Integrated Fundraising Strategy - Regular Giving Donor Acquisition
Fundraising Today and Tomorrow and the Next Generation of Canadian Giving
description
Transcript of Fundraising Today and Tomorrow and the Next Generation of Canadian Giving
“THE MORE ONE KNOWS, THE MORE ONE CAN CONTROL EVENTS.”
SIR FRANCIS BACON
• DONOR FILES AND ACQUISITION LIST SOURCES ARE SHRINKING – A MORE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
Current Fundraising Reality
Aging Donor Base
WWBA?
What are the preferred giving channels of each genera6on?
What are the preferred communica6ons and
engagement channels?
Does age influence who you give to?
What are the basic dos and don’ts for fundraisers in 2013 and beyond?
Hail Angry Peasant! what skullduggery do you intend with that pitchfork?
How could thoust deny the vital nutri6onal
content of this fine homebrewed ale?
ONLINE BENCHMARKING (2011 AND 2012)
Other Sources of Giving Data in Canada
WHERE CAN WE IMPROVE?
• Underdeveloped Advocacy • 8.2% of total email files in Canada are
advocates vs. 12% in the United States • Only 6.8% of online advocates are donors in
Canada vs. double that in the United States
ACTION TAKERS ARE STRONGER PROSPECTS
Non-‐donors who’d taken ac6on online were 2.3x more likely to donate than non-‐donors in the email file who hadn’t
ACTION TAKERS ARE STRONGER DONORS
Source: Charitable Memberships, Volunteering and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-‐Scale Online Field Experiment. May 2009, Na6onal Bureau of Economic Research, A. Lange, A. Stocking.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: E-PETITION AND TELEPHONE FOLLOW UP
Phone number: Ask!
Counter: social proof
Comments: priority for calls
Subscribe: for cultivation
More info: legitimacy
CALLING ADVOCACY LISTS
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20% 18.50%
8% 9%
11%
Recent Lapsed Monthly Donor
Online Pe66on Only
E-‐newsle]er Subscriber
Long Lapsed Montlhly Donor
COST PER MONTHLY DONOR $75.00
• 1000 phone calls – 74 monthly donors giving $9.66 every month
WHAT ARE WE DOING WELL?
• A Less Cluttered Market • 14.34% open rates in the United States vs. 22.98% open rates in Canada • That maintains a similar advantage the year before • Monthly Giving • Next Generation of Giving comparison – still higher in Canada • Online monthly giving is also bigger in Canada: 14% of Canadian online
revenue is from monthly sustainer vs. 8% of US online revenue • HOWEVER… US online sustainer revenue increased from 6% the year
before while the Canadian % remained the same at 14%. • We shouldn’t be standing still! • This is paralleled in the offline, Next Gen Study
WHAT ELSE?
• Are we doing enough? • Even though the US market is more mature in online fundraising, they still
have a higher online gross revenue increase of 10% vs. 5% in Canada • Is this a parallel of our more conservative, steady economic approach to
growth? • Are we spamming? • In the US, there was a 1.2% increase in overall charitable email volume but
there was an 18% increase in Canada • If we are sending more, is it segmented and personalized?
Do donors interact up and down the pyramid?
• The cul6va6on survey: – Sent to 57,400 donors – 3 key segments: Monthly, Ac6ve &
Lapsed – 5,530 responses (response rate of 11%) – Raised $17,574 – a bonus! – Reac6vated 30 donors – Found 85 expectances and 292 legacy
leads – 143 middle and major donor leads! – Shared budge6ng! – Surveymonkey and RE
CANADA LEADING THE PACK
1. Donors from 35 to 45 were thinking of legacy gifs
2. Shown to be 300% over represented on LinkedIn
3. Open to Gifs of Stock
4. Now…. A LinkedIn Strategy for a Legacy Gif for younger donors….
HAPPY SURPRISES!
CANADA LEADING THE PACK
A recent online survey found
ANIMAL WELFARE
A recent online survey found
THE NEXT GENERATION OF CANADIAN GIVING
The Canadian Fundraising Summit 2013
% Of Genera6on Giving
Total ann
ual giving
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
55% 65% 75% 85% 95%
79% Give 5.8 M donors $831 yr/avg 4.5 chari6es $4.8 B/yr
62% Give 4.5M donors $639 yr/avg 4.0 chari6es $2.9 B/yr
78% Give 6.9 M donors $942 yr/avg 4.9 chari6es $6.5 B/yr
87% Give 3.1 M donors $1507 yr/avg 7.0 chari6es $4.7 B/yr
Gen Y
Gen X
Boomers
Matures
GENERATIONAL GIVING
Bubble size is ‘Es,mated Annual Contribu,ons’
An overview of annual giving by genera6on confirms the importance of Boomers in the charitable giving space.
Born: 81-‐91
Born: before 1946 Born: 46-‐64
Born: 65-‐80
NOW DRAW YOUR BUBBLES
A GRADE TWO QUIZ
Gen Y Animal Protection
Mature
Human Rights Gen X
Door To Door Boomer
Arts
CAUSES – TOP TIER
GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES
PRIORITY CAUSE
45% 50% 50% 55%
21% 31% 31% 36%
32% 40% 38% 28%
18% 25% 23% 40%
15% 17% 17% 14%
12% 14% 11% 14%
50%
30%
35%
26%
16%
13%
71%
48%
46%
33%
23%
22%
Health chari6es
Local social service
Children’s chari6es
Place of worship
Animal rescue/protec6on
Emergency relief
Priority Cause Overall Giving
% dona6ng overall to causes
*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance
between 2010 and 2013.
• Health charities have the largest % of donors across generations
• For all top tier causes capture, at least half of donors see it as a priority. Places of worship and children’s charities have the largest %
• Emergency giving dropped as a priority cause across generations
↓
↓
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
↓
↓ ↓
↓
↓ ↓
CAUSES – BOTTOM TIER GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES
PRIORITY CAUSE
10% 8% 6% 10%
13% 8% 6% 9%
6% 8% 8% 10%
3% 3% 7% 10%
6% 5% 6% 4%
2% 3% 2% 6%
4% 4% 3% 4%
2% 3% 2% 7%
3% 4% 2% 3%
0% -‐ 0% -‐
8%
9%
8%
6%
5%
3%
4%
4%
3%
0%
18%
16%
16%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
1%
Educa6on
Human rights, interna6onal dev. Environmental, conserva6on
Arts/art-‐related
Vic6ms of crime or abuse
Elec6on campaigns
First responders
Troops/veterans
Advocacy
Trade union Priority Cause Overall Giving
% dona6ng overall to causes
*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance between 2010 and 2013
↓
↑
↓
↓ ↓
WHAT CHANNELS ARE DONORS USING IN NORTH AMERICA?
ANOTHER GRADE TWO QUIZ
Gen Y Online Giving
Mature
Mobile Text Gen X
Door To Door Boomer
Telemarketing
GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES
55% 54% 58% 55% 45% 55% 35% 31% 21% 35% 47% 56% 36% 39% 38% 30% 29% 33% 40% 37% 11% 23% 36% 58% 22% 29% 37% 34% 22% 24% 29% 29% 24% 20% 25% 20% 25% 19% 11% 9% 15% 14% 12% 14% 5% 9% 15% 18% 7% 5% 4% 9% 4% 9% 4% 4% 5% 8% 4% 3% 12% 4% 2% -‐ 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2%
Donated this way in last 2 years
56% 41% 41%
36% 35%
32% 32%
26% 22%
15% 13% 12%
6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2%
Checkout Dona6on Online Dona6on Honor/Tribute
Purchase for Proceeds Pledge at Event
Mailed Check/Credit Card Door to Door* Monthly Debit
Street Canvassing* Third Party Vendor
Email* Phone
Radio/TV* Online Ad*
Will/Planned Gif Mobile/Text
Social Networking Site Stocks, Bonds, Property
GIVING CHANNELS
Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance
between 2010 and 2013.
*New or changed aCribute, no tracking data
↑ ↑
↑
↓
↑
↓
↑ ↑
↓ ↑
↑
↓
1%
1%
5%
6%
12%
18%
25%
33%
34%
34%
35%
43%
3%
6%
9%
9%
12%
14%
25%
16%
21%
23%
25%
24%
34%
36%
36%
30%
34%
29%
22%
15%
17%
16%
12%
9%
47%
41%
23%
18%
15%
11%
4%
8%
3%
6%
2%
1% 37
Acceptable SolicitaLon Channel (from organizaLons with an established relaLonship)
Very Acceptable Very Unacceptable NET GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES
+77 +78 +87 +77 +63
+69 +70 +76 +68 +62
+46 +53 +40 +46 +47
+34 +51 +43 +30 +13
+25 +50 +41 +11 +5
+8 +45 +26 -‐2 -‐33
-‐24 -‐4 -‐21 -‐37 -‐24
-‐26 +24 -‐5 -‐46 -‐65
-‐35 -‐6 -‐29 -‐49 -‐46
-‐35 -‐26 -‐38 -‐41 -‐30
-‐46 -‐17 -‐38 -‐54 -‐67
-‐57 -‐29 -‐48 -‐76 -‐63
Friend
Friend's child/grandchild
Le]er/message
Radio or TV program
Opt-‐in for extra charge on 6cket/recording
Phone call
Message via social media
Voice message
Door-‐to-‐door canvassing
Street canvassing
Text message
ACCEPTABLE SOLICITATION CHANNEL
Net (Acceptable – Unacceptable)
Smwt Smwt
Channels with a personal connec6on are most acceptable, followed by le]ers or TV/radio.
*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance between 2010 and 2013.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE
30%
36%
7%
14%
9% 2%
Gen Y
43%
21%
7%
14%
8% 1%
56% 18%
7%
9%
5% 1%
Boomers
55% 19%
10%
7%
4% 2%
Matures
As we saw in the 2010 research, the feeling that monetary dona6ons are the way to make the biggest difference increases with age. Gen Y – with more 6me than money -‐-‐
is the one genera6onal cohort that places more emphasis on volunteering.
Gen X
Money Volunteer Donate goods Spread word Fundraise Advocate
HYPER-CHOICE IS IT THE DEATH OF
UNRESTRICTED GIVING?
“Honey, spend the money wherever you need to. I trust you.”
24% 22%
49%
26% 18%
53%
23% 25%
46%
10%
40% 43%
Directed dona6on Unrestricted dona6on
Either is fine
Directed Giving Preferences
Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures
27%
55%
7% 5%
22%
44%
6% 1%
22%
34%
5% 0
14%
28%
7% 2%
Decide where funds go
See the impact of my dona6on
Thank you gif Public recogni6on
Would MoLvate Me a Great Deal to Make a Larger DonaLon to
Charity
*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance between 2010 and 2013.
Engagement: Directed Giving
HOW DO YOUR DONORS LOOK AT TRANSACTIONS,
ENGAGEMENT, AND OUTREACH?
TRANSACTIONAL: DIRECT MAIL
46
63%
56%
13%
11%
56%
50%
22%
23%
58%
55%
28%
36%
63%
64%
28%
58%
Mail from a charity is very or smwt acceptable
Mail is important way for charity to stay in touch
Receive informa6on in the mail
Gave a dona6on in response to a mail appeal in the last 2
yrs
Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures
• While donors say that direct mail is an acceptable and important way for chari6es to keep in touch with supporters …
• … There is a substan6al drop across genera6ons in the number who remember receiving info in the mail; and a big difference, except among Matures, in the number who say they have responded to direct mail
• Donors say that a charity’s website is an important way to stay in touch, yet far fewer report actually visi6ng these sites
• However, the website is an important transac6on channel – especially with Gen X. More say they contributed in this way across genera6ons in 2013 than in 2010
TRANSACTIONAL: ONLINE 85%
41%
45%
76%
29%
55%
60%
25%
35%
45%
16%
31%
Visi6ng website is important way to stay in touch with
charity
Visit website of chari6es you support
Made a dona6on through org's
website in last 2 years
Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures
Website
Credit card 90% Paypal 38% Amazon payment 2%
Ways Would Pay
2010 41%
37%
29%
24%
↑
ENGAGEMENT: WORKPLACE
60%
36%
58%
40% 49% 50%
25%
75%
Have given in the workplace
Have not given in workplace
Workplace giving is more prevalent among younger workers. Gen Y is likely to give this way just once, while Boomers are more likely to give through payroll.
Workplace Giving GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES
Par6cipated in a workplace fundraiser 30% 33% 30% 13%
Made a one-‐6me dona6on through your workplace
24% 16% 20% 4%
Made a dona6on through payroll deduc6on
11% 18% 24% 4%
Volunteered through your workplace 19% 12% 16% 4%
Made a dona6on where your employer matched the gif
15% 15% 11% 4%
Par6cipated in a workplace walk/run/challenge
15% 11% 13% 8% Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures
(filtered among those employed or student)
*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance between 2010 and 2013.
• Corporate Donors phoned/mailed/emailed proposal • Lead to Starbucks doing a coin collection at 90 of their retail stores. • Also led to online Employee Giving campaign (138 employees (almost
all new donors) gave over $4,000 in lieu of Christmas gifts
ENGAGEMENT: RETAIL GIVING Retail
giving, last 12 mos 34%
No retail giving 43%
Not sure 23%
Gen Y: 54% Gen X: 38% Boomers: 29% Matures: 19%
MoLvaLons (Single most important reason)
Total Y X B M
Cause 64% 58% 69% 64% 61%
Product 19% 28% 18% 25% 18%
Total Y X B M
Given to cause before 24% 21% 18% 31% 29%
Would have given anyway 35% 30% 39% 34% 42%
Have given since purchase 11% 17% 9% 8% 11%
Plan to give directly in future 28% 27% 30% 20% 42%
Will retail give to this charity in future 48% 40% 45% 56% 55%
None of these (1x gif) 10% 16% 12% 2% 13%
RelaLonship to Cause
• Gen Y & X are more likely to give by retail purchase
• All are primarily mo6vated by cause over product
• Responses suggest that retail is a good way to increase dona6ons and raise awareness, but many of these will not convert into regular dona6ons beyond retail
*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance between 2010 and 2013.
ENGAGEMENT: WORD OF MOUTH
18% 17% 13% 13%
40% 43% 34% 33%
25% 16%
17% 21%
12% 16%
23% 23%
1% 7% 10% 11%
Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures
Comfort-‐level Sharing Info about ChariLes Support
Not comfortable at all, it is inappropriate Not too comfortable, tend to be private
Somewhat comfortable, but cautious
Very comfortable, but only bring it up if asked
Very comfortable, often tell others
Younger genera6ons are slightly more comfortable sharing informa6on about the chari6es they support than older genera6ons.
CHANNEL ECOSYSTEM NO SILVER BULLET: FUTURE IS INTEGRATED
Work place
Retail giving
Check in the mail
Mobile
Social media
Online
Crowd funding
Text/ SMS
Peer-‐to-‐Peer
Transactional Outreach Engagement
Direct mail
Website
Volunteer/Meetups
Monthly giving
Directed giving
57
KEY NEXT GEN FUNDRAISING QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
HAVE I UNDERINVESTED IN FUNDRAISING TO BABY BOOMERS, WHERE THE BULK OF
MONEY WILL COME FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?
HAVE I IGNORED THE UP AND COMING YOUNGER GENERATIONS; OR RELEGATED
THEM TO AN UN-STRATEGIC SOCIAL MEDIA EFFORT?
DOES MY FUNDRAISING CHANNEL MIX INCLUDE DIRECT MAIL FOR YOUNGER
DONORS AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR OLDER ONES (HINT: IT SHOULD)?
AM I PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE BY ADDRESSING THE CULTURAL DEMANDS
GENERATIONS X AND Y ARE PLACING ON INSTITUTIONS (SUCH AS TRANSPARENCY)?
AM I EMPOWERING MY MOST ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTERS TO FUNDRAISE AND
EVANGELIZE ON MY BEHALF?
OUR KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
KNOW YOUR DONORS’ BIRTHDAYS.
OUR KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
MAKE DONORS HAPPY.
NOW IS THE TIME TO CREATE AND TRACK DONOR SATISFACTION METRICS AND TO CLOSELY TRACK RETENTION BY CHANNEL AND BY GENERATION.
IT’S ALSO TIME TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO INBOUND
COMMUNICATIONS BY DONORS.
OUR KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE TODAY. THERE ARE THINGS
ORGANIZATIONS CAN AND SHOULD DO TODAY TO ATTRACT YOUNGER SUPPORTERS (GEN X, Y, Z) AND A SHARE OF THE ROUGHLY $35 BILLION THEY GIVE EACH
YEAR.
IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT TWEAKING THE TACTICS. MANY OF THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENTS TO EFFECTIVE
MULTICHANNEL FUNDRAISING ARE ORGANIZATIONAL AND POLITICAL.
HOW ABOUT YOURS?
Towson University (Bal6more) – Gary Rubin’s Journey: Full Contact Sport
• Gary Rubin, VP Advancement, Towson University (The Wire)
• A crooner for his University • “A hanging in a fortnight…” • Needed his 75 staff on the same page • Alumni Affairs, Communica6ons, Donor Rela6ons, Fundraising
GARY’S VIEW OF THE STRATEGY MAP AND BALANCE SCORECARD
• My biggest challenge – integra6on, coordina6on and team work
• The strategy map and balanced scorecard helped us get there
• Technology has put even more pressure on being on the same page
GARY’S VIEW OF THE STRATEGY MAP AND BALANCE SCORECARD
HOW WE WILL SPEND THE NEXT 2 DAYS...
The Integrated Fundraising Balanced Scorecard – The Strategy and Tac6cs Map
Your Mission
cross channel stewardship and cul6va6on
business rules
Financial Measurements: Number of different kinds of donors; donor sa6sfac6on
(reten6on, LTV); Net income; etc
Internal Perspec6ve Measurements: internal coopera6on (culture, structure, repor6ng);
Learning and Growth Measurements: Courses, Qualifica6ons, Proven Applica6on of New Knowledge
74 Proprietary & Confidential 2013-10-24 Slide 74
75 Proprietary & Confidential
• Integrated team: some senior (Directors) people had to go and new people brought in – healthy change
• The President is on board • Fundraising results are already improved in reten6on and acquisi6on and average gif!
THE END RESULT
CONCLUSION
THE FUTURE HAS ARRIVED
IT IS A MULTI-CHANNEL FUNDRAISING WORLD
IT IS ALSO A FUNDRAISING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE DONOR DEMANDS, AND RESPONDS TO AN
INTEGRATED RELATIONSHIP
ARE YOU READY?
REMEMBER THE CHILDREN…
• 3 of the top 10 fundraisers for an organization that raises over $90 million a year are under 15
• Do you have an integrated plan for supporters under 15?
THE INTEGRATED MARKETING ADVISORY BOARD
• Promo6ng ac6ve discussion of integrated marke6ng in the nonprofit sector
• Sign up to find inspira6on through: • Case studies • Fresh ideas • Prac6cal 6ps
www.imabgroup.net Twitter: @TheIMAB