Data has an inherent role in the decision making process for any enterprise. Business operations at all levels are based in some part on what is interpreted from consumer information. The term “data driven” is ubiquitous in commerce and made its way into the nonprofit sector long ago. However, it has never been clear what this means exactly and has thus been open to individual interpretation. Do nonprofit leaders who say they are data driven know what they mean? Or, are they simply restating what they have heard before to appease advisory and governance boards?
I have been concerned for some time that most leaders in this sector are repeating what sounds right and, in turn, are pushing their organizations to focus on data points, not people. Nonprofits are community-focused and community-driven. Those who they serve and are supported by are individuals with their own reasons for engaging with a particular organization. Behind every data point is a personal story that connects a constituent with a mission. Therefore, I would encourage nonprofits to shift their focus from being data driven to data informed. What I mean by this is that depending on their source, collective data points tell a story, either one that is personal or one that represents a segment of a community.
All data is provided to organizations by constituents, either directly or indirectly. The sources of this information range from email activity and giving patterns to survey results and manual selections. By making a gift or subscribing to a newsletter, constituents are telling the organization what cause or subject matter they care about most. When and how they donate—online, by email, or through text—and what messages they open, respond to, or opt out of provide further insight into their preferences for communication timing and tone.
An organization’s objective is to create digital experiences that are meaningful to their constituents. In an attempt to do this, they are often compelled to personalize their outreach to the furthest extent possible. Taking steps to address constituents by their names, referencing their gift history, or presenting content similar to what they have previously engaged with are all ways to personalize the donor experience. But does personalized variable content actually contribute to improving constituent sentiment? Will a more robust stream of communications built around stewardship rather than solicitation be more effective in strengthening those relationships?
Testing and learning opportunities are abundant in digital marketing. Nonprofits can do well for themselves by constantly changing one element of their outreach at a time to see how it impacts results. Repetition, intention, and careful evaluation will provide fundraising and marketing teams with narratives beyond numbers. For example, a constituent, or group of them, opting out of communications on a particular channel can be misconstrued as disinterest when it may simply be a factor of channel consolidation. A low open or click rate may indicate poor timing, but it could also be a factor of what is happening in the world at the moment.
Being data informed requires tools which automatically collect and consolidate data points. It compels diligence, patience, and persistence in testing to recognize what it all might mean. Getting this right means understanding the story behind the numbers and being willing to adjust your strategy to what your constituents are telling you, not through words, but through their actions.
Excerpt taken from my dissertation, Digital Engagement and Data Governance in Nonprofit Advancement: Principles for the Future State. See the other three principles of digital fundraising here.
