DARS 2008 PFRA Attrition Survey The Increasing Importance Of Good Attrition Management


Published on

Results from the first-ever survey of regular giving donor payment behaviour, establishing a new benchmark for face-to-face (street and doorstep) attrition.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ?VERBAL Attrition is getting worse; Is door better than street?; People don’t like to give to chuggers; Average gifts are going down; etc
  • Street 04 = 62,236 donors (excl. 4 ‘unusable’ campaigns delivered an annual income of £60,960; Street 06 = 63,493 donors delivered an annual income of £67,139 Door 04 = 111,180 donors (excl. 4 ‘unusable’ campaigns delivered an annual income of £60,044; Door 06 = 93,108 donors delivered an annual income of £75,123
  • Market-driven economy… so providers will respond if charities demand more focus on long-term returns on their investment
  • Working in partnership with your provider. Charities: can’t say go and get me your donors; Providers can’t say: here’s your donors; Got to work together on laying down the foundations for solid long-term ROI, not obsess on short-term cost per recruit. Market-driven sector.
  • Working in partnership with your provider Charities: can’t say go and get me your donors; Providers can’t say: here’s your donors; Got to work together on laying down the foundations for solid long-term ROI, not obsess on short-term cost per recruit.
  • DARS 2008 PFRA Attrition Survey The Increasing Importance Of Good Attrition Management

    1. 1. <ul><li>PFRA </li></ul><ul><li>Unit 11 Europoint </li></ul><ul><li>5-11 Lavington Street </li></ul><ul><li>London </li></ul><ul><li>SE1 0NZ </li></ul><ul><li>July 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>To whom it may concern – Introductory Letter Page 1 , </li></ul><ul><li>Thank you for your interest in the PFRA Attrition Survey 2008; while we are happy to supply you with a copy of the presentation made at the launch of the report at the Institute of Fundraising Convention in London on 7th July 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: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The presentation analysed the responses of 30 PFRA member charities (out of a total membership of 93) who responded to the survey sent to the whole membership. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. The particular questions asked in the survey which required charities to report the number of donors who had made 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc payments. 4 additional surveys were excluded because the figures provided did not appear to report in this way. </li></ul></ul>
    2. 2. <ul><ul><li>Introductory Letter Page 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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 criteria and calculating the percentage attrition against the total number of payers at 1st month. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The graphs move from monthly reporting at Month 12, to 4-monthly reporting thereafter, so whilst the graphs show a visual increase from this point onwards, attrition is of course actually ‘tailing off’. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>This preliminary analysis will be followed up by a full written report at the end of August. </li></ul><ul><li>In the meantime, whilst 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. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Introductory Letter Page 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 marks just the beginning 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 & report (Morag Fleming, Head of Fundraising, Quarriers & 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 Mick Aldridge of the PFRA, on [email_address] , or call 020 7401 8452. Yours faithfully Mick Aldridge CEO, PFRA
    4. 4. The Increasing Importance of Good Attrition Management Focus on F2F Session at IoF National Convention Monday 7 th July 2008 Rupert Tappin – Future Fundraising Morag Fleming – Quarriers
    5. 5. Agenda for the session <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding and measuring attrition </li></ul><ul><li>PFRA Attrition survey results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>survey & press article on your chair </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Maximising donor retention </li></ul><ul><li>Questions and Answers </li></ul>
    6. 6. Why Quarriers & Future Fundraising? <ul><li>Morag & Rupert: How we met </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No, we’ve never worked together before…! </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Attrition is a fact of life! <ul><li>If you are recruiting donors you have to expect attrition </li></ul><ul><li>But </li></ul><ul><li>If you monitor and manage it you are more likely to be able to control it. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Understanding & measuring attrition <ul><li>No show rate – no payments excluded from figs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>no-show rate typically 16-22% from our respondents </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Attrition rate – measuring donors who have failed after making 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd etc payments </li></ul><ul><li>% measurement against number of donors who made 1 st payment </li></ul>
    9. 9. Why measure attrition? <ul><li>“ I have six honest serving men </li></ul><ul><li>They taught me all they knew </li></ul><ul><li>Their names are What and Why and When </li></ul><ul><li>And How and Where and Who. ” </li></ul><ul><li>Rudyard Kipling </li></ul>
    10. 10. Why measure attrition? <ul><li>Measure of success of the campaign </li></ul><ul><li>Trends and information to guide future campaigns </li></ul><ul><li>Return on investment </li></ul><ul><li>Future strategic planning – short and long term </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding why attrition occurs </li></ul>
    11. 11. PFRA Attrition Survey <ul><li>How valid are the results? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>34 responses, of which 30 were ‘usable’ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1/3 of PFRA active membership </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>82 campaigns reported (50:50 Street & Door) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Data reported on over 377,000 donors: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>150,000 Street donors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>227,000 Door donors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>£30 million ‘pledged’ income in Year 1 alone </li></ul><ul><li>85% of all campaigns reported usable </li></ul>
    12. 12. PFRA Attrition Survey <ul><li>How was data actually measured? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Campaign lifetime, grouped by actual number of payments made per month </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Length of individual campaigns vary: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2004: charities supplied typically 3-years data </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: charities supplied typically 1+-years data </li></ul></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Average attrition levels <ul><li>What do you think are the average levels at 12 months for: </li></ul><ul><li>Street 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Door 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Street 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Door 2006? </li></ul>
    14. 15. Street 04 Analysis <ul><li>Extremely broad range of attrition </li></ul><ul><li>First year attrition between 19% & 69% </li></ul><ul><li>Very similar pattern shown throughout Yr1 & beyond (high correlation between campaigns) </li></ul><ul><li>One campaign significantly lower: may well be membership organisation? </li></ul>
    15. 17. Door 04 Analysis <ul><li>Similar broad range of attrition, </li></ul><ul><li>approx. 15 % lower than street 04 </li></ul><ul><li>1 st year attrition between 14% & 62% </li></ul><ul><li>More even spread of campaigns between min. & max. </li></ul><ul><li>One campaign jumping around: potentially reporting out data in different way </li></ul><ul><ul><li>other campaigns with more erratic data excluded </li></ul></ul>
    16. 19. Street 06 Analysis <ul><li>5% lower attrition range than Street 04 </li></ul><ul><li>First year attrition between 18% & 62% </li></ul><ul><li>Significant ‘shoulder’ of increased level of attrition around the anniversary period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Note 4-monthly reporting post 12 th payment, attrition actually stabilising thereafter </li></ul></ul>
    17. 21. Door 06 Analysis <ul><li>5% higher attrition range than Door 04 </li></ul><ul><li>First year attrition between 18% & 65% </li></ul><ul><ul><li>However, campaigns are more spread out across range than in Door 04 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>So, need to find meaningful comparison… </li></ul><ul><li>… take a look at weighted campaign averages </li></ul>
    18. 23. Campaign Averages Analysis <ul><li>All campaigns averages starting at 11% post- Month 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Street 04, Street 06 & Door 04 1 st year attrition at 50% </li></ul><ul><li>Street 04 and Street 06 very similar in Year 1, but Street 06 then improves retention by more than 10% </li></ul><ul><li>Door 06 significantly improved attrition, within 1 st year at just 40% (20% improvement) </li></ul>
    19. 24. Attrition by Region <ul><li>Split country into 4 regions for analysis </li></ul><ul><li>UK Wide – recruiting everywhere </li></ul><ul><li>London and SE only </li></ul><ul><li>England </li></ul><ul><li>Scotland </li></ul>
    20. 25. Attrition by Region
    21. 26. Regional Analysis (Weighted) <ul><li>Absolutely fascinating trends shown </li></ul><ul><li>Contrary to perceived ‘overkill’, London & SE shows strongest levels of retention across all campaigns </li></ul><ul><li>More pronounced Regional variation in 06 </li></ul><ul><li>Scotland showing highest levels of Regional attrition </li></ul>
    22. 27. Attrition by Brand Awareness <ul><li>We asked charities to select what they considered their brand awareness level to be: </li></ul><ul><li>Low (15 usable surveys) </li></ul><ul><li>Medium (11 usable surveys) </li></ul><ul><li>High (4 usable surveys) </li></ul>
    23. 28. Attrition by Brand Awareness
    24. 29. Brand Analysis (Weighted) <ul><li>Data suggests there is no correlation between brand & donor retention </li></ul><ul><li>However sector assumes that donors more readily sign up to ‘big’ brands, so increased volume may have counteracted the perceived improved retention </li></ul>
    25. 30. Attrition by Cause <ul><li>We asked charities to select their cause: </li></ul><ul><li>Overseas Development (7 surveys) </li></ul><ul><li>Social Welfare and Disability (10 surveys) </li></ul><ul><li>Health (5 surveys) </li></ul><ul><li>Animal Welfare (3 surveys) </li></ul><ul><li>Children (1 survey, so no average poss.) </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental causes (3 surveys) </li></ul>
    26. 31. Attrition by Cause
    27. 32. Analysis by Cause (Weighted) <ul><li>Environmental causes typically show strongest retention </li></ul><ul><li>Social welfare & disability mid-range </li></ul><ul><li>Overseas development highest attrition on both street campaigns, but best retention on Door 04 </li></ul><ul><li>Animal Welfare & Health medium to high levels of attrition </li></ul>
    28. 33. Attrition by Value of Ask <ul><li>We asked charities to tell us what they asked donors for in their campaigns and grouped them as follows: </li></ul><ul><li>£5 and lower </li></ul><ul><li>£5.50 - £7.50 </li></ul><ul><li>£8 to £12 </li></ul><ul><li>£13 and over (1 survey, so average not poss.) </li></ul><ul><li>Open ask </li></ul>
    29. 34. Attrition by value of ask
    30. 35. Actual Average Gifts (Weighted) <ul><li>Actual weighted averages (incl. GA): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Street 04 = £7.40 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Door 04 = £7.30 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Street 06 = £8.21 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Door 06 = £8.42 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Street improvement in av. gift of 12% </li></ul><ul><li>Door improvement in av. gift of over 15% </li></ul>
    31. 36. Analysis by Ask Level (Weighted) <ul><li>Lowest attrition levels shown by under £5 ask; could be membership organisations </li></ul><ul><li>Highest ask level (£8-£12) = medium to high levels of attrition on Street, but opposite on Door </li></ul><ul><li>Mid-range ask level (£5.50-£7.50) shows highest levels of attrition (& open-ask), but: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yr1: 46% (Street 04) to 58% (Street 06) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Yr1: 54% (Door 04) to 46% (Door 06) </li></ul></ul>
    32. 37. Key Findings From Survey <ul><li>43% thought attrition levels from 04 to 06 about the same; 10% better; 37% worse; 13% N/A </li></ul><ul><li>2004 vs. 2006 (weighted averages): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>attrition slightly improved on street: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>50% Yr 1 to 49.6% Yr 1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>significantly improved on door: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>50% Yr 1 to 41% Yr 1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Street 04 to 06: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2% more donors; but income increased by 10% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Door 04 to 06: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>16% less donors; but income increased by 25% </li></ul></ul>
    33. 38. Key Factors That DO Affect Attrition: Positively <ul><li>“ Very close management and quality emphasis to Fundraisers significantly reduced attrition” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Reduced time period between sign up & gift start date” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Increased communication with donors” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Increased training & feedback to individual fundraisers” </li></ul><ul><li>“ We’re trialling a new, more engaging welcome pack” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Quality of initial sign-up seems to have way more positive effect than further communications” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Postcode analysis of long-term supporters, used to target” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Changing provider” </li></ul>
    34. 39. Key Factors That DO Affect Attrition: Negatively <ul><li>“ Irregular or inefficient communications” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Younger supporters raise attrition, as do students” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Poor gift administration” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Missing collection of payments” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Sending cash appeals to regular giving donors” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Prolonged delay between sign up and gift start date” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Main driver of attrition is how hard the sell is” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Poor quality recruitment where focus is quantity of donors & gift targets rather than sustainable long-term giving” </li></ul>
    35. 40. Key Factors That DON’T Affect Attrition <ul><li>“ Our attrition rates have remained the same even after we reduced the ask level from £10 to £5” </li></ul><ul><li>“ It is thought that a low brand awareness causes our attrition to be worse” [c.f. survey] </li></ul><ul><li>“ Welcome calls” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If unstructured, agreed; but if properly monitored, invaluable </li></ul></ul>
    36. 41. Successful Attrition Management Leave your Provider to run your campaign alone Regularly meet fundraisers & re-emphasise importance of quality Upgrade donors too early, or too often Reactivate lapsed donors quickly: within a fortnight if possible Send donors cash appeals, or DM newsletters with more asks Personalise your comms: allow donors to choose freq. of contact Leave donors un-contacted Develop year one communications cycle (av. 4/yr) Sign up too many under 21-year olds or students Ensure balanced mix of age & geodem. profile of donors Allow missed payments (aka unpaid donors) to slip through net Reconcile payment files with all donors recruited Don’ts Do’s
    37. 42. Key Factors - Engaging Donors <ul><li>Sending the right communications </li></ul><ul><li>At the right frequency (pre-empt anniversary drop-off) </li></ul><ul><li>With the right message </li></ul><ul><li>In the most suitable medium </li></ul>
    38. 43. Closing Summary <ul><li>What really drives your ROI? </li></ul><ul><li>Is attrition ‘getting out of control’ as perceived? </li></ul><ul><li>NO! – actually reducing </li></ul><ul><li>Why? We’re starting to measure it, therefore better managed, so stronger returns for YOUR investment </li></ul><ul><li>Focussing on actual amount raised… </li></ul>
    39. 45. Putting the Survey Findings Into Context <ul><li>Levels of attrition achieved in first 3 months likely to set the course for your attrition for next 3 years </li></ul><ul><li>What do these small improvements to attrition & average gift REALLY mean to charities’ income? </li></ul><ul><li>Take a typical campaign recruiting 1,000 new donors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>what income would we have actually achieved from Street & Door, in each year studied? </li></ul></ul>
    40. 48. Putting the Survey Findings Into Context <ul><li>In 2004, to raise £75,000 from 1,000 donors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>it would have taken 3 years in an average Street 04 & Door 04 campaign </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In 2006, time taken slashed to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 year approx. for Door 06 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.5 years approx. for Street 06 </li></ul></ul>
    41. 49. Attrition & F2F: Opportunities Ahead <ul><li>With accurate benchmarking & transparency, shown attrition can be controlled, retention maximised, but… </li></ul><ul><li>Only at tip of iceberg – future depends on true partnerships between charities and both their providers, & their donors </li></ul>
    42. 50. Wrap-up & Questions <ul><li>Thank you to all survey participants & PFRA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UK at forefront of attrition management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If you’d like this presentation emailed to you... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>… please post your business card in box at front </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Morag Fleming, Head of Fundraising, Quarriers, </li></ul><ul><li>morag.fleming@quarriers.org.uk, 01505 616032 </li></ul><ul><li>Rupert Tappin, MD, Future Fundraising, </li></ul><ul><li>rupertt@futurefundraising.co.uk, 0845 644 8026 </li></ul>