• Does the research draw from multiple sources, or does it rely on a single study to make assertions?
• Was the research based on quantitative data or self-reported responses? Was response bias considered in the research methodology?
• What channels were used in the study? Does the channel make a difference and potentially introduce unwanted variables?
• Are there broader environmental, societal, political or economic trends that might be contributing to the research findings? What fundraising and philanthropy trends are happening in the background and are these acknowledged in the report?
fundraising
#GivingTuesday: Why aren’t Aussies and Kiwis getting on board?
Global Trends in Giving: What Australian + New Zealand charities need to know (and the opportunity for GivingTuesday campaigns)
Insight 18) Only 1% of donors in Australia & Oceania gave on #GivingTuesday 2017, the lowest of any region. They also are the least likely to give through Facebook (7%). With more awareness, both #GivingTuesday and Facebook Fundraising Tools could provide significant new funding for charitable organisations in Australia & Oceania.
Charities looking for the next big movement in fundraising might consider a GivingTuesday strategy. Though it clearly isn’t a silver-bullet, given the international success of GivingTuesday, coupled with the trend in Australia + New Zealand towards mass fundraising events and social giving (see Insight 19 below) there is a clear opportunity to better engage single givers with a November 27th campaign.
#GivingTuesday began in 2012 and has raised hundreds of millions for various charities each November. And each year, it continues to grow. The reason donors aren’t getting on board in in Oz and NZ is probably because so few charities are encouraging it:
Based on Amplify’s own research, only one of the Top 40 Australian charities has referred to GivingTuesday in their emails to their donors
Facebook engagement with donors in Oceania continues to grow, but the Global Trends metric of 7% suggests there is more opportunity compared with the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, Insight 19 (below) could suggest donors are more interested in peer-to-peer giving and event fundraising and engaging younger audiences. Though, as we know the proportion of income from these sources is significantly lower, we need to be aware of the limitations of this study.
Insight 19) At 75%, donors in Australia & Oceania attend fundraising events more than any other region, and at 21%, they are also the most likely to create peer-to-peer fundraising campaigns to benefit organisations. It’s also worth noting that, at 60%, donors in Australia & Oceania are most likely to be small donors.
About the Global Trends in Giving Study
6,057 donors completed the 2018 Global Trends in Giving Survey and based on their responses, the donor community worldwide is made up of primarily women (65%) who have a liberal ideology (53%), characterise themselves as religious (72%), and give between ($101-$1,000 USD) annually (43%). These donors are most likely to support the causes of children and youth (15%), health and wellness (11%), and animals and wildlife (11%).
Other insights from the 2018 Global Trends in Giving Survey that are relevant for Australians and New Zealand fundraisers:
Giving trends 2018: nptechforgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-GivingReport-Australia-1.pdf
Great Expectations + Poor First Impressions
While much has been written about effective supporter engagement and donor care, fewer words have described how new donors should be welcomed and engaged in the first weeks and months following their initial action. Fewer words still explore how charities can make the best first impression on new donors who give unsolicited donations. What do donors experience when they make an unprompted donation to charity? How well do non-profits acknowledge and appreciate an unexpected gift?
This study maps the journey of a new, unsolicited donor who made a $25 gift over the phone to Australia’s biggest fundraising charities. Our donor’s experience is an accurate depiction of what most donors will see, hear
or feel when they give to charity, and her first impression provides critical insights and valuable lessons for fundraisers.
THE RESEARCH
The top 40 charities based on 2017 fundraising income* were selected to receive a $25 donation. Each call was made to the donation phone number during business hours in early February this year.
THE FIRST IMPRESSION: MAKING THE GIFT
Most charities were very appreciative of our call. The process was mainly warm, positive and pain-free. Though there were some exceptions:
- 4 charities sent the donor to voicemail
- 3 charities put her on hold
- 2 calls were disconnected
- 4 fundraisers from Australia’s biggest charities were outright rude and couldn’t get our donor off the phone fast enough
Being made to wait on hold, to leave a voicemail message or to call back later is unacceptable. It’s clear that some organisations lack sufficient systems to quickly and efficiently process a caller’s donation. Some fundraising teams – 3 of the 40 surveyed – were unable to record the information in the database while the donor was on the phone. They had to pause the call and find a paper donation form which was manually completed – presumably with quill and ink.
Fundraising teams in 58% of charities are unable to receive phone calls directly from donors. Instead, the donation phone number, as listed on the website, sends the donor to an automated answering system or to the organisation’s main line. Given the significant investment in donor acquisition, the emphasis on retention and the vast sums spent on marketing automation, CRMs and IT systems, surely Australia’s top charities can do more to improve the giving experience and engagement of unsolicited donors?
HOW DO CHARITIES MAKE A GREAT FIRST IMPRESSION?
- 13 charities invited the donor to nominate where she wanted her gift directed
- 9 charities asked about the donor’s contact preferences
- 6 charities asked about the donor’s motivations for giving
- 6 calls left the donor feeling valued and passionate about the cause
Our donor received beautiful responses from some organisations. The best fundraisers were genuinely appreciative: they asked what prompted the donor to give; they volunteered information about activity near the donor’s home city; and one individual from Camp Quality told our donor that “the gift had made her day”.
Some donors will never speak to a fundraiser at your organisation, but the opportunity for them to do so – at the point when they make their very first action of support for your cause – is incredibly valuable. Charities that ensure the experience of giving a gift is seamless, rewarding, and utterly awe-inspiring, will have a good chance to build a long-lasting relationship with their new supporters.
THE SECOND IMPRESSION: THANK YOU + RECEIPT
It’s generally accepted best practice to send a gift receipt and thank you letter within 48 to 72 hours. In this research, only one in five charities lived up to that expectation: 10 charities responded within a week; 14 charities took around two weeks; and one receipt was received 77 days after the gift. Perhaps surprisingly, no charities issued a receipt by email and mail, which should be relatively easy to do.
Most alarming is the fact that seven charities have not issued a receipt or thank you more than five months after the initial gift. Of those seven, five have sent out donor appeals and donor care, while two charities have not sent a single communication by any channel. They did take our money though (we checked with the bank).
THE THIRD IMPRESSION: WELCOMING NEW DONORS
Some 24 charities fulfilled the gift receipt by mail. Of those, eight sent a dedicated thank you welcome pack. We received some fantastic welcome packs. Standout examples include Fred Hollows, Vision Australia, Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.
- 3 packs included engagement items: magnets; glasses to simulate impaired vision; and band-aids
- 2 charities surveyed our donor as part of the thank you letter or welcome pack
- 3 packs included a privacy policy
- 1 charity invited the new donor to an event
THE FOURTH IMPRESSION: THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF ENGAGEMENT
Many organisations included in the research have fantastic stewardship and engagement journeys for new supporters from acquisition activity. But our donor was not included in some of these. In fact, we estimate that about one in five charities are missing unsolicited donors from their engagement strategy entirely.
UNICEF was the only organisation that had a clear tactic to engage phone donors, specifically asking via email if our donor “would prefer to make a gift over the phone”.
- 31 of the 40 organisations sent a combination of email and mail donor care and appeals between February and June
- 4 organisations did not engage our donor in the 5 months since sending a gift receipt
- 3 charities sent emails only – no mail, no autumn or tax appeal, no phone or SMS
- 3 organisations included our donor in a March regular giving conversion phone campaign
THE OVERALL IMPRESSION
Every call to your charity should be treated as critically important. And each donor should be made to feel like they have personally contributed to your organisation’s success and the progress of its mission. Your donors deserve an immediate emotional gratification when they call to make a gift.
Don’t miss out on what could be the only opportunity you ever have to speak to that individual.
Notes:
-
*Where multiple federated charities fall into the top 40 by fundraising income, only the largest state branch is included.
-
The selection excludes education institutions and organisations that report their main charitable purpose as “advancing religion” Source: ACNC Charity Income Reporting 2017
My Ungratifying Experience: giving $25 to 40 charities
The experience of giving to charity should be uplifting. Every donor should be made to feel special. Unfortunately, that’s often not what happens…
When I started as the Campaign Manager at Amplify Fundraising, I was really keen to learn more about Australian charities and the amazing work they do. Shortly after starting, Paul and I spoke about doing some charity research – a mystery shopping activity – where we would donate $25 to 40 charities and learn how they treat me as a new donor. These charities were the top 40 by fundraising revenue (based on a 2017 ACNC report).
The primary purpose was to record my journey; what would I experience as a new donor? What mail, emails and phone calls would I receive? What tactics and marketing techniques would be used and what potential improvements would we identify across the donor journey?
My first week of giving was a real eye-opener, and it prompted me to write about my experience.
The day I started making donations was an emotional one. I had just dropped my little ones at day-care and school and the tears were streaming. When I arrived home with their tear stained faces imprinted in my memory, I remember feeling, ‘at least I now get to do something incredibly rewarding – donate to people in need!’
I was expecting the fundraisers on the other end of the phone to lift my spirits with their gratitude. Instead what I heard in my first call was a voicemail! I tried this particular charity an hour later. Voicemail again. On my third attempt the person had to put me on hold to get a paper donation form. Not a great start to what I thought was going to be a gratifying experience.
It was difficult to donate to 25% of charities – I either went to voicemail, the line disconnected, or the donation phone number was incorrect on the website.
The worst call I experienced, however, wasn’t the disconnected tone or the voicemail. It wasn’t even the charity that kept me on hold for four minutes, it was the lady who couldn’t get me off the phone fast enough. She read her script. She processed my gift. She didn’t even ask for my address. Her manner was impatient, dismissive and cold, and it was as though whatever she was doing at that point in time, was more important than the cause she was receiving donations for. My $25 didn’t seem important. I couldn’t help but feel incredibly sorry for all of the disadvantaged people that were relying on that money.
My positive, enthusiastic bubble for donating had popped and I started to question whether my expectation for a little gratitude was too high. I wouldn’t want to donate to that particular charity again and I felt discouraged to make further phone calls to any organisation.
I picked myself up from the disappointment and continued calling. Fortunately, a couple of telephone calls later I spoke to a lady who was appreciative, warm and genuine. She was enthusiastic about the cause she was helping to raise money for, and she made me feel amazing for making a donation.
After all, isn’t this why we choose be donors in the first place? We want to feel that we are helping others and making a difference. I wanted to feel that my hard-earned money was going to a charity that was genuinely passionate about its mission and they appreciated every dollar donated.
I was frustrated by the number of recipients who sounded like they were reading from a script – it felt so impersonal and ingenuous. A warm greeting by someone who understands their cause and is extremely passionate about the charity they work for, would make a huge first impression on me. It’s not just about saying the words ‘thank you’, it’s about the fundraiser truly believing that my gift is important. If they felt this way with every gift they received, donors would immediately sense this through their tone – their true appreciation would be brought to life.
Donating is such an incredible act of generosity. All donors are amazing and should leave the phone call feeling that way – after all, they are putting others first and trying to make the world a better place.
Hunting Your Regular Giving Monster – No Silver Bullet Required
Regular giving success is about strategy, effort, time and patience. While some fundraisers and board directors seek a silver bullet to overcome growth challenges, the charities most likely to find success are travelling tried and tested ground and relying more on hard work to drive growth. It may sound less attractive and it might not inspire excitement and enthusiasm in the boardroom but, in reality, great fundraising success rarely comes from silver bullets.
Before you reach for your revolver, consider the following recommendations that will help you tame an elusive werewolf.
HOW EFFECTIVE IS YOUR PROGRAM AND HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO THE MARKET?
It’s critical to understand how well your regular giving is currently performing. What metrics are important? What has worked in the past and which activities performed poorly? How many new donors and what level of investment is required to grow or stand still? Which acquisition channels deliver the best return on investment over time and how might investment in those same channels perform today?
(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: Before you invest in acquisition, make sure you understand the success of past activity. Transactional and longitudinal analysis must be part of your long-term planning
and review process. An analytical review should be undertaken each year – across all your programs – as part of your overarching fundraising and communications strategy. Such a review will inform investment decisions, channel selection, business processes and, ultimately, your approach to revenue growth and delivering organisational goals.
DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT FUNDRAISERS ON YOUR TEAM?
A good regular giving program will be managed by an experienced professional fundraiser – and those are hard to come by. Before you spend money on your regular giving program, ensure you have the right team to take it forward.
(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: Consult independent advisors to review your fundraisers’ capabilities and capacity. Managing a regular giving program is a specialist skill and having the wrong team – or hiring the wrong candidate – could be a very costly mistake. Your regular giving fundraiser/s will be responsible for delivering a multi-year business strategy and it might be many months and years before a weakness in their expertise is identified, by which time much damage may have already been done. Your team should have experience across multiple fundraising disciplines and good relationships with third party suppliers including face-to-face, phone and analytics agencies.
DOES YOUR PROGRAM HAVE EFFECTIVE BUSINESS PROCESSES IN PLACE?
Are gifts processed and banked properly? Are declines and cancellations managed? Do you have a best practice upgrade, reactivation and conversion strategy for your program?
Unfortunately, most charities could be doing a better job of processing and managing gifts. It’s not uncommon to discover that successful programs are actually haemorrhaging donations due to poor processes.
(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: Invest in a comprehensive review of regular giving practices and business processes before you plan to grow your program. Business analysts who specialise in regular giving can significantly increase income, improve backend processes, reduce lost payments, identify opportunities to improve and automate systems, and help train fundraisers to manage your program more effectively.
WHAT DOES YOUR STEWARDSHIP AND RETENTION PROGRAM LOOK LIKE?
There is no value in recruiting more donors if you’re not looking after the people who already give to you. While in the past consultants would advise charities not to spend money contacting regular givers and face- to-face recruits, this is no longer the prevailing advice.
(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: An integral part of a successful program is a strong stewardship – or donor care – strategy. Your communications calendar should include thanking, engagement
and activation activity as part of a holistic, multi-channel fundraising and communications strategy that will help retain and cultivate more valuable relationships with your monthly givers.
IS YOUR MONTHLY GIVING AUDIENCE SEGMENTED?
Regular givers form a broad audience that requires further segmentation. A good communications strategy segments regular givers on behaviour, commitment, source channel, recency and value.
(Not a) silver bullet recommendation: As part of your program, review and analyse data, develop a better understanding of who your regular givers are and identify opportunities to segment and personalise communications to them. Consider breaking down your regular givers by: active vs inactive; recency of first transaction; recency of other gift types; gift value; source channel and solicitation (eg face-to-face, two-step, online, direct mail, phone conversion); commitment level; and proximity to the cause.
UNDERSTANDING YOUR REGULAR GIVING POTENTIAL
Monthly givers have provided reliable income for many charities since the early 2000s. But those earliest regular giving charities didn’t seek quick wins or easy solutions. They saw regular giving as a potential growth area that needed a robust testing strategy and well-developed measures of success. They understood the need to manage internal expectations and that success would take many months and years.
Great regular giving programs are constantly being analysed and reviewed, comprehensive processes are in place and they are run by dedicated, analytical fundraisers with many years of experience. There is no innovation that can replace hard work, and getting the basics right will cost far less money and involve fewer risks than searching for a mythical silver bullet.