News & Articles

Is Your House In Order?

If you saw the recent “Show Me the Money” story on Channel 7’s Sunday Night or heard influential 2GB radio journalist Ray Hadley a few days later, then you know the spotlight is once again on Australian fundraising – and not in a good way.

Pareto’s Benchmarking Report 2017 clearly shows that two decades of great growth in fundraising income has contracted.  And that the dependency on Face to Face Fundraising needs to be considered with the trends.

Our team have been working with both the FIA and PFRA to supply them with figures that show the value of long term donor relationships and the multiplication effect of the initial investment in fundraising that can be realised if we look beyond the first 12 months.

Lessons learned from Britain’s not-for-profit sector, tells us to prepare for the change and ensure Australian Charities have their house in order.

You may remember that 2015 was called the summer of charity discontent in Britain.

Months of fundraising criticism by the media, politicians and the public, including donors, resulted in a devastating loss of trust and public confidence in Britain’s charities.

Shocked by this national outrage, the UK government demanded an investigation.  Sir Stuart Etherington, chair of the review panel, said ‘… charity fundraising has never been more important … this is why it is particularly crucial that we get fundraising right.’

Part of getting fundraising right was the formation of the Commission on the Donor Experience. Their role? To produce an authoritative report on the fundamental ideas and strategies that will put the donor at the heart of fundraising – not fundraising targets.

Almost two years on, the Commission has released the first of its summaries.

The 6Ps: a blueprint for transforming fundraising for good is the first in a series of planned reports that aims to change forever the donor experience and the way that fundraising is done in Britain.

I urge you to download this report – with thanks to SOFII – and share it with everyone in your organisation.

The CDE’s first findings show you practical ways to help fundraisers everywhere deliver happy, satisfying and effective experiences for donors.

Please do contact me or your Pareto Account Director with any questions you may have.

Dearne Cameron

CEO Pareto Fundraising +61 (0)2 8823 5800

Thank you: Say it often, say it right

Next to your fundraising appeal, your thank-you letter is the most important piece of communication that your donor receives.

Great thank you letters are the hallmark of great fundraising programs. They make a donor feel appreciated and important … that their gift will make a true difference.

When donors are thanked properly for their gift, they are far more likely to give again.

So how do you write a great thank you letter?

  • Thank you letters should be written as part of your fundraising appeal. They are not an afterthought but are a significant, integral component.
  • They should be as beautifully crafted and well thought out as your appeal letter.
  • They should be personal – a real letter that speaks directly to the donor.
  • Your letter should tell a story; ideally, a story in which the donor is the hero (because of their gift.)
  • It should reinforce just how the donor’s gift will be used – and the difference it will make.
  • If you don’t have any immediate results that you can send back in response to a donor’s gift, let your donor know when they will next receive an update on the program being funded. And follow through!
  • There should be no grammatical or spelling errors.
  • Most importantly, the letter should be sent out quickly.

Thanking matters! If you aren’t spending as much thought and energy on thanking donors as you do asking them, you aren’t doing your job.

Need some help? There are some great resources out there to help you get started.

Visit Lisa Sargeant’s ‘Thank you Letter Clinic’ on SOFII.  There are eight examples of thank you letters to help inspire you to write your next one.

There are five thank you letters donors will love at ‘the balance’

 

 

 

Tax time: opportunity versus obligation

Your donors are the driving force behind all that your charity achieves. So, as the end of financial year approaches, don’t get caught and send an uninspiring, ‘anonymous’ tax receipt to your donors.

Approach this year’s tax receipt letter as if it were the most important communication of the year – because when it comes to donor retention, this letter and/or email is one of the most important.

Yes, saying “Thank You” – and doing it well – will help to keep your regular givers donating. Let your donors know how important they are.

(See our article Thank You: say it often, say it right.)

A couple of pointers:

Keep your message consistent. Only talk about the programs that your donors have contributed directly to. Otherwise they’ll be confused as to where their donation dollar went.

Come from an attitude of gratitude. People love to be flattered. Make your donor the hero. Assume they are going to keep making that regular gift and thank them in advance. Tell them how their gifts in the coming year will make a critical difference.

Pack in those emotional triggers. Remember, heart trumps mind. People love to read stories, not data. Engage your donor in a story; make it about a single person.

Make sure your letter or email contains clear contact details for the donor. Don’t hide them away in the fear that a donor may call to cancel. And make sure you have exceptional donor service in place at every potential point of contact.

And a final comment. Have a box on your home page that lets donors know when they can expect to receive their tax receipts. But like your letter/email to come, make the message shine and make your donor the hero.

“Your tax receipt for the 2016/17 financial year will be sent to you mid July. The children that you have helped this year think you’re amazing … And so do we!”

So let’s make this year’s letter a winner. Start now on your tax receipt mailing and let your donors know loud and clear that their gifts are making the world a better place.

Book Review: Retention Fundraising, The New Art and Science of Keeping Your Donors For Life, Roger M. Craver (2015)

 

We’re never going to return to the good old days … Days when donors could be acquired at a profit … Days when little attention was paid to the loss of donors … That was then!

Today, we’re bleeding donors. We’re losing support as fast as we find it, seemingly condemned forever to pay a fortune to stand still.

As Ken Burnett writes in his foreward, “fundraisers routinely put up with it, as if attrition were a fundraising fact of life. It isn’t. The leaking bucket is a sign of monumental failure in our profession.”

But we can stem the flow and Roger Craver knows how to do it.

In this short and easy-to-read fundraising book, Roger gives you the tools you need to help your organisation think differently and set the stage for improved retention.

From advice on longer-term investment right through to easy retention wins you can do right now, use this book as your guide to take decisive, effective action to stem donor attrition.

Plus just to double make sure that you have no excuses not to get started, there’s also a dedicated website for retention discussion and updates.

The good news is that there is a proven process for increasing donor retention:

  • Switch the focus from past transactions to ongoing commitment
  •  Find out what matters most to donors
  •  Remove the retention barriers in your charity
  •  Identify committed donors. Delight them regularly.
  •  Do everything more quickly.
  •  Give great feedback.
  •  Invest in retention.

If you’re a fundraiser serious about keeping your donors, then this book should go to the top of your current reading list. Keep it on your desk and never file it.

Read it, learn from it and action it. Do what Roger says and your charity – and your donors – will reap the rewards.

Other seminal retention books that we’re still talking about – and reading – 25 years later!

Relationship Fundraising A donor-based approach to the business of raising money Ken Burnett (2002, second edition)

Building Donor Loyalty The fundraiser’s guide to increasing lifetime value Adrian Sargeant and Elaine Jay (2004)

Pareto benchmarking 2017: COMPETING PRIORITIES

With its charity membership continuing to grow – Pareto Fundraising had 28 members in 2010 and now has 82 – the organisation’s benchmarking is becoming increasingly relevant. Lise Taylor, Fundraising and Philanthropy, reports on its 2017 results.

Australia is the third most generous country in the world and it has experienced some of the most cost effective acquisition globally, but although the sector has experienced 0.3% growth in individual giving overall during 2016, almost 20 of the benchmarked charities saw a decline in income over the past two years,” Pareto Co-founder, Sean Triner, told the packed room at the International Convention Centre Sydney on Tuesday 4 April at the halfday launch of the 2017 Pareto Fundraising Benchmarking Program.

He added, “Many charities are running out of traditional donor prospects – much of the low hanging fruit has been gathered. This means we need to change as a sector.” Prior to delving into the report’s details, Triner revealed that overall there had been some big bequests, regular giving continued to grow, and that although child sponsorship had been flat for a decade it was still the best-ever regular giving product.

He also recommended that charities utilise two-year forward planning at a minimum, not one year. “Rolling 12-month income is important, especially in relation to retention, but charities are doing too much short-term thinking. In fact, even five years is too short for planning, for example a bequest plan requires at least 10 years before any payoff can be expected. Charities also need to change the way they budget: lifetime value modelling is required,” he emphasised.

Regular giving Representing almost 50% of income, regular giving is now a key focus for charities with both long and recent fundraising histories. Although most regular giving recruitment was from face-to-face fundraising followed by phone then online, face-to-face recruitment peaked in 2015 and was down 11% in 2016.

It was speculated during audience discussion that face-to-face volumes were down because of supplier capacity issues, increasing prices and other problems in the sector such as industrial action and increased compliance requirements.

Fiona McPhee, Head of Insights & Strategy at Pareto, noted that it isn’t possible any more to have a combination of low price, high volume and high quality of face-to-face recruitment. Even so, this form of fundraising is still the channel driving a large volume of new donors into the market and many charities continue to see growth here. With its charity membership continuing to grow – Pareto Fundraising had 28 members in 2010 and now has 82 – the organisation’s benchmarking is becoming increasingly relevant. Lise Taylor reports on its 2017 results.

“The expectation of achieving high volume, good quality, low-cost recruits needs to be adjusted. The charities leading the way are those looking for quality over volume and channel diversification because of their focus on long-term value rather than short-term volume impact,” she added.

This is affecting most channels for regular giving recruitment and the more robust programs are using a variety of channels to diversify risk. Two-step regular giving recruitment has increased in volume with charities generating their own leads via digital programs and converting on the phone. This is delivering promising, quality regular givers. Overall, during 2016, average monthly donations for regular giving included: • face-to-face at $31 per month • non face-to-face at $25 per month • telephone/online lead conversion at $21 per month • overall range from $25 to $35 per month.

McPhee suggested attrition is tracking OK, with little change in year-one attrition over the past five years, but overall can be reduced via good declines management (with a need to monitor non-starter rates) along with a call for more attention to upgrade strategies.

Cash giving Cash income represented 24% of total individual giving income in 2016 but it was down a little on 2015, which Triner says is worrying because most bequest and high value giving is developed from cash donors. “There has also been a big decline in new cash recruits (direct mail is at -25.98%),” he says.

After several years of high volumes of direct mail cash donor acquisition, increasing production and postage costs and market saturation for high volume recruiters has seen the economics of direct mail acquisition challenged. However, charities new to the method and some individual programs are bucking the trend.

Triner noted, “Taking a long-term view and ensuring you have mid-value, major donor and bequest programs in place will ensure investment in a cash program pays off in the longer term.” Online, however, is OK at 13.85% growth but represents a tiny proportion of new cash donors overall. Growth of cash giving online is seen within warm programs from improving channel integration. “The trouble with this is that most charities are not very good at integrating online – we are not doing it well but it does work if done well!” noted Triner.

He added that charities can work harder at encouraging second gifts – they have been decreasing year on year but some charities are dong 10% to 15% better than others: “The opportunity is there.”

High-value giving and bequests High-value gifts (donors are generally considered to be both those giving one-off donations of over $1,000 and regular givers donating over $1,000 in a year) comprise mid-value donors and major gifts, and represent just 0.5% of the donor pool. These cash donors contributed 13% of total income in 2016 and were the most likely to have confirmed a bequest (an average of 2.8% of all high-value givers have confirmed a bequest to one or more charities in the program).

Some good news is that high-value cash gifts are increasing each year, with June (tax time) being the key period for these gifts, with 88% of these donors already giving, highlighting how critical retention and development of higher value donors is to overall income.

Pareto Fundraising Strategist Andrew Martin points out, however, that for mainstream charities, major donor and mid-value fundraising is under-achieving in Australia. He says, “The big money is going to the arts and education but not mainstream charities and yet the best fundraising return on investment comes from the major gifts group, which is why fundraisers have a clear opportunity to develop their mid-value fundraising strategies as a key feeder to major gifts and bequests.”

Data capture is critical and Martin noted benchmarking bequests remain a challenge due to poor data capture by some charities. When it comes to income, members of the benchmarking program received over $400 million from bequests in 2016. Existing donors were increasingly giving bequests, up from 31% of bequest income seven years ago to 42% in 2016…

Recency of donor engagement is important, and with pledged bequests it was recommended that fundraisers keep in mind that residual bequests (bequests of a set amount) have a larger monetary value than pecuniary bequests (which is a percentage of a will). Martin notes that bequest fundraising is a long game and budgeting for activity and returns beyond the usual 12-month budget cycle is critical to implementing truly successful bequest programs.

Digital giving Basic usage of Google Analytics by participating charities continued to provide an opportunity as some charities do not use the functionality available to them to monitor and track online donor behaviours. For those charities that did tracking in 2016, website visitors continued to grow, up 12% between 2015 and 2016.

Although 25- to 34-year-olds are the biggest users, prospects aged 45 plus were better targets because young people online were not ‘digging into their pockets’ – 52% more income was generated by the over 45s than the under 45s.

Dan Wilson, Insights Manager at Pareto, noted that search is the crux of everything digital and donors are searching for charity brand names. Good sources of traffic are from Facebook (Facebook is the single biggest source of social media traffic with 99% of it coming from the platform), self-referrals (sites that refer to other sites) and email. Twitter, on the other hand, was termed “a blip on the radar”.

“The charities on Facebook that are raising more money are doing so by asking for donations on a frequent basis,” he noted. The best time for posting appears to be from 6pm to 8pm because that’s when most traffic occurs and desktop ranks highest in relation to donation conversions.

Donor retention The benchmarking indicated charities were not retaining donors as well yearon- year, with all numbers down. While the costs of program delivery were increasing, group discussion highlighted the imperative to spend money on supporter service and donor care.

Triner explained that the data shows the first two years of a donor’s relationship are the most critical for ensuring longer-term value but those charities doing the best on value over time appear to have a more integrated approach to acquisition and retention (as opposed to siloed approaches).

McPhee comments, “Retention is not determined by just what is sent out. It is impacted by how your administration is managed (declines management for regular giving was highlighted as being particularly important), your supporter services (customer service auditing and benchmarked mystery shopping were discussed as critical ways to inform improvement) and your donor care strategies (human interaction being a critical component of well-planned donor experience management).”

Advice from the UK The session ended with a video call to UK fundraising expert Ken Burnett, who works with UK charities to address the adverse publicity received by the charity sector there. Burnett said it was critical to understand that giving should be a pleasure for donors and their experience must take centre stage. He advised fundraisers to have responsible data policies (he was emphatic in his desire that Australian charities not end up in an opt-in situation like that faced by UK charities today) and to give donors practical choices in relation to how they are communicated with: “The donor should control the relationship.” Most importantly he encouraged fundraisers to focus on providing fast, frequent and fabulous feedback to donors.

Competing priorities The overarching message was that donor love that offers great experiences is what will make the difference for charities. Triner highlighted that because warm retention programs are based on ‘facts’ they should be non-negotiable, but too often are negotiable. He added, “Acquisition is critical to maintain and gain ground but the market is changing faster than ever and ‘set and forget’ strategies are not working. Critically, the whole sector needs to invest in research and development or it will go backwards.”

The big questions that need answering are: How can we juggle competing priorities on a tight budget? How can resources be split?

Suicide gets the action it deserves

James Herlihy, who worked with Lifeline on its two-step suicide prevention campaign, reveals the secrets to its success – and its great fundraising outcomes.


While suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 to 44, it hasn’t always received the attention it needs – either in policy or in public discourse. Times, however, are slowly changing, with media and governments focusing more on the need for mental health and suicide prevention programs.

Lifeline’s suicide prevention two-step campaign, which was launched in March 2016 with Pareto Fundraising, has played a role in pushing for that change – and it’s delivered some pretty good fundraising outcomes too.
Thirteen months later, with the campaign wrapping up, we want to share some results and insights.

How it worked

Step 1
This comprised an online petition calling on the Australian government to increase funding for suicide prevention. The petition was promoted to new audiences via a mix of paid and organic social media communications with a focus on Facebook, the winning channel for lead acquisition, and Instagram.

Step 2
Those petition signers who opted in were taken on an integrated fundraising conversion journey involving telephone conversion, an automated email stream and remarketed advertising.

Results
At the beginning of May, with phone calling still going, Lifeline had acquired just under a thousand regular givers, at a cost of $344 per regular giver, plus 724 cash gifts totalling almost $50,000. Early attrition rates for the two-step acquired donors are proving to be lower than those from other channels like face-to-face.

Crucially, on top of this, Lifeline acquired tens of thousands of new supporters who are engaged with its mission. We know from previous experience that so long as these people are kept engaged and given compelling opportunities to donate, many more will become donors in subsequent months and years, so there’s also future income here.

But the results aren’t just financial. Public support through this campaign has helped achieve the recent announcement of the development of Australia’s first suicide prevention plan and several new government-funded suicide prevention trial sites across New South Wales. It has also helped Lifeline to secure $2.5 million for a new crisis SMS support service.

“The campaign helped to deliver a spike in Lifeline volunteer interest, and broad, active exposure for the Lifeline brand and new CEO Peter Shmigel,” says Julie Kirby, Lifeline’s Individual Giving Manager. “We James Herlihy, who worked with Lifeline on its two-step suicide prevention campaign, reveals the secrets to its success – and its great fundraising outcomes. also uncovered new leads for case studies that will support our fundraising and communications efforts far into the future. And we gained a lot of valuable, personal information about supporters through their online engagement.”

Shmigel says the campaign momentum and subsequent government attention helped to develop some key ministerial relationships and further Lifeline’s public policy agenda. These were great results from a viable new acquisition channel for Lifeline. So what made it work?

Factors for success

Strong proposition and motivators
The calls on the Australian government to increase suicide prevention funding in line with other funding areas presents a strong theory of change. The government can solve the problem and is accountable to constituents (the campaign audience). Funding allocation is also an ‘easy get’ for the audience, and so they feel that taking this action really will help solve the problem. Underlying this, important motivators are at play: relevance, self-interest and agitation for change.

Frequent media coverage and public conversation about mental health reflect the issues’ relevance to Australians today. With a highly relevant and ‘present’ issue, people are prepared to respond when presented with a tangible action they can take to help. Of course, the issue of suicide is shockingly relevant to Australian communities directly impacted by it. These communities have a strong interest in solving the problem, and a driving need for their tragic experience to be heard and acted upon by policymakers.

Lastly, dissonance between what the government could do and what it is doing creates a space where we can build agitation for change and mobilise it through our petition.

Awesome creative
We didn’t have a super rich range of visual assets to work with, however a simple focus on real individuals, strong info-graphics and hard-working copy delivered the results. While avoiding disrespect to the government (which funds some Lifeline programs), the messaging pulled no punches and drove home the issue’s importance, with tactics like:
• framing a ‘national suicide emergency’
• key facts (for example, suicide is the leading cause of death for 15- to 44-year-olds and comparisons to other funded program areas) high up in copy with the text emphasised
• highlighting unfulfilled government commitments, and how readers pushing for their fulfilment provides an opportunity for solving the problem.

The first few words of every creative asset need to strike hard in digital campaigns. Toning down impactful language is the enemy of direct response – especially on busy social news feeds and web pages already saturated with marketing messages.

Committed campaigning
Ever feel like other teams aren’t on board with your efforts to fund your organisation’s work? Can’t get space in comms schedules? Communications team blocks your messaging? Your CEO or a board member just doesn’t like something? Not so in this case at Lifeline. Genuine adoption from the CEO to the supporter relations, media and communications teams meant this was a real all-of-organisation effort. It earned more free press, had a solid presence on the organisational website and other channels, and integrated tightly to support direct government advocacy. This is what we call ‘committed campaigning’. It delivers better results and supports a more collaborative culture amongst teams.

Tight channel integration
There are many moving parts to a campaign involving social media, display network advertising, web pages, email campaigns and journeys, phone calling, search and more. Amongst these, there’s ample opportunity for poor user experience if your channels don’t support each other, your creative doesn’t sing from the same book and your supporter journey isn’t mapped out in detail and executed well.

Good integration delivered solid results for this campaign. For example, a tight working relationship and data sharing arrangements between the digital and phone agencies meant that petition signers were called speedily (while still engaged with the campaign), call scripts aligned well with the experience they’d had, and an 8% plus phone conversion rate was maintained throughout the campaign.

Responsiveness and opportunism
Digital campaigns are living things that thrive when kept agile and responsive to real world events and opportunities. One such opportunity occurred on Thursday 16 March 2017, when we discovered Lifeline had secured a meeting between its CEO and Federal Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, on the following Monday.

We were at 135,000 signatures, and wanted to reach the 150,000 target for presentation to Minister Hunt, so we jumped into production, crunching out social content and an email to petition signers asking them to share again. The content focused heavily on the moment – the 150,000 target and the opportunity to present it in discussion with the Federal Health Minister.

Those communications helped us exceed the 150,000 target by Monday, meaning we achieved 10% of the whole 12 months’ worth of signatures in just three days – as illustrated in the graphic above. This is the power of mobilising online communities around a real moment.

You can do it!
All nonprofits can use digital channels to build community, generate leads and develop donor relationships. From surveys and quizzes to petitions, pledges, polls, send-a-message actions, value exchanges etc, the possibilities for action and proposition are endless.

All you need is the organisational buyin, investment and a bit of support. The rewards – in terms of community growth, donor acquisition and funding to advance your goals – can be great.

Sign the petition at prevent-suicide.lifeline.org.au/sign. Contact canyouhelp@paretofundraising.com to find out more about how a two-step campaign could work for your cause.

James Herlihy
James is the Digital Strategist at Pareto Fundraising. He has spent more than a decade campaigning with nonprofits and is the brains behind groundbreaking digital campaigns for dogs, dolphins, humans, rights, reefs and more.

This article was first published in Fundraising and Philanthropy Magazine 2017

New Australian Donor Numbers Fall for First Time in Two Decades

The latest Pareto Benchmarking figures show that the number of new donors acquired by the 82 participating charities in 2016, was less than in 2015.

These charities include a majority of charities raising over $20m in 2016, and a good selection of medium sized fundraising organisations as well.

 

With more than 65% of all regular givers and appeal donors acquired by face to face or direct mail, whatever happens to these two channels influences the big picture more than anything else.

 

 

Direct mail grew solidly until last year despite postage costs increasing dramatically, the Australian dollar falling from 1:1 to 1:0.75 and Australians falling from being ‘the wealthiest people in the world’ to just pretty rich (on average!)

By the end of 2015, intense acquisition strategies from many charities, large budgets and our small population of people aged over 65 (the average age of a direct mail donor is around 73) led to many charities simply running out of new people to ask.

Unless charities have great mid, major and bequest donor strategies in place, direct mail has slipped from being a great acquisition tool to just an OK one.  Annoyingly we haven’t a ‘replacement’ channel working at scale to bring in the older demographic.

 

However, direct mail can’t be looked at on its own as its about the donors not the channel in isolation. The long term benefit is really in bequests.  Despite taking many years, the potential of direct mail with a good bequest program in place is extraordinary.

Just 5,000 new direct mail donors could be worth $5m with a good legacy marketing program.*

Unless you are an animal charity or responding to intense media covered disasters, my advice is to only invest in direct mail acquisition if you have plans in place for donor retention, upgrade (of mid value donors) and especially that bequest fundraising plan.

The other dominant channel is face to face, I have been predicting a peak in face to face volumes for about three years. I guess if you predict your football team will win every year, people forget all but the year you got it right!

Unfortunately I hung in there, and this time I was right. Fewer new monthly givers signed up through face to face in 2016 than 2015.

Despite all this, face to face is still miles ahead of any other channel for acquiring large volumes of monthly givers, and beats direct mail without bequest follow up on five year return on investment.

 

 

We have had good growth in online lead generation and phone calls, but the volumes are still comparatively small.  TV, radio, press ads and other channels are just a blip on total volumes, but very important to the few charities getting it right.

New monthly givers signed up by non face to face channels usually have better retention, but there simply aren’t that many of them.

 

So what does this mean for Australian charities?

We have a small population, our costs are higher than most other markets and our average donations much higher.

We have to really look after the donors we get.  I have mentioned mid value, major donors and bequests already – and they are key – but critically we need to increase our focus on donor love (donor care, supporter service, whatever you call it in your organization).

Here are my tips for all charities fundraising through individual gifts:

  • Be on top of your data.  Measuring campaigns is fine but you really need to be on top of tracking key indicator numbers, key performance indicators and running ongoing analysis to identify trends. And this is for your whole program, individual programs, donor segments and even some individual donors. Produce monthly reports, or even better dashboards, and make sure they are understood and the information is acted upon. It is important to make sure the quality of your data is managed effectively. It’s all well and good to make ‘fixes’ with an agency or mailhouse, but make sure you apply any fixes in your systems too, otherwise it may not be ‘fixed’ for the donors next interaction.
  • Acquire more donors.  If you are acquiring donors and modeling a break even within two years – don’t stop! In fact, if there is any more capacity you can use (e.g. lists or face to face go for it. Just make sure you check the compliance credentials of any suppliers).
  • Know your donor.  A true donor communication survey is key for donor care, major donor work, bequests and more.  It can even help with future direct campaign results!  Key to good donor care is to understand your donor and use a survey year after year.
  • Thank properly.  This doesn’t mean just send a receipt with a short thank you letter.  Every time we conduct mystery shopping, charities come up badly.  Donors deserve a beautiful thank you letter, telling them how their gift will help.  Then they should get a follow up telling how it DID help.  Hardly anyone does this, so, it is easy for your charity to have the best donor care around.
  • Ask properly.  Personalise copy.  Not just name and address, but donation amount, reflect their support, personalise paragraphs depending on their survey responses and previous donations. It is important any personalisation included relates to the donor, and isn’t just changing an adjective in the copy depending on their giving level. Take time to think about where the donor is in their giving journey, what they’ve told you and ensure your copy reflects this well.
  • Use the Pareto Principle. Donors who give larger than average gifts will likely give you more larger gifts.  You don’t have resources to spread equally, so prioritise those with the best potential to give more.  About half your donations will come from just five per cent of your donors.  Use the survey and look at previous giving to work out who they are.
  • Meet donors. The best fundraising happens face to face, but any full time major donor fundraiser who spends more time NOT meeting donors is either under supported or in the wrong job.  There are usually around 220 working days for a full time person.  A full time bequest or major donor fundraiser should be spending 180-200 of those visiting donors.  ALL fundraisers would be speaking to donors. Making thank you calls, checking in on how the fundraising you do feels for your donors. Aiming to understand more and more about your donors. If you have not spoken to a single donor in the last month, pick up the phone now
  • Hold staff and suppliers accountable.  Make sure they know what is expected and make sure good KPIs are in place and understood. Ensure suppliers are compliant with regulations.
  • Try some new stuff. Finally, and only if you have made sure you are doing all the above!  Budget for R&D with no income expected. And please – on behalf of the whole sector – let us know how you get on!

If you want to be part of Pareto Benchmarking next year please email Jesse Zarb.

* 5,000 direct mail donors, average age 73, average bequest in Australia $59,273.  Benchmarking shows 0.4% of all such donors have become bequestors, with more advanced bequest programs achieving 2%. $1.2m-$5.9m.

Should Australian fundraisers be worried about UK style meltdown?

The UK is reeling from regulations and rules hammering charities’ ability to raise funds. Some are fearing revenue losses of over thirty per cent. The reason, according to long standing donor care expert Ken Burnett, is that charity fundraisers have been complacent about their relationship (or lack of relationship) with donors.

Pareto Benchmarking shows that the two decades of great growth in fundraising income and numbers of new donors has come to an end. So, we asked Ken whether Australian fundraisers should be worried about a UK style meltdown.

Thanks Ken! (And yes, he knows he mixed his Ps and Fs up – watch the video to see what we mean!)

The cost of attrition

Fiona McPhee says it’s time to question yourself about your approach to supporter loyalty – because attrition is costing us.

This is my favourite time of year! Pareto’s 2017 Industry Trends Benchmarking Report has been released. You and I now have the opportunity to see, at the macro level, what’s happening in individual giving.

We’ve already reviewed the report with our Australian member base and the truth is what’s happening can be summed up in one word: challenging. And I love a challenge. As I know many of you do.

There is no emerging silver bullet on the horizon, there is no dramatic upswing in anything. Overall income has maintained from last year, driven by regular giving, and for some the opportunities are clear. But for those of you with developed programs in a pressured acquisition market that is facing declining retention rates, how do you pursue sustainable fundraising?

“It’s cheaper to retain a supporter than find a new one” is common law in fundraising. And it’s true. Replacing a lost, loyal supporter is even more expensive then acquiring a new supporter as for many the equation will be up around four or more new supporters to simply replace the lost income in one year of a previously retained, loyal supporter.There are two statistics in this round of Pareto Benchmarking that drive this home:
• retained cash supporters contribute, on average, over 60% of total cash income (and if you’ve not done any supporter acquisition recently it will be even higher)
• overall cash supporter retention is at an alltime low (although many charities are 25% to 40% better at retaining their supporters than the average so we know we can do better).

Supporter service is critical

The supporters you already have are your best asset but they are not staying around as long as they used to or could. I can’t go into the details of all the research here (I’m always up for a chat about this though so do please get in touch) but so many things point to how we treat our supporters how satisfied they are with this treatment, and how engaged they are as being critical to supporter loyalty.

Your approach supporter service (or customer care or donor care) is critical to managing supporter loyalty. Our investment in this is low compared to the commercial world. Pareto mystery shops a lot and while things have improved year on year, overall our experiences are not as good as they could be. So how can you ensure you are excelling? Here are two ways to get started:

1 Better understand your audience

Do you ask supporters what interests them? Do you know why they care, what their story is and how engaged they are? Being taken for granted was highlighted by some excellent UK research as a specific reason why supporters chose to discontinue support, including not being thanked appropriately, being asked for money too often, receiving communications they did not want and not being recognised for their commitment.

Do you have an approach to understanding how these issues could be affecting your supporters? Do you ask for and capture the reason supporters cease their support? Do you exit interview selections of supporters?

We are not paying enough attention to our supporters, often driven by the fact that they have no avenues or opportunities to be heard. The rise of mass direct response fundraising has seen process prioritised over service. And while the use of data to segment and target continues to improve it’s what we do with the knowledge from that data that’s lagging. The first steps to take are:
• ensure the information that you have on supporters and how it is captured is audited
• identify the gaps in your knowledge about your supporters – what should you and could you know about your supporters?
• audit the ways you listen to supporters (this can be done as part of an a wider mystery shopping project).

2 Better service your audience

This is the customer service chat many of you need to have. To quote UK fundraising expert Adrian Sargeant: Whether they are consciously aware of it or not, how they are treated by other charities will certainly drive what they expect when they start giving to yours.

Now if you’ve ever manned the phones at your organisation you may well have had a difficult interaction with a supporter who is upset about how much mail they receive or was dismayed to see you ‘out in the street cajoling people into donating’. And the untrained inclination is to get out as fast as possible. I have also seen these situations lead to organisations effectively hiding from supporters – having no clear way to be contacted and no people available to care for supporters with feedback.

These are simple examples of golden opportunities to deliver a great supporter experience. But if you are unprepared and ill equipped, your supporter experience will be poor and their loyalty will be affected.

Do you provide high quality service to your supporters? How do you know? Have you measured it? Do you monitor it all the time? Do you benchmark yourselves? Do you have a complaints procedure? Do you have a customer/supporter service vision? The first steps to take are:
• Get yourself mystery shopped. I recommend outsourcing this and running it over a threemonth minimum, if not a rolling program.
• Benchmark your service levels.
• Develop a service vision and implement KPIs to track and monitor donor responses.
• Audit your team’s roles and skills, and look at ongoing training to upskill them.
• Audit your supporter care communications, both proactive and reactive. Having a fresh set of eyes reviewing for experience, tone consistency, warmth and personalisation will help identify process gaps and execution gaps. An external audit will also help identify how accessible you are to your supporters and how much two-way interaction really exists (research shows us that each time you have a two-way interaction with a supporter it builds their loyalty some more).

Seeing your supporter service as a critical component of managing supporter loyalty with objectives to better understand your supporters and better service them will impact your supporter loyalty.

 

Fiona McPhee and the Pareto team work to review, analyse, benchmark and implement insight led approaches to improve donor journeys, care and service. If you are looking for some support to better understand your donors, drive better donor experiences and improve loyalty email fiona.mcphee@paretofundriasing.com.

This article was first published in Fundraising and Philanthropy Magazine 2017

Meeting the needs of middle donors

It is only in the past three years that middle donors have really been targeted in Australasia. Here Fiona McPhee and Ruthann Richardson explore the benefits of, and what’s involved in, building this significant group.

Middle donors should be viewed as a central part of an organisation’s lifetime value efforts. Middle donors will be retained and upgraded far more than smaller donors and far more than major donors. They represent the most significant block of money, commitment and loyalty. US fundraising consultant/ industry commentator Roger Craver.

Over the past few years, there has been an increase in interest in mid-value fundraising. Blogs, conferences and webinars are focusing on it. And rightly so as there is much to be gained from putting a focused strategy in place to increase the engagement, retention and value of this targeted group of donors.

Together, Ruthann Richardson and I have spent the past two years researching, analysing and working on the development and execution of mid-value programs with charities in Australia and New Zealand.

(We argued about how long we have been working on these programs as many of the high-value donor programs we have run or assisted with over the past 10 years bear It is only in the past three years that middle donors have really been targeted in Australasia. Here Fiona McPhee and Ruthann Richardson explore the benefits of, and what’s involved in, building this significant group. some resemblance to the more recently branded mid-value donor programs. However, formal strategies around mid-value donors have only come to the fore in the past three years in Australia and New Zealand.)

The purpose of developing a mid-value donor program? To raise more income by cultivating and nurturing strong ties and deeper relationships. These programs should bridge the gap between our high-touch major donor programs (one-to-one) and our mass fundraising programs (one-to-many). By adjusting strategies and investment priorities to bridge the gap you can create a one-tosome program that drives these stronger relationships and better longer-term value.

The first step in developing a mid-value donor program is in identifying who your mid-value donors are. This will be different for every organisation – both in volume and value. Your chosen strategy, capacity and budget may well dictate the volume of donors you can service via your mid-value program initially, so the criteria you select may need to be tightened, but we hope success would allow you to expand over time.

Targeting

When looking to identify who could fall into this group for you, there are a number of things to consider:

• Look at the largest gifts made; not those cumulative over a time period The behaviours of those who give larger single gifts versus those who give multiple gifts to reach the same value are different and for a mid-value program we recommend focusing first on those with larger single gifts. Once your program is established and working, if capacity allows for research (and here we mean speaking with/listening to your donors and analysing their behaviours) and/ or testing into specifically targeted segments of donors whose cumulative giving is higher than the norm, this can be part of your plan. (Ruthann suggests looking at donors whose cumulative giving in a year is high and talking to them to assess the difference in their behaviours from the beginning.)

• Focus initially on individuals You may selectively include organisations/businesses over time but, realistically, these programs are designed to develop relationships with individuals and are more easily managed, in the first instance, without making a raft of adjustments to meet te different needs of businesses and organisations. (Ruthann recommends exploring organisation records when you know the decisions are being made by individuals who are simply choosing to give through their businesses.)

• What about regular givers who are giving large amounts every month? This is where analysis and judgement needs to come in. Regular givers who also make larger cash donations are worth considering. The needs and behaviours of higher value regular givers are often different to those of a ‘classic’ mid-value donor. Again, research and testing are critical with this audience. Consider developing a mid-value regular giving program that addresses the specific needs and opportunities presented by people who are already regular givers.

• What feels right in terms of value for your organisation? In Australia and New Zealand we tend to start our exploration with donors who give $1,000 or more (in a single gift) up to where an organisation’s major gift program starts (for those without major gift programs a mid-value program is a nice way to get started towards this). If you don’t have any or many donors up at $1,000 then start at $500 or $250.

• Like any other giving program, recency is critical If you have a selection of donors who haven’t given in the last 24 months there would need to be strong case-bycase reasons to include them in your midvalue program. (I think you should go back 36 months but Ruthann recommends 24 months. We disagree because of the differences in programs we have worked on, so critical analysis and judgement will help make this call.)

• Are you going to consider longevity of giving in your criteria for this group? Donors who have been giving to you for longer are likely to be more engaged. Do they have different perceptions of your work? Are you able to use analysis to understand their potential giving motivations better than new donors? Giving longevity will be likely to affect how you segment your mid-value donors.

Cultivating the group

Once you have determined the criteria for your program, the biggest challenge is in understanding how to cultivate this group – those exceptional donors who are giving at the very top end of your mass fundraising channels but who don’t quite make it into your major donor program.

(Often we encounter some crossover between the major donor prospecting criteria and the newly developed mid-value donor criteria. Savvy major donor fundraisers have seen the benefit of the nurturing and cultivation mid-value programs offer but be prepared to engage your major donor colleagues and plan together.)

It is important in your mid-value program to focus on the donor. The more their motivations and needs are used to tailor the experience the more successful the program. Getting the right balance between cultivation and solicitation is key, as is finding the balance between high touch human interaction and mass fundraising.

Anyone hoping you can simply ‘program in’ a mid-value donor program should probably stop reading here. Human interaction is important. Not all mid-value donors will ask for it and many will say they don’t need it, but without it you will simply be applying more tactics to a mass program, which will only get you so far.

Aim to create a sense of exclusivity, access and special status. Mid-value donor content should be richer – even more sophisticated than that developed for the broader base. Letters and emails (if they are an appropriate channel for your audience) should be meaty and substantive – think more cultivation than solicitation. Spend at least as much time stewarding your mid-value donors as you do asking them.

We have seen and helped build a variety of models that work for great mid-value programs, and each has been a unique outcome of the motivations of the midvalue donors, the tangible and specific proposition(s) developed, the organisations’ available human capital and expertise, the elevation of elements of the mass fundraising program, and special cultivation and solicitation activity designed for the mid-value donors.

Tactics for this group are different from a standard donor program – lots can be learned from testing as well as the experiences from other mid-value and major gift programs. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.

Your objectives will drive your strategy. A slow burn approach might focus on increasing retention and therefore value over time, a more focused push will look to dramatically increase the short-term value of giving with a keen eye on retention. Often capacity and budget dictate which of these two routes are selected.

You will need a budget. It’s the classic ‘spend more to make more’ but it works. You might be spending more on specialist staff or more on your appeal execution or on special cultivation activities for the audience. Can you do this with no additional budget? If you can divert resources and juggle budgets to spend less in other areas then, yes, but plan to be successful and spend more as you expand and develop the program. Plan to stick with it – this is not a one-shot campaign or throwing in a couple of thank you calls.

At the most basic level, look to complement your mailings with phone calls, custom cultivation and solicitation activity, and stretch campaigns. Ensure you keep a consistent narrative across all channels. Pay attention to how donors respond and what they say to you. Good cultivation means paying attention to the donors’ preferred channels, level of interaction and interest areas and, importantly, capturing and using the insights as they are gained. The best programs have a vision, test and refine, and use human beings as a critical resource.

 

Fiona McPhee and Ruthann Richardson work with fundraisers in Australia and New Zealand to explore, develop and implement mid-value donor programs.

This article was first published in Fundraising and Philanthropy Magazine 2017