Recently I came across a blog posting titled Benchmarking with a Warped Stick.  The author, who chooses to remain anonymous, seems to hold some negative opinions about the two of the most recent benchmarking studies – specifically the Giving USA Study, and Convio’s Online Marketing Nonprofit Benchmark Study. 

The author states that, “Unfortunately, not all benchmarking studies are created equal. Some studies are nothing more than lazy half-assed analysis from vendors hawking thinly veiled sales pitches”.  Obviously, being the author of one of these studies I know first hand how much work they are to complete, and therefore I respectfully disagree. 

But that’s not the point.  The point is that everyone is entitled to an opinion and we are all lucky enough to live in a time, thanks to the internet, where we have an easy way to share that opinion with others. 

So let’s hear from you, the Fundraising professionals tasked with understanding the nonprofit fundraising landscape and how your results fit into it.   Should organizations like Convio, and Giving USA continue to offer these sorts of insights to the nonprofit community, or is this simply self-serving marketing fluff? 

In today’s Wall Street Journal, technology columnist/blogger Ben Worthen wrote an interesting article on the 30^th anniversary of the first spam email. Since that first invitation to an open house for a new computer, spam has grown to an estimated 90 percent of all electronic messages sent.

To celebrate, ok, highlight the anniversary, I thought it was a good time to feature an article and blog post that help you make sure your email is getting through.

The first is from Convio Chief Scientist, Dr. Bill Pease. Culled from his oft-requested conference session on things that affect email delivery and the best practices required to avoid common delivery problems, the article provides insight that can help you succeed.

From the “oldies but goodies” section, Holly Ross (the post is an oldie, Holly is NOT) provided ten steps to improve email deliverability on NTEN blog last year.

Gary Thurek, the father of spam says people started complaining about his email immediately. He never sent another. Now, if only the Viagra pushers and Nigerian Princes would stop… Well, we can wish. But if you want results and not wishes use the opportunity of this infamous anniversary to share these tips across your organization.

In addition, share your best tips here and we’ll compile them for a future post. Also, share some of the worst tips you've heard and we can put them on a list too. We heard some at a session in San Diego a few weeks ago that made our clients and team cringe - things that good email marketers stopped doing years ago were touted as best practices - but that is a future post. You can also visit the resource center with lessons learned from nearly a decade of research and collaboration with clients and partners on email practices.

And don't blame Gary - as he puts it, blaming him for spam is like blaming the Wright Brothers if the airline loses your luggage.

But some of the most interesting developments in the analytics world are actually around qualitative user data, such as that collected through tools called Web Use Recorders. These tools record individual browsing sessions to give you a more qualitative view, from your constituents' perspectives, of your site: where their  attention is drawn, what content is overlooked, how they scan your homepage.

So now what?, you ask. If our traffic data doesn't tell us "why," isn't always accurate, and isn't "just the numbers," why do I analyze this data at all.

The answer: Triangulation with other user research methods and data sources. Traffic data is a critical - but singular - pillar of user research. Without alternative techniques like user interviews or surveys, usability tests or focus groups, even the best-laid plans of metricians and analysts can only answer part of the eternal question:

Who are our constituents, what do they want, and why do they do what they do online?

One of the key benefits of the Software as a Service (on-demand) model is the unique insight that the model provides from a data and analytics perspective. Because of that model we are able to obeserve aggregate data that helps nonprofit professionals answer three questions:

1) What online metrics should I focus on?

2) How is my organization doing? and

3) What targets should I set for my organization?

As a company we have 9 years of cummulative data and experience in the nonprofit sector, and a team of employees and partners with even more personal experience and expertise in analyzing data to provide actionable insight to our clients and the market.  Today, we are exctied to share the results of the second annual Convio Online Marketing Nonprofit Benchmark Index™ Study with the market. The NonProfit Times has featured the research in their current issue.

One of the lead researchers, Vinay Bhagat, sat down with us for a series of interviews on the study. Today, Vinay discusses the value of the research and some of the key trends. 

Convio clients can get the full report in the Convio Online Client Community. Visit our Web site for a summary of the benchmark report and to learn more.

We would be remiss if we didn't thank the study authors Quinn Donovan, Lynette Perkins and Vinay for the many hours they put into completing this project.

The catchphrase “Keeping up with the Joneses” is a familiar concept for most Americans.  It refers to measuring yourself against someone, usually a neighbor, using some sort of comparative measurement such as the car they drive or the brand of clothes they wear. 

Invariably, as anyone who has gotten caught up in this trap can attest, trouble eventually arises because of asymmetric information, or the idea that one party has more complete information than the other.  For instance, after trying unsuccessfully to match the Joneses lifestyle, we find out that the Joneses are not like us at all.  Turns out that the reason they could afford that new car and fancy vacation was a recent inheritance they didn’t tell anyone about.  Or maybe they simply project the perception of success while secretly drowning in a sea of debt.  In other words, the Joneses are not a good comparable if you have any hopes of not ending up in the poor house.

Nonprofits struggle with this same concept of information asymmetry.  We know exactly how our organization is performing across key metrics such as fundraising, email file health, and mobilizing advocates, but have little or no empirical data outside our organization to compare ourselves against.  “We’re doing better than last year, but are we leading or falling behind our peers?” is a common question for many nonprofit leaders.  And who are my peers anyways?  Even on the rare occasion that we get a glimpse into how another nonprofit is performing, we are still left to wonder if they are really a good comparable or not for our organization?

Because a Public Broadcasting Station’s mission and how they operate is very different than a University or Disaster Relief Organization, it is important for nonprofits to compare their individual results against a group of peers that is most like their own; ideally based on multiple dimensions.  For example, organizations with a common mission,  email sophistication (use a proxy like the size of their email file), and their organizational budget, would be a good place to start.

Undoubtedly, relevant benchmarks are important for nonprofits to measure themselves against.  But this list of dimensions is by no means exhaustive.  So before we all run out comparing ourselves to everyone on the block, don't forget our friends our friends the Joneses.  Your online results are just part of the picture.  What an organization is doing offline via their direct mail programs, events, telemarketing, and how well these programs are integrated will have an impact on online results.  And at the end of the day, remember every organization is different -- each with its own strengths, organizational challenges and goals.