Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey

977

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
977
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The first finding is clear and as stated. National campaigns have a 23% lower retention rate (in month 0) than regional campaigns – all else being equal. So if I’m running a campaign in Scotland I would expect that its retention rate would be 23% higher (on average). If my Scottish campaign is currently sitting on 50% retention, then a national campaign equivalent would be sitting on 27%. The effect is HUGE, but … note the comments on the next slide.What else? Well this slide also tells us that with every passing month the impact of region declines. There is a 23% difference in month zero and this decreases by 0.1% with every passing month.Region of campaign was also more or less significant in each year. In 2006 the impact of being a national campaign was 23% - 4% = 19% worse than a regional equivalent. In 2009, the impact of being a national campaign was 23% - 11% = 12%, so the effect was less pronounced.There are interactions too with categories of cause. Children’s charities have only a 23% - 3% = 20% difference between their national and their regional campaigns.
  • Transcript

    • 1. PFRA
      Unit 11 Europoint
      5-11 Lavington Street
      London
      SE1 0NZ
      June 2011
      Dear PFRA member,
      Thank you for your interest in DARS 2011, the 4thannual PFRA Attrition Survey, the fourth year we have conducted this analysis. We are happy to supply you with a copy of the presentation made at this year’s PFRA AGM in London on 21stJune. However, we would like to make it clear that this presentation includes only the initial analysis of the data and needs to be read bearing the following points in mind:
      The presentation analysed the responses of 27 PFRA member charities (out of a total membership of 96) who responded to the survey sent to the whole membership.
      2. The particular questions asked in the survey required charities to report the number of donors who had made 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc payments.
    • 2. 3. In the interests of consistency, donors who did not make their 1st payment (often known as “no-shows”) have not been included in the calculations, since not every charity knows this information
      Percentages in all graphs other than ‘Attrition by Charity’ have been calculated by taking the total number of payments reported by all charities and who fell into that particular criterion and calculating the percentage attrition against the total number of payers at 1st month.
      Cumulative attrition figures for the first year, therefore, should be read at Month 11, since this point represents all donors that cancelled after having made eleven payments; therefore all remaining donors at this point DID go on to make a full 12 payments.
      This preliminary analysis will be followed up by a full written report at the end of September. Further to points raised during the presentation this year, Morag and Rupert will be conducting some additional analysis, which will feature within this report.
      In the meantime, while looking at the findings within our presentation, care must be taken not to draw specific conclusions. This is because there are many variables that are at work within the campaigns that have been reported by charities to us.
    • 3. The findings that we have reported are indicative of general trends that we have deduced from the survey results, but can only be proven by an individual charity when running a head-to-head Test internally within their organisation, ideally where only one variable is changed at any one time.
      We very much hope that this survey continues the development of a process of qualitative research, and testing of factors that beneficially impact retention for charities.
      The information contained in the presentation and subsequent report are copyright to the PFRA and the authors of the presentation and report (Morag Fleming, Head of Fundraising, Quarriers and Rupert Tappin, Managing Director, Future Fundraising) and we would ask that you do not reproduce or disseminate any of this material (apart from for internal use within your own organisation) without prior permission from the PFRA.
      If you would like to receive a copy of the full report when published, then please contact Ian MacQuillin of the PFRA, on ian@pfra.org.uk, or call 020 7401 8452.
      Yours faithfully
      Mick Aldridge
      CEO, PFRA
    • 4. DARS 2011PFRA’s Fourth Annual Donor Attrition & Retention Survey21st June 2011
      Devised, analysed & presented by:
      Morag Fleming – Quarriers
      Rupert Tappin – Future Fundraising
    • 5. Agenda
      Development of DARS 2011 + External environment
      DARS 2011 – the findings!
      door & street campaigns run in 2004, 06, 07, 08, 09 &10
      Further analysis from Professor Adrian Sargeant & his team at Indiana University
    • 6. The Development of DARS
      10 years+ face-to-face acquisition in UK
      DARS provided the 1st benchmark in 2008 for charities to match to and better manage their donor retention programmes
      Developed to look at the different variables affecting donor retention
      Now in the 4th year
    • 7. External Market & DARS
      Changing F2F market – 25% increase in door market between 2008 and 2011
      Decrease of 4% in Street market between 2008 and 2011
      Collapse of the banks 2008
      Coalition government implement cuts 2010 /11
    • 8. Developments for 2011
      Reports from 6 years of activity
      Up to 5 years worth of payments
      More questions on donor communications
      In-depth analysis by Professor Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang
    • 9. Attrition is…
      19% thought better
      52% thought worse
      26% thought similar
      … better?
      … worse?
      … similar?
    • 10. DARS 2011 – Campaigns Reported
      Largest number of donors ever reported to DARS
      818,163 individual donors
      27 charities submitted data from 155 separate campaigns
      74 street campaigns with 342,916 donors
      81 door campaigns with 475,247 donors
      678,532 donors made at least 1 payment
    • 11. DARS 2011 – THE ‘REVELATION’?!
      Attrition: where is your charity at?
      (Reminder: figures are based on all donors making first payment; no-shows are excluded as not all charities know these)
    • 12.
    • 13.
    • 14.
    • 15. Street Attrition
      Attrition appears to be coming down after a peak in 2008 campaigns
      Similar to last year’s survey, 2004, ‘06+ ‘07 campaigns largely clustered closely together
      But 2008 & 2009 campaigns more broadly spread
      ?Reflection of growing complexity of campaigns and interaction of all the variables
      Adrian Sargeant analysed significance of each variable for DARS 2011
    • 16.
    • 17.
    • 18.
    • 19. Door Attrition
      Attrition rates on the door seem to be going back down from the high they reached in 2009.
      Month 3 2007 - 5-32% best year
      Month 3 2009 - 5-45% worst year
      Month 3 2010 - 10-35%
      This pattern is also evident in month 6
    • 20. DARS 2011 – THE ‘REVELATION’?!
      How does this all fit together to develop our benchmark?
    • 21. Campaign Averages by Year
    • 22. Campaign Averages for First Year
    • 23. Attrition Based on Campaign Averages
      Door 2004 remains the best performing campaign
      Street campaigns perform less well that door campaigns for every year until 2010 when street outperforms door
      Both Street and Door show a marked improvement in 2009 and 2010 shows early signs of being a lower attrition campaign
    • 24. Long Term Attrition
      Street
      5 year attrition between 53% and 88% (04)
      4 year attrition between 49% and 87% (06)
      Door
      5 year attrition between 48% and 89% (04)
      4 year attrition between 38% and 82% (06)
    • 25. DARS 2011 – THE CORE GROUP
      How does the Core Group perform?
    • 26.
    • 27. No Show Rate
    • 28. Analysis By Age Banding
    • 29.
    • 30.
    • 31.
    • 32. Age of Donors
      Street
      Older age band (30-34 years) are performing better in more recent years than the under 29s
      But only in first year; 4-5 year trend is almost identical
      Door
      Oldest profile (45+ years) is the strongest, but must balance with fact that sign-up rates of these individuals are lower…
    • 33.
    • 34.
    • 35. Average Gift
      Street
      In every year the lowest average gift is performing better than the highest but particularly so in 2009 and 2010
      Door
      The same is true for the door campaigns however the 2010 campaign seems to have better attrition in month 1 on the higher gift
    • 36. Initial Findings From Adrian Sargeant’sModelling
      Cleanest data set ever seen
      Unique dataset
      Fascinating findings
      Analysis taking four times as long as before
      Following trends are PROVISIONAL subject to further testing of models in US
    • 37. Number of Charities and Campaigns
      27 charities
      153 campaigns
      Average number of campaigns submitted by charities is between 5 and 6.
    • 38. Type of Face-to-face Campaigns
      Street and Door-to-Door Campaigns conducted between year 2004 and 2010
    • 39. Sample Characteristics
      • Social Welfare & Disabilities, Children, Overseas Development and Environmental Causes constitute the largest four categories
    • Attrition (Retention) Rate
      Is calculated as
      The number of donors making one payment
      Divided by
      The number of donors remained at a given month
    • 40. How Valuable Is This Survey?
      On a scale of 1 to 100:
      Individual charity internal analysis = 1
      Descriptive analysis (graphs, etc) = 5
      Modeling (Adrian Sargeant work) = 10
      In light of 27 charities taking part
      IF 90+ charities took part, then
      Score would leap to 60-70!
    • 41. Retention Rate
      The interaction effect:
      Does the effect of Type of Campaigns, Campaign Year, Region and Sector change depending on when the retention rate is measured.
      For example, is the degree to which door-to-door campaigns are better than street campaigns bigger in the first year after acquisition, five years after acquisition or does it not change?
      is the degree to which 2010 campaigns are better than 2004 campaigns bigger the first year after acquisition, five years after acquisition or does it not change?
      is the degree to which children campaigns are better than animal welfare campaigns bigger the first year after acquisition, five years after acquisition or does it not change?
    • 42. Retention Rate
      • Interaction Effects:
      • 43. The effect of Door-to-door gets progressively stronger as time passes
      • 44. The effect of campaign year gets progressively smaller as time passes
      • 45. The change of the effect of sector on charity differs depending on sector
    • Retention Rate by Campaign Region 1-Model 1: Is it a national or a regional campaign?
      Main Effect
      National campaigns have 23% lower retention rate than regional campaigns
      Interaction Effects
      It changes baseline effect dramatically.
    • 46. National Campaigns
      • National campaigns perform MUCH WORSE
      • 47. Although the effect is shrinking over time.
    • Attrition by Agency or In-house
      In month zero In-house campaigns have a 13.3% higher level of retention than Agency campaigns.
      The size of this effect declines slightly over time – i.e. by 0.4% per month.
      The size of this effect is bigger for Street campaigns than for Door-to-Door campaigns
    • 48. Conclusions
      Attrition peaked in 2008, 2009-10 campaigns looking to be better
      Significant improvement in charities reporting ‘quality’ data, unparalleled in world
      Fascinating findings, tip of iceberg shown today
      Further analysis and full report to be delivered by Prof. Adrian Sargeant in Aug/Sept 2011
    • 49. Wrap-up & Questions
      Morag Fleming, Head of Fundraising, Quarriers,
      morag.fleming@quarriers.org.uk, 01505 616032
      Rupert Tappin, MD, Future Fundraising,
      rupertt@futurefundraising.co.uk, 0845 644 8026
      Adrian Sargeant, Professor of Fundraising, Indiana University,
      asargean@iupui.edu, +1 812 935 8123

    ×