WEBVTT
00:00:00.479 --> 00:00:06.879
Hey everyone, this is Stephanie, and before we jump into today's episode, I just want to take a minute and say thanks for being here.
00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:10.400
I took a lot of weeks off in August, which I do every year.
00:00:10.560 --> 00:00:12.480
It's part of my kind of tradition.
00:00:12.640 --> 00:00:20.480
I'm married to a Frenchman, and one of the things I learned quickly when we moved to France was how valuable it was to take nearly a whole month off.
00:00:20.559 --> 00:00:23.039
And the French do that nearly every August.
00:00:23.519 --> 00:00:26.559
And so every August I just take a couple weeks to regroup.
00:00:26.640 --> 00:00:43.119
And one of the most amazing things that happened during this August vacation was I had some time and clarity to think through how I wanted to move forward with not only this, I guess, podcast, but also, you know, what I'm building here and what I'm talking about.
00:00:43.200 --> 00:00:48.320
And I'm really excited to share that I have started a Substack built for meaning.
00:00:48.399 --> 00:00:52.159
And so I really hope you come over and hang out with me on Substack, subscribe.
00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:56.240
I'm testing the waters there and I'm feeling out how I like it.
00:00:56.560 --> 00:01:00.560
And it would be great to have you join me over there in that medium.
00:01:00.799 --> 00:01:03.600
Alright, onward to the episode.
00:01:04.079 --> 00:01:06.799
I want you to imagine two donors.
00:01:07.040 --> 00:01:10.560
Same appeal, same subject line, same ask.
00:01:10.799 --> 00:01:20.159
One of them is a 31-year-old monthly donor giving$25 a month because her college roommate died of the disease your organization researches.
00:01:20.480 --> 00:01:30.239
The other is a 74-year-old who's given you a gift every single December for 11 years and who, if you knew how to ask, would leave you something in her will.
00:01:30.719 --> 00:01:35.599
Most organizations will send them the exact same email one time.
00:01:35.920 --> 00:01:39.200
Same text, same openers, same subject line.
00:01:39.439 --> 00:01:45.680
And that nonprofit will wonder why the open rates diminish over time or click rates come to a halt.
00:01:45.920 --> 00:01:50.239
That's the mistake almost every organization makes with segmentation.
00:01:50.400 --> 00:01:53.120
And it's the one I'm diving into today.
00:01:53.439 --> 00:01:57.200
Welcome back to Built for Meaning, I'm Stephanie Jirache, and welcome to another episode.
00:01:57.359 --> 00:02:05.359
As a donor retention strategist and behavioral psychologist, I have spent the last 15 plus years studying what makes people take action.
00:02:05.519 --> 00:02:12.639
I've worked with nonprofits, startups, and Fortune 100 companies across four continents to help connect people with missions that matter.
00:02:12.879 --> 00:02:21.039
Today's episode is about segmentation, not the spreadsheet kind, you know the kind where your CRM kind of already does a drop-down menu for you.
00:02:21.280 --> 00:02:27.120
I'm talking about the segmentation that actually changes what a donor feels when they open your email.
00:02:27.360 --> 00:02:33.439
Because most organizations think they're segmenting when all they're really doing is sorting.
00:02:33.599 --> 00:02:35.360
Let's talk about the difference.
00:02:35.840 --> 00:02:43.120
Here's the default most nonprofits segment on age, gift size, zip code, and maybe recency.
00:02:43.439 --> 00:02:52.080
Bucket A gets the newsletter, bucket B gets the year-end letter, and bucket C, the ones who gave maybe over$1,000, let's say, get a phone call.
00:02:52.240 --> 00:02:56.479
That's not nothing, it's something, but it's not identity maxing.
00:02:56.639 --> 00:02:59.919
And the research on this is surprisingly blunt.
00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:09.520
A 2025 review in the Sage Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, by the way, I put all of these in the show notes, so go check out the research in the show notes.
00:03:09.759 --> 00:03:16.159
Looked across decades of donor segmentation studies and found something fundraisers don't love hearing.
00:03:16.400 --> 00:03:25.599
Demographic data, the stuff we default to because it's easiest to pull, is at best an inconsistent predictor of how someone actually gives.
00:03:25.919 --> 00:03:28.080
Age doesn't tell you why someone gives.
00:03:28.319 --> 00:03:32.560
Income doesn't tell you what they need to feel from you in order to keep giving.
00:03:32.800 --> 00:03:35.199
Those are facts about a person's life.
00:03:35.439 --> 00:03:38.240
They are not facts about a person's identity.
00:03:38.400 --> 00:03:43.759
And identity is what drives the behavior we're actually trying to influence.
00:03:44.479 --> 00:03:57.280
So in 2015, three researchers, Devry, Reese, and Moscato, ran a data-driven cluster analysis on Australian donors and found something our industry mostly still ignores.
00:03:57.520 --> 00:04:01.599
Donors don't sort neatly into small, medium, and major gifts.
00:04:01.759 --> 00:04:08.560
They sort into seven distinct psychological types built almost entirely around one variable, trust.
00:04:08.960 --> 00:04:15.439
I want to read you all seven because I think you're gonna recognize people on your own donor file the second you hear them.
00:04:15.599 --> 00:04:20.560
So number one, non-institutionalist charity supporters.
00:04:21.279 --> 00:04:23.920
Two, resource allocation critics.
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:27.040
So these are highly critical of overhead and spending choices.
00:04:27.360 --> 00:04:34.079
Three, information seeking financial skeptics, so they need deep financial data before they'll act.
00:04:34.639 --> 00:04:40.480
Four, non-questioning charity supporters, high trust, minimal scrutiny.
00:04:40.800 --> 00:04:48.399
Five, non-trusting skeptics, so these are like a low baseline confidence in charities in general, so they just like to give and give.
00:04:48.639 --> 00:04:55.839
Six, charity management believers, so they are more confident specifically in the organizational leadership, so they give because of it.
00:04:56.079 --> 00:05:00.480
And seven, institutionalist charity believers.
00:05:01.040 --> 00:05:08.639
That's seven segments, every single one of them defined by trust, not by how much money is in the gift.
00:05:08.879 --> 00:05:14.480
As an example of this in action, let's say you send the exact same appeal at the exact same gift size.
00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:24.800
It can land as validating to a non-questioning supporter and completely insulting to a resource allocation critic sitting right next to them on your list.
00:05:25.279 --> 00:05:33.199
Send that skeptic a warm, feel-good story with no numbers in it, and you've just confirmed every doubt they walked in with.
00:05:41.439 --> 00:05:46.319
So there's a well-established finding in consumer psychology called self-schema matching.
00:05:46.480 --> 00:05:50.240
This was published in the Journal of Consumer Research and has been published many times over.
00:05:50.399 --> 00:05:51.360
The finding is simple.
00:05:51.519 --> 00:06:05.680
When a message matches how a person already sees themselves, they don't just prefer it, they process it more deeply, they elaborate on it, they think about it longer, and that deeper processing is what makes the message more persuasive.
00:06:06.160 --> 00:06:10.560
Mismatch the message to the identity, and then of course the opposite happens.
00:06:10.720 --> 00:06:14.000
The brain skims it, uh, the person disengages.
00:06:14.160 --> 00:06:21.920
It's not that the donor didn't care about the cause, it's that the words never landed on the version of themselves that cares.
00:06:22.959 --> 00:06:25.120
And this isn't theoretical, right?
00:06:25.279 --> 00:06:27.360
A lot of studies have been able to confirm this.
00:06:27.519 --> 00:06:32.639
One in particular, a randomized controlled trial published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
00:06:32.879 --> 00:06:43.120
Researchers tested a smoking cessation program where one group got generic content and another got messaging tailored to their specific motivations to quit.
00:06:43.360 --> 00:06:55.519
The tailored content group had significantly higher quit rates a month later, same information functionally, but delivered to the right self-concept instead of a generic one.
00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:57.519
That's the whole idea.
00:06:57.759 --> 00:07:02.079
So here's the reframe I want you to sit with for the rest of this episode.
00:07:02.319 --> 00:07:08.160
You don't have a communications problem, you have an identity matching problem.
00:07:08.800 --> 00:07:12.959
The fix isn't more segments, it's smarter ones.
00:07:13.199 --> 00:07:17.279
So most CRMs let you segment by who someone is on paper.
00:07:17.360 --> 00:07:18.240
We've all done this.
00:07:18.480 --> 00:07:23.120
What I want you to start doing is segmenting by who someone is becoming through their gift.
00:07:23.199 --> 00:07:25.759
I'm gonna say it one more time so it lands.
00:07:26.079 --> 00:07:33.839
What I want you to do is start segmenting by who someone is becoming through their gift.
00:07:34.399 --> 00:07:39.120
Because that's the identity your message actually needs to speak to.
00:07:48.399 --> 00:07:53.680
She's becoming someone who honors her friend's memory in a small, steady monthly act.
00:07:53.920 --> 00:07:57.360
The 11-year December donor isn't just loyal.
00:07:57.519 --> 00:08:01.519
She's becoming someone whose legacy could potentially outlive her.
00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:04.879
Neither of those is a gift size category.
00:08:05.040 --> 00:08:06.560
They're identities.
00:08:06.879 --> 00:08:09.600
And once you see it that way, the question changes.
00:08:09.680 --> 00:08:13.519
It's no longer what bucket does this donor belong in.
00:08:13.680 --> 00:08:16.560
It becomes who is this person becoming?
00:08:16.720 --> 00:08:20.000
And does my next email speak to that person?
00:08:21.279 --> 00:08:30.399
So good news, you don't need a new CRM, but you do need three new questions kind of layered on top of the data you already have, and here they are.
00:08:31.120 --> 00:08:34.559
So the first one is based on role identity.
00:08:34.879 --> 00:08:38.480
What role are they, the donor, playing in your mission?
00:08:38.720 --> 00:08:40.320
Not their job title.
00:08:40.559 --> 00:08:44.639
I want us to consider their role in your story, in your impact.
00:08:45.200 --> 00:08:48.799
Are they the advocate who shares your posts and brings friends?
00:08:49.039 --> 00:08:52.480
Are they a quiet sustainer who just wants to know it's working?
00:08:52.720 --> 00:08:55.840
Are they a connector who opens doors to other donors?
00:08:56.240 --> 00:08:59.600
Write to the role, not to the title.
00:09:00.080 --> 00:09:02.240
The second is a values identity.
00:09:02.399 --> 00:09:05.279
So what belief is the gift actually supporting?
00:09:05.600 --> 00:09:09.600
Two people can support the same program for opposite reasons.
00:09:09.840 --> 00:09:16.080
One because they believe in prevention, maybe the other because they believe in dignity for people who are suffering.
00:09:16.399 --> 00:09:20.720
Both give money, but different identities being expressed.
00:09:20.960 --> 00:09:25.600
If you know which value is driving the gift, you can mirror it back.
00:09:25.759 --> 00:09:28.639
And mirroring is where trust gets built.
00:09:28.879 --> 00:09:29.919
That's the Sgt.
00:09:32.960 --> 00:09:36.960
I think it's the belonging episode, and it holds true here.
00:09:37.759 --> 00:09:40.879
So the third is relationship stage identity.
00:09:41.120 --> 00:09:44.799
Who are they becoming to you and the organization?
00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:50.799
A first-time donor is becoming someone who's testing whether you're worth trusting.
00:09:51.039 --> 00:09:55.360
A five-year donor is becoming someone who expects to be recognized.
00:09:55.600 --> 00:10:00.639
An 11-year donor is becoming someone who may be ready to be asked about legacy.
00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:18.879
Layer those three lenses over your existing lists, and you'll find your$25 monthly donor and your major donor might actually sit in the same segment because they share a role or a value, while two donors giving the identical amount sit in completely different ones.
00:10:19.120 --> 00:10:24.240
Okay, I'll be honest with you, this is more work than simply exporting a list by gift range.
00:10:24.480 --> 00:10:34.720
It requires you to actually read your donor notes, to ask better questions on your surveys, to pay attention to the language a donor uses about themselves, and reflect it back.
00:10:35.039 --> 00:10:44.240
But the alternative is what all of us have done at some point: sending the same email to two people who needed two completely different reasons to say yes.
00:10:44.559 --> 00:10:47.919
Segmentation done well isn't a marketing tactic.
00:10:48.000 --> 00:10:50.720
It's foundational for good stewardship.
00:10:50.879 --> 00:10:56.480
It's telling a donor, I see who you actually are, not just what you gave.
00:10:56.960 --> 00:11:01.679
So if this reframed something for you, here's your one kind of tangible move this week.
00:11:01.840 --> 00:11:06.399
I want you to pull your last three donor asks that you made via email.
00:11:06.639 --> 00:11:10.080
For each one, ask yourself, who did I write this for?
00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:12.639
Was it a gift range or a person?
00:11:13.120 --> 00:11:20.159
And then before you write your next ask and before you write a single word, I want you to answer one question.
00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:23.440
Who is this donor becoming through this gift?
00:11:23.679 --> 00:11:28.159
And I want that answer to drive the email writing.
00:11:28.399 --> 00:11:35.679
And if this show is helping you think differently about the people who give to you, subscribe to Built for Meaning wherever you're listening, if you haven't already.
00:11:35.840 --> 00:11:39.600
It's the easiest way to make sure you don't miss out on new episodes posted weekly.
00:11:39.759 --> 00:11:45.120
And remember, people don't give to causes, they give to who they become through them.
00:11:45.279 --> 00:11:48.000
I'm Stephanie Geras, and this is Built for Meaning.
00:11:48.080 --> 00:11:49.679
I'll see you next week.
00:11:50.879 --> 00:11:53.759
Hey fellow meaning maker, thanks for listening today.
00:11:53.919 --> 00:12:01.759
If you like what you heard, click subscribe and join me each week as I tackle topics related to donor retention, meaning making, and giving psychology.
00:12:01.919 --> 00:12:07.840
And don't forget to check the show notes to connect with me on social media, subscribe to the newsletter, and more.
00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:08.799
Until next time.
00:00:00.479 --> 00:00:06.879
Hey everyone, this is Stephanie, and before we jump into today's episode, I just want to take a minute and say thanks for being here.
00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:10.400
I took a lot of weeks off in August, which I do every year.
00:00:10.560 --> 00:00:12.480
It's part of my kind of tradition.
00:00:12.640 --> 00:00:20.480
I'm married to a Frenchman, and one of the things I learned quickly when we moved to France was how valuable it was to take nearly a whole month off.
00:00:20.559 --> 00:00:23.039
And the French do that nearly every August.
00:00:23.519 --> 00:00:26.559
And so every August I just take a couple weeks to regroup.
00:00:26.640 --> 00:00:43.119
And one of the most amazing things that happened during this August vacation was I had some time and clarity to think through how I wanted to move forward with not only this, I guess, podcast, but also, you know, what I'm building here and what I'm talking about.
00:00:43.200 --> 00:00:48.320
And I'm really excited to share that I have started a Substack built for meaning.
00:00:48.399 --> 00:00:52.159
And so I really hope you come over and hang out with me on Substack, subscribe.
00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:56.240
I'm testing the waters there and I'm feeling out how I like it.
00:00:56.560 --> 00:01:00.560
And it would be great to have you join me over there in that medium.
00:01:00.799 --> 00:01:03.600
Alright, onward to the episode.
00:01:04.079 --> 00:01:06.799
I want you to imagine two donors.
00:01:07.040 --> 00:01:10.560
Same appeal, same subject line, same ask.
00:01:10.799 --> 00:01:20.159
One of them is a 31-year-old monthly donor giving$25 a month because her college roommate died of the disease your organization researches.
00:01:20.480 --> 00:01:30.239
The other is a 74-year-old who's given you a gift every single December for 11 years and who, if you knew how to ask, would leave you something in her will.
00:01:30.719 --> 00:01:35.599
Most organizations will send them the exact same email one time.
00:01:35.920 --> 00:01:39.200
Same text, same openers, same subject line.
00:01:39.439 --> 00:01:45.680
And that nonprofit will wonder why the open rates diminish over time or click rates come to a halt.
00:01:45.920 --> 00:01:50.239
That's the mistake almost every organization makes with segmentation.
00:01:50.400 --> 00:01:53.120
And it's the one I'm diving into today.
00:01:53.439 --> 00:01:57.200
Welcome back to Built for Meaning, I'm Stephanie Jirache, and welcome to another episode.
00:01:57.359 --> 00:02:05.359
As a donor retention strategist and behavioral psychologist, I have spent the last 15 plus years studying what makes people take action.
00:02:05.519 --> 00:02:12.639
I've worked with nonprofits, startups, and Fortune 100 companies across four continents to help connect people with missions that matter.
00:02:12.879 --> 00:02:21.039
Today's episode is about segmentation, not the spreadsheet kind, you know the kind where your CRM kind of already does a drop-down menu for you.
00:02:21.280 --> 00:02:27.120
I'm talking about the segmentation that actually changes what a donor feels when they open your email.
00:02:27.360 --> 00:02:33.439
Because most organizations think they're segmenting when all they're really doing is sorting.
00:02:33.599 --> 00:02:35.360
Let's talk about the difference.
00:02:35.840 --> 00:02:43.120
Here's the default most nonprofits segment on age, gift size, zip code, and maybe recency.
00:02:43.439 --> 00:02:52.080
Bucket A gets the newsletter, bucket B gets the year-end letter, and bucket C, the ones who gave maybe over$1,000, let's say, get a phone call.
00:02:52.240 --> 00:02:56.479
That's not nothing, it's something, but it's not identity maxing.
00:02:56.639 --> 00:02:59.919
And the research on this is surprisingly blunt.
00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:09.520
A 2025 review in the Sage Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, by the way, I put all of these in the show notes, so go check out the research in the show notes.
00:03:09.759 --> 00:03:16.159
Looked across decades of donor segmentation studies and found something fundraisers don't love hearing.
00:03:16.400 --> 00:03:25.599
Demographic data, the stuff we default to because it's easiest to pull, is at best an inconsistent predictor of how someone actually gives.
00:03:25.919 --> 00:03:28.080
Age doesn't tell you why someone gives.
00:03:28.319 --> 00:03:32.560
Income doesn't tell you what they need to feel from you in order to keep giving.
00:03:32.800 --> 00:03:35.199
Those are facts about a person's life.
00:03:35.439 --> 00:03:38.240
They are not facts about a person's identity.
00:03:38.400 --> 00:03:43.759
And identity is what drives the behavior we're actually trying to influence.
00:03:44.479 --> 00:03:57.280
So in 2015, three researchers, Devry, Reese, and Moscato, ran a data-driven cluster analysis on Australian donors and found something our industry mostly still ignores.
00:03:57.520 --> 00:04:01.599
Donors don't sort neatly into small, medium, and major gifts.
00:04:01.759 --> 00:04:08.560
They sort into seven distinct psychological types built almost entirely around one variable, trust.
00:04:08.960 --> 00:04:15.439
I want to read you all seven because I think you're gonna recognize people on your own donor file the second you hear them.
00:04:15.599 --> 00:04:20.560
So number one, non-institutionalist charity supporters.
00:04:21.279 --> 00:04:23.920
Two, resource allocation critics.
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:27.040
So these are highly critical of overhead and spending choices.
00:04:27.360 --> 00:04:34.079
Three, information seeking financial skeptics, so they need deep financial data before they'll act.
00:04:34.639 --> 00:04:40.480
Four, non-questioning charity supporters, high trust, minimal scrutiny.
00:04:40.800 --> 00:04:48.399
Five, non-trusting skeptics, so these are like a low baseline confidence in charities in general, so they just like to give and give.
00:04:48.639 --> 00:04:55.839
Six, charity management believers, so they are more confident specifically in the organizational leadership, so they give because of it.
00:04:56.079 --> 00:05:00.480
And seven, institutionalist charity believers.
00:05:01.040 --> 00:05:08.639
That's seven segments, every single one of them defined by trust, not by how much money is in the gift.
00:05:08.879 --> 00:05:14.480
As an example of this in action, let's say you send the exact same appeal at the exact same gift size.
00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:24.800
It can land as validating to a non-questioning supporter and completely insulting to a resource allocation critic sitting right next to them on your list.
00:05:25.279 --> 00:05:33.199
Send that skeptic a warm, feel-good story with no numbers in it, and you've just confirmed every doubt they walked in with.
00:05:41.439 --> 00:05:46.319
So there's a well-established finding in consumer psychology called self-schema matching.
00:05:46.480 --> 00:05:50.240
This was published in the Journal of Consumer Research and has been published many times over.
00:05:50.399 --> 00:05:51.360
The finding is simple.
00:05:51.519 --> 00:06:05.680
When a message matches how a person already sees themselves, they don't just prefer it, they process it more deeply, they elaborate on it, they think about it longer, and that deeper processing is what makes the message more persuasive.
00:06:06.160 --> 00:06:10.560
Mismatch the message to the identity, and then of course the opposite happens.
00:06:10.720 --> 00:06:14.000
The brain skims it, uh, the person disengages.
00:06:14.160 --> 00:06:21.920
It's not that the donor didn't care about the cause, it's that the words never landed on the version of themselves that cares.
00:06:22.959 --> 00:06:25.120
And this isn't theoretical, right?
00:06:25.279 --> 00:06:27.360
A lot of studies have been able to confirm this.
00:06:27.519 --> 00:06:32.639
One in particular, a randomized controlled trial published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
00:06:32.879 --> 00:06:43.120
Researchers tested a smoking cessation program where one group got generic content and another got messaging tailored to their specific motivations to quit.
00:06:43.360 --> 00:06:55.519
The tailored content group had significantly higher quit rates a month later, same information functionally, but delivered to the right self-concept instead of a generic one.
00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:57.519
That's the whole idea.
00:06:57.759 --> 00:07:02.079
So here's the reframe I want you to sit with for the rest of this episode.
00:07:02.319 --> 00:07:08.160
You don't have a communications problem, you have an identity matching problem.
00:07:08.800 --> 00:07:12.959
The fix isn't more segments, it's smarter ones.
00:07:13.199 --> 00:07:17.279
So most CRMs let you segment by who someone is on paper.
00:07:17.360 --> 00:07:18.240
We've all done this.
00:07:18.480 --> 00:07:23.120
What I want you to start doing is segmenting by who someone is becoming through their gift.
00:07:23.199 --> 00:07:25.759
I'm gonna say it one more time so it lands.
00:07:26.079 --> 00:07:33.839
What I want you to do is start segmenting by who someone is becoming through their gift.
00:07:34.399 --> 00:07:39.120
Because that's the identity your message actually needs to speak to.
00:07:48.399 --> 00:07:53.680
She's becoming someone who honors her friend's memory in a small, steady monthly act.
00:07:53.920 --> 00:07:57.360
The 11-year December donor isn't just loyal.
00:07:57.519 --> 00:08:01.519
She's becoming someone whose legacy could potentially outlive her.
00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:04.879
Neither of those is a gift size category.
00:08:05.040 --> 00:08:06.560
They're identities.
00:08:06.879 --> 00:08:09.600
And once you see it that way, the question changes.
00:08:09.680 --> 00:08:13.519
It's no longer what bucket does this donor belong in.
00:08:13.680 --> 00:08:16.560
It becomes who is this person becoming?
00:08:16.720 --> 00:08:20.000
And does my next email speak to that person?
00:08:21.279 --> 00:08:30.399
So good news, you don't need a new CRM, but you do need three new questions kind of layered on top of the data you already have, and here they are.
00:08:31.120 --> 00:08:34.559
So the first one is based on role identity.
00:08:34.879 --> 00:08:38.480
What role are they, the donor, playing in your mission?
00:08:38.720 --> 00:08:40.320
Not their job title.
00:08:40.559 --> 00:08:44.639
I want us to consider their role in your story, in your impact.
00:08:45.200 --> 00:08:48.799
Are they the advocate who shares your posts and brings friends?
00:08:49.039 --> 00:08:52.480
Are they a quiet sustainer who just wants to know it's working?
00:08:52.720 --> 00:08:55.840
Are they a connector who opens doors to other donors?
00:08:56.240 --> 00:08:59.600
Write to the role, not to the title.
00:09:00.080 --> 00:09:02.240
The second is a values identity.
00:09:02.399 --> 00:09:05.279
So what belief is the gift actually supporting?
00:09:05.600 --> 00:09:09.600
Two people can support the same program for opposite reasons.
00:09:09.840 --> 00:09:16.080
One because they believe in prevention, maybe the other because they believe in dignity for people who are suffering.
00:09:16.399 --> 00:09:20.720
Both give money, but different identities being expressed.
00:09:20.960 --> 00:09:25.600
If you know which value is driving the gift, you can mirror it back.
00:09:25.759 --> 00:09:28.639
And mirroring is where trust gets built.
00:09:28.879 --> 00:09:29.919
That's the Sgt.
00:09:32.960 --> 00:09:36.960
I think it's the belonging episode, and it holds true here.
00:09:37.759 --> 00:09:40.879
So the third is relationship stage identity.
00:09:41.120 --> 00:09:44.799
Who are they becoming to you and the organization?
00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:50.799
A first-time donor is becoming someone who's testing whether you're worth trusting.
00:09:51.039 --> 00:09:55.360
A five-year donor is becoming someone who expects to be recognized.
00:09:55.600 --> 00:10:00.639
An 11-year donor is becoming someone who may be ready to be asked about legacy.
00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:18.879
Layer those three lenses over your existing lists, and you'll find your$25 monthly donor and your major donor might actually sit in the same segment because they share a role or a value, while two donors giving the identical amount sit in completely different ones.
00:10:19.120 --> 00:10:24.240
Okay, I'll be honest with you, this is more work than simply exporting a list by gift range.
00:10:24.480 --> 00:10:34.720
It requires you to actually read your donor notes, to ask better questions on your surveys, to pay attention to the language a donor uses about themselves, and reflect it back.
00:10:35.039 --> 00:10:44.240
But the alternative is what all of us have done at some point: sending the same email to two people who needed two completely different reasons to say yes.
00:10:44.559 --> 00:10:47.919
Segmentation done well isn't a marketing tactic.
00:10:48.000 --> 00:10:50.720
It's foundational for good stewardship.
00:10:50.879 --> 00:10:56.480
It's telling a donor, I see who you actually are, not just what you gave.
00:10:56.960 --> 00:11:01.679
So if this reframed something for you, here's your one kind of tangible move this week.
00:11:01.840 --> 00:11:06.399
I want you to pull your last three donor asks that you made via email.
00:11:06.639 --> 00:11:10.080
For each one, ask yourself, who did I write this for?
00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:12.639
Was it a gift range or a person?
00:11:13.120 --> 00:11:20.159
And then before you write your next ask and before you write a single word, I want you to answer one question.
00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:23.440
Who is this donor becoming through this gift?
00:11:23.679 --> 00:11:28.159
And I want that answer to drive the email writing.
00:11:28.399 --> 00:11:35.679
And if this show is helping you think differently about the people who give to you, subscribe to Built for Meaning wherever you're listening, if you haven't already.
00:11:35.840 --> 00:11:39.600
It's the easiest way to make sure you don't miss out on new episodes posted weekly.
00:11:39.759 --> 00:11:45.120
And remember, people don't give to causes, they give to who they become through them.
00:11:45.279 --> 00:11:48.000
I'm Stephanie Geras, and this is Built for Meaning.
00:11:48.080 --> 00:11:49.679
I'll see you next week.
00:11:50.879 --> 00:11:53.759
Hey fellow meaning maker, thanks for listening today.
00:11:53.919 --> 00:12:01.759
If you like what you heard, click subscribe and join me each week as I tackle topics related to donor retention, meaning making, and giving psychology.
00:12:01.919 --> 00:12:07.840
And don't forget to check the show notes to connect with me on social media, subscribe to the newsletter, and more.
00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:08.799
Until next time.
