If you were with us a few weeks ago for our summer workshop, you might have participated in a very lively discussion about Relationship Mapping tools and methods. The idea for today’s post came to me from Maria Mutmansky, who was the moderator of that group discussion. This case study appeared in the Chronicle of Philanthropy last fall and highlights the way that the Henry Ford Museum has capitalized on their relationship mapping product.
Of course these tools cannot replace the kind of individual research and verification that a staff member can perform. But they can help to dramatically increase the amount of work one staff member can accomplish. And if you are one person working with a data base of 500,000 constituent records, that’s a huge benefit!
Click on the image above to read the original article.
Perusing the Prospect-DMM recently, I spotted an entry from Michael Pawlus of Grand Valley State University. He generously shared his presentation slides from the APRA International conference in New Orleans.
He steps you through a scenario of how to build a segmentation score for planned giving donors if you don’t have the resources or time to invest in extensive modeling. His method encourages us to first look to our own intuition and check to see if our assumptions are true. What a great approach!
While it’s impossible to receive the full impact of Michael’s presentation just by reading his slides, his underlying messages are clear and easy to understand. Click on the slide image to open the deck.
Posted recently to the Prspct-L and LinkedIn, Harvey Mudd College has shared their formula for assigning scores to constituents that help with filtering and selection when attempting to narrow down a pool of candidates.
Click the image above to read the full article.
For the eleventy-hundredth time I read an article stating that organizations who base their strategic decision making on data out-perform organizations who don’t.
No longer surprising, right?
So what’s the big deal? Why isn’t every organization taking full advantage of the data we so carefully input, record and store?
That question is also discussed a lot in these days too. Seems that it’s pretty difficult to get people to change their behavior (eg, adopt a data driven mindset) if no one is comfortable with the concept of understanding data.
The headline above is from an article in Forbes dated October 2014 by H. O. Maycotte. Mr. Maycotte explains that complex analysis from a business point of view involves a LOT of data. He says most people just don’t know where to start analyzing and frankly don’t have the right tools to help them accomplish the work.
The central issue is getting people comfortable with understanding the data related to the programs they support.
Recently, TechTarget published a case study highlighting an online-lending organization who is taking their employees through a week-long data boot camp to build data fluency throughout their organization.
Their goal is to be one of the companies who out-perform their peers by taking advantage of data and they’re equipping their employees with some essential skills:
- asking for the data they need
- summarizing their competed analysis
- presenting their findings.
They’ve adopted new management policies to require hard facts to support all decisions. So if you’re trying to get your department or program to move forward, you’ve got to be able to present your case.
Click on the TechTarget logo above to read the case study and find out more. And for more discussion on the topic, click here.
The 2015 CASE awards were just announced. Each year I eagerly look forward to sifting through the winners to see the creative ideas our peers are rolling out in their fundraising programs.
Right off the bat this winner in the Stewardship category captured my attention, because of course, it is an impact report! Colorado State University’s Veterinary school developed this wonderful report for their donors to communicate program measurements in a useful and easy to digest manner.
I love the mix of philanthropy, patient load and education all on one page. I can easily understand why the CASE awards committee recognized CVMBS with a gold award.
To view the full impact report, click on the image above.
Another 2015 CASE award winner, DePaul University’s Advancement Services wowed the judging committee with their impressive technology tools all designed to facilitate development officer self-service in an intuitive and transparent manner.
This is just one of the sample screen shots from their interactive reporting tool–
To browse through their full presentation, click on the image above and prepare to be amazed!
I recently read a white paper on the Marts&Lundy blog. The opening paragraph described how the private sector automatically conducts market research as a matter of procedure before formulating ideas for product development, advertising campaigns or go-to-market strategies. Then I came to this sentence and had to read it twice.
It’s sort of embarrassing, but I have to admit Mr. Mathias is telling the truth. You can read his entire report by clicking on the image above.
He walks us through 3 case studies where M&L applied research techniques (like surveying constituents and analyzing facts) to make observations. Then they figured out how to drive improvements based on the findings.
My favorite example of a finding was from the first case study. The team surveyed non-donor alumni at a university and discovered a surprising number were unaware that the university was a not-for-profit. Consequently, they formulated a plan to target this segment of alumni with a particular campaign message: why the university should be a top philanthropic priority. Very smart. And it yielded results.
This was particularly revealing and I wonder whether this type of mistaken assumption is widespread among many of our constituents? A provocative question indeed.
I received an invitation from TechTarget to read a white paper the other day and the topic drew me in right away. Text mining, predictive analytics, higher education development, affinity scoring and ROI.
The project that MSU started in 2012 involved reducing the time cycle to deliver constituent insights to the major gift and annual giving fundraising teams. They implemented more rigor around their processes for conducting text analysis and leveraging these insights for predictive analytics. Now they compute affinity scores each night and push the results to a business intelligence (dashboard) platform that their fundraising colleagues use to select and segment constituents for next-step engagement strategies.
Seriously? How awesome does that sound!
Click on the ROI figure above to read the white paper.
We’re familiar with the basic RFM score. There’s the blackjack score. But the other day I stumbled across a Salsa scoring case study.
While Salsa has a particular focus on email delivery and online calls-to-action, the overarching methodology is impressive. Here’s how it works: first it defines groups of variables that can receive a numeric score for demonstrated constituent involvement. Then it identifies a timeframe for each. The algorithm degrades score value by half after the timeframe expires. In this way, the most recently interacting constituents have higher scores than constituents whose interaction has lapsed.
The case study outlines the scoring variables for email opens/clicks, donations, and other non-monetary participation actions. It’s genius! Click the image above to read the full case study.
Are phonathons still relevant? Maybe another way to ask the same question is to inquire whether communication is still relevant?
I received a call from a young graduate working in the call center at my alumni organization last week. Let’s preface this by saying that I’m not an engaged alumna and in the million years since graduating, I’ve made just 1 gift. Not the best prospect when evaluating the flat facts.
But I get this call from Hillary and I love talking to her. Never mind that she didn’t know what I meant when I asked her to mark my name “do not exchange.” Obviously they need a little training in their call center. But still, when the conversation got around to asking if I’d be interested in making a gift, I already had my credit card out.
Communications experts will say there’s a much better way to spend your money on personal touches like this and it involves our old friend segmentation. Here’s some recent insight regarding call center results around particular segments when called prior to the NCAA Basketball tournament versus after the tournament was under way.
Ruffalo Cody compiled results of telephone outreach efforts for a variety of donor/constituent segments at 22 schools involved in the 2014 NCAA tournament last year and is kindly sharing their insight. Click on the image above to read the results!