F2 f v non f2f

1,542 views

Published on

A few slides showing the difference in value between New Zealand and Australian face to face recruited monthly donors.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,542
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
124
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • And then there are bequests!!!
  • Sean to do cummulative if need be
  • F2 f v non f2f

    1. 1. Success in acquisition<br />Has only<br />One measure<br />
    2. 2. Success in acquisition<br />Life time value<br />
    3. 3. Success in acquisition<br />(Implied)<br />Life time value<br />
    4. 4.
    5. 5. Face-to-Face (F2F)<br />© Pareto Fundraising 2009<br />Attrition is the Achilles heel of F2F. As the following table shows, donors traditionally attrite at a higher rate than non-F2F RG recruits. <br />Year 1 attrition rate<br />Tackling immediate reasons for cancelling (e.g. through walk-aways, donor care calls) and good SRM<br />
    6. 6. Average three YR RG Gift Value<br />
    7. 7. Annual RG Gift Value – predicted trend<br />An 8yr predicted trend, based on 3yrs of actual data, shows how on average, a DM regular giver starting at $15pm quickly generates more income than a F2F regular giver starting at $25pm<br />7<br />© Pareto Fundraising March 2009<br />
    8. 8. Annual RG Gift Value - predicted trend<br />An 8yr predicted trend, based on 3yrs of actual data, shows how on average, a DM regular giver starting at $15pm quickly generates more cumulative income than a F2F regular giver starting at $25pm<br />8<br />© Pareto Fundraising March 2009<br />
    9. 9. Annual RG Gift Value - predicted trend<br />An 8yr predicted trend, based on 3yrs of actual data, shows the difference in predicted income from a RG donor starting on a $10pm donation from F2F vs non-F2F<br />9<br />© Pareto Fundraising March 2009<br />

    ×