Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Cross Channel Fundraising Strategies
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

Cross Channel Fundraising Strategies

1,090
views

Published on

Metropolitan Group's Tanya Zumach's presentation on Cross Channel Fundraising Strategies for the 2008 eTour

Metropolitan Group's Tanya Zumach's presentation on Cross Channel Fundraising Strategies for the 2008 eTour

Published in: Business, News & Politics

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,090
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
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
  • Tanya: Introduce
  • Transcript

    • 1. Cross-Channel Fundraising Strategies eTour, April 23, 2008 • Portland, OR Tanya Zumach, Metropolitan Group
    • 2. What is it?
      • Level 1 - getting donors and activists into different streams - online, direct mail, and/or telemarketing
      • Level 2 - Strategic, planned coordination
      online,
    • 3. Agenda
      • Why & Stats
      • Samples & Case Studies
      • Obstacles & Challenges
      • Q/A & Audience Sharing
    • 4. Why
    • 5. Online more valuable Source: DonorCentrics
    • 6. But Multichannel Most
    • 7. Value from least to most
      • Offline donors w/o email
      • Offline donors w/ email
      • Online donors
      • Online/offline donors
    • 8. Channel Migration
      • Non-online donors in 2005 (who gave in 2006):
        • 93% gave offline only
        • 2% gave online (and in some cases offline)
      Source: DonorCentrics
      • Online donors in 2005 (who gave in 2006):
        • 46% gave offline only
        • 50% gave online (and in some cases offline)
    • 9. Other Thoughts/Trends
      • Direct mail higher initial response rate
      • Online acquisition usually generates higher average gifts
      • Online donors younger with higher household incomes
      • Direct mail-only renew at higher rates than online-only, but multichannel strongest
      • Higher percentage of direct-mail donors likely institutional
    • 10. The Donor Viewpoint
    • 11. Samples & Case Studies
    • 12. Donor Mashup
      • Gather Offline emails
      • Offline donors/prospects to Website
      • Online donors/activists to Mail and/or phone streams
      • Others?
    • 13. Example Plan Sept Oct Nov. Dec E-Newsletter 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15 Pre Telemarketing e-mail 9/20 TM campaign starts 10/1 Year end direct mail 11/20 Year End E-Mail hits 1 and 2 12/20 / 12/28
    • 14. Email direct mail email
    • 15. Major donor pledge online
    • 16. Email telemarketing
    • 17. Email direct mail Email segment 150% greater response
    • 18. Obstacles & Challenges It’s my name! It’s my list!
    • 19. Breaking Down Silos
      • Communications vs. Government Relations vs. Fundraisers - who “owns” the name?
      • Mail, phone, Internet fundraisers have goals, lists, different expertise
      • Data usually not in shared location
      • Internal politics, personalities, structure
      • Vendors & consultants (mail, Internet, phone)
    • 20. Breaking Down Silos
      • Share calendars, plans
      • Cross-online team
      • Cross-channel team
      • Share goals, credit
      • Plan ahead to meet deadlines
    • 21. Data, Data, Data
      • Sync between eCRM and database painful
      • Time consuming, complex, expensive
      • Vendors often “learning, too” at best; hostile at worst
      • Metrics, evaluation data different
    • 22. Data, Data, Data
      • Prepare management, define expectations
      • Line up internal resources
      • Create budget cushion
      • Define what’s “critical” vs. “nice-to-have”
      • Common ROI - $ return for $ invested
    • 23. Message & Brand
      • Each channel has style that works best
      • Audiences are different
      • Messages don’t need to be identical
      • Develop campaigns or themes
      • Test!
    • 24. Maybe not…
      • Data challenges too severe, complex, costly
      • List protection/silos too much to overcome
      • Audiences are so different
      • No management support
      • Not worth the investment
    • 25. Q & A, Audience Sharing
    • 26. Resources
      • Idealware, Creating the Relationship-Centered Organization, www.idealware.org
      • Convio, Integrating Online Marketing with Direct Mail Fundraising, www.convio.com
      • 2006 donorCentrics Internet Giving Benchmarking Analysis, www.targetanalysis.com
      • eNonprofit Benchmarks Study, M&R, www.mrss.com
    • 27. Contact
      • Tanya Zumach, ePMT
      • Senior Director
      • Metropolitan Group, Portland, OR
      • [email_address]
      • 503-223-3299
      • Special thanks to Betsy Harman, ePMT, Harman Interactive and Jeff Regen, Defenders of Wildlife!

    ×