Did you know that Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream’s most profitable customers buy both Ben and Jerry’s and other brands of ice cream? These “disloyal” customers spend about $400 a year on Ben and Jerry’s alone.
Whereas their “loyal” customers — those that only buy Ben and Jerry’s — spend about $200 a year. Half as much. Each disloyal customer is literally worth two loyal customers.
Do donors behave the same way? — Yes.
The Insight Data Cooperative is Australia’s largest donor-data cooperative combining the transactional data of over 100 charities, with over 2 million records, and over 20 million financial transactions.
We asked our friends at Insight to compare the financial performance of donors who give to only one charity with donors who give to 2, 3, 4, or 5+ charities. Here’s what we found:
Donors who only give to one charity give less to that charity than donors who give to more than one. When a donor gives to 2 or more charities, they give more to each one.
Then we looked at Average Gift:
Again, donor’s that give to more than one charity also give more on average to each one.
With one exception, donor’s who give to more than one charity also give more frequently to each one. And donor’s who give to 5+ charities, although they give slightly less frequently, their higher average gift and higher total donations make them far more valuable than donor’s who only give to one charity.
This is why charities that are privacy compliant and who share their data with other charities — both in the form of data cooperatives and through unilateral list swaps — actually generate much better financial results than charities that do not share their data.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by not becoming privacy compliant in Australia today. Donors do not reward you for having an iron clad rule against data sharing.
Instead they just give all that money…to somebody else.