Jay Frost does it again with his blog post: “To Screen or Not to Screen” He provides a simple 6-item checklist for determining whether you want to do a prospect screening on your donor database. Sweet!
And I couldn’t agree with him more. Especially when he tells us that prospect screenings often fail to achieve results because of “poor planning and communications”. I recommend reading his blog post if you haven’t done a prospect screening and think you want to – and even if you have done one!
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?
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!