The Gift That Hasn't Happened

The finding in its setting

Godin and colleagues (2014) randomly assigned 7,000 lapsed blood donors to one of six questionnaires or to a control group that received none, then counted registrations at blood drives over the next 6 and 15 months. Some questionnaire versions increased registration compared with the control group. About 23% of people with valid addresses returned a questionnaire.

The outcome was blood-drive registration, so the study cannot tell you how much money a cash-donation survey would produce. Returning a questionnaire was a choice, which is why the comparison that counts is everyone assigned against everyone in the control group. People who reply differ from people who don’t in ways no mailing caused.

How an answer turns into a number

Survey answers drift as they move through a team. “I plan to give again” becomes “likely donor” in the database, then “41 expected renewals” in the board pack, then a revenue line built on the average gift. Each step seems reasonable to whoever takes it, and none of them is something the donor said.

The donor answered one question, on one date. That’s what the record should hold, with the wording of the question. Anything staff infer goes in a separate note and doesn’t change the donor’s status. Permission to follow up is a separate answer too; a donor can plan to give and still not want a call.

Give every answer a recheck date

An answer describes one moment. Set a recheck date when you record it, such as the end of the period the question asked about. After that date it leaves the active list and stays in the donor’s history. Nobody should stay a “likely donor” because of a box they ticked two years ago.

To find out whether the survey changed giving, hold back a randomly chosen group that doesn’t receive it, and fix the dates before sending. Then compare the share of each whole group who gave, counting each donor once. The reply rate and the giving rate have different denominators. Keep them apart in every report.

Fernwood’s check-in survey

After Femi checks duplicate identities and excludes donors whose contact preferences do not permit this survey, Fernwood Community Pantry has 1,200 eligible individual donors whose last gift was 13 to 36 months before March 1. Rhea, the development manager, wants to ask them whether they’re thinking of giving again. Femi, the operations lead, wants to know whether asking makes any difference.

On March 2, Femi randomly splits the 1,200 into two groups of 600 and saves the file. One group receives the survey on March 3. The other doesn’t. Both groups get Fernwood’s usual communications. The comparison window runs from March 3 to August 31, which is also the recheck date for every answer.

96 of the 600 replied, a reply rate of 16% of everyone sent the survey. Six replies mentioned an amount in the comment box, such as “probably $50 again.” Rhea copies each comment into the donor’s record word for word and adds none of them up.

Rhea owns the follow-ups and works through the 37 by the channel each donor chose. Two donors who planned to give gave online before Rhea reached them; their follow-ups were cancelled and they received the usual receipt and thanks. Of the 35 Rhea contacted by March 31, four replied “no thanks,” and their records now say so. The 22 who said “not right now” get no personal ask; the one who asked about volunteering in their comment gets the information they requested.

The April report

Rhea’s first draft for the April 14 finance committee counted the 41 “plan to give” answers as expected renewals at the group’s average past gift of $85: 41 × $85 = $3,485 in the spring forecast. Femi took it out. The answers did not establish 41 gifts of $85. Some comments mentioned possible amounts, but none created a commitment through Fernwood’s pledge process. The $3,485 was Fernwood’s estimate, presented as donors’ commitments.

The report gives the survey counts in full, reconciled to all 600 recipients, and leaves revenue as gifts received. Two donors made written pledges after their follow-up; finance recorded them through its usual pledge process, and the report counts them there.

August 31: did the survey make a difference?

Femi counts, for each group of 600, the donors who made at least one gift between March 3 and August 31, from any channel, counting each donor once. Everyone stays in the group they were assigned to, including bounces and people who never replied.

This comparison covers the survey and the agreed personal follow-ups it triggered. It cannot isolate the effect of asking the question. Eight more donors gave in the survey group. With 600 in each group, a gap that size could easily come from chance, so Femi reports a small difference that doesn’t settle whether the survey helped. Repeating the same design next year would add evidence.

The 39 survey-group donors who gave include 22 who said they planned to, 7 who weren’t sure, 1 who said not right now and 9 who never replied. So 22 of the 41 who planned to give did give, which is 54%. Femi doesn’t set that beside the 5.2% in the no-survey group. Those 41 chose to reply and chose that answer, and many would probably have given anyway. The 54% describes them and says nothing about what the survey did.

On August 31 every answer reached its recheck date. The 19 donors who said they planned to give and haven’t are no longer flagged, and their March answers stay in their history.

Who does what

Whoever processes replies records each answer word for word and opens a follow-up task only where the donor ticked a box. One named person owns each follow-up and its due date. Finance owns pledges, through whatever process your organization already uses; the survey doesn’t create a new kind of commitment. Whoever reports to leadership owns the reconciliation, the comparison and the recheck date.