Case Study · Anon

Findings → Fields → Action

The donor file does not contain one kind of donor. It combines corporate sponsorship, event participation, recurring small gifts, fee coverage, insider giving, and conventional charitable support. The Raiser’s Edge → Omatic → Emma bridge must preserve those differences.

Raiser’s EdgeOmaticEmma

 

The corrected file view

Donor records
158
Gift transactions
901
Total giving
≈ $168K
From one industry record
39%

The previous page showed 154 donors and about $102,000 because the dominant unnamed industry record was outside that analysis. This version restores the full file while separating the outlier from ordinary donor behavior.

The unusual patterns

01

Corporate giving distorts the file

One unnamed industry record gave about $65,500 through five gifts. It represents 39% of all dollars and should not travel through the same journeys as an individual donor.

39% of revenue · 0.6% of gifts
02

Frequency and value are not the same

Four people generated 239 transactions. Together they account for 26.5% of every gift but only 4.5% of revenue. Their activity may include installments, registrations, or peer fundraising.

4 people · 239 transactions
03

Insiders participate often

Members and former staff generated 199 gifts but only about $7,682. The Organization has an insider participation engine, not yet an insider major-giving engine.

22.1% of gifts · 4.6% of dollars
04

Fixed prices shape giving

The $10, $25, $40, $50, and $100 amounts make up 62% of the visible gifts. The $40 level is especially likely to be an event or participation price.

5 price points · 62% of visible gifts
05

Fee coverage looks like generosity

At least 41 visible gifts from 19 donors are exactly 3% above a round amount. These appear to be processing-fee gross-ups and should not be treated as organic gift upgrades.

41 gifts · 19 donors
06

Event loyalty is real loyalty

Several donors return to the same appeal for four to six years. The durable relationship may be with annual events, specific medical programming, or year-end giving—not with generic fundraising.

Repeated appeal behavior · 4–6 years
07

The one-time pool is mostly transactional

Fifty people made one gift. Together they contributed about $5,550. Registrations and participation payments must be separated before treating this group as failed donor acquisition.

31.6% of records · 3.3% of dollars
08

2026 acquisition is narrow so far

Five apparent new donors entered through the Organization’s largest annual event and gave about $205 combined. The year is incomplete, but the current signal is participation acquisition rather than meaningful donor acquisition.

5 new records · 1 appeal · $205

The Omatic–Emma bridge

Decision

Do not create one ambiguous Donation Campaign field. Create three fields: acquisition appeal, most recent appeal, and primary appeal affinity. Each answers a different fundraising question.

Recommended field map

Raiser’s Edge remains authoritative. Omatic turns transaction history into stable, segmentation-ready contact fields. Emma uses those fields to build saved segments; it does not become a second gift database.

Raiser’s Edge source Omatic rule Emma field Fundraising use
Constituent ID No change; required match key re_constituent_id Prevents duplicate contacts and makes reconciliation possible
Constituent code(s) Normalize to Anon’s approved labels community_member_type Member, parent, former staff, board, industry, professional
Gift type + constituent code + appeal Classify: individual donor, insider, corporate sponsor, event participant, or mixed giving_role Keeps corporate and transactional activity out of individual journeys
Lifetime recognized giving Exclude reversals; do not infer fee coverage from amount alone lifetime_giving Giving bands and stewardship priority
Gift count Count qualified charitable gifts separately from registrations and purchases qualified_gift_count One-time, repeat, and high-frequency segments
First qualified gift date Date only first_gift_date New-donor onboarding and donor age
Latest qualified gift Send date and amount as separate values last_gift_date · last_gift_amount Recency, reactivation, and acknowledgment timing
First attributed appeal Use the earliest qualified gift with valid appeal attribution acquisition_appeal How the donor first entered Anon’s fundraising system
Latest attributed appeal Use the appeal on the most recent qualified gift most_recent_appeal Current context and follow-up
Appeal history Find the appeal with the strongest repeated participation; require at least 3 qualified gifts primary_appeal_affinity Event-loyalist and program-interest messaging
Gift dates and amounts Classify: one-time, repeat, recurring, upgrader, downgrader, returned, or mixed giving_pattern Selects the right donor journey without exposing raw transactions
Latest gift date Active: 0–12 months; at risk: 13–24; lapsed: 25+; returned requires a prior 25+ month gap giving_status Dynamic retention and reactivation segments

Segments the bridge should unlock

Corporate stewardship

giving_role = corporate sponsor

Personal outreach; exclude from individual appeals

Event loyalists

primary_appeal_affinity is known

Program-specific invitations and follow-up

High-frequency / low-dollar

qualified_gift_count is high + giving band is low

Confirm transaction type before asking for more

Upgraders

giving_pattern = upgrader

Recognize momentum and test a next-level ask

One-time reactivation

qualified_gift_count = 1 + giving_status is at risk or lapsed

Use the original appeal, not generic guilt

Insider development

community_member_type is member, staff, or board

Separate participation from major-gift cultivation

What should return to Raiser’s Edge

Consent and deliverability

Unsubscribe, hard bounce, and valid-email status should return through Omatic so Raiser’s Edge does not continue to present a contact as marketable.

Useful engagement

Campaign sends and clicks may support constituent history. Treat opens as directional only; privacy protections can make them unreliable.

Not donor truth

Emma engagement can inform outreach. It must not overwrite gift totals, constituent identity, appeal history, or donor status calculated from Raiser’s Edge.

Required data-quality gate

The current donor-level export is sufficient for diagnosis, not for production formulas. Before Omatic derives these fields, export one row per transaction with donor ID, date, amount, appeal, fund, gift type, fee coverage, soft credit, and transaction category.

  1. Define qualified gift, registration, sponsorship, merchandise, and fee coverage.
  2. Repair missing appeal and constituent identity records.
  3. Create the Emma custom fields before activating the sync.
  4. Backfill through Omatic and quarantine exceptions.
  5. Reconcile record counts, gift counts, dollars, and opt-outs before launch.

Bottom line

The bridge should not merely move donor data.

It should distinguish generosity from participation, corporate sponsorship from individual giving, fee coverage from upgrades, and event loyalty from general affinity. That is what turns a sync into a fundraising system.