Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Fundraising Today and Tomorrow and the Next Generation of Canadian Giving

680 views

Published on

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

Published in: Business, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Fundraising Today and Tomorrow and the Next Generation of Canadian Giving

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

  2. 2.   Current  Fundraising  Reality   Aging  Donor  Base   •  DONOR FILES AND ACQUISITION LIST SOURCES ARE SHRINKING – A MORE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
  3. 3. WWBA?
  4. 4.     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?         
 
 
  

  5. 5. Other Sources of Giving Data in Canada ONLINE BENCHMARKING 
 (2011 AND 2012)
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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  
  8. 8. 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.    
  9. 9. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: E-PETITION AND TELEPHONE FOLLOW UP           More info: legitimacy Comments: priority for calls Counter: social proof Phone number: Ask! Subscribe: for cultivation
  10. 10. 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  
  11. 11. COST PER MONTHLY DONOR $75.00 •  1000 phone calls – 74 monthly donors giving $9.66 every month
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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?
  14. 14. Do  donors  interact  up  and  down  the  pyramid?  
  15. 15. 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  
  16. 16. 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….  
  17. 17. CANADA LEADING THE PACK A  recent  online  survey  found  
  18. 18. ANIMAL WELFARE A  recent  online  survey  found  
  19. 19. The Canadian Fundraising Summit 2013 THE NEXT GENERATION OF CANADIAN GIVING
  20. 20. 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’  
  21. 21. NOW DRAW YOUR BUBBLES
  22. 22. A GRADE TWO QUIZ
  23. 23. Gen Y Animal Protection Mature Human Rights Gen X Door To Door Boomer Arts
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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   -­‐   -­‐  
  26. 26. WHAT CHANNELS ARE DONORS USING IN NORTH AMERICA?
  27. 27. ANOTHER GRADE TWO QUIZ
  28. 28. Gen Y Online Giving Mature Mobile Text Gen X Door To Door Boomer Telemarketing
  29. 29. 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  
  30. 30. 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.  
  31. 31. 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%  
  32. 32. HYPER-CHOICE IS IT THE DEATH OF UNRESTRICTED GIVING?
  33. 33. “Honey, spend the money wherever you need to. I trust you.”
  34. 34. 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.  
  35. 35. HOW DO YOUR DONORS LOOK AT TRANSACTIONS, ENGAGEMENT, AND OUTREACH?
  36. 36. 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  
  37. 37. 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  
  38. 38. 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.  
  39. 39. •  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
  40. 40. 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%  
  41. 41. 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  
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. KEY NEXT GEN FUNDRAISING QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
 

  44. 44. 
 HAVE I UNDERINVESTED IN FUNDRAISING TO BABY BOOMERS, WHERE THE BULK OF MONEY WILL COME FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?
 

  45. 45. 
 HAVE I IGNORED THE UP AND COMING YOUNGER GENERATIONS; OR RELEGATED THEM TO AN UN-STRATEGIC SOCIAL MEDIA EFFORT?
 

  46. 46. 
 DOES MY FUNDRAISING CHANNEL MIX INCLUDE DIRECT MAIL FOR YOUNGER DONORS AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR OLDER ONES (HINT: IT SHOULD)?
 

  47. 47. 
 AM I PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE BY ADDRESSING THE CULTURAL DEMANDS GENERATIONS X AND Y ARE PLACING ON INSTITUTIONS (SUCH AS TRANSPARENCY)?
 

  48. 48. 
 
 AM I EMPOWERING MY MOST ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTERS TO FUNDRAISE AND EVANGELIZE ON MY BEHALF?

  49. 49. OUR KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 
 
 
 
 KNOW YOUR DONORS’ BIRTHDAYS.
  

  50. 50. 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.  

  51. 51. 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?
  52. 52. Towson  University  (Bal6more)  –  Gary  Rubin’s   Journey:  Full  Contact  Sport  
  53. 53. 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    
  54. 54. 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    
  55. 55. HOW WE WILL SPEND THE NEXT 2 DAYS...
  56. 56. The  Integrated  Fundraising  Balanced   Scorecard  –  The  Strategy  and  Tac6cs  Map  
  57. 57. 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  
  58. 58. 2013-10-24 Proprietary & Confidential 74   Slide 74
  59. 59. Proprietary & Confidential 75  
  60. 60. 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!      
  61. 61. 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?
  62. 62. 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?    
  63. 63. 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

×