The National Wildlife Federation used to boast that it had a million supporters. Now it’s intentionally letting that number slide, a bet that fewer donors will translate into more revenue.
Counterintuitive? Perhaps, but the organization says the new strategy, which it has been phasing in since 2013, is working. Though membership last year was down about 15 percent from 2013, the average gift size from members has increased more than 13 percent. Net membership revenue, which dipped at first, has already started to recover.
This is good news for an organization that once viewed the membership total as sacred. “For years it was, ‘Acquire members and focus on getting the highest membership count, no matter how little they gave,’ " says Karen Wagner, the group’s vice president for finance. “Volume was the priority.”
That changed in 2013: Scuttling the typical more-is-better approach, the National Wildlife Federation began to slash the number of direct-mail solicitations it sent out and alter operations to identify and attract donors more connected to the charity and its mission — and thus more likely to both give more and to stick around.
“We went value over volume,” says Sandra Miao, director of membership. “The idea is that everyone who comes in will be a higher-value acquisition and come back year after year.”
Ready for a Change
Revenue projections under the new plan that Ms. Miao and her colleagues presented to the nonprofit’s leaders in 2012 were hardly optimistic. But, she says, the group was ready for change, especially after rocky years around the recession and estimates that its membership would drop over the next 10 years anyway. What’s more, the organization was watching very small donors (often called “tippers,” because they might make one $5 or $10 “tip”) churn expensively on and off membership rolls.
Though the new strategy promised a short-term revenue hit, officials believed the organization could absorb it. Dollars from members (donors who give from $1 to $10,000 a year) usually make up only around 25 percent of its private support each year, with additional income from such sources as publications and licensing.
Best of all, Ms. Miao says, the plan predicted cost savings. While the organization is paying more in some areas — most notably, purchasing lists of potential donors — it is spending less elsewhere. For instance, it is acquiring many more donors who elect not to receive premium gifts or who make automatic monthly contributions. Also, the group is sending fewer direct-mail solicitations: 17.8 million last year, 1.2 million fewer than in 2012.
“Mailing less also helps reduce our carbon footprint,” Ms. Wagner says, “which helps advance our mission.”
To keep its newest donors tied to its mission, the National Wildlife Federation is changing follow-up appeals, too. Instead of sending solicitations with broad messages, fundraisers are segmenting donors by their interests. If a donor has responded to a mailing with information about the group’s conservation work with bison, for example, future appeals to that individual will include updates on that work.
“We are paying attention to the long-term value of these donors, who come in at a higher level and then stay with us because we are connecting with them,” Ms. Miao says. “These are not tippers.”
