queer ideas

Who sends your emails?

Along with Damian O'Broin of the rather good Irish fundraising agency, Ask Direct, I presented some findings taken from a massive international mystery shopping exercise (270 charities in six countries) at IOF London yesterday.

I'm going to post the full presentation online, but I thought it might be worth highlighting one or two specific findings in the meantime.

The first is the weird set of entities that send a thank you email in response to an online gift.

You'll see from the screen grab just some of the fun descriptions that people use. My own particular favourite is Internet. It's like being thanked for giving to a DM appeal by the Royal Mail.

To my mind it isn't really a great way to start a relationship and it looks like organisations like the Irish Heart Foundation, Barnardo's, UNICEF and Amnesty agree.

It might take a little effort and you might even have to change the people who process your payments, but I think it might be worth turning off the default receipt system and creating your own one instead. Particularly if it results in happier donors.

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.

Where next for mobile giving?

Following from last week's post on mobile giving in the UK, I thought it might be useful to share this rather good presentation from US digital agency, space150 on broader trends in mobile use.

Mobile Trends - June 2011 - Trending The Future

View more presentations from space150

You'll see that they identify three behavioural trends of the mobile experience:

• Convenience
• Context
• Fun

Convenience is the obvious one for fundraisers. Providing supporters with an easy way to donate and receive updates on work they are funding seems like a sensible option.

But when you consider that mobile companies are looking at how they can replace our wallets and keys with NFC technology (Near Field Communications) you begin to appreciate that offering a mobile giving option could soon become something of a necessity.

The impact of context on mobile giving needs a little more consideration. It has more obvious use in the commercial world, where we are seeing rapid growth in the use of customised search and location services (such as foursquare).

But it's not necessarily so clear what this offers charities.

Orange has recently released their Do Some Good micro-volunteering app which provides opportunities to do nice things for charities whenever someone has five minutes spare time.

Hopefully the attraction of free concert tickets might encourage a greater level of participation than was seen with the original micro-volunteering app, The Extraordinaries. The team behind this idea soon re-focussed their efforts on the desk-top environment through Sparked, simply because it offered a more effective volunteering platform.

Or perhaps we need to look some of the award winning ideas coming out of places like Kingston University for inspiration...

Re:write – a mobile app that adds extra functionality to newspaper apps, giving people the opportunity to act on current events as they read about them.

Donate at the Gate – which offers NFC users (that's Oyster cards to you and me) the chance to donate to charity by going through a specific gate at a train station.

These concepts show that there are most certainly different and effective ways to fundraise that place context at the centre of the donor experience. We just need to come up with ideas that donors will find attractive.

I'd be particularly tempted by a special charity gate at Old Street tube when there are huge queues of people waiting to get in or out of the station.

Which leaves us with fun.

That doesn't take much explanation but when it comes to older donors, there's one piece of old-fashioned technology that can get in the way of making the mobile phone a fun way to interact with a charity. And unfortunately it's one I have to struggle with...

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.

If you don't build what donors want, they aren't going to come

Blackbaud have just released their 2011 Internet and Multi-channel Giving Benchmarking Report.

Based on data from 28 US nonprofit organisations, It takes a long-term look (5 years) on how donors move between online and traditional direct marketing programmes.

It's a US study, but many of the findings can be broadly applied to the situation in the UK.

The report is packed full of interesting stats and graphs that make it worthy of detailed study. It can be downloaded here. But just in case time is tight at the moment, here are my particular highlights...

• Direct mail is still king.
• More donors are being recruited via online routes.
• Online donors tend to be younger, richer and more generous than those acquired through the mail.
• But they also demonstrate lower levels of loyalty.
• Robust DM programmes drive up the retention and long-term value of new donors acquired online.
• Online donors also tend to give less once they move offline.

The report also shows that though online donors are happy to give through the mail, there is not much traffic moving the other way. DM donors like to stick with their mailing packs. I rather like this chart showing movement of online donors since 2007 (you'll find the corresponding one for mail recruits in the report) ...

I have no doubt this is true, but I'd question whether this is a rigid characteristic of offline donors or a simple reflection of the current situation?

Most charities have pretty advanced direct mail programmes and it's relatively cheap and easy to put online donors in a direct mail communications stream and be pleased with the results. Whereas many of those same charities are still finding their feet when it comes to online fundraising - particularly with warm donors. The report sums up the situation rather neatly...

"The Internet is a successful acquisition channel but it has not proven to be an effective one for retention."

In the UK, the major utilities are persuading ever increasing numbers of customers to engage with them online. In 2010, almost 2 million payments to British Gas and 40% of their customer contacts happened via the web.

So why can't charities achieve the same results?

I think they can. But we need to look at the medium in a different way. If you analyse what happens online when a mailing goes out, you'll find an increase in hits and donations. Call me crazy, but I think there's some sort of correlation here (you can read more about this on this previous post).

The trouble is, most websites aren't built to be fundraising vehicles. Instead the homepage can end up being a battleground where departments fight to get 'their' message out – ideally above the fold.

So when a donor gets a mailing pack and thinks it might be easier to give online, a visit to the charity's website can leave them rather confused. In the worst case they may even end up questioning what the charity actually wants - particularly if they are confronted with a campaigning action or policy statement instead of something that supports the appeal. 

And there's little point giving a donor the address of a specific landing page in your mailing pack. Track your statistics and you'll find few actually type in www.insertcharitynamehere.org/christmasappeal. Instead they do what they normally do and find your home page via Google. 

We shouldn't really be surprised about this. If we look at the other multi-purpose communication device used by charities – the newsletter – we find that these aren't very responsive either. But when we repurpose them with a specific goal such as raising funds, they do very well.

It's the same when we build a site with the goal of retaining and upgrading donors rather than just hoping our current website will do the job for us. We find – as if by magic – we retain and upgrade our donors. 

The techniques required to do this aren't rocket science. They are the same rules that we use to create effective direct mail programmes, the most important of which are...

• Show the donor what they have done.
• Make the experience personal.
• Demonstrate need.
• Offer incentives for actions.

For me, this report offers a challenge. It shows that where we fail to engage donors, we also fail to raise funds. If we are to tackle this situation (and improve the retention rates of all supporters) we need to look again at our websites and ask ourselves if they give donors what they want?

Because when it comes to fundraising, this report firmly suggests that they aren't. 

Protect the donor

We all know the old adage, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves, but it should probably be extended to supporters too. Because if we take care of our donors, we won't need to worry about income targets.

That might sound brave or foolish (or both), but following the launch of Animal Protector for WSPA, it should ring true.

Animal Protector has been built using Bluefrog's uSpace donor loyalty engine. If you'd like to know how uSpace works, I featured it in this previous post and others have mentioned it too.

Animal Protector was created in response to WSPA's desire to improve donor retention. It aims to build a relationship with regular givers by showing them exactly how their donations are protecting animals. Through regular updates, supporters can see projects unfold and get to know some of the animals they care so much about.

But more importantly, it gives people a chance to interact with WSPA and define themselves as supporters – in a way that works best for them.

Because if there is one thing we've learned as we've moved from the first generation of uSpace to the second, is that choice is important to donors. But not in the way that many people might think.

WSPA works with a wide range of animals in many different parts of the world, and it seems obvious that one way to enhance a donor's relationship with the charity is to allow them to choose to fund work that benefits a favourite species.

It's obvious. But it's wrong. Donors may have a preference, but that doesn't mean they want to fund work that only benefits that type of animal (if they did, there are many species-specific charities they could easily discover on Google).

By choosing one specific creature, donors have to say no to others. And that can make people feel uncomfortable, particularly when their primary aim is to stop cruelty to ALL animals.

So rather than ask people to choose just one project, we gave them the opportunity to align themsleves with their favourite animal in a different way – by customising their Animal Protector site.

When people sign up, they are presented with different menus, one of which allows them to choose their masthead...

 

 

I've chosen a cow, but if people prefer a bear or a dog, they can choose that header instead. All the time knowing that they are helping all animals...

 

As you'll see, the logo also changes to match donor choice. It's based on a human thumbprint, but developed to represent each animal through the use of the relevant paw or footprint. Donors can use this as their default avatar, but many are uploading pictures of their own pets or animals they have seen in the wild. We've examples of everything from dogs to bears, to ducks to tortoises. And, shock horror, some donors are even uploading photographs of themselves. It's going to be very interesting to look at how the type of avatar relates to giving behaviour.

But choice doesn't stop there. Supporters can also choose a travel wallet or keyring that publicly demonstrates their commitment.

And those people who don't think that donors are interested in these devices, might be interested to hear that over 90% of donors who are signing up are actively requesting them.

And of course, donors can share their opinions too. Each post is accompanied by a growing list of comments. This is perhaps the most exciting (and rewarding) part of the project as donors are showing just how much they value being an Animal Protector and the the insight that goes with it.

A comment from one particular supporter, that summed up the sentiment behind many of the thoughts being shared, simply said...

"Thankyou to those in the midst of this wonderful rescue work for their dedication to animals that come in to their care. The animals can't say "thank you" themselves so I will say it for them. They send you lots of love."

However, I've left the best to last. The site has only been live for a week or two, and has already attracted thousands of supporters. But one of the most interesting side-effects of offering this combination of self-definition and in-depth feedback has been the number of people who have upgraded.

When we launched the site, we simply wanted to get as many people as possible to join. But donors have been so happy to know their money is making such a big difference that almost 8% of current regular givers who signed-up have chosen to upgrade their gift without even being asked.

See what I mean about income targets looking after themselves?

If you'd like to know more, why don't you sign up for yourself and see just how rewarding being an Animal Protector can be? Just click here to find out more.

What happens after that mailing pack lands on the mat?

TNT Post have just released the results of a poll on the importance of direct mail for raising funds.

They surveyed 2,000 British adults and found that:

• One-third of people who give to charity are prompted to do so by receiving direct mail appeals.
• 57% of people who respond to mailing packs do so by mail.
• 87% of people who want more information about the charity go online.

It's great that another survey shows the continuing importance of direct mail, but what it really demonstrates is the importance of integrating online and offline activity.

An appeal pack might get people thinking about giving, but a substantial percentage of your supporters will turn to your website to actually hand over the cash.

This is nothing new. A 2008 study by Harris Interactive for the NonProfit Times found that 17% of online gifts were prompted by direct mail appeals.

Donors prefer to give in the way that works for them. You can see this in action by keeping an eye on your online giving. A mailing substantially boosts the income coming through your website.

And unless you take time to track what's happening, you might not fully appreciate just how important direct mail is to your online fundraising. You'll also miss out on the extra income that integrating online and offline activity can generate.

It doesn't take much work to raise more funds. These are just a few basic ideas that I'd recommend you try...

• Feature your appeal on your home page. If you are running a TV campaign, put the ad on your home page as well. It's an approach used commercially and it works for charities too.
• Configure your online donation form so it links with your DM campaign. Feature the same stories and photographs. Repeat the call to action you use on your donation form too.
  
• Can you extend the story? Video, more photographs, more information and up to date news can all be a reason to go online and nudge donors in the direction of giving.
• Can you offer auto-fill on your donation forms? Anything you can do to make giving easier works!
  
• An email reminder can add another 5% to your bottom line (and often more).
• And more importantly, a thank you / update showing how donations have been used, can generate a substantial second wave of donations.
• Don't forget to use your social media activity to support your appeal - videos work very well.
  

And if you think you don't need to worry about this because your old donors don't go online, think again. A study by Pew Internet shows older people are embracing the internet and social networking in ever greater numbers. You can read more about this here.

Update: details of another study on what donors are looking for when they go online can be found here.

Ten (eleven) best practices for online fundraisers

Sean Powell has just published a rather useful free e-book that will point anyone who isn't well versed in online fundraising in the right direction. 

His key points are:

1. Set up a listening post (I'd add samepoint.com to Sean's recommendations).
2. Re-purpose your content (what works in DM or on TV, will also work online).
3. Coordinate you mailings and your online activity (at a minimum, I'd recommend you test a pre-mailing email before the direct mail pack and an e-reminder shortly afterwards).
4. Benchmark, test and measure.
5. Offline techniques can also work online (matching gifts, donor focused subject lines, adding a PS are all worth using).
6. Email clients like Outlook and Gmail don't adhere to HTML standards like web browsers so get ready to test to overcome the quirks (or just stick to plain text which regularly generates the best results for us at Bluefrog).
7. Seed your email just like direct mail.
8. Collect email addresses at every opportunity.
9. Refresh and increase your list size at every opportunity (but remember the old adage, garbage in = garbage out).
10. Crowdsource your fundraising (supporter get supporter programmes work very well online - take a look at JustGiving).
11. People like video (mention it in your subject line and it increases open rates).

The e-book has loads more great information and links to very useful resources. You can download your copy here.

Putting the power of mums to work

Nick Clegg is off to the UN Summit in New York at the end of September and Save The Children want to put some pressure on him to encourage world leaders to refocus their efforts to ensure we achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Getting help from 100,000 people to nudge him in the right direction through signing a petition is part of their plan and they have decided that some influential UK parenting blogs could be a good recruiting round.

So they have invited three prominent bloggers: Josie from Sleep Is For The Weak, Sian from Mummy Tips and Eva from Nixd Minx to fly out and see what the charity is doing in Bangladesh. All three will obviously be speaking to mothers and children about their lives, hopes and fears and sharing their experiences on their blogs.

And through their blogs, they'll encourage their readers to get involved by signing the petition, donating money and giving unwanted clothes and household goods to their local Save the Children shop.

Some tweeters with huge followings like Neil Gaiman and Stephen Fry have already starting promoting the campaign (known as #blogadesh) and are generating some significant traffic.

But it will really kick off when the bloggers start writing about what they see. When someone you know and trust as a source of advice and inspiration starts talking about poverty, it's going to be more relevant, more motivating and more engaging that just seeing an advertising banner asking for help.

There's been some interesting research in the last few years in neuro-cognitive science that helps explain why this is the case. In short, if we see someone experience an emotion - anger, joy or sadness – the same neurons spark in our brain as if we were experiencing it ourselves.

It's one of the fundamental donor needs. We are driven to be sociable. We need to belong. And it's empathy which is the primary driver behind that need.

Rather than make you trawl through 1,500 words on the latest scientific research that backs up this claim, I've found this great animated video from the RSA where Jeremy Rifkin explains it far more effectively (and entertainingly) than I ever could.

As you'll see, new technology is changing the way we think about our fellow human beings. We are now extending our identities far beyond national and religious boundaries.

As a result, we are able to directly relate to people's suffering on a far more personal level - as mothers for instance – and do something that is becoming increasing clear that we psychologically need to do - offer help.

That's why I think Save The Children's approach is so exciting – it directly taps deep into our psyche and, as a result, I expect the outcome should be very rewarding for everyone who's involved - not just the people being helped in Bangladesh.

For more more details on donor needs take a look at this previous post.

Thanks to @charityclare for the heads up.

Will you lend me £15 please?

Well to be honest, it's not for me.

It's for Ibu Nurhaeni, who runs a grocery business in Indonesia or Kodjo Agounde, an electrician in Togo.

Or it could be for any of the entrepreneurs that you'll find on Lendwithcare.org.

It's a site that Bluefrog has built for Care International and is in beta test before a launch next month.

It's like giving to charity. But it isn't. It's lending instead.

Rather than just sending a gift to a charity for their general work, Lendwithcare.org allows you to support an entrepreneur in a developing country who has a great idea for a business but needs a little help to get it off the ground or to it's next stage of development.

It's similar to Dragons Den, but you don't need to be a millionaire to get involved.

It works like this.

• You have a look through the entrepreneurs and find one with a business idea you like.
• You then choose how much you want to lend him or her.
• It doesn't matter if you can't lend the total amount they are asking for because other people just like you will make up the difference.
• The minimum amount you can lend is £15.
• Over the next few months you'll get feedback on how the business is progressing along with regular repayments on your original loan.
• When it's paid back you can simply return the money to your bank account or lend it to another entrepreneur. You'll find that your £15 can change someone life over and over again.

Now you might be thinking this sounds a little like Oikocredit, Grameen or Kiva. It is, in as far as it is built around the concept of micro-finance. But this product is built from a fundraising perspective and there are some interesting differences which you'll discover as time goes by.

But apart from helping Care International get Lendwithcare.org off the ground, the reason why I'd like you to lend £15 is so you can test the site out and let me know what you think. It's at beta stage and as someone experienced and interested in fundraising, I'd value your opinion on the site and it's usability.

And to show you how confident I am about the entrepreneurs, if anyone you lend to defaults on their loan, I'll personally guarantee to pay it back to you.

If you need any further information, this video explains all. Thanks for helping. I'll get back to the normal stuff tomorrow. Click here to get started.