I certainly appreciate lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness. Perhaps a more fitting analysis of my response would be that I suggest we call a candle a candle and then set it on a lamp stand for folks to see.

In my view, this is far more ethical (and in the long run, more effective) marketing than calling a candle the sun.

We decided to make the screening and analysis free to all organizations and consultants because we believe understanding competition, or what I call “Mission Competition,” is more important than ever.

To Sam, I acknowledge that this system don’t catch everything, but it is the only data set available that exactly matches the donors on your database with the giving history on ours. Because this “exact match” feature is available no where else in terms of screening files, I would simply remind Sam — imperfections or not — of the adage: “It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.”

Since we are offering to screen your entire file, including lapsed donors, free of charge, and provide a Giving Analysis Profile, free of charge, I urge everyone to light the candle of insight.

Roger Craver, Founder
DonorTrends

Has anyone actually used these tools? And how have they leveraged the findings to inform their marketing efforts? I’d love to hear some real stories of implementing the findings.

DonorTrends can provide insight concerning published giving information, but it can’t reveal “exactly what share” because it can’t know exactly what they are giving in total.

There is no way to take into account anonymous giving nor giving made to organizations that don’t publish donor information. Additionally, information from the NOZA database may simply be given in a range – no real way to determine where in the range that gift fell.

If your tool is really great, you shouldn’t have to resort to hyperbole to sell it.

I’m interested in the tools that other small organizations have used. What worked the best and the worst for those organizations and why?