Comments on: At Last! A Giving Index for Fast-Changing Times http://www.theagitator.net/hot-research/at-last-a-giving-index-for-fast-changing-times/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=at-last-a-giving-index-for-fast-changing-times Fundraising and advocacy strategies. Trends, tips ... with an edge Thu, 24 May 2012 10:56:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: John Pemberton http://www.theagitator.net/hot-research/at-last-a-giving-index-for-fast-changing-times/comment-page-1/#comment-26994 John Pemberton Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:55:04 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1455#comment-26994 Have you heard of Philanthrodex yet? This looks like a far more accurate index of US giving than Blackbaud's. The former president of the American Cancer Society created it. I read about it today at Forbes.com. It also has a forecasting feature. John Pemberton Have you heard of Philanthrodex yet? This looks like a far more accurate index of US giving than Blackbaud’s. The former president of the American Cancer Society created it. I read about it today at Forbes.com. It also has a forecasting feature.

John Pemberton

]]> By: Craig DePole http://www.theagitator.net/hot-research/at-last-a-giving-index-for-fast-changing-times/comment-page-1/#comment-26428 Craig DePole Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:14:59 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1455#comment-26428 One theory on why the mid-sized groups took the biggest hit may be that they were the groups who's volumes of mail were the most impacted when the recession began. The small groups are more able to maintain their volumes because they their mail is more focused on net generation and not necessarily growth. The large groups have the resources to keep mailing even when results are down. But perhaps the results are showing us that the mid-sized groups strike the most delicate balance between growth, revenue and volume. If they pulled back on volumes when the tough times began, they will have created a deeper hole to dig out of now that things are getting better. I'm curious if that's what other readers have seen. One theory on why the mid-sized groups took the biggest hit may be that they were the groups who’s volumes of mail were the most impacted when the recession began. The small groups are more able to maintain their volumes because they their mail is more focused on net generation and not necessarily growth. The large groups have the resources to keep mailing even when results are down. But perhaps the results are showing us that the mid-sized groups strike the most delicate balance between growth, revenue and volume. If they pulled back on volumes when the tough times began, they will have created a deeper hole to dig out of now that things are getting better. I’m curious if that’s what other readers have seen.

]]>