Show Me The Money: Reaching Donors Across Generations
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
2 j'aime•462 vues
In this webinar, you will learn about the differences and similarities among Matures, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Y in their approaches to giving. You'll also hear how experts at Amnesty International USA and AARP/AARP Foundation are using age segmentation to achieve better fundraising and communications results.
![Using WebEx ,[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (15)
En vedette
Similaire à Show Me The Money: Reaching Donors Across Generations
Similaire à Show Me The Money: Reaching Donors Across Generations (20)
Plus de Rad Campaign and Women Who Tech
Plus de Rad Campaign and Women Who Tech (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Show Me The Money: Reaching Donors Across Generations
- 1. Show Me the Money: Reaching Donors Across Generations For Audio Call: 1-408-792-6300 Event Number: 935 561 018 Presented By: Vinay Bhagat, Founder and Chief Strategy Officer, Convio Steven DelVecchio, Senior Director, Direct Response, AARP/AARP Foundation Milo Sybrant, Managing Director of New Media, Amnesty International USA Moderator: Jocelyn Harmon, Director of Nonprofit Services, Care2 May 25, 2010
- 3. If you are having internet audio problems, you can dial in using a landline 1-408-792-6300 Event Number: 935 561 018
- 4. If you lose your internet connection, reconnect using the link emailed to you.
- 5. WebEx Support: 1-866-229-3239For Audio: 1-408-792-6300 Event Number: 935 561 018
- 7. You will receive a link to this presentation following the webinar.
- 8. Tweeting the webinar? Use the Twitter hashtag: #Care2For Audio: 1-408-792-6300 Event Number: 935 561 018
- 13. Driving traffic to website
- 17. Volunteering
- 18. Donating $
- 19. Spreading news
- 23. Mark Your Calendar The Networked Nonprofit Thursday, June 17, 2:00pm EST Presenters: Beth Kanter, CEO of Zoetica and Blogger in Chief at Beth’s Blog (co-author) Allison Fine, Fellow, Demos (co-author) Danielle Brigida, Social Media Outreach Coordinator, National Wildlife Federation Mark Sirkin, Chief Community Officer, Autism Speaks For Audio: 1-408-792-6300 Event Number: 935 561 018
- 24. Next Generation of American Giving VinayBhagat, Founder & Chief Strategy Officer, Convio
- 25. Fundraising Emphasis Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures
- 26. Generational Giving 79% Give 30.8M donors $1066 yr/avg 6.3 charities $32.7 B/yr 67% Give 52.2M donors $901 yr/avg 5.2 charities $47.1 B/yr Total annual giving 58% Give 35.9M donors $796 yr/avg 4.2 charities $28.6 B/yr 56% Give 28.5M donors $341 yr/avg 3.6 charities $9.7B/yr % Giving
- 28. Lower cost appeals
- 30. Tracking difficult Mobile Habits 49% Mobile ONLY phone 32% Mobile primary 42% Facebook Mobile app 53% Texters
- 32. Lifetime value
- 33. Lower-cost appeals
- 34. More than dollars
- 35. Viral promoters
- 38. Size and dollars
- 40. Greater # of groups
- 43. Solicitation Channel (From charities/nonprofits with established relationship) % say appropriate solicitation channel (rank ordered by very important –blue)
- 44. Awareness (top charity) Gen Y Mainstream media 27% Word of mouth 22% School 18% Peer to peer event 14% Boomers Mainstream media 28% Mail19% Word of mouth 16% Work/job 11% 52% first learned childhood Average time support: 4 yrs 55% first learned 30’s+ 24% childhood, 21% y adult Average time support: 13 yrs Gen X Mainstream media 24% Word of mouth 18% Mail 16% Peer to peer event 11% Work/job 11% Product purchase 11% Matures Mail35% Mainstream media 24% Word of mouth 18% 68% first learned 30’s+ Average time support: 15 yrs 32% first learned childhood Average time support: 7 yrs
- 45. First Engagement Direct donation 42% Attended event19% Visited website 27%Promoted to others 15% Donated goods 23% Volunteered15% Direct donation 51% Attended event 18% Donated good 28% Volunteered 16% Visited website19% Direct donation61% Donated goods 25% Attended an event 13% Direct donation71% Donated goods 26% Attended an event 13% Gen Y Gen X Boomers Matures
- 46. Engagement Today
- 47. What does this all mean?
- 48. Fundraising is profoundly multichannel
- 49. Causation may be impossible to track
- 50. Traditional donor databases are dinosaurs
- 51. Remove the silos within your organization
- 52. Direct mail and telemarketing need to evolve
- 53. Word of mouth is critical
- 54. Social networks are important and still evolving
- 55. Boomers and Gen X hold significant value
- 56. Mobile’s time is coming
- 57. Content is king
- 58. Download the Report The Next Generation of American Giving An exclusive look at the multichannel preferences and charitable habits of GenY, GenX, Boomers and Matures http://www.convio.com/nextgen
- 59. AARP: Age as a Factor in Advocacy FundraisingSteve DelVecchio, AARP
- 61. Two fundraising programs
- 62. Grassroots Advocacy (C4)
- 63. Foundation (C3)
- 64. Donors to each program are primarily acquired through the existing membership
- 65. Best performing acquisition segments are donors to the other fundraising program – as a result there are many shared donors between Advocacy and Foundation
- 67. Mature donors (65+) respond at higher rates and generate more income from direct mail appeals than Boomers (50-64)
- 68. 65+ members respond at higher rates to donor acquisition efforts than do 50-64 members
- 69. Core messages (e.g., Health Care Reform, Social Security) are strongest performers in both age groups
- 71. Issue responsiveness is a strong indicator for giving
- 73. Advocacy 2009 Direct Mail Appeal Qty by Age Appeal Income by Age
- 74. Advocacy 2009 Direct Mail Acquisition Qty by Age Acquisition Returns by Age
- 76. AARP – Advocacy Fundraising MessagingSocial Security Prospect Message Variation by Age 50-64: “Every month … as you have for many, many years … you pay into Social Security and Medicare with the expectation of receiving …” “You are fulfilling your part of the deal, and you expect …” 65+: “You paid into Social Security and Medicare for many, many years …” “You have fulfilled your part of the deal, and are now depending upon receiving the full amount …”
- 78. Control language
- 79. Put an end to age discrimination from insurance companies
- 80. Protect consumers and their right to chose their own doctors
- 81. Protect ANYONE – from the government and insurance companies – from coming between you and your health care
- 82. Language specific to 65+
- 83. Close the “doughnut hole” in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage
- 85. Overview: Fundraising strategy Look at big picture of supporters’ engagement with Amnesty International #1 priority = mobilize a broad base of people to bring about real human rights outcomes through: Sending online actions Visiting Members of Congress Donating to support Amnesty’s work
- 86. Challenge for Recruiting GenY Donors Amnesty’s human rights message appeals to younger audiences Our challenge is not understanding how to communicate w/Gen Y supporters But how to: Recruit them; and Continue to engage them in our human rights campaigns
- 89. Demonstrate that they can make a difference for human rights
- 90. Troy Davis case: clearly showed how public outcry could tip the scale in favor of justice
- 91. Generated higher than average action rate
- 93. Reaching Gen Y Exploring/strengthening emerging channels Meeting younger donors where they are Devoting staff time to maintaining/growing presence on social networks Re-allocating substantial portion of our DM acquisition budget to online acquisition SEM, chaperoned appeals, Google image ads, blog ads
- 95. 50% of our first-time online donors will renew offline
- 97. Reaching Gen Y (cont.) Improving understanding of supporter profile Multiple databases result in incomplete picture of supporters and less than ideal user experience Running quarterly email appends Improving data integration Segmentation based on supporter-supplied preferences Considering what other types of data we should have access to in order to improve supporter engagement
- 98. Questions?
Notes de l'éditeur
- (64% of US adults qualifiedAbout 148 million donors) This slide is about people not dollars Spend a lot of time focused and soliciting these groups (point to Matures) But the vast majority of the donor universe are Boomers, Gen Y and X – represent huge opportunity in terms of sheer numbers, and will only get more valuable (from a dollar perspective) over timeMATURES (b. 1945 or earlier) 39 million Americans; 79% giveBOOMERS (b. 1946-1964)78 million Americans; 67% giveGEN X (b.1965-1980) 62 million Americans; 58% giveGEN Y (b. 1981-1991) 51 million Americans; 56% give
- Generational Giving(64% of US adults qualifiedAbout 148 million donors)Pie Chart size represents size of ADULT population for that Generation(Animated- Matures First) Matures have the highest percentage of donors. Highest yearly average donation, and, the highest aggregate projected donation. But, they are our smallest population and have one of the smallest actual number of donors by Generation . Plus, by virtue of their age, their lifetime potential is dwindling. Boomers average yearly donation is smaller than matures, but have a high percentage of donors, and given their population size, actually generate more in dollars than any other generation. Our Gen Xers, the next largest population actually generate more than Matures, due to donor population size. Their average annual contribution is lower vs. older groups, but still impressive. Plus, their lifetime potential is much greater. Gen Y is more about future potential, with over half currently donating, posting annual contributions averaging about $340, generating over $28 B a year. Another trend we see is that younger generations give give to fewer charities, but when they give, they give similar amounts as older donorsSpend a lot of time focused and soliciting these groups (point to Matures), But the vast majority of the donor universe are Boomers, Gen Y and X – represent huge opportunity in terms of sheer numbers, and will only get more valuable (from a dollar perspective) over timeHence as a fundraiser, if you have the ability to attract them, they can be economic in current terms, and of course constitute higher potential life time value, plus contribute to outreach due to their social networks/ peer influence.Hence as a fundraiser, if you have the ability to attract them, they can be economic in current terms, and of course constitute higher potential life time value, plus contribute to outreach due to their social networks/ peer influence.Question wording:Q4. Approximately how many nonprofit organizations and charitable causes have you donated to in the past 12 months? Q6. Approximately how much do you give in total each year to all charitable or cause-oriented organizations, excluding your school and place of worship? Blue numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
- Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
- Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
- Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
- Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
- Lot of information on this chart. Two most common ways to “give back” are what I know some of you refer to as “tipping” – leaving a buck for charity here or there at the supermarket, etc; and of course check by mail. But what I really want to focus on is some of the generational differences. Gen Y most likely to give in small ways -- $1 at checkout type of gift. No one prevalent channel beyond that -- as likely to give via website as check, same numbers at gift shop, event, etc. More than 1-in-10 say they have participated in mobile philanthropy. Giving thru SM more prevalent than other generations, but still small. Gen X true multi-channel givers -- more likely to give through many of these channels than other generations. Most likely to make online donations (though still a little less than good old check). Both X and Y more likely to participate in something like Gap Red campaign where part of the proceeds fr third party vendor purchase goes to charity. In focus groups we heard that this is a way that they can easily and affordably be charitable. Win-win (i.e. Gap – “I shop there anyway, and it’s a way to feel good”). X using monthly debit more than other cohorts. –NOT REALLY -- THE DIFFERENCE IS WITHIN THE MOE Matures (and Boomers) most likely to mail in a check. A third of Matures have made tribute gifts. More have given via phone solicitation than other generations (though still just a quarter).Q7: Which of the following giving methods have you used in the past 2 years (select all that apply).Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
- WOM is seen as the most effective solicitation channel for Gen Y, X, and Boomers For Matures, direct mail is just as effective Younger generations are more open to other forms of solicitation: email (just as effective as dm with Y), social media, phone (though note that they are less likely to have a landline, and we heard in the focus group not as familiar with telemarketing) Mobile solicitation is still its infancy (more on this in a few minutes), but has more acceptance among younger audiences.All generations much more guarded with direct communications if no relationship in place, gets worse as gets older. Mass media the one accepted channel (74% appropriate). Big theme heard in focus groups is Control -- skepticism about getting manipulated. Feel like traditional solicitation channels – phone and mail – are manipulative. They want to feel like they made the choice/they are in control. Giving after hearing a mass media story, and/or being solicited by a friend makes them feel like they made a choice. Prospecting direct mail more acceptable than email across generations by 2:1 (45% to 21%) (different than what we saw on previous slide), but donors described that responding is not always a “feel good” experienceQ22 :Below are a variety of different ways that a charity may approach you and ask for a monetary donation. For each, please indicate how appropriate that approach is.Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
- Given that the vast majority of donor acquisition is through direct mail, it is important for us to understand how different generations of donors first learned about their top charities, and the relative importance of mail Mail the dominant channel for Matures, but … Mainstream media and WOM top prospecting channels across age cohorts WOM, school, and P2P fundraising more prevalent for Gen Y (not direct) What we also see on this chart is the importance of a cradle-to-grave strategy for building relationships. Even a quarter of Boomers say that they first learned about a top charity during childhood What is also interesting is what IS NOT a top prospect channel – and that is websites (5%) and social networking site (4%). Emerges as a research toolQ10: How did you first learn about (top charity)? Select all that apply. [Top channels cited above]Q11: How old were you when you first learned about (top charity)? (Best guess is fine)Q9: For how long have you been supporting (top charity)? [Average # of years cited]
- Direct donation most prevalent, but more likely to be first form of support as age Y (followed by X) more likely to check out the charity’s website as a way to get involved. Also more likely to attend an event and volunteer. Finally, Y most likely to promote charity to others through email, FB, etc. Suggests that younger groups need to go through one or more cultivation steps to build a relationship that can lead to a financial transactionQ12: When you first learned of [Top Charity], in what ways did you become involved with the charity/group? Blue numbering indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
- Giving money is the #1 way all generations engage with their top charity today (and increases about 10 pts from first engagement across board) However, younger generations are more likely to engage in all other forms of support w/ their top charity – particularly online engagement (visit website, social media promoter). Active vs. passive engagement.Q15: And how are you currently involved with [top charity] today? (Select items done in past 12 months)Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
- Your job as a fundraiser will continue to get more difficult as new technologies and channels emergeThere is no replacement for direct mail, but NPOs have to prepare for the target audience of direct mail to diminishNeed to refocus and optimize fundraising strategies to be effective across channels and positioned to acquire and cultivate Boomers, Gen X, and yes even Gen Y to some degree – there is revenue potentialResearch indicates that the needs, expectations and channels through which donors want to engage with charities are fundamentally changingFundraising, donor relations and donor management will continue to get more difficult if nonprofits do not change the way they operate and invest in tools to improve efficiency and effectiveness
- Fundraising is profoundly multichannel
- Causation may be impossible to track – chicken or the egg argument
- The donor database of the future must track all channels and interactions
- Message/channel integration is a more urgent priority than ever.
- The role of social networks in fundraising is important, and still evolving
- It’s not too early to be courting Gen Ys, but the really significant value lies with Gen X and Boomers
- Mobile’s time is coming, whatever that is
- None of this is as important as the content you produce
- Keepign