Market Segmentation In Fundraising

You saw the ad. You ignored it. You saw it again. Still ignored. Now you see it 6 more times. Welcome to modern D2C retargeting. Most D2C brands retarget like everyone’s always interested. Spoiler: they’re not. We audited 14 Indian D2C brands in April. Different categories. Different spend levels. ↳ But one common problem across the board: → Retargeting was quietly eating up 25–30% of ad budgets… and delivering almost no real lift in conversions. ↳ Here’s what we saw again and again: → Brands targeting the same audience across multiple campaigns. → 30-day visitors are still being hammered with BOFU ads on day 27. → High-frequency users keep seeing offers they’ve already ignored. → Everyone gets the same retargeting creative, no matter their intent level. And the worst part? Meta charges a premium to show ads to warm audiences or even if they’re cold in behavior. ↳ Why this hits harder in India: → COD mindset means More hesitation, slower decision → Lower trust in new D2C brands → Most retargeting is not segmented by behavior or timing You're not nurturing. You’re nagging. ↳ What I suggest brands to do instead: → Cap frequency and refresh retargeting ads weekly. → Use behavioral segments, not just "all visitors". → Retarget with timing logic, not desperation. ↳ My Fix for Smarter Retargeting Strategy 1. Segment your retargeting audiences → 1–3 days: Hot. Hit with offer. → 4–7 days: Educational reminder → 8–14 days: Testimonials, COD trust → 15–30 days: Low-cost nudges, not hard sells 2. Set frequency caps for warm pools → Don’t let the same person see your ad 6–10 times. → It hurts trust and inflates CPC. 3. Use intent-based retargeting triggers → Add to cart ≠ View content ≠ 10 sec video view → Each needs a different message and urgency 4. Rotate your creatives weekly → Fresh visuals and new hooks equals higher re-engagement without annoying the user 5. Track spend split between cold vs warm → If warm is eating 40%+ of budget with low conversions then pull back and fix segmentation. → Swap "Buy Now" with reminder, education, or social proof style creatives. Recap: ✅ Over-retargeting is a silent budget leak in Indian D2C ✅ Meta doesn’t care how relevant your retargeting is, you need to fix it ✅ Smart segmentation and message match means better ROI and trust ✅ Most CAC spikes come from lazy retargeting, not bad ads ✅ Treat retargeting like a nurture funnel, not a sales wall It’s not that your retargeting isn’t working rather it’s working too hard on the wrong people. Sometimes scaling starts by cutting what’s quietly bleeding your best budget. Spending ₹10L–₹50L/month and not sure if your retargeting is actually working? Let’s chat. A 30-min chat could save you lakhs in silent leaks.

𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝟯% 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄. ➡️ 7% are close but not ready yet. ➡️ 30% are way off. ➡️ 60% are highly unlikely to give at all And that's why fundraising takes time. Because you're working to your donors' timelines - they do NOT work to yours. 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 - 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼: ❌ Pitch to a cold audience - the worse possible way to ask for money. ❌ Only target 3% of your addressable market - leaving 37% of givers untapped. The smart money is on - having a strategy to cultivate your FULL prospective audience. 📈 60% won't give - but could be introducers or influencers. 📈 30% are way off giving - but worth initiating a relationship while they’re still open to the idea. This is the optimal time to start those relationships. 📈 7% are open to giving and are actively planning their budgets, timelines, shortlists etc. - so your window of being on that shortlist is now starting to close. 📈 3% are hot to trot. These figures are based on the "buyer's pyramid" - think of it like the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle). Understanding that only 10% of your qualified prospects list is actually ready to give now or within your financial year - helps you to determine how long your prospect list needs to be for you to reach your target. 📌 𝗜𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 - 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿. Keeping in touch with prospects - is NOT fundraisers wasting their time on people who are not willing to give. It is fundraisers investing their time appropriately with people who are not ready YET. Because - "not yet" does not mean "no". It means, stay in touch - you have a warm prospect who is going to move along the timeline into the "ready to give now" bracket. 📌 𝗣𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝘄 - 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝘁𝗼 𝟯% 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁.  𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝟰𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆. This is also why you need to retain and trade up your existing donors (new business can be achieved by growing the donors you already have alongside new donors). A combination of - retention, trading up existing donors, new business and initiating relationships with the "not ready yet crowd" - is how you grow a sustainable donor base. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 - 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘂𝗽..... 😀

If I'm in charge of revenue at a large nonprofit, I can't ignore these realities 👇 -Donors giving below $100 are down ~9% (and have been trending down) -Donors giving below $500 are down 4% (and have been trending down) -Slower income growth & less disposable income for most -Middle-class households under economic pressure -The rapid decline of religion (that has giving as a core tenet) -Decline in institutional trust -Not only is charitable giving largely stagnant as a % of the GDP, but we also haven't been able to grow share of wallet -Donors giving $5k-$50k are up 1% -Donors giving $50k+ are up ~3% And if I look around at what other nonprofits are doing, I might see 👇 -Marketing getting louder -Frequency cranked to 11 -Tired tactics with little differentiation And if strategy is about how an organization applies strength against the most promising opportunity or the most critical challenge, I need to address the problem head on. Three ideas... 1) Instead of getting louder, get closer to donors. -Jeffersonian dinners -"Jobs To Be Done" interviews -Measuring donor satisfaction -Rating the donor experience -Cross train across the org on how to listen to donors -More thoughtful prioritization and segmentation -Do things that don't scale; you will likely not "scale" anyways (but you'll very likely grow!) 2) Focus more energy on the people who *can* give more. That doesn't mean you should ignore the $100 donor. Two things can be true at the same time: most of your limited human hours are best spent on people who can give >$10,000, AND, you can treat the $100 donor like they're an important part of the team (because they are). -Create tiered caseloads (A, B, C, D donors) -Develop a donor engagement plan for each tier -Treat mid-major donors like true partners: frequent report backs, project proposals, town halls, feedback loops, in-the-moment updates -Focus your work in the 'mass' file to identify the best prospects for a mid-major treatment, and work to move as many OTGs to recurring (monthly) or re-occuring revenue (quarterly, yearly, etc.) 3) Promote giving from assets across the donor file—and make it easy to do so Russell James taught me this. When people give from their assets, the gift is likely to be larger. And they are more likely to give again. Giving from assets (like stocks and shares, tax-savings accounts, retirement accounts, DAFs, gifts of life insurance, etc.) is often the smartest way for donors to give—no matter the size of gift. But many donors simply don't know it's an option. -- We're partnering with growth-minded nonprofits to implement all of these ideas, and more. If you think it's time you create a solid midlevel giving strategy (not just a standard appeal with an open ask), give me a shout.

Your highest-intent prospects aren't all the same person. I was reviewing several of our recent BOF campaigns and I was reminded of the fact that: The closer someone gets to conversion, the more your messaging matters. But most marketers treat high-intent audiences like they're all the same person. They're not. Someone who abandoned cart yesterday needs different messaging than someone who's been browsing for three weeks. Someone on mobile at 2pm needs different creative than someone on desktop at 9pm. Here’s what you should do: 1️⃣ Understand intent decay patterns. We've tracked this across client accounts - purchase intent has a half-life. After someone shows buying signals, you have roughly 72 hours of peak conversion opportunity. Day 4-7, intent drops 60%. By week two, you're basically starting over. Many advertisers waste this window with generic "complete your purchase" messaging. 2️⃣ Segment your BOF audiences by recency, not just behavior. Recent cart abandoners get urgency-focused creative. Week-old browsers get social proof and reviews. Month-old prospects need fresh product education. Same goal, different psychology. We've seen 40%+ ROAS improvements just from this basic segmentation. 3️⃣ Rotate creative elements based on engagement, not calendar. Most teams mess up by refreshing on schedule instead of performance. Monitor micro-signals: when CTR drops 15% from peak, when frequency hits 2.5x without converting, when engagement falls while impressions climb. Don't wait for Meta to flag fatigue. 4️⃣ Test messaging depth, not just messaging type. Generic "20% off" performs worse than "still thinking about those running shoes?" for cart abandoners. Specific beats generic at every intent level. We use AI to personalize hooks based on browsing behavior, and it consistently outperforms broad creative by 25-35%. Most BOF campaigns fail because they treat high-intent traffic like low-intent traffic. You've already done the hard work of getting someone interested. Don't waste it with lazy messaging.

One word was hiding $2.87 million in a ministry’s database: Lapsed. The label sounds like a verdict. It is only a date. It records the last gift—not the remaining relationship. We used Pulse Predictive analysis to identify and rank the lapsed file for a major-donor reactivation campaign. The highest-potential tier represented only 20% of those mailed. That group generated $2.87 million—95% of the campaign’s income. The remaining tiers generated another $144,000. The point was not that they lacked value. It was that the opportunity was radically uneven—and we knew where it was concentrated before the first appeal was mailed. That is what many reactivation efforts miss. They treat “lapsed” as though it describes a type of donor. It does not. One donor may have moved on. Another may still care deeply but stopped responding because the message, timing, or relationship lost relevance. “Lapsed” describes a pause in giving. It does not explain the pause. Major-donor reactivation should therefore not begin with a mass appeal to everyone who has stopped giving. It should begin by separating dormant value from genuine departure. Before spending the next dollar to acquire a stranger, make sure you have not mistaken silence for departure among people who already know and believe in your mission. Some relationships are over. Others have simply gone unattended. 💬 If your organization has a meaningful file of lapsed major donors, comment “REACTIVATE” or send me a message. Predictive analysis can reveal where the opportunity is concentrated, which donors warrant priority, and how broadly the campaign should be pursued before the first appeal is mailed. ✚ Follow Jerry Rassamni for insights on increasing net fundraising income through predictive donor selection and better campaign decisions. #MajorDonors #DonorReactivation #Fundraising #PredictiveAnalytics #ChristianMinistry #NonprofitLeadership

Most nonprofits have two fundraising programs. One for donors who give $25. One for donors who give $25,000. The donors giving $1,000 to $10,000? They're getting the $25 treatment. This is the "missing middle" — and it's where most organizations are leaving the most money behind. Here's why it matters right now: Overall donor participation is declining. Major gifts are carrying more and more of the revenue load. That's not sustainable. When you're over-indexed on a handful of major donors, your program is one lapsed relationship away from a budget crisis. Mid-level donors are the pipeline. They're the ones who become major donors. They're the ones who remember you in their wills. And they're being treated like they're not worth the personal attention. One development team identified 200 donors giving $500–$5,000 who had never received a personal call or customized communication. They assigned 50 to each frontline fundraiser and built a simple 6-month touchpoint plan. Within 18 months, 12 donors from that group made their first major gift. The donors who will fund your next five years aren't unknown. They're already in your database. They're just not in anyone's portfolio. Do you have a dedicated mid-level strategy — or are those donors slipping through the cracks?

I've been paying attention to how donors under 40 are engaging with nonprofits. And if your fundraising strategy was built for Boomers and Gen X, you're probably missing them entirely. Here's what I'm seeing: Younger donors aren't necessarily giving less. They're giving differently. And most nonprofit fundraising systems aren't designed for how they operate. ✅ Pattern 1: They want to give online, easily, now. If your donation process requires more than 3 clicks or doesn't work seamlessly on mobile, you're losing them. They're not going to mail a check. They're barely going to tolerate a clunky web form. One organization simplified their donation page to 2 steps on mobile. Conversions from donors under 35 increased 40%. ✅Pattern 2: They respond to peer influence more than institutional messaging. Traditional direct mail and email campaigns don't land the same way. But when someone their age shares your work on social media or texts them a link? They pay attention. The organizations reaching younger donors effectively are empowering their young supporters to fundraise on their behalf. Peer-to-peer campaigns. Social sharing tools. Making it easy to spread the word. ✅Pattern 3: They want transparency and impact proof upfront. They're researching before they give. Checking Charity Navigator. Looking at financials. Reading reviews. The "trust us, we're doing good work" approach doesn't fly. Organizations winning with this demographic are leading with data. Showing exactly where money goes. Being transparent about challenges, not just wins. ✅Pattern 4: They're less loyal to institutions, more loyal to causes. Boomers often give to the same organizations for decades. Younger donors are more likely to shift their giving based on what feels most urgent or impactful at the moment. This doesn't mean they won't be loyal, but you have to earn it constantly, not assume it. What's working: 1️⃣ Organizations that meet younger donors where they are instead of expecting them to adapt to traditional fundraising methods. 2️⃣ Mobile-first donation experiences. Social media strategies that aren't just broadcasts. Radical transparency about impact and finances. Opportunities to engage beyond just writing checks. The shift: If your donor base is aging and you're not intentionally building relationships with donors under 40, you're building a sustainability crisis. They're not going to start giving the way their parents did. We need to adapt to how they give. What's your strategy for engaging younger donors? Is it working? #youngerdonors #millennialgiving #genz #fundraisingstrategy #donorengagement #nonprofittrends #maine #nonprofits #philanthropy

Amazon dropped one of the biggest Sponsored Products updates we’ve seen in a long time (and personally was waiting for): ->audience targeting inside SP and the ability to create custom ones with AMC. Most advertisers are going to butcher this. They’ll pile audience bid boosts on top of existing ranking structures, placement modifiers, legacy bids — and then wonder why their campaigns nosedive. That’s how you torch your signals and bleed efficiency. Here’s the approach — the same structure we’re running across multiple brands: 1. Build your audiences inside AMC. This is the only place you’ll get truly clean data. Do not be lazy and use the ones you have available by default, they are mid to upper funnel audiences (which might work if that is what you wanna go after). But now you have access to AMC, so no excuse not to customize the audience based on your target. How to: Go to your ad console -> measurement and reports ->AMC → Use Cases → Audiences → pick the behaviour (ATC, PDP views, click-no-purchase, etc.) → create to Audience Hub. 2. Do not slap audience modifiers onto existing campaigns. If a campaign has a purpose — ranking, defence, etc — stacking audiences on top of it just corrupts the whole bidding logic. And if you’re already using placement modifiers, mixing them with audience modifiers is a guaranteed mess. 3. Create a separate SP campaign built only for the audience. Low base bid - start with half of the lowest suggested. Attach the AMC audience. Modifier applies only to that audience (at least 100% and increase this as needed). This isolates the traffic, preserves signal quality, and gives you a clean testing lane. The outcome across every brand using this structure has been identical: higher conversion rate, lower CPC, better margin. Same budget — just higher-quality traffic. The rule is straightforward: pick the audience that aligns with your objective. Don’t target everything. Fix the biggest gap in your funnel first. I’ve mapped out every audience, organized them by funnel stage, and included recommended starting points. Comment ME and share this post, and I’ll send you the file. #amazonad #amazonadvertising

Two years ago, while working on marketing analytics, I faced a challenge in optimizing ad spend for a digital campaign. The marketing team was running social media ads, but despite high traffic, the conversion rate remained low. Instead of increasing the budget, we turned to SQL and data analysis to identify inefficiencies. Breaking Down the Problem with SQL 1️⃣ Finding the Best & Worst Performing Ads We analyzed click-through rates (CTR) and conversion rates for each ad campaign. SELECT campaign_id, ad_id, COUNT(DISTINCT user_id) AS clicks, COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN purchase = 1 THEN user_id END) AS conversions, COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN purchase = 1 THEN user_id END) * 100.0 / COUNT(DISTINCT user_id) AS conversion_rate FROM ad_clicks GROUP BY campaign_id, ad_id ORDER BY conversion_rate DESC; 🔹 Insight: Some ads had a high CTR but low conversions, meaning they attracted traffic but failed to convert. 2️⃣ Identifying Wasted Ad Spend We checked if ads were targeting low-value customers who rarely made purchases. SELECT ad_id, COUNT(DISTINCT user_id) AS total_clicks, COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN customer_lifetime_value < 50 THEN user_id END) AS low_value_clicks FROM ad_clicks ac JOIN customers c ON ac.user_id = c.customer_id GROUP BY ad_id ORDER BY low_value_clicks DESC; 🔹 Insight: A large portion of the budget was spent on users with low lifetime value, leading to poor ROI. 3️⃣ Finding the Best Audience Segments To optimize targeting, we analyzed which customer segments converted best. SELECT age_group, location, COUNT(DISTINCT user_id) AS total_visitors, COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN purchase = 1 THEN user_id END) AS conversions, ROUND(COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN purchase = 1 THEN user_id END) * 100.0 / COUNT(DISTINCT user_id), 2) AS conversion_rate FROM customer_data GROUP BY age_group, location ORDER BY conversion_rate DESC; 🔹 Insight: The highest converting customers were from specific age groups and cities, which weren’t the primary ad targets. Challenges Faced Data Volume Issues: The dataset contained millions of ad clicks, so I used indexed filtering to improve performance. Attribution Problems: Some users converted days after clicking the ad, so we used attribution modeling instead of last-click conversions. Budget Reallocation Resistance: Marketing teams were hesitant, so we presented data-backed ROI projections. Business Impact ✔ 20% decrease in ad spend waste by cutting low-value audiences. ✔ 15% increase in conversion rate after retargeting the right audience. ✔ Better marketing decisions through data-driven campaign optimization. Key Takeaway: SQL isn’t just for reporting—it helps businesses make smarter marketing decisions and maximize ROI. Have you used SQL to optimize marketing campaigns? Let’s discuss!

Most SaaS companies are optimizing for the wrong users. They focus on segments with the most people instead of the most value. In our recent segmentation study for a client, we discovered their highest-value users weren't their biggest segment - or their loudest complainers. Instead, it was users who performed 3+ exports per week AND invited 2+ team members within 30 days. This small segment was 4.5x more likely to upgrade to enterprise within 6 months. The uncomfortable truth: Your most valuable segments may not be your largest, loudest, or newest. We've developed a 7-step framework to systematically identify these high-value segments: → Set clear goals beyond revenue → Collect both behavioral and qualitative data   → Use factor analysis to find value drivers → Apply cluster analysis to form segments → Quantify true segment value → Map segments to optimization opportunities The result? Our client shifted from generic improvements to laser-focused optimizations for their power users. Full methodology and case study breakdown in the article below.