines what you achieve.

"What's your fundraising ROI?" is the wrong question. Here's what smart nonprofit leaders track instead: • Cost per dollar raised (by channel) • Donor retention rate (by segment) • Lifetime value (by acquisition source) • Second gift conversion rate • Average gift growth year-over-year These metrics reveal the true health of your fundraising program beyond simple ROI calculations. The most valuable insight? Understanding which donors stay with you longest and increase their giving over time. What metrics have been most valuable for your organization's fundraising strategy?

Why comparing channel performance like-for-like is a red herring👇 In B2B acquisition marketing, there’s a natural tendency to reduce channel performance to explicit ROI calculations: "For every £X we invest into Y channel, we get £Z back." This leads to DIRECT COMPARISON between channels to find the "best ROI" and can result in misguided changes to the weighting of investment. The problem with this approach? It assumes channels work in complete ISOLATION. This is particularly true within a high-ACV, sales-led motion targeting buying groups with long buying journeys and deal cycles. In this context, channels: ➞ Serve specific and differentiated purposes ➞ Have different objectives and KPIs ➞ Reach prospects at different stages of the buying journey ➞ Overlap, complement, and amplify one another ➞ Vary in touchpoint impact and significance. Comparing channels in isolation and only through lagging and standardised KPIs: 1. Overvalues channels capturing late-stage buying intent (e.g. organic / paid search) whilst undervaluing those driving early-stage reach and engagement. 2. Overvalues channels with better platform reporting and tracking capabilities, while undervaluing those with less granular insights but significant impact. 3. Overlooks differences in channel objectives, cross-channel synergy, or touchpoint impact. 4. Leads to ROI duplication when multiple channels contribute to a single opportunity or deal. TAKEAWAY When you contextualise your channel mix as part of an interconnected DEMAND ECOSYSTEM, comparing channels like-for-like makes less sense. Instead: 1. Measure each channel based on its specific purpose within your ecosystem, using customised KPIs tied to objectives, platform data and tracking capability. This includes perceived contribution to key outcomes (e.g. Pipeline, Closed Won) through account coverage and incrementality testing (directional and with caveats). 2. Measure the blended return of your channel investments for key outcomes against targets, tracking variation over time. Shifting the focus of channel measurement from COMPARISON to CONTEXT-DRIVEN helps you better assess performance and make more informed investment decisions. #demandgeneration #B2Bmarketing

Is your organization fighting Zombie fundraising? Zombie fundraising is when you have a channel that initially appears alive but attrition is slowly killing your fundraising. Look at this example. Channel A has a high initial return on investment - donors give through this channel. However, second year & multi-year renewal is poor. Usually this is due to difficulty reaching donors through a channel they initially converted from or a situation where the donor gives due to 3rd party endorsement and don't build a relationship with the nonprofit. For example, the donor came through a celebrity endorsement at an event. The donor cares about the celebrity, not the org. Or the channel is a challenge. The donor came through TV or radio, but converting a second time requires email, phone call, or direct mail. You think your acquisition is working because of the high initial ROI, but long-term, you're a zombie. First, you need to know your numbers. How is your acquisition performing by channel? Build a chart similar to the example. Second, test different channels for acquisition. Try to acquire donors in direct mail, through events, on radio or TV, through digital campaigns, and other channels. Measure how each channel performs. You must escape zombie fundraising to grow.