Audience segmentation 2011

3,021 views

Published on

Published in: Travel
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,021
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
99
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ’ natural’ groups =segments‘attitudinal differences’= what motivates them to support and trust charities
  • 2 overarching levels – giving and doing; doing is further divided between ‘campaigning’ and ‘volunteering’ One unengaged group on all fronts – around one in 5 Two very highly engaged groups – one standing out for high levels and commitment in giving (Super-givers); another standing out for being engaged on the giving side but also through volunteering and campaigningTwo groups which are currently not more engaged than average but that could be moved along the supporter journey on the giving and doing side (Potential super-givers and young potential super doers)One group giving frequently, to a high number of charities and choosing methods that are transactional – i.e. In which charitable giving is a by-product of another action that benefits them in its own sake – e.g. Buying from charity shops
  • Audience segmentation 2011

    1. 1. Audience segmentationMapping the charity engagement landscape in Great Britain<br />Patrick Brennan, Research Director <br />Caterina Violi, Senior Researcher<br />30th June 2011<br />Tel: 0044 20 7426 8888<br />Email: Caterina.Violi@nfpsynergy.net<br />Web: www.nfpsynergy.net<br />
    2. 2. Outline <br />What is audience segmentation?<br />The CAM segmentation<br />Six key audiences <br />Lifestyle and Community Givers<br />Super Givers<br />Charity Start-Outers<br />Super Doers<br />Unengaged<br />Junior Super Doers <br />Six key actions <br />
    3. 3. Outline <br />What is audience segmentation?<br />The CAM segmentation<br />Six key audiences <br />Lifestyle and Community Givers<br />Super Givers<br />Charity Start-Outers<br />Super Doers<br />Unengaged<br />Junior Super Doers <br />Six key actions <br />
    4. 4. What is audience segmentation? <br />A way to classify audiences into ‘natural’ groups on the basis of their attitudes and behaviour that allows organisations to...<br />Understand attitudinal and behavioural (not just demographic) differences across audiences<br />Identify opportunities and challenges of engaging different audiences<br />Make fundraising/ recruitment efforts more efficient by prioritising investment in acquisition/ retention of certain audiences accordingly <br />Tailor communications to different audiences on the basis of what may motivate them to engage with charities <br />
    5. 5. The CAM segmentation <br />An overall segmentation of the British public’s engagement with charities <br />Motivations for supporting charities<br />Levels and drivers of trust in charities<br />Favourite charity categories <br />Actual and considered giving, volunteering and campaigning behaviour <br />Based on statistical techniques - cluster and factor analysis<br />Considers engagement from all angles – monetary giving, campaigning, volunteering<br />Allows you to see where your own key audiences may fit in the big picture<br />However, segmentation techniques are also applicable to more specific audiences (e.g. current supporters, volunteers etc.) and nfpSynergy can help you with this <br />
    6. 6. Outline <br />What is audience segmentation?<br />The CAM segmentation<br />Six key audiences<br />Lifestyle and Community Givers<br />Super Givers<br />Charity Start-Outers<br />Super Doers<br />Unengaged<br />Junior Super Doers <br />Six key actions <br />
    7. 7. CAM Donor Segments<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    8. 8. CAM Donor Segments<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    9. 9. <ul><li>Susan, 57 years old
    10. 10. Children have left home, works part time
    11. 11. Reads the local paper + midmarket papers like the Daily Mail
    12. 12. Buys her groceries from Sainsbury’s and her clothes from M&S
    13. 13. Enjoys listening to local radio stations and watching Saturday Kitchen
    14. 14. Donates to and buys from her Local Hospice charity shop
    15. 15. Last month took part in a coffee morning raising funds for a cancer charity and sponsored her nephew running the Paris marathon for an Overseas Aid and Development charity </li></ul>“I’ve supported certain charities simply because they have asked me to”<br />Lifestyle and community givers : 15%<br />
    16. 16. A little bit to everyone? Lifestyle and community givers do not give much more than average but give to a higher number of charities <br />On average Lifestyle and Community Givers have donated £50.2 to charity in the last three months, only slightly above the national average of £42.1<br />Have you donated to any charities in the last 3 months?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    17. 17. They have the broadest spectrum of interest in terms of causes<br />“I feel strongly about a number of issues and look for charities that address these” – 42%<br />When you think about your favourite charities, which category do they fall in to?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    18. 18. They are big on ‘lifestyle’ giving - e.g. charity shops, products that include a charitable donation, raffles and events <br />In which of the following ways did you give? <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    19. 19. Localism and personal contact with the charity are key factors for trust among Lifestyle and Community Givers<br />What makes you likely to trust a particular charity?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    20. 20. Campaigning <br />Join a charity on a social network website <br />More likely to respond to easy involvement actions <br />Giving<br />products that include a donation<br />Give to the highest<br />number of charities;<br />transactional giving <br />volunteering<br />Less likely than average to volunteer<br />trust<br />Average levels of <br />Trust in charities<br />Local charities <br />Newspapers<br />Armed forces<br />causes<br />Support the broadest<br />range of causes<br />
    21. 21. When communicating with Lifestyle and Community Givers...<br />Strengths <br />They are open to supporting a wide variety of causes<br />They can be accessed by tapping into their relationship with the local community (e.g. events sponsorship)<br />Weaknesses <br />Potentially low levels of loyalty to specific causes and charity brands<br />What they get back from their relationship with charities may be as important as what they give<br />Therefore charities need to understand them as consumers as much as they need to understand them as donors (e.g. how do they shop?) <br />
    22. 22. When communicating with Lifestyle and Community Givers...<br />Opportunities <br />They may still support a cause that is not top of their favourite causes list if asked in the right way<br />Offering a regular giving product with a ‘transactional’ component (e.g. weekly lottery, cards for many occasions)?<br />Offering a ‘transactional’ volunteering product (e.g. free access to heritage sites across the country when volunteering for a heritage and conservation charity)?<br />Threats <br />Their engagement may be vulnerable to life-style changes<br />They are a challenging group to develop a long term relationship with that centres around the cause <br /> Hard to retain if asked to give in ways that offer bigger and better rewards by other charities and/or they come across a charity working on one of the many causes they are interested in <br />
    23. 23. CAM Donor Segments<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    24. 24. <ul><li>George, 65 years old
    25. 25. Married to Helen, children have </li></ul>left home; retired after working in management<br /><ul><li> They own their house outright
    26. 26. Reads the Daily Telegraph and enjoys the crosswords
    27. 27. Shops at Waitrose
    28. 28. Watches Question Time, News Night and Test Cricket
    29. 29. Is a member of the National Trust and gives £ 20 a month to Oxfam by direct debit
    30. 30. He writes a check to his local hospice every Christmas </li></ul>“I feel strongly about a number of issues and I look for charities that address these”<br />Super givers: 9%<br />
    31. 31. Super givers are the most likely to give and give the highest amounts <br />Have you donated to any charities in the last 3 months?<br />In total, approximately how much money have you donated to any charities in the last 3 months?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    32. 32. They are more likely to give in ‘traditional’ and regular/committed ways<br />Have you given time as a volunteer to an organisation in the last 3 months?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    33. 33. Super givers (like Super doers) are almost twice as likely than average to be regular worshippers <br />Do you consider yourself to be a regular worshipper/churchgoer? Yes<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    34. 34. Super givers are the most likely segment to be talking with friends and family about writing a will <br />In the last couple of months, have you spoken with friends and family about any of the following topics?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    35. 35. Campaigning <br />Writing to MPs, companies<br />Attending meetings<br />More likely to consider ‘committed’ actions <br />Giving<br />High fundraising standards and longevity of the brand are important for trust<br />Traditional ways of giving, regular giving<br />Most likely to give, and give the most<br />volunteering<br />Average levels of volunteering<br />trust<br />Higher levels of <br />trust in charities<br />Royal family<br />The Church<br />Armedforces<br />causes<br />Support traditional causes<br />Overseas aid<br />Cancer<br />
    36. 36. When communicating with Super Givers...<br />Strengths <br />Sense of loyalty to the cause underpinned by strong feelings about the issues they choose to support<br />High levels of trust in charities to spend their donations wisely underpins high levels of monetary giving <br />Weaknesses <br />Their high level of involvement with charities through giving is not yet reflected in volunteering or campaigning <br />When it comes to financial support, it is hard to predict what their ‘saturation’ threshold is for supporting a new charity or increasing donations to existing ones<br />
    37. 37. When communicating with Super Givers...<br />Threats <br />Opportunities <br />Regular church/religious worship may be a strong driver behind this group’s giving behaviour and it is likely to be generational rather than life-stage related factor <br />With the gradual decline of worship behaviour across generations this group may be shrinking<br />They look to support charities working on issues that are important to them, therefore Hospices, Rescue Services, Overseas Aid and Development, Environment, Elderly and faith based charities are well placed to communicate with them <br />Promoting the longevity of a brand and its sense of establishment may help engage/retain them in appropriate circumstances <br />Potential to engage them in campaigning through high involvement actions <br />They are the right group to target for legacy ask <br />
    38. 38. CAM Donor Segments<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    39. 39. <ul><li>Karen, 33 years old, lives with her boyfriend
    40. 40. Works in retail and goes to the gym twice a week
    41. 41. Has 274 friends on Facebook and also has a twitter account
    42. 42. Never misses EastEnders and the X Factor
    43. 43. Reads the news online and occasionally buys Grazia magazine
    44. 44. Shops at Tesco
    45. 45. Doesn’t have much time for volunteering but happily gives £ 5 a month by Direct Debit to her favourite children charity </li></ul>‘I trust charities to spend their donations wisely a great deal’<br />Charity start-outers: 29%<br />
    46. 46. Charity Start-Outersare less likely to engage in many of the standard ways but more likely than average to give by SO/DD <br />On average Charity Start-Outers donated £36.2 to charity in the last three months, slightly below the national average of £42.1<br />In which of the following ways did you give? <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    47. 47. They also have the highest levels of trust in charities to spend their donations wisely across all segments <br />When you think about charities in general how much do you trust them to spend a donation wisely? Please choose the one that most represents your views. <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    48. 48. Campaigning <br />Telling someone about the campaign<br />Highest levels of consideration for ‘low’ involvement campaigning activities <br />Giving<br />More responsive to ‘non intrusive’ methods<br />More likely to <br />be annoyed <br />by face-to face fundraising <br />Longevity and brand awareness are important<br />Average likelihood of giving and below average size of donations<br />...but more likely to donate by DD/SO <br />volunteering<br />Lower than average levels of volunteering<br />trust<br />Highest levels of <br />trust in charities<br />causes<br />Charities<br />Less likely to support disability, health, hospices, homelessness<br />
    49. 49. When communicating with Charity Start-Outers<br />Strengths <br />Weaknesses <br />A sizeable minority are already engaged through a regular (albeit low) level of commitment to supporting charities through SO/DD<br />Highest levels of trust in charities to spend their donations wisely <br />They are not particularly engaged with charities all round and there may be a danger of relying on their inertia to carry on supporting charities through SO/DD<br />There is no particular favourite cause that stands out for this group and some causes are ‘less’ preferred than average (e.g. disability, health, hospices, homelessness) <br />
    50. 50. When communicating with Charity Start-Outers<br />Opportunities <br />Asking them to upgrade their DD/SO donation and get more value out of their current commitment<br />Strengthening their all-round engagement (e.g. through easy involvement campaigning actions)<br />Capitalising on awareness and longevity of a brand which are key drivers of trust for this group and may be an important short-cut when choosing who to support<br />Threats <br />Mitigating the ‘intrusive’ nature of certain fundraising methods (e.g. F2F) may be important to avoid alienating this group <br />
    51. 51. CAM Donor Segments<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    52. 52. <ul><li>Rita, 42 years old
    53. 53. Works in marketing
    54. 54. Sings in the church choir
    55. 55. Reads The Times and listens to Classic FM
    56. 56. Volunteers once a week at the local hospice and has recently written to her MP to support the campaign of her favourite disability charity
    57. 57. Often talks with friends about her favourite charities and their campaigns
    58. 58. Is more likely to trust charities with whom she has had contact and those which are based in her local area</li></ul>“personal experience of the charity drives my decision to support them”<br />Super doers: 11%<br />
    59. 59. Super Doers (like Super Givers) are almost twice as likely than average to be regular worshippers <br />Do you consider yourself to be a regular worshipper/churchgoer? Yes<br />
    60. 60. They are the ‘super volunteers’ - all have volunteered in the past three months<br />Almost half of people in this group (48%)volunteer twice a month or more often<br />Have you given time as a volunteer to an organisation in the last 3 months?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    61. 61. Super Doers’all round engagement with charities is reflected in their topics of conversation <br />In the last couple of months, have you spoken with friends and family about any of the following topics?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    62. 62. Super Doers are highly active when it comes to campaigning – they are more likely than average to have taken any campaigning actions, particularly the more ‘involved’ ones<br />Which of the following activities have you done, or would you consider doing, if you were asked by a charity you support? Have done in the last 3 months/ more than 3 months ago<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    63. 63. Super doers also engage more than average with charities financially<br />Have you donated to any charities in the last 3 months?<br />In total, approximately how much money have you donated to any charities in the last 3 months?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    64. 64. Personal contact with a charity is the main and most distinctive reason for Super Doers to trust a charity and locality also plays an important role<br />What makes you likely to trust a particular charity?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    65. 65. Campaigning <br />Writing to MPs, companies<br />Highest levels of ‘high’ involvement campaigning activities <br />Giving<br />More likely to <br />be annoyed <br />by fundraising letters and appeals <br />Higher than average on most donation methods<br />volunteering<br />More likely to be frequent volunteers<br />trust<br />Higher than average levels of trust in charities <br />Royal family<br />Charities<br />causes<br />
    66. 66. When communicating with Super Doers...<br />Strengths <br />They are the most ‘well-rounded’ type of supporters among all the other segments, with high levels of engagement with charities on many fronts– giving, volunteering and campaigning<br />Their high levels of engagement are founded on high levels of trust on how charities spend their donations <br />They are the most ‘resilient’ segment when it comes to expectations about size of future donations<br />Weaknesses <br />They are a core, but still relatively small group (11%) whose ‘incidence’ could be amplified <br />
    67. 67. When communicating with Super Doers...<br />Opportunities <br />Likely to be warm to supporting a variety of strands of a charity’s work, none of which are mutually exclusive for them<br />Many of them engage with charities at a community level, therefore charities that are able to promote their local credentials may have an advantage in getting the attention of this group<br />With their high levels of involvement in the local community and personal ties they could champion charities locally and encourage other people to get involved<br />Threats <br />They can’t be taken for granted - they are a core minority which needs to be nurtured over long periods of time and might be difficult to replace overnight<br />Donor/volunteer care is key<br />
    68. 68. CAM Donor Segments<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    69. 69. <ul><li> Rob, 30 years old
    70. 70. Works as a bus driver
    71. 71. Plays 5-a side with his friends on Sundays
    72. 72. Listens to Capital FM
    73. 73. Watches Top Gear, football and Al Murray
    74. 74. Shops at ASDA
    75. 75. Doesn’t really have a favourite charity but if he had to choose he would give to an animal charity </li></ul>“I don’t trust charities to spend their donations wisely”<br /> Unengaged: 19%<br />
    76. 76. The unengaged are the least likely to have given in any of the ways prompted <br />Only 39% of the Unengaged have given to charity in the last three months and on average have given substantially less (£ 12.70)<br />In which of the following ways did you give? <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    77. 77. They are the most likely to say that they are expecting to cut charitable giving spend over the course of the year ahead <br />Do you expect to cut back on your spending in any of the following areas in the next 12 months? - Giving to charity<br />
    78. 78. They have the lowest level of trust in charities across all segments <br />When you think about charities in general how much do you trust them to spend a donation wisely?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    79. 79. Campaigning <br />Less likely to be involved in any campaigning activity<br />Giving<br />Less likely to give, give substantially smaller amounts <br />volunteering<br />Less likely to volunteer<br />More likely than average to say that they do not trust charities to spend donations wisely <br />trust<br />causes<br />Less likely to say they have a favourite charity<br />
    80. 80. When communicating with the Unengaged...<br />Strengths <br />They are a relatively small group – less than one in five members of the GB public<br />Weaknesses <br />Highly sceptical – they have the lowest levels of trust in charities spending their donations wisely <br />Least engaged audience in general, not only in relation to charities (e.g. less likely to read newspapers, to talk about any of the topics prompted with friends, to trust any institution) <br />
    81. 81. When communicating with the Unengaged <br />Opportunities <br />There appear to be very few opportunities with this group <br /> Perhaps with the exception of easy/ low commitment campaigning actions (e.g. petition signing) this group should be the lowest priority for charities when it comes to acquisition<br />Threats <br />They are the most pessimistic with respect to future donations<br />Therefore even if successfully recruited for monetary giving they may be a hard group to retain <br />
    82. 82. CAM Donor Segments<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    83. 83. <ul><li>Nathalie, 18 years old
    84. 84. Lives with her parents
    85. 85. Studies Politics at college and works part time at The Body Shop
    86. 86. Listens to XFM; Watches Hollyoaks and the X Factor
    87. 87. Recently ran the Race for Life in memory of her aunt who died of cancer
    88. 88. Is thinking of joining a student campaigning group when she starts university next year </li></ul>“Events in my life determine which charities I donate to”<br />Junior super doers: 17%<br />
    89. 89. Junior super doers have higher than average consideration for most campaigning actions, including some high involvement ones (e-mailing/ writing to MP)<br />Which of the following activities have you done, or would you consider doing, if you were asked by a charity you support? Would consider doing <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    90. 90. Their interest in politics goes hand in hand with higher consideration for campaigning actions <br />In the last couple of months, have you spoken with friends and family about any of the following topics?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    91. 91. Junior super doers are slightly more likely to give than average but give lower amounts <br />Have you donated to any charities in the last 3 months?<br />In total, approximately how much money have you donated to any charities in the last 3 months?<br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    92. 92. They are generally less likely than average to give via any methods prompted, apart from ‘ad hoc’ ones (e.g. on street cash collection, events, raffles)<br />In which of the following ways did you give? <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    93. 93. Campaigning <br />Telling someone about the campaign<br />Writing to MPs, companies<br />Highest levels of ‘easy’ involvement in campaigning activities + higher consideration of more involved ones<br />Giving<br />More likely to <br />be annoyed <br />by face-to face fundraising <br />Slightly more likely to have given in the past three months but lower amounts than average <br />volunteering<br />Lower than average volunteering<br />External endorsement by celebrities and corporate is a key driver of trust <br />trust<br />higher than average levels of trust in charities <br />Charities<br />causes<br />Cancer<br />
    94. 94. When communicating with Junior Super Doers...<br />Strengths <br />They are a slightly younger group which, if appropriately nurtured, can become tomorrow’s givers <br /> They show high consideration for ‘involved’ campaigning actions (e.g. writing/e-mailing MPs)<br />Weaknesses <br />They are currently high frequency but low value in terms of donations and, given their life-stage, they are likely to remain so for a period of time <br />
    95. 95. When communicating with Junior Super Doers...<br />Opportunities <br />Specific opportunities for Children and Cancer charities which are among their favourites charity categories <br />Potential for initiating a long term relationship with this group, starting with campaigning and developing their involvement on other fronts (e.g. monetary giving) in later stages of life <br />Finding the corporate and celebrity partnerships that are relevant to this audience may be key to earn their trust <br />Threats <br />A potentially risky investment as the timeframe for development into ‘super doers’ is long and the return on investment (especially when it comes to monetary donations) may not be immediate <br />
    96. 96. Outline <br />What is audience segmentation?<br />The CAM segmentation<br />Six key audiences<br />Lifestyle and Community Givers<br />Super Givers<br />Charity Start-Outers<br />Super Doers<br />Unengaged<br />Junior Super Doers <br />Six key actions <br />
    97. 97. ConclusionsSix key actions <br />Super Doers <br />Develop them as charity champions within their communities<br />Super Givers<br />Ensure their monetary involvement continues beyond life (legacies) and develop them as ‘doers’<br />Charity Start-Outers Upgrade their regular giving and gradually engage them in ‘doing (e.g. low involvement campaigning actions )<br />Lifestyle and Community Givers<br />Build a relationship centred around the ‘right’ giving product rather than the cause<br />Current engagement <br />Unengaged <br />A relatively cold and therefore low priority audience<br />Junior Super Doers <br />Make campaigning the starting point of a relationship that lasts a lifetime <br />
    98. 98. Appendix <br />
    99. 99. Transactional/Lifestyle and community givers – 15%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    100. 100. Transactional/Lifestyle and community givers – 15%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    101. 101. Super givers – 9%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    102. 102. Super givers – 9%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    103. 103. Charity start-outers – 29%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    104. 104. Charity start-outers – 29%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    105. 105. Super doers – 11%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    106. 106. Super doers – 11%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    107. 107. Unengaged – 19%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    108. 108. Unengaged – 19%<br />Key traits <br />Base: 1000 adults 16+, Britain; 1 = 157, 2= 88, 3= 299, 4= 112, 5= 194, 6=170<br />Source: Charity Awareness Monitor, Jan 10, nfpSynergy <br />
    109. 109. Young potential doers– 17%<br />Key traits <br />
    110. 110. Young potential doers – 19%<br />Key traits <br />
    111. 111. Cluster analysis<br /><ul><li>Statistical technique which is used to highlight ‘natural’ groupings (clusters) of respondents within the data
    112. 112. Sorts respondents into clusters on the basis of their answers to a set of behavioural or attitudinal questions
    113. 113. Respondents within a cluster are similar to each other and dissimilar to respondents in other clusters
    114. 114. Explorative technique :
    115. 115. Highlights patterns within the data - but there is no ‘test’ that tells us whether a segmentation is right or wrong
    116. 116. Not all respondents in each group are exactly the same </li></li></ul><li>Key questions on which the CAM clusters are based<br /><ul><li>Ways in which people have given in the last 3 months
    117. 117. How much money people have donated to any charities in the last 3 months
    118. 118. Fundraising preferences – whether people are happy to be asked to give through different channels
    119. 119. Whether people have given time as a volunteer
    120. 120. The extent to which people trust charities to spend their donation wisely
    121. 121. Factors that make people more likely to trust a particular charity (e.g. Having heard of the name of the charity, the charity being around for a long time etc)</li>

    ×