On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/17 Michael Peel :
>
>> This doesn't seem quite right to me. "average" donors may financially
>> be worth less in each donation, but remember that there's a lot more
>> of them, and they're more likely to give repeat donations. Also,
>>
2009/9/17 Michael Peel :
> This doesn't seem quite right to me. "average" donors may financially
> be worth less in each donation, but remember that there's a lot more
> of them, and they're more likely to give repeat donations. Also,
> there's more to "worth" than just financial, e.g. in good wil
2009/9/17 Michael Peel :
>
> On 17 Sep 2009, at 17:22, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>
>> They are a key constituency in
>> supporting the financial stream, as every single one of them is
>> worth 16 or
>> more "average" donors.
>
> This doesn't seem quite right to me. "average" donors may financially
> be w
On 17 Sep 2009, at 17:22, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> They are a key constituency in
> supporting the financial stream, as every single one of them is
> worth 16 or
> more "average" donors.
This doesn't seem quite right to me. "average" donors may financially
be worth less in each donation, but re
Congratulations to Anya, and it sounds like Rand made a nice choice.
Anya, if you wish to continue receiving my assistance on the 2009
Fundraising Survey that I helped design, I hope that Rand will put you in
touch with me during the data analysis phase. I think a key "break-out" for
analysis wil
