back to News & Articles

Benchmarking

A look at how disaster organizations responded to donors in the wake of the Haiti earthquake

Friday, June 11th, 2010
Released 11 June 2010

Global fundraising agencies Pareto Fundraising and Pell & Bales have released the key findings from their most recent charity ‘mystery shopping’ exercise. The study, conducted from the end of January through to the end of April 2010, looked at the performance of several organizations fundraising for Haiti, and specifically how they responded following donations made online.

What we did

On the back of the tragedy that struck Haiti in January, 2010 Pareto Fundraising and Pell & Bales decided to look at how charities were responding to donors who made donations in the wake of the disaster.

Here’s how we did it

  • Made an online gift around two weeks after the Haiti disaster. The gift made was for the equivalent of $25 USD, to 52 organizations in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and Spain.
  • Sat back and watched what happened after the donation was made. We monitored the organizations subsequent efforts for the next two months (up till the end of April).
  • Analyzed the results, based on five key criteria:
    1. Initial contact experience. What was the experience like as a donor making the donation?
      1. Response time. Did we hear back from the charity the same day the gift was made online?
        1. Value of the ‘thank you’. Was it personal? Did we hear the words ‘thank you’? Was a story shared?
          1. How proactive the organization was. Was information shared about how our gift would make a difference? Was regular/monthly giving promoted initially?
            1. The follow up. Was there ongoing feedback and updates? Were we asked for subsequent donations, and if so were we asked to consider a regular/monthly gift?

What we found

Overall, the initial response to our gifts was very good. Most organizations responded to our donation immediately and were genuinely thankful for the donation made.

Whilst the ongoing frequency of communications was regular, and the feedback detailed, the element missing was the link to individual stories, and how our donation was having a direct impact. Most of the feedback was operationally focused.

We were asked for another financial contribution several times by some organizations in the subsequent two months, although the huge area of opportunity moving forward definitely lies within regular/monthly giving. Very few asked us to consider changing the way we support and commence an ongoing, monthly gift.

Below are some of the key insights. It is worth noting that the results were analyzed up until the end of April, and therefore some organizations may have subsequently engaged in the follow up activity referred to below from May onwards.

  • 83% of charities responded to our donation the same day (with an email confirmation). In the US, Canada and Australia the response came on the same day in 100% of occasions. In the UK 85% of the time, whereas only 30% of Spanish charities responded the same day of the gift. However it is worth noting that 4 of the 10 charities in Spain did not actually process our donation, at all.
  • If all charities that processed our donation (92%), all but three said the words ‘thank you’ within the email received after making the gift. However 10 organizations did not personalize the thank you email (I.e. it did not reference our name personally in the salutation or the body of the email).
  • Only 29% of charities initially promoted regular/monthly giving. The highest of the countries was the US where 55% of charities mystery shopped asked for an ongoing commitment.
  • In the follow up activity, after our first gift, 21% of organizations used vehicles other than email to communicate with us. Of the 52 charities we surveyed, only 2 (both in the UK) used a combination of email, mail and telephone to keep in touch and communicate with us. 31% of charities across the countries did not reach out to us at all after the initial thank you process.

What we’d recommend

Below we’ve provided some recommendations for organizations responding to disasters, related to both the initial period after a disaster, and in the weeks and months following.

Initial contact

  • Charities need to ensure that initial donations receive a speedy response either by auto
    response or within a short space of time (response in hours, not days).
  • Initial responses should be personalized and should contain the words ’thank you’.
  • When landing on a charities website, the disaster should be prominently displayed, with its own separate landing page. All email communications should provide a link straight to that landing page (or micro site).
  • If the organization is strategically focusing on regular/monthly gifts, the initial response should promote this and keep it singularly focused.

Subsequent contact

  • Subsequent communications need to be relevant and timely, providing useful and important updates and information demonstrating the impact the donor’s money is having on the ground. That means telling real, human stories.
  • Real feedback from the field should be provided on a regular basis, in a coherent manner. We should foster opportunities for deeper engagement and understanding of the issues at hand.
  • Stand out from the crowd. Some of the best examples from this exercise on how to feedback involved inviting donors to teleconferences and webinars to share stories from the field.

Conversion to Regular/Monthly Giving

  • Charities should develop and execute a follow up communication plan as part of an integrated strategy to convert onetime cash supporters onto regular/monthly giving.
  • All communications should focus on capturing details to make conversion to monthly giving easier e.g. Name, address, phone number and email. Offer opt outs rather than opt in to follow up contact.
  • Constant reinforcement in all communications of the importance and need for regular/monthly giving (linked to the need for long term, sustainable support to the people affected).
  • Develop integrated channel plan for conversion to monthly giving including email promotion/reinforcement, telephone conversion and mail mop up activity.
  • Aim to make direct approach to conversion onto regular/monthly giving within 2 months of first cash gift. Speed is key. We know that 2 months is better than 4 months, and so on.
  • Evaluate the impact of developing a specific regular/monthly giving product for the emergency situation (I.e. sign up for 365 days) along with a well thought out plan for future relationship management and donor care.
  • Once signed up to a regular/monthly gift, focus on the honeymoon period: the first 30 days after sign up. This is critical to arresting attrition.

Long term strategy

  • Develop a plan for communicating with non-responders to your regular/monthly giving conversion efforts. Consider how to feed these individuals into the ongoing cash program and look at ways to engage with non financial support. Test using as a prospect file for future conversion activity.
  • Ensure your organization is well equipped to for the next emergency response. For example, mail and email templates in place, thanking and conversion process agreed.

For more information on how to implement an effective emergency response plan please contact Jonathon Grapsas of Pareto Fundraising at jonathon.grapsas@paretofundraising.com, or Karl Holweger of Pell and Bales at karlholweger@aol.com

-Ends-

Posted in Benchmarking, News, Pareto Fundraising North America, Pareto Talk, Press Release | No Comments »

Leading Canadian charities come together in the spirit of sharing and best practice

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
Released 4 May 2010

Pareto Fundraising has released the results of their 2010 benchmarking study looking at trends in the Canadian charitable sector.

The latest analysis looks at data through to the end of December 2009 from the participating 14 Canadian charities including: Amnesty International Canada, BC Cancer Foundation, Canadian Diabetes Association, Canadian Red Cross (Western Canada), CARE Canada, The Children’s Wish Foundation Canada, cbm Canada, Canadian Feed The Children, David Suzuki Foundation, Médecins Sans Frontières Canada, The Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ontario Nature, the SickKids Foundation and WWF-Canada.

In the wake of the global financial crisis, the results were mixed as to how charities in Canada have fared. Whilst income overall fell in 2009, there were certainly some positive signs for the sector, again reinforcing that those organizations that have taken a long term view to growth have come through the financial downturn relatively unscathed and in a strong position heading into and beyond 2010.

Specifically, the latest analysis, which looked at historical data from 4.7m donors and more than $2.2b worth of gifts, found that:

  • Income from individuals fell in 2009, down 10% to $158m. The key driver of that was a drop in onetime cash gifts donated, which decreased $17m last year (this is due to a decline in the number of cash gifts – the average cash gift actually rose).
  • As reported in the previous round of analysis, monthly giving continues to provide a tremendous stream of ongoing income for charities. At the height of the recession, monthly giving grew 9% in 2009, now providing $48m annually for the 14 organizations involved in the cooperative. Based on the current growth trajectory, monthly giving looks set to overtake cash giving in the next year as the major source of individual funding for Canadian charities.
  • Income from planned gifts increased last year (8%) despite the average value of realized
    bequests falling from $35k to $32k (though it still remained well above the 2007 level of $27K). This represents a huge area of growth for Canadian organizations. Despite the fact that the number of bequests left each year is on the rise, these levels are still lagging behind other developed fundraising nations.
  • The level of income and number of new cash donors from direct mail fell in 2009 by 15% and 22% respectively. This decrease in income was despite the increase in average gift levels via direct mail overall (a bigger increase than in the previous year). This decline in income was offset partly by the shift in focus for many organizations to recruiting monthly donors. The fall in new donors being recruited is both a reflection of less prospecting activity being undertaken overall, as well as a fall in the number of new
    recruits coming on board.
  • Online giving continues to grow, an increase in income of 17% from 2008. However giving online remains a relatively small chunk of the pie, accounting for just 2% of all individual income versus more traditional means like direct mail which represents closer to 20%.

    • According to Rebecca Davies, Director of Fundraising at Médecins Sans Frontières, participation in the benchmarking study over the past two years has helped Médecins Sans Frontières make responsible choices about which areas to invest in, particularly during turbulent times.

    Davies says “The involvement in the benchmarking group has not only helped reassure us that the decisions we’ve made to invest heavily in monthly giving and bequests have strategically been the rights ones for us but the participation in discussions with other leading Canadian
    organizations has been invaluable. We really appreciate the candour and sharing of best practices in the group sessions, and getting some context to the data provided.”

    Ends

    For information on how you can be involved in Pareto Fundraisings Benchmarking Study please contact Jonathon Grapsas at 647-347-0157 or by email at jonathon.grapsas@paretofundraising.com.

Posted in Benchmarking, Data Insights, Pareto Fundraising North America, Press Release | No Comments »

To love or not to love

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

By Fiona Paterson

I love working on appeals, particularly the integrated campaigns we run. These appeals utilise digital and the phone alongside traditional direct mail. It gives me a chance to get absorbed by a great story, to remind myself why the charity we are helping exists. It also helps me connect with beneficiaries and remember that there are hundreds and thousands of wonderful Australians and New Zealanders out there who give their hard earned dollars to help others, even when their own financial situations may not be brilliant.

On the flip side sometimes I don’t love working on appeals. Because fundraisers are held to some pretty unrealistic expectations when it comes to their individual campaign outcomes.

For most the need to grow appeal income year-on-year is standard. But what happens when your audience is being asked to do more than just support your appeals? What happens when there is no acquisition to develop the base? What happens when market forces, like the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), threaten our audience’s capacity to give?

The context of an appeal

Christmas 2009 turned out to be a pretty tough one for lots of charities. At the start of 2010 I was in a ‘not loving appeal objectives’ frame of mind as more and more fundraisers began to ask me how had others Christmas appeals faired and set about trying to get a clear picture of the marketplace.

As a strategy director it’s hard for me to just look at individual appeals in isolation. I always want to know what the context is in which they are executed. Has there been much acquisition in the past year? Has the communications program/donor journey changed this year? Were new activities targeted at the audience preceding the appeal? Is a segmentation model used to target the activity? Has one been newly introduced? Was the messaging part of an ongoing, planned communication with donors? Was it an emergency message? And more…

But living in the real world means, as fundraisers, we mostly have to work to individual campaign targets.

I love, love, love, organisations that have the flexibility to look at their programs as whole – judging performance across the year, looking at combined returns across the gamut of activity being directed at the donor audience, but this is not the common practice.

So what happened with Christmas appeals to warm (previous) donors? I had a good dig around in the results of our clients, and spoke with a range of friends in other Charities.

What I found was that there was no one defining trend. A few organisations saw growth over their 2008 Christmas income; others found it harder and were seeing below or on par returns compared to 2008. On the whole however it appears that more appeals struggled than those that didn’t.

How did we do?

Increasing appeal income is not an unreasonable request. And for 2009 many organisations had this goal. In order to grow your appeal income you need to either increase average gift increase number of responses, increase your conversion of new donors to multi givers, increase your donor pool or a combination of these.

Most organisations maintained or grew their response rates. The contributing factors included:

  • (Better) targeting;
  • Focused efforts on high value/top 20 percent of donors;
  • Channel integration (eg using phone and/or email);
  • Utilising additional ‘waves’ of communication (follow up or chaser communications).

Many organisations saw average gifts plateau, and in some cases drop. The contributing factors here were:

  • Depressed high value giving. Just a few high value donors not giving or reducing their giving amounts can have a big impact;
  • Acquisition (in particular lower value cash recruitment). Recruiting more donors, at a lower value will see more lower value gifts, suppressing overall average gift; and
  • Anecdotally donors indicating they simply could not give at their previous levels.

For those not making specific asks to donors and/or using their individual, prior giving levels as the basis for your ask, depression of average gifts may have been even larger.

Across the year I have had feedback from major donor fundraisers that their usual suspects were indicating they were not able to give in 2009 or only able to give at a lower levels than in previous years. This has extended through to cash appeals with high value donors tending to maintain response (with a couple of exceptions) but give less.

Those organisations that focused their efforts on this group reaped the rewards. Strong business cases presented justifying higher value giving, follow up communications and person-to-person asking (via face-to-face and phone) and personalised touches helped to encourage this valued group of donors to continue their support.

Context is so important.

Did you change your program in 2009? Maybe you felt the GFC required a change in tack? Did you increase your focus on regular giving conversion? Maybe you had learnings and insights from 2008 that saw you adjust you communications mix or the way you asked your donors?

An organisation I work with changed their 2009 donor communication program. Through the introduction of new tactics in their Spring appeal they saw a significant increase in income from increased response and average gifts. They also introduced an additional communication before Christmas, the purpose of which was donor care and information gathering but unexpectedly generated significant income (lovely donors). And they have increased their active asking (via phone and mail) of cash donors to convert to regular giving throughout 2009.

When it came to their Christmas appeal, major growth in comparison to their appeal in 2008 the previous year was not generated. On the face of it their 2009 Christmas appeal was deemed unsuccessful. Viewed in isolation this is a reasonable conclusion. However on closer inspection we can see over the course of 2009 many of their donors had:

  • already given more than their previous annual value through increased average gifts and response rates in other appeals;
  • converted to regular giving cash gifts but the value and/or frequency of these gift can reduce)

Also to note was the volume and value of high value gifts had not matched those received in 2008.

Just taking a direct comparison between 2008 and 2009, their Christmas appeal doesn’t look impressive. Looking at 2008 versus 2009 as a whole we can see that growth has been impressive (even without expectations that the GFC had the potential to suppress growth).

In fact, just in the last quarter, nearly twice as many people gave as compared to 2008.

To summarise, what we did observe with the Christmas appeals 2009 were:

1. Response rates were maintained or increased;
2. Average gifts decreased or were static;
3. Fewer people gave over $1,000

Emerging Trends

There are some other emerging trends to watch out for; most are reflective of or are driving, changing donor giving behaviours.

  • More donors who used to only give through the post are now using our websites as a response channel
  • The increasing use of email to support direct mail appeals is helping to improving response
  • Below are three approaches showing encouraging returns:
    - Integrating email, supporting direct mail approaches & driving online to give
    - Using email drivers to reactivate lapsed donors
    - Using email drivers to convert tepid* supporters to cash donors
  • More opportunities/ways to give are being offered to our donors. Many organisations are increasing their approaches for regular giving conversion and upgrades, virtual gift campaigns are on the rise, and advocacy and campaigning approaches are increasing
  • Charities are asking more often

On this last point I often get asked “How many times should I ask my donors for a donation each year?” To quote Jeff Brooks “this is the wrong question – the question should be; How can we be relevant in the lives of our donors?” There is no magic formula. It critical to understand that for many donors it takes more than one ask to solicit a gift but they do not want to be treated like ATMs.

The importance of relevance.

If your Christmas campaign, or any campaign for that matter, did not at least match your 2008 returns (and you haven’t lost a whole pile of your active donor base in some freak database accident) then I recommend you consider the relevance of the communication you sent to your donors.

And consider the stage in the relationship journey each donor is with you. There are many questions you should be asking yourself including key ones such as:

  • Is this donor relatively new and do they know little about the topic?
  • Has this donor heard it all before?
  • How did they respond?
  • Would they be expecting you to communicate with them at this time, about this issues with this ask?

To paraphrase Jeff Brooks in his Future Fundraising blog: ‘You can’t just raise funds for anything you want. If you go to your donors with a need, topic or ask they don’t associate you with, they just might ignore you in droves. No matter how great your work is.’

Tips for keeping your appeals on track

  • Make sure your communications consider your audience and are relevant to them
  • Ensure you are presenting a clear need and solution
  • Connect donors to beneficiaries (not you, your brand or organisations)
  • Tell a story your audience can connect with
  • Plan your second gift conversion journey
  • Focus your efforts on the top 20 percent (its where your income is coming form)
  • Review your online donation real estate (Is it easy to find? Is it easy to fill in? Can it be adapted to reflect your appeal ask?)
  • Explore channel integration (Email, Phone) – if you have low email or phone number penetration make 2010 your year to actively collect these. (Analysis shows us that even the presence of an email address or phone number on a donor record increases their retention likelihood)
  • Segment and target – don’t mass mail

______________________________________________________________________________________________

* Tepid Supporter – non-financial supporters such as activists, campaigners, e-news sign ups and non-cash donors such as event participants, lottery players and merchandise buyers

Jeff Brooks writes the best blog in fundraising, and we look forward to seeing him at the F&P Australasian Fundraising conference later this year click here and subscribe to his excellent, short updates

About Fiona Paterson

Fiona is a Fundraising and Direct Marketing professional with over ten years experience helping to find, keep and grow donors through the expert management of strategic fundraising and database marketing programs. Enthusiastic and passionate about data, Fiona has a solid background delivering successful fundraising programs globally for clients including ChildFund Australia, Children’s Cancer Institute of Australia, MSF Hong Kong, Leprosy Mission New Zealand and WWF-Australia.

Posted in Benchmarking, Data Insights, Fundraising Appeals, News, Pareto Talk | No Comments »

Canadian Charities come together to look at latest trends in sector

Friday, November 6th, 2009
Released 5 November 2009

Pareto Fundraising has released the results of their 2009 mid-year benchmarking study looking at trends in the Canadian charitable sector.

The latest analysis looks at data through to the end of June 2009 from the participating 10 Canadian charities including: BC Cancer Foundation, Canadian Red Cross (Western Canada), CARE Canada, The Children’s Wish Foundation Canada, cbm Canada, Canadian Feed The Children, Médecins Sans Frontières Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, SickKids Foundation and WWF Canada.

Despite the global financial decline, the organizations included in the project are holding up well, and one of the key messages delivered overall was that those who have invested heavily in monthly giving in the past are the ones most likely to enter 2010 in the best shape.

Specifically, the latest analysis found that:

  • Overall income from the group was down in 2008 (just $1m), however individual income was up significantly on 2008
  • Monthly giving remains resilient, in fact continues to grow on all measures including total income generated. In 2008 the ten members generated over $35m from monthly donors
  • Cash recruitment overall has slowed the 1st half of 2009 after a strong 2008
  • Major gifts (gifts over $1k) have rebounded, in fact grown the first half of 2009 after a poor 2nd half of 2008

    • According to Moses Gabriel, Direct Response Manager at the BC Cancer Foundation, the insights uncovered from the latest round of analysis give his team greater confidence during difficult times, particularly about the acquisition landscape.

    Gabriel says “One of the key findings in the latest benchmarking analysis is that new donor acquisition in 2009 has slowed down somewhat in comparison to 2007 and 2008. Whether this is caused by the recent economic downturn, or other factors, it is tough to say for sure; however, it does highlight the ever growing need to build stronger relationships with donors. Our goal now is to find ways to recruit donors that are more likely to make a second or third gift or switch to monthly giving, by testing new acquisition materials and techniques.

    In previous years, the decision to change our approach would be based on a mix of internal data and really some ‘gut feeling’ based on past experiences of our staff. Today, however, we are able to pursue these strategies with a greater level of confidence knowing that it isn’t just our experience, but something that affects a large portion of the charitable sector.”

    The next round of 2009 reporting will take place in early 2010.

    Ends

    For information on how you can be involved in Pareto Fundraisings Benchmarking Study please contact Jonathon Grapsas at 647-347-0157 or by email at jonathon.grapsas@paretofundraising.com.

Posted in Benchmarking, Pareto Fundraising North America, Press Release | No Comments »

How looking around at others can raise you shed loads more money for your cause

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

By Jonathan Grapsas
This article was first published in Canadian Fundraiser Magazine and is part two of a four part series

I introduced last time the notion of arming yourself with three types of data (environmental, analytical and personal data) to make informed decisions to grow your fundraising programme.

The first I’m going to touch on in detail is the use of environmental data, in other words scanning what’s happening in the marketplace and how you can learn from others to raise more money.

There is a lot of environmental data out there to access.

You can look at annual reports from other charities to see how individual organizations are performing or look at information produced from bodies like Imagine Canada to see where money is coming from across the sector.

All free and publically available data, which is incredibly useful to get a sense of what is and isn’t working for different charities across the country.

Then there is benchmarking.

I’m sure that for many, the notion of benchmarking conjures up thoughts of meaningless, dull data and reams of paper full of graphs and charts.

And whilst there is some element of truth to this, I see benchmarking as one of the most powerful fundraising tools in our armory and anything but dull.

The way I look at it benchmarking is about looking at what others are doing and using this information to raise more money for the causes you work for.

Benchmarking studies come in various shapes and sizes. I’m going to focus on what I believe to be the most useful of those, data benchmarking (as opposed to benchmarking surveys that ask you a series of questions rather than look at your real data). In other words, charities looking at the actual data of theirs and other organizations with the intention of learning more about others in order to further their cause.

There are six key reasons why benchmarking is a must for any successful or ambitious fundraising organization.

1. It helps you identify industry trends

When charities share information and look at performance, both on a big picture scale and in minute detail, it arms fundraisers with information about what’s happening in the marketplace.

What’s working, what’s not. What’s driving growth.

This allows you to then make informed decisions about your own efforts, including reaffirming decisions you have made about areas to invest in. Or conversely giving you evidence that an area you have chosen not to bother with was indeed the right call to make.

2. Gives you a sense of your performance vs. the industry

How do you really know whether your fundraising is up to scratch or not? What on earth does 30% retention of cash donors actually mean? Are you sure that having only 0.2% of your file telling you they have left a bequest is low?

Questions we ask ourselves daily.

Benchmarking helps answers these and many other fundraising questions. It gives you a real sense of how you are doing.

The best way to do this is by looking at your data versus the data of other organizations. Of course there is always context. But where the names of the charities are shared and programs, size and budget are put in perspective, this gives fundraisers a true sense of how they are tracking.

3. You share knowledge

As Sara Campbell Mates from WWF Canada says‘… It opens up a dialogue between us as one organization and our colleagues at other organizations about how we can work together to do better and make the sector stronger. The experience in benchmarking has been priceless from that perspective.’

Sara is spot on.

Benchmarking forces fundraisers to talk to each other. Because let’s face it, when we go to conferences and attend workshops, we’re a polite bunch and we also tend to keep to ourselves.

But when you’re looking at Charity A whose retention rate on new monthly giving recruits in miles ahead of yours, you simply HAVE to talk to them. Find out how they’re doing it, what they’re doing differently, what they’ve tested.

This is debatably the most potent feature of any benchmarking project. Really clever people coming together to share not only data, but brilliant ideas. Can only result in great things happening.

4. Provides a better understanding of fundraising

If you’re not using street recruitment to recruit new donors, then how are you going to learn more about the channel? Of course you could talk to an agency; you may even talk to a colleague who did it once, back in 1998.

But what better way of digging deeper and getting the real lowdown on areas you’re not familiar with than to see firsthand organizations who are doing it? And doing it now.

Benchmarking programs, particularly those that are all encompassing and study each area of fundraising allow you to learn, and do so looking at real, live data and not textbooks.

5. Saves you money and helps you get MORE of it

The biggest barrier to measuring yourself is the cost of doing it. The second biggest barrier is a fear or reluctance to share.

Benchmarking is about value, not cost. If you commit to comparing yourselves with others, then you will not only recoup the upfront outlay, but the information it arms you with will allow you to make more informed and strategic decisions. And that can only mean one thing: more dollars raised.

6. Reduces complacency

Often overlooked as a reason to measure one’s self, yet incredibly important. Benchmarking makes us more accountable. And by accountable, I don’t mean justifying “how much of the donors dollar goes to the cause”.

I mean it makes you accountable. It reduces any possible complacency. It pushes you to become a better fundraiser. You sure won’t allow yourself to have the worst monthly giving attrition next year, nor will you allow Charity X (who frankly you find quite smug) to knock you off your bequest perch. Not a chance in hell.

About the writer

Jonathon Grapsas is the Regional Director for Pareto Fundraising in North America. This is the second in a series of articles where Jonathon will look in detail at how you can use different sources of data to help grow your fundraising program and raise shed loads more money for your cause.

Posted in Benchmarking, Canadian Fundraising and Philanthropy, Pareto Fundraising North America, Pareto Talk | No Comments »

Have donors reduced their giving?

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Fiona Paterson, Fundraising Strategy & Data Consultant from Pareto Fundraising takes a look at results from tax time appeals run in Australia looking for trends that can inform our understanding of the current marketplace.

Tax time is the biggest time for cash gift giving in Australia. It’s usually a time to celebrate our biggest appeal of the year. It is also the time of year I am most often asked ‘How are other charity’s appeals doing?’

This year, as a result of low consumer confidence and concern over the impact of the GFC on our donor’s decision making, many fundraisers felt increased anxiety as the end of June and the end of financial year approached.

With Tax appeals often contributing a large proportion of an organisations annual cash income and recent insights from the Pareto Fundraising Benchmarking cooperative showing us high value gifts (those in excess of $1,000) are given predominantly during May and June, we were keen to see what trends could be observed this Tax time.

This year at Pareto Fundraising we worked on, or supported, over 20 tax appeals. Strategies employed, channels utilised and lodge dates varied across charities. This week I have taken a look at preliminary results across our partners hoping to answer the question ‘How are we faring as a sector’?

So what did I see?

  • Around half of charities chose to set targets at or below 2008 actuals. The other half set their targets above 2008 actuals, aiming for growth.
  • Across the charities we collaborated with, income per thousand donors mailed has increased over 2008 levels for one third of the appeals and two thirds have decreased. Increases were between 6 per cent and 69 per cent and decreases were not as extreme, between -4 per cent and -24 percent^. This is reflected in the results of the Pareto Fundraising Benchmarking members, where 14 charities have participated in a comparison of appeal results and one third saw an increase (13 per cent to 233 per cent) in income per thousand over 2008 and two thirds were down (-1per cent to -38 per cent).
  • Response rates have varied widely. The impact of a change in targeting strategy (usually decreasing mailing volumes), a change in ask strategy (usually from soft to specific) and the maturity of the data file (in particular files where the cash giving base is not being refreshed with new donors) has seen many go up and some go down but no discernable trends, or difference from 2008.

Average gifts presented no clear trends either, from a -28 per cent decrease to an impressive top increase of 77 per cent. The majority of increases can be arbitrarily attributed to a change in ask strategy and many of the larger decreases are the result of a decline in the number of high value gifts (with a handful of lower value gifts or non-responses from this group of donors having a big impact on overall average gift compared to 2008. Overall, there were two distinct groups of donor bases with two distinctly different outcomes.

The two groups

Group One – predominantly cash donor bases, first tax appeal working in collaboration with Pareto Fundraising.

The experience with these appeals shows us that despite the GFC there is room in many donor bases to grow. Across the board these appeals have exceeded results from 2008, increasing income substantially, by an average of 104 per cent, over 2008 income (i.e. they doubled their tax income in 2009!).

This outcome was reflected across the benchmarking group as well where all predominantly cash based charities saw increases in their income over 2008.

Why?

The implementation of a combination of the following strategies has allowed these charities to maximise response rates, increase average gifts and minimise contact volumes.

  • Applying a segmentation model based on previous giving behaviours
  • Using this segmentation model to identify those most likely to respond to a cash ask at Tax time
  • Using individual, previous gift levels to make personalised ask s (as opposed to a one size fits all strategy)
  • Repeatedly asking donors directly for a cash gift (and nothing else)
  • Using a strong case study to represent the need and telling a clear story presenting the solution and how the donor can be part of this
  • Presenting an income target required to implement the presented solution and using a deadline to encourage prompt response
  • Employing a follow up approach to non-responders, asking again against the target
  • Focusing effort on the top 20 per cent of donors (with a variety of high touch, personalised approaches)

The next challenge for these organisations will be to ensure continued commitment from their cash donors – with regular giving conversion being explored by most as a reliable strategy for identifying more committed donors. Our experience has seen that strong cash response provides the best prospecting ground for regular giving conversion (i.e. active cash donors are your best regular giving prospects).

Group Two – programs focused on regular giving, donor base a mix of regular givers and (declining) cash donor volumes.

Many of our charity partners, and the benchmarking group, have focused their fundraising strategy on the recruitment and conversion of regular givers (as this is the number one growth funding stream in the marketplace today and is delivering substantially higher income than the majority of cash only giving programs).

The result of this strategy is a diverging base of committed regular givers and left over cash donors (people who have chosen not to convert to regular giving). The majority of regular giving recruitment strategies see limited new cash donor recruitment and the outcome of regular giving conversion strategies sees the most committed cash donors convert to a regular gift.

The outcome is that the most engaged cash donors convert to regular giving, more regular givers are recruited in addition and the cash only donor pool starts to dwindle through natural attrition and donor resistance to commit.

A good proportion of cash donors who convert to regular giving will continue making cash gifts when asked and regular givers recruited through direct mail, phone and online can be approached for cash gifts successfully^^.

The outcome this tax time has been stability, and in many cases, growth in the cash giving from these donors (regular givers with previous cash giving behaviours).

It is the cash only donors that present a concern. Response rates and/or average gifts are not hitting targets for many charities. Lower response or average gifts from middle and low value donors coupled with lower response or decreased gift value from high value donors has seen income from some charities dip below 2008 levels and for others simply maintain, due to improved performance from cash gifts given by their committed regular givers.

In all cases the strategies described above for Group One have been employed by these causes for several years, indicating the opportunities described for the first group have already been taken advantage of.

For charities in this group, those that saw growth over 2008 were able to maintain their cash pool giving (usually through the behaviour of new cash recruits) whilst maximising income from regular givers who also give cash.

If you aren’t acquiring new cash donors and are therefore reliant on a shrinking pool of cash donors you may well be feeling the effects of less committed giving from these donors this tax time. If you have increased the giving opportunities for donors this year it would be worth looking to see if your donor’s normal giving has simply been transferred to another method of giving. For example, have some given online at tax time when they normally give via direct mail because you sent email reminders or promoted online as a response channel?

Understanding the impact that regular giving conversion has on the makeup of your donor base is key to predicting future behaviour of your left over cash donors. If you have a regular giving program and aren’t asking your regular givers for cash, then^^^ considering this approach is an opportunity for growth.

Armed with these insights, my focus now is on ensuring future appeal targeting takes these observations into account, that strategies and income expectations for cash donor pools within regular giving focused strategies are refined, that strategies are reflective of the need for high value donors being given the most effort, and lastly helping those charities yet to venture in to regular giving, to get their programs going.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

^ I have used income per thousand donors mailed as a way to address the variation between volumes mailed between charities and I have compared against 2008 levels because each charity employs a different approach for setting targets.

^^I have seen limited success in asking face-to-face recruited regular givers for cash through the mail (though using a considered test approach can help you uncover those face-to-face recruits who may be responsive through the mail) but don’t discount the opportunity to test using other channels to approach for additional cash gifts. Proposition is key as is appropriateness of how, when and what you ask for.

^^^Asking regular givers for additional cash gifts will not impact on your attrition if handled appropriately. Using a long-term approach to developing a relationship with your regular givers, and respecting their regular gift as the most important way they support you is essential.

About Fiona Paterson

Fiona is a Fundraising and Direct Marketing professional with over ten years experience helping to find, keep and grow donors through the expert management of strategic fundraising and database marketing programs. Enthusiastic and passionate about data, Fiona has a solid background delivering successful fundraising programs globally for clients including ChildFund Australia, Children’s Cancer Institute of Australia, MSF Hong Kong, Leprosy Mission New Zealand and WWF-Australia.

Posted in Benchmarking, Data Insights, News, Pareto Talk | No Comments »

The most powerful fundraising tool in the world

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

By Sean Triner, Co-founder and Director, Pareto Fundraising and Pareto Phone

Understanding donors

The most important asset a fundraising organisation has is its database of supporters. But only if it is actually recording useful information.

Luckily, most organisations record main contact details plus transactions. In other words, you know where someone lives, hopefully you have their phone number and email address and you know how much they donated and when.

Basic analysis of this data can help you predict how likely people are to donate to you and how much. If communications that have been sent are also analysed you can even work out what donors are most likely to respond to, too.

This basic data is crucial for making a basic direct marketing program work. But to make charity direct marketing fly we need to build relationships, and we do that through respecting our donors and their wishes. And we do that by using the most powerful fundraising tool ever – the survey.

Achieving many goals

This multi-function device, used well, will also help corporate, major donors, events, donor retention and bequests. It can even be used for PR purposes, and it usually makes a profit on its own.

These are real surveys, getting really useful information, they are not scientific research and shouldn’t pretend to be. Even so, be honest with the donor – you want their opinion and to be able to communicate better with them, but you can also share their views with the public.

I have been using this tool for over a decade, at UK mental health charity, Mind, we used them for fundraising and PR. I use them better now, but even in them olden days we were driving better communications, PR and bequest leads. You can see an old press release with donors attitudes to mental health at the turn of the century here.

Short term benefits

Our tests have shown that, despite running a survey to get data including a direct ask does not suppress response. In other words, using the survey as an actual fundraising appeal subject works. You should aim to break even but what we have found is that when a survey is sent to donors who have responded to a previous appeal through the post, the survey actually makes a profit.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has been using surveys as an integral part of its donor communications strategy for some time now. Their first survey was mailed to over 25,000 donors and nearly one in four responded – half with a gift. They not only received a ton of useful information but made a $50K ‘profit’ as well.Information taken from the surveys is then reflected back to the donors in future communications. For example, if a donor is motivated and interested in climate change, but an appeal is about forests then the letter should be personalised to connect the donors concerns with the subject of the appeal

Medium term

Appeal results and retention can be improved by clever use of survey information, and their completed survey is The Perfect Aide Memoir to take with you with when meeting a major donor. It pretty much tells you what to ask for!

But most charities who use the survey wisely get medium term returns on their regular giving. For example, The Lost Dogs’ Home uses surveys to gather pet names. It has found that this is crucial for building relationships. They include personalisation in appeal letters mentioning the donors pet name:

adandoned-dogs-text

But they also use it in phone conversations with donors. When asking donors to increase their monthly gifts, known as ‘upgrade calls’ our caller asks after the health of the donor’s pet. The Pareto Phone team compared the upgrade success rate of donors we spoke with where we knew pet name against those where we had no pet name. The results are extraordinary:

bilbo

And the long term

Already surveys have proven their worth. You can see how using them for donor care, appeals and upgrades can work really well, and make them a useful part of the mix. But the biggest return comes from bequests. Specifically using surveys to generate bequest leads.

Because fundraisers don’t kill people, the best measure a bequest fundraiser has to monitor their performance is a count of people who have mentioned the charity in their Will. We call these ‘confirmed bequestors’.

By asking the right questions, we can identify these and also bequest ‘prospects’ – i.e. those most likely to become confirmed bequestors.

A well thought through approach ‘burying’ the bequest question in a survey obliterates any other method of bequest marketing I have ever seen. For example, Australian National Heart Foundation had seven full time equivalent bequest officers working traditional bequest marketing techniques for seven years to get around 1,500 confirmed bequests. A brilliant achievement and potentially worth $75m, so producing a huge return on investment.

But a year of surveys with follow up mail and phone acquired another 1,500. The charity now uses a combination of both techniques to drive more bequests.

And the surveys keep working. The Lost Dogs’ Home now has over seven percent of active financial supporters having put the charity in their Will (three percent of ALL donors). You would expect the number of bequest leads to decline each year (since you ‘caught’ them the previous year) and it does, but the survey still generates more leads and more money every year as illustrated in the below table.

warm-survey-results

A word of warning

Don’t rush out and do surveys without ensuring you can follow them up, record the results and actually use the data in communications with your donors.

It is not as easy as just writing a survey – a good survey needs a great cover letter, it asks questions that help you understand what motivates your donors (avoid questions like ‘how many times they like to be mailed?’), a bequest conversion pack and trained people to follow up leads. And remember, a bequest lead from a survey is only ‘hot’ for a few weeks with conversion success dropping off dramatically the longer you leave it.

About Sean Triner

Sean Triner is co-founder and director of the internation Pareto Groups of companies, one of Australia’s most dynamic fundraising and marketing agencies with offices in Australia, New Zealand, North America and Hong Kong. Never afraid to cause controversy, Sean is a popular presenter at some of the world’s best known conferences including IFC in Amsterdam, FIA, IWRM and DMAW.

Posted in Benchmarking, Data Insights, News, Pareto Talk, Supporter Relationship Management | No Comments »