Deconstructing Integration (and How to Put It All Together for Best Results) - RedEngine Digital &...
-
Upload
redengine-digital -
Category
Marketing
-
view
472 -
download
1
Transcript of Deconstructing Integration (and How to Put It All Together for Best Results) - RedEngine Digital &...
!
Deconstructing Integration (and How to Put It All Together for Best Results)
Olga Woltman, Director, Online Giving, Special Olympics Liz Murphy, Founder, RedEngine Digital
#Bridge14 @redengine @lizred
!
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
BRAND
DONOR EXPERIENCE
TECHNOLOGY & DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
BRAND
DONOR EXPERIENCE
TECHNOLOGY & DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
!
Staffing Structure
Is there an ideal? • The standard model
• Digital & DM together makes sense/ the new norm
• What about social and mobile? Who should they belong to?
• Do mobile and web analytics belong in IT or direct response?
• SEO, the website?
Executive Level
Communications/Marketing
Direct Response/
Digital IT Events
!
Staffing Structure
At SOI, Direct Response has always resided in a single department reporting into the same person (mail, phone, digital, legacy giving, donor services)
Why it works • Shared goals
• Day-to-day awareness and collaboration
• Lends itself to integration across a lot of other key elements
Potential Pitfalls
• Conserted efforts to integrate and collaborate with communications & marketing teams, key areas for digital channel
• Leader sets the tone – which can be key to success, or not.
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
BRAND
DONOR EXPERIENCE
TECHNOLOGY & DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
!
Budgeting & Revenue
Why it works • Shared goals, removes barriers to
collaboration
• Not worrying about who owns the money, we are channel agnostic
Potential Pitfalls
• Individual accountability is still important
• Requires a cultural shift at every level
BUDGETS ARE
AWESOME
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
BRAND
DONOR EXPERIENCE
TECHNOLOGY & DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
!
Integrated Direct Marketing Program
• Long history of collaboration with chapters • Centrally managed direct response • Phased approach
• Channel-agnostic revenue sharing model
!
Why It Works
• Shared commitment to mission • Successful program, cost-efficiencies and revenue,
the impact of not working together is too great • Voluntary participation and greater capabilities
• Managed with the help of advisory group • Credibility built over many years
• Treating chapters as client: reporting, responsiveness, accountability
• Clear (contractual) expectations and processes
!
• There can be scary revenue risks • Going after the “sacred cows” • Digital channels can be controversial
• Attachment to existing metrics • Cannot anticipate every scenario -- or every
personality • Making changes too quickly or mandating
participation • Increased program management complexity
Pitfalls
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
BRAND
DONOR EXPERIENCE
TECHNOLOGY & DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
!
Clear Brand Hierarchy
Why it works • Clarity of the brand helps amplify the voice and helps
organization stand out (including in the mind of the donor)
Potential Pitfalls • A long and complex journey to bring all the pieces
together and, over time, complete transition • Possible negative impact on revenue
• Brand vision that does not resonate with donor audience
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
BRAND
DONOR EXPERIENCE
TECHNOLOGY & DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
!
Why Integrated?
• Because Target, Walmart, Best Buy does it. Why not your org?
• It’s a user turnoff if your messaging, offers, brand experience are not aligned
• Consumers expect and want it
18 / Special Olympics
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
BRAND
DONOR EXPERIENCE
TECHNOLOGY & DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
!
Must Get Rid of the Data Silos
• If the engagement and transaction history of each customer could be tracked across all these interaction paths, then we’d have a 360-degree view of the customer.
OFFLINE DATA
DIGITAL DATA
CALL CENTER DATA
SOCIAL DATA
!
• LTV • Source coding strategy & beyond • Chart your data flow – what,
when, where – visually • CRM, CMS, Social Media, Web
Analytics – capture and pass back data (unique IDs), then move into donor database
• For full picture of channel interaction, “tag” all interactions
All About the Backend
Copyright Creative Commons
!
Still Major Obstacles
• “New” digital interactions (display ad viewthroughs) • Limitations of legacy donor databases • Technical workarounds to include granular sourcing
(ie., digital is not just one channel from investment perspective)
• Time and money to redo data synchs • Adjustments for new CRM data changes
• Major expense and time undertaking
25 / Special Olympics
!
Other Obstacles
• “It’s an IT project.” Requires multi-departmental group (including fundraisers) to identify data capture, mapping and reporting needs
• Lack of pre-planned training and education for teams and partners
• Accessibility for cross-departmental team members and partners
• Others you’ve encountered?
26 / Special Olympics
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
BRAND
MESSAGING
DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
Year-End Coordination with Programs
• Ongoing communication throughout planning • Shared materials and schedule to help align efforts
!
Channels & Timing
Why it works • To a donor, cause is a single entity
• Alignment helps take in consideration needs across departments and teams
• In the process, we are able to identify opportunities
• Accept that calendar is not perfect or final
Potential Pitfalls
• Online & offline planning occurs at different points, requires deliberate effort to align
• Time & fineness are required to build commitment
• Trying to create a perfect tool that meets all needs
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
BRAND
MESSAGING
DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
Competition
• Organizational priorities and programs • How do you balance competing revenue goals per
month, per year? (Events, public awareness) • Inter-departmental calendar and coordination
• More integration organizationally? • Are you competing in the mail and online with
chapters? • Add that to your external competitors
34 / Special Olympics
!
Bonus Tip
• When working with chapters, consider forming an advisory group (including nay-sayers) to help define the new program. Giving stakeholders a sense of ownership is key to getting the buy-in.
35 / Special Olympics
!
INTEGRATION
STAFFING STRUCTURE
BUDGETING & REVENUE
ORGANIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
BRAND
MESSAGING
DATA
CHANNELS & TIMING
COMPETITION
ATTRIBUTION
!
ATTRIBUTION IS HARD!!!!
WHAT IMPACT DO ONLINE MARKETING ACTIONS HAVE ON OFFLINE GIVING?
What role does remarketing play in conversions?
DO
ES A
CQ
UISITIO
N
MA
IL DR
IVE G
IVING
ON
LINE?
What is the donor LTV
based on origin channel?
How many of CPC donors
are newly acquired versus
renewed?
!
Must Understand the Consumer Multi-Device Buying Path, Too
Doesn’t account for Direct Mail, print, phone, other
!
Omni-Channel Measurement Is the Biggest Challenge
To identify the optimal marketing mix and investment, you have to know how the aggregate effect of the channels, NOT just measure each individually.
!
Campaign Goals & Measurement
• Identify, set up and tag your data sources and paths to conversion– ‣ Goals, attribution,
assisted conversions
by source, event tagging, etc.
!
Universal Analytics (new upgrade from GA) allows you to see cross-device behavior and combo of devices per transaction and revenue
43 / Special Olympics
!
Back to Data Integration
• Acquisition match back • CRM match back • How to identify new donors, monthly
upgrades, value of view throughs • Channel interaction and investment
47 / Special Olympics
!
Connecting Offline & Online Audiences
• Special Olympics EOY Facebook Custom Audience Test • Facebook CRM ads targeting direct mail donors, lapsed donors and non-
donors during EOY matching gift campaign • Test Group A featured donors who received a Matching Gift direct mail
package AND were served Facebook ads • Test Group B included lapsed donors and non-donors who received a non-
Matching Gift direct mail piece AND were served Facebook ads • Match rate from Facebook was 50%
• DM lapsed and non-donors who saw FB ads (test) and who did not see ads (control)
• 153% ROI with online gifts only for donor group, plus small gift increase in mail
• FB ads lifted avg gift in mail for lapsed/non-donors by nearly 20% and generated 21% more revenue than DM group who did not see ads.
• CARE BB360 • Lifted avg gift by 24% • Increased revenue by 30%
!
Facebook EOY CRM Retargeting
• Facebook CRM ads targeting direct mail donors, lapsed donors and non-donors
• Test Group A featured donors who received a Matching Gift direct mail package AND were served Facebook ads
• Test Group B included lapsed donors and non-donors who received a non-Matching Gift direct mail piece AND were served Facebook ads
• 2 Control groups (donor and non) who did not see Facebook ads
!
Facebook EOY CRM Retargeting
• For donors, FB ads generated 153% ROI with online gifts, plus small avg gift increase in mail
• For non-donors, FB ads lifted avg gift in mail by nearly 20% and generated 21% more revenue than DM group who did not see ads. for every $1 spent online, we raised $8.50 in the mail.
• Match rate from Facebook was 50%
!
ADA Integrated Email & DM
51 / Special Olympics
Direct Mail Donors Pre-Email
Direct Mail Donors Post-Email
!
ADA Matching Gift Campaign
• 2-email series to 20,000 direct mail donors – two segments
• 4-email series to house file and DM donors got emails #2-4 (suppressed from email #1)
• Pre- and post-emails integrated with direct mail campaign (DM included GA tagged vanity url for online donations) ‣ Pre-email sent March 5 ‣ Direct mail in home March 8-15 ‣ Post email sent March 19
!
A $20K Surprising Result! • Small return via email and 5% lift in DM giving • BUT $20,105 attributable revenue came in via the
vanity URL donation form • DM donors who received emails were 3x more likely to
give online and give a gift 32% higher than those who didn’t receive emails
• Many first-time online gifts from this group
!
Email was a huge influencer
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3/8/2013 3/15/2013 3/22/2013 3/29/2013 4/5/2013 4/12/2013 4/20/2013 4/28/2013 5/6/2013 5/14/2013
Number of Dona7ons via Vanity URL by Date
3/15/2013 Direct Mail in home date (mailed
3/2/2013)
3/19/2013 Post Direct Mail Email
4/17/2013 Email #2 Deploys
5/1/2013 Email #3 Deploys
!
Thank you!
Questions? Olga Woltman, [email protected]
Liz Murphy, [email protected]
Don’t forget to visit the Solutions Showcase!
Many of the ideas discussed today are on display at the
Solutions Showcase!
#Bridge14