Canadian Fundraising Today and Tomorrow Michael Johnston, Founder and President, hjc, gives a profile of four generations of Canadian donors: how do they give, where do they give, and how can you build the most effective relationship with them. Toronto Seminar, October 22 2013

5. “THE MORE ONE KNOWS,
THE MORE ONE CAN
CONTROL EVENTS.”
SIR FRANCIS BACON

6.
Current
Fundraising
Reality
Aging
Donor
Base
• DONOR FILES AND ACQUISITION LIST
SOURCES ARE SHRINKING – A MORE
COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT

7. WWBA?

8.
Hail
Angry
Peasant!
what
skullduggery
do
you
intend
with
that
pitchfork?
How
could
thoust
deny
the
vital
nutri6onal
content
of
this
fine
homebrewed
ale?
Does
age
influence
who
you
give
to?
What
are
the
basic
dos
and
don’ts
for
fundraisers
in
2013
and
beyond?
What
are
the
preferred
giving
channels
of
each
genera6on?
What
are
the
preferred
communica6ons
and
engagement
channels?

9. Other Sources of Giving Data in Canada
ONLINE BENCHMARKING
(2011 AND 2012)

10. WHERE CAN WE IMPROVE?
• Underdeveloped Advocacy
• 8.2% of total email files in Canada are
advocates vs. 12% in the United States
• Only 6.8% of online advocates are donors in
Canada vs. double that in the United States

11. ACTION TAKERS ARE STRONGER
PROSPECTS
Non-­‐donors
who’d
taken
ac6on
online
were
2.3x
more
likely
to
donate
than
non-­‐donors
in
the
email
file
who
hadn’t

12. ACTION TAKERS ARE STRONGER
DONORS
Source:
Charitable
Memberships,
Volunteering
and
Discounts:
Evidence
from
a
Large-­‐Scale
Online
Field
Experiment.
May
2009,
Na6onal
Bureau
of
Economic
Research,
A.
Lange,
A.
Stocking.

13. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: E-PETITION AND
TELEPHONE FOLLOW UP
More info:
legitimacy
Comments: priority for
calls
Counter: social
proof
Phone number: Ask!
Subscribe:
for cultivation

14. CALLING ADVOCACY LISTS
20%
18.50%
18%
Recent
Lapsed
Monthly
Donor
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
11%
8%
9%
Online
Pe66on
Only
E-­‐newsle]er
Subscriber
Long
Lapsed
Montlhly
Donor

15. COST PER MONTHLY DONOR $75.00
• 1000 phone calls – 74 monthly donors giving
$9.66 every month

16. WHAT ARE WE DOING WELL?
• A Less Cluttered Market
•
•
14.34% open rates in the United States vs. 22.98% open rates in Canada
That maintains a similar advantage the year before
• Monthly Giving
•
•
•
•
•
Next Generation of Giving comparison – still higher in Canada
Online monthly giving is also bigger in Canada: 14% of Canadian online
revenue is from monthly sustainer vs. 8% of US online revenue
HOWEVER… US online sustainer revenue increased from 6% the year
before while the Canadian % remained the same at 14%.
We shouldn’t be standing still!
This is paralleled in the offline, Next Gen Study

17. WHAT ELSE?
• Are we doing enough?
•
•
Even though the US market is more mature in online fundraising, they still
have a higher online gross revenue increase of 10% vs. 5% in Canada
Is this a parallel of our more conservative, steady economic approach to
growth?
• Are we spamming?
•
•
In the US, there was a 1.2% increase in overall charitable email volume but
there was an 18% increase in Canada
If we are sending more, is it segmented and personalized?

18. Do
donors
interact
up
and
down
the
pyramid?

19. CANADA LEADING THE PACK
• The
cul6va6on
survey:
– Sent
to
57,400
donors
– 3
key
segments:
Monthly,
Ac6ve
&
Lapsed
– 5,530
responses
(response
rate
of
11%)
– Raised
$17,574
–
a
bonus!
– Reac6vated
30
donors
– Found
85
expectances
and
292
legacy
leads
– 143
middle
and
major
donor
leads!
– Shared
budge6ng!
– Surveymonkey
and
RE

20. HAPPY SURPRISES!
1. Donors
from
35
to
45
were
thinking
of
legacy
gifs
2. Shown
to
be
300%
over
represented
on
LinkedIn
3. Open
to
Gifs
of
Stock
4. Now….
A
LinkedIn
Strategy
for
a
Legacy
Gif
for
younger
donors….

21. CANADA LEADING THE PACK
A
recent
online
survey
found

22. ANIMAL WELFARE
A
recent
online
survey
found

23. The Canadian Fundraising Summit 2013
THE NEXT GENERATION OF
CANADIAN GIVING

24. GENERATIONAL GIVING
An
overview
of
annual
giving
by
genera6on
confirms
the
importance
of
Boomers
in
the
charitable
giving
space.
Born:
46-­‐64
$1,800
$1,600
78%
Give
Born:
81-­‐91
Total
annual
giving
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
Born:
before
1946
62%
Give
4.5M
donors
$639
yr/avg
4.0
chari6es
$2.9
B/yr
87%
Give
6.9
M
donors
$942
yr/avg
4.9
chari6es
$6.5
B/yr
Matures
Boomers
Born:
65-­‐80
79%
Give
Gen
X
5.8
M
donors
$831
yr/avg
4.5
chari6es
$4.8
B/yr
$600
$400
3.1
M
donors
$1507
yr/avg
7.0
chari6es
$4.7
B/yr
Gen
Y
$200
$0
55%
65%
75%
85%
%
Of
Genera6on
Giving
95%
Bubble
size
is
‘Es,mated
Annual
Contribu,ons’

25. NOW DRAW YOUR
BUBBLES

26. A GRADE TWO QUIZ

27. Gen Y
Animal Protection
Mature
Human Rights
Gen X
Door To Door
Boomer
Arts

28. CAUSES – TOP TIER
%
dona6ng
overall
to
causes
GEN
Y
GEN
X
BOOMERS
MATURES
PRIORITY
CAUSE
50%
Health
chari6es
71%
45%
Local
social
service
30%
↓
Children’s
chari6es
35%
Place
of
worship
26%
48%
Animal
rescue/
protec6on
46%
33%
16%
23%
Emergency
relief
13%
22%
↓
↓
Priority
Cause
Overall
Giving
*Bolding
indicates
sta,s,cal
significance
among
audiences.
Arrows
indicate
sta,s,cal
significance
between
2010
and
2013.
50%
↓
50%
21%
31%
55%
• Health charities have the
largest % of donors
across generations
31%
↓
36%
↓
• For all top tier causes
capture, at least half of
donors see it as a
priority. Places of
worship and children’s
charities have the largest
%
32%
40%
38%
↓
28%
↓
18%
25%
23%
40%
15%
17%
17%
14%
↓
• Emergency giving
12%
↓
14%
↓
11%
↓
14%
↓
dropped as a priority
cause across
generations

29. CAUSES – BOTTOM TIER
%
dona6ng
overall
to
causes
Educa6on
8%
GEN
Y
GEN
X
BOOMERS
MATURES
18%
PRIORITY
CAUSE
↑
Human
rights,
9%
16%
interna6onal
dev.
10%
8%
6%
10%
Environmental,
8%
16%
conserva6on
13%
8%
6%
9%
6%
8%
8%
10%
3%
3%
7%
10%
6%
5%
6%
4%
2%
3%
2%
↓
6%
4%
4%
3%
4%
2%
3%
2%
7%
3%
↓
4%
2%
↓
3%
0%
0%
Arts/art-­‐related
6%
11%
Vic6ms
of
crime
or
5%
10%
abuse
9%
Elec6on
campaigns
3%
8%
First
responders
4%
7%
Troops/veterans
4%
6%
Advocacy
3%
↓
1%
Trade
union
0%
Priority
Cause
Overall
Giving
*Bolding
indicates
sta,s,cal
significance
among
audiences.
Arrows
indicate
sta,s,cal
significance
between
2010
and
2013
-­‐
-­‐

31. WHAT CHANNELS ARE DONORS USING IN
NORTH AMERICA?

34. ANOTHER GRADE TWO QUIZ

35. Gen Y
Online Giving
Mature
Mobile Text
Gen X
Door To Door
Boomer
Telemarketing

36. GIVING CHANNELS
Donated
this
way
in
last
2
years
GEN
Y
GEN
X
55%
58%
55%
45%
54%
↓
55%
↑
35%
31%
21%
35%
↑
↑
47%
56%
36%
↑
39%
38%
30%
29%
33%
↓
40%
37%
32%
↑
11%
23%
36%
32%
22%
29%
37%
58%
↑
34%
22%
24%
29%
29%
24%
20%
25%
20%
25%
19%
11%
9%
13%
15%
14%
12%
14%
12%
5%
9%
15%
↓
18%
6%
7%
5%
4%
9%
5%
4%
9%
4%
4%
5%
5%
8%
4%
3%
4%
12%
4%
2%
-­‐
4%
6%
4%
3%
2%
1%
2%
3%
2%
*New
or
changed
aCribute,
no
tracking
data
Checkout
Dona6on
Online
Dona6on
Honor/Tribute
Purchase
for
Proceeds
Pledge
at
Event
Mailed
Check/Credit
Card
Door
to
Door*
Monthly
Debit
Street
Canvassing*
Third
Party
Vendor
Email*
Phone
Radio/TV*
Online
Ad*
Will/Planned
Gif
Mobile/Text
Social
Networking
Site
Stocks,
Bonds,
Property
56%
41%
↑
41%
↑
36%
↓
35%
26%
22%
15%
2%
Bolding
indicates
sta,s,cal
significance
among
audiences.
Arrows
indicate
sta,s,cal
significance
between
2010
and
2013.
BOOMERS
MATURES

37. ACCEPTABLE SOLICITATION CHANNEL
Channels
with
a
personal
connec6on
are
most
acceptable,
followed
by
le]ers
or
TV/radio.
Acceptable
SolicitaLon
Channel
Net (Acceptable – Unacceptable)
(from
organizaLons
with
an
established
relaLonship)
Very
Unacceptable
Smwt
Smwt
Very
Acceptable
NET
GEN
Y
GEN
X
BOOMERS
MATURES
Friend
1%
3%
34%
47%
+77
+78
+87
+77
+63
Friend's
child/
grandchild
1%
6%
36%
41%
+69
+70
+76
+68
+62
Le]er/message
5%
9%
36%
+46
+53
+40
+46
+47
18%
+34
+51
+43
+30
+13
15%
+25
+50
+41
+11
+5
18%
14%
29%
11%
+8
+45
+26
-­‐2
-­‐33
25%
22%
4%
-­‐24
-­‐4
-­‐21
-­‐37
-­‐24
16%
15%
8%
-­‐26
+24
-­‐5
-­‐46
-­‐65
Radio
or
TV
program
9%
30%
6%
Email
23%
12%
12%
34%
Opt-­‐in
for
extra
charge
on
6cket/recording
Phone
call
Message
via
social
media
25%
33%
Voice
message
34%
21%
17%
3%
-­‐35
-­‐6
-­‐29
-­‐49
-­‐46
Door-­‐to-­‐door
canvassing
34%
23%
16%
6%
-­‐35
-­‐26
-­‐38
-­‐41
-­‐30
25%
12%
2%
-­‐46
-­‐17
-­‐38
-­‐54
-­‐67
24%
9%
1%
37
-­‐57
-­‐29
-­‐48
-­‐76
-­‐63
Street
canvassing
Text
message
35%
43%
*Bolding
indicates
sta,s,cal
significance
among
audiences.
Arrows
indicate
sta,s,cal
significance
between
2010
and
2013.

39. MAKING A DIFFERENCE
As
we
saw
in
the
2010
research,
the
feeling
that
monetary
dona6ons
are
the
way
to
make
the
biggest
difference
increases
with
age.
Gen
Y
–
with
more
6me
than
money
-­‐-­‐
is
the
one
genera6onal
cohort
that
places
more
emphasis
on
volunteering.
Gen
Y
9%
Gen
X
2%
8%
14%
43%
7%
7%
4%
10%
7%
18%
2%
7%
56%
19%
21%
36%
Money
1%
5%
1%
Matures
9%
30%
14%
Boomers
Volunteer
Donate
goods
Spread
word
Fundraise
Advocate
55%

40. HYPER-CHOICE
IS IT THE DEATH OF
UNRESTRICTED GIVING?

41. “Honey, spend the
money wherever you
need to. I trust you.”

42. Engagement:
Directed
Giving
Directed
Giving
Preferences
40%
24%
26%
23%
Would
MoLvate
Me
a
Great
Deal
to
Make
a
Larger
DonaLon
to
Charity
53%
49%
46%
43%
Unrestricted
dona6on
44%
27%
22%
22%
14%
25%
22%
18%
10%
Directed
dona6on
55%
Either
is
fine
Gen
Y
Gen
X
34%
28%
7%
6%
5%
7%
5%
1%
0
2%
Decide
where
See
the
impact
Thank
you
gif
Public
funds
go
of
my
dona6on
recogni6on
Boomers
Matures
*Bolding
indicates
sta,s,cal
significance
among
audiences.
Arrows
indicate
sta,s,cal
significance
between
2010
and
2013.

45. HOW DO YOUR DONORS
LOOK AT TRANSACTIONS,
ENGAGEMENT, AND
OUTREACH?

46. TRANSACTIONAL: DIRECT MAIL
Mail
from
a
charity
is
very
or
smwt
acceptable
63%
•
56%
58%
63%
Mail
is
important
way
for
charity
to
stay
in
touch
56%
50%
55%
•
64%
13%
22%
28%
28%
Receive
informa6on
in
the
mail
Gave
a
dona6on
in
response
to
a
mail
appeal
in
the
last
2
yrs
11%
23%
36%
58%
Gen
Y
46
Gen
X
Boomers
Matures
While
donors
say
that
direct
mail
is
an
acceptable
and
important
way
for
chari6es
to
keep
in
touch
with
supporters
…
…
There
is
a
substan6al
drop
across
genera6ons
in
the
number
who
remember
receiving
info
in
the
mail;
and
a
big
difference,
except
among
Matures,
in
the
number
who
say
they
have
responded
to
direct
mail

47. TRANSACTIONAL: ONLINE
Website
Ways
Would
Pay
85%
Visi6ng
website
is
important
way
to
stay
in
touch
with
charity
76%
Credit
card
Paypal
Amazon
payment
60%
45%
41%
Visit
website
of
chari6es
you
support
•
Donors
say
that
a
charity’s
website
is
an
important
way
to
stay
in
touch,
yet
far
fewer
report
actually
visi6ng
these
sites
•
However,
the
website
is
an
important
transac6on
channel
–
especially
with
Gen
X.
More
say
they
contributed
in
this
way
across
genera6ons
in
2013
than
in
2010
29%
25%
16%
45%
Made
a
dona6on
through
org's
website
in
last
2
years
2010
55%
35%
↑
31%
41%
37%
29%
24%
Gen
Y
Gen
X
90%
38%
2%
Boomers
Matures

48. ENGAGEMENT:ounger
workers.
Gen
Y
is
likely
to
give
this
way
WORKPLACE
Workplace
giving
is
more
prevalent
among
y
just
once,
while
Boomers
are
more
likely
to
give
through
payroll.
Workplace
Giving
GEN
Y
60%
58%
50%
49%
40%
36%
25%
Have
given
in
the
workplace
Gen
Y
Gen
X
Have
not
given
in
workplace
Boomers
Matures
Par6cipated
in
a
workplace
fundraiser
30%
33%
30%
13%
Made
a
one-­‐6me
dona6on
through
your
workplace
24%
16%
20%
4%
Made
a
dona6on
through
payroll
deduc6on
11%
18%
24%
4%
Volunteered
through
your
workplace
75%
GEN
X
BOOMERS
MATURES
19%
12%
16%
4%
Made
a
dona6on
where
your
employer
matched
the
gif
15%
15%
11%
4%
Par6cipated
in
a
workplace
walk/run/
challenge
15%
11%
13%
8%
(filtered
among
those
employed
or
student)
*Bolding
indicates
sta,s,cal
significance
among
audiences.
Arrows
indicate
sta,s,cal
significance
between
2010
and
2013.

52. • Corporate Donors phoned/mailed/emailed proposal
• Lead to Starbucks doing a coin collection at 90 of their retail stores.
• Also led to online Employee Giving campaign (138 employees (almost
all new donors) gave over $4,000 in lieu of Christmas gifts

53. ENGAGEMENT: RETAIL GIVING
• Gen
Y
&
X
are
more
likely
to
give
by
retail
purchase
• All
are
primarily
mo6vated
by
cause
over
product
• Responses
suggest
that
retail
is
a
good
way
to
increase
dona6ons
and
raise
awareness,
but
many
of
these
will
not
convert
into
regular
dona6ons
beyond
retail
RelaLonship
to
Cause
Total
Y
X
Given
to
cause
before
24%
21%
18%
31%
29%
Would
have
given
anyway
35%
30%
39%
M
Have
given
since
purchase
11%
17%
9%
8%
Plan
to
give
directly
in
future
28%
27%
30%
20%
42%
Will
retail
give
to
this
charity
in
future
48%
40%
45%
56%
55%
None
of
these
(1x
gif)
10%
16%
12%
2%
11%
13%
54%
38%
29%
19%
No
retail
giving
43%
MoLvaLons
34%
42%
*Bolding
indicates
sta,s,cal
significance
among
audiences.
Arrows
indicate
sta,s,cal
significance
between
2010
and
2013.
B
Not
sure
23%
Retail
giving,
last
12
mos
34%
Gen
Y:
Gen
X:
Boomers:
Matures:
(Single
most
important
reason)
Total
Y
X
B
M
58%
69%
64%
61%
Cause
64%
Product
19%
28%
18%
25%
18%

54. ENGAGEMENT: WORD OF MOUTH
Younger
genera6ons
are
slightly
more
comfortable
sharing
informa6on
about
the
chari6es
they
support
than
older
genera6ons.
Comfort-­‐level
Sharing
Info
about
ChariLes
Support
Not comfortable at all, it is inappropriate
Not too comfortable, tend to be private
Somewhat comfortable, but cautious
1%
12%
7%
Very comfortable, often tell others
23%
23%
21%
34%
33%
16%
Very comfortable, but only bring it up if
asked
40%
11%
17%
25%
16%
10%
43%
18%
17%
13%
13%
Gen
Y
Gen
X
Boomers
Matures

57. CHANNEL ECOSYSTEM
NO SILVER BULLET: FUTURE IS INTEGRATED
Engagement
Volunteer/
Meetups
Transactional
Outreach
Direct
mail
Online
Work
place
Check
in
the
mail
Email
Crowd
funding
Mobile
Text/
SMS
Peer-­‐to-­‐
Peer
Social
media
Monthly
giving
Retail
giving
Website
Directed
giving
57

58. KEY NEXT GEN FUNDRAISING QUESTIONS
TO ASK YOURSELF

59.
HAVE I UNDERINVESTED IN FUNDRAISING
TO BABY BOOMERS, WHERE THE BULK OF
MONEY WILL COME FOR THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE?

60.
HAVE I IGNORED THE UP AND COMING
YOUNGER GENERATIONS; OR RELEGATED
THEM TO AN UN-STRATEGIC SOCIAL MEDIA
EFFORT?

61.
DOES MY FUNDRAISING CHANNEL MIX
INCLUDE DIRECT MAIL FOR YOUNGER
DONORS AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS
FOR OLDER ONES (HINT: IT SHOULD)?

62.
AM I PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE BY
ADDRESSING THE CULTURAL DEMANDS
GENERATIONS X AND Y ARE PLACING ON
INSTITUTIONS (SUCH AS TRANSPARENCY)?

63.
AM I EMPOWERING MY MOST ENTHUSIASTIC
SUPPORTERS TO FUNDRAISE AND
EVANGELIZE ON MY BEHALF?

64. OUR KEY
RECOMMENDATIONS
KNOW YOUR DONORS’ BIRTHDAYS.

65. OUR KEY
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAKE DONORS HAPPY.
NOW IS THE TIME TO CREATE AND TRACK DONOR
SATISFACTION METRICS AND TO CLOSELY TRACK
RETENTION BY CHANNEL AND BY GENERATION.
IT’S ALSO TIME TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO INBOUND
COMMUNICATIONS BY DONORS.

66. OUR KEY
RECOMMENDATIONS
PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE TODAY. THERE ARE THINGS
ORGANIZATIONS CAN AND SHOULD DO TODAY TO
ATTRACT YOUNGER SUPPORTERS (GEN X, Y, Z) AND A
SHARE OF THE ROUGHLY $35 BILLION THEY GIVE EACH
YEAR.
IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT TWEAKING THE TACTICS. MANY
OF THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENTS TO EFFECTIVE
MULTICHANNEL FUNDRAISING ARE ORGANIZATIONAL
AND POLITICAL.
HOW ABOUT YOURS?

68. Towson
University
(Bal6more)
–
Gary
Rubin’s
Journey:
Full
Contact
Sport

69. GARY’S VIEW OF THE STRATEGY MAP
AND BALANCE SCORECARD
• Gary
Rubin,
VP
Advancement,
Towson
University
(The
Wire)
• A
crooner
for
his
University
• “A
hanging
in
a
fortnight…”
• Needed
his
75
staff
on
the
same
page
• Alumni
Affairs,
Communica6ons,
Donor
Rela6ons,
Fundraising

70. GARY’S VIEW OF THE STRATEGY MAP
AND BALANCE SCORECARD
• My
biggest
challenge
–
integra6on,
coordina6on
and
team
work
• The
strategy
map
and
balanced
scorecard
helped
us
get
there
• Technology
has
put
even
more
pressure
on
being
on
the
same
page

71. HOW WE WILL SPEND THE NEXT 2
DAYS...

72. The
Integrated
Fundraising
Balanced
Scorecard
–
The
Strategy
and
Tac6cs
Map

73. Your
Mission
cross
channel
stewardship
and
cul6va6on
business
rules
Financial
Measurements:
Number
of
different
kinds
of
donors;
donor
sa6sfac6on
(reten6on,
LTV);
Net
income;
etc
Internal
Perspec6ve
Measurements:
internal
coopera6on
(culture,
structure,
repor6ng);
Learning
and
Growth
Measurements:
Courses,
Qualifica6ons,
Proven
Applica6on
of
New
Knowledge

74. 2013-10-24
Proprietary & Confidential
74
Slide 74

75. Proprietary & Confidential
75

76. THE END RESULT
• Integrated
team:
some
senior
(Directors)
people
had
to
go
and
new
people
brought
in
–
healthy
change
• The
President
is
on
board
• Fundraising
results
are
already
improved
in
reten6on
and
acquisi6on
and
average
gif!

77. CONCLUSION
THE FUTURE HAS ARRIVED
IT IS A MULTI-CHANNEL FUNDRAISING WORLD
IT IS ALSO A FUNDRAISING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH
THE DONOR DEMANDS, AND RESPONDS TO AN
INTEGRATED RELATIONSHIP
ARE YOU READY?

78. REMEMBER THE CHILDREN…
• 3 of the top 10
fundraisers for an
organization that
raises over $90
million a year are
under 15
• Do you have an
integrated plan for
supporters under 15?

79. THE INTEGRATED MARKETING
ADVISORY BOARD
• Promo6ng
ac6ve
discussion
of
integrated
marke6ng
in
the
nonprofit
sector
• Sign
up
to
find
inspira6on
through:
• Case
studies
• Fresh
ideas
• Prac6cal
6ps
www.imabgroup.net
Twitter: @TheIMAB