Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

16
Succellerator Fundraising TIME NORMALIZED FUNDRAISING DATA ANALYSIS

Transcript of Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Page 1: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Succellerator FundraisingTIME NORMALIZED FUNDRAISING DATA ANALYSIS

Page 2: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Context & Background

SOS Children’s Villages is a Vienna, Austria-based federation of fundraising offices that support orphans in hundreds of programs facilities around the world

The US Affiliate labored under poor brand recognition

The Norwegian Affiliate granted the US Affiliate money to invest in expanding fundraising programs The US Affiliate identified so-called “Face-to-Face” fundraising

The earnest young people in malls and pedestrian-traffic-heavy streets asking you for a moment of your time to support the cause

Page 3: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Context & Background Cont’d

Logistics Face-to-Face Vendor: Direct Dialogue, Inc.

Pilot in MetroDC at 3 major malls Lake Forest

Arundel Mills

Marley

Context Norway & Maryland are roughly comparable populations

Hence the demographic data to help the Europeans understand the scale of the US

Page 4: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

SOS Symposium on Direct Dialogue

September 20‐21, 2007

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 5: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

SOS-USA SWOT Analysis for Direct Dialogue

Strengths• Established mission/brand worldwide•Child/Village product•Online program can support this younger market for recruitment and communication

Weaknesses• Low brand recognition• New program (in-house learning curve)

Opportunities• Expand to a younger market• Create new source for monthly giving• Increase brand recognition • Drive internet traffic, gifts

Threats•High attrition•Misrepresentation by reps•No independent research on market•Proprietary restrictions on sharing data with other NGOs

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 6: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

III. MarketMall Demographics

• All three have 60% female, 40% male patrons• Age breakdowns are detailed below

• Household income:

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 7: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Area population is significant

Source: US Census Bureau

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 8: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

IV. ObjectivesOur plan for direct dialogue was to:

• Recruit 500 sponsors in Q4 2006 (Pilot)• Roll-out full scale program in 2007 to recruit 2,000 donors• 2007 Budget: $386,000• 2007 Expected Income: $237,600

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 9: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

V. Results Nov 2006 - July 2007

Donor Recruitment:• Donors recruited = 1,698• Active = 1,167 (69%)• Cost: • Income: $147,500

(60% of goal)

Additional Benefits:• Spike in Web donations• 150 free qualified leads• SOS village alumni discovered

MonthDonors Signed

GenderCountOfDonor

Nov '06 132 Female 853

Dec '06 90 Male 842

Jan '07 252 Unknown 3

Feb '07 227 1,698

Mar '07 304

Apr '07 251

May '07 293

June '07 93

July '07 56

1,698

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 10: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 11: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 12: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Direct Dialogue Donor Age Histogram

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 13: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88

# of

don

ors

of th

at a

ge

Age Cohort

Non-Direct Dialogue SOS USA Donor Age Histogram

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 14: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88

Comparison of DD Donors to Non-DD Donors

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013

Page 15: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance
Page 16: Succellerator Fundraising Time Normalized Analysis of Face to Face Fundraising Performance

Published by Succellerator Enterprises, LLC January 2013