Users Voice their Satisfaction with Fundraising Software

Recently Campbell Rinker conducted a nationwide survey of over twelve-hundred fundraising software users, representing all types and sizes of nonprofits. The survey gathered information on user satisfaction, pricing preferences, purchasing habits, and organizational scope.

Among the key findings of the study were that 62% of responding nonprofits conduct an evaluation of their fundraising software at least every three years, and frequently more often than that. Educational institutions tend to hang onto their systems the longest - five years on average. This makes sense, as their systems tend to house more records and be more complex. The shortest average installation lifespan is that of public affairs organizations, with an average of just over three and a half years.

So what comes from these evaluations? Only 18% of respondents said that they expected to change vendors altogether, compared to 55% of respondents that said they would upgrade their current system. Nonprofits appear to be more decisive than they were a few years back. In 2002, 33% of respondents did not know what to expect from their fundraising software evaluations. In our most recent study, this figure dropped to 27%.

Users still consider accuracy, reliability and flexibility to be the most important features of donor and member management solutions. However, they are most satisfied with their systems’ inherent ability to grow with the organization, their reliability, and their ease for data entry.

So, what products received the strongest ratings? Four products received coveted Campbell Awards for their exceptional ratings in the survey. CLICK HERE to view the winners . Another way to view the results of this study is to visit our new site www.np-tech.net.

Is Qualitative Research still Relevant?

In the book “Blink”, author Malcolm Gladwell ponders at length on the power and process of “thinking without thinking.” Developers and marketers can take away kernels of truth from this concept, which suggests that people can reap positive rewards from split-second decisions after training their intuition, though it seems ironic that it requires a whole book to support the theory. In the process, the author appears happy to take a whack at qualitative market research.

Unfortunately, the author fails to note the fact that market researchers – just like creative types, politicians and corporate leaders – are professionals trained at sizing up a situation at lightning speed, a process he calls “thin-slicing.” An experienced focus group moderator can spot a fake as easily as a comedian spots a heckler. They constantly “thin-slice” the information presented to them in a way that allows them to interpret the responses more accurately.

However, there are some concrete steps qualitative researchers (and their clients) can take to ensure that they’re not “thin-slicing” ham when the recipe calls for turkey. First and foremost, don’t expect qualitative research like focus groups to substitute for quantitative surveys. No amount of sample tuning, pre-screening, city picking and targeted recruiting will enable a qualitative study to deliver anything more than “directional” results.

Nor will imposing a quasi-quantitative exercise during a focus group yield truly quantitative results. Researcher Laurie Gelb of Wilmington, DE-based HealthCore, Inc. likens this to having a conversation with a friend that goes something like “How was your date with George? Here, do this attribute rating task so I can more fully understand your viewpoints.” Such techniques not only reorient a group’s focus in a counter-productive way, they also suggest to clients that some sort of science exists when it doesn’t. The one exception to this is something called conjoint analysis, which delivers robust data from individual respondents.

Clients and researchers also make a mistake when they allow the discussion guide – the qualitative peer of the survey questionnaire – to limit their areas of exploration. The moderator must be free to foray into ground that has not been prepped in advance. Often, the most compelling insights come from the holes dug there. One of my favorite techniques is to confess to focus group members that I will be “so fired” for asking a follow-up question that’s not on the guide. This loosens inhibitions and builds a sense of shared purpose at the same time.

Gladwell is right to bash research that does nothing more than validate the status quo. The key consideration here is the moderator. A strong moderator will never vouch for any particular point of view in a group setting except as a contrarian advocate, put themselves at the center of the discussion, or presume that they know more about the respondents than they possibly could. They will blend into the background and elicit varied, thoughtful responses from the group. In collecting these responses, a good moderator will constantly be thin-slicing and blinking his or her way through the session, probing and sifting the impressions of the participants toward a more fruitful analysis.

As a kid I was fascinated with polishing rocks. I would load rough stones into the bin, add some sand and water, and let the tumbler run for weeks. Every batch produced some stunning beauties. It strikes me that good qualitative research is a lot like that. It patiently rubs away the rough edges of public opinion to reveal the usable nuggets within. Once the core is exposed, good qualitative research can still provide beautiful, durable insights for nonprofits.