Are You “Seglumping” Your Donor Communications?

The other day I receive a donation appeal that contained a curious sentence.

It read:

“Whether you donated today, previously have given, or still plan to give, we thank you for your ongoing support in our mission.”

I had seen it before; this practice of listing all the possible reasons for sending or possible recipients of a communications piece.

That same day, the preeminent Beth Ann Locke, Director of Advancement at Simon Fraser University, bemoaned a similar acknowledgement she received:

It read:

“We know you just bought tickets or made a donation, or maybe you just subscribed, so we want to send you a big THANK YOU!”

Instantly I became obsessed with not only getting to the root cause of this practice, but also naming it. After workshopping several ideas, Beth Ann came up with a winner.

Allow me to introduce a new term to the nonprofit lexicon:

Seglumping.

What is “seglumping?”

Seglumping is that act of referencing multiple audiences in one, unsegmented communications piece.

Lumping + Segments = Seglumping.

To be fair, seglumping is almost always done with the best intentions, usually as an attempt at inclusiveness, or as a result of not having the tools required for proper segmentation. It’s a holdover from mass media communications (radio, TV, etc.) where audience segmentation was impossible.

It’s also easy to rationalize the alternative.

Back to Beth Ann:

You can imagine a fundraiser saying:

“We could segment the database… you know, so all the dog lovers get the doggy emails, and the horse people get the horsey emails” and their boss saying “Oh yeah? How is that gonna work? Because we haven’t done it yet. Everyone likes getting all the animal emails. They are ANIMAL lovers!”

There is always a naysayer who has more power (inertia) than someone who wants to do the right thing.

One sign that you might be seglumping is if your letter or email contains a sentence that begins with “Whether you’re a…”

For example:

  • Whether you’re a long-time donor or haven’t made your first gift…
  • Whether you’ve volunteered before or want to get started…
  • Whether you’re passionate about the rainforests or the arctic…”
  • Whether you’ve contributed to this campaign or you want to make an impact for the first time…”

There is no way that the rest of the content of that letter or email can be simultaneously compelling to both audiences. You’re also devaluing the audience with stronger past engagement, loyalty or capacity.

Unfortunately, seglumping can alienate the recipient when it hits their personal inbox, and be more harmful than no segmentation whatsoever.

In fact, my hierarchy would be:

  • Segmentation: Good
  • No Segmentation: Neutral, at best
  • Seglumping: Bad
  • Bad Segmentation: Worst

Yes, seglumping is actually worse than not segmenting, because it can be a direct slap in the face, rather than simply ineffectual.

The best segmented communications illustrate to the recipient that you know exactly who they are, what they value, etc., but leave them unaware that there are actually multiple versions of that communication for other audience groups that they do not belong to. This results in a subliminal feeling that they are the only donor that matters to the organization. The letter was written just for them and no one else. They are known. They are a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Conversely, seglumping shows recipient that they are just a tiny fish in a big, crowded pond. It shows them that you either didn’t take the time or were unable to craft a message just for them.

Let’s go back to my original example:

“Whether you donated today, previously have given, or still plan to give, we thank you for your ongoing support in our mission.”

Let’s say you’re a $100 monthly donor to this organization, having given for the past five years. You’re being seglumped in with people who have never given, who are still (for some reason) getting thanked for their “ongoing support?”

Is it any wonder that poor communications are often cited in donor loyalty studies as a top reason why donors lapse?

An exception: “Crossed Paths”

One instance where it’s not only acceptable, but also recommended, that you reference multiple potential audiences in one piece is in the case of a multi-touch letter campaign that spans an extended period of time (weeks or more).

For example, let’s say you’re sending out three letters over a period of six weeks. Consider adding a line to the second or third letter that reads “If your donation and this letter crossed paths in the mail, we thank you!”

This way, the donor won’t be put off by the fact that they just recently donated to a campaign they’re receiving an appeal for.

The best possible thing you can do is segment out those who have already contributed, but this isn’t always possible with drop dates, shipping times (to and from your org), data entry, etc. It’s also possible that a donor uses a reply device not tied to the current campaign, or makes an online donation instead of mailing a check, resulting in you attributing or designating the gift differently.

With email and online donations, there’s less of an excuse for this if you have an integrated solution (database / email marketing / online giving).

For example, if it’s a special one day, online day of giving and you’re sending out multiple emails, consider adding “If you’ve already made your donation today, we thank you!”

Seglump no more

The first step toward change is awareness.

Hopefully this post has made you aware of the fact that you might be seglumping.

If you can’t segment, don’t seglump to compensate.

If you can segment, then by all means please do so. Your donors will appreciate it.

Steven Shattuck

Steven Shattuck

Chief Engagement Officer at Bloomerang
Steven Shattuck is Chief Engagement Officer at Bloomerang and Executive Director of Launch Cause. A prolific writer and speaker, Steven is a contributor to "Fundraising Principles and Practice: Second Edition" and volunteers his time on the Project Work Group of the Fundraising Effectiveness Project and is an AFP Center for Fundraising Innovation (CFI) committee member.
Steven Shattuck
By | 2018-07-31T19:31:08+00:00 August 1st, 2018|Donor Communications|

6 Comments

  1. Richard Freedlund August 2, 2018 at 8:59 am - Reply

    While I agree with the author because the act of “seglumping” is not donor centered, my first reaction was “Oh, great. Another word to add to the nonprofit jargon list that donors should never hear.”

  2. Donna Rex August 3, 2018 at 5:52 pm - Reply

    Sounds like a Dr. Seuss character. “And all the Seglumpers failed to take advantage of the wonderful features of Bloomerang.” Oh! Wait! Bloomerang sounds like a Dr. Seuss character, too!

  3. Grace August 7, 2018 at 1:21 pm - Reply

    Could you give an example of “bad segmentation”? I am the first development staff member my organization has had and am segmenting our donors for the first time for our YEA. I’d hate to go too far with the segmenting and not get the higher return I am hoping for.

    I have the following segments in mind:

    -Board members and frequent volunteers
    -Top donors
    -Monthly donors, and other donors who give 3+ times a year (Not sure if safe to combine with top donors, but I think the appeals for these groups will be very similar)
    -Those who donated to help with a specific emergency our organization is handling
    -Adopters (we are a humane society)
    -Less engaged individuals. Maybe they went to volunteer orientation but haven’t continued to volunteer, or donated once, or came to an event, etc.

    P.S. – Love the picture with this article, Adventure Time is the best!

Leave A Comment