Last week I urged you to read Network for Good’s excellent study on online giving.

In case you haven’t, here’s a passage that might interest you. Noting that those who give to charities’ own websites give more over time than donors who give via ‘portal’ or social networking sites, the study observes:

“Charities don’t always do a good job following up with donors who give through portals or social networking sites. At Network for Good, only half of charities that receive funds in this way take advantage of the capability to access donor information for follow-up … Charities that don’t build relationships with portal donors are likely to experience depressed future giving.” [Ed: I'll say!]

“In addition, charity websites generally provide for donor cultivation; portals don’t. Charity website giving happens in a context where the donor stays aware of the charity, while the portal provides convenience to donors looking to donate in one place, but de-emphasizes the charity and its individual ‘personality.’ Portals are all about efficiently collecting the gift.”

This ‘efficient’ portal giving — left without follow-up — amounts to wasteful, unprofitable ‘catch and release’ marketing. I could go on and on about that.

But let’s stay focused on the fact that half the charities who use Network for Good’s platform never access the available donor information for follow-up. It’s been a long time since The Agitator used its “You Ought To Be Fired” tag, but here I’m sorely tempted!

These must be charities without professional fundraisers on staff or at hand. How else could this malfeasance be explained?

As bad as this example is, the truth is that even astute marketers and fundraisers have lapses where they forget to do the obvious customer relationship building. Two examples …

One. Last Christmas, I purchased a number of gifts online from a kids-oriented website. I’ve never heard back from these folks, even though they have all the data they need at hand to at least ‘remind’ me during the holiday season of my Santa proclivities. To say nothing of following up in the interim … Might the kids I bought for have birthdays? Were they happy with their gifts? Did I find it convenient to shop online? The answer to all three questions is YES … I could be a great customer, but I won’t be, because I’ve lost track of the website’s name.

Second. Well over a year ago, I stopped making gifts in response to online appeals from an organization I had supported previously. Since then, I’ve received additional e-appeals at least every other week from this group — dozens of appeals. But they’ve never bothered to ask me why I’m not responding. Haven’t they noticed yet? Or is it easier to just keep emailing me and hope I’ll have an epiphany?

If I sometimes sound Neanderthal on newfangled subjects like fundraising via social nets and mobile, it’s just that I can’t see the wisdom of charging into these areas — with demonstrably less pay-off — before getting right the absolute fundamentals of donor cultivation. Too often, I’m reminded — as with Network for Good’s study — that too many in our field don’t seem to be getting the basics down.

Tom