This document provides an analysis of alternatives for GiveIndia's SEM decision on whether to continue using grants or invest own funds. It discusses GiveIndia's competition, collaborators, the context of increased wealth and tech awareness in India, opportunities from internet growth and legal mandates. It describes GiveIndia's customers, founding, and role in facilitating donations. It evaluates alternatives of using only grants vs. own funds, finding own funds allows higher bids, reach, donations. It recommends investing own funds, focusing keywords on high click-through and transactions. Contingency plans include falling back to grants and reducing spending on limited high return transactions.

2. COMPANY ANALYSIS | 5 C’s
COMPETITION
Child Rights and You (CRY)
Charity Aids Foundation India
Dasra
HelpAge India
COLLABORATORS
NGO’s
Zopim: Chat Widgets
CONTEXT
Political- Post Liberalization number of HNI and wealthy Indian’s
increased.
Social- Exposure to western ethics and culture (Social Returns)
Emphasis shift from altruistic and religious reasons to secular
causes
Technology-Internet and mobile Penetration (Tech Awareness)
Social Media influence
Digital Marketing tools
Legal-Companies Act 2013, mandate of at least 2% profit
contribution for companies with revenue over 1000 Crores, Net
worth 500 or net profit 5 Crores
Threat-Increasing mushrooming can impact the donation culture
- Money laundering
- Dependent on Government policy
Opportunities- Internet Boom has provided ease awareness and
visibility.
- Companies Act, 2013
- Growing culture of philanthropy
CUSTOMERS
HNI, Corporates, Retail philanthropist
COMPANY
Founded by Mr. Venkat Krishan in 2000. Current CEO Dhaval
Udani
Philanthropic marketplace: Giving impetus to voluntary
donations
Raised about $5 Mn every year for 270 NGO’s.

3. DECISION PROBLEM
SEM decision: Should continue with grants or infuse own funds
Digital media strategy
SEM with
grants
SEM
without
grants
Alternatives
Evaluation
Framework
Click Through Rate, Transaction Rate, Return
on Ad Spent, CLV

4. Evaluation of Alternatives
SEM With Only Grants
• Leads to cost cutting as the organization did not spend its own funds for the SEM efforts
• Limitation to the maximum bid on the positive keywords not more than $2
• Limited reach to the donors
SEM With Both Grants & Own Funding
• Leads to increase in the market reach of the platform & thus helps in getting more clicks on the website
• Brings in more donors and thus leads to more donation to the causes
• As the retention rate of the donors is 30 % ,I.e. 3 out of 10 donors donate more than once to their causes
of concern and since increasing the spending on spending brings in more donors thus it will increase the absolute
number of repeat donors also
• No limitation on the budget for expenditure on SEM campaign
• Organization ca pay more than $2 for the most positive keywords which help in the appearance of GiveIndia on
the top and more frequently in the search results using SEO algorithms

5. • Keywords with higher TR,CTR, ROAS and probability to be chosen
example: give india, giveindia com, giveindia.org review, GiveIndia, ngo charity,
help needy, etc.
• Bid higher for those keywords greater than 2 which have a positive CLV. Negatives
ones are to be ignored.
SEM Strategy
• Make website SEO based on keywords with high impressions
• Create different content for social media pages based on each social media
characteristics to boost engagement
SEO and digital
media strategy
RECOMMENDATION

6. Fallback to free grants
Reduce spending on limited high TR, CLV
transactions
CONTINGENCY PLANS

7. THANK YOU