• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
How to Knock Down a Silo With a Hammer: An Easy-to-Follow Roadmap to Execute FLAWLESS Cross-Channel, Integrated Fundraising
 

How to Knock Down a Silo With a Hammer: An Easy-to-Follow Roadmap to Execute FLAWLESS Cross-Channel, Integrated Fundraising

on

  • 470 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
470
Views on SlideShare
470
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • M
  • M
  • M
  • M
  • M
  • A
  • M
  • M
  • 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Mike 12-08-13
  • Companies are often most successful when the campaign to runs for a specific timeframe (e.g. six weeks); also has a campaign goal se; can be structured as a inter-office competition; and has a matching gift - through a corporate contribution 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • Organizations can maximize the value of donor relationships with the use of multi-channel strategies.
  • (64% of US adults qualified About 148 million donors) Pie Chart size represents size of ADULT population for that Generation (Animated- Matures First) Matures have the highest percentage of donors. Highest yearly average donation, and, the highest aggregate projected donation. But, they are our smallest population and have one of the smallest actual number of donors by Generation . Plus, by virtue of their age, their lifetime potential is dwindling. Boomers average yearly donation is smaller than matures, but have a high percentage of donors, and given their population size, actually generate more in dollars than any other generation. Our Gen Xers, the next largest population actually generate more than Matures, due to donor population size. Their average annual contribution is lower vs. older groups, but still impressive. Plus, their lifetime potential is much greater. Gen Y is more about future potential, with over half currently donating, posting annual contributions averaging about $340, generating over $28 B a year. Another trend we see is that younger generations give give to fewer charities, but when they give, they give similar amounts as older donors Spend a lot of time focused and soliciting these groups (point to Matures), But the vast majority of the donor universe are Boomers, Gen Y and X – represent huge opportunity in terms of sheer numbers, and will only get more valuable (from a dollar perspective) over time Hence as a fundraiser, if you have the ability to attract them, they can be economic in current terms, and of course constitute higher potential life time value, plus contribute to outreach due to their social networks/ peer influence. Hence as a fundraiser, if you have the ability to attract them, they can be economic in current terms, and of course constitute higher potential life time value, plus contribute to outreach due to their social networks/ peer influence. Question wording: Q4. Approximately how many nonprofit organizations and charitable causes have you donated to in the past 12 months? Q6. Approximately how much do you give in total each year to all charitable or cause-oriented organizations, excluding your school and place of worship? Blue numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
  • Mike To be donor centric – you have to understand who your donors are, how they come to you and how the want to interact with you
  • Mike
  • 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
  • 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
  • 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • 12-08-13
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike Given that the vast majority of donor acquisition is through direct mail, it is important for us to understand how different generations of donors first learned about their top charities, and the relative importance of mail Mail the dominant channel for Matures, but … Mainstream media and WOM top prospecting channels across age cohorts WOM, school , and P2P fundraising more prevalent for Gen Y (not direct) What we also see on this chart is the importance of a cradle-to-grave strategy for building relationships. Even a quarter of Boomers say that they first learned about a top charity during childhood What is also interesting is what IS NOT a top prospect channel – and that is websites (5%) and social networking site (4%). Emerges as a research tool Q10: How did you first learn about (top charity)? Select all that apply. [Top channels cited above] Q11: How old were you when you first learned about (top charity)? (Best guess is fine) Q9: For how long have you been supporting (top charity)? [Average # of years cited]
  • Mike
  • Mike
  • Mike

How to Knock Down a Silo With a Hammer: An Easy-to-Follow Roadmap to Execute FLAWLESS Cross-Channel, Integrated Fundraising How to Knock Down a Silo With a Hammer: An Easy-to-Follow Roadmap to Execute FLAWLESS Cross-Channel, Integrated Fundraising Presentation Transcript

  • How to Knock Down a Silo with a Hammer an easy-to-follow roadmap to execute FLAWLESS cross-channel, integrated fundraising
  • Today’s Journey1) Integration: Some quick definitions and perspective2) Futurology: What’s your integrated donor going to be like?3) The Need: The Integrated (multi-channel) Benchmarking and Analysis4) The Value: What’s the value of being integrated?5) The Structure: How are you set up internally for integrated success?6) Facilitation and the Balanced Scorecard: How do you get to an integrated plan?7) Evidence – Put It All Together: What does integration look like in the real world?
  • Integration – a definition
  • Integration A planned marketing mix is “ The whole is more effectivegreater than the The “Halo” than a random sum of the effect selection of parts” distribution channels
  • Integration – ‘up, down, and across’
  • Integration needs to take place in more than one direction A n o u q s c t i i i A n o u q s c t i i i In a m D n p o e e v e t l m D n p o e e v e t l D o n o r D o n o r chronological customer w R n a e e l w R n a e e l Vertically Vertically contact flow Theme Messaging Style Horizontally
  • The three tactical levers in integrated fundraising Acquisition Donor Renewal Development
  • Integration to Grow Your Pyramid Wills Major Monthly Wills Major Monthly One-off One-off Prospect Prospects
  • Integration for the Whole Pyramidhe cultivation survey:• Sent to 57,400 donors• 3 key segments: Monthly, Active & Lapsed• 5,530 responses (response rate of 11%)• Raised $17,574 – a bonus!• Reactivated 30 donors• Found 85 expectances and 292 legacy leads• 143 middle and major donor leads!• Key: shared budgeting!
  • Online – planned gifts and majorgifts… A recent online survey found
  • THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE
  • THE FUNDRAISING TRIUMVIRATE RFM Propensity Self- Modeling and Identification Wealth Surveys Screening
  • A fourth?CLM
  • Accessing all data sources on yourmobile…
  • Task #1: How will you build an integratedfundraising pipeline?
  • Futurology as a way toplan for your integrated fundraising success
  • The Future Integrated Donor Hyper- Customized Ego- Tribute Hyper- adventure Workplacephilanthropy Mania choice giving giving The need toFeeling the tell the world Feeling The lastneed to be The death of about your young and opportunity their own unrestricted parents and having fun in the 21stfundraising giving friends and while giving century? brand family08/13/12 Proprietary & Confidential Slide 17
  • Mid-aged Donors: Ego- Philanthropy and Tribute Mania
  • ow boomers act – compared to civics and how thismakes sense for online social network fundraising…
  • 08/13/12 Proprietary & Confidential Slide 23
  • Peer to Peer and milestone giving
  • HYPER-ADVENTURE GIVINGFEELING YOUNG AND HAVING FUN WHILE GIVING
  • 78 million boomers in the US arebeginning to retire… one surveyfound ½ want to have a positive social impact*…why not give them something to do… * NYTimes, Nicolas Kristof
  • As one boomer says on helpingcharities: “It wasn’t a matter ofbeing a Mother Teresa. It was amatter of, ‘Boy, that sounds like fun!”… * NYTimes, Nicolas Kristof
  • Stretch goals…08/13/12 Proprietary & Confidential Slide 28
  • Stretch Goals…
  • Extreme Fundraisers…08/13/12 Proprietary & Confidential Slide 30
  • HYPER-CHOICE THE DEATH OFUNRESTRICTED GIVING
  • Kiva – LOAN/GIVEOxfam Canada populates the back endpeople can choose country, theme,project and then give money, make a loan, make a team or personal page…
  • The last physical place of commonpurpose? And it may be one of the last places where you won’t need to get permission to ask them to get involved financially… Executive Question: What is the average cost to raise a dollar for workplace giving? 7 cents to raise a Dollar
  • Automated counter – demonstrates impact Matching giftcomponent
  • Your own personalcampaign page –celebratesyour work and your staff!
  • Depts &Individuals can create their ownfundraising webpagesNothing like some friendlycompetition!
  • Task #2: on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5being completely prepared), score your organization on: • Ego-philanthropy • Tribute Mania • Hyper-adventure giving • Hyper-choice • Customized Workplace giving
  • The Need
  • The Integrated Need1) Nonprofit offline donors are aging2) Donor files and acquisition list sources are shrinking3) Revenues are flat and–in many cases–are falling4) Direct mail costs are increasing/ fundraising margins are shrinking Nonprofits need (younger) more valuable donors
  • Generational Matures Giving 65+ year old 79% Give 30.8M donors $1066 yr/avg 67% GiveTotal annual giving ($) 6.3 charities 52.2M donors $32.7 B/yr $901 yr/avg 5.2 charities $47.1 B/yr 58% Give 35.9M donors $796 yr/avg 4.2 charities $35.9 B/yr 56% Give 28.5M donors $341 yr/avg 3.6 charities $9.7B/yr Giving (%)
  • Canadian Generational Giving $1,000 66% Give 65+ year old 5.7M donors $900 $725 yr/avg 73% Give 4.9 charities Civics 3.2M donors $800 $4.1 B/yr $833 yr/avg Boomers 5.3 charities $700 47-65 year old $2.6 B/yr $600 Gen X $500 20-30 year old 61% Give $400 4.2M donors 55% Give $549 yr/avg Gen Y $300 2.7M donors 4.1 charities $325 yr/avg $2.3 B/yrGAuneagvril $200 3.5 charities $.8 B/yr 31-46 year old $100 $- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Giving
  • And then there is Gen Z… of the top 10 fundraisers for an organization that raises over $90 million a year are under 15 xecutive Question: Do you have an integrated plan for supporters under 15?
  • Task #3: draw yourgenerational giving circles for your organization
  • Giving Channels and generations…% donated this way in last 2 years (total) 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% Emerging Channel 14% 13% 4% 2% 9% 6% 4% 2%
  • Your donors are – fundamentally…
  • The Value
  • Value of Multi-Channel: Loyalty – and this is missing larger gifts… Annual Donor Value1 Retention Rate2 $255.74 82.3% $191.35 70.1% 62.3% $102.64Sources:1. Convio / Strategic One White Paper: Integrating Online Marketing (eCRM) with Direct Mail Fundraising: Adding a New Communication and Donation Channel Increases Donations; total contributions over 12 month period, excluding $10k+ gifts for SPCA of Texas2. Ibid. Comparison of retention rates for multi-year donors, SPCA of Texas
  • Structure
  • Organizational Structure Traditional Separate Metrics & Communications IT Team for Online Marketing Disparate (Sometimes Development Conflicting) Goals Inconsistent Voices Government Representing Others (?) Affairs Organization
  • Organizational Structure Coordinated Communications IT Shared Metrics Thematically Coordinating Integrated Teams Coordinated Government Appeals Development Affairs
  • Organizational Structure Optimized Coordinating Teams Unified Strategy & Full Integration Across Channel Managers Online Communications Marketing Development
  • Task #4: on a scale of 1 to 10… with 1 being traditional; 5 being coordinated; and 10 being Optimized…Where do you fall on the integrated structure spectrum?
  • The Balanced Scorecard The Dramatic Oversimplifcation of Integrated Fundraising, Marketing, Communications and Campaigning orPutting Your Organization on One Sheet of Paper
  • Your Mission Alumni Relations Measurements: % of contact Marketing information for different Measurements: alumni cohorts (per channel); Branding % who attend events; % of perception recent grads who give statistics, (mobile, monthly, etc) Internal Perspective Measurements: internal cooperation (culture, structure, reporting);Learning and Growth Measurements: Courses, Qualifications, Proven Application of New Knowledge
  • FacilitationGetting everyone on the same page for integrated marketing excellence
  • Integrated Planning is a full contactsport Proprietary & Confidential Slide 59
  • What do you do before you meet? Analyze the data Prepare two days that will push, pull, cajole, challenge and team build.
  • Culture
  • Greenpeace – love em or hate em… Brand is perceived as authentic They have created a culture, andstructure, of integrated fundraising innovation...
  • “Set up to nurture real innovations or completely new projects and ideas“Keep the fund small, keep the money moving fast”
  • 64
  • A multi-channel campaign… One million text “votes” in 51 days.
  • Knock Down a Wall! 50% converted to monthly 7.6 million170,658 called 9.65% Average gift giving LTV dollarson their mobile conversion to 3.28 (over 5 phones monthly dollars/month years) giving: 15,388
  • InternalInnovation
  • ExternalInnovation
  • A Big Table in the Big State of Texas…
  • Integration is also between departments… 71
  • Why did it make sense for MADD? Gen Y Boomers Mainstream media 27% Mainstream media 28% Word of mouth 22% Mail 19% School 18% Word of mouth 16% Peer to peer event 14% Work/job 11% Gen X Civics Mainstream media 24% Mail 35% Word of mouth 18% Mainstream media 24% Mail 16% Word of mouth 18% Peer to peer event 11% Work/job 11% Product purchase 11%
  • Who is this?
  • Customer Service They NEVER looked for past experience for non-executive positions. They looked for: 1.attitude; 2.manners; 3.ability to problem solve; 4.to engage with the customer IS THIS YOUR CRITERIA FOR YOUR INTEGRATED FUNDRAISERS?
  • So… To create an excellent, integrated marketing organization, you need: 1 2 3 4 Innovation structuresCulture that is not internally that Culture that can Culture that is resistant to spur change, ‘train’ service open to external change testing and excellence innovation integrated cooperation
  • The EvidencePutting It All Together
  • A Public Broadcaster rand is perceived as authentic o integrated fundraising execution
  • Things needed to be improved nd gift conversion dropped from 83% to 30% et loss of donors since 2005. TV of donors decreasing significantly since 2001 agazine, which was the primary stewardship vehicle, stopped in 2007. hare of voice, i.e.number of times donors hear from TVO in a year, has decreased.
  • It would take an integrated solution… enior management support ross departmental cooperation reate an integrated plan and stick to it
  • Online and offline integration
  • Launched Impact Report for DonorLoyalty
  • Launched Symbolic Giving
  • Integrated Improvements ade the Integrated Schedule rought Back More Targeted, and Aggressive, Direct Mail dded the Telephone mproved stewardship multi-channel mproved Monthly Giving online and offline 0% increase in revenue in Q4 of 2010 – first integrated year
  • Results – 2010 and 2011 15% increase in number of gifts per donor over 2 years 80% increase in average gift over 2 years
  • Wrap UpQuestions, thoughts or reflections…