queer ideas

The truth about giving compiled from 250 million lines of data

The More Partnership has just published a great (free) booklet that illustrates some important truths about giving. 

The facts you'll find inside are based on analysing the supporter files of 33 British universities. That's a load of data. In just one year, it adds up to 161,000 donors, 1.1 million gifts, 3.8 million solicitations and £68 million worth of philanthropy.

Importantly, for fundraisers who aren't in the academic sector, many of the patterns they identify directly relate to giving behaviour we see amongst donors to traditional charities - particularly with reference to acquisition and retention. 

We all know the importance of loyalty, but this publication points out what it can be worth.

Take a look at these selections and you'll see just how important higher value, long-term donors are in terms of overall income. I should point out that the term 'regular giving' has a much broader meaning in academic fundraising that covers both repeated cash gifts and direct debits.

We see these same patterns in traditional charity files. When managed well, donor generosity builds over time. The more a donor connects with a charity and the more they enjoy the relationship, the more they are likely to give – as long as they are asked for appropriate amounts.

As individuals, we all go through distinct life stages. First we acquire the material necessities of modern life – a house, furniture, a car and the general stuff that we all accumulate. Then we maintain and sustain what we own - upgrading (or downgrading) as we see necessary. Finally we reach a point, where our children are educated, mortgages are paid and we have enough for our lifestyle. It's at this point that many donors (particularly the wealthier ones) start thinking about spiritual matters such as philanthropy and how they want to be remembered. It's at this point that they first start to give significant sums to charities. 

The key problem with this pattern is that if you don't demonstrate that you value donors when they are younger and have less money, they are unlikely to give larger gifts as they age and become more affluent. 

The great thing about universities, is they have always focused on longer-term relationships which lead to large gifts. 41% of all million pound gifts given in 2014 went to universities. 

So if you want to see what can be achieved by programmes that focus on engagement, download the PDF and compare More's figures to your own.

How soon does the sorry window close?

When a friend or colleague is bereaved, it can be hard to know what to do or say.

The struggle to find the right words can even end up in avoidance; all because you don't want to upset them through saying the wrong thing.

The fact is, grieving people need to be allowed to be upset. They need to be allowed to come to terms with the death of someone they love. They need to be able to remember them in the way that helps the most.

And as a friend, one of the very worst things you can do, is to do nothing at all.

And what works on a personal level, also works for fundraising. Let me illustrate what I mean with a story about what happened to me when I made my first in-memoriam gift to charity.

When my mother died, instead of flowers, I asked for donations to be given to a major UK charity in her memory. After her funeral I sent the charity a four figure sum accompanied by a letter where I explained that I would be more than happy to give an additional gift after I had finished the administration of her estate.

In response, I received a very simple thank you that served to demonstrate that no one had actually read my letter. I never heard another word from them.

I have always wondered why. I couldn't have made it clearer that I would give again. I've sent them the odd gift over the years but It hasn't really made much difference. They don't seem to value me or my mother very much at all. As a result, they are at the bottom of my list, even though I still care about their work.

But there was an upside. This bad experience sparked an interest in in-memoriam giving.

To my mind, the more emotionally engaged in-memoriam donors can be some of the best donors that you'll ever have. They start with a connection to your cause, they have actively searched you out and, when treated well, have a lifetime value that significantly outweighs most other donors.

I couldn't understand why every charity wouldn't invest heavily in them and give them special treatment. So to find out if my experience was a one-off, back in 2012, Bluefrog undertook a mystery shopping exercise where we sent in-memoriam gifts to 67 household name charities. The results were eye-opening....

• Six charities didn't do anything other than bank the cheque.
• Three dropped us into the standard appeal cycle without saying thank you.
• Twenty Nine (44%) sent just a single communication (usually a basic thank you).
• Just four organisations were responsible for 25% of all communications received from all 67 over the following ten months.

It astonished me that my experience seemed to be normal.

So I contacted a few fundraisers to see why this potentially very valuable group of donors simply weren't being acknowledged.

I found that many fundraisers felt uncertain about what they should do after receiving an in-memoriam gift and erred on the side of caution. They didn't want to upset a bereaved relative with further requests for cash.

My own experience made me think that this approach might be a mistake so we spoke to a group of recent in-memoriam donors about how they felt about being asked for additional support.

You might be surprised to hear that every single one of the 130 people we interviewed said that they would be happy to be asked again. 

What concerned them was the timescale. As this chart shows, a few recommended asking six months after the initial gift. A third thought a year would be best with a small number stretching this period to two years.

Most donors, however, couldn't suggest a fixed period. For them, it wasn't when you asked but why.

A communication was acceptable if it was relevant to them or the person they had lost. That's half the reason why so many people suggested waiting a year. They thought just after the anniversary of the death was a meaningful time to get back in touch. Others mentioned birthdays, anniversaries or even Christmas.

Memorial services were also important. Those that had attended a charity service spoke very highly of them. 

So how can we be sure when is the right time to get in contact again? The answer was actually suggested by many donors. 

We should ask them when they might be happy for the charity to get back in touch. This can actually be undertaken within the thank you process. Ideally on the telephone, but also as part of any written communication.

Without exception, all donors said that the in-memoriam gift was important to them. Because of this, they all felt comfortable talking about additional support when the time was right. 

We don't need to guess when the time is right. We simply allow the donors tell us.

The 'sorry window' varies for everyone. And, as Larry David found out, the implications for getting this wrong can be painful...

 You can find out what happened next here.

Why don't all donors care about impact?

A new report on donor attitudes has just been published by Ipsos Mori. Undertaken on behalf of New Philanthropy Capital, the survey looks at issues of trust, general levels of satisfaction, thoughts on CEO salaries and the importance of impact.

It was this final area that caught my eye. As part of the survey, they asked "How much attention, if any, do you pay to evidence that the organisation is having an impact when you give to charity?".

I was surprised to read that only 9% of the respondents said they paid extremely close attention to impact whereas 50% didn't seem to care that much about how charities use their donations at all.

So maybe we should put less effort into feeding back and use the money elsewhere?

I think that would be a mistake. In my experience, when you show donors how their donation makes a difference, levels of income, loyalty and satisfaction all go shooting up. Supporters also regularly mention feedback as being valued in research. So why does this study suggest so few of them care about what their donations will achieve?

If we look at the data tables, it gives us a few clues.

Interest in impact increases with affluence – from 38% of people in socio-economic groups D and E to 56% amongst ABs. It also increases with age – from just 41% for those aged 18-34 growing to 55% for people aged 55 and over.

It appears that if you are rich in both time and money you are more likely to care about impact.

And that's the point. I'd suggest that what we are seeing here is a distinction between those donors who give small, ad hoc gifts and those who give larger, considered ones.

One wealthy donor summed up this phenomenon quite neatly in a Bluefrog research study a few years back when they compared the difference between giving a 'tit bit' gift and a substantial one...

“I would rather give to a sort of project where you can see the path instead of tit bit amounts, like when they buy a Christmas dinner or a vaccine. I do them all, it’s fine, I know it’s irrational but in my mind I prefer to do one big one, because then I can think about it if I want to."

It's an important point to remember. Small gifts of £2 or £3 don't matter that much simply because the amount is so small. As a result, feedback isn't seen to be that important. But when it comes to larger gifts, the reverse is true. That's when you'd like to know that you made the right decision when you decided to give.

Which raises an interesting question. Just 9% of the population undertakes two-thirds of charitable activity in the UK. How are we going to increase the size of this charitable core, if the vast majority of donors who give smaller sums have no real interest in finding out more about the work of the charities that they support?

There are three types of supporter

CAF have just released a new report that segments the UK population according to their attitude to charity. They have identified three key groups – The Civic Core, The Middle Ground and Zero Givers.

The Civic Core, volunteer the most, donate most goods to shops, campaign the most, are most likely to help out in their community, run charity events and undertake local fundraising activities.

They comprise just 9% of the UK population but account for 66% of the country's charitable activity.

But importantly, they don't necessarily donate the most money.

That accolade goes to the Middle Ground. 83% of this group (which makes up over two-thirds of the UK population) give donations to charity, in comparison to 82% of the Civic Core and just 2% amongst the appropriately named, Zero givers.

This is a very important point. Though we may have a super committed core that undertake the lion's share of the UK's charity activity, we have a much larger group who are happy to hand over the cash and let others get on with it.

Middle Ground donors obviously care. But they aren't necessarily engaged enough to make the time to do more. There are many reasons for this, but sadly the CAF report doesn't focus on them or suggest what we might do to change their behaviour.

In my experience, this Middle Ground genuinely want to see how their giving has made a difference, but they are most likely to be bored and turned off by communications that simply talk about what the charity is doing. The lack of personal relevance fails to engage them.

As a result they carry on giving almost in spite of what charities do or say.

Three quick tips for changing attitudes amongst the middle ground would be to…

• Beef up your thank you programme. Put real effort into making sure a donor feels valued.
• Rather than hitting them with a stream of disparate appeals, take a focus on two or three projects where donors can see real change happen over time. This is a far more effective approach than sending out communications aimed at demonstrating just how much work you do or how many people you help.
• Supplement your appeals with a secondary non-financial request related to work a donor has already funded. Ask them to campaign or undertake an activity in support of a project they have an emotional and financial link to.

The full report, Britain's Civic Core can be downloaded here (PDF)

Give donors what they value and they will reward you

A new study aimed at improving our understanding of donor motivation and behaviour has just been published by New Philanthropy Capital.

The report, Money for Good UK, looks at both mainstream and high-income (£150k+ household income) donors. It's a hefty 90 pages long, so whilst I recommend putting a few hours aside for an in-depth read, here are a few of the most important points.

First off, a chart that shows what donors value the most – explanations of how donations are used and evidence of impact.

I don't need to point out that there are loads of similar studies that report the same findings. What's particularly interesting here, is that they ask donors to rate the sector's performance.

As you'll see (on page 53), little more than half of the mainstream donors surveyed think charities perform particularly well in demonstrating impact or explaining how gifts are used. Worryingly the number drops to less than 45% amongst high-income donors.

But the reserachers didn't stop there. Unlike other studies, they dug a little deeper.

They went on to ask what would happen if charities did a better job in these areas and found that the outcome would be rather substantial...

And after some serious number crunching, NPC have also been able to quantify the impact of giving donors what they want...

• If charities did a better job in the areas donors care about, it could lead to donations INCREASING by £665 million.
• Donors would be likely to SWITCH their giving (to the tune of £1.7 billion) to charities that put the effort into showing them how their gifts made a difference.

It might sound obvious, but what does this mean?

Quite simply, a focus on demonstrating how donations are used will not only raise more funds from your current donors, it will reduce attrition and improve recruitment as you attract new donors who currently give to other charities.

Of course, we can't discount the impact of cause and emotion from the reasons why people give. As NPC's Chief Executive, Dan Corry, says in the report...

"A picture of a child in need trumps a whole lot of analysis, whatever impact geeks might hope."

But no matter the organisation or the work they do, this report demonstrates that many donors question whether their gifts actually make a difference.

And that is something we should be rather keen on addressing. Because at the end of the day, that is a fundamental reason why anyone gives.

By focusing on this key donor need we will not only raise more funds, but also bring our supporters closer to the work that lies at the heart of what we do.

If you want people to read your appeals, remember this...

There's a very common eye condition known as presbyopia that affects about 30% of the population. But it's far more common amongst donors to charity.

That's because most charity donors are well over 40 – the age where the lenses in your eyes start to change. They become less flexible and, as a result, it becomes progressively more difficult to read at close range or in low light conditions.

It's a fact that's important to take into account when designing your appeals. Body copy that's not solid black, that's printed over a tint or reversed out can be particularly difficult for older people to read.

Poor choice of font can make things even worse. Sans-serif fonts, for example, have been proven to reduce comprehension and recall.

And with improvement in screen definition, we are seeing calls for online usability guidelines to be changed to reflect the fact that serif fonts are now as legible online as sans-serif.

To help younger designers to understand the impact of ageing on readability, I'd recommend they look at their work with xScope. It's a simple app that the designers at Bluefrog use to appreciate how people with Presbyopia and other common eye conditions will see the communications that we produce. I've taken a couple of screen grabs of a popular web site to show the impact mild presbyopia has on the reading experience.

First, how someone with normal vision would see it...

 

Now, how it would appear to someone with mild presbyopia...

It doesn't look so crisp any more, but the good design means it is still legible. But the fact is, that as someone gets older, that copy is going to get far harder to read and start looking uglier.

And that's the point. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. But what's beautiful changes over time.

It's summed up rather neatly by this photograph. Show it to someone in their sixties and they'll see Marilyn Monroe, whereas any young person will see the slightly less attractive Albert Einstein. It's a useful tool for anyone working on communications aimed at older people. Hopefully it should help them understand a little more about their target market.

If you can't see Marilyn Monroe, take a few steps away from the screen and she should appear.

Why donors don't want to hear from you

A report has just been published that adds to the growing body of evidence that shows many charities are still getting something wrong when it comes to donor communications.

The study, commissioned by the REaD Group, asked 1,500 UK adults about their attitudes to charity communications.

They found that most people – that's 55% of respondents – don't want charities to communicate with them at all.

Shocked? Well, it gets worse.

Thirty per cent of respondents stated that they would rather not hear from the organisations that they give to.

When it comes to the factors that influence this attitude, it soon becomes obvious that it's all rather personal...

• 47% of UK adults would stop supporting a charity that sent them badly targeted direct mail (up 18% compared to 2010).
• 20% of respondents would stop giving to charities that used an obsolete or out of date name and address (up 5% on 2010).
• 53% said they would stop supporting a charity if they were seen to be wasting money on needlessly frequent communications (up 8% on 2010).
• People in the 65+ age bracket were the most likely to stop giving as a result of charities using incorrect personal details.
• When it came to regular donors, most people (63%) who received a mailing with incorrect personal details would notify the charity and ask them to amend their record. Frighteningly, 18% said they would be less likely to donate again with 5% saying they would stop their support.

And it doesn't stop there. When the researchers looked at what donors actually want from charities, the personal theme continued – they are looking for innovation and efficiency in their communications along with feedback on how charities actually use "my money".

And that, for me, sums up the issue.

The only communications that donors don't want are those that are boring, self-centred and irrelevant to their needs.

It's a point that charity supporters forcefully made during a study into why donors lapse, undertaken by Bluefrog in 2009 and summed up quite neatly with one, simple quote...

"You keep saying this thing lapsed. Lapsed from what? I never felt I was giving anything up."

Inappropriate and unwanted communications are actively pushing donors away.

People really do value charities. You only have to look at research undertaken in 2010 for the Charity Commission, to appreciate the central role they have in our lives. The study found that 96% of people saw them as having an essential or important role in society.

But as we are seeing – and as we've seen before – something is going wrong. We just aren't building relationships.

Getting your data right is never going to hurt donor loyalty (and it will save you a fortune), but this study is another stark reminder that rather than telling donors what we want to say, we need to start focusing on the questions they want answered.

What can you do to make your ad go viral?

One thing that the Kony 2012 phenomenon has created is a renewed interest in viral advertising amongst charities.

Seth Godin and Jeff Brooks have some words of advice on your chances of achieving the same sort of impact as Invisible Children, but if you are still interested in giving it a go, some recently released research might be of a little help.

It's based on eye-tracking studies used to determine what people are actually looking at when they watch an online video along with facial expression analysis that helps reveal what they are feeling.

The research team, led by Thales Teixeira, used the techniques to isolate what elements of an ad encourage engagement or cause people to stop watching. 

As a result, they have identified the five big problems that the aspiring viral marketer faces along with some possible solutions…

Prominent branding puts off viewers

Viewers seem to focus on mouths, eyes and logos. But the more prominent the logo, the more likely viewers are to stop watching - even if they like the brand. Why? People seem to have an unconscious aversion to being persuaded, so when they see a logo they resist.

The solution is to copy Coke and weave the logo unobtrusively throughout. A tactic that can increase viewership by up to 20%.

People get bored immediately

Keeping people viewing depends on generating two emotions – joy and surprise. It's important to deliver them early. This Apple parody uses Mr. Bean rather well in this respect.

Don't use old school advertising techniques that escalate towards a dramatic climax or a surprise ending because people simply don't wait around that long for the pay off.

People stop watching as soon as they get bored

Viewers are more likely to keep watching a video ad if they experience emotional ups and downs. It's a little like walking in to a warm house on a cold day. We get an immediate buzz of pleasure that soon wears off. The researchers recommend that advertisers need to briefly terminate viewers' feelings of joy or surprise and then quickly restore them, creating an emotional roller coaster.  Check out Bud Light's Swear Jar ad as an example of this technique in action.

People like an ad but won't share it

People know they are going to be judged by what they pass on to others. They may be happy to watch something a little risque, but they will probably think twice about passing it on to their friends – particularly if they are worried that it might get them in to trouble at work. Clothing Drive, also by Bud Light, is an example of an ad that gained a fair number of views, but was not widely shared.

So surprise, but don't shock.

People still won't share an ad.

Only a few people will share an ad, so target those people who like to pass things on to their friends. And the people who are most likely to share are those who want to demonstrate something about themselves – that they are connected and media-savvy.

In short, sharing is a way to show off.

If you'd like more detail on the study you can see an interview with Thales here.

And to close, I thought I'd feature one of my favourite virals of all time. It's over twelve minutes long but rather good. See how long it takes you to work out what product it's promoting.

Five things we learned at the IFC

Following a very enjoyable few days at the International Fundraising Congress in Amsterdam, I've put together my key take aways from the event.

1. There's loads more to data than just numbers.

Chuck Longfield, Blackbaud's chief scientist, has a job where he can crunch millions of numbers from a huge range of charities. If a question pops into his head, it doesn't take him long to find the answer.

In his session, Chuck shared some of his findings which included the following juicy nuggets…

• If someone calls you to change their address they are TEN times more likely to leave you a legacy (or upgrade, or set up a regular gift or anything else you might ask them to do).
• Donors who tend to give uncommon amounts (e.g. £32) are much easier to upgrade than those who give common amounts (e.g. £25).
• Donors get hooked on giving amounts. After 4 years they are 80% more likely to stick to their preferred amount rather than increase their gift (rising to 90% after 5 years).
• Calling a donor to thank them (whether you speak to them or just leave a message on the answer phone) can increase their next year's gift value by up to 40%.
• Misspelling someone's last name can decrease gift size by up to 12%.

2. Old school communications are the best for building deep engagement

AJ Leon is Chief Maker of Trouble (that's a real job title) at Misfit Inc. in New York. AJ told a story of how he helped raise $72,000 for a total cost of $250. He included a few key insights too...

• Stories have to have conflict. If Frodo had just skipped into Mordor and tossed the ring into the volcano, no one would have cared.
• The tools of fundraising are changing, but the principles of engagement are the same.
• People don't automatically trust big brands any longer - including charity brands.
• Never let your organisation get in the way of a good story.
• When launching a campaign always ask which bloggers you can link up with.
• Social media has made donating even more annoying.
• Management boards kill great ideas.
• Things are moving so fast that spending time writing a ten year strategy is worthless.

You can see AJ's presentation here. And you might like to read Paul de Gregorio's thoughts on it here.

3. The recession is here to stay

Tony Elischer (amongst others) pointed out that the recession is going to be sticking around for a long-time yet but that was no reason to accept poor results. He highlighted the fact that over 60% of donors only give once, describing it, quite rightly, as shameful...

"That's not the fault of people who are giving. That's our fault. We're still not getting that second gift."

He showed how organisations like Christian Aid have bucked the trend by fundamentally changing their fundraising offer, recruiting donors by focusing on work that donors want to support and allowing them to give in the way that works for them.

4. Rubbish in = rubbish out

Direct Mail is working. Digital is working. Mobile is working. The trouble is they don't work if the underlying idea, content and offer is rubbish.

5. Everything on the internet is just speeded up direct marketing

Beate Sorum of the Norwegian Cancer Society put together a great presentation that tackled one of the ongoing myths of the fundraising world – that digital fundraising is magic. It isn't.

What was particularly interesting about Beate's presentation was the distinction she made between communicating online and through a press ad or DM pack. The difference is one of size. And that's the problem...

"On the internet we can put up any crap...so we forget to prioritise, we forget to ask and we forget to rigidly monitor and analyse".

Her advice was that we should re-learn our direct marketing and remember to test what we ask for, how often we ask and who we ask.

Or in other words, we need to give donors an opportunity to do something they want about something they care about.

You can see Beate's presentation here.

If you think stewarding donors is expensive, try ignoring their needs instead

Rapidata has released their August direct debit cancelation figures and they don't look particularly good.

At 4.58% they are the highest seen for August since the monitoring of regular giving trends started back in 2003.

In a worrying commentary, Rapidata's Managing Director, Scott Gray, says he expects to see cancellations exceed 5% in September. But he also offers some sensible advice on how to tackle this rather frightening downturn...

"If you are stalling a stewardship programme or have communications, appeals or campaigns on hold, it's time to act."

I have to agree. When we look at this data alongside appeal results, we see that the recession which the individual giving sector has avoided for so long seems to have finally arrived.

Throwing up our hands in horror is obviously an option, but I'd suggest that there are better ways to tackle the effects of the economic slide. Here are three ideas that have worked for me:

1. Drop your 'luxury' communications. By that I mean those communications which might please charity staff, but do nothing for donors. Self-congratulatory, navel-gazing newsletters that focus on policy issues and getting over the 'brand' message would be first on my list.

Instead, use your newsletters to show donors what you have done with their money and reinforce the reasons why you continue to need their support. At the very minimum re-think your headlines. Try and turn each into a mini-appeal. You can read more about this approach here.

2. Re-double your efforts to find great stories. There is only so much that even the greatest writer can do with a few paragraphs describing the broad nature of a programme supported with two or three weak quotes. Instead invite your creative partners to visit your programmes and meet beneficiaries.

When I visit projects, I always try to find time to ask the staff I meet three questions. The answers have delivered a number of fantastic fundraising packs.

If a donor gave you £5, how would you use it?

If a donor gave you £500, how would you use it?

If a donor couldn't volunteer or afford a gift but wanted to do something, what would you ask them to do?

3. Ask donors for what they can afford. Look at your data and identify donors who have given you a large gift within the last three or four years. In your next appeal, remind them of just how generous they were and how important the gift was (if you can, tell them how you used it) and ask them if they can match it.

I'd also review your uplift strategy. Instead of asking donors to increase their gift by 10% or 20%, try asking those who aren't responding for 10% or 20% less.

The greatest problem we face as fundraising becomes harder is fear. Cutting back is easy, but pointless. Instead, look at every single communication you send to your donors (or potential donors) and ask how it strengthens your relationship with them. Give real consideration to removing anything that doesn't bring donors closer by answering their needs.

Not only will that ensure you optimise your fundraising efforts whilst times are tough, but it will leave you very well placed when finances start to improve.