Understanding supporter commitment and benchmarking

Understanding supporter commitment and benchmarking

Jo Graham & John Whitehead September 2010

Tel: 020 7426 8888Email: [email protected]: www.nfpsynergy.net

22

Agenda

• Background to the charity market place• Changing patterns of giving• The database measures of loyalty

• Research objectives and methodology• Assessing satisfaction and commitment • Next steps

2

Background to the Charity Market Place

Over half of WaterAid supporters also support at least two other development charities regularly. One in seven support at least five!

24%

21%

17%

24%

14%

None declared

One

Two

Three or four

Five plus

Base: Postal survey, 2,000 WaterAid supporters, Britain, August 2008

Source: nfpSynergy

“Do you regularly support any of the following charities? “(List of development charities followed)

http://www.sightsavers.org.uk/default.htm

http://practicalaction.org/?id=home

Changing Patterns of Giving

Marketing Generations

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,00019

00

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

The Great Generation

War Time Generation

Baby Boomers

Millennial Generation

Generation X

Live Births by Year

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

?

Source: nfpSynergy

The Database Dynamics of Loyalty

Direct Debit Retention by Recruitment Channel

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Months

Inserts DRTV Face-to-Face

52.2%

37.1%

84.6%

95.0%

88.7%

72.7%

Considered Purchase

Impulse Purchase

Importance of Retention and Attrition

A key database measure of commitment and engagement

A key to predicting future direct debit income

The primary determinant of long-term lifetime value

Five Key Performance Indicators for Retention

Monthly cancellations not to exceed 0.874% by either [a] numbers or [b] value.

Of those active 12 months ago, retention to equal or exceed 90.5%

Of those active 24 month ago, retention to equal or exceed 84.5%

Of those active 36 month ago, retention to equal or exceed 79.5%

2222

Agenda



22

2323

Research objectives and methodology

• Desire to explore supporter satisfaction with a view to understanding commitment and track this over time

• Two-stage process of qualitative and quantitative researcho Replicable quantitative research, to provide a benchmark for

ongoing tracking o Initial phase of qualitative research to hear from supporters

in their own words about their views and perceptions

• Qualitative research - focus groups of regular and potential supporters

• Quantitative research - postal and online survey of supporters

23

“As an engineer I know the

solutions are simple and effective”

“Feel stronger about WaterAid

than Oxfam – you feel more closely

involved”

“Without water you’ve

just got nothing”

“You know by supporting it that you’re actually

supporting one thing with great effect”

“Arms length. I don’t contact them, they don’t contact me, and that’s fine by

me”

2727

Agenda



27

2828

The groundwork for assessing satisfaction and commitment

1. Understanding of the work WaterAid does and motivated by this to support WaterAid

2. Perceptions of the effectiveness of WaterAid’s work

3. How supporters feel treated by WaterAid

28

2929

1. Understanding of the work WaterAid does and motivated by this to support WaterAid

• “Believe water and sanitation and basic human rights” • “There is a clarity about WaterAid’s work that I like”

• “I like the way WaterAid applies simple technology to provide sustainable solutions”

29

Knowledge

Resonance and

engagement

2. Perceptions of the effectiveness of WaterAid’s work • Effectiveness/impact of donations

o “Believe my donations are having a positive impact” o “The information WaterAid sends helps me to know how my

donations are being spent”

• Effectiveness of WaterAid’s work as a charity and how donations are spent o “I have confidence that WaterAid is an effective charity”o “I trust WaterAid to use my donations efficiently” o “I am confident that my donation goes where it is

needed most” o “I think other charities may be just as capable

of tackling water and sanitation problems” o “I would like to be told more about the amount

of money WaterAid spends on administration”

30

Trust(1)

KR & E

3. “How I feel treated as a supporter of WaterAid”

• “Appreciating my donation whether big or small”

• “Giving me a range of ways to support WaterAid”

• “Not asking me to increase my donation too often”

• “Taking my wishes and needs as a supporter seriously”

• “Responding efficiently to any queries I may have”

31

KR & E T2

T1

3232

Direct questions about commitment

• “Supporting WaterAid is important to me”

• “I am committed to WaterAid for the forseeable future”

• “I feel so committed to WaterAid I am interested in finding other ways to get involved”

• “I may stop supporting WaterAid soon”

32

Satisfaction

CommitmentK

R & E

T

3333

Building towards commitment

33

Commitment

3434

Agenda



34

3535

What has WaterAid done as a result of this research?

• Taken 5 key statements from across the survey to use as corporate KPI’s:

o “I believe my donations are having a positive impact”

o “I have confidence that WaterAid is an effective charity”

o “The information WaterAid sends helps me to know how my donations are being spent”

o “I trust WaterAid to use my donations efficiently”

o “I am committed to supporting WaterAid for the forseeable future”

35

3636

Tracking study conducted every 15 months

• Online only

• Hold the majority of the study constant

• Space for new learnings

36

3737

What’s next?

• External benchmarking?

• Feel free to try it for yourself!

37

2-6 Tenter GroundSpitalfields

London E1 7NH

(w) www.nfpsynergy.net (t) 020 7426 8888

(e) [email protected]

Registered office: 2-6 Tenter Ground Spitalfields London E1 7NH Registered in England No. 04387900

VAT Registration 839 8186 72

Understanding supporter commitment and benchmarking

Documents

Transcript of Understanding supporter commitment and benchmarking