charitable donations by premium-rate/media/files/phonepay... · fairly new: •smaller charities...
TRANSCRIPT
CHARITABLE DONATIONS BY PREMIUM-RATE
RESEARCH FINDINGS
PPP1203 27TH JULY 2012
1
Contents
Research Parameters 3
Key Research Findings 12
Experts 22
The Experts: Perspectives and Climate 22
The Industry’s Take On PRS 33
PSMS Issues and Limitations, Industry Call for Change 58
The Future of PRS Donations 73
Consumers 76
Consumer Climate and Attitudes 76
Donation Methods – and How PRS Fits In 92
PRS – Awareness, Usage and Attitudes 97
PSMS Motivations and Perceived Benefits 111
Issues with PSMS from Consumers’ POV 122
The Future and Recommendations for PpP 134
RESEARCH
PARAMETERS
3
Overall Objectives
Provide insight into the relatively new, but developing market for charity
donations via PRS (Premium Rate Services), especially PSMS (Premium
Rate SMS)
• understand drivers and barriers
• provide demographic information
• understand patterns vs others forms of giving
• provide forecasts vs likely future growth
• to gather insights and market understanding that enable
PhonepayPlus to better anticipate the needs of and provide relevant
support to all Stakeholders with regards to charitable donations by
premium-rate
Method
• Conduct a comprehensive
programme of research
– qualitative INDUSTRY
research amongst
experts drawn from
charities and other
industry experts
– qualitative CONSUMER
research amongst those
with experiences of
PRS/PSMS giving
– quantitative CONSUMER
research
• Also provide a market
model and market map 5
Findings from these
streams integrated in
this document,
and where relevant also referencing
market model
provided separately,
but establishing
context for research
Qualitative Industry Research – Method and
Sample
• Qualitative Industry Research
– 12 x interviews with industry experts as below
– majority of these interviewed by telephone for 30 – 60 mins
– * 3 interviews face-to-face lasting 60 mins +
– unfortunately, only one MNO representative was willing to take
part in the study
– Interviews took part between April and June 2012 6
Charities Companies providing services to
Charities
Mobile
Nework Operators (MNOs)
2 x Major Charities
2 x Medium Sized
Charities
2 x Small Charities
1 x Mobile Marketing Agency
1 x Advertising/Fundraising Agency*
1 x Mobile Service Provider
2 x Mobile Aggregators*
1 x MNO
Qualitative Consumer Research - Method
• 3 x mini-group discussions with consumers who are
donors/givers to charity
• Groups moderated by Thinktank in Croydon in May and
June 2012
7
Qualitative Consumer Research - Sample
PRS Givers* Users of Various Gifting
Methods, including PRS**
Ad Hoc Gifters
(making one-off donations)
1 x mini group, mixed gender, aged
36-55
Ad Hoc Gifters
(making one-off donations)
1 x mini group, mixed gender
aged 20-35
Regular /Committed Gifters 1 x mini group, mixed gender, aged
36-55 (in effect have set up Direct Debit to a charity but have also made ad hoc
donations by PRS)
Regular/Committed Gifters 6 x telephone interviews*** aged
20-35* (have signed up to Regular
Text Giving scheme)
8
*PRS Givers – donated to charity by Premium Rate Service at least 3x in the last 12 months
**Users of Various Gifting Methods, including PRS – donated to charity at least 3x in the last 12 months,
including at least 1 x by Premium Rate Service
***Telephone interviewees - all recruited from Unicef Data Base of Regular Text Givers
Quantitative Consumer Research – Method
and Sample
• Method: 2 waves of online Omnibus survey carried out
by IPSOS MORI in the UK
• Sample: 2000 nationwide
– Nationally Representative Sample of adults 16 to 64 years
old UK Residents
• Timing:
– Wave 1 (1000) took place w/c 4 June 2012
– Wave 2 (1000) took place w/c 11 June 2012
9
Market Model - Method
• The market model forecasts charitable income via
phone-paid giving (PSMS, 09/087 voice etc.) to 2015,
including Gift Aid and deducting processing fees
• Forecasts were compiled using a combination of:
– Historical trends in charitable giving, as identified from CAF
and PhonepayPlus data
– Individual charities’ submissions on their projections for
phone-paid giving in 2012 versus 2011
– Research into historic campaigns and future trends in
phone-paid giving, especially around specific payment
methods (e.g. 70-range charity PSMS, regular text giving)
10
Some Caveats/Limitations to Sample and
Method
• Experts
– worth explaining that most of our experts had an interest in
advocating PRS donations by mobile
• either actively involved, starting to be interested or
providing PRS-related services to the charity sector
– sample did not include anyone sceptical vs PRS
• Consumers
– given small universe of Regular Text Givers sample had to
be drawn from Unicef database to be able to provide
qualitative coverage of Regular PRS Donors
– ran 2 waves of Omnibus research to ensure reasonably
robust base of those who have given by PRS
• 10% usage of PRS across the sample
11
KEY RESEARCH
FINDINGS
12
1. Very Positive Views of PRS (PSMS) as
Emerging Donation Mechanism
• Industry views range from enthusiasm to more reserved
favourable assessment
– Larger charities and suppliers to the sector
• Most positive & Currently most actively benefitting
– Smaller charities
• Also favourable - But often more from a position of
intent vs having had significant income from PRS
• Consumers’ Perspective
– Overall consumer participation still relatively low at 10% but
seems to be growing
• Eg intent to use over the next 12 months at 14%
– Existing donors via PRS generally very positive about this
method of giving
2. PRS Currently Means PSMS
• Both industry research participants and consumers view
text as key mechanism within PRS
• Neither shows much interest in giving through voice
– Consumers’ recalled levels of giving at around 1%;
consideration of usage at 2%
• Apps generate some interest
– Potentially ‘clever’ and involving
– but currently hamstrung by fees levied by Apple
– plus requiring levels of involvement, creativity and tech
savvy that smaller charities are typically lacking
14
3. Role of PSMS from an Industry Perspective
• Combines key roles
15
Modern Payment channel
Communications Channel
Source of Data
Donation Mechanism in Its Own Right
Possibly more important: Gateway to
Relationships & Recruitment Channel
for Direct Debit
4. Strengths of PSMS From Industry
Perspective
PSMS
(relatively)
economical
innovative
immediate
Integrates with
existing activities
Interactive
16
Helps to address some challenges of a sector under pressure
– With demonstrable ROI
– Has Mainstream Appeal But reaches new audiences
– Low Barriers of Entry to population affected by recession but opening gate to higher donations
At the forefront of modern marketing – hence generating buzz/talkability
5. Strength of PSMS from Consumer/Donor
Perspective
Easy and quick to do
Novel and ‘cool’
Spontaneous & feel-good
Anonymous – safe from credit card fraud; low expectations of being ‘bothered’ for more
Low-ish donation amounts – hence also affordable
17
Active Enthusiasm –
PSMS often my
favourite way of
giving to charity!
Seen to ADD new
opportunities to give –
as such little evidence
of direct
cannibalisation
6. PSMS Limitations
• still unrealised potential for raising awareness and translating this awareness into actual trial
• Potentially underlying consumer unease over trust?
Fairly new:
• Smaller charities often lack both technical and marketing expertise when it comes to PSMS • can be quite a big barrier for smaller charities that are stretched for resources
• Here smaller charities typically unable to take advantage of key advantage of access to data and new recruitment channel
• Consumers seem to be more inclined to give to larger charities in this way – trust + most ‘typical’ route via TV Appeal
Skew to larger charities:
• Given anchoring in the phone bill and regulatory caps
Relatively low donation sizes
• Lengthy entering of details at odds with quick and easy PSMS – as such less attractive for consumers – even if they are willing to go for Gift Aid
Relatively low gift aid conversion rates
18
7. Regular Text Giving
• Positive Consumer Experiences (amongst Unicef donors
interviewed)
– Ease of set up
– No need to hand over details
– More control
– (for some: updates)
– Lower amounts
• Upon consideration also quite attractive for Ad Hoc
PSMS Donors – who may be inclined towards committed
giving
• Charities/Suppliers See Potential but also call for lifting
of limitations over STOP/SKIP and donation caps to
make more akin to DD
19
More affordable, less
cumbersome, more novel
DD alternative
8. Key Issues for the Regulator
• Slight ‘conflicts’ of interest
– between charities’ use of PRS as recruitment channel –
and consumer expectations of anonymity
– Between industry lobbying of lifting of STOP and SKIP in
Regular Text Giving and consumer evidence that allows
control and confidence in the new medium
• Industry Calls for Raising of Regulatory Caps on
Donations (currently at £10 for a single donation and
capped at £30 on any given day)
– But many in agreement that there should be some sort of
ceiling
– Consumers unaware of caps – but find them reassuring
20
9. Key Issues for the Regulator
• Industry calls for ‘Money Back’ Guarantee to engender
more consumer trust
– Partially supported by consumer anxieties over fraud in
mobile sector which may be barrier to use
• Raising consumer awareness of PSMS
Benefits/Consumer Protection
– Very low knowledge of 100% going to charity but
potentially a real motivator
– As above low awareness of caps – but can again engender
a sense of trust
– As good as no knowledge of PpP as authority that
regulates and that they could complain to
21
Some evidence that consumers fee reassured once they know
that the sector is regulated!
THE EXPERTS:
PERSPECTIVES AND
CLIMATE
Good Mix of Expert Perspectives
Charity expertise
‘Creative’ and
marketing suppliers
PRS toe dippers
Mobile expertise
‘Technical’ suppliers
PRS experienced
Charities: Profiles and ‘A Priori’ Inclinations vs
PRS
24
Medium Sized Charities
• more limited remit – activity – may only
have one-or two ‘products’ facing the
general public • can be stretched especially re staff
• but can also be quite savvy marketers and
users of donor data • more limited public awareness
• also interested in innovation but can be a
bit hamstrung putting it into practice
Large Charities
• large remit and breadth of activities
• well known to the public – eg ATL, big
appeals • quite well resourced – marketing and tech
expertise • strategic thinkers
and sophisticated marketers • use of wide range of
fundraising techniques and ‘products’
• active interest in innovation
Smaller Charities
• limited remit, typically limited activities and
fundraising techniques • know their audience
but not really strategic in their approach • chronically under-
staffed and under- resourced
• passively interested in innovation but often lacking tech and
marketing expertise and/or time to follow
through
enthusiastic and
knowledgeable
users of PRS
some real intent for
the future but
actual use limited
interest but limited
and ‘haphazard’ use
Charity Suppliers’ Perspectives
• Suppliers clearly quite savvy about mobile and
technology – with some also having a very expert
understanding of charities
– context in which they operate in
– different ways of fundraising and roles vs PRS
– types of charities adopting PRS
– ‘history’ and current state of the market
– hence potential future developments
25
Charity Suppliers: All Have an Interest in PRS
• All clearly have an interest in the 3rd sector as a source
of business and a ‘vested’ interest in the success of PRS
charity donations
– though from slightly different perspectives
• Plus both sides clearly sympathetic to and interested in
supporting a sector which is seen to be entering tough
times
26
Suppliers
Mobile Experts
Charity Experts
new growth niche within
mobile where other, more traditional PRS services are declining
new areas which allows them
to demonstrate expertise as innovative clued up service providers
The Climate: Charities Under Pressure
• The sector feels under considerable pressure
27
Saturated UK Charity Market
• plethora of charities all clamouring for attention and donor monies
• wide range of fundraising techniques
Recessionary Pressures on Charities
• government cuts have affected funding
• belief that public has less money to spend
Demographic Pressures
• ageing donor base
Need to make up for anticipated or real short falls
Need to widen target base
Real need to innovate through fundraising techniques: Said to be motivating
interest in PRS donations
The Climate: Charities’ Ideals and Issues
• When thinking of donations
from the general public
charities operate with the
image of a donor ‘pyramid’
– roughly involves lots of, small,
ad hoc donations at the
bottom
– a small number of big
donations – eg through
legacies at the top
• Here charities have an interest
in moving individuals ‘up the donor pyramid’
– trying to making ad hoc
donors into regular supporters
• ideally more committed to
the cause, more willing to
give more, more often
28
Charities are trying to turn
donors into members
(Charity Supplier)
The Climate: Charities’ Ideals and Issues
• As such relationships with
donors in the interest of charities
– higher RPD (revenue per donor)
• regular contribution
naturally less costly in
acquisition terms
• ability to encourage
additional contribution from
what are seen as ‘softer’
targets
– generating steady sources of
income crucial for cash flow
• Attrition consistent problem –
need to to minimise
– encourage a certain amount of
interest and commitment to the
cause
29
all to some extent
answered by Direct
Debit
Importance of Direct Debit For Personal
Charitable Giving
30
1,272 1,540 1,465 1,453 1,509 1,589
3,074 1,980
1,798 1,701 1,687 1,695
1,696
1,760 1,620 1,553 1,560 1,589
2,332
2,750
2,692 2,746 2,934 3,179
1,166 1,650
1,517 1,453 1,458
1,483
424 440
398 375
370 371
15.3 32.7
72.2 101.6
128.7 151.8
10,600.0 11,000.0
10,351.3 10,165.0
10,464.7
10,927.5
0.0
2,000.0
4,000.0
6,000.0
8,000.0
10,000.0
12,000.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Personal charitable giving by method of giving, 2010-2015
Other methods (£m)
Phone-paid (£m)
Fees (£m)
Payroll (£m)
Raffle (£m)
Event (£m)
Direct debit (£m)
Cash (£m)
Cheque/card (£m)
Buying (£m)
Source: Market Model Compiled by Keplar on behalf of Thinktank
A Priori Role of PRS
• PRS a (growing) addition to charities’ armoury
– lots of advantages in its own right which are not offered by
other methods
• currently more fully taken advantage of by larger
charities
• but certainly of interest to others
– said to produce new monies and new donors – though
currently still a small proportion of charities’ income from
donations
31
PRS Role Vs Other Donation Methods
• In the future hoped to replace some forms that may be
not be available in the long term (eg bearing in mind
banks wanting to phase out cheques)
• However, at least as importantly easily integrated with
other key sources of donations
– eg used as alternative/in conjunction with cash donations
during events
– importantly feeding into (new) direct debits!
• arguably where it provides most value?
32
Text has a huge advantage - it’s not anonymous, you
have the phone number. We advise all our clients to
run follow-up calls and to push for Direct Debit
(Supplier to Charity Sector)
THE INDUSTRY’S TAKE
ON PRS
33
Milestones in the Development of a Young
PRS Market
• Premium Rate Services charity donation market seen to
be 18 months old
• Here market propelled forward by 2 key changes
– Creation of VAT free 07 text short codes
– Mobile phone operators waiving their network fees
– leading to significant cost savings and making mobile as a
channel economically highly attractive
• Additional milestone in the launch of Vodafone’s
JustTextGiving
– in association with relevant marketing campaigns brought
text donations to a mainstream audience
34
Milestones in the Development of a Young
PRS Market
• Most recent innovation is Regular Text Giving
– emerging interesting alternative to Direct Debit
– here industry appreciates progress made through
collaboration with PpP
• PpP/industry pilot initiative to replace some of the
regular STOP messages with SKIP, allowing
consumers to skip payments for a month
• valued by industry as lowering attrition rates (vs STOP)
and hence making Regular Text Giving more interesting
for charities
35
An Emerging Market
• Our interviews show the market as still emerging
– only larger charities fully behind this, with solid experience
and significant sums of money earned
– even medium sized charities only toe dipping – currently
not earning much
• Clearly industry chatter around a few key campaigns
– same case histories recounted several times across
interviews
• At the same time, real belief that PRS will be growing
– larger charities and those servicing charities see as
becoming important earner
– medium-sized and smaller have interest in getting more
involved
An Emerging Market
• And market still in flux
– eg if mobile wallets become much more of a reality could
really be another major milestone and pus the market
forward!
• Uncertain if tipping point in public awareness has been
reached
• Some unknowns
– eg hunches vs hard evidence re cannibalisation vs new
audiences
– eg current data about Regular Text Giving still very limited
– so not yet sure about future uptake
– eg development of Pre-paid which is seen to be limiting the
market 37
Industry ‘Definition’/Understanding of PRS
• Currently PRS largely means PSMS
• PSMS dominates numerically and in terms of mindshare
– where the lion’s share of the market lies
– what the industry automatically associates when thinking of
PRS charity donations
• Some see a real future in apps – but for financial
reasons (ie charges levied by Apple) currently only really
viable if can be linked to PSMS
Predominance of PSMS in PRS
39
Source: Market Model Compiled by Keplar on behalf of Thinktank
11.4
1.0
20.0
0.2 0.3 0.0
0
Phone-paid giving by PRS payment mechanism, 2011
One-off 70xxx-range PSMS(£m)
Regular text giving (£m)
Non-charitable PSMS (£m)
Non-charitable voice short code(£m)
Voice 09/087 (£m)
TV red button (£m)
Payforit (£m)
PSMS Ad Hoc Vs Regular Donations
• Currently main focus is on ad hoc donations
– eg response to campaigns and at
• Though Regular Text Giving potentially very interesting
– currently still in its infancy
• limited uptake and levels of experience
– but seen as very promising
• holds opportunity to convert people into regular donors
who would not go for Direct Debit
– eg unbanked, financially unstable, young
40
Positive Attitudes and Unanimous Interest
• All of our interviewees positive
towards PRS/PSMS
– attitudes ranged from
enthusiasm to interest and
intent
– largely dependent on levels of
experience in the area
• as such larger charities
and service suppliers
most enthusiastic,
including some real
evangelists
• medium sized and
smaller charities bit more
restrained
– interesting and
generating some
income but needs a
bit more work to
really make pay
41
It is the breakthrough that we’ve
been waiting for in the industry.
Large Charity
It’s not a magic bullet
Medium Sized Charity
Larger Charities: Enthusiastic Adoption
• Larger charities enthusiastic
advocates of PRS
• Here have comparative
advantages
Internal:
– Have resources / can afford
buying knowledge / expertise
– Use a variety of tools, PSMS
complements the toolbox
– Run big campaigns for which
PSMS is particularly
appropriate
External:
– Big names that people trust
– Mainstream / national appeal
– Large proportion of tech savvy
donors / potential donors 42
We have been using it since
2010 and we hadn’t anticipated
the scale of the response. The
follow up giving is amazing
Large Charity
We have done phenomenally well
with it. And we’re sharing our
experiences. We talk a lot about
PSMS at conferences and meetings
Large Charity
Larger Charities PSMS Usage:
Finding The Best Way
• PSMS is still seen as a
relatively new tool. Large
charities currently
experiment to find the
best way:
– Gateway / Conversation
starter
– Quick and mass
collection mechanism
during Emergency
Appeals
– Alternative to Direct
Debit
– Communication tool
43
We use it in many different
ways – we’re still
experimenting and trying to
find the most appropriate
occasion.
Large Charity
Smaller Charities:
PSMS Less ‘Rewarding’
• It is harder for smaller charities
to take full advantage of PSMS
for the following reasons:
Internal:
– Lack of resources (eg for
follow up calls)
– Lack of tech knowledge /
expertise
– Lack of time for strategic
thinking
External:
– No big name – need for extra
reassurance and generally
smaller donations
– Cannot afford big scale
campaigns where PSMS
works best
44
We know it’s great, but we
don’t have the resources to
take full advantage of it
Small Charity
It didn’t generate a lot of
money. Most people gave
only £1
Small Charity
We called people 18 months
after they made a donation.
If we did this sooner, we
would have had a much
better take up, I'm sure.
Small Charity
Smaller Charities PSMS Usage:
Toe Dipping at Various Levels
• As such smaller charities
we spoke limit their PSMS
activities to:
– Occasional / opportunistic JustTextGiving
• At conferences
• Presentations / events
– Experiments / toe dipping
on continuing the dialogue with text givers
45
At public events when we
address a crowd of people
it’s easy for them to get their
phone out; once people hear
about the work we do, they
are willing
(Small Charity)
We are vaguely planning to
do a small pilot - send initial
text and the secondary
message and follow up with a
call, but it’s all about the
manpower at the moment.
(Small Charity)
Smaller Charities: Limited Product Offering
• Another issue is that
smaller charities may only
have one or two ‘products’
facing the public which may
not easily lend themselves
to PSMS
• Here not a simple case of
adding to their armoury of
donation methods but
requiring innovation on the
product level or a creative
idea
46
Our main product is monthly
sponsorship – quite a high
value gift. We are thinking of
innovations that will fit better
with PSMS (Medium Sized Charity)
We’re thinking of gamification
but we’d need an idea
(Medium Sized Charity)
Nonetheless PSMS Seen to Have Lots of
Advantages
• Important to consider above ‘reality checks’ for PSMS
• Nonetheless, overall mood is positive!
• Importantly, PSMS seen to have a plethora of
advantages
– combines a number of different roles
– can be integrated into current armoury
– at the forefront of modern marketing techniques
– currently or potentially helping to address some key
pressures charities are under
47
Recruitment
Channel
PSMS Charity Donations Combines 3-4 Key
Functions
48
Donation/Payment
Mechanism
Communi-cations
Channel
Source of Information and Data
Easy, Quick, Immediate
• As a payment mechanism PSMS is an easy way in for
the donor
– text using short codes easily understood and used
– quickly done without having to enter details
• Importantly, charities and suppliers also see advantage
as immediate and spontaneous way to give
• Here allows psychological satisfaction to the donor by
being able to respond immediately to a pressing cause –
eg
– ‘Scratching the itch’ for Christian Aid
– DEC
– Recent case: Clare Squires at London Marathon 2012
49
Donation/Payment
Mechanism
Easy, Quick, Immediate
• Here PSMS-based campaigns become a very quick and
effective way to respond to emergencies
– easily set up without long logistical preambles
– quick response
• Timely appeals lead to better results and help with cash
flow when it’s needed most
50
Donation/Payment
Mechanism
Direct, Interactive
• PSMS is particularly interesting
because mobile combines the ability
to collect monies with the ability to
communicate with donors
• With some short codes allowing
integration of communication and
payments made
– eg text ‘NET’
• Importantly mobile also allows
entering into a relationship
– direct access to donor base - hence ability to send tailored messages
• eg emergency appeals, appeals for additional funds
– with smartphone ability to link to content
– hence ability to feed the relationship
– in the future (eg Regular Text Giving) could help limit attrition
51
Comms Channel
As smartphone penetration
increases SMS allows the the opportunity to link through an easy mechanism to rich
experiences, ie cause related images and video
(Medium Sized Charity)
Mobile is great because it is a
two-way channel and can be exploited to start a two-way relationship
(Supplier to the Charity Sector)
Innovative
• Clearly this is a new way of donating and collecting funds
– as such felt to be fun and interesting for the donor
• seen as modern way of engaging with a younger target
audience
– great for charities as mobile channel relatively ‘unpolluted’
• here seen to help with cutting through and being heard!
• Additionally, one of the areas where mobile marketing
really seen to deliver
– here seems to attract a lot of creative energy
• here seems to allow making new connections and to be
at the forefront of modern marketing
– some great examples of creative ideas and campaigns –
allow agencies to show their mettle!
– in turn likely to produce better results
52
Comms Channel
PSMS-based/related campaigns gaining
recognition in and beyond mobile marketing
53
Accountablilty and Proof of ROI
• In combination PSMS becomes a source of data and
information
• This produces wealth of very valuable data
– which messages, creative, work well in which media for
which sorts of audiences
– given charities’ needs for accountability very useful
– here allows opportunity to justify media expenditure
• re-energises use of traditional ATL whose ROI can now
be proven
– allowing better engagement with particular stakeholders –
eg newspapers can tell readers about their contributions
– providing learning for future campaigns
54
Data/Information Source
Gateway to Relationships
• But perhaps most importantly – charities most
committed to PSMS use it as a gateway to establish a
relationship
• Here advice/practice to pass on telephone numbers to
call centres for follow-up calls
– to ask for another donation
– most importantly to move up the ‘pyramid’ and to convert to
Direct Debit
– and here reported conversion rates – 3-4 times higher than
from a cold call
55
Data/Information Source
Recruitment
Channel
arguably currently more interesting as a recruitment
channel into other forms of giving than as a source of
donations in its own right!
PSMS as Gateway
56
“it’s really the text and
call back combination
that generates money”
(Supplier to Charity
Sector)
We have only done a
small test, which on the one hand was a bit less successful than we thought.
But our call centre got a very good response rate -
ie. 30% compared to 7-8% for cold calls (Medium charity)
The primary focus with
PSMS is to secure
pledge giving ( ie by
Direct Debit). We see a
text donation as the start
of a conversation
(Large Charity)
With single donations we
use PSMS wisely – essentially
as a way of getting new
supporters who we quickly
try to upgrade
to regular payments. Our fund
raisers usually call
within 30 mins (Large Charity)
In all PSMS seen to help Address a Number of
Issues Charities are Facing
• can set be set up relatively cheaply – eg saves call centre operation during an ad hoc emergency appeal; 100% to charity
ECONOMICAL
• SMS is mass market and as above allows easy entry
• importantly, allows access to new donors – key problem given ageing donor base!
• especially younger donors who are currently not reached/more difficult to reach via other methods
IN TERMS OF REACH
• initial donated amounts typically quite low and, as above, given spontaneously
• here relatively low barriers of entry – people feel they can afford a little money from their mobile phone bills
• and can then be converted into more committed donors
‘RECESSIONARY’ BARRIERS
57
• where most enthusiastically embraced allows easy integration with mechanisms outside mobile
• calls to action
• other types of media
• other forms of fundraising
• Here energising and augmenting
• TV appeals
• Fundraising events
• Outdoor advertising
• Face-to-face fundraising
FIT WITH EXISTING ACTIVITIES
PSMS ISSUES AND
LIMITATIONS, INDUSTRY
CALL FOR CHANGE
58
Key Limitations
• Market Limitations
– still relative limited awareness
– lack of consumer familiarity
– limited smartphone penetration
• Internal Limitations
– knowledge/expertise
– need for resources – financial and
manpower
– young industry – hence still within a learning process
• Industry-related Limitations
– Donation Sizes
– JTG/Shared Short Codes
– Regulations vs Regular Text Giving
– Gift Aid
– Consumer Protection
Arguably most
important barrier - mainly issues for
smaller charities as
discussed above being partially answered
by products/packages – but nb they have some
downsides
Expected to
diminish/disappear ‘naturally’ over time: public expected to
come round!
Calls for Lobbying and
intervention & involves some issues related to
regulator’s remit
Relatively Small Donation Size
• One of the key reasons why PSMS is currently limited as
donation source in its own right said to be donation size
– here 2 reasons given:
psychological
• ‘anchoring’ of donation amounts in the phone bill is likely to keep amounts relatively smaller vs monies taken from bank account
regulatory
• donations capped at £10/£30
• which may passively re-inforce association of mobile with small amounts
• charities unlikely to want to shift towards PRS if this would lead to smaller amounts
That said here expectation
that psychological barrier will
be raised as people get more
used to mobile as a payment
channel
Many in our audience hence
call for raising of the cap –
here claim that there is active
call from the public to donate
higher amounts
Relatively Small Donation Sizes
• Interestingly, hardly anyone calls for a complete lifting of
the cap
– typically want a higher cap at £50-£100
• Here sense that the regulator needs to protect
consumers to some degree
– avoid making a mistake
– hence also avoid negative publicity if things should go
wrong
• Plus also some sense of a balancing act – one
interviewee maintains that donation cap helps to ensure
Operators’ fee waive
– could become too costly for them if donation amounts rise
significantly? 61
Just Text Giving – ‘Rigid’ Formats
• Word that people text can be a strong driver for the
campaign
• E.g. texting “NET” feels more tangible making the
campaign more real
• Just Text Giving only allows certain format: 4 letters and
2 digits which can be quite limiting when it comes down
to generating a memorable and most importantly –
meaningful word / code
62
Shared Short Codes and Just Text Giving
• Part of the reason why small charities may only be toe-
dipping could be that they may not always have the
resources to set up short codes for themselves
• Here Just Text Giving does allow them to jump on the
bandwaggon
• However, on the other hand also a diminished version of
PSMS as Vodafone owns the data
– as such much more limited usability
– does not yield data – hence also not usable as recruitment
channel
63
Ambivalence to JTG
• In all ambivalent attitudes to JTG
– on the one hand great opportunity for small charities to be
part of PSMS
– on the other can be seen as very limiting – in extremes a
bit ‘cheeky’ way for Vodafone trying to ‘own’ PSMS vs the
public
• Here clearly some room to lobby Vodafone to be more
generous and flexible
• On the other hand also sense that don’t want to rock the
boat given operators’ waiving of fees
64
Shared Short Codes
• Here some in the industry
advocating other models –
eg Instagiv
– cheaper than own set-up
– but still access to data
• However, also some
criticism of this shared
shortcode model
– said to break data
protection laws, at least
in some cases
– calls for self-regulation
and agreed practice 65
One key thing is that the
service provider should own
the short code because at the
moment there are shared
short codes which means that
a text being sent saying
‘STOP’ is being sent to every
service provider which is
breaking the data protection
act (Supplier to Charity
Sector)
Regular Text Giving Limitations
• As above Regular Text Giving seen to have real potential
to recruit new donors into regular gifting
• Clearly currently awareness and uptake quite low
– possibly partially to do with charities offering as secondary,
lower commitment option to Direct Debit
• However, seen to be hampered to really take off by two
regulatory factors
– donation amounts as above limit incomes but also
emergence as a real alternative to DD
– STOP/SKIP rules
• Both areas where industry really calls for relaxation of
the rules – and PpP ‘helpfully’ stepping in!
66
Regular Text Giving Limitations
• Whilst industry appreciates the
Regulator’s introducing ‘SKIP’
still sense that regular
reminders are ‘unjust’ vs Direct
Debit
• Here ask for adapting STOP/SKIP regulations
– scrap reminders altogether
– reduce their frequency
– ‘at least’ soften the
language/formulation
• ie sounds like an
imperative vs allowing
consumers to opt out!
67
Every month when we send out the
reminder we lose about 4-5%
(Supplier to Charity Sector)
Other safeguards make the
STOP/SKIP redundant, for example
updates to donors on how much
they’ve spent
(Supplier to Charity Sector)
STOP and SKIP … rather than
giving you an option it gives you an
instruction!
(Medium Sized Charity)
Format Barriers / Limitations: Gift Aid
• Conversion rates said to be up to 40% - not as good as
with other platforms
– relatively cumbersome gift aid mechanics sit uneasily with
quick, no fuss mobile donations
• Changes announced in the last budget will help a little
• However, ideally would like way of automating Gift Aid
donations but currently not sure how this could be
delivered
– suggestions a little ‘unrealistic
• operators could keep a record and pass on to charity?
• lobbying of HMRC to get lump sum (equivalent of 60%
eligible) back?
68
Additional Issues: Worries About
Cannibalisation?
• Charities generally not actively concerned about
cannibalisation
– feel – although no certain figures – that PSMS attracts new
audiences
• That said at the same time also MAKE SURE that
cannibalisation unlikely to happen
– eg actively target those with PSMS donations they cannot
reach otherwise
– offer PSMS in a context when it is likely to attract higher
amounts than the alternative (cash)
– eg offer PSMS (eg Regular Text Giving) as a lower
commitment alternative once DD has been rejected
69
Worries About Cannibalisation?
• And here also likely that some of those who are not
using PSMS MAY be concerned about cannibalisation
– eg charities whose main ‘product’ is quite high value feel
they need to be very careful how to employ PSMS so as
not to downgrade donation sizes
– in one case a charity expert told us that his charity needed
to change its offering to
• Here may act as a more passive barrier to entry
70
Worries about ‘Black Sheep’/Lack of Consumer
Assurances
• In new market where
participants all still
learning potential for
‘mishaps’
– ‘rogue’ players
– unintentional rule
breaking
• Could generate negative
publicity and harm
willingness to give
• But here industry largely
keen not to be regulated
by outside parties 71
It only takes one big case of
method abuse in the press for
another urban legend to be
born. (Large Charity)
There is real willingness in the
industry to make it work and
keep it fair. We are good at
policing ourselves in the Third
Sector. (Large Charity)
Worries about ‘Black Sheep’/Lack of Consumer
Assurances
• However, for RTG some
could imagine instituting
a ‘money back’
guarantee
• Here could help to
generate trust in the new
payment form
• As such make more akin
to Direct Debit
72
People trust Direct Debit
because banks give them a
promise to give money back if
something goes wrong.
THE FUTURE OF PRS
DONATIONS
73
Assumptions of Relatively ‘Organic’ Growth
Helped by Internal/External Circumstances
• Expectations that industry will learn more and will work in
more favourable conditions to take fuller advantage of
the multiple roles of (PRS)/PSMS
– development of mobile wallet will create more confidence
/familiarity with mobile payment channel amongst public
• natural growth of the market?
• though not certain as to whether steadily or in jolts
– smartphone penetration will allow mobile to be used as a
more sophisticated comms channel
• more links to content, more sophisticated messages
• more integration of social media
– more and more sophisticated use of data
• sharper segmentations– more targeted messaging
• use of mobile as CRM tool – to avoid attrition
74
Apps
• Apps could be very
interesting and importantly
engaging mechanisms
• However, currently a bit
limited
– Needing creative input
which many charities are
lacking!
– Importantly still need link
to PSMS as Apple
charges make
uninteresting as donation
mechanism in its own right
75
Our app was developed
by an ad agency on a pro
bono basis. If we’d had
to pay for it, the
donations would not
have paid for the
professional time!
(Small Charity)
CONSUMER CLIMATE
AND ATTITUDES
76
A Reminder of the Research Base
• Consumer perspective was brought into this study from
three different angles
77
Two hour group discussions with those who
experienced PSMS (mix of males and
females, younger and older audiences)
6 telephone interviews with people on
Regular Text Giving
2 waves of Ipsos Omnibus – NatRep sample
of UK adults, 16-64 years old
Phase 1
Qual
Phase 2
Qual
Phase 3
Quant
Charity Giving Part of UK Social ‘Fabric’
• Charity fundraising very much part of UK culture
– visible on our streets
– part of interactions with friends, neighbours
– integrated into entertainment – TV appeals, ads etc
• And giving to charity to large extent expected and very
normalised
78
Large Majority of UK Adults are Active Donors
80%
20%
% Donated within the last 12 months
Donated Did not donate
79
78%
22%
% Considering donating within the next 12 months
Considering donating Not considering donating
Q3_2. Which, if any, would you consider using in the NEXT 12 months Base: All adults aged 16-64, N=2032
Q2_1. Thinking of your own personal donation's) to charity, which of these, if any, have you personally used in the LAST 12 months Base: All adults aged 16-64, N=2032
How Different Were Current Users of PSMS
from the General Public? (Based on Qual Research)
• Group Audience seemed very mainstream!
– good snapshot of Middle England
• mums and dads with middle income jobs
• 20-30 somethings living typical pre-family London
lifestyles, few commitments
– nobody that hard up but also nobody wealthy
• Interestingly not early adopters of mobile technology
• That said probably were a little more involved than
average in charity giving
– typically multiple involvement
– and, especially women quite susceptible
to emotional appeals to their generosity
80
sense that not
radically different
from Mr/Ms Average
but perhaps a little
more committed to
charity
Quite High Charity Involvement Amongst
Qualitative Respondents
• Here our Consumers’ involvement showed a whole
range of activities
81
one off donations
smaller amounts 5p
more passive
watching/reacting to TV appeals
giving to large, well known household names
committed giving
larger amounts £50 monthly
active
active fundraising yourself/volunteering
supporting small, local charities
Regular Text Giver Qual Interviewees: More
Upmarket, Better Informed, More Involved
• Profile of Unicef Just Text Givers a little more ‘rarified’
– all either graduates or students
– 2/6 of non British origin
– 2/6 were university lecturers
– 2/6 quite affluent
– half working in/studying IT
– naturally very small (and biased) sample – but more
upmarket, more early adopterish
• And most (though not all) very committed givers to
charity
– wide range of charity supported
– most also have DD running
– importantly, more knowledgeable, confident and
considered givers than group respondents 82
Donors’ Voices
83
We lost some members
of the family to cancer
so for me cancer
charities are particularly
close – I always give if
someone is fundraising.
We have a Direct Debit
with a local cats and
dogs shelter. They
always send us a card at
Christmas.
I’m involved in a homeless
charity run by our local church. I
give my time and some money
to help people who use the
shelter, they call them guests,
particularly in winter periods.
We currently do fundraising as a
group for Race for Life. There’s
three of us and together we
collected over £2000. I’m slightly
dreading all those people getting
back asking for donation
themselves
Regardless, Highly Positive Attitudes to
Charities…
• High involvement also co-
incides with POSITIVE
attitudes towards charities
– charities’ work recognised as important and highly
laudable
– altruism applauded
– seen to make a real
contribution to society
– even more appreciated in
current austerity climate
• charities picking up the
pieces of government cuts
84
Charities make a substantial
difference to people’s lives. You
sort of always know it but when
you hear real stories, you realise
how important this is…
Charities are more important than
ever when the government is
obsessed with short-term cuts.
They are expecting charities to fill
in the gaps
I love charities. They do
incredible work and we need to
appreciate them
I do good so I feel good
• Hence all qualitative interviewees also very willing
charity supporters
– want to pay their dues to society
– at the same time also get psychological satisfaction in
presenting myself as ‘good person’, citizen
• to myself
• to others!
• Here a sense that charity donations generate a little
‘high’ – put me in a good mood
• And naturally is also part of the more ‘selfish’ side of
giving
– ie not just done to benefit others but also me and my
standing!
85
But Consumers Also Feel the Pressures of a
Crowded and Saturated Market
86
Chuggers Calls
Raffle tickets! Charity Events on TV
Someone’s child at
work asking
Charities knocking on
your door
Near ubiquitous charity appeals …
Consumers Do Feel Pressurised
87
You can’t say no if
it’s a friend’s or
colleagues’ child,
can you?
Watching Sport Relief or
Comic Relief with your
children is like a torture:
Dad, can we give a bit
more? Please!
You switch the TV
on and it’s like a
real emotional
blackmail!
It’s almost like one
born every minute –
there is a charity for
just about everything.
In Group Discussions Can Then Get Defensive
and Talk About the ‘Dark Side’ of Charities
• Scams
• Emotional blackmail
• Pushy chuggers
• Invasion of privacy
• Wasteful spending
• Milking existing donors vs
looking for new ones
88
Chuggers are horrible – you
have to zigzag on your own
street to avoid them!
Have you heard about the
soldier next to Asda? Turned
out to be a scam!
What a waste to post me these
pens and stickers! Spend your
money wisely!
As such there is Some Emotional Ambivalence
• Here can then lead to somewhat ambivalent attitudes
– guilt (if I don’t want/don’t feel I can give yet again)
– a dose of resentment (they’re pushing me yet again)
– suspicion (are they really as moral as they say they are?!)
• Importantly this leads also to a cautious approach to
relationships with charities
– CAN be open to a relationship but …
• they prefer them to be on their own terms
• they prefer being in control
• they like feeling that they have chosen to connect
– some prefer rather not to enter a relationship
– especially when acted on spontaneous impulse in ad hoc
giving
89
Qual Research Examined Motivations for Ad
Hoc Giving – Quite Emotional and Superficial
• When making ad hoc donations most just
follow a spontaneous impulse, to feel generous and good about themselves
– quite easily swayed by call to action that
‘pulls on my heartstrings’
– given above suspicion often need a certain
element of reassurance
• but as long as guaranteed by a ‘big
name’/initiative or a trusted friend
unlikely to really interrogate charities
• Unless have further
personal/emotional links (eg cancer
charities etc) relatively low levels of
interest or commitment to charity or
its cause
– ad hoc donations quickly made and easily
forgotten!
– what’s more – to a certain degree donors
don’t even want to know where their
money goes
• a ‘nice to know’ vs ‘must know
90
relatively frequent
low commitment
can be smaller or larger charities
all about the moment
needs to be quick and easy
typical methods:
cash (!)
for some: online donations
ad hoc PSMS
typical calls to action:
face-to-face
TV appeals
Motivations for Committed Giving: More
Considered and ‘Serious’
• Those with Direct Debits (as well as
Regular Text Givers) were more
considered …
– also had a tendency to favour larger
charities for ‘trust’ reasons
– beyond though felt they had given some thought to the cause/charity
and could (post-)rationalise as ‘worthy’ of their monetary commitment
• A minority of these were really
interested in the charity
– eg wanted to know more
• However, most still only had a
vague interest and commitment
– often sense that wanted to do their ‘bit’ through regular giving and then forget about it
91
naturally more infrequent
higher interest – can be higher
commitment
-but nb not for everyone!
can take a little longer to set up
more likely to be bigger charities
typical methods:
Direct Debit
(Regular Text Giving for ‘selective’
sample)
typical calls to action:
often not recalled!!
Unicef Regular Text Givers ALL
recruited face-to-face, on the street
DONATION METHODS –
AND HOW PRS FITS IN
92
Consumer Segmentation of Donation Methods
• Consumers typically judge the different ways to donate
to charities on two parameters
– how much fuss/effort is involved
– one off vs more committed giving
Donation Methods: Commitment vs Fuss
94 94
Fuss
No Fuss
Low
commitment
High
commitment
Direct Debit:
Long and high in value,
only for charities I really
believe in
Cash:
easy, affordable,
spontaneous, for wide
range of charities
Online Card:
ad hoc, planned,
high in value
Most Popular Donation Mechanisms
• Cash: easy, simple,
affordable and
spontaneous!
• Card Online: higher in
value, longer process,
credit, at your own time,
still new to some,
personal.
• Direct Debit: long
commitment, close
relationship, not easy to
set up and cancel.
95
I give cash all the time! You
don’t even notice it anymore –
it is so easy!
I really like donating online
because you can add a
personal message
Direct Debit is for your
favourite charity – the one that
you love and trust to do the job
Donation Methods: ‘A Priori’ Place of PRS
96 96
Fuss
No Fuss
Low
commitment
High
commit-
ment
Direct Debit:
Long and high in value,
only for charities I really
believe in
Cash:
easy, affordable, spontaneous, for wide range of charities
Online Card:
ad hoc OR more
planned, bit
higher in value
Ad hoc
PRS:
similar to cash +
modern a bit ‘cool’
more indirect, for more limited range of charities
Regular PSMS:
less ‘fuss’ and lower
commitment alternative to DD
PRS – AWARENESS,
USAGE AND ATTITUDES
97
Quant Research Shows Quite Considerable
Awareness – But Room for Improvement
• Awareness of PRS as a donation mechanism is
reasonable to good
– Just over half of UK adults are aware of PSMS
– A third are aware of Premium Phone rate calls
• Given the relative youth of PRS donations this should be
regarded as a success
– online card payment awareness is not much higher at 63%
and has been around for longer!
• However, on the other hand this also means that there is
still work to be done on awareness
– ie just under half the UK population unaware of PSMS
– 71% unaware of premium phone rate calls
Awareness
99
21%
29%
56%
63%
65%
81%
88%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
On-line micro payment
Premium phone rate
Text message
On-Line card payment
Cheque
Direct debit
Cash
Awareness
Q1_1. Which, if any, of these ways of giving to charity have you heard of? Base: All adults aged 16-64, N=2032
Few demographic
skews, with the exception that
awareness is
higher amongst the higher social
grades
Usage
• PSMS Usage at 10% - nb this seems a considerable
increase vs published data for 2010/11*
– indicates growth of this donation mechanism
– to some extent seems to ‘justify’ hope the industry attaches
to the area
• At the same time Premium Phone Call Usage at only 1%
– seems neither to capture the industry nor consumers
• Beyond a big opportunity seems to lie in building both
usage and consideration of PSMS – currently at relative
low levels vs more established methods
100
* The UK Giving Report by the Charities Aid Foundation cites less than 1% of the UK population reporting to
have used text for charity donations in 2010/11
https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/UK_Giving_2011_Full_Rep.pdf
Awareness vs Usage
Awareness Used in past 12 months
Cash 88% 61%
On-line card
payment 63% 21%
Direct Debit 81% 23%
OL Micro-
donation 21% 4%
Text
message 56% 10%
Cheque 65% 9%
Premium
phone calls 29% 1%
% of those aware who
have used
69%
33%
28%
19%
18%
14%
3%
Unsurprisingly
better ‘conversion’ from awareness to
usage for more
established methods
Weaker conversion
from awareness to usage for newer
methods – and the
‘legacy’ method, ie cheque
at respectable level for PSMS (and
online micro-
donations) low for premium
phone calls
Awareness Vs Intention/Consideration
102
Awareness Consider using in next 12
months
Cash 88% 61%
On-line card
payment 63% 25%
Direct Debit 81% 22%
OL Micro-
donation 21% 9%
Text message 56% 14%
Cheque 65% 13%
Premium
phone line 29% 2%
% of those aware who
consider
70%
40%
27%
43%
25%
20%
2%
A quarter of those
aware of the ability to donate by text will
consider doing so
within the next 12 months
Intention levels for Premium Phone
calls very low
Knowledge Gap in the Research
• As qualitative research was restricted to those who have
bridged the gap from awareness to usage research
cannot be certain about barriers to uptake of PSMS
• However we have insight on
– current usage
– charities most likely to benefit
– attractions of PSMS
– calls to action that seemed to work
103
PSMS Experience
• Our qualitative sample had experience of PSMS
donations (not voice calls) only
• And here slotted in quite easily as ‘no fuss’, easy, quick
donation mechanism
– as ad hoc donations most akin to cash
– for regular donation most similar to Direct Debit – but
perceptually rather lower in commitment
• Most of our ad hoc donors had responded to a TV
appeal
• All Regular Text Givers from the Unicef database had
been approached in the street
– regular text giving offered as an alternative
104
Consumers See Their PSMS Giving As Adding
To, Not Cannibalising From Existing Donations
• Here consumers certainly feel that they are making
charity donations by text they would not have made
otherwise
– ad hoc allowing them a way to react immediately that
wasn’t around before
– with regular text giving allowing commitment – but less so
• most of our interviewees had first rejected face-to-face
charity representative’s request for DD
105
Seems to confirm expert view that PSMS does not
cannibalise: these donors are not an entirely new
audience BUT they may not have given to the
specific charity at that specific time
Consumer Findings Also Seem to Support
‘Skew’ Towards Large Charities
106
Ad Hoc Givers:
Most donated
more than once
but to large
charities,
typically in
response to TV
appeal
Regular Text
Givers
All only
donating to
Unicef; all
recruited in the
street
‘Skew’ Towards Larger Charities
• The skew clearly reflects “availability”
– larger charities more likely to offer and communicate PSMS
• But also to some extent to do with trust
– as we will see, some underlying nervousness vs new
method of giving which makes consumers gravitate
towards well known, established charities & charitable
initiatives
107
Calls to Action
• Calls to Action in both qualitative groups and quantitative
research dominated by TV
• For qual respondents
– direct appeals by entertainers/presenters
• And importantly via mobile now immediate opportunity
to react without having to miss the programme!
– adds reassurance of ‘institution’ – eg BBC for Sport Relief
• in combination with large charity names adds trust
– Particularly for programmes with large charity element
donation can seem a little like a ‘quid pro quo’
• “You’re sitting there the whole evening being
entertained hour after hour. It just feels fair to pay,
especially if you know that money goes to charity”
108
TV Dominates Call to Action Mechanisms,
Particular TV Appeals within a TV Show
109 Q5_1. Which of the following, if any, prompted you to donate Base: All adults aged 16-64, who donated via text / premium phone N=212
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
An appeal during a TVprogramme
Other
A friend who wasfundraising for a charity
A charity representative onthe street
An advertisement on TVwithin the commercial
break
An online appeal on asocial media site
An outdoor posteradvertisement
Calls To Action: Street Recruitment
• As above, all of the Unicef Regular Text Givers had been
recruited face-to-face on the street
• Here text was presented as an alternative to Direct Debit
– after the consumer had rejected this option
• Here face-to-face recruitment seemed quite effective
– Allowing explanation of the cause
• Fitted in well with more ‘rational’ frame of mind of
committed givers
– Plus positively contrasted with DD
• easier, more immediate than DD
• lower value
• Perceptually safer – feel more comfortable handing
over telephone number than bank details 110
PSMS MOTIVATIONS
AND PERCEIVED
BENEFITS
111
Ad Hoc Text Donation Is Closest To Cash –
Feels Like a Throwing a Coin... In Style!
• simple and easy
• affordable / small sums
• spontaneous / when it feels like it’s
needed most
– hence has a real feel good factor
• anonymous, low commitment
• … and what a way to throw!
112
Ad Hoc PSMS: Here Mobile Brings Another Set
of Advantages
• Text donations feel new and
exciting: technology and charity
put together!
• Because transactions are small
and do not involve credit card
details they feel relatively safe (compared to online)
• Small donations feel less tangible
– delay between making the
donation and monies being
deducted
– feels a bit more removed –
donation ‘hidden’ in a mobile
phone bill
113
It’s a bit like Monopoly money!
It doesn’t feel real, but still
gives you the kick!
Very Positive Views of Ad Hoc Text Donations
• In a pre-task we asked qualitative respondents to
nominate their favourite way of donating to charity
– 9 out of 15 nominated PSMS!
• Experiences very positive
114
Easy Cool Always
there!
Affordable
Anonymous Safe
Feel Good
Factor!
Consumer Perspectives on Text Donations
115
I feel quite cool doing
it as an older person,
it’s quite trendy!
You’re not disclosing
your bank details …
so it feels quite safe.
The safest way
probably!
Your phone is just there
when they ask for a
donation. I do it because
I want to and I don’t
forget
It is so easy and quick.
It is probably the fastest
and the easiest way
Experiences of Regular Text Giving
• Similarly very positive views of RTG amongst Unicef qual
interviewees
• Here interestingly adds an element of SPONTANEITY to
committed donations
– ie I can act on the spur of the moment (and experience a
bit of a feel-good buzz)
• enhanced by deferred payment via phone bill!
116
Experiences of Regular Text Giving
• At the same time also avoids the usual ‘fuss’ around
committed giving
– no lengthy entry of data
– importantly, feels more private and more anonymous –
especially in the context of on-the-street recruitment
– smaller amounts than Direct Debit
• Can also mention CONTROL
– Here STOP/SKIP spontaneously mentioned as positives
– Allow you to keep an eye on your donations
– Unlike DD which you’re likely to forget about
• In all quite ‘customer-friendly’ and reassuring
– a sense of reassurance in the new medium
117
Experiences of Regular Text Giving
• Communication updates can be part of the RTG
experience for some (though a minority amongst our
small base of interviewees)
– Here one or two very seriously minded Regular Text Givers
like sense of ‘pay back’ from the charity
• Ie acknowledging their donation
• Letting them know what happens to their money
• That said, others, as above, consider more of a nice-to-
have and don’t really engage with content
118
Regular Text Giving Quotes
119
I didn’t have to hand
over my details on the
street so it’s more secure
and easier. And I get a text
message with the option
to stop it if I don’t want
to continue
No faff, no hassle,
you just text the number
and then it’s done.
Setting up a Direct Debit
is much more cumbersome
You get these messages every
month giving you the option to stop or skip. I like those reminders …You get the warm,
fuzzy feeling that you’re making someone’s life better, with Direct
Debits you just forget about them
£3 is a good amount…
for me it’s just the price
of a pint but I know it
can make a difference.
And it just comes off your
phone bill.
Regular Text Giving for Ad Hoc PSMS Donors
• In groups we introduced the
concept of Regular Text Giving
to those who had only used
PSMS ad hoc
• Initial reactions often somewhat
negative
– Seemed at odds with low
commitment medium
• However, interestingly, audience could really warm to
the idea
– once explained to them
– when ‘framed’ in the right way
• ie vs Direct Debit
– when STOP/SKIP functionality
explained 120
I can see how useful it will be
in December and January
when I genuinely don’t have
money for charity
This is a light version of direct
debit.
So Depending on the Angle RTG Generates
Different Reactions
• Counter intuitive
• I want to keep my bills to
minimum!
• Seems to diminish
control
• Feels intrusive to make
regular donations via text
– mobile is too personal
• Feels easier to set up
• Feels less of a
commitment
• SKIP / STOP give control
to people
• Does not let you forget
about donations
NO! If approached from
Text angle (Reaction in
Groups):
YES! If approach from
Direct Debit angle (Phone
interviews):
121
ISSUES WITH PSMS
FROM CONSUMERS’ POV
122
Downsides and Limitations
123
• Whilst the novelty of PSMS
is clearly a strength, it also
means that consumers can
still be a little wary
– Chatter about mobile scams / possible unfortunate
scenarios
– here down to …
• Lack of trust in mobile
phone operators
• No awareness of
regulations or authority
to complain to
• (PpP virtually unknown)
What if I press SEND 5 times?
It’s silly, but I do worry about
these things
Mobile phone networks are
known for being robbing
bastards! You’ll never get
your money back from them
if something goes wrong!
Are these concerns that may be holding back non-PSMS
users ?
And Important to Note That Consumers Have
Considerable Knowledge Gaps!
• Mechanics of PSMS
– unique advantages of giving in this way
– existing consumer protection
• But also … Charities’ ‘agendas’ around PSMS
• Important for the Regulator
• Worth considering that filling the knowledge gaps may
help the use of PSMS in some respects – but may hinder
it in others!
124
Lack of Awareness of Advantages Around
PSMS
• Consumers are NOT aware of
charity-only short codes
• As such also don’t understand
the mechanics – nor advantages
– for themselves
• eg consumer protection
regulations
– donation caps
• no additional charges levied
when using 07 numbers
– for charities
• ie fee waivers
• VAT exemption
– hence no knowledge that 100%
goes to charity!
125
Realistically – I think they
probably get 65-70%
When ‘Enlightened’ About These Benefits
Pleasantly Surprised
• Sense that more communication of rules and mechanics
could help
– seems in the spirit of charitable giving etc
– generates a sense of trust
– MAY be able to widen the net
• in terms of consumers using PSMS
• in terms of benefiting a wider range of charities?
126
Now that you’ve explained how it works, it
sounds much more safe and regulated than I
expected
Lack of Awareness of Charity’s ‘Agenda’
• Consumers in groups and depths were largely also
unaware of charities’ use of PSMS donations as a
source of data … and a recruitment channel
• Here can be slightly naïve
– as we have seen above both Ad hoc see PSMS as very
anonymous medium
• typically don’t think about handing over the phone
numbers – and hence a way to re-contact them about
further donations
– simply does not occur to them
– some assume that charities may not be allowed to
follow up
127
This Tallies With Quantitative Data
• 4 out of 5 do not expect a post-PSMS follow up asking
for more money
– and nb this is after research had introduced this option into
people’s heads!
• And a majority seems to expect a mere ‘courtesy’ follow-
up call
• Over one third expected no post-contact at all after a
PSMS donation!
128
Expectations of Follow up
129
13%
18%
26%
9%
43%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Receive information about the charity in atext message
Receive a phone call from a charity askingme to make further donations
Receive a request to allow donation byGift Aid
Receive a phone call from a charitythanking me for my donation
Receive a confirmation text message ofthe amount donated
None of these
Expectations of follow up
NB Expectations of follow up are significantly higher amongst the higher social grades than lower social grades
Q6_1. Which of the following, if any, do you expect to happen after you have made a donation by text or an 09 number?
Base: All adults aged 16-64, N=2032
Mixed Response to Thought of Being Asked for
More/Direct Debit post-PSMS Donations
• When idea introduced in
qual research some express
surprise/resentment
– would feel pressurised
– can feed into above suspicion
about perceptually sharp
practices from charities
• That said others, especially
more confident and better
educated Regular Text
Givers non-plussed
– understand charities need to
try to get extra monies
– feel able to make their own
decisions as whether to
donate or not
•
130
“I wouldn’t like that very much
because it’d feel like begging …
“I feel charities are like businesses,
almost not like charities any more. It’s
just a constant attempt to squeeze
more money out of you.”
I’d rather they didn’t … it feels every
so slightly mercenary. And getting a
call is always a bit of a nuisance
I wouldn’t mind if they called. I can’t
give them more at the moment but
maybe once I’ll be working I’d like to
set up a Direct Debit
A Conflict of Interest?
• From a consumer protection perspective may be
appropriate at least to highlight the likelihood of being
contacted
– especially considering that the less educated, the less
likely to expect post contact
– possibly also in the interests of charities’ reputation?
• No direct evidence from the groups or depths that this
would turn people off donating
– but MAY of course have that effect
– and hence limit key advantage of PSMS for charities!
131
Quantitative Figures Add Further Proof that
Conversion Works
• And naturally we know that follow-up calls do work
– eg more successful than cold calls!
• Here quantitative figures from the Omnibus survey show
the potential
– … 18% of PSMS donors received a follow up call asking
for further donations
• of these 12% signed up to Direct Debit
• another 23% said they at least considered doing so
132
Readiness to Sign Up to Direct Debit
133
Q8_1. Thinking about times during the last 12 months when you have received a call from a charity following your text donation, did you sign up to a Direct
Debit to give a regular automated donation to a charity? Base: All adults aged 16-64, who received a follow up call N=26 * CAUTION EXTREMELY LOW BASE. SHOULD BE VIEWED AS DIRECTIONAL ONLY
12%
23%
65%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes, I signed up for more than one charity
No, but I did consider it
No, Not interested at all
Interest in Direct Debit regular payment
THE FUTURE AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PPP
134
1. The Future of PRS
• Expectations that PRS is likely to grow
– rising consumer awareness and adoption of the method by
other charities
– development of mobile payments / mobile wallets
– possible use of social network element of text donations
– more active use of MMS / text updates
– higher Gift Aid conversion rates
– more sophisticated CRM tools
• However, currently difficult to tell if smaller charities will
be able to benefit more
– May take part through JTG or alternative products like
Instagiv
– But will still be hamstrung in using data by internal issues
2. Market Modelling Is Expecting Steady
Growth
136
1.7 3.5 7.2
15.3
32.7
66.1
94.2
124.4
150.1
96.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Phone-paid charitable giving evolution, 2009-2015
Phone-paidcharitable giving(£m)*
CAF estimate(£m)
Institute ofFundraisingestimate (£m)
3. Recommendations for PpP: Help Raise
Awareness
• Consider Helping Continued Industry Education around
‘best practice’ and know how
– As such helping smaller charities to understand how they
can currently make use of PRS
– Also where its limitations may lie?
• Both general awareness and awareness of PRS details
amongst the general public could still be improved
– Consider facilitating communication on the following
• 100% going to charity
• Importantly – there are RULES and regulations in this
sector
– Eg CAPS
– PpP’s existence as a regulator?
137
May help encourage
more wide-spread adoption?
4. Recommendations for PpP: Reconsider
Caps?
• Would recommend to consider raising caps slightly –
whilst communicating them at the same time
– Seem quite appropriate for consumers at the moment
– But in combination with their communication could help the
industry
• Could raise donations
• Could help confidence of those who are currently a little
hesitant around PSMS
138
5. Recommendations for PpP: Keep
STOP/SKIP but tone down?
• Whilst industry clearly would like to remove rules around
STOP/SKIP some evidence from consumers that these
reminders are valued
• However, could consider a compromise
– continue updates/regular opt out options
– but consider softening the tone from ‘imperative’
STOP/SKIP to avoid consumers feeling compelled to
stop/skip payments?
139
6. Recommendations for PpP: Check Data
Protection Issue, Gauge Need for Money Back
• Industry can be concerned that ‘black sheep’ may lead to
negative publicity
– Only limited evidence that shared short codes break Data
Protection Act (raised by one expert industry respondent)
• no evidence that data is currently being misused by
anyone!
• But would really recommend looking further into this
– There may well be a case to develop a ‘money back’
framework (e.g. text guarantee endorsed by MNOs –
similar to Direct Debit guarantees in the banking sector) to
allow for consumer mistakes or, if it should occur, fraud!
140
7. Recommendations for PpP: Consider if
Follow-Up Option Needs to Be Made Clearer
• There is a conflict of interest between consumer
expectations around anonymity and charities use of
PSMS as a source of data
• Strictly speaking, consumers should be made (more)
aware that they may be re-contacted
– And make them more aware that they can opt out!
• However, clearly this may limit the value of PRS for the
industry
• Feel this needs careful consideration and ‘bilateral’ talks!
141