Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Summit 2010 next_gen_final

on

  • 934 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
934
Views on SlideShare
919
Embed Views
15

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0

1 Embed 15

http://hjcnewmedia.com 15

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
  • (64% of US adults qualifiedAbout 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 donorsSpend 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 timeHence 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
  • While pluralities to majorities of each age cohort plan to maintain their current level of giving to their top charity A higher proportion of younger donors plan to increase their donations to their top charity next year Older you get, more likely to maintain the status quoQ21: Are you likely to: Increase your donation next year, decrease your donation next year, continue giving the same amount next year.
  • Time to Give BackJust starting out, don’t have a lot time or money to giveAt point in life where would like to increase my $/time commitment to charityWhat’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
  • Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
  • Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
  • Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
  • 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). Big 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” experienceQ22 :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
  • Large majorities of donors report hearing about the mobile philanthropy efforts around Haiti emergency relief. The message cut through the clutter more with younger generations.
  • 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 toolQ10: 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]
  • Direct donation most prevalent, but more likely to be first form of support as age Y (followed by X) more likely to check out the charity’s website as a way to get involved. Also more likely to attend an event and volunteer. Finally, Y most likely to promote charity to others through email, FB, etc. Suggests that younger groups need to go through one or more cultivation steps to build a relationship that can lead to a financial transactionQ12: When you first learned of [Top Charity], in what ways did you become involved with the charity/group? Blue numbering indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
  • Giving money is the #1 way all generations engage with their top charity today (and increases about 10 pts from first engagement across board) However, younger generations are more likely to engage in all other forms of support w/ their top charity – particularly online engagement (visit website, social media promoter). Active vs. passive engagement.Q15: And how are you currently involved with [top charity] today? (Select items done in past 12 months)Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
  • Money always trumps other forms of support, but if you look at that dark blue slice, you will see that it continues to grow over time. Money is a smaller piece of the equation for Gen Y and X, offset mostly by other forms of support (read)Q18: Still thinking about the present time, where do you feel you can make the most difference with (Charity).
  • 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
  • US has a far greater reliance on direct mail than Canadian – especially for prospecting – Canadian donors are more likely to respond at fundraising events, give monthly or donate in honor/tribute. Mobile and social media are much more prolific in US. May bebecausemajor social network channels have been around for longer in the US. US mobile giving refulation much more freedom that in Canada. Regulations are only just now starting to open up. Checkout :58Mailed gift:27Website:32FR event: 41Honour/Tribute: 34Third party vendor: 17Monthly giving: 25Phone: 17Mobile: 3Social networking : 3
  • Justfyi these #s do not change for generations but have to make the point here that these are all within the margin of error, so the differences are not statistically significant between Can. Generations. That is, we would read the results for Gen Y the same as Civics here for Canada. We will only generally report only things that ARE indeed signif. and what is signif is the overall difference between countries as per your first slide, AND that there is a statistically signif difference e.g. between Gen X and Gen Y and Civics in US but we did not find this to be the case here. Part of this is that we’ve set our margin of error higher -- we are using 4% instead of 2% -- we tend to err on the side of caution with MOE even if our reading may not be quite as senstive.. I wll ask Armand though if we can perform a T-test on it to determine its true sgnificance in this case.
  • It’s not too early to be courting Gen Ys, but the really significant value lies with Gen X and Boomers
  • Fundraising is profoundly multichannel
  • Causation may be impossible to track – chicken or the egg argument
  • The donor database of the future must track all channels and interactions
  • Message/channel integration is a more urgent priority than ever.
  • One organization’s goal to better integrate online and offline fundraising:A new staff person is being put into the fundraising department who will coordinate ALL web related activitiesThey will report to the Director of Advancement – FundraisingBut this can only happen with the buy-in of the CEO
  • MarkHighlight: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.Success Factors for Transforming an online and integrated fundraising operationStrategic and Tactical developmentIntegrated multi-channel approachAlignment of structure, culture and skills with strategy
  • The role of social networks in fundraising is important, and still evolving
  • Mobile’s time is coming, whatever that is
  • None of this is as important as the content you produce
  • None of this is as important as the content you produce

Summit 2010 next_gen_final Summit 2010 next_gen_final Presentation Transcript

  • Presented by:
    Vinay Bhagat
    Mike Johnston
    The Next Generation of Giving
  • Generational Giving
    79% Give
    30.8M donors
    $1066 yr/avg
    6.3 charities
    $32.7 B/yr
    67% Give
    52.2M donors
    $901 yr/avg
    5.2 charities
    $47.1 B/yr
    Total annual giving
    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
  • Donations plans to top charity next year
    Future Giving
  • More on Gen Y
    Defining Values
    Time to give backWhat’s in it for me?Online connection
    Social Media Habits
    (% doing regularly)
    70% 49% 25% 16%
    Value
    • Size
    • Lifetime value
    • Lower cost appeals
    • Active supporters/promoters
    BUT
    • Require multichannel appeals
    • Tracking difficult
    Mobile Habits
    49% Mobile ONLY phone
    32% Mobile primary
    42% Facebook Mobile app
    53% Texters
  • More on Gen X
    Defining Values
    Peer-motivatedSupport random, emotionalTime vs. moneyOnline connection
    Social Media Habits
    (% doing regularly)
    Value
    • Size of gifts to top charities
    • Lifetime value
    • Lower-cost appeals
    • More than dollars
    • Viral promoters
    • Most Educated, Higher Income
    BUT
    • Harder to secure
    56% 30% 13% 11% 11%
    Mobile Habits
    28% Mobile ONLY phone
    37% Mobile is primary
    27% Facebook mobile app
    40% Texters
  • More on Boomers
    Defining Values
    Giving more plannedEfficiency/overhead concerns2-in-10 retired
    Tech/Media Profile
    29% Facebook (reg)
    (60% Total)
    17% Texters
    47% E-newsletters
    55% Bank online
    33% Shop online
    Value
    • Largest cohort
    • Size and dollars
    • Income
  • More on Matures
    Defining Values
    Pre-meditated giving LoyalBut guardedScrutiny
    Tech/Media Profile
    17% Facebook (reg)
    (50% Total)
    5% Texters
    48% E-newsletters
    57% Bank online
    34% Shop online
    Value
    • Largest annual contributions
    • Greater # of groups
    • Tracking/Direct mail responsive
    BUT
    • Smallest cohort and shrinking
    • Less open to new appeals
  • % donated this way in last 2 years (total)
    Giving Channels
    Emerging Channel
  • Solicitation Channel Appropriateness (From charities/nonprofits with established relationship)
    % say appropriate solicitation channel
    (rank ordered by very important –blue)
  • Awareness of Haiti Text-to-Donate
    Seen/heard anything recently about making a donation via text for earthquake relief in Haiti?
    77% total
    Heard a lot
    Gen Y: 60%
    Gen X: 64%
    Boomers: 52%
    Matures: 50%
  • Gen Y
    Mainstream media 27%
    Word of mouth 22%
    School 18%
    Peer to peer event 14%
    Boomers
    Mainstream media 28%
    Mail 19%
    Word of mouth 16%
    Work/job 11%
    52% first learned childhood
    Average time support: 4 yrs
    55% first learned 30’s+
    24% childhood, 21% y adult
    Average time support: 13 yrs
    Gen X
    Mainstream media 24%
    Word of mouth 18%
    Mail 16%
    Peer to peer event 11%
    Work/job 11%
    Product purchase 11%
    Matures
    Mail 35%
    Mainstream media 24%
    Word of mouth 18%
    68% first learned 30’s+
    Average time support: 15 yrs
    32% first learned childhood
    Average time support: 7 yrs
    Awareness (top charity)
  • Direct donation 42% Attended event 19%
    Visited website 27% Promoted to others 15%
    Donated goods 23% Volunteered 15%
    Direct donation 51% Attended event 18%
    Donated good 28% Volunteered 16%
    Visited website 19%
    Direct donation 61%
    Donated goods 25%
    Attended an event 13%
    Direct donation 71%
    Donated goods 26%
    Attended an event 13%
    Gen Y
    Gen X
    Boomers
    Matures
    First Engagement
  • Engagement Today
  • “Making a Difference”
    Where do you think you can make the most difference with (top charity)?
    Fundraise
    Spread word
    Donate goods
    Volunteer
    Money
  • Channel Comparison
  • Monthly Giving Comparison
  • Email Address Collection
  • Boomers and Gen X hold significant value
  • Cycle event for health related charity – raising millions of dollars per year
    Gen X, Gen Y, and Boomers are the leaders in this fundraising endeavour.
  • Fundraising is profoundly multichannel
  • Causation might be impossible to track
  • Traditional donor databases are dinosaurs
  • Remove the silos within your organization
  • Direct mail and telemarketing need to evolve
  • Cross Channel Acquisition: New York Public Library
    One segment of advocates we’re mailed before the end of the year to ask for a gift supporting essential services at the Library.
    3.24% direct mail response rate
    $59 direct mail average gift
    Average response on prospecting packages 0.30%
  • Channel integration makes money...
    An email was sent along with
    some of the direct mail
    packages
    Average gift
    DM only = $49
    DM and email = $105
  • Word of mouth is critical
    • tracking the impact that sites like Facebook make to fundraising and campaigning
    Proprietary and Confidential
  • hjc
    Proprietary & Confidential
    32
  • Social networks are important and still evolving
  • Mobile’s time is coming
  • One million text leads in 51days.
  • 9.65% conversion to monthly giving: 15,388
    Average gift 3.28 dollars/month
    170,658 called on their mobile phones
    7.6 million dollars LTV (over 5 years)
    What do you do with 800,000 new contacts?
    You knock down some walls to make room for another channel…
    50% converted to monthly giving
    • Gaza conflict early 2009: Save the Children ran National press campaign - text support for a ceasefire.
    • Call to action – text CEASEFIRE’ - pass details onto friends and family .
    • Campaign goes viral - 182,000 people text - petition taken the government
    • All supporters were called on their mobile phones and prior to the call we had no information (name, address, etc) about these prospects.
    • 4.7% converted to monthly giving - approximately 5,000 new donors
  • Use the whole donor pyramid
  • Online will be increasingly important for major gifts and legacy giving
  • Four Legacy Online Surveys
  • In the end, is it all worth it?
    Multichannel donors are nearly 3x more valuable than single channel donors.
    Source: Defenders of Wildlife Jul08-Jun09
  • Content is king
  • Questions?
    Vinay Bhagat | vinay@convio.com
    Mike Johnston | mjohnston@hjcnewmedia.com
    Download the full report
    www.convio.com/nextgeneration
    Continue the discussion
    Research hashtag: #nextgenSummit hashtag: #convio10
    Convio Blog: www.connectioncafe.com
    hjc Blog: http://hjcnewmedia.com/