Lot of information on this chart. Two most common ways to “give back” are what I know some of you refer to as “tipping” – leaving a buck for charity here or there at the supermarket, etc; and of course check by mail. But what I really want to focus on is some of the generational differences. Gen Y most likely to give in small ways -- $1 at checkout type of gift. No one prevalent channel beyond that -- as likely to give via website as check, same numbers at gift shop, event, etc. More than 1-in-10 say they have participated in mobile philanthropy. Giving thru SM more prevalent than other generations, but still small. Gen X true multi-channel givers -- more likely to give through many of these channels than other generations. Most likely to make online donations (though still a little less than good old check). Both X and Y more likely to participate in something like Gap Red campaign where part of the proceeds fr third party vendor purchase goes to charity. In focus groups we heard that this is a way that they can easily and affordably be charitable. Win-win (i.e. Gap – “I shop there anyway, and it’s a way to feel good”). X using monthly debit more than other cohorts. –NOT REALLY -- THE DIFFERENCE IS WITHIN THE MOE Matures (and Boomers) most likely to mail in a check. A third of Matures have made tribute gifts. More have given via phone solicitation than other generations (though still just a quarter). Q7: Which of the following giving methods have you used in the past 2 years (select all that apply). Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
WOM is seen as the most effective solicitation channel for Gen Y, X, and Boomers For Matures, direct mail is just as effective Younger generations are more open to other forms of solicitation: email (just as effective as dm with Y), social media, phone (though note that they are less likely to have a landline, and we heard in the focus group not as familiar with telemarketing) Mobile solicitation is still its infancy (more on this in a few minutes), but has more acceptance among younger audiences. All generations much more guarded with direct communications if no relationship in place, gets worse as gets older. Mass media the one accepted channel (74% appropriate). B ig theme heard in focus groups is Control -- skepticism about getting manipulated. Feel like traditional solicitation channels – phone and mail – are manipulative. They want to feel like they made the choice/they are in control. Giving after hearing a mass media story, and/or being solicited by a friend makes them feel like they made a choice. Prospecting direct mail more acceptable than email across generations by 2:1 (45% to 21%) (different than what we saw on previous slide), but donors described that responding is not always a “feel good” experience Q22 :Below are a variety of different ways that a charity may approach you and ask for a monetary donation. For each, please indicate how appropriate that approach is. Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
Fundraising is profoundly multichannel
By calling people we made a 20% goal difference.
By calling people we made a 20% goal difference.
Mark Highlight: Smooth Transition – we will facilitate the design and implementation of a plan for the amalgamation process. Strategic and Tactical development – during the overlap period, we will work with CCS to build KPIs/set strategy. We will take a multi-channel approach. We will focus on data and build a segmentation strategy – looking at how we will convert one time donors to multi donors; single/multi donors to monthly; reactivating lapsed, etc.
25 Ways to Kick Start your Cross-Channel Fundraising
25 WAYS TO KICK START YOUR CROSS-CHANNEL FUNDRAISING Mike Johnston – HJC July 27 th , 2010 11:00 – 12:15 2010 Bridge Conference
[email_address] President and Founder, HJC 2010Bridge Tweeting today? Your presenter... Follow us as... @hjcnewmedia
Giving Channels % donated this way in last 2 years (total) Emerging Channels GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES 48% 57% 52% 48% 26% 43% 54% 77% 28% 35% 32% 30% 29% 35% 31% 25% 22% 28% 28% 31% 22% 22% 27% 35% 25% 27% 17% 12% 8% 10% 16% 25% 11% 17% 14% 11% 14% 13% 4% 2% 9% 6% 4% 2%
Solicitation Channel (From charities/nonprofits with established relationship) % say appropriate solicitation channel (rank ordered by very important –blue) TOTAL GEN Y GEN X BOOMER MATURE 84% 87% 89% 82% 76% 77% 77% 79% 74% 77% 65% 76% 69% 60% 51% 47% 69% 60% 38% 17% 42% 51% 42% 39% 34% 23% 38% 25% 16% 13%
<ul><li>Fundraising is profoundly multichannel </li></ul><ul><li>Causation may be impossible to track </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional donor databases are dinosaurs </li></ul><ul><li>Remove the silos within your organization </li></ul><ul><li>Direct mail and telemarketing need to evolve </li></ul>What does it mean?
Integration opportunities or threats? Area One: Direct mail and email
Web Triggers Direct Mail Response When you received a mail solicitation from a charity, which of the following places on the Internet do you look at before deciding whether to give money NPT Research: 1,000 calls All respondents 2005 2008 Look up 25% 44% Do not look up 61% 47% Don’t know/none 13% 10% 2005 2008 Org’s web site 19% 37% Independent rating organization 11% 24% Online discussion group 3% 10% Blogs 2% 8%
If 37% of direct mail donors who get a direct mail solicitation go to the charity’s web site before giving then shouldn’t cross-channel integration look like this ? Press Advertisement
Visitors were asked to fill out petition including mailing address and email…
Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging) <ul><li>There were three test cells: </li></ul><ul><li>RECEIVED ONLY MAILING. </li></ul><ul><li>RECEIVED EMAIL BEFORE THE MAILING. </li></ul><ul><li>RECEIVED EMAIL AFTER THE MAILING. </li></ul>
Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging) Pre-DM
Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging) Post-DM
Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging)
PAPER CATALOGUE IN SUPPORT OF AN ONLINE SYMBOLIC GIVING CAMPAIGN… In 2005, an online only symbolic gift catalogue was introduced, it raised approximately $48,000 in its first year. The second year, a simple catalogue was sent to direct mail donors in November of 2006 introducing them to the symbolic giving catalogue. It was sent to approximately 10,000 donors and raised an additional $74,180.00 And a comparison of Nov 05 dm donors receiving a holiday appeal without a catalogue the month before vs. the 06 donors who received the catalogue showed a $15,000 reduction in income vs. $74,180 increase – for $59,180 net return on more integrated offline/online approach
Giving Year Giving Channel Number of Donors Percentage 2007/2008 Mail GTM Specific 3176 Tracking specifically these 3176 Mail 07/08 GTM donors by channel in 08/09 2008/2009 Online GTM specific 39 1.23% Mail GTM Specific 1073 33.78% combined both channels GTM specific 1112 35.01% Giving Year Giving Channel Number of Donors Percentage 2007/2008 Online GTM Specific 400 Tracking specifically these 400 online 07/08 GTM donors by channel in 08/09 2008/2009 Online GTM specific 146 36.50% Mail GTM Specific 16 4.00% GTM Specific - both mail online and mail 162 40.50%
Gaza conflict early 2009: Save the Children UK run National press campaign - text support for a ceasefire. Call to action – text CEASEFIRE’ - pass details onto friends and family . Campaign goes viral - 1 82,000 people text - petition taken to Downing Street. All supporters were called on their mobile phones and prior to the call we had no information (name, address, etc) about these prospects.
USE THE TELEPHONE WITH ONLINE! <ul><li>Responsibly and strategically </li></ul>
The Phone can be irritating… <ul><li>“ The bathtub was invented in 1850 and the telephone in 1875. In other words, if you had been living in 1850, you could have sat in the bathtub for 25 years without having to answer the phone” </li></ul><ul><li>Bill DeWitt </li></ul>
But it can have power and resonance <ul><li>“ The telephone, which interrupts the most serious conversations and cuts short the most weighty observations, has a romance of its own” Virginia Woolf </li></ul>
Further tests … <ul><li>A phone test was conducted a second year with online event registrants… </li></ul><ul><li>The test group that received a phone call (2.5 minutes in length) raised $131.42 more than a registrant who did NOT receive a call </li></ul>
High touch…high gift amounts… <ul><li>20 board member pages </li></ul><ul><li>$237,534 raised ($143,000 by one board member) </li></ul><ul><li>Phone used to stimulate, manage, and help board members with their personal pages </li></ul>
The next step was to call convert these donors . We did not breakout the different online warm lead sources to compare telephone conversion rates. UK 7.25% conversion to monthly giving No single donations – not asked Average gift: $6.5 per month Cost to convert the online warm via the phone: $68.00 Breakeven ROI: 23 months North America – this is the estimated return Average gift: $15 per month Cost to convert the online warm lead per donation: $65.00 Breakeven ROI: 12 months
Mobiles Factsheet <ul><li>3 billion people text message </li></ul><ul><li>1.3 billion send picture messages (MMS) </li></ul><ul><li>1 billion can access the internet via their mobile. </li></ul>
800,000 new contacts 50% converted to monthly giving 9.65% conversion to monthly giving: 15,388 170,658 called on their mobile phones 7.6 million dollars LTV (over 5 years) Average gift 3.28 dollars/month
Med é cin San Frontiers Austria 5% of total donations to tsunami MSF Austria
Medécin San Frontiers Austria 50% converted to monthly giving 50% converted to monthly giving 60% said YES Voice and text to build relationships 282,000 Euros in single gifts
Italy Emergency Response <ul><ul><li>Dec 2002, Italians donated €2.2 million for the earthquake in Molise, via SMS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dec 2004 Italians donated €18 million in 24 hours for SE Asia Tsunami via SMS </li></ul></ul>
<ul><li>182,000 SMS prospects </li></ul><ul><li>9% Conversion onto monthly giving </li></ul><ul><li>£73.80 average gift at 1.8 year 1 ROI </li></ul><ul><li>£350,000 raised </li></ul>The results
TV and mobile phone – Prospect donors <ul><li>Spanish prospect donors generated by personalities asking people to send in SMS to demonstrate support </li></ul><ul><li>Prospects called within 7 days (only information is name and number) </li></ul><ul><li>Conversion to monthly giving. </li></ul>JESÚS VÁZQUEZ, UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador
Ringtones from UNHCR <ul><li>Over 50,000 downloads </li></ul><ul><li>Over 110.000 Euros raised </li></ul><ul><li>8.7 % conversion rate via telephone conversion call </li></ul>Source: Francesco Sciacca / UNHCR Spain
Optimising your website to generate supporters AIM & CONCEPT To convert more charity website visitors to new supporters Prospective charity supporters visit and browse charity website Software identifies likely prospect and when to engage to collect contact details and permission Supporter Prospects are telephoned/contacted at a later date to convert into a regular giver
Banners and Pop up’s Integrating Web and Telephone <ul><li>NGO web sites </li></ul><ul><li>Sports (e.g. Real Madrid FC) </li></ul><ul><li>Women and family sites </li></ul><ul><li>International Development NGO </li></ul><ul><li>25% Positive response </li></ul><ul><li>Annual average per donor: 115 euros </li></ul><ul><li>94% monthly donors </li></ul><ul><li>ROI 1:2.5 </li></ul>
International Development NGO <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>58% positive response </li></ul><ul><li>Annual average per donor: 233 euros </li></ul><ul><li>99% monthly donors </li></ul><ul><li>ROI 1:12 </li></ul>
Why we have to get this right... Catholic Relief Services – when someone made a text donation during the Haiti earthquake aftermath they were given a chance to connect to a call centre. The organization believed that “calls could build a stronger bond with donors”. They are right – and we’ve shown you. Sprint Nextel shut the service down. Charities need to fight for the FCC to make sure that texts, like telephone calls, cannot be interrupted by phone companies. You can see why it’s important!
Sending a recorded message works too! <ul><li>$250 set up </li></ul><ul><li>.05 to .10 cents per message – depending on volume… </li></ul><ul><li>It’s worth testing! </li></ul>
Thank you – Member get Member <ul><li>4 months into the donor relationship </li></ul><ul><li>Call just to thank donor and make sure they are happy with the charity, its communications etc </li></ul><ul><li>Ask them to recommend the charity to friends, family, colleagues </li></ul>
Thank you – Member get Member <ul><li>Normally 40% give names and telephone numbers of 3-4 people </li></ul><ul><li>40% of those called convert to monthly donors! </li></ul>
Results <ul><li>10,974 emails sent to City Council Members </li></ul><ul><li>Over 20,000 written letters sent </li></ul><ul><li>Gross revenue $50,058.68 </li></ul><ul><li>1,000 donors </li></ul><ul><li>584 new donors </li></ul><ul><li>“ The main reason we stopped the cuts was this online campaign. I would be the first to say otherwise, but it's true.” </li></ul>
What did we learn about making cross-channel work with New York Public Library? 1. Get buy-in at the senior level 2. Have departments work together (maybe for the first time) 3. Create an integrated team 4. Create an integrated goal (with different metrics of success for each department) 5. Create an integrated plan 6. Matrix reporting structure MAY make sense with individuals temporarily reporting cross-department I’m going to come back to this at the very end!
An acquisition test online: Banners and email rentals drove traffic to a landing page that asked people to watch a video and donate… Banner Email
Bannière Email page appel à don page vidéo
Online acquisition that works… our approach DM test: In the end, the dm appeal found 528 single gift donors, 29 monthly donors and invested 79,000 euros to find those donors. vs. Online test: In the end, the online appeal found 256 single gift donors and 62 monthly donors and invested only 4,100 Euros.
Online will be increasingly important for major gifts and legacy giving
Four Legacy Online Surveys Country Legacies revealed Legacy leads Canada 15 103 Canada 22 232 United States 52 164 Mexico 9 1,043
Do people make major gifts online? General - Major Donors General - Prospect Emergencies Special Event Website Grand Total 6 $ 51,303.68 5 $ 130.00 2,425 $ 394,985.27 38 $ 5,602.01 7,729 $ 412,635.22 10,204 $ 864,656.18
<ul><li>tracking the impact that sites like Facebook make to fundraising and campaigning </li></ul>Proprietary and Confidential
Success Factors for Transforming an online and integrated fundraising operation <ul><li>Strategic and Tactical development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrated multi-channel approach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alignment of structure, culture and skills with strategy </li></ul>
Resource Requirements <ul><li>Online Manager </li></ul><ul><li>Online Working Group </li></ul><ul><li>Executive Director </li></ul><ul><li>Departmental Directors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Education, Advancement, IP, (Admin) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>HJC </li></ul>
One department’s recommendation: A new staff person is being put into the fundraising department who will coordinate ALL web related activities They will report to the Director of Advancement - Fundraising
A VIRTUAL CONCLUSION <ul><li>Cross channel fundraising: increases response, increasing average gift and the number of gifts? </li></ul><ul><li>What’s stopping you? Senior leadership, departmental rivalry and silos, or just having a plan? </li></ul><ul><li>Time to start now! Your donors are already cross-channel supporters… </li></ul>
Embrace Change <ul><li>Take Personal Responsibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>#1 Mistake is to “decide not to change.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Thanks for joining me today! </li></ul>