Cole Reese 2012 BoA Study

8/14/2019 Cole Reese 2012 BoA Study

1/4

It is my belief that our nations recovery from the recession of 2009 can best be

measured by the rate at which people are giving to nonprofits. From the figures that are

shown in the 2012 Bank of America Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy, it looks like

our economy is recovering quite nicely. Since 2010, Zero Waste Washington has seen a

125% increase in the number of donors giving $1,000+ and a 436% increase in donors

giving $250+. That being said, the majority of the organizations donors are still in the

$100 or under category.

The section of the Bank of America that I found to be the most useful and

beneficial to the nonprofit community was the research surrounding what was

motivating people to give. As a relatively small organization, Zero Waste Washington is

focused on growing our annual fund program. The board has set the priority to grow the

annual fund in hopes that we will be ready to launch a capital campaign at some point in

the next 5-6 years.

As fundraisers we often operate under the assumption that we know why our

appeal letters work or what people want to hear. But the results from our appeal letters

can easily be nothing more than a red herring to the donors true motivation. People

might respond because we have worded the letter in such a way that they feel they will

be giving back to the community, so the give $25. But, if the letter had illustrated more

clearly how their gift will make a difference to the mission, that same donor might have

given $1,000. As an organization that has a relatively small donor base, it is imperative

that we get the largest return on investment. By writing appeals that resonate more

effectively with a larger percentage of our donors, we will be maximizing the efficiency

of our dollars spent in fundraising.


2/4

On the opposite side of that coin is the information surrounding why people stop

donating to an organization. Whenever possible we want to minimize our turnover and

reduce the number of people choosing not to renew their membership. The Bank of

America Study shows us that 22% of people choose to stop donating because their house

hold circumstances have changed. This is the variable in the equation that we cannot

change. We cannot control whether or not a donor has to take a pay cut at work, or if

their child decides to go to a very expensive college. What we do have control over is the

remaining 78% of the donors who chose to stop giving.

The Bank of America Study showed that receiving donation solicitations too

frequently, or asking for inappropriate amounts what the primary reason an individual

would stop supporting an organization. This is an easy issue to address if you have a

functional database. Segmenting is key to any annual fund department. While

segmenting your donor list during an appeal, it is important to vary the amount that you

target based on the persons giving history, and in addition, if an individual has asked to

only be solicited once a year, it is critical that you respect their wishes. Even if that

person chose not to support one year, that does not mean that you should ignore their

wishes in subsequent years. When I worked for a local PBS station, the direct marketing

manager had made the decision that if a donor asked to only be solicited once a year,

and they did not respond to their one request, then that appeal code was removed and

the organization went back to sending quarterly (or in some cases monthly) solicitation

requests. In my opinion this is like offering someone a shot of straight espresso after

they just told you they dont like the taste of coffee. We cannot assume to understand


3/4

why that particular person chose to skip a year in their giving, but their lapsed

membership does not mean that their dislike of frequent solicitations has changed.

As to the remaining 5 reasons why a person would stop donating (change of

leadership at the organization, change in philanthropic focus, the person is no longer

involved with the organization personally) these are all issues that can addressed with

stewardship and cultivation. These two actions, stewardship and cultivation, speak to

what I feel is the overarching theme in much of this study: Wealthy donors are still

people, and people want to connect. In order to reduce your lapsed rate at your

organization, there is no magic formula, equation or method; it just comes down to

keeping your donor base educated and engaged. If your donors lose their personal

connection to your organization or your cause, then you have failed them, and you have

lost them as donors.

It is the job of the fundraiser to connect people with issues they care about. I like

to say that I am not in the business of raising money, I am in the business of helping

people make a difference. If we bring together the fact that 88% if high wealth donors

also volunteer, and they say they are most motivated to donate when they know their

gift will make a difference, I feel confident in my philosophy of philanthropy:

When we thing about all of the issues facing the world, disease, famine, climate change,

injustice, racism, homelessness, sexism, animal abuse, and so much more, it is easy to

feel overwhelmed and helpless. There is so much that is wrong and broken in the world

that people often feel that they cannot make a difference. This is where fundraisers come

in. It is the job of the fundraiser to reach out to the hopeful in our society and show

them that there is a better way; it is our job to show them how they can make a


4/4

difference. When someone donates, they are not throwing money at a problem, but they

are actively seeking a way to make the world a better place. As fundraisers we are lucky

to be trusted as the stewards of that change. Our job is not raising money; our job is

helping people change the world one dollar at a time.

Documents

Cole Reese 2012 BoA Study