Candidly, I dislike the LYBUNT and SYBUNT naming structure. Probably some irrational dislike based in where I was working and who the agency-guys were who were using it when I learned it. BUT, a structure or taxonomy you describe is helpful.

I prefer the affinity naming because affinity is the key to the future of fundraising in my mind. Time isn’t as tricky as relationships to describe. PLUS if this whole social media deal is going to work connections, relationships and affinity will be the name of the game.

Good stuff Mikey, keep ‘em coming.
st

Naming Donor/Affinity -

In higher ed fundraising the names of lapsed donors are broken up…
LYBUNT – lapsed donor who gave “Last Year, But Unfortunately Not This Year”
SYBUNT – lapsed donor who gave “Some Year, But Unfortunately Not This Year”

That naming structure emerged by tracking the Frequency that a donor might have given to a mailing or a phone call. They identified their own regularity.

So this is a correction from my previous comment, we might base the name on the frequency instead of the affinity.

Once their donation has reached a certain amount they are transferred from that channel (phone, mail, event) into a Major Gift officer’s regular follow up.

At any given organization the developed channels have been subdivided. A donor who is cultivated by the quarterly mailer (and not the monthly mailer) is usually assigned an internal name based upon that organization’s mail cycles. ie…she is a quarterly “Voice” donor.

It seems that the industry hasn’t realized this about online. Most people lump it all together.

The first naming distinction I would suggest is the difference between online gifts, online giving and online fundraising.
-Online giving and online fundraising are subsets of all online gifts.
-Online giving can account for random and/or untraceable motivations for why someone clicks on your donate button.
-Online fundraising is strategic, part of either a focused or integrated, planned streategy to secure online gifts.

As far as the donors? I don’t think we should assume that people only give one way. Especially if we employ an integrated approach, it should primarily motivate us not to Silo our donor records.

But, if we want to come up with names…
we are really trying to measure affinity.

stumble upon donors might be call -
Affinity Unknown Digital Donors

Donors brought to make an online motivated by a friend, temporary cause, or explainable but unplanned event -
Affinity by Degree Digital Donors

Donors brought by way of strategic fundraising plans –
Channeled Affinity Digital Donors

there must be a simpler naming structure, just a few ideas off the top.

This kind of situation happens a lot with Major Donors. The donor rep has the relationship, drives the conversation about the gift and encourages the donor to give online. Incorrectly, that kind of gift is often recorded to an Online Mot Code.

I hadn’t thought about having a different term for the two types of donors you describe. We’re currently trying to come up with a term to describe those people who you connect with via social media, maybe even get a gift from them but clearly they are not at the same level of engagement as a traditionally acquired donor.

If I understand your question, yes, there are at least two types of donors who donate online. 1 group who stumbles onto the website and the website content motivates the gift. A 2nd group who have been part of a campaign (hopefully multi-channel integrated) and give as a result of that. Hoots is saying there might even be a 3rd group who come online and give who received a single non-online impact (like a newsletter with a online giving link).

So Mikey, here’s your chance to change the way we’re all talking about this–what would YOU call these people?
st

DO you think we need different words/terms to describe “people who donate online” vs. a “strategic fundraising campaign strategy”