Thinking of investing in segmentation? Be careful of these common and costly mistakes

Written by
Charlie Hulme
Added
November 09, 2017

In this first of two articles focusing on current fundraising practices, Charlie Hulme highlights five mistakes charities often make when investing in segmentation. Check in next week for part two, which provides insight into how you can transform your good intentions into a great supporter experience.

Fundraising has never been easy, but it’s never been this hard. So, in an effort to fix the acquisition and retention problem the sector's looking for new, or better ways to profile and segment prospects and supporters. But (with a handful of exceptions that I’ll share in the next post) no one has been successful.

The mindset is 100 per cent correct, but the methodology isn’t. So it’s worth looking at where so much profiling and segmentation goes wrong.

First mistake

The first misstep is usually some kind of supporter survey and, or, focus group. Behavioural science has repeatedly shown people can’t reliably answer these questions, yet for some reason we keep asking them.



It’s not that people lie on purpose, but because they fail to predict their future behaviour. Maybe the nature of the question is such that it can’t be answered in a reliable way, e.g. We carry out a range of activities to help [insert cause here], which would you like to hear more about? What reasons might stop you supporting a charity? Will you vote for Brexit, Trump, Merkel, Macron, etc? We want these answers, but we’ll never get them with these questions.

Second mistake  

There is always some set of variables used to create segments. Either making it up as you go along, or a statistical grouping method. (The latter leads to a false sense of confidence.) The question that really matters is what variables get used. Why?  

Whatever variables are used to create segments you will, by definition, see differences on those exact same variables when profiling.  This is circular and tautological, but it is important because profiling of the segments, on the very variables used to create the segments, is what is used to feel confident about the segments being different.   

If you have more data on your CRM, and you add it to your segments, you will see even more differences.  The more data you use to describe, the more different they’ll look. These differences are as inevitable as they are irrelevant.



Third mistake  

When giving behaviour variables are used, in whole or part, to create segments you’ve reduced your segmentation into a selection tool. In other words, it describes what they did, not why they did/will do it). Why?  

Because giving behaviour is being used to explain giving behaviour! It is all effect, zero cause.   

This is no different than regular RFV selection since the behaviour part drowns out any other variables. But those other variables (e.g. attitudes about your cause and wanting to help those in need) will make it look like it is something different, something tied to motivation, etc. It isn’t.

Fourth mistake  

The reason behaviour variables get thrown into the mix is that attitudinal segmentation, more often than not, shows little bearing on behaviours. Why?   

Because there was no theoretical basis for the attitudes used to create the segments. It just intuitively feels right to ask a series of global questions on how people feel (e.g. about your cause and supporting charities, etc) and then grouping based on the responses.  

When you do this you merely wind up finding a number of segments with varying degrees of feeling on the battery of statements.  This is neither interesting nor useful.

Fifth mistake  

When the descriptive profiling is done on these attitude-only segments there is often little behaviour difference.  So, some of those behaviours are thrown into the set of variables used to create the segments. And there you have it: instant ‘differences’ on behaviours you care about across your segmentation.  But in reality, it’s just a weak form of RFV selection.

Many use demographics along with attitudes to ensure differences in the segments (to fit some preconceived, totally false notion that demographics matter).  Adding age to the attitude variables will, by definition, create segments that think a bit differently (on random but alluring, irrelevant information) and that are different average ages. But so would adding star sign, height, or hair colour.

Result?  

This approach always yields an enormous number of supposedly ‘strategic’ segments. I’ve seen them range from seven to 30+ plus segments.  If they were real (which by virtue of how they were created is impossible) they’d be impossible to deliver on.  

All told it’s an enormously costly effort to produce segments that put the ‘less’ in useless.

Again, the mindset of re-segmenting based on a deeper understanding of supporters is 100 per cent right. But it’s not hard to see this popular methodology is dangerously wrong. In the next article, I’ll share exactly how you should segment and how it led to results like these.

About the author: Charlie Hulme

Charlie Hulme

Charlie Hulme is managing director of DonorVoice. He helps charities uncover what, of all the things they do, improves the strength of relationships  and what is harmful. Partners see a massive improvement in performance, value and retention.

Voted top speaker at the Institute of Fundraising’s National Convention in 2013, he writes frequently for SOFII, 101fundraising, the Institute of Fundraising and many others.

Related case studies or articles

Want to get inside your donor's brain? Try storytelling

Emotional storytelling keeps popping up on SOFII and rightly so given its importance to fundraisers everywhere. Here we have the introduction and the first article in a series SOFII will be publishing in coming weeks on the art of storytelling, from Charlie Hulme of telemarketing agency Pell & Bales. If you care about catching your donor’s interest and imagination, read on here.

Read more

What are the three missing pieces of data standing between our sector and success?

In this blog post connected to the Commission on the Donor Experience Project 3, Charlie Hulme sets out two facts that could be the difference between the fundraising sector prospering or disappearing altogether.

Read more

Forcing or forging a relationship? Part 1: understanding your donors

This, the first of a three-part feature by Charlie Hulme, managing director, DonorVoice UK, kicks off an important new series for SOFII. Based upon evidence and experience rather than theory and opinion, Charlie’s first article spells out the crucial necessity of really understanding what your donors want from their relationship with you and your cause.

Read more

Other people: together not separate

In his latest article on storytelling, Charlie Hulme, says, ‘If you want people to donate, make sure they know that others are. Don’t ask them to join at the starting line, show them the finish line – show them the money.’

Read more

I wish I’d thought of SOFII

Charlie Hulme blows SOFII’s trumpet as he berates fundraisers for, among other things, a shocking lack of vocation. But is he right? We couldn’t possibly comment, of course. The views of the author are, quite obviously, solely his own...

Read more

Forcing or forging a relationship? Part 4: how to manage a relationship

Everything you do has an influence on your donors' connections with you. This in turn helps or harms their commitment to you. Charlie Hulme has already shown how to measure this, now he shows you how to take it a step further and actually manage the relationship.

Read more

Forcing or forging a relationship? Part 2: what makes a relationship?

If Pret A Manager, Pizza Express, or Starbucks were losing even half the amount of customers as we are they’d go out of business, says Charlie Hulme. And here he explains how we can be even better at customer, or rather, donor service than they are – and keep our donors from deserting us.

Read more

Forcing or forging a relationship? Part 5: what’s your real message? Or, how to be relevant

Do you really know your donors? Do you know why they give you money? Does it matter? Yes, says Charlie Hulme. If we want to keep our donors so expensively recruited we have to make sure our messages are relevant to what they want. We can’t do that if we don’t know what that is.

Read more

Hope not hopeless

Back in 2010, the plight of 33 miners in Chile was an international sensation. We were all gripped by the suspense: would the rescue attempt succeed, would they survive…? It wiped from our newspapers and television screens the devastating floods in Pakistan, described by the UN as the greatest humanitarian crisisin recent history. How could this happen? Charlie Hulme explains in his second article on storytelling.

Read more

People not numbers: emotion not reason

This is the first article on SOFII's new storytelling series.

Read more

Forcing or forging a relationship? Part 3: how to measure a relationship

You are only nine questions away from unlocking enormous value from your current donor file. Nine questions that represent the beginning of the end of inevitable donor churn.

Read more

Do we really need another book on storytelling?

An important new book about storytelling is given a special review from not just one, not just two but three of the UK's most eminently qualified reviewers.

Read more