Download to read offline
Uploaded bybayareamuseums
Cultural Connections October 2015 Program - Financial Stability
The document discusses a study on the motivations of millennial donors in the Bay Area regarding their support for the arts and social justice causes. Key findings highlight young donors' preference for personal connection, local impact, and progressive values in their giving, contrasting with traditional donor interests. Strategies for arts organizations include focusing on personal relationships, aligning programming with donor values, and tailoring development approaches to enhance donor engagement.
More Related Content
Similar to Cultural Connections October 2015 Program - Financial Stability
Cultural Connections October 2015 Program - Financial Stability
- 1.
- 2. Today’s Speakers Rebecca RatzkinWolfBrown Jay Auslander California Academy of Science Jeri Boomgaarden East Bay Community Foundation Elizabeth Minor Hearst Museum
- 3. 3©WolfBrown 2015 How areMillenials Different in Their Motivations for Giving? Based on 2009 study of donors in Bay Area October 14, 2015 Rebecca Ratzkin, Senior Consultant
- 4. 4©WolfBrown 2015 WolfBrown • Generalpopulation studies of arts participation • Impact assessment • Engagement research • Grant program evaluations • Misc. audience studies • Capacity building in research
- 5. 5©WolfBrown 2015 First, alittle context
- 6. 6©WolfBrown 2015 Millenials arethe largest living population
- 7. 7©WolfBrown 2015 Millenials aremore diverse
- 8. 8©WolfBrown 2015 Millenials leadworkforce numbers
- 9. 9©WolfBrown 2015 Resource: PewResearch Center • http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2015/03/19/how-millennials-compare- with-their-grandparents/
- 10. 10©WolfBrown 2015 Demographic Profileof Five County Bay Area (2012 American Community Survey)
- 11. 11©WolfBrown 2015 Now, ontothe research…
- 12. 12©WolfBrown 2015 It’s NotAbout You… It’s About Them: A Research Report on What Motivates Bay Area Donors to Give to the Arts and Artists www.wolfbrown.com/donor
- 13. 13©WolfBrown 2015 Study Goals •To understand the underlying motivations of the FFA donors • To see if FFA donors are different than donors to other Bay Area arts institutions • To identify typologies of donors based on their giving behaviors and attitudes about giving • To develop tools that can help small groups and individual artists with fundraising
- 14. 14©WolfBrown 2015 Methodology • Randomsample of 500 donors from 17 Bay Area arts organizations, and 1,900 donors to the Fund For Artists program • Two data collection efforts - Online survey: 17% response rate - Postal survey: 21% response rate • Three analysis groups - FFA Donors (n=349) - Donors to Mid-Sized/Diverse/Contemporary Arts Groups (n=485) - Donors to Large-Budget Arts Groups (n=2,200)
- 15. 15©WolfBrown 2015 Limitations ofthe data • Results represent a good representation of a cross-section of Bay Area donors, but cannot be used to generalize about all donors in the Bay Area, or in other communities. • As with any random sample, results are subject to margins of sampling error - For the random sample, error margins are +/- 3%. • Millenials relatively unstable sample: n=135 - Error margins are approximately +/-6% to 8.4%
- 16. 16©WolfBrown 2015 Young donorsare likely to support the arts and social justice "What causes do you support?" 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+ Performing arts organizations 78% 80% 85% 88% 89% Museums and fine arts groups 56% 62% 65% 75% 83% Social justice or equality causes 55% 55% 53% 54% 52% Environmental or conservation causes 40% 52% 58% 61% 65% Education 40% 48% 53% 57% 62% Political campaigns 38% 40% 48% 50% 54% Women's causes 36% 33% 37% 42% 37% Human services (youth programs) 29% 37% 43% 44% 40% Health causes or medical research 27% 37% 45% 49% 53% International aid or disaster relief 27% 32% 34% 43% 47% Religious causes or faith-based institutions 14% 15% 25% 28% 34%
- 17. 17©WolfBrown 2015 Young donorswant to make a difference supporting new works 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 Smaller arts programs where gift can make a bigger difference New work by living artists, composers, choreographers, writers Arts programs or projects that aren't supported by mainstream Individual artists or performers who live in your community Ensuring broad access to cultural experiences Ensuring long-term sustainability of specific arts groups AverageRating(1=Unlikely,7=Likely) TOP SIX CORE INTERESTS, BY AGE 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+
- 18. 18©WolfBrown 2015 Less interestin great works by nationally- renowned artists 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 Arts programs and projects that foster appreciation for diverse cultures Programs that awaken the creative voices of children World class artistic programming (bringing the world’s best art to the Bay Area) Artists or programs that reflect and sustain your own heritage Great works of art that have stood the test of time Nationally or internationally renowned artists or performers who visit the Bay Area AverageRating(1=Unlikely,7=Likely) LOWER SIX INTERESTS, BY AGE 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+
- 19. 19©WolfBrown 2015 Five Valueand Interest Factors HUMANISM (82%) LOCALISM (59%) DISTINCTION (61%) BONDING (50%) PROGRESSIVISM (29%) Support Individual Artists Community-based Projects Education Small Group or Project Significant local impact Increase Accessibility Anti-Establishment Cutting Edge Art Social Justice Diversity World-Renowned Artists Greatest Works of All Time Organizational Sustainability Alleviate Suffering Repay Society Cultural Heritage Strengthen Family Relationships Social Networking Spirituality Civic Duty Individualism Support New Work
- 20. 20©WolfBrown 2015 Young adultsconnect to local, personal and progressive values 62% 51% 43% 34% 21% 29% 32% 30% 35% 34% 22% 24% 27% 30% 42% 43% 33% 34% 32% 33% 50% 45% 42% 35% 23% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+ %ofRespondentswithHighPropensity PERCENT HIGH PROPENSITY FOR VALUE FACTORS, BY AGE Localism Humanism Distinction Bonding Progressivism
- 21. 21©WolfBrown 2015 Personal connectionis key 78% 78% 63% 25% 24% 16% 14% 80% 73% 51% 9% 18% 14% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% I need to know how my gift will make an impact I need to have attended their programs I need to have a personal connection to the art form I need to have a personal connection with one or more of the artists or performers I need to know someone else who supports the program I need to speak with someone from the organization I need to know a board member or staff person Necessary conditions for giving, BY AGE Under 35 35+
- 22. 22©WolfBrown 2015 Values-Driven Intrinsics 25% Community Altruists 22% Progressive Artist Champions 19% High-TouchSocial Givers 17% Supportive Audiences 17% BAY AREA DONOR SEGMENTATION MODEL
- 23. 23©WolfBrown 2015 Younger donorsare driven by personal values 38% 35% 25% 25% 20% 5% 13% 21% 24% 26% 37% 37% 27% 19% 10% 11% 9% 16% 16% 20% 8% 6% 11% 16% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+ AGE, BY SEGMENT Supportive Audiences High-Touch Social Givers Progressive Artist Champions Community Altruists Values-Driven Intrinsics
- 24.
- 25. 25©WolfBrown 2015 Get toknow your donors • Develop more effective and fulfilling relationships where “making the ask” becomes part of a larger conversation • No need for expensive research • Set aside time to sit down for a structured conversation - Ask about interests, passions, and connection to the art - How much do they want to be involved? - What kind of impact do they want to make? - What kind of connection and/or evidence do they need to feel fulfilled?
- 26. 26©WolfBrown 2015 Diagnose yourprogramming • Look at the values that might connect to target segments • For example: You are creating a project about an immigrant’s experience in her adopted country - What are the value systems around women’s and immigration issues? - How would this speak to your target donors focusing on these values?
- 27. 27©WolfBrown 2015 Learn toTailor Development Approaches • Use differentiation of values to help create unique development strategies that connect values to events, content and giving • For example: Raising funds for a new commission by a local artist who is nationally renowned in his field - One strategy is to focus on the project’s new and contemporary attributes… - …or to highlight support for a local artist - …or emphasize artist’s national reputation if donors more interested in bringing well-known artists to local community
- 28. 28©WolfBrown 2015 Understand DesiredLevel of Involvement • Develop targeted communications strategies based on desired levels of communication and involvement - Use first transaction as opportunity to gather informatio (e.g., “Check here if you’d like to be kept apprised of how your gift is being used.”)
- 29. 29©WolfBrown 2015 In summary… •Message about values, and less about the specific details of the project • Make connections to value systems outside of the arts, when appropriate • Prioritize personal connections and how you can improve them • Follow-through on involvement opportunities and accountability
- 30.
- 31. 31©WolfBrown 2015 Four ConnectionPoints (based on in-depth interviews) Personal Relationshi p to Artist, Staff or Board
- 32. Jay Auslander, JD Directorof Gift Planning California Academy of Sciences
- 35. Gift Acceptance toDivestment… - The Policy creates the Gift Acceptance Committee. - Because acceptance involves a legal obligation to use for the specified purposes, authority is delegated to the E.D., C.D.O., Chairperson of the Board, and senior members of the Academy’s management team - Might still require submission to the board. - Our Gift Acceptance policy is an effort to define the breadth of gift types we can accept. - pledges in writing and fulfilled within 5 years - tangible personal property is subject to Collections Management Policy (as well as issues around whether it can be used in pursuit of the Academy’s exempt function) - closely held securities and when these are ok - policies and procedures around gifts of real estate, bargain sales, remainder interests, life insurance, etc. - Life income gift considerations - Named and endowed fund guidelines - And Gifts of Oil, Gas and Mineral interests.
- 38. Thank you. Jay Auslander,JD Director of Gift Planning California Academy of Sciences jauslander@calacademy.org
- 39.
- 40. Success Factors • Establishgoals and objectives • Leadership buy-in • In person nonprofit outreach • Intention and expectation of fun and success 40
- 41. Results 41 2014 2015 Total Donations$200,669.00 $649,000.00 Total Nonprofits 138 360 Total Donations 864 4,019 Prize Pool $13,000 $100,000
- 42. Challenges • Organizational engagement •Prize Sponsorships • Comprehension of event by nonprofits 42
- 43. Lessons Learned • EstablishGoals and a Project Plan • Engage with nonprofits early and often • Ask your community to spread the word including media, businesses, political offices 43
- 44. The Doctor WillSee You Now: Crowdfunding at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology Elizabeth Minor Development Associate Cultural Connections - October 14th, 2015
- 47.
- 49. Email Marketing Social MediaMarketing
- 50.
- 51. Events and ContentUpdates
- 52.
- 53. Multiplier Effect andNew/Unique Donors
- 55. Many thanks toour presenters and Children’s Creativity Museum for making this program a success!
- 56. Please complete the ProgramEvaluation before you leave. Drop them in the box near the refreshments. We look forward to your feedback!
- 57.
- 58. B Restaurant andBar – 720 Howard St.