fundraising today and tomorrow and the next generation of canadian giving

“THE MORE ONE KNOWS, THE MORE ONE CAN CONTROL EVENTS.”

SIR FRANCIS BACON

•  DONOR FILES AND ACQUISITION LIST SOURCES ARE SHRINKING – A MORE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT

Current Fundraising Reality

Aging Donor Base

What are the preferred giving channels of each genera6on?

What are the preferred communica6ons and

engagement channels?

Does age influence who you give to?

What are the basic dos and don’ts for fundraisers in 2013 and beyond?

Hail Angry Peasant! what skullduggery do you intend with that pitchfork?

How could thoust deny the vital nutri6onal

content of this fine homebrewed ale?

ONLINE BENCHMARKING (2011 AND 2012)

Other Sources of Giving Data in Canada

WHERE CAN WE IMPROVE?

•  Underdeveloped Advocacy •  8.2% of total email files in Canada are

advocates vs. 12% in the United States •  Only 6.8% of online advocates are donors in

Canada vs. double that in the United States

ACTION TAKERS ARE STRONGER PROSPECTS

Non-‐donors who’d taken ac6on online were 2.3x more likely to donate than non-‐donors in the email file who hadn’t

ACTION TAKERS ARE STRONGER DONORS

Source: Charitable Memberships, Volunteering and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-‐Scale Online Field Experiment. May 2009, Na6onal Bureau of Economic Research, A. Lange, A. Stocking.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: E-PETITION AND TELEPHONE FOLLOW UP

Phone number: Ask!

Counter: social proof

Comments: priority for calls

Subscribe: for cultivation

More info: legitimacy

CALLING ADVOCACY LISTS

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20% 18.50%

8% 9%

11%

Recent Lapsed Monthly Donor

Online Pe66on Only

E-‐newsle]er Subscriber

Long Lapsed Montlhly Donor

COST PER MONTHLY DONOR $75.00

•  1000 phone calls – 74 monthly donors giving $9.66 every month

WHAT ARE WE DOING WELL?

•  A Less Cluttered Market •  14.34% open rates in the United States vs. 22.98% open rates in Canada •  That maintains a similar advantage the year before •  Monthly Giving •  Next Generation of Giving comparison – still higher in Canada •  Online monthly giving is also bigger in Canada: 14% of Canadian online

revenue is from monthly sustainer vs. 8% of US online revenue •  HOWEVER… US online sustainer revenue increased from 6% the year

before while the Canadian % remained the same at 14%. •  We shouldn’t be standing still! •  This is paralleled in the offline, Next Gen Study

WHAT ELSE?

•  Are we doing enough? •  Even though the US market is more mature in online fundraising, they still

have a higher online gross revenue increase of 10% vs. 5% in Canada •  Is this a parallel of our more conservative, steady economic approach to

growth? •  Are we spamming? •  In the US, there was a 1.2% increase in overall charitable email volume but

there was an 18% increase in Canada •  If we are sending more, is it segmented and personalized?

Do donors interact up and down the pyramid?

•  The cul6va6on survey: –  Sent to 57,400 donors –  3 key segments: Monthly, Ac6ve &

Lapsed –  5,530 responses (response rate of 11%) –  Raised $17,574 – a bonus! –  Reac6vated 30 donors –  Found 85 expectances and 292 legacy

leads –  143 middle and major donor leads! –  Shared budge6ng! –  Surveymonkey and RE

CANADA LEADING THE PACK

1.  Donors from 35 to 45 were thinking of legacy gifs

2.  Shown to be 300% over represented on LinkedIn

3.  Open to Gifs of Stock

4.  Now…. A LinkedIn Strategy for a Legacy Gif for younger donors….

HAPPY SURPRISES!

CANADA LEADING THE PACK

A recent online survey found

ANIMAL WELFARE

A recent online survey found

THE NEXT GENERATION OF CANADIAN GIVING

The Canadian Fundraising Summit 2013

% Of Genera6on Giving

Total ann

ual giving

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

55% 65% 75% 85% 95%

79% Give 5.8 M donors $831 yr/avg 4.5 chari6es $4.8 B/yr

62% Give 4.5M donors $639 yr/avg 4.0 chari6es $2.9 B/yr



Gen Y

Gen X

Boomers

Matures

GENERATIONAL GIVING

Bubble size is ‘Es,mated Annual Contribu,ons’

An overview of annual giving by genera6on confirms the importance of Boomers in the charitable giving space.

Born: 81-‐91

Born: before 1946 Born: 46-‐64

Born: 65-‐80

NOW DRAW YOUR BUBBLES

A GRADE TWO QUIZ

Gen Y Animal Protection

Mature

Human Rights Gen X

Door To Door Boomer

Arts

CAUSES – TOP TIER

GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES

PRIORITY CAUSE

45% 50% 50% 55%

21% 31% 31% 36%

32% 40% 38% 28%

18% 25% 23% 40%

15% 17% 17% 14%

12% 14% 11% 14%

50%

30%

35%

26%

16%

13%

71%

48%

46%

33%

23%

22%

Health chari6es

Local social service

Children’s chari6es

Place of worship

Animal rescue/protec6on

Emergency relief

Priority Cause Overall Giving

% dona6ng overall to causes

*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance

between 2010 and 2013.

•  Health charities have the largest % of donors across generations

•  For all top tier causes capture, at least half of donors see it as a priority. Places of worship and children’s charities have the largest %

•  Emergency giving dropped as a priority cause across generations

↓

↓

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

↓

↓ ↓

↓

↓ ↓

CAUSES – BOTTOM TIER GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES

PRIORITY CAUSE

10% 8% 6% 10%

13% 8% 6% 9%

6% 8% 8% 10%

3% 3% 7% 10%

6% 5% 6% 4%

2% 3% 2% 6%

4% 4% 3% 4%

2% 3% 2% 7%

3% 4% 2% 3%

0% -‐ 0% -‐

8%

9%

8%

6%

5%

3%

4%

4%

3%

0%

18%

16%

16%

11%

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

1%

Educa6on

Human rights, interna6onal dev. Environmental, conserva6on

Arts/art-‐related

Vic6ms of crime or abuse

Elec6on campaigns

First responders

Troops/veterans

Advocacy

Trade union Priority Cause Overall Giving

% dona6ng overall to causes

*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance between 2010 and 2013

↓

↑

↓

↓ ↓

WHAT CHANNELS ARE DONORS USING IN NORTH AMERICA?

ANOTHER GRADE TWO QUIZ

Gen Y Online Giving

Mature

Mobile Text Gen X

Door To Door Boomer

Telemarketing

GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES

55% 54% 58% 55% 45% 55% 35% 31% 21% 35% 47% 56% 36% 39% 38% 30% 29% 33% 40% 37% 11% 23% 36% 58% 22% 29% 37% 34% 22% 24% 29% 29% 24% 20% 25% 20% 25% 19% 11% 9% 15% 14% 12% 14% 5% 9% 15% 18% 7% 5% 4% 9% 4% 9% 4% 4% 5% 8% 4% 3% 12% 4% 2% -‐ 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2%

Donated this way in last 2 years

56% 41% 41%

36% 35%

32% 32%

26% 22%

15% 13% 12%

6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2%

Checkout Dona6on Online Dona6on Honor/Tribute

Purchase for Proceeds Pledge at Event

Mailed Check/Credit Card Door to Door* Monthly Debit

Street Canvassing* Third Party Vendor

Email* Phone

Radio/TV* Online Ad*

Will/Planned Gif Mobile/Text

Social Networking Site Stocks, Bonds, Property

GIVING CHANNELS

Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance

between 2010 and 2013.

*New or changed aCribute, no tracking data

↑ ↑

↑

↓

↑

↓

↑ ↑

↓ ↑

↑

↓

1%

1%

5%

6%

12%

18%

25%

33%

34%

34%

35%

43%

3%

6%

9%

9%

12%

14%

25%

16%

21%

23%

25%

24%

34%

36%

36%

30%

34%

29%

22%

15%

17%

16%

12%

9%

47%

41%

23%

18%

15%

11%

4%

8%

3%

6%

2%

1% 37

Acceptable SolicitaLon Channel (from organizaLons with an established relaLonship)

Very Acceptable Very Unacceptable NET GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES

+77 +78 +87 +77 +63

+69 +70 +76 +68 +62

+46 +53 +40 +46 +47

+34 +51 +43 +30 +13

+25 +50 +41 +11 +5

+8 +45 +26 -‐2 -‐33

-‐24 -‐4 -‐21 -‐37 -‐24

-‐26 +24 -‐5 -‐46 -‐65

-‐35 -‐6 -‐29 -‐49 -‐46

-‐35 -‐26 -‐38 -‐41 -‐30

-‐46 -‐17 -‐38 -‐54 -‐67

-‐57 -‐29 -‐48 -‐76 -‐63

Friend

Friend's child/grandchild

Le]er/message

Radio or TV program

Email

Opt-‐in for extra charge on 6cket/recording

Phone call

Message via social media

Voice message

Door-‐to-‐door canvassing

Street canvassing

Text message

ACCEPTABLE SOLICITATION CHANNEL

Net (Acceptable – Unacceptable)

Smwt Smwt

Channels with a personal connec6on are most acceptable, followed by le]ers or TV/radio.

*Bolding indicates sta,s,cal significance among audiences. Arrows indicate sta,s,cal significance between 2010 and 2013.

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

30%

36%

7%

14%

9% 2%

Gen Y

43%

21%

7%

14%

8% 1%

56% 18%

7%

9%

5% 1%

Boomers

55% 19%

10%

7%

4% 2%

Matures

As we saw in the 2010 research, the feeling that monetary dona6ons are the way to make the biggest difference increases with age. Gen Y – with more 6me than money -‐-‐

is the one genera6onal cohort that places more emphasis on volunteering.

Gen X

Money Volunteer Donate goods Spread word Fundraise Advocate

HYPER-CHOICE IS IT THE DEATH OF

UNRESTRICTED GIVING?

“Honey, spend the money wherever you need to. I trust you.”

24% 22%

49%

26% 18%

53%

23% 25%

46%

10%

40% 43%

Directed dona6on Unrestricted dona6on

Either is fine

Directed Giving Preferences

Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures

27%

55%

7% 5%

22%

44%

6% 1%

22%

34%

5% 0

14%

28%

7% 2%

Decide where funds go

See the impact of my dona6on

Thank you gif Public recogni6on

Would MoLvate Me a Great Deal to Make a Larger DonaLon to

Charity


Engagement: Directed Giving

HOW DO YOUR DONORS LOOK AT TRANSACTIONS,

ENGAGEMENT, AND OUTREACH?

TRANSACTIONAL: DIRECT MAIL

46

63%

56%

13%

11%

56%

50%

22%

23%

58%

55%

28%

36%

63%

64%

28%

58%

Mail from a charity is very or smwt acceptable

Mail is important way for charity to stay in touch

Receive informa6on in the mail

Gave a dona6on in response to a mail appeal in the last 2

yrs


•  While donors say that direct mail is an acceptable and important way for chari6es to keep in touch with supporters …

•  … There is a substan6al drop across genera6ons in the number who remember receiving info in the mail; and a big difference, except among Matures, in the number who say they have responded to direct mail

•  Donors say that a charity’s website is an important way to stay in touch, yet far fewer report actually visi6ng these sites

•  However, the website is an important transac6on channel – especially with Gen X. More say they contributed in this way across genera6ons in 2013 than in 2010

TRANSACTIONAL: ONLINE 85%

41%

45%

76%

29%

55%

60%

25%

35%

45%

16%

31%

Visi6ng website is important way to stay in touch with

charity

Visit website of chari6es you support

Made a dona6on through org's

website in last 2 years


Website

Credit card 90% Paypal 38% Amazon payment 2%

Ways Would Pay

2010 41%

37%

29%

24%

↑

ENGAGEMENT: WORKPLACE

60%

36%

58%

40% 49% 50%

25%

75%

Have given in the workplace

Have not given in workplace

Workplace giving is more prevalent among younger workers. Gen Y is likely to give this way just once, while Boomers are more likely to give through payroll.

Workplace Giving GEN Y GEN X BOOMERS MATURES

Par6cipated in a workplace fundraiser 30% 33% 30% 13%

Made a one-‐6me dona6on through your workplace

24% 16% 20% 4%

Made a dona6on through payroll deduc6on

11% 18% 24% 4%

Volunteered through your workplace 19% 12% 16% 4%

Made a dona6on where your employer matched the gif

15% 15% 11% 4%

Par6cipated in a workplace walk/run/challenge

15% 11% 13% 8% Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures

(filtered among those employed or student)


•  Corporate Donors phoned/mailed/emailed proposal •  Lead to Starbucks doing a coin collection at 90 of their retail stores. •  Also led to online Employee Giving campaign (138 employees (almost

all new donors) gave over $4,000 in lieu of Christmas gifts

ENGAGEMENT: RETAIL GIVING Retail

giving, last 12 mos 34%

No retail giving 43%

Not sure 23%

Gen Y: 54% Gen X: 38% Boomers: 29% Matures: 19%

MoLvaLons (Single most important reason)

Total Y X B M

Cause 64% 58% 69% 64% 61%

Product 19% 28% 18% 25% 18%

Total Y X B M

Given to cause before 24% 21% 18% 31% 29%

Would have given anyway 35% 30% 39% 34% 42%

Have given since purchase 11% 17% 9% 8% 11%

Plan to give directly in future 28% 27% 30% 20% 42%

Will retail give to this charity in future 48% 40% 45% 56% 55%

None of these (1x gif) 10% 16% 12% 2% 13%

RelaLonship to Cause

•  Gen Y & X are more likely to give by retail purchase

•  All are primarily mo6vated by cause over product

•  Responses suggest that retail is a good way to increase dona6ons and raise awareness, but many of these will not convert into regular dona6ons beyond retail


ENGAGEMENT: WORD OF MOUTH

18% 17% 13% 13%

40% 43% 34% 33%

25% 16%

17% 21%

12% 16%

23% 23%

1% 7% 10% 11%


Comfort-‐level Sharing Info about ChariLes Support

Not comfortable at all, it is inappropriate Not too comfortable, tend to be private

Somewhat comfortable, but cautious

Very comfortable, but only bring it up if asked

Very comfortable, often tell others

Younger genera6ons are slightly more comfortable sharing informa6on about the chari6es they support than older genera6ons.

CHANNEL ECOSYSTEM NO SILVER BULLET: FUTURE IS INTEGRATED

Work place

Retail giving

Check in the mail

Mobile

Social media

Online

Email

Crowd funding

Text/ SMS

Peer-‐to-‐Peer

Transactional Outreach Engagement

Direct mail

Website

Volunteer/Meetups

Monthly giving

Directed giving

57

KEY NEXT GEN FUNDRAISING QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

HAVE I UNDERINVESTED IN FUNDRAISING TO BABY BOOMERS, WHERE THE BULK OF

MONEY WILL COME FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

HAVE I IGNORED THE UP AND COMING YOUNGER GENERATIONS; OR RELEGATED

THEM TO AN UN-STRATEGIC SOCIAL MEDIA EFFORT?

DOES MY FUNDRAISING CHANNEL MIX INCLUDE DIRECT MAIL FOR YOUNGER

DONORS AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR OLDER ONES (HINT: IT SHOULD)?

AM I PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE BY ADDRESSING THE CULTURAL DEMANDS

GENERATIONS X AND Y ARE PLACING ON INSTITUTIONS (SUCH AS TRANSPARENCY)?

AM I EMPOWERING MY MOST ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTERS TO FUNDRAISE AND

EVANGELIZE ON MY BEHALF?

OUR KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

KNOW YOUR DONORS’ BIRTHDAYS.


MAKE DONORS HAPPY.

NOW IS THE TIME TO CREATE AND TRACK DONOR SATISFACTION METRICS AND TO CLOSELY TRACK RETENTION BY CHANNEL AND BY GENERATION.

IT’S ALSO TIME TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO INBOUND

COMMUNICATIONS BY DONORS.


PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE TODAY. THERE ARE THINGS

ORGANIZATIONS CAN AND SHOULD DO TODAY TO ATTRACT YOUNGER SUPPORTERS (GEN X, Y, Z) AND A SHARE OF THE ROUGHLY $35 BILLION THEY GIVE EACH

YEAR.

IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT TWEAKING THE TACTICS. MANY OF THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENTS TO EFFECTIVE

MULTICHANNEL FUNDRAISING ARE ORGANIZATIONAL AND POLITICAL.

HOW ABOUT YOURS?

Towson University (Bal6more) – Gary Rubin’s Journey: Full Contact Sport

•  Gary Rubin, VP Advancement, Towson University (The Wire)

•  A crooner for his University •  “A hanging in a fortnight…” •  Needed his 75 staff on the same page •  Alumni Affairs, Communica6ons, Donor Rela6ons, Fundraising

GARY’S VIEW OF THE STRATEGY MAP AND BALANCE SCORECARD

• My biggest challenge – integra6on, coordina6on and team work

• The strategy map and balanced scorecard helped us get there

• Technology has put even more pressure on being on the same page

GARY’S VIEW OF THE STRATEGY MAP AND BALANCE SCORECARD

HOW WE WILL SPEND THE NEXT 2 DAYS...

The Integrated Fundraising Balanced Scorecard – The Strategy and Tac6cs Map

Your Mission

cross channel stewardship and cul6va6on

business rules

Financial Measurements: Number of different kinds of donors; donor sa6sfac6on

(reten6on, LTV); Net income; etc

Internal Perspec6ve Measurements: internal coopera6on (culture, structure, repor6ng);

Learning and Growth Measurements: Courses, Qualifica6ons, Proven Applica6on of New Knowledge

74 Proprietary & Confidential 2013-10-24 Slide 74

75 Proprietary & Confidential

•  Integrated team: some senior (Directors) people had to go and new people brought in – healthy change

•  The President is on board •  Fundraising results are already improved in reten6on and acquisi6on and average gif!

THE END RESULT

CONCLUSION

THE FUTURE HAS ARRIVED

IT IS A MULTI-CHANNEL FUNDRAISING WORLD

IT IS ALSO A FUNDRAISING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE DONOR DEMANDS, AND RESPONDS TO AN

INTEGRATED RELATIONSHIP

ARE YOU READY?

REMEMBER THE CHILDREN…

•  3 of the top 10 fundraisers for an organization that raises over $90 million a year are under 15

•  Do you have an integrated plan for supporters under 15?

THE INTEGRATED MARKETING ADVISORY BOARD

•  Promo6ng ac6ve discussion of integrated marke6ng in the nonprofit sector

•  Sign up to find inspira6on through: •  Case studies •  Fresh ideas •  Prac6cal 6ps

www.imabgroup.net Twitter: @TheIMAB

fundraising today and tomorrow and the next generation of canadian giving

Business

monthly giving

monthly donors

canadian online revenue

us online revenue

online fundraising

online advocates

online sustainer revenue

monthly sustainer