Sample expected output — donor fingerprint

This is the shape of a good answer, not a literal target. Your answer will differ in exact numbers; what should match is the structure (six sections + three actions + caveat) and the level of evidence.

Your donor fingerprint

I ran your 500-donor file (covering ~17 postcodes) against ABS Census 2021 and 2022 AEC TPP data. Here’s the demographic story:

1. Age tilt

Your donor base is strongly concentrated in postcodes with above-average older populations.

• Median % age 65+ in your donor postcodes: ~18%
• Australian median: ~16%
• Notable: postcode 2030 (Dover Heights / Vaucluse) has 22% age 65+.

2. Housing tilt

Bimodal. Your file has two dominant patterns:

• Wealthy owner-occupier cluster (2030, 2028, 2088, 2089): 66-72% owner-occupier, median income $2,500+/week.
• Inner-city renter cluster (2010, 2042, 2037): 65-72% renter, high flat-apartment share, younger.
• Treat these as two distinct segments, not one “donor base”.

3. Income tilt

• Donor postcodes’ weighted median household income: ~$2,180/week
• AU median: $1,750/week
• 7 of your top 10 donor postcodes are in the top 5% nationally by income.

4. Voting tilt

Modest ALP lean overall, but masking a split.

• Weighted average ALP TPP across donor postcodes: ~57%
• AU average (2022 federal): 52.1%
• Two camps: inner-city renters 70%+ ALP; Eastern Suburbs wealth 50-55% ALP.

5. Community signals

• Volunteering: ~14% in donor postcodes vs 11.8% AU → +20%.
• Unpaid care: ~12% vs 11.5% AU — only modestly elevated.

Bottom line

Your donor file is two cohorts in one — Eastern-Sydney wealth (older, owner-occupier, high-income, mixed voting) and inner-city young renters (Newtown / Surry Hills, ALP-leaning, civically engaged) — both over-indexed on volunteering.

Three actions

1. Stop treating this as one segment. Build two messages. Eastern-suburbs responds to legacy / major-gift framing. Inner-city renters respond to community-impact / advocacy framing.
2. Test a missing cohort. Your file is light on regional centres, middle Sydney, and outer growth corridors. Some of those areas index higher on volunteering and unpaid care — credible look-alike audiences that are structurally absent because you’ve never asked there.
3. Quit relying on income as a proxy. Your inner-city renter cohort has lower household income but gives at similar rates per adult. Switch to area-level volunteering / civic-engagement signals.

Caveats: this is correlational. Donors live in these areas, but the data can’t separate “demographic appeal” from “this is where you’ve historically marketed”. Pilot anything you change.