PFRA DARS 2012

Donor Acquisition
and Retention
Survey 2012

Morag Fleming and Rupert Tappin

Doorstep | Street | Prospecting | Private sites | Events | Workplace

Introduction
Dear PFRA member
Thank you for your interest in DARS 2012, the 5th annual PFRA Attrition Survey. We are pleased to
supply you with a copy of the presentation made at this year‟s PFRA AGM in London on 19th June.
However, we would like to make it clear that this presentation includes only the initial analysis of the
data and needs to be read bearing the following points in mind:
1. The presentation analysed the responses of 30 PFRA member charities (out of a total membership
of 110) who responded to the survey sent to the whole membership.
2. The particular questions asked in the survey required charities to report the number of donors who
had made 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc payments.
3. In the interests of consistency, donors who did not make their 1st payment (often known as “no-
shows”) have not been included in the calculations, since not every charity knows this information;
however „no-shows‟ have been analysed separately.
4.Percentages in all graphs other than „Attrition by Charity‟ have been calculated by taking the total
number of payments reported by all charities and who fell into that particular criterion and calculating
the percentage attrition against the total number of payers at 1st month.
Cumulative attrition figures for the first year, therefore, should be read at Month 11, since this point
represents all donors that cancelled after having made eleven payments; therefore all remaining
donors at this point did go on to make a full 12 payments.

DARS 2012 www.pfra.org.uk


Introduction
This preliminary analysis will be followed up by a full written report, including Adrian Sargeant‟s
analysis into the 2011 Survey, which will be available in August.
In the meantime, while looking at the findings within our presentation, care must be taken not to draw
specific conclusions. This is because there are many variables that are at work within the campaigns
that have been reported by charities. The findings that we have reported are indicative of general
trends that we have deduced from the survey results.
The information contained in the presentation and subsequent report are copyright of the PFRA and
the authors of the presentation and report (Morag Fleming and Rupert Tappin of Future Fundraising)
and we would ask that you do not reproduce or disseminate any of this material (apart from for internal
use within your own organisation) without prior permission from the PFRA.
If you would like to receive a copy of the full report when published, then please contact me on
ian@pfra.org.uk, or call 020 7401 8452.

Ian MacQuillin
Head of Communications
Public Fundraising Regulatory Association



Agenda
• Development of DARS 2012

• External Environment

• DARS 2012 – the findings

• Professor Adrian Sargeant research 2011



Development of DARS
• Now running for the 5th Year

• 30 charities taking part (27% of PFRA
membership, 43% of those active in 2010)

• Private sites reported separately

• Prospecting survey to be done later in year



External Market
• Financial uncertainty still exists from 2008

• Government cuts impacting on charities and
individuals

• 17% increase in Door recruitment between 2008
and 2011

• 7% increase in Street recruitment between 2008
and 2011



DARS 2012
• 1,548,288 individual donors reported

• 30 charities submitted data from 210
separate campaigns
- 74 street campaigns recruiting 358,726 donors

- 124 door campaigns recruiting 885,708 donors

- 12 private sites campaigns recruiting 303,854 donors



No show rate
Donors who fail to make first payment and are not included in the
attrition figures that follow this slide.
35%

30%

25%
Door

20%
Street

15%
Private Sites
10%

5%

0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011



No show rate
Percentage of charities reporting no show rate
Private

2006
Door
58%
Street
86%
Sites • Percentage of charities
2007 79% 82% giving details of the
2008 87% 93% 100%
2009 91% 85% 67%
number of donors recruited
2010 89% 94% 100% fell in 2011
2011 84% 80% 63%

Actual number of donors reported as recruited and made 1st
payment. No show rate is calculated as an average figure for each
campaign not as a percentage of the whole number below.
Number Number Number
Number made 1st Number made 1st Private Number made 1st
Door recruited payment Street recruited payment Sites recruited payment
2006 83,508 69,269 2006 86,468 68,400 2006
2007 115,838 94,314 2007 39,536 31,224 2007
2008 134,769 108,145 2008 51,953 42,425 2008 24,653 20,766
2009 162,226 133,124 2009 33,609 26,543 2009 66,470 57,072
2010 177,369 144,620 2010 37,581 29,627 2010 74,281 63,006
2011 61,487 47,598 2011 48,992 34,511 2011 121,601 104,206



DARS 2012

Where is your charity?


Attrition rates by charity: street 2008
100%
1
90% 2
80% 3
4
70% 14
Attrition rate

60% 20
40
50%
41
40% 42
30% 45
50
20%
51
10% 54
0% 59
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47

Attrition rates by charity: street 2009 1
100%
2
90%
4
80%
14
70%
40
Attrition rate

60%
42
50%
42(2)
40% 45
30% 50
20% 51
10% 54
0% 55
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 59


80% 1
2
70%
3
4
60%
9
14
Attrition rate

50%
20
40% 29
40
30% 42
42(2)
20% 45
50
10% 51
54
0% 55
59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

80%
2
70% 9
29
60% 40
42
Attrition rate

50% 45
50
40% 54
30%

20%

10%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Campaign averages by year: street
90%

Street
80% 2006

70% Street
2007
60%
Attrition rate

Street
2008
50%

Street
40% 2009

30% Street
2010
20%
Street
2011
10%

0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

Months



Street Analysis
• Attrition for 2006 is the lowest and 2008 is the
highest to date:
• „06 at 11 months 48.24% at 23 months 65.21%
• „10 at 8 months 48.08%

• 2010 looks to be following the pattern for 2008


2
Attrition rates by charity: door 2008 | Prospecting | Private sites | Events | Workplace
Doorstep | Street
4
100% 6
90% 9
14
80% 15
20
70% 29
35
Attrition rate

60% 40
41
50% 42
45
40% 47
51
30% 53
20% 54
56
10% 59
60
0% 61
62
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 63
Attrition rates by charity: door 2009 2
100% 4
90% 6
9
80% 14
15
70% 20
Attrition rate

60% 29
35
50% 40
41
40% 45
30% 51
53
20% 58
59
10% 60
0% 61
62
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 63


2
80% Doorstep | Street | Prospecting | Private sites | Events | Workplace
4
6
9
70% 14
15
60% 20
29
35
50%
Attrition rate

35(2)
35(3)
40% 40
41
45
30% 47
51
53
20% 54
58
10% 59
60
61
0% 62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 63
64
2
80%
6
70% 9
14
60% 15
20
Attrition rate

50% 35
40
40% 42
47
30% 50
54
20% 55
57
10% 58
59
0% 59(2)
61
DARS 2012
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 www.pfra.org.uk
11 63


Campaign averages by year: door
90%

Door
80% 2006

70% Door
2007
60%
Attrition rate

Door
2008
50%

Door
40% 2009

30% Door
2010
20%
Door
2011
10%

0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

Months



Door Analysis
• Less of a difference between years in the door
attrition than the street:
• „09 at 11 months 45.60%
• „10 at 10 months 44.44%



Attrition rates by charity: private sites 2010
70%
15
60%
20
50% 54
Attrition rate

40% 58
60
30%

20%

10%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Attrition rates by charity: private sites 2011
70%
9
60% 15

50% 20
Attrition rate

45
40%
59
30%

20%

10%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



Campaign averages by year: private sites
90%

80% Private sites
2008

70%

60% Private sites
Attrition rate

2009
50%

40% Private sites
2010
30%

20% Private sites
2011
10%

0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

Months



Private Sites analysis
• Fewer charities reporting on private sites
• 2 in 2008
• 3 in 2009
• 5 in 2010
• 5 in 2011

• One very large campaign reporting every year
• Attrition very similar year on year
• „10 at 10 months 34.10%



How does this fit together to
create a benchmark?



Campaign averages by year: street, door and private sites Street 2006
90%
Street 2007

80% Street 2008

Street 2009
70%
Street 2010
60% Street 2011
Attrition rate

Door 2006
50%
Door 2007
40%
Door 2008

Door 2009
30%
Door 2010
20%
Door 2011

10% Private sites 2008

Private sites 2009
0%
Private sites 2010
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Private sites 2011

Months



How Does the Core Group Perform?

• Eight members continuing to report as Core Group

• 11 charities wanting to join

• No Private Site comparison as too few members of the
Core Group reported these type of campaigns



Campaign averages by year: street, core group
90%
Street
80%
2006
70% Street
60% 2007
Attrition rate

50% Street
2008
40%
Street
30% 2009
20% Street
10% 2010
Street
0% 2011
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

Campaign averages by year: door, core group
90%
Door
80% 2006
70% Door
2007
60%
Attrition rate

Door
50% 2008
Door
40% 2009
30% Door
2010
20%
Door
10% 2011
0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59



Street, Door and Private Sites
• In all years Private Sites have lower attrition than both
Street and Door.
• Street campaigns appear to have higher attrition levels

Attrition Attrition Attrition month
month 8 month 8 8

Street 08 (14) 49.14% Door 08 (23) 47.39% PS 08 (2) 37.66%

Street 09 (13) 45.78% Door 09 (20) 45.60% PS 09 (3) 36.85%

Street 10 (17) 48.08% Door 10 (25) 40.65% PS 10 (5) 30.10%

• This appears to be true for averages but what about
individual charities?


Street, Door and Private Sites comparisons
In 2010 there were 4 charities reporting on private sites
campaigns who also had at least one other campaign.
80.00%

70.00%

60.00% PS 15
PS 20
50.00% PS 54
PS 60
40.00% D 15
D 20
30.00% D 54
D 60
20.00% S 20
S 54
10.00%

0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22



How does this translate into
donations?
The purpose of face-to-face recruitment is to raise
money for our causes so:

By running a 1,000 donor campaign and using average
no-show rate, attrition, gift aid % and gift amount how
much income is raised by each method?



1,000 Street Recruited Donors
$130,000
$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000 Street 2008
$60,000 Street 2009
$50,000 Street 2010
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Ave Gift Ave Gift No show
exc GA inc GA GA% rate Donors Income Income Income
month 8 month 8 month 11 month 22
Street 08 7.56 9.21 80% 20%
Street 08 430 £40,471 £50,767 £78,874
Street 09 7.36 8.91 86% 21% Street 09 392 £38,659 £50,274 £79,233
Street 10 7.99 9.77 83% 19% Street 10 444 £44,109



1,000 Door Recruited Donors
$130,000
$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000 Door 2008
$60,000 Door 2009
$50,000 Door 2010
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Ave Gift No show Donors Income Income Income
Ave Gift inc GA GA% rate month 8 month 8 month 11 month 22
Door 08 8.05 9.93 81% 18% Door 08 503 £48,277 £62,735 £101,446
Door 09 8.42 10.49 86% 18% Door 09 463 £51,600 £66,302 £109,493
Door 10 8.56 10.57 84% 21% Door 10 485 £49,381



1,000 Private Site Recruited Donors
$130,000
$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000 Private sites 2008
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

No
Ave Gift Ave Gift show
exc GA inc GA GA% rate Donors Income Income Income
month 8 month 8 month 11 month 22
PS 08 5.67 7.22 96% 16%
PS 08 594 £38,308 £49,739 £84,470
PS 09 7.06 8.76 76% 14% PS 09 512 £48,153 £62,583 £106,820
PS 10 7.80 9.69 83% 15% PS 10 614 £53,047



What Determines Your Income?
• Av. Gift, retention rates, GA%, no-show rates all key in
determining income

• Strongest income at 22 months from Door and Private
Site campaigns

• However, need to bear in mind acquisition costs…
• Private sites typically highest cost per donor (venue fees)
• Street typically lowest cost per donor of the three F2F channels



Prof. Adrian Sargeant’s Analysis
of DARS 2011
• Allows us to investigate impact of individual variables
(e.g. av. Gift, region, cause, comms…)

• Able to measure two main areas:
• Av. effect of a variable on retention over 60 months
• Av. effect of a variable on retention over time (month-on-month)

• Both are significant as the effect of many variables
change over time



Before the Findings, Bear in Mind…
• Retention rate = number of PAYING donors
remaining at a given month, divided by donors
making first payment

• Findings stated with 80% certainty – 20% variance
could change effects found in any model

• DARS potentially become self-selecting…
• Are we looking at only the best-performing campaigns?



How Representative is DARS?
PFRA: DARS (% penetration):

• 656,045 donors • 299,643 donors
recruited in 2010 46% recruited in 2010

• 69 charities active in • 28 charities reporting
41%
F2F in 2010, incl: for 2010, incl:
• 42 Street 40% • 17 Street
• 57 Door & • 26 Door 46%
• 22 Private Sites (est. 2011) 23%• 5 Private Sites &

• 12 (est.) in-house
• 6 (est.) in-house 50%



Interpreting Adrian Sargeant’s
Analysis…



What the Numbers Are Telling Us…
• Over 5 years:
• 2006-9 Campaigns perform worse than in 2004
• All types of charities perform better than animal welfare, except
health (excl. cancer)
• With each additional month retention decreases by an average
of 1.2 percentage points
• Door retention rate is 10.8 percentage points higher than for
Street



Retention Ranking by Cause
Advanced modelling vs. Simple DARS Data
• Environmental causes Best • Environmental causes (2)*
• Human Rights • Human Rights (1)*
• Health (mainly cancer) • Animal welfare (3)
• Social welfare & disability • Social welfare & disability (6)
• Children • Health (mainly cancer) (3)
• Overseas development • Overseas development (5)
• Animal welfare • Children (3)
• Health (excl cancer) • Health (excl cancer) (3)
Source: Door 2010 campaigns
(No. charities in brackets)


Attrition rates by cause: door 2010
70%

Overseas development

60% Social welfare & disability
Child welfare
Health (principally cancer)
50%
Health (excluding cancer)
Animal welfare
Attrition rate

40%
Environmental
Human rights
30%

20%

10%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Months



Effect of Cause on Retention
• Can see differences in ranking by cause when
comparing our graph analysis with AS‟s modelling

• *Noticeable that top two causes in both ways of
measuring are 2-step campaigns
• However AS‟s modelling allows for this, taking out the 2-step nature of
campaign, proving environmental & human rights show best retention levels

• Importance of enhanced modelling by Adrian Sargeant
• Allows for multitude of other variables which we can‟t allow for
• We can only look at one variable at a time ourselves...



More Interpretation of Adrian
Sargeant’s Analysis…!

Investigating the change in the
effect of each variable over 5 years



What the Numbers Are Telling Us…
• Over 5 years:
• Campaigns conducted in 2007-10 all perform better than 2004 at month
2, but this shrinks quickly over time such that 2004 = best retention
• Sector improving attrition, but recession kicks in

• Retention advantage other charities have over animal welfare begins at
month 2, and gets larger

• Door is significantly better retention at month 2 than Street (by 8
percentage points); this grows by 0.1 percentage points per month



Acquisition Factors on Retention 1
• Region:
• Rest of England & NI perform better than London
• Similar at month 2, then rest of England better
• Scotland & Wales perform worse than London

• Donors vs Members vs Sponsors:
• Over 5 years, Donors have a (highly significant) lower retention than Members
& Sponsors (15 % pts)

• 1-Step vs 2-Step vs Prospecting:
• 1-Step have lower retention than 2-Step & Prospecting (N.B. added together)
• But only by 3 % pts, at month 2, then no change


Attrition rates by location: door 2010
50%

Whole of UK
45%
London & SE

40% Rest of England
Scotland
35% Wales
N Ireland
30%
Attrition rate

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Months



Acquisition Factors on Retention 2
• In-house vs Agency:
• Over 5 years, In-house campaigns have lower retention than Agency (but
effect is small at 1 % point)
• Higher representation of in-house campaigns than agency ones in DARS

• Ask-level, Av. Gift Secured & Gift Aid % take-up:
• Gift Aid take-up & Av. Gift secured not good predictors of retention
• BUT the higher Ask-levels, the lower the retention rate
• Each £1 of increase in ask-level reduces retention by 2.4 % points

• Average Age:
• Over 5 years, the older the av. donors, the better the retention rate by 0.64 %
points per additional year (does not change over time)



Why Focus on Donor Communications?
• 2006-9 campaigns not performed as well as 2004
• BUT the effect of the recession on donor retention has
been offset by improved donor communications

• But what are they?
• Which ones are the best?
• When should they be delivered? …



Change in Number of Welcome Comms
Number of welcome communications sent

Average number of
Total
1 2 3 4 5 welcome
communications
communications
Street
S 06 3 4 5 1 0 30 2.3
s 07 1 4 4 1 0 25 2.5
S 08 2 3 4 3 0 32 2.7
S 09 0 3 5 4 0 37 3.1
S 10 1 3 3 7 3 59 3.5
S 11 1 3 4 0 0 19 2.4

Door
D 06 5 2 0 2 0 17 1.9
D 07 3 4 0 4 0 27 2.5
D08 6 6 3 5 2 57 2.6
D 09 4 4 6 5 1 55 2.8
D 10 6 3 7 7 2 71 2.8
D11 4 7 5 3 2 55 2.6



Change in Media for Welcome Comms
Welcome
Welcome
Pack + Call Total
Welcome % of total Welcome % of total % of total Pack + text % of total
+ text or number of
Pack only campaigns Pack + call campaigns campaigns or email or campaigns
email or campaigns
both
both
Street
S 06 4 31% 7 54% 2 15% 0 0% 13
s 07 1 11% 5 56% 1 11% 2 22% 9
S 08 2 15% 5 38% 4 31% 2 15% 13
S 09 0 0% 5 42% 6 50% 1 8% 12
S 10 1 6% 3 18% 12 71% 1 6% 17
S 11 1 13% 4 50% 3 38% 0 0% 8

Door
D 06 5 56% 1 11% 2 22% 1 11% 9
D 07 3 27% 1 9% 4 36% 3 27% 11
D08 6 27% 4 18% 8 36% 4 18% 22
D 09 4 20% 5 25% 9 45% 2 10% 20
D 10 6 24% 3 12% 15 60% 1 4% 25
D11 5 25% 7 35% 8 40% 0 0% 20



Donor Comms Factors on Retention Over 5 Yrs
• No discernible difference in Welcome methods: Text / Emails / Calls

• Customised letters with appeals improves retention (by 5 % pts)
- But don‟t bombard them!
- Email comms with appeals do not influence retention rate

• Engaging donors to take part in campaigns does not influence retention rate

• Allowing donors to choose content & frequency of communications at start of
campaigns negatively affects retention (av. 3.5 % pts lower)
- Donors offered choice: expectations of delivery; failure to follow-through
by charity = problem
- Expose donor to your work, then offer flexibility


Happy 5th Birthday DARS !!



DARS 2008 Do’s DARS 2008 Don’ts
Reconcile payment files with all donors Allow missed payments (aka unpaid
recruited – STILL MAJOR PROBLEM donors) to slip through net – ISSUE
Ensure balanced mix of age & geodem. Sign up too many under 21-year olds
profile of donors or students
Develop year one communications cycle
(av. 4/yr) – ACTUALLY HAPPENING? Leave donors un-contacted
COMMS 6-12/yr
Personalise your comms: allow donors to Send donors cash appeals, or DM
choose freq. of contact – NOW DON’T newsletters with more asks – NOW A
(well, not in first 6 months) ‘DO’!
Reactivate lapsed donors quickly: within a Upgrade donors too early, or too often
fortnight if possible – ACTUALLY PAYING? – NOW A ‘DO’! (payment 6-10)
Regularly meet fundraisers & re- Leave your Provider to run your
emphasise importance of quality - ?DONE campaign alone – YOU KNOW!


DARS 2012: Over 5 yrs Putting In Context
The more customised letters with appeals, F2F donors DO respond to appeals by
the better the retention by 5% pts not cancelling their regular gift!!!
Member campaigns 15% pts better Member campaigns approx 42% lower
retention than Donor campaigns av. Gift (£5pm), ?diff in ROI
Door is 8% pts better retention than Street Costs per donor may well be different;
at month 2, improves by 0.1% / month need mix of acquisition methods
BUT in-house campaigns (50%) better
In-house 1.1% pts worse than agency
represented than agency (40/46%)
Ask level highly significant – each £1 of So allow donors/FRs to choose level
increase reduces retention by 2.4% pts of donation they want to make…
Responsiveness to F2F decreases
Increasing average age of campaign
with age – GOT to balance with
increases retention by 0.6% pts / year
productivity



DARS USPs
• Building bank of knowledge on
performance of regular giving campaigns
based on income

• DARS now used as reference tool for
acquisition activity worldwide

• Uniquely focusses on payments banked
• Don‟t overlook importance of processing & reconciling
Direct Debits properly…



Practical Guide
on Importance
of &
How to Process
& Reconcile
Payments

Thanks to Civil Society
Fundraising (March 2011 edition)



Adrian Sargeant’s Recommendations
• Ideally need 100 organisations to take part

• Would allow for 100 campaigns per year

• Call for industry-wide adoption of DARS
• Charities should work with software suppliers to automate data
collation (avoid issues of staff turnover & memory biases)

• Improve representativeness of sample
• Increase types of campaigns currently under-represented



Conclusions for DARS
Improving:
representativeness of
sample
+
comprehensiveness of
survey questions
=
££ (tens of) millions of
additional income to sector



Thanks & Questions
Co-authored and presented by:
• Morag Fleming, Account Director, Future
Fundraising moragf@futurefundraising.co.uk

• Rupert Tappin, Owner, Future Fundraising
rupertt@futurefundraising.co.uk

Data Analysis:
• Dr Carolyn Steward, Freelance Researcher,
carolyn.steward@hotmail.com


PFRA DARS 2012

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à PFRA DARS 2012

Similaire à PFRA DARS 2012 (20)

PFRA DARS 2012

Notes de l'éditeur