Past articles and industry standards suggest that 10% is the cross-over between direct mail and online fundraising. The last number I saw for bouncebacks was 30-40%. So, how do these figures translate into abandonment and retention. What happens to the 90% of e-donors who don’t convert to direct mail? If 30% to 40% of them have bad email addresses, that means that 50 to 60% of donors remain as online donors — presumably repeat donors. How would you, as on on-line fundraising professional suggest an organization meaure the success or failure of online fundraising efforts? I ask this question, because online fundraising is not free.

If you look at the licenses, back-end costs of processing credit card donations, and fulfilling any information or premiums that are not electronic or digital in nature, and then add in the cost of salaries for online fundraisers, and html programmers and online designers, and consultants hired for their expertise in fundraising — well, online is not free. And for nonprofits strapped for cash, with boards crying for more money for mission, what standard would you suggest online fundraisers be held to? For for-profit and non-profit organizations alike, net is the name of the game.

So, does your desire for creative freedom and flexibility and organizations that promote learning tie in to the purpose of fundraising? And do you really think that what you want for online fundraisers is any different than what a direct mail marketer, or a telemarketer, or a DRTV or mobile marketer wants? We all wish we had more resources with which to do our jobs. We are all looking for benchmarks against which we can measure performance, and evolving better measures of performance. That is the legacy of direct mail, and what makes it valuable — that it is measurable, and that you can say that if your programs perform within certain ranges of costs and income, you will generate net — and donors. And that is also why fundraisers track site visits, click thru rates and actions taken on the web. It’s net — and number of individuals retain. I am agitated too — by your comments about a medium which in my experiences still raises the highest gross money. And a medium which can drive people to the web — or the phone (call or text), or Facebook, or to tweet. Yes, its getting more expensive. That’s why fundraisers are looking to every possible channel, and to get them all to work together, and to be able to measure results against costs of say, a web-phone-web campaign, or an email-snail mail-email campaign. I’d be interested in your response. Let’s agitate some more.

Some nonprofit organizations are so focused on gross with marginal short-term net they have little opportunity of long-term mutually beneficial relationships. Some out there are mailing 2, 3, and even 4 or more times a month to a significant number of donors.

Data will reveal this folly but you have to seek it, believe it and act upon it.

I also take issue to the sarcastic tone expressed when the statement “shall we say fund raisers” is made. The term “Frightening ignorance” grossly misrepresents the “situation” that online fundraisers are in…and this article is yet another misguided attempt to put the fluid, less trackable vehicle (online fund raising) into a more rigid box (direct mail). Implying that online fund raisers are ignorant is essentially like calling doctors who cant figure out the cause of cancer ignorant (extreme example but you catch my drift). Online fundraisers face many challenges such as:

Lack of offline and online data syncing (so far no tool efficiently provides a solution for this).
The constant changing of online trends (facebook, twitter) email abandonment, the interest natural disasters.

Pressure to have “trackable results” and benchmarks as with direct mail which has been well established for years.

General lack of understanding about skill sets needed to perform in the email fund raising realm. High turnover amongst industry professionals which in turn creates a weak spot in the industry and leads more previous direct mail experts to speculate about what does and does not.

All in all…I believe there are nuggets of good information in this article BUT I whole heartedly believe that applying the “rules” or lessons learned from direct mail to online fund raising is a mistake. The truth of the matter is that no matter who deems them self an expert, the only organizations that will survive online or otherwise are those that are willing to keep their finger on the pulse of THEIR constituents. Constant flexibility and creative freedom will in my opinion always yield the best results in this field. If organizations would focus more on cultivating creative and technical talent AND providing and environment in which these individuals can grow and learn, the online fund raising world would be a better place.