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.
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.
I have to admit I hadn’t heard of it ’til just the other day. Thank goodness for the internet!
OK, so here’s the scoop. Hosted by the Prospect Research Institute and moderated by the brilliant Jen Filla, this is a quarterly online meeting of practitioners who discuss relationship mapping products and methods of applying the products.
And it’s free for participants. Yes that’s exactly what I thought too. Count me in.
All you have to do is sign up on the Prospect Research Institute’s email list for this event and then RSVP when they send out the next invitation. The work group accepts only the first 25 RSVPs.
Click on the logo above to sign up and take part!
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!
Recently I stumbled upon this great whitepaper from the awesome folks at QuadWrangle that covers a lot of basic how-to information for assessing giving capacity. And one of the best parts about the white paper is they take a low cost point of view.
Here’s what I mean–
This is a great breakdown of go-to resources for any prospect research team member.
I have to admit I did not happen to agree with the author’s mention of social affinity and consumer marketing data as a valuable resource for wealth computation. But this is an equal opportunity forum, so if my opinion is way off base, just tell me why you disagree.
To download the white paper click on the image above.
A fair number of blog posts here are about data analysis and data fluency. If you don’t know me well, you might think my job is all about analyzing tons of data. But that’s far from the truth. I spend more than half my time on prospect research basics – verifying addresses, names, phone numbers, relationships, age and publicly recorded assets.
That’s why this article caught my attention. Chris Hughes, with Ruffalo Noel Levitz, assembled a top-5 list of investments for organizations moving toward the end of our fiscal year (for those of us on the academic calendar).
1. Number one on his list is good old basic research and data enrichment. My favorite. How many of your donors in the last 6-to-12 months are in your system without a good address? Probably more than you think. Check it out! Make sure you can contact your recent donors. Don’t assume the national COA is going to keep your file up to date. If you have too many constituents to look up, then segment by lifetime value, last gift amount, or wealth tier and start there.
2. Second on the list is analytics. This doesn’t have to mean complicated modeling. In fact more than likely, all of us could benefit from knowing more about our donors. What is their age distribution? Where do they live? How many have more than one valid contact method listed in your system? How many fall into more than 1 segment (like alumni, patient, member or ticket subscriber)?
He rounds out the top-5 list with 3 additional worthy ideas, so click on the image above to read the full article.
Kevin McDonnell is a data analytics rock star. I say that because he’s been in this field for quite a while, has a valuable perspective on data analysis pertaining to advancing fundraising success, and he’s extremely generous when it comes to sharing his knowledge. In case you don’t already know, he’s the author of the Cool Data blog.
Last week he gave a presentation at the Canadian Association of Gift Planners conference.
And the topic, coincidentally was planned giving.
More specifically, it was a primer for direct fundraisers to understand how data mining works and how to ask better questions of their constituent data sets in order to elevate the odds of success in their own fundraising efforts.
Kevin generously shared the whitepaper he composed for the presentation via his blog. By all means take a little time to read through it, he explains everything so well. To access a copy, click here.
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.
This blog post appeared originally in August on the old blog, but it was one of the reader favorites, so I thought it might be a good idea to publish the content again on our new platform. Here are 3 calculations that can be useful for filtering or prioritizing constituents before examining at the individual level. Courtesy of Fundraising Success.
If you’d like to share a formula that you use, let me know!!