CoolData blog

7 June 2014

A fresh look at RFM scoring

Filed under: Annual Giving, John Sammis, Peter Wylie, RFM — Tags: , — kevinmacdonell @ 7:08 pm

Guest post by Peter B. Wylie and John Sammis

Back in February and March, Kevin MacDonell published a couple of posts about RFM for this blog (Automate RFM scoring of your donors with this Python script and An all-SQL way to automate RFM scoring). If you’ve read these, you know Kevin was talking about a quick way to amass the data you need to compute measures of RECENCY, FREQUENCY, and MONETARY AMOUNT for a particular set of donors over the last five fiscal years.

But how useful, really, is RFM? This short paper highlights some key issues with RFM scoring, but ends on a positive note. Rather than chucking it out the window, we suggest a new twist that goes beyond RFM to something potentially much more useful.

Download the PDF here: Why We Are Not in Love With RFM

31 May 2014

Presenting at a conference: Why the pain is totally worth it

One morning some years ago, when I was a prospect researcher, I was sitting at my desk when I felt a stab of pain in my back. I’d never had serious back pain before, but this felt like a very strong muscle spasm, low down and to one side. I stood up and stretched a bit, hoping it would go away. It got worse — a lot worse.

I stepped out into the hallway, rigid with pain. Down the hall, standing by the photocopier waiting for her job to finish, was Bernardine. She had a perceptive eye for stuff, especially medical stuff. She glanced in my direction and said, “Kidney stone.”

An hour later I was laying on a hospital gurney getting a Toradol injection and waiting for an X-ray. It was indeed a kidney stone, and not a small one.

This post is not about my kidney stone. But it is a little bit about Bernardine. Like I said, she knew stuff. She diagnosed my condition from 40 feet away, and she was also the first person to suggest that I should present at a conference.

At that time, there were few notions that struck terror in my heart like the idea of talking in front of a roomful of people. I thought she was nuts. ME? No! I’d rather have another kidney stone.

But Bernardine had also given me my first copy of Peter Wylie’s little blue book, “Data Mining for Fundraisers.” With that, and the subsequent training I had in data mining, I was hooked — and she knew it. Eventually, my absorption with the topic and my enthusiasm to talk about it triumphed over my doubts. I had something I really wanted to tell people about, and the fear was something I needed to manage. Which I did.

To date I’ve done maybe nine or ten conference presentations. I am not a seasoned presenter, nor has public speaking become one of my strengths. But I do know this: Presenting stuff to my counterparts at other institutions has proven one of the best ways to understand what it is I’m doing. These were the few times I got to step back and grasp not only the “how” of my work, but the “why”.

This is why I recommend it to you. The effort of explaining a project you’ve worked on to a roomful of people you’re meeting for the first time HAS to force some deeper reflection than you’re used to. Never moving beyond the company of your co-workers means you’re always swimming in the same waters of unspoken assumptions. Creating a presentation forces you to step outside the fishbowl, to see things from the perspective of someone you don’t know. That’s powerful.

Yes, preparing a presentation is a lot of work, if you care about it enough. But presenting can change your relationship with your job and career, and through that it can change your life. It changed mine. Blogging also changed my life, and I think a lot more people should be blogging too. (A post for another day.) Speaking and writing have rewarded me with an interesting career and professional friendships with people far and wide. These opportunities are not for the exceptional few; they are open to everyone.

I mentioned earlier that Bernardine introduced me me Peter Wylie’s book. Back then I could never have predicted that one day he and I would co-author another book. But there it is. It gave me great pleasure to give credit to Bernardine in the acknowledgements; I put a copy in the mail to her just this week. (I also give credit to my former boss, Iain. He was the one who drove me to the hospital on the day of the kidney stone. That’s not why he’s in the acknowledgements, FYI.)

Back to presenting … Peter and I co-presented a workshop on data mining for prospect researchers at the APRA-Canada conference in Toronto in 2010. I’m very much looking forward to co-presenting with him again this coming October in Chicago. (APRA-Illinois Data Analytics Fall Conference … Josh Birkholz will also present, so I encourage you to consider attending.)

Today, playing the role of a Bernardine, I am thinking of who I ought to encourage to present at a conference. I have at least one person in mind, who has worked long and hard on a project that I know people will want to hear about. I also know that the very idea would make her vomit on her keyboard.

But I’ve been there, and I know she will be just fine.

23 December 2013

New from CASE Books: Score!

Filed under: Book, CoolData, Peter Wylie — Tags: , , , — kevinmacdonell @ 9:39 am

CASE_coverAs the year draws to a close, I’m pleased to announce that the book I’ve co-written with Peter Wylie will be available in January. ‘Score!’ joins a host of fine publications in CASE’s new catalog. I’m looking forward to having a look through this catalog for new books for the office. (‘Score’ is featured on page 12.)

So what is this new book about? The full title is Score!: Data-Driven Success for Your Advancement Team, and as a recent of issue of BriefCASE notes: “Kevin MacDonell and Peter Wylie walk readers through compelling arguments for why an organization should adopt data-driven decision-making as well as explanations of basic issues such as identifying and mining the pertinent data and what operations to perform once that data is in hand.”

You can read the rest of that article here: Ready to Score!?

4 November 2013

Census Zip Code data versus internal data as predictors of alumni giving

Guest post by Peter Wylie and John Sammis

Thanks to data available via the 2010 US Census, for any educational institution that provides us zip codes for the alums in its advancement database, we can compute such things as the median income and the median house value of the zip code in which the alum lives.

Now, we tend to focus on internal data rather than external data. For a very long time the two of us have been harping on something that may be getting a bit tiresome: the overemphasis on finding outside wealth data in major giving, and the underemphasis on looking at internal data. Our problem has been that we’ve never had a solid way to systematically compare these two sources of data as they relate to the prediction of giving in higher education.

John Sammis has done a yeoman’s job of finding a very reasonably priced source for this Census data as well as building some add-ons to our statistical software package – add-ons that allow us to manipulate the data in interesting ways. All this has happened within the last six months or so, and I’ve been having a ball playing around with this data, getting John’s opinions on what I’ve done, and then playing with the data some more.

The data for this piece come from four private, small to medium sized higher education institutions in the eastern half of the United States. We’ll show you a smidgeon of some of the things we’ve uncovered. We hope you’ll find it interesting, and we hope you’ll decide to do some playing of your own.

Download the full, printer-friendly PDF of our study here (free, no registration required): Census ZIP data Wylie & Sammis.

20 August 2013

A book cover for “Score!”

Filed under: Book, Peter Wylie — Tags: , — kevinmacdonell @ 4:45 am

It has been a long time since I’ve offered an update on “Score!”, the forthcoming book I have co-authored with Peter Wylie. I apologize for that.  I do hope that readers who have known about this project for some time will feel that it is worth the wait. The revised date of availability is sometime this fall. (If you like instant gratification from your work, I would suggest you avoid the world of book publishing.)

We do have a cover image to show you. I like the funky colours.

Score_cover

21 March 2013

The lopsided nature of alumni giving

Filed under: Alumni, Major Giving, Peter Wylie — Tags: , , , — kevinmacdonell @ 6:06 am

Guest post by Peter B. Wylie

(Printer-friendly PDF download of this post available here: Lopsided Nature of Alum Giving – Wylie)

Eight years ago I wrote a piece called Sports, Fund Raising, and the 80/20 Rule”. It had to do with how most alumni giving in higher education comes from a very small group of former students. Nobody was shocked or awed by the article. The sotto voce response seemed to be, “Thanks, Pete. We got that. Tell us something we don’t know.” That’s okay. It’s like my jokes. A lot of ‘em don’t get more than a polite laugh; some get stone silence.

Anyway, time passed and I started working closely with John Sammis. Just about every week we’d look at a new alumni database, and over and over, we’d see the same thing. The top one percent of alumni givers had donated more than the other ninety-nine percent.

Finally, I decided to take a closer look at the lifetime giving data from seven schools that I thought covered a wide spectrum of higher education institutions in North America. Once again, I saw this huge lopsided phenomenon where a small, small group of alums were accounting for a whopping portion of the giving in each school. That’s when I went ahead and put this piece together.

What makes this one any different from the previous piece? For one thing, I think it gives you a more granular look at the lopsidedness, sort of like Google Maps allows you to really focus in on the names of tiny streets in a huge city. But more importantly, for this one I asked several people in advancement whose opinions I respect to comment on the data. After I show you that data, I’ll summarize some of what they had to say, and I’ll add in some thoughts of my own. After that, if you have a chance, I’d love to hear what you think. (Commenting on this blog has been turned off, but feel free to send an email to kevin.macdonell@gmail.com.)

The Data

I mentioned above that I looked at data from seven schools. After some agonizing, I decided I would end up putting you to sleep if I showed you all seven. So I chopped it down to four. Believe me, four is enough to make the point.

Here’s how I’ve laid out the data:

  • For each of the four schools I ranked only the alumni givers (no other constituencies) into deciles (10 groups), centiles (100 groups), and milliles (1,000 groups), by total lifetime hard credit giving. (There is actually no such word as “milliles” in English; I have borrowed from the French.)
  • In the first table in each set I’ve included all the givers. In the second table I’ve included only the top ten percent of givers. And in the third table I’ve included only the top one percent of givers. (The chart following the third table graphically conveys some of the information included in the third table.)

To make sure all this is clear, let’s go through the data for School A. Take a look at Table 1. It shows the lifetime giving for all alumni donors at the school divided into ten equal size groups called deciles. Notice that the alums in decile 10 account for over 95% of that giving. Conversely, the alums in decile 1 account for two tenths of one percent of the giving.

Table 1: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving in School A for all Alumni by Giving Decile

table1

Moving on to Table 2. Here we’re looking at only the top decile of alumni givers divided into one percent groups. What jumps out from this table is that the top one percent of all givers account for more than 80% of alumni lifetime giving. That’s five times as much as the remaining 99% of alumni givers.

Table 2: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School A for Top Ten Percent of Alumni Donors

table2

If that’s not lopsided enough for you, let’s look at Table 3 where the top one percent of alumni givers is divided up into what I’ve called milliles. That is, tenth of a percent groups. And lo and behold, the top one tenth of one percent of alumni donors account for more than 60% of alumni lifetime giving. Figure 1 shows the same information in a bit more dramatic way than does the table.

Table 3: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School A for Top One Percent of Alumni Donors

table3

figure1

What I’d recommend is that you go through the same kinds of tables and charts laid out below for Schools B, C, and D. Go as fast or as slowly as you’d like. Being somewhat impatient, I would focus on Figures 2-4. I think that’s where the real punch in these data resides.

Table 4: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving in School B for all Alumni by Giving Decile

table4

Table 5: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School B for Top Ten Percent of Alumni Donors

table5

Table 6: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School B for Top One Percent of Alumni Donors

table6

figure2

Table 7: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving in School C for all Alumni by Giving Decile

table7

Table 8: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School C for Top Ten Percent of Alumni Donors

table8

Table 9: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School C for Top One Percent of Alumni Donors

table9

figure3

Table 10: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving in School D for all Alumni by Giving Decile

table10

Table 11: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School D for Top Ten Percent of Alumni Donors

table11

Table 12: Amount and Percentage of Total Lifetime Giving at School D for Top One Percent of Alumni Donors

table12

figure4

When I boil down to its essence what you’ve just looked at for these three schools, here’s what I see:

  • In School B over the half of the total giving is accounted for by three tenths of one percent of the givers.
  • In School C we have pretty much the same situation as we have in School B.
  • In School D over 60% of the total giving is accounted for by two tenths of one percent of the givers.

What Some People in Advancement have to Say about All This

Over the years I’ve gotten to know a number of thoughtful/idea-oriented folks in advancement. I asked several of them to comment on the data you’ve just seen. To protect the feelings of the people I didn’t ask, I’ll keep the commenters anonymous. They know who they are, and they know how much I appreciate their input.

Here are a few of the many helpful observations they made:

Most of the big money in campaigns and other advancement efforts does not come from alumni. I’m a bit embarrassed to admit that I had forgotten this fact. CASE puts out plenty of literature that confirms this. It is “friends” who carry the big load in higher education fundraising. At least two of the commenters pointed out that we could look at that fact as a sad commentary on the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of alums who give little or nothing to their alma maters. However, both felt it was better to look at these meager givers as an untapped resource that we have to do a better job of reaching.

The data we see here reflect the distribution of wealth in society. The commenter said, “There simply are very few people who have large amounts of disposable wealth and a whole lot of hard working folks who are just trying to participate in making a difference.” I like this comment; it jibes with my sense of the reality out there.

“It is easier (and more comfortable) to work with donors rather than prospective donors.” The commenter went on to say: “The wealthier the constituency the more you can get away with this approach because you have enough people who can make mega-gifts and that enables you to avoid building the middle of the gift pyramid.” This is very consistent with what some other commenters had to say about donors in the middle of the pyramid — donors who don’t get enough attention from the major giving folks in advancement.

Most people in advancement ARE aware of the lopsidedness. All of the commenters said they felt people in advancement were well aware of the lopsided phenomenon, perhaps not to the level of granularity displayed in this piece. But well aware, nonetheless.

What you see in this piece underestimates the skew because it doesn’t include non-givers. I was hoping that none of the commenters would bring up this fact because I had not (and still have not) come up with a clear, simple way to convey what the commenter had pointed out. But let’s see if I can give you an example. Look at Figure 4. It shows that one tenth of one percent of alumni givers account for over 48% of total alumni giving. However, let’s imagine that half of the solicitable alumni in this school have given nothing at all. Okay, if we now double the base to include all alums, not just alum givers, then what happens to the percentage size of that top one tenth of one percent of givers? It’s no longer one tenth of one percent; it’s now one twentieth of one percent. If you’re confused, let’s ask someone else reading this thing to explain it. I’m spinning my wheels.

One More Thought from Me

But here’s a thought that I’ve had for a long time. When I look at the incredible skewness that we see in the top one percent of alumni donors, I say, “WHY?!” Is the difference among the top millile and the bottom millile in that top one percent simply a function of capacity to give? Maybe it is, but I’d like to know. And then I say, call me crazy, LET’S FIND OUT! Not with some online survey. That won’t cut it. Let’s hire a first rate survey research team to go out and interview these folks (we’re not talking a lot of people here). Would that cost some money to go out and get these answers? Yes, and it would be worth every penny of it. The potential funding sources I’ve talked to yawn at the idea. But I’ll certainly never let go of it.

As always, let us know what you think.

Older Posts »

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,044 other followers