Multi-channel Fundraising in the 21th Century

1,799 views

Published on

Multi-channel Fundraising in the 21th Century. Presentation to AFP Vancouver Chapter breakfast meeting - Sept 16, 2010

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,799
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
121
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
57
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • By calling people we made a 20% goal difference.
  • By calling people we made a 20% goal difference.
  • 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.
  • Multi-channel Fundraising in the 21th Century

    1. 1. Multi-Channel Fundraising in the 21st Century <br />Mike Johnston – HJC<br />September 16, 2010<br />7:00 – 9:00<br />AFP/CAGP Vancouver<br />
    2. 2. 9/16/2010<br />proprietary and confidential<br />2<br />We are omnivorous…since 1993 cross channel<br />
    3. 3. A virtual tour<br /><ul><li> What is it?
    4. 4. Why do it?
    5. 5. What’s stopping you?
    6. 6. Online and Direct Mail
    7. 7. Paper and the Phone
    8. 8. Text and the Phone
    9. 9. Online and the Phone
    10. 10. New York Public Library – using cross channel fundraising to break down silos
    11. 11. Online and video
    12. 12. Online and major gifts and legacies: Canada, Mexico, United States
    13. 13. Culture, structure – the change management challenge!</li></li></ul><li>MULTI-CHaNNEL Fundraising<br />The use of multiple channels (online, direct mail, telephone, mobile) to support one another to raise more money and build better donor relationships<br />
    14. 14. MULTI-CHANNEL Fundraising<br />Why do it?<br />
    15. 15. Giving Channels% donated this way in last 2 years (total) <br />Emerging Channels<br />
    16. 16. Solicitation Channel (From charities/nonprofits with established relationship)<br />% say appropriate solicitation channel <br />(rank ordered by very important –blue)<br />
    17. 17. What about Canada?<br />
    18. 18.
    19. 19. Always Check Website Before Donation<br />9/16/2010<br />proprietary and confidential<br />10<br />
    20. 20. Email Address Collection<br />9/16/2010<br />proprietary and confidential<br />11<br />
    21. 21. Promote Causes Through Email & Social Networks?<br />9/16/2010<br />proprietary and confidential<br />12<br />
    22. 22. School is an important way in which Gen Y learned about Charity's they support. Mail is important for Civics. All generations learn about charity through media and personal connections. <br />All generations think that donating money is the best way they can make a difference but younger generations also think that spreading the word is extremely valuable too. So create more tell-a-friend links. <br />
    23. 23. School is an important way in which Gen Y learned about Charity's they support. Mail is important for Civics. All generations learn about charity through media and personal connections. <br />All generations think that donating money is the best way they can make a difference but younger generations also think that spreading the word is extremely valuable too. So create more tell-a-friend links. <br />
    24. 24. Quite staggering differences in the feeling between different generations about being contacted for a donation on social media channels. Younger people find it dramatically more acceptable than older people. <br />This is the most controversial channel. <br />
    25. 25. X and Boomers are the biggest supporters P2P. Everyone loves P2P but the charity has to be right too to get a donation - not just about the personal ask.<br />It is hard to get phone numbers from people across all age groups. However, people are AS likely to give you there phone number after they have donated as they are after they  have taken an advocacy action. So ask!<br />
    26. 26. The web as the glue...<br />People come 24 hours a day from other channels to your web site… is it ready to take donations most effectively!<br />Google Browser Lab…www.browsersize/googlelabs.com<br />
    27. 27. The web as the glue...<br />People come 24 hours a day from other channels to your web site… is it ready to take donations most effectively!<br />Google Browser Lab…www.browsersize/googlelabs.com<br />
    28. 28. Channel Integration<br />Multi-channel donors are nearly 3x more valuable than single channel donors. <br />Source: Defenders of Wildlife Jul08-Jun09<br />
    29. 29. Integration opportunities or threats? Area One: Direct mail and email<br />
    30. 30. 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<br />NPT Research: 1,000 calls<br />
    31. 31. 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?<br />Press Advertisement<br />
    32. 32. Multi-channel integration<br />Magazine Advertisement<br />23<br />
    33. 33. Visitors were asked to fill out petition including mailing address and email…<br />
    34. 34. Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging)<br />There were three test cells:<br />Received only mailing<br />Received email before the mailing<br />Received email after the mailing<br />
    35. 35. Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging)<br />Pre-DM<br />
    36. 36. Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging)<br />Post-DM<br />
    37. 37. Direct Mail integration (coordinating messaging)<br />
    38. 38. Paper catalogue in support of an online symbolic giving campaign…<br />In 2005, an online only symbolic gift catalogue was introduced, it raised approximately $48,000 in its first year.<br />The second year, a simple catalogue was sent to direct mail donors in November of 2006 introducing them to the symbolic giving catalogue. <br />It was sent to approximately 10,000 donors and raised an additional $74,180.00<br />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<br />29<br />
    39. 39.
    40. 40. Gaza conflict early 2009: Save the Children UK run National press campaign - text support for a ceasefire.<br />Call to action – text CEASEFIRE’ - pass details onto friends and family .<br />Campaign goes viral - 182,000 people text - petition taken to Downing Street.<br />All supporters were called on their mobile phones and prior to the call we had no information (name, address, etc) about these prospects.<br />
    41. 41. Use the telephone with online!<br />Responsibly and strategically<br />
    42. 42. The Phone can be irritating…<br />“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”<br /> Bill DeWitt<br />
    43. 43. But it can have power and resonance<br />“The telephone, which interrupts the most serious conversations and cuts short the most weighty observations, has a romance of its own” Virginia Woolf<br />
    44. 44. What do we mean by the telephone?<br />
    45. 45. The phone and online?<br />
    46. 46. Further tests…<br />A phone test was conducted a second year with online event registrants…<br />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<br />
    47. 47. Online pledge pages and calling….<br />
    48. 48. High touch…high gift amounts…<br />20 board member pages<br />$237,534 raised ($143,000 by one board member)<br />Phone used to stimulate, manage, and help board members with their personal pages<br />
    49. 49. Advocacy & List Growth<br />
    50. 50. Advocacy & List Growth<br /><ul><li>What brought in the largest growth?
    51. 51. Third party emails (over 70%)
    52. 52. Tell-a-friend on action alerts (over 14%)
    53. 53. Banner ads (over 5%)
    54. 54. Facebook ads (over 3%)
    55. 55. Google Adwords (less than 1%)</li></li></ul><li>Advocacy & List Growth<br /><ul><li>What had the lowest cost per acquisition?
    56. 56. Tell-a-friend on action alerts
    57. 57. Third party emails
    58. 58. Facebook ads
    59. 59. Banner ads</li></li></ul><li>The next step is to call convert these donors. We did not breakout the different online warm lead sources to compare telephone conversion rates. <br />UK<br />7.25% conversion to monthly giving<br />No single donations – not asked<br />Average gift: $6.5 per month<br />North America<br />7% - 12% conversion to monthly giving<br />Average gift: $15 per month<br />
    60. 60. Fundraising and Mobile...<br />
    61. 61. One million text “votes” in 51 days.<br />
    62. 62. 9.65% conversion to monthly giving: 15,388<br />Average gift 3.28 dollars/month<br />170,658 called on their mobile phones<br />7.6 million dollars LTV (over 5 years)<br />800,000 new contacts<br />50% converted to monthly giving<br />
    63. 63. 5% of total donations to tsunami<br />MSF Austria<br />Medécin San Frontiers Austria<br />
    64. 64. 50% converted to monthly giving<br />282,000 Euros in single gifts<br />60% said YES<br />Voice and text to build relationships<br />Médecins Sans Frontières - Austria<br />50% converted to monthly giving<br />
    65. 65. TV and mobile phone – Prospect donors<br /><ul><li> Spanish prospect donors generated by personalities asking people to send in SMS to demonstrate support
    66. 66. Prospects called within 7 days (only information is name and number)
    67. 67. Conversion to monthly giving.</li></ul>JESÚS VÁZQUEZ, UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador<br />
    68. 68. Ringtones from UNHCR<br />Over 50,000 downloads <br />Over 110.000 Euros raised<br />8.7 % conversion rate via telephone conversion call<br />Source: Francesco Sciacca / UNHCR Spain<br />
    69. 69. 51<br />Prospective <br />charity <br />supporters visit <br />and <br />browse charity <br />website<br />Software <br />identifies likely<br />prospect and <br />when to engage <br />to collect contact <br />details and <br />permission<br />Prospects are <br />telephoned/contacted at a <br />later date to convert <br />into a regular giver<br />Supporter<br />Optimising your website to generate supporters<br />AIM & CONCEPT<br />To convert more charity website visitors to new supporters<br />
    70. 70. Pop up’s – Integrating Web and Telephone<br />
    71. 71. UNICEF Pop Up - Spain<br />
    72. 72. Spanish Results - Childrens Charity<br />25% Positive response<br />Annual average per donor: 115 euros<br />94% monthly donors <br />ROI 1:2.5<br />
    73. 73. Why we have to get this right...<br />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.<br />Sprint Nextel shut the service down. <br />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!<br />
    74. 74. Sending a recorded message works too!<br />
    75. 75. Sending a recorded message works too!<br /><ul><li>$250 set up
    76. 76. .05 to .10 cents per message – depending on volume…
    77. 77. It’s worth testing!</li></li></ul><li>New York Public Library<br />
    78. 78. “When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”<br />—Samuel Johnson<br />Integrated campaign over 44 days, summer 2009<br />
    79. 79. Advocacy Page<br />
    80. 80. Results<br /><ul><li>10,974 emails sent to City Council Members
    81. 81. Over 20,000 written letters sent
    82. 82. Gross revenue $50,058.68
    83. 83. 1,000 donors
    84. 84. 584 new donors</li></ul>“The main reason we stopped the cuts was this online campaign. I would be the first to say otherwise, but it's true.”<br />
    85. 85.
    86. 86. The Library Online<br />
    87. 87. Creating an integrated schedule<br />
    88. 88. What did we learn about making cross-channel work with New York Public Library?1. Get buy-in at the senior level2. Have departments work together (maybe for the first time)3. Create an integrated team4. Create an integrated goal (with different metrics of success for each department)5. Create an integrated plan6. Matrix reporting structure MAY make sense with individuals temporarily reporting cross-departmentI’m going to come back to this at the very end!<br />
    89. 89. Online and Video<br />
    90. 90. An acquisition test online:<br /><br /><br />Banner<br />Email<br />Banners and email rentalsdrovetraffic to a landing page thatasked people to watch a video and donate…<br />
    91. 91. <br /><br />Bannière<br />Email<br /><br /><br />page appel à don<br />page vidéo<br />
    92. 92. Online acquisition that works… our approach<br />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.<br />vs.<br />Online test: In the end, the online appeal found 256 single gift donors and 62 monthly donors and invested only 4,100 Euros.<br />
    93. 93. All channels together lead to…<br />9/16/2010<br />proprietary and confidential<br />70<br />
    94. 94. Automated tactics to enhance experience<br />9/16/2010<br />proprietary and confidential<br />71<br />
    95. 95. Integrated Campaigns<br />Dynamic changing elements<br />Huge call to action<br />Highlight waysto give<br />Highlighted thank you areas<br />9/16/2010<br />proprietary and confidential<br />72<br />
    96. 96. Online will be increasingly important for major gifts and legacy giving<br />
    97. 97. Four Legacy Online Surveys<br />
    98. 98. Do people make major gifts online?<br />
    99. 99. <ul><li>tracking the impact that sites like Facebook make to fundraising and campaigning</li></ul>Proprietary and Confidential<br />
    100. 100. What’s your credit card limit?<br />
    101. 101. And of course…what about social media!<br />
    102. 102. Greenpeace Chile<br />Outbound calling for warm leads<br />1,510 calls (May-December 2009)<br />Inbound calling for warm leads<br />503 people filled the form<br />Result – ~10% conversion <br />193 people converted to paid monthly donors<br />
    103. 103. Success Factors for Transforming an online and integrated fundraising operation<br />Strategic and Tactical development<br />Integrated multi-channel approach<br />Alignment of structure, culture and skills with strategy<br />
    104. 104. A virtual conclusion<br /><ul><li>Cross channel fundraising: increases response, increasing average gift and the number of gifts?
    105. 105. What’s stopping you? Senior leadership, departmental rivalry and silos, or just having a plan?
    106. 106. Time to start now! Your donors are already cross-channel supporters…</li></li></ul><li>Embrace Change<br />Take Personal Responsibility <br />#1 Mistake is to “decide not to change.”<br />Thanks for joining me today!<br />

    ×