How MSF used audience insight to develop digital channels. Audience first conference, 16 July 2014

1,833 views
1,814 views

Published on

Ben Holt, digital manager, Médecins Sans Frontières

Visit the CharityComms website to view slides from our past events, see what events we have coming up and to check out what else we do.
http://www.charitycomms.org.uk

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,833
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,253
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Breakout C: How MSF used audience insight to develop  digital channels This case study outlines how MSF used research with existing audiences, including supporters and site visitors, to develop its website and social media channels. With fantastic results including a 91% increase in online donations in the first 12 months, it’s unsurprising that this project, which started off in the digital team, has inspired change throughout the organisation. Ben will outline how he identified MSF's audiences, what research methods were used to better understand them and how this insight was applied to develop the charity's digital channels.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXV8lTgETks
  • Weakness: lots of donors, but fewer volunteers and not many fundraisers at all
  • Heavily skewed by the email newsletter constituency
    About a third: news
    A third to donate
    17% had never visited the site – remember that this was from the email newsletter
    Other: Prompted by email (5/12). Read son’s blog, find contact details : genuinely miscellaneous
  • If we look at content popularity from the analytics we see a different story: work generally is the top content, with news content coming further down the list
    Top 500 pages looked at: 93% of all page views covered
  • Very strongly perceived as dedicated, inspiring, selfless, brave, honest
    Optimistic organisation
    High profile is interesting: previous market research (The Works, 2005) said participants thought it lower profile. Similarly underground / edgy (see high profile)
    Exciting only edged into the agree section
    Romantic: somewhat disagreed with, contrary to the previous research.
    Broadly speaking it’s not seen as corporate or pushy – pushy is interesting, previous research suggested that this lack of pushiness was appreciated by participants
    And it’s clearly not thought of as Aloof, intimidating and Amateur
    Overall a really good set of ratings
    Partly this has been included as a benchmark for the emotional response testing we’re going to run later
  • People who are self-described as current donors: previous table segmented
    These users are somewhat interested in lots of different types of content, but no single type stands out.
    Schools, volunteering in the UK and overseas all rank relatively low – no surprise: this audience is clearly different from the volunteers
  • N=8! Not a great sample to be drawing conclusions from.
    Overall higher scored than with the Donors: fundraisers are more engaged generally
    Work done again top ranked – joint here with stories from the field (blogs etc.)
    Volunteering ranks highly: this group is more interested in how to get involved
  • Visitor types were prioritised by stakeholders in the personas workshop
  • Average is the important number here: this is an index of overall content importance. Higher is better.
  • Last one in particular is interesting
  • Overall performance on this task was satisfactory. Almost ¾ located the content – not far from the idiot factor free 87% (roughly), that would indicate total success.
  • This is clearly successful.
    There’s some traffic going to How MSF acts, and some to the Research section: both understandable: this content should be cross-linked to from both of these areas where appropriate
  • Use different phone numbers in different places so you now which channels are working for you
    Stay on top of Google Analytics and produce reports measuring the impact of activities
    Use tracking code in all email links, tweets etc
    Pay attention to FB and Twitter data to see what works, when it works best (e.g. Quotes on FB posts made a massive difference)
    Use tools to run A/B tests to see what works best. This way the data gathered from one campaign will refine the next campaign
    Ask supporters for feedback – spend the time and money on focus groups
    Spend the time to dissect the campaign once it is finished and be honest about what worked and what didn’t – don’t just repeat the same mistakes
    Aim for bigger and better next time, no matter how successful!
  • How MSF used audience insight to develop digital channels. Audience first conference, 16 July 2014

    1. 1. Who are we talking to?
    2. 2. MSF •Established 1971 – doctors and journalists •Helping the people who need it most •War zones, epidemics, disasters •We raise the funds and deliver the medical aid •Impartiality, independence and neutrality •Nobel Peace Prize 1999
    3. 3. 7.3 million8.3 million
    4. 4. 1.6 million1.6 million
    5. 5. HIV 210,000
    6. 6. 30,000
    7. 7. $1 billion USD
    8. 8. Where we spend our money
    9. 9. Planning • New international CMS • UK to develop first site • One year lead time • Research was key: – Buy in – Stops arguments – Builds the best site
    10. 10. Research • Existing research • Analytics • Survey • Stakeholder workshop • Personas & goal matrix • Card sort • Wireframing & IA • Validation – treejack tests • Design validation
    11. 11. •340 participants •Supporters database (82%) • Pop-up invitation on website (18%) Participants
    12. 12. What was the reason for your last visit? News / events Donate Other Never visited Country info Work overseas MSF background Health issues
    13. 13. Content popularity 6 months to Oct 31 2011, 820k page views • Work (28%) – Overseas (10%) – Office vacancies (5%) – Jobs (13%) • Country focus (8%, cumulatively) • (delivers.msf micro-site: 7.5%) / (supportus.msf: 1%) • News (6%) • Donate (3.7%) • About (2.6%) • Issues (1.5%) • Support (1%) • Contact (1%) • Events (1%)
    14. 14. To me, Médecins Sans Frontières is… 10 - Completely agree 5 - Neither agree nor disagree 0 - Completely disagree Dedicated 9.7 Brave 9.5 Inspiring 9.5 Honest 9.3 Selfless 8.8 Optimistic 8.1 High profile 7.3 Exciting 6.9 Safe 5.9 Youthful 5.7 Traditional 4.0 Romantic 3.4 Corporate 3.2 Underground / edgy 2.8 Pushy 2.2 Aloof 1.3 Intimidating 1.1 Amateur 0.5
    15. 15. How interested are you in the following types of content? DONORS The type of work done by MSF, e.g. crisis response, healthcare, research 7.8 MSF News 7.7 Stories from MSF volunteers in the field 7.7 Crisis alerts and appeals 7.4 Our activities in a specific country 7.0 Stories from patients 7.0 Information on specific issues like malnutrition or AIDS 6.8 How to support MSF, e.g. fundraising or with donations 5.8 Background information on MSF, e.g. history, finances 5.8 MSF Events 5.5 Resources for schools 4.3 Working for MSF in the UK 3.9 Volunteering overseas with MSF 3.0 10 - Extremely interested 5 – Neither interested nor uninterested 0 - Not at all interested n=268
    16. 16. How interested are you in the following types of content? FUNDRAISERS n=8 The type of work done by MSF, e.g. crisis response, healthcare, research 8.8 Stories from MSF volunteers in the field 8.8 Our activities in a specific country 8.5 Crisis alerts and appeals 8.5 Volunteering overseas with MSF 8.4 How to support MSF, e.g. fundraising or with donations 8.1 Information on specific issues like malnutrition or AIDS 8.0 MSF Events 7.9 MSF News 7.6 Working for MSF in the UK 6.8 Stories from patients 6.6 Resources for schools 6.4 Background information on MSF, e.g. history, finances 5.1 10 - Extremely interested 5 – Neither interested nor uninterested 0 - Not at all interested
    17. 17. Visitor types prioritised Bar height shows relative importance
    18. 18. user types: unweighted scores Content type Prospective donor current donor prospective volunteers current volunteer current and prospective fundraiser no relationship MSF staff workshop priority 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 weighting factor 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.40 0.40 0.15 1.00 Ave Background information on MSF, e.g. history, finances 4.9 4.09 4.85 2.35 2.20 0.79 3.9 3.3 Crisis alerts and appeals 8.6 5.20 5.46 3.55 3.28 1.03 6.5 4.8 Events 6.4 3.82 5.13 3.17 3.16 1.00 2.1 3.5 How to support MSF, e.g. fundraising or with donations 6.8 4.07 4.25 2.69 3.12 0.86 5.5 3.9 Info on specific issues like malnutrition or AIDS 6.9 4.79 5.46 3.52 3.32 1.16 5.1 4.3 News 7.6 5.41 5.79 3.73 3.16 1.23 7.875 5.0 School Resources 3.8 3.01 4.15 1.97 2.52 0.61 4.9 3.0 Specific country 7.9 4.93 5.60 3.73 3.40 1.04 5.625 4.6 Stories from patients 7.9 4.90 4.95 3.55 2.68 1.09 5 4.3 Stories from the field 7.8 5.42 5.85 3.49 3.32 1.12 6.375 4.8 Type of work done by MSF, e.g. crisis response, healthcare, research 8.5 5.46 6.21 3.41 3.40 1.33 6.5 5.0 Volunteering overseas with MSF 4.5 2.12 6.00 3.04 3.40 0.72 5 3.5 Working for MSF in the UK 3.9 2.70 4.20 2.61 2.60 1.01 0.5 2.5 User types’ preferred content: average scores (weighted)
    19. 19. Do you have needs of MSF that are not covered by the site? ALL USERS “A wider range of ... various types of volunteering” “...view documentaries ... on the site” “Events for young people ... who aim to one day [to] work in the field” “More info from doctors in the field, the Facebook page is good with it.” “Scholarship opportunities” “I would like to send electronic Christmas cards” “How about sometimes mentioning some of those things that you have done less well”
    20. 20. of malaria? Task 6
    21. 21. Where would you look to find out what MSF is doing on the subject of malaria? Task 6
    22. 22. Delivery • Design – RFP & selection • Development • Content • Migration • SEO & page rankings • Donation funnels • A/B testing • Improved analytics • New email system... • Global impact
    23. 23. • Online income up 91% y-o-y • Average gift up 34% to £173 y-o-y • Added PayPal = £220k in the first year • Mobile traffic now 30% (up from 12%) •Page views and bounce improved •New user journeys, audiences •New advertising ideas – e.g. Retargetting •New initiative – Power of Small Results
    24. 24. Any questions?
    25. 25. Visit the CharityComms website to view slides from our past events, see what events we have coming up and to check out what else we do.  www.charitycomms.org.uk

    ×