News

Sweeping changes made to ‘Include a Charity’ initiative to benefit the sector

Include a Charity open to whole sector

Include a Charity is about undergo a strategic change in order to transform the landscape of bequest giving in Australia. Launched to the Australian public in 2006, Include a Charity (IAC) was originally funded by some of Australia’s leading charities, however this will now be opened up to the sector as a whole.

The new look IAC will be re-launched in November this year and will mirror that of the successful UK and Ireland model, whereby a large consortium of charities, of all sizes, help fund a social change campaign. This social change model has had great success having seen a 4% increase in the number of people leaving a gift in their Will.

In Australia, the number of people who leave a gift in their will to a charity is currently 8%. One of the goals of the new model is to double this number so that by 2020 the number of people leaving a bequest is 16%. This would equate to an additional $577m of income in today’s terms to the sector.

By being involved with IAC your organisation will be accessible to a whole new audience through a sizeable promotional budget that includes channels such as TV, Press, Solicitors and later Direct Mail activities.

There are not many initiatives that can deliver this kind of benefit to the sector and it can only happen by working together, making your support critical.

If you are interested in learning more please download a brochure here or contact Marcus Blease on 02 9479 7265 or email mblease@tscnsw.org.au

Your Perfect Donor Communications Plan

By Sean Triner. This article is Part one in a two part series


Part I: The Big Picture

Traditional Communications

In the olden days it was easy. A typical donor communications calendar may have seen you send out a quarterly newsletter, a special appeal at Christmas and another at another special time, for example Chinese New Year in Hong Kong and tax time in Australia.

Such letters were relatively easy to get out and your donors were treated as being of one particular type, so everyone could get the same letter. There were few fundraising trained professionals in the industry – most people had ended up in fundraising by accident, or because they wanted to change the world; not by training.

Phone calls to donors were rare – maybe in response to a complaint or for some other unplanned purpose.

A good communications plan should consider many factors including external data, different audiences, brand and tone, resources, and much more.

Pulling together a donor communications plan

Most donor communication plans are pretty simple and revolve around ‘What we did last year.’

More advanced plans may include the line ‘But a bit better.’

Simple is good, but this is too simple. Donor communications are key – if you rely on individual donations they are your lifeblood. What you did last year, is probably what you did the year before and so on. At what point did someone work out what should be done?

In an article, it is hard to suggest what a perfect donor communications plan should be with so many diverse organisations, with different resources and donors but I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest some key aspects for pulling together comms plans for all organisations.

1. Audience

Audience can be split into various groups by channel of acquisition i.e. was this donor recruited by mail, phone, face-to-face or online and type of support i.e. are they a classic donor, regular giver, bequest or events donor.

The modern charity has diverse donors.

The ‘traditional’ donor (female, 55+, middle class suburb etc) still dominates for most, but those who have sensibly invested in face-to-face street and door-to-door recruitment of regular givers have a whole new audience of 30-50 year olds to deal with. Clearly these two groups should not get all of the same communications, all of the time – but they do share enough in common to get some of the same communications some of the time.

The essence of the communications are the same though. Thank the donor, ask them to please help more or keep giving. And deliver stories demonstrating the impact their donation is having.

2. Content

This is not rocket science. We call our approach to fundraising communications ‘The Pareto Way’ which really is another way of saying ‘making sure that we do everything that has been developed, tested and written about by marketing and fundraising experts from David Ogilvy to Mal Warwick’. Of course, we have tested and developed some tweaks and tactics, but the basics still work.

It is amazing what I see arrive in my letterbox and what I observe online from charities. Statistics, facts, ‘we are the largest blah blah’, ‘we have been around since 1982…’, ‘Australia’s leading blah blah’ etc which all the experts say not to do. Every good training course or book will tell you this.

Each and all of your communications should be story driven. Stories are what all marketers use to sell a product be it soap poweder, a new car or an ipod. One advantage we charities have over soap powder is that we have a plethora of stories at hand.

Content should be driven by stories about beneficiaries and enhanced with, ahem, more stories. All the material in a direct mail pack or newsletter, additional pieces (lifts), your response coupon – even reply envelopes should follow a theme and revolve around stories.

3. Tactics.

The old fashioned tactics still tend to work better. For appeals, Johnson boxes (the leader text above the ‘Dear Sean’ bit) still tend to lift response. Letters that look like letters, stories with a beginning, a middle and an end – just like direct mail from years ago tend to work. For newsletters, websites and emails, features linking donor and beneficiary (not pictures of CEOs getting big cheques) is what works best.

The key formula for appeal success is a letter, from one individual to another individual in first person singular that tells a story and makes a clear proposition. For non-ask communications like surveys, the same applies.

I think one reason that first person singular (I not we) makes for better reading is that it implies an acceptance of responsibility. Taking the time to explain the reason for why a gift is needed and what impact it will have, helps establish respect – I don’t expect you to give me money because I say so; I am willing to take the time to explain. This could go some way to explaining why longer copy and more inserts tend to lift response rates (despite donor focus groups leaning more towards ’short and to the point’.

All the way through, I say ‘tend’. This is because it depends.

It depends on having a great, clear proposition, argument and case study. Sometimes these things are short, sometimes not. Sometimes they need lots of information, sometimes they do not. What is clear is that a good, personal communication linking donor and beneficiary always works better.

5. Media.

Whilst I have mostly spoken about mail examples, some rules apply across the board. Honesty, first person singular, one to one personal communication applies to email, phone and even face-to-face.

Deciding what media to use is important. It is easy to send only email appeals to donors recruited online, yet we see that emailing and mailing them will keep them closer, and get them giving more. Donors who generally respond to mail, should be emailed too. With phone recruited donors, we should generally also use mail and email.
Basically, all forms of communication should be used with careful testing working out the optimum expenditure.

The final aspects when looking at a donor communications plan are timing and the number of communications sent.

There are some things that are a given for example a Christmas appeal tends to work better towards the end of the year. But many things are not as straightforward. When do you send your survey? What emails should go out? When do we talk about bequests? And the big one, how many communications should we send? How many is too many?

Part two in this series will look specifically at these areas in greater depth.

ADMA Forum 2010

Sean Triner along with guest presenters Chris Washington-Sare of Greenpeace, Trudi Mitchell of Cancer Council NSW and Cameron Watson formerly of World Vision will present a pre-forum workshop titled ‘Fundraiser’s Guide to the Ideal Comms Plan: How to Make Direct Marketing Raise More’ at ADMA Forum 2010.
This exclusive workshop is all about pulling together a great communications strategy that takes into account your cause, your resources, your brand and your goals. Using real case studies and evidence Sean will show some counter-intuitive ideas, how to integrate new media, reduce time on newsletters and make donor communications ever more effective.
The workshop will also help you develop the right measures for a good communications plan so you can easily demonstrate your successes to the board.
Learning Outcomes Include:

  • Leave the session with a sketch of your revised communications plan
  • Understand budget and HR implications of your plan
  • Take away a communications checklist and examples of good communications

For more information about ADMA Forum 2010 visit www.admaforum.com/nfp

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

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-

Avoid common data pitfalls

By Tertia Sanderson and Fiona Paterson. This article was first published in Fundraising and Phianthropy

Love it or hate it, donor data is the fuel that keeps your charity running. Raw data can be mined and transformed to provide insights and make any supporter communication compelling and personally relevant. But many charities stumble into common data pitfalls that make targeting the best people harder.

Pitfall #1: throwing away donors

It’s unlikely you have too many active donors, and yet it’s possible you have ‘thrown away’ a proportion of donors who may have been active if you had better understood and managed your donor data.

  • RTS (Return to Sender) donors are often flagged in a database as ‘Inactive’ or ‘Do Not Mail’. They should be marked as RTS. Source their new address and actively pursue them through other channels such as email and phone.
  • A donor who rings to complain about a communication received should not be marked as “never speak to me again”. If they have taken the time to ring up they are showing they care about your charity. Use the opportunity to get feedback from the donor – find out what has upset them and what action they would like to be taken. Address this through appropriate coding such as: they are to receive only limited communications and appeals without direct asks; they are not to be contacted by telephone; or they are to be contacted through email only. Don’t just cease communication.
  • The regular giver whose gift doesn’t go through is often ‘thrown away’. Not many charities have a formal process for following up dishonoured gifts and re-engaging the donor. These donors have not actively cancelled and are your best regular giving prospects; make an effort to recover them.
  • A large number of discarded donors are those who are automatically flagged as ‘inactive’ or archived because they meet certain criteria, such as ‘has not made a transaction in 24 months’. These may not be your hottest cash appeal targets, but any donor who has a transaction needs to remain in your contactable pool because they are more valuable than a cold prospect.

Ask yourself:
How do we mark a donor whose mail is returned and do we try to recover them?
What do we do when a regular gift is dishonoured?
Are we too quick to mark our donors as non-contactable?

Pitfall #2: limiting basic contact data collection

Don’t assume that one contact channel is enough. Australia post says at least 17% of people move house every year. By limiting your data to a street address, one in six of your records becomes invalid every 12 months.

Broaden your communication channels to more than just direct mail. Ask for and capture mobile numbers and email addresses. Analysis shows a donor who has provided an email address and a mobile phone number is less likely to stop giving and more likely to be responsive to streams of communication other than direct mail.

  • Ask donors to check and update their contact details at every opportunity – when you mail them, when they call to make a donation. Engaged, committed donors will do it; they want to hear from you in the future.
  • Information such as source of gift and date of birth is incredibly valuable, but is seldom actively sought or captured. Date of birth can be used as a form of verification, to assist acquisition profiling and as a life stage indicator useful for prospecting bequests.
  • Knowing what inspired a donor to first give to your cause provides valuable insight and an opportunity to understand the longer-term value of your acquisition activities.

Ask yourself:
Do we actively seek and revalidate contact information from our donors?
Do we use this to inform our understanding of the donor and communications with them?
Do we use the National Change of Address service at least once a year (at least for active donors and return to senders)?

Pitfall#3: Contradictory Codes

One of the most common problems that crops up is the misuse of codes and flags in databases. Codes or flags are often developed as a reaction to something and the context in which this new coding is placed is not considered. How it affects current process, entry protocols and how the code will be used alongside other data can be easily overlooked.

  • You want your donors IN for as many communication opportunities as possible. A ‘Do Not Contact’ flag might be a quick fix, but consider if this can be filtered by channel or timing so that it’s not ‘Do Not Contact’ ever.
  • Ensure your codes don’t contradict each other. For example, a donor should not be marked ‘email only’ in one section and ‘mail four times a year’ in another.
  • Fundraisers fundraise and database managers usually don’t. Help your database manager (and supporter services team) understand what you need and why.

Ask yourself:
Do we have a clear data management strategy?
Does our database manager understand the core functionality of the database and what fundraisers are trying to achieve?

About the writers

Tertia Sanderson is a data analyst who joined Pareto Fundraising in 2008 to use her data skills to improve lives, rather than profit. She brings to Pareto her Bachelor degree in data management, a love and passion for all things data plus 15 years experience in database design and manipulation.

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.

To love or not to love

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.

Pareto Fundraising announces four fundraisers who are on their way to AFP’s Toronto Congress

Media Release 16 November 2009

At Pareto Fundraising we are passionate about ensuring that fundraisers have access to great training, enabling them to be the best fundraisers possible. This year we are delighted to be sending four brilliant fundraisers to AFP Toronto’s Fundraising Congress, individuals who would otherwise not have been able to attend this year’s event.

We received a large number of applications, and are delighted to award the four full passes (which cover the registration fee for the full three days of Congress) to:

Pam Bastedo, Meal Exchange
Aileen Doyle, JHR (Journalists for Human Rights)
Elaine Scrivener, Mark Preece Family House
Mary Warner, Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative

Each of these individuals shared with us what they were most excited about learning at Congress and how they would be able to use the knowledge and experience gained to further their organizations fundraising and make the world a better place.

Thank you to all who those who took the time to submit an application. And congratulations again to Pam, Aileen, Elaine and Mary.

We’re really looking forward to a great Congress. See you there.

Ends

A new creative face for Pareto Fundraising

Media Release 2 November 2009

Pareto Fundraising is pleased to announce the recent appointment of Rob James as Creative Director. As the creative face of the agency, Rob brings expertise in all areas of the creative process including TV, print, direct mail and design.

Starting his career working in the commercial sector, Rob has spent the past decade working with, and being committed to creating relevant, innovative and successful fundraising campaigns for both NGO’s and not-for-profits. As well as generating impressive results for his clients, his work has received wide industry recognition, including a MADC award and being named a New York Festival finalist, as well as receiving a number of Prime awards.

COO Jim Hungerford says “At Pareto Fundraising, we are incredibly successful and passionate about increasing the not-for-profit sector’s fundraising capacity. I’m very pleased to be able to say that Rob James shares this passion and commitment.

His flair for bringing digital and broadcast media into campaigns, and his ability to rapidly generate compelling fundraising programs that are integrated across channels, is complemented by his very clear focus on what really matters – raising more money for charities so that they can help more beneficiaries around the world.”

Rob most recently held the position Creative Director and Partner at fibreOgilvy whose clients include Red Cross, Diabetes Australia, Disability Services Australia and Yothu Yindi Foundation.

Rob adds “I feel very privileged to be asked to join Pareto Fundraising, a company driven by passion, integrity and expertise. I look forward to bringing my creative skills to develop effective, integrated fundraising campaigns that will generate greater income for charities we work with”

Rob honed his skills in advertising before focusing on fundraising, having worked with a variety of agencies ranging from boutique to large multi-national agencies. His experience gives him complete understanding of the energy and commitment needed to drive the creative process and achieve the overall objectives of each campaign.

For more information about the creative solutions Pareto Fundraising can offer to help your organisation achieve visit www.paretofundraising.com

Ends

For further information please contact Justine Mathieson at Justine.mathieson@paretofundraising.com or 02 8823 5800.

Ten tips for successful grant seeking

By James Huitson

Time for a voyage into the nerdy world of Foundation grant seeking and into a very unglamorous area of fundraising. Not for us the glitzy world of ball gowns and auctions or the cut and thrust of copy, design and creative.

However, Trusts and Foundations are an important part of the overall fundraising mix and your organisation should be working hard to get your maximum potential from them. And there is potential – where else in the fundraising universe do you find bodies whose main purpose is to give money away?

To a certain extent there is money for everyone – though as ever some causes will be more widely supported than others, but as someone who has raised money from Foundations for drug and alcohol abuse, young offenders and mental health I know it is possible to get cash for a cause however seemingly unpopular.

So, what are my top ten tips?

Well they are slightly undermined by a maxim I heard from a Canadian grant maker whose words were I fear very true. It is “when you know one foundation, you know one foundation”, they are filled with the same oddities and idiosyncrasies as anything else, but I do think there are some pointers that cover most eventualities. So here goes:

1. Research

This is number one for a very good reason. A scattergun approach to making applications won’t work – and worse it will annoy all the people you send unfundable applications to.

Don’t listen to anyone who says you have to get x number of applications out a week. It is about understanding who is most likely to fund you and using your resources accordingly.

Many foundations have clear guidelines and giving histories on their websites, other charities publish their supporters, many countries have specialised directories and even the tax office can help you work out what they are interested in. If your aim is to conserve the three legged Siberian whistling mole, then do not apply to a Foundation that only funds women’s health in Darwin.

2. Understand their finances

Depending on how nerdy you are, this is either fascinating or insomnia curing.

Find out how much money the Foundation have to give away and ask appropriately. If you can see that they have given 99 percent of their income for the last ten years to the same three charities, maybe you shouldn’t ask them straight out for $1 million bucks. Similarly, if they can give away $100,000 and you need that much, don’t ask them for $500.

3. Exit

Although a Foundation may support you for years, by and large they are wary of entering into an open ended commitment to you and will want to know what is going to happen to your work when their grant ends. You need to have some idea, either of how you shut it all down responsibly or where you will get replacement money from.

4. Answer all the questions

If you are lucky enough to be applying to a Foundation with an application form, then you know what it is they need to know.

They will have asked for a reason, answer all the questions and make sure you do them all with appropriate effort – no ducking the ones about finances, progress and exit for a super long section on why your work is important. Incidentally use applications forms for guidance on what Foundations are interested in to help you frame applications to those with no set guidelines.

5. Don’t lose money doing it

Foundations are often lovers of the special project and funding a specific piece of work of a set period of time is one of their favourites.

When you are preparing your budget, don’t forget to add in management costs, recruitment costs, the photocopier and such. The Foundation may well moan, however if you don’t cover the actual costs of operating a particular piece of work you will ultimately ruin your organisation.

6. Leave enough time

Unless you know them very well, or if you are riding on the tide of a tsunami style global catastrophe, you need to ask well in advance.

Foundation’s typically only make grant decisions four times a year – and often it is less. You should plan at least 6 months and ideally much longer in advance.

7. Understand your environment

What happens if you are the Australian Friend of the Three Legged Siberian Mole Foundation? You end up knowing a lot about them, all the organisations helping them, what they doing and what works.

Don’t forget that grant givers get loads of applications and the narrower their focus, the more likely these applications are for broadly the same things. You need to know what makes your charity stand out and what similar organisations are doing – and ideally how it all fits together.

8. Know what you are trying to achieve

If you are asking someone to invest a large amount – or to be honest even a small amount – of money with you, then you need to expect that they will want to know what you are trying to achieve, why you think your approach to achieving it will work and how you will measure your progress and outcomes.

9. Build Relationships

However much there is a fixed application process with forms, assessments and scoring systems, somewhere in the process there is a person – who may or may not like you.

Do your best to find out what interests them and their trustees.

Keep them updated on your work even when you are not after their money.

Be the person that helps them out and sends them interesting and relevant information not the person sending in the irrelevant application.

10. Report back

I have been told that a disturbingly high number of people who get grants never say thank you and that an even higher number ever provide the requested update and progress reports.

They have been exceedingly kind to you, so show some appreciation and keep them up to date with your progress – even if things have gone horribly wrong.

More pragmatically, you will probably want them to carry on supporting you which they are far more likely to do if they believe in your organisation’s credibility.

About the writer

James Huitson is Pareto Fundraising’s director for South East Asia. Pareto Fundraising have been working in Hong Kong for just over two years and have achieved remarkable results for its Hong Kong clients. Before joining Pareto Fundraising, James was UK charity Turning Point’s director of fundraising and developed and lead a fundraising team that raised considerable amounts of money from the UK central government, trusts, foundations, companies and the national lottery.

Call that a crisis? This is a crisis.

By Sean Triner

“Good luck in reaching your target. Having just given birth to a beautiful daughter who is happy and healthy, I thank my lucky stars all the time. Kindest and warmest thanks for all the work you do.” A donor responding to the Starlight Children’s Foundation crisis appeal.

Starlight, the Australian children’s charity which helps thousands of kids in hospitals around the country was in suffering from the negative impact of the economic downturn.

Attractive to families of kids in hospitals and a great brand for corporate sponsors to associate themselves with, Starlight’s event and corporate fundraising staff had helped grow the charity for 21 years.

But when the Australian economy began to wobble, these were the first fundraising ‘products’ to falter. At the same time, Starlight had stretched itself to try and reach more kids, more effectively – but something had to give.

“Over the past 10 years, Starlight has grown extraordinarily and much of our income growth has come from corporate support, community fundraising and events” Jill Weekes CEO explained “we have grown our services at the same rate as our income and these income streams were immediately impacted by the economic downturn. Whilst we had recognised for some time we would need to grow our ‘individual giving’ income, this downturn has meant the imbalance in our income streams needs to be addressed urgently and we have had to review our fundraising structure and strategy to achieve this as a key priority for the entire organisation.”

Starlight went into crisis aversion mode – if they were to survive, they had to cut costs and cut costs fast. And that meant people; people delivering services.

Because of sharp warning systems and a board and management willingness to act fast, Starlight will survive. And the lessons learned will help grow a fitter, healthier organisation better placed to deliver services in the next decade.

A few years ago, the management and board knew they had to diversify fundraising sources – they had seen the growth of other charities through individual fundraising. At first put off by the sheer cost of building individual fundraising, a series of tests by fundraiser Caroline Rowland proved the value of this area of investment.

But they were in a classic chicken and egg charity catch-22. To become a secure, solid charity with a more diversified, solid fundraising portfolio they would need to invest in individual fundraising, especially donor care and regular (monthly automatic) giving.

Head of Partnerships, Anne Johnston was keen to continue the development work. Along with the board and management, they decided to take the challenge head on with complete transparency.

To alleviate rumour, and show full respect to their beneficiaries, staff and donors they went public with their woes and put in place a plan to shift their fundraising along a gear or two; but they couldn’t avoid redundancies. A press and fundraising campaign was launched in April 2009.

It was at this point that they approached Pareto Fundraising – initially to look at long term donor development. But the press were responding really well to the story, and whilst their plight was high in the news they decided to take a gamble and change their usual approach immediately.

With about 40,000 people who had supported Starlight in the past few years, Pareto Fundraising advised that they go out with a direct appeal to them for help. An appeal was put together in record time to take advantage of the media. The approach was incredibly simple.

The CEO, Jill Weekes, agreed to bare all in public. A strong, honest, incredibly personal and direct letter was sent. In support of the letter were incredibly simple pieces all thrown together in Microsoft Word.

We pulled headlines from newspapers and stuck them on a piece of paper, photocopied it and had one piece. Another consisted of very simple overviews of four of the services affected by the cuts and finally, a copy of Jill’s statement about the cuts (which she had published on the web). An emergency reply envelope was also produced.

Targeting showed that two waves (i.e. mail twice) to fewer donors would probably make more money in the short term but the crisis was seen as an opportunity to reactivate lapsed donors and test out groups of supporters who wouldn’t ordinarily give to mail appeals. Even in the midst of a crisis, Starlight fundraiser Caroline had her eye on the long term.

However, the targeting identified 285 very high value donors who would get the special treatment. They got the appeal sent in an Express Post envelope – always a nice surprise for people, Express Post costs close to fifteen times as much as normal charity mail but we figured these people were worth it.

Starlight staff also committed to calling as many of them as they could with a highly personalised phone call, asking them about the appeal and reminding them to donate. Unfortunately illness and other reasons caused a delay on some of those calls but an impressive 75 donors had engaging conversations and all were supportive.

“While of course it’s difficult to get hold of people, those donors I spoke to were generally happy to hear from me as I first thanked them for being such wonderful supporters. Most donors I spoke to indicated they would make a donation.” noted Anne Johnston, Head of Partnerships.

The next few thousand received the mailing in a larger envelope and all the others in standard charity mail envelopes.

There were nowhere near enough email addresses for email to figure within the campaign strategy but we did put the appeal up online with prompts to it from the home page. More of a branding issue than a fundraiser. We felt that writing to people with such a strong campaign, and then not mentioning it on the homepage was disingenuous.

We also knew we were shooting from the hip – reacting fast to an opportunity without having put the strategy to bed. But after drafting the letter and reading it out loud we all knew whatever the medium and long term strategy, this was the right thing to do right now.

Through clever cash management and planning, Starlight managed to find more budget to mail a second wave too. That additional investment will help end the debate on net v return on investment (ROI) for Starlight. Whatever the ROI, the additional net income was what Starlight needed.

When the mailing went out, all were nervous. It went out really, really fast. There was no Johnson box (a bit of extra copy, like a teaser, above the salutation) and the use of bolding and underlining was minimal. We wanted it to look rushed, but still wanted it to perform. Which worked well, because it was rushed and we did want it to perform!

”There was a lot to do and too little time to do it all in – between pulling together the most relevant donor lists, finalising the letter and lift pieces – which had to be approved at board level due to the ‘bare it all’ approach, briefing everyone in the organisation and all our key supporters, it was a frantic time. But we knew this was absolutely the right thing to do and were so motivated by the chance to raise funds that would help save our services for seriously ill children and their families” Caroline Rowland, Starlight Relationship Fundraising Manager explained.

Pulling it together so quick also had implications for project management; the Starlight team were already stretched coping with the impact of the downturn to the organisation overall and Pareto Fundraising was at capacity with ‘booked in’ tax appeals for other charities. The team of strangers was pulled together with little notice and thrown together with no induction or time to get to know each other.

Everyone in the team was nervous. Pareto Fundraising had experience of crisis mailings – but never before with something so upfront and honest in a global financial crisis. Tests abroad had shown that mentioning the financial crisis could even harm appeal mailings.

For context, we had the element of last year’s tax appeal that was sent to warm donors. With limited acquisition since then, the number of ‘hot’ donors Starlight had available to mail was dwindling but we needed to do better. Last year the warm appeal raised $320,000 – a tax appeal record for Starlight. This time we wanted $500,000 – over 50% more, in the midst of a global financial crisis.

“For Starlight the Crisis Appeal was a turning point, the immediate team were convinced we needed to do this and that the result would change our fundraising structure forever. We were delighted to be working with Pareto Fundraising and their confidence inspired ours – but it was a risk, we had to convince the board, the internal management team and our core supporters. We were relative newcomers to the arena of personalised direct marketing and had no illusions about this; would we get the response rates and income we hoped for? We didn’t know, but we knew we had to try”. Anne Johnston, Head of Partnerships comments.

As soon as wave I landed a flood gate opened. Thousands of dollars rolled in, and the first week had everyone smiling and optimistic. But quickly it dropped off to normal levels. The deadline for donations was 25 May, about two weeks after mailing, and by deadline we had broken all records; but income was $370,000 – still short of target.

Not bad, but not that exciting neither – and not enough to begin to bankroll Starlight’s investment in a more secure future.

But bizarrely, the weekly income just didn’t drop off.

In fact, it kept coming in so long I delayed this article.

To date Starlight has raised $650,776. That is 105% more than last year. The first wave alone raised $515,000.

Of the 285 top donors, 20% (58) donated an average of nearly $2,000. With 3,800 people donating (nearly 10% online) Starlight managed to begin a warchest for future fundraising, reactivate hundreds of donors and engage with nearly 75 major donors. Most donors gave more than they ever had before.

The strategy is now in place, and the major donors will be approached one on one to say thank you, and further engage with face to face major donor asks. Other donors are being approached to become regular givers – we telephone, thank and ask for ongoing monthly gifts from bank accounts and credit cards.

“We kept the whole organisation and our board informed of progress throughout the appeal, when we hit the $500,000 target it was just the most amazing vote of confidence for everyone – people working in a charity care about the work they do emotionally as well as professionally – so you can imagine the difference this extraordinary success made to our team’s morale – now we could focus on how we rebuild for the future.” Anne Johnston explains.

A sterling team effort from fundraisers, board and management at Starlight made all of this possible. I have seem so many project ideas like this come a cropper because of individuals’ pride or fear that donors will somehow blame them. In this instance, from Chair and CEO downwards, their courage was rewarded out with a swelling of the cash that is allowing Starlight to invest in the kind of fundraising that will make another crisis so much more unlikely.

All well and good, but having read this far, you want to see the letter don’t you?

Click here where you can read and download wave I full pack and the wave II letter.

The twelve pages / elements of wave I are where the hard work was done, but of course we can improve on it. But check out the wave II letter as well – a great tip for producing an incredibly cheap and effective follow on. The wave II letter was accompanied by the same materials as wave I except we didn’t send the newspaper cuttings again.

Classic, direct mail still rocks in the twenty-first century.

“I sincerely hope this heart warming foundation can continue to shine light into the dark and frightening world inhabited by ill children. I am happy to do what I can.” A donor responding to the Starlight crisis appeal.

Starlight Crisis Appeal Team

Caroline Rowland, Relationship Fundraising Manager – individual giving project manager at Starlight
Sarah Young, Collateral and Website Marketing Manager – web marketing and project assistant at Starlight
Naomi Byers, Account Manager – project manager (wave I) at Pareto
Justine Mathieson, PA to director at Pareto Fundraising – crash course in old fashioned cut and paste (with scissors and glue) graphic designer
Sharon Tillman, Account Manager – project manager (wave II) at Pareto
Andy Tidy, Senior Data Analyst – data guru at Pareto Fundraising
Anne Johnston, Head of Partnerships – bore the responsibility for budget, signoff and the whole gamble at Starlight
Fiona Paterson, senior consultant – Pareto Fundraising consultant, peer support for strategy and proposals
Ian Kennedy, the father of Australian Direct Marketing – Starlight Board Member champion who encouraged us all to ‘just go for it’
Sean Triner, Director – strategy and copywriter

About the writer

Sean Triner is co-founder and director of the international 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. He also regularily contributes to fundraising publications globally.

Have donors reduced their giving?

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.