queer ideas

It's always the right time for mobile

Mobile seems to be gaining momentum as the 'next big thing' in fundraising.

It's strange, considering just how long charities have been using the medium. I'm not sure if this is the first example of text fundraising, but Bluefrog created this ad way back in 2002 for Shelter (building on the popularity surrounding Big Brother).

It worked. And we've continued to use text as a recruitment vehicle (primarily for press and TV advertsing) either for small gifts or to give people a chance to raise their hand and show interest in a cause.

It didn't take a genius to identify that it was the follow-up that was important. Because you have a telephone number, you're able to call the donor and convert a significant number of them to regular giving.

But with today's smart phones we can do a little more than that. 

This presentation from Just Giving shows a massive increase in the number of people visiting justgiving.com from mobile devices. They've seen a growth rate of nearly 82% in 2011 (and that's just up until April).

They have also identified a pattern of mobile use that we've seen on a number of Bluefrog's specialist donor engagement charity sites. They call it snacktime browsing.
 
Snacktime browsing happens whenever people have a few minutes to go online on their mobile phone. As this JustGiving chart demonstrates, visits from a mobile device are much less prone to the peaks and troughs you tend to see when people visit from a desktop machine.

This is happening at a time when we are seeing huge growth in the number of people using their mobile phone to give through traditional texting. The UK's Haiti moment occured with Comic Relief 2011, when over £15 million was raised through 4.3 million text donations.

nfpSynergy's recent report on charity use of mobiles, Sending out an SMS (PDF), shows the impact this campaign had on text based giving...

The fact is, the mobile phone allows us to get an interactive donation form in the hand of the donor within seconds of them seeing or hearing our appeal. And that's what makes it so special. We know that the desire to give to a cause can quickly fade. The mobile phone gives people the chance to give exactly when they are most emotionally engaged. And, as we know, donors tend to reward convenience.

It's still new technology, so it's not surprising that mobile giving seems to be most attractive for those aged under 35. But, this isn't a bad group from which to recruit regular givers.

But whether we are talking to younger or older donors, offering easy access isn't enough, we have to make sure donors find the use of mobiles satisfying too – otherwise we'll soon find the growth that we are currently seeing will flatline and stall.

nfpSynergy have some advice for us on that point...

"In the early days of the web, charities had a tendency not to know how to include the Internet in their paper-based campaigns. So they didn’t, or they added a web address and hoped for the best.

The new wave of mobile pioneers needs to learn from this and make sure that their campaigns integrate the mobile in as a key part of their communications portfolio.

A TV ad can encourage people to send a text which in turns sends them a web link with which they can visit a campaign microsite. Mobiles and text can act as the links between different parts of the campaign."

If you need any help on putting together a paper on why your charity might consider investing in mobile fundraising, the nfpSynergy study contains a number of case studies that you might find useful.

For a US view, take a look at Ready. Set. Go Mobile for information on mobile fundraising in America.

You'll find more case studies and information at the Association for Interactive Media and Entertainment. And even more at MobileActive (US based).

For up to date statistics on mobile use in the UK, Ofcom is not a bad place to visit.

The nine ways donors filter your appeals

A few years ago my uncle set up a direct debit to an animal protection charity. He has repeatedly been upgraded and now gives them £60 a month.

He doesn't want to be upgraded any more. He values the work of the charity so has resorted to throwing all their communications unread into the recycling bin.

It seems the charity in question has used standard RFV segmentation and concluded he likes being upgraded. Their guess – no matter how educated it may be – is wrong.

His actions are not unusual. In research we hear donors tell us time after time that they don't feel valued or appreciated by the charities they support.

They, like my uncle, see the relationship as a one way flow of financial resources. As a result they develop their own methods of avoiding giving. In addition to the throwing everything in the bin technique, I've heard donors say they use...

• The hat technique. All appeals are saved up and put aside. Once a month they are drawn out one by one until a pre-set budget is exhausted.
• The first come first served technique. As above but this time it's down to the appeals that hit the doormat first each month.
• The rotation technique. One in n appeals will result in a gift. For example, every third appeal will receive a cheque. The rest go in the rubbish.
• The seasonal technique. As you might expect, this classifies charities according to season. Shleter gets a Christmas gift, WSPA gets a spring one and Care International gets a summer one. No matter how often you ask, you won't get any more.
• The boredom technique. Only the most entertaining appeals receive a gift.
• The topical technique. If it's in the news, a donation will be given, otherwise it's a no.
• The blame technique. If there is something a donor doesn't like such as the use of non-recyclable glassine windows in envelopes or the inclusion of a pen or stickers, the appeal gets rejected.
• The thanks technique. If a thank you has been received to their most recent gift, another donation will be considered.

These methods of managing giving (and others like them) are surprisingly common. What is most striking about their use is that a charity can't really control whether the technique will be implemented against them or not.

The only route to tackle and avoid them is to actively engage your donors. Write to them about what they want to hear – not what the latest manifestation of your brand guidelines demands – and give them choice in how they support you.

At Bluefrog, we recommend that charities offer committed givers the chance to opt out of receiving cash appeals. In their place we offer real feedback – letters, emails and videos from people who are being helped or actually doing the work that donors care about. The result is that donors significantly increase their direct debits and end up giving far more than we'd ever receive from the occasional cheque in response to cash appeals. And feedback shows that they feel closer to the charity too.

If you are still on the look out for a resolution for 2010, I'd recommend dropping the guesswork and asking your donors if they are happy with the way you communicate with them, offering them creative and attractive alternatives to the standard appeal cycle. It always pays dividends.

Happy New Year!

The recession is hitting home for some donors – but not all of them

Back in November, a number of the key indicators were showing that the main impact of the economic downturn would be on donor recruitment.

As a result, Bluefrog commissioned a survey that specifically asked people about their attitudes to giving to charities that they didn't currently support.

An analysis of the findings can be seen here, but in short, we discovered that 37% of donors said they were less likely to give to a new charity.

We promised that we'd repeat the survey and last week we asked almost 2,000 people about their thoughts on this aspect of their giving behaviour.

So what did we uncover?

The simple answer is that the number of donors who are less likely to give to a new charity now stands at just 31%.

That might sound like good news, but when we look at the whole sample (donors and non-donors) we find that the number of people who are not giving to charity has grown from 26% to 31%.

Doubt has been replaced by certainty in many people's minds. And the result is that the economic situation seems to be polarising attitudes to giving – though some people have decided to stop donating, there is very good growth in the number of donors reverting to their traditional giving patterns and a small, but significant number, still intend to give more.

Digging a little deeper, we can see how different age groups and social classes are responding to the downturn:

Younger people seem to be most pessimistic about their economic position

• 43% of people in the 25 - 34 age group now don't give to a charity (up from 33%). 

• 34% of people in the 25 - 34 age group will give at pre-recession levels (down from 38%).

 Older people are continuing to give

• Both the 55-64 and the 65+ groups contain just 19% of people who are not currently giving.

Women are more generous

• There was an 8% fall in the number of women less likely to give support (down to 23%).

• 7% of women are likely to give more (compared to 4% for men).

Though the number of wealthier people not giving increased by 25%, those keeping their giving constant held firm at 51%

• The number of AB's not giving to charity rose from 15% to 20%. 

But what does this mean in practice?

When I look at results for a whole range of organisations that Bluefrog is working with – from Barnardos to SPANA and from Shelter to VSO – income and response rates have been outstanding.

Recruitment has sometimes been tough, particularly that of younger donors (where increasing early attrition is a major problem), but well constructed and targeted appeals that value and engage the donor are working well.

The results of this, and a whole range of other research exercises can't be ignored. The economic impact is hitting home for some – but we must remember – it is only some. Huge nembers are still giving.

My advice, based on reviewing over six months of recession busting activity is to:

• Concentrate on being positive in appeals. People will give to good work

• Don't be frightened of mentioning the recession if it has a direct impact on your work (e.g. the impact of falling exchange rates on overseas development)

• Treat the donor as an individual. If you make them feel special, they are likely to return the favour – hand writing, stamped envelopes and real photographs will beat over-designed work

• Concentrate on what the donor can do - avoid whittering on about policy issues. These might be important to you – they aren't to most donors.

• Look at your data – regularly! If people aren't responding to your appeals, call them up and offer them a break or sign them up to a direct debit (restricted for the length of the downturn).

• Take advantage of cheap media and production and recruit new supporters. There are some fantastic bargains available. And people who give at this time are going to be very good long-term prospects.

• Develop engagement materials – not simple newsletters or leaflets – for recruitment aimed at younger people (e.g. face to face techniques).

I'm not sure if we will repeat this piece of research. If there is major movement in the economy we will, but the results that are most important for us to look at are those that are in response to our appeals.

The survey of 1,994 people was undertaken by Ipsos Mori. Fieldwork took place between 17 and 23 April 2009.

The trouble with The Guardian

Polly Toynbee in The Guardian on Saturday painted a grim picture of the current state of philanthropy.

Read her article and you could be forgiven for pulling the duvet over your head and hibernating until spring 2010. 

There's Tom Hunter changing his mind about giving away a billion, 52% of people expecting to cut back on giving and the expectation that the best part of £2.3 billion will be wiped off the bottom line of charity income in 2009. One in three charities are laying off staff, corporate giving is being cut back and finally there's the cancellation of a British Red Cross gala ball. 

It sounds hideous. 

But we are then reminded that charitable giving is dwarfed by government expenditure. Charities are pictured as charming and perhaps a little quaint. They are great for the odd good idea but no match for the leviathan which is central government. And we are warned from thinking that charity could ever replace the welfare state.

It's true. Charity Trends 2007 reports that voluntary donations to the top 500 fundraising charities equated to 2.6% of government expenditure (in comparable sectors). The amount varied from 28% for international down to 0.2% for education. 

But is that any reason to present such an awful view of the impact of the downturn on people's attitudes to giving? When you look at the facts, the picture is very different.

Mark Astarita from The British Red Cross is still forecasting modest growth in income next year. It was the lack of a corporate sponsor that meant the winter ball couldn't go ahead.

Tom Hunter still intends to give away £1 billion, but the current financial situation has just extended his timeline. As he says:

“I believed it then and I guess it’s still my dream. I was always very clear it was in my lifetime and my life isn’t over – I’ve still got another 40 years left in me.”

And we need to remember that a massive part of the impact on the sector's bottom line will be from a decline in the value of house prices and shares. This means there will be a fall in legacies and investment income. It doesn't mean solicitors throughout the land will be inundated with pensioners demanding that charities be struck from their wills.  It's just the economic situation means bequests are now worth less.

I've also recently blogged on some fairly large pieces of research that show the numbers thinking of cutting back on giving are going to be much lower than the 52% cited in the article.

Rapp's recent research on directs debit showed that:

• 8% were considering canceling a direct debit.
  
• 11% were considering reducing the amount they gave via direct debit.
  
• 12% had cancelled one or more direct debits.
  

St Mungo's research in November found that 9% were thinking of or had actually cut back.

Our research at Bluefrog showed that the biggest impact was going to be on people's attitude to supporting new charities. And now with Christmas behind us, we can see what is actually happening to warm appeals – donors are still giving. 

An IOF / CAF poll of 35 charities found that over half of Christmas appeals raised as much, or more than in 2007. Nearly one third said their appeals raised more than last year. Five charities say they have received tens of thousands of pounds more than the previous year. One third of charities surveyed said they received less funds but many charities are still counting donations. 

Corporates might be cutting back, the economy might be playing havoc with share portfolios and property prices but individuals aren't letting us down – gifts aren't drying up. And perhaps the best place to see what is happening is where the credit crunch started – in the housing sector. Shelter has seen a massive increase in demand for its services over the last few months. But as Alan Gosschalk, Shelter's Head of Fundraising says:

"We really depend on more than 100,000 supporters who donate via monthly direct debits and they have continued to be very generous. In addition, our Christmas appeal mailing has hit its target, which is great news."

The Guardian is the sector's in-house newspaper. It's where we find our jobs, read news and get views, opinions and predictions to help us plan for the future. In this instance, I think it's let us down.

Donors have needs too

There's a polyhedron that is almost as important to fundraisers as the pyramids were to the ancient Egyptians. You'll see it time and time again in books on fundraising and projected on giant screens at conferences. It was proposed by Abraham Maslow in 1943 in his paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, and is known as Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

At a simple level, it states that we approach problems of life in order. We need basics such as food and water, then somewhere safe to live, then friends, then a means to show everyone else how great we are and finally, when we have all those sorted we look at self-actualisation – which is a wide ranging term that means a whole host of wonderful things such as the appreciation of beauty, the understanding of truth and desire for order. Some people disagree with the linear nature of the model but, by and large, I think it's pointing us in the right direction.

But what does this mean for us in the fundraising world? How does an understanding of needs help us raise money?

To help answer this, let's move away from the world of fundraising into the world of fizzy brown liquids. Let's talk about Coke. 

A few years ago, in the face of a number of problems, the Coca-Cola company overhauled its drinks portfolio around a number of need states. Rather than focussing on channel specific marketing or aiming at simple geo-demographics, consumption or life stage groups, they looked at what needs consumers had for drinks (other than simply being thirsty) and came up with a list that included: refreshment, relaxation, hydration, energy boost, weight management and heart health (they have created a piece of research called the Consumer Beverage Landscape built on data derived from more than half a million "consumption events" by 80,000 people in 40 countries). 

There are only so many ways that you can package or present a drink, but the use of need states was seen to revitalise the complete portfolio. In a speech given by Chairman and CEO,  E. Neville Isdell in June 2006, he said:

"When people want to know why I'm optimistic about the future of The Coca-Cola Company, the need state map is why: because the opportunity is so enormous."

And the results seem to have been pretty spectacular. The Q3 2008 earnings transcript shows some pretty good numbers – earnings / share up by 17%, unit case volume up by 5%, revenue growth up by 9% and operating income up by 17%. All achieved in very difficult market conditions.

This has been achieved through an acceptance that after 120 years of selling more drinks than any other company, Coke didn't understand the full universe of consumers need states. Innovation followed and new products, packaging and markets has driven growth in sales with Coca Cola Zero (a diet coke not called Diet Coke) growing by 30% in Q3 alone.

So what's this got to do with raising money?

Well, donors have needs too. 

And perhaps we, in the charity sector, are a little like Coca Cola was a few years ago and are not really taking need states into account. But what would thinking about our donors in terms of their needs do for us?

Most importantly it would change the focus of our communications. It might be painful to hear, but most donors want to know what their gift can do (and has done) rather than read about what a charity does. it's a very subtle difference, but a massively important one. 

Far too many charities focus on themselves.

Communications are about their work, their projects, their actions. Take a look at any charity web site and you are almost guaranteed to see what we do in a navigation bar well before what you can do. There are few that are like Shelter which takes a donor centric approach.

Look at your own website and ask yourself where does it place your donors? Does it make them feel like they are valued and an important part of your charity? Does it empower them or place them in the role of a bit player?

People give because they have a need to help. They don't give because they want a specific charity to do the work. By focussing on answering this need rather than just presenting a problem, we generate more money. I've seen it in results time after time.

But the need to help is just one need state that we have to address. In research, Bluefrog has found a number of needs that donors have. Some that are specific to causes, but most that are specific to them as people who give – they need a route for growth, they need to combat feelings of helplessness and they need to be engaged (maybe that word should actually be entertained). 

In terms of potency, needs are far more powerful than values in generating loyalty and maximising income. 

Why not look at your own donors and ask yourself what needs they have and try placing them at the centre of your next brief (or appeal, if you write them yourself). If you do it successfully, I think you will be pleased with the outcome. 

I'd be more than happy to chat through your thoughts with you and share some of our findings if it would help. Just drop me a line at [email protected] or click the link just under my photograph.

Metering donations

I thought the donation meter might have been an Onion spoof when I first saw it. Particularly when it was somebody called John W. Hickenlooper talking about it. But they are real. Hickenlooper is Denver’s mayor and he introduced them to help raise money for projects aimed at helping the city’s homeless people.

 

The converted parking meters are placed near shopping malls and outside stores in areas where homeless people might be found asking for spare change. They are a giving option for people who want to help but might be worried how coins dropped into a paper cup could be used. All money collected goes directly to provide services such as counselling for people who abuse drugs and alcohol, through to medical help and job training. It’s all part of Denver’s campaign to end homelessness, Denver’s Road Home.

Does it work? Well, each meter raises about $55 a month. The original 36 meters were sponsored at $1,000 each so it generated about $38,000 in the first 30 days. But it seems it might have been more valuable as a symbol to focus people’s attention on the issue of homelessness. A local supermarket chain, King Soopers, got involved and gave over $45,000 and other local business have introduced inexpensive plastic meters, which are raising up to $200 a time.

It’s not a new idea. The converted parking meters were first introduced in Baltimore and now they are popping up in other US cities too, with Atlanta being the latest city to get involved.

The approach behind the programme is different from those we might see in the UK from organisations such as Shelter, Centrepoint or The YMCA. Hickenlooper talks about his homelessness programme in terms of the cost benefit the city will receive. It’s about how much money that can be saved through the project as much as it is about the people who need help.

It’s an interesting method which might have it’s roots in Hickenlooper’s background as an entrepreneur whose business interests helped redevelop the city’s downtown area. We often assume that the approach we use is always the best one. Maybe Hickenlooper is tapping in to his own understanding of donor needs here and generating both publicity and income as a result.