News

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.

The most powerful fundraising tool in the world

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.

Forum promises unique insight to raise more funds

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

Jeremy Bradshaw and his team have done brilliantly in pulling together some great speakers at this winter’s forum in Sydney.

We at Pareto Fundraising have really got a lot of out of attending the forum over the last few years. Yes, it is great for networking but the sessions have always been engaging and had a direct effect on our thoughts – and this year is certain to be great too.

Jeremy is not paying us to promote this event – I am writing to you simply because if you are a fundraiser in Australia, you really ought to be attending. Why do I say this? Well – it is all about the people. Register Now. (more…)

Sean Triner was a guest on ABC radio’s Australia Talks

On 21st May, 2009 Pareto Fundraising co-founder Sean Triner was a guest on ABC radio’s Australia Talks discussion about charities and the recession. Listen to Sean and Dr Wendy Scaife from the QUT Centre for Non-Profit studies,  as they discuss what’s really happening in the sector.

To listen click here.

Pareto Fundraising and Amnesty International fly the flag for Australian Not-for-Profits at international awards

Pareto Fundraising would like to congratulate Amnesty international Australia for their fifth placement in the International Direct Marketing Association’s ECHO Awards.  In the awards ceremony hosted by Jay Leno in Las Vegas on October 15th, Amnesty International’s Bring Home David Hick’s Campaign was announced as the only Australian campaign to reach the finals of the not-for-profit category.

“Amnesty were courageous to embark on such a creative project and the enthusiasm with which people responded illustrates how well the idea captured the public’s attention.” said Dan Geaves, Group Account Director, Pareto Fundraising.

(more…)