The Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) group on LinkedIn had a recent discussion posted. A fundraiser was wondering if there was an automated or easy way to get a list of her organization’s fans so she could add this information into the donor database.
As it turns out someone commented that his organization has a direct update from Facebook to its Harris Connect online alumni community. From there the data is exported in and out of the donor database.
Are you looking for ways to keep track of your different methods of engagement?
The Philanthropy Journal wrote an article about the results of a new study released by Convio: The Next Generation of American Giving. What I found most compelling is that people across the ages are responding and engaging with nonprofits through many different channels such as direct mail, website, social media, and events. My own preferences are that I enjoy getting Facebook updates, I like to attend events of interest, I receive a printed request to give and then make the gift through the website.
What does this mean for prospect research? Right now many nonprofits are struggling with how to track and evaluate direct mail and events, but movement is afoot to track and evaluate interaction across all those channels. By incorporating multi-channel interaction into the donor database, donor analytics could take on new dimensions saving time and money by allowing nonprofits to react and predict donor behaviors.
Is your organization tracking Facebook interactions in your database? How about Twitter or LinkedIn? Do you know if the commenter on your blog is a donor?
Young Learners Need Librarians, not just Google is an article published in Forbes on Monday, March 22, 2010. A parallel article could have been titled – Small Development Shops Need Prospect Researchers, not just Google. Author, Mike Moran, repeatedly mentions children’s inability to discern credible sources and their inability to find the most relevant material amidst the overwhelming heap of irrelevant material. Yet many nonprofits continue to believe that they can type a donor prospect’s name in Google and find everything they need.
The reality is that prospect research was always more complex, even before the internet. When searching was done in the library it was still important to know which sources to use and how to summarize prospect information for use by a gift officer. Finding prospect information is as complex as ever.
There are many sites purporting to “mine” the web for you, and sometimes they do a decent job of digging through the massive content on the internet. Dangerously, people often assume that because the website located the information, the information is both correct and belongs to the prospect. In fact mismatches and errors abound and are endlessly repeated.
A prospect researcher verifies information from primary sources wherever possible, alerts nonprofits when information is at risk for error, and includes self-disclosed or hearsay information (think Twitter, Facebook etc) only as appropriate, identifying the sources clearly. The two most important things a prospect researcher does for you is (1) ensure that standard biographical, occupational, wealth and giving history information is not overlooked, and (2) sift through and summarize the information ethically. A really good researcher can also alert you to possible gift strategies.
Researching your prospect requires specialized technique that goes way beyond Google. That’s why Aspire Research Group is so proud to offer small and mid-size organizations professional prospect research, without breaking the budget.
The New York Times ran an article today entitled “How Privacy Vanishes Online“. It is a nice summary of what has mostly been reported separately up until now. We all know that we are revealing a lot of personal information online and we should watch our privacy settings and be aware of scams. However, many of us do not realize that we are not anonymous online – or more than ever before – offline.
Simply put, data mining is the analysis of a large set of data to find patterns and then predict things. What the New York Times is telling us is that we are providing a lot of pieces of personal data that when analyzed in one set can predict not just our behaviors but reveal our identities. No-one is anonymous and this is not a television show!
So maybe we need to evaluate our definitions of privacy. As nonprofits, we need to ensure we have a privacy policy that defines how we maintain our own information but it is also very important that it covers how we work with outside vendors.
For example, if our donor database is hosted online, what does that mean in terms of privacy? Will the vendor be collecting and using any of the information? ANY INFORMATION is a new thought. As the smart folks at the University of Texas and Carnegie Mellon University have demonstrated, it is not enough anymore to strip data of typical identifiers and feel confident it is anonymous.
The February 27, 2010 edition of the Economist has a special report on managing information. Wow! I love the way the Economist pulls together their reports. I know that Amazon tracks what I’m browsing and offers me suggestions. I know that Facebook tracks posts and comments on fan pages. I know Google offers me alternatives when I misspell words. But I DID NOT know just how lucrative all this data dust is and how deep it goes.
As it turns out, Google didn’t just develop a spell-check, it spent several million dollars over 20 years using all the misspellings users type into a search window and then “correct” by clicking on the right result. All that dust I create when I type badly is being used by Google to create a competitive edge! And now Google is developing translation and voice recognition services using the same approach.
Even more curious about Google is that it does not have to own the data to benefit. The report mentions Google’s foray into electronic medical records suggesting that it might be able to use the data to accurately predict things like flu outbreaks. BUT users retain ownership and could take their records out of the system any time they want to.
It makes me wonder how fundraisers can use giving data “dust” to create better experiences for our donors and financially stronger organizations. Wouldn’t it be lovely if we don’t need to own sensitive data about our donors, just use its dust to give us predictors!
I was having lunch with a client and when we had finished eating she pulled out a copy of the short profile I had completed for her. She wanted to know what the capacity rating “really” meant. Briefly here is how we dissected the information:
Her business is in a profitable industry and appears to be successful
Might have income around $1 million or more
Has numerous other small business ventures that could be bringing in money or losing money
Paid $8 million+ cash for a Manhattan, New York condo two years ago, intending to do renovations
Seems unaffected by the recession given her real estate purchases
Owns a large yacht, but has it for sale at $500,000+
May be tired of owning a boat or maybe she is beginning to feel pinched after splashing cash on real estate and renovations
Maintenance costs for her yacht could be $20,000 or more a year
No giving to other organizations was found, but she gave $40,000 to the first phase of the campaign and is very engaged
Once you have a million-dollar prospect – qualify her! My friend did a great job of cultivating and qualifying for inclination to give. If you suspect your prospect can give $10,000 or more and is willing to give, get a profile to qualify for wealth. After reviewing the profile and what she knows about the prospect, my friend can now ask for the right size gift for the prospect and for the campaign.
Qualifying prospects narrows our list to those that have wealth AND the desire to make a gift to our organization.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
The Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) group on LinkedIn had a recent discussion posted. A fundraiser was wondering if there was an automated or easy way to get a list of her organization’s fans so she could add this information into the donor database.
The 
The New York Times ran an article today entitled “
I was having lunch with a client and when we had finished eating she pulled out a copy of the short profile I had completed for her. She wanted to know what the capacity rating “really” meant. Briefly here is how we dissected the information: