Tad Druart

I have enjoyed pouring over “The Next Generation of American Giving” research to learn more about how the different generations respond to the multiple channels available to engage with charity and how they can all work together to make fundraisers more successful. 

One of the data points that real struck me was that “Checkout Donation” was the most common channel across all generations for giving – overall 52% of the donors reported giving that way (48% of GenY, 57% of GenX, 52% of Boomers, and 48% of Matures)

I have always been aware of the practice and often participate adding on to my grocery, restaurant or other bill at checkout to support a cause.  Since our research came out, I’ve started paying more attention rather than “just donating.”  My gut tells me that while nonprofits are getting a decent junk of change using this channel, we’re not doing all we could to turn that small, spontaneous gift into a   relationship?

There have been a number of examples that I could use, but here are couple of examples of “checkout” donation opportunities that I’ll use to ask the questions and pontificate.

The first comes from the grocery store checkout line and seems to be the most popular method/channel, I see.  The skew slip below delivers a nice message, but to be honest, two days later I cannot recall the name of the charity I supported.  The point of sale (POS) display was beautiful and well done (read expensive) and compelling. I saw 2 out of 3 people in front of me donate. Some of the questions I have are:

- What if we could put the URL of the organization on the slip and make sure the donor took it home?
- Would that spontaneous action lead to them going to the website later to learn more and maybe even give more? 
- Is the cost of adding the URL that much given the obvious investment in the POS display?

Personally, I think this is a lost opportunity to start a relationship. Many people would not go home then follow through with a visit to the website and an additional gift. BUT, and it is a big but – given the number of people who participate in checkout giving, should we not add the URL? If we could convert just a small percentage of checkout donors to an ongoing relationship of volunteering and/or giving that would be some serious change.
 
For some reason I am reminded of something my mom once said – “Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve, but didn’t.” 

I’d love to hear from someone who did and what results you saw. Or maybe you’re the org that is going to do it and see what happens. We’d love to hear how it did or does turn out. If you’re already participating in checkout programs just add the URL and do your best to make sure the slip goes home with the donor.

(The other thing about the grocery checkout is that I use my “member card” when I checkout to get that added discount. [A practice I personally detest, yet as a marketer admire, but that is another story – just give me the best price.] But to finish the multichannel opportunity, could the grocer work with the charity to send me a follow-up email thanking me for the support and inviting me to do more? They have all my information and send me email coupons that I have opted for. Seems like a “pretty easy” next step to add that customization along with the other conditional content I receive – apparently we spend a lot of money on dog and cat food based on the conditional content i recieve...hmm, I see another opportunity for the local animal shelter...)

The second example comes from a local restaurant where I had breakfast – amazing French toast, I might add. When we ordered, and again when we got the check we were reminded of the unicef Tap Project. With our check we received a reminder to text a donation and we had the handy reminder above on our table as we dined.  (Text "TAP" to UNICEF (864233))

What was neat about this was, yes they received the spontaneous $5 text donation and an additional $3 that I added to the bill, but they gave me an opportunity to engage further on my own time. Having worked in the world of water management, conservation and delivery, I was interested. To be honest, even though I had a personal interest in the issue had they not provided the materials, I might not have remembered the organization or cause by the time I returned home nine hours later. I have visited the site and learned about the issue. Now the organization has a better chance of converting my one-time text and “tip” into an on-going relationship. Pretty cool campaign.

To be fair, I am not sure what the return on investment might be. Does the cost of adding a URL to the skew slip and “training” the store staff to give the slip to the customer make economic sense? Does the cost of adding a URL to the store receipt still allow for a return? If the grocer executed a chaperoned email to customers, would that be seen as a negative and impact people’s future giving to other organizations or the one in the email? Does the marketing expense for campaigns like the Tap Project support new donor acquisition at a return that is better than traditional direct mail?

I don’t know. But I do know, that given the results of the Next Generation of America Giving research, asking and answering these questions for your organization could very well be lucrative.  Let’s skip the “could, would, should” and just do it.
 
If you are already down this path, please let me know what you are seeing. We would love to work with you on telling the story.

As we are out sharing and discussing the results of research into “The Next Generation of American Giving,” we’ve been asked why we did not include any breakdowns by gender?  The answer is best summed up in an excerpt from one of the research analyst emails about gender differences: “There are not a lot of big gender differences, and where there are even small ones, nothing is popping out as particularly interesting or altruistic.”

That in its-self might be interesting to some people, but not much help for the fundraising professional. The one thing we did see, and it is not pronounced, is there are some differences around the importance of relationships/influence of peers. One could say it is “classic gender psychology” – women are relationship driven.

Some of the data that supports that analysis includes:

• Women, by  5% more than men (18% to 13%), feel that they can make the most difference “by spreading the word and telling others about the charity/group.”
• By 26% to 19% women were more likely to think it was “very appropriate” to "message people through social media to ask for a donation" than male counterparts.
• More than half the women (55%) thought it was very appropriate for a friend to ask for money on behalf of a charity, vs  48% of males.
• 58% of women thought it was very appropriate for a close friend or family member to ask, compared to 48% of men.

Given that organizations are focused on more relationships and more channels that ever before, at least there does not need to be concern about gender differences at this point in time. As my 21-year old daughter often reminds me, “that’s today, I might change my mind tomorrow.”

Being a father of high school and college age daughters, I say "I just don't get it" quite often. I admit that I also question some of the things my parents say and do – I thought I raised them better. :-) The generations are different...

Today, Jordan Viator, our super communications manager for all things interactive, fun and digital was featured in The New York Times about using Foursquare to broadcast to her friends where she is during SXSW Interactive. I personally don’t get it. Why would you do that? I know she says that about a lot of things I do, as her generation has many questions for us "older folks" and they are not afraid to ask. Of course, I probably wondered why anyone would use Facebook and Twitter at some point and now I use them regularly.

The reality is there are generational differences in the way we engage and the way we live our lives. (I’ve put a lot of "duh moments" into these posts lately.) To efficiently and effectively manage my life – family, work and beyond,  I need to understand the generational differences of the people I interact with.

It’s no different with fundraising.
 
Anecdotally and intuitively nonprofit professionals know that changing demographics and technology are driving a shift in charitable engagement. Questions abound:

How do donors of different generations learn about nonprofit organizations?
What are their preferred channels for engagement?
What are the most appropriate channels for fundraising?
Who and what influences their giving decisions?
What will the on-going value of direct mail be versus online and emerging fundraising channels such as social media and mobile?
While much has been written about the differences between the generations, there has yet to be an in-depth study on the charitable giving habits, preferences and differences for Gen Y, Gen X, Boomers and Matures. Until now.

Working with our friends at Sea Change Strategies and Edge Research announced the results of a first-of-its-kind national research study into the charitable giving behaviors and attitudes across Gen Y, Gen X, Boomers and Matures. This is the same team that brought you the "Wired Wealthy." Some of the key findings will change the way nonprofit’s approach the art and science of fundraising.

The full report is available at: www.convio.com/nextgen

In the coming weeks we’ll be posting more information and hosting webinars, but for now, I wanted to introduce the research to you. In this economy we can’t afford to say "I just don’t get it" when it comes to engagement with donors and prospects. We can't let the shifting demographics and ways in which people use technology get too far ahead of us - leaving our mission behind. Like the "Wired Wealthy," this is a must read for the modern fundraising professional. We already pulled some of the data for a feature research package on mobile giving, particularly related to the response to the earthquake in Haiti. There is more to come.

(I have to admit the irony of seeing Jordan, the digital-force for our social media, blog and online efforts in print today, made me smile.)

As I look back at my communication’s and development career technology has changed the way I work - I remember the days when we had a major product launch and had teams of people in New York and Washington D.C. the morning of the announcement to "run" the press releases to the key media outlets/reporters. Technology has changed all that. I can hit the send button and send the press release to everyone who wants it at the same time. My mobile phone’s GPS has also changed getting me to the right place mostly on time. Because of technology reporters are no longer confined to the publisher’s building – my last press tour took me to the homes of reporters in three small towns for kitchen table product demos. (With virtual meeting tools and video conferencing, we’re even doing less of that.) As an event fundraiser, I remember fighting for walkie-talkies during fundraising events, just to stay in touch with my co-workers and volunteers. Do you remember how hard it was to get in touch with a key volunteer once they headed home for the evening... (Man I’m old – two miles up hill, both ways through the snow kind of old.)

Of all the communication technology the mobile phone is probably as disruptive as any... I noticed last night how it has changed dating for my teenage daughter.

As a father, I like the fact that when my daughter and her boyfriend are sitting together on the couch they continue to text friends, while they talk with each other and watch TV – I encourage the keeping of hands on mobile devices at all times. Had W. Bruce Cameron'sbook "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" been written today, we’d add a chapter about the benefits of boyfriends who continue to text friends while on dates with one’s daughter. That’s probably a better story for a post on fatherhood though. But I digress...

The most recent development with mobile technology is that of a giving platform. In the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake close to $50 million was given through this channel. Although gift amounts were limited to $5 to $10 dollars an estimated 6.5 million people used their cell phone to donate. This was unprecedented level of giving through this channel and might mark the tipping point for greater adoption.

We teamed with Edge Research andSea Change Strategies on a national survey of US charitable donors conducted one week after the earthquake in Haiti, and during intense fundraising efforts for emergency relief – this is part of a broader study that will be released in the coming days on the contrasting charitable habits of Gen Y, Gen X, Baby Boomers and Matures to provide the nonprofit sector with insights on cultivating the next generation of American donors.(This is the same team that gave us the ground-breaking research on the "Wired Wealthy.")

Here are some of the key findings. 

• 77 percent of respondents were aware of the Haiti text-to-donate efforts
• 17 percent of Gen Y respondents and 14 percent of Gen X made a donation to Haiti relief efforts via text message, and 3 percent of both Boomer and Mature respondents made a donation to Haiti relief efforts via text message
• 28 percent of respondents with a mobile Facebook application texted a gift 
• Generally speaking, 15 percent of all respondents were willing to donate via text message after an emergency occurs and 11 percent were willing to donate via text message if a friend is raising money
• Just three percent of donors say that they received a text/SMS message from their top charities this year
• However, those who have received information from a top charity through text/SMS, feel that it is an important way to stay in touch with the charities they care about (71% say it is important).

 You can download the full study at: www.convio.com/mobile2010

When you look at this data, the results Convio’s clients are having online with fundraising, advocacy and other forms of engagement, the segmentation and donor relations pathways that are now available through open database systems like Convio Common Ground, all tied to modern technology it is an exciting time to be part of this sector. While the economy is having a negative impact, it is also driving innovation as people look for more efficient and effective ways to operate their organizations, to reach and cultivate donors and spread the word about their causes.

The only certainty we face is change and those that embrace change will be best positioned for the future. We must adapt to change, to data intensive applications and new technologies that push us in new directions and beyond our comfort zone.

Now, its' time to send an "REI" text to my daughter as she’s upstairs watching TV with her boyfriend. What does REI stand for? It’s dad for "response expected immediately." Much like mobile fundraising – donation expected immediately...oh how the world has changed.

Back in February there was a great deal of discussion and debate on the role of tax-deductions in charitable giving around proposed changes in the tax code. Some argued that giving is primarily altruistic and tax breaks play only a small role in the decision to give. Others argued it is very important and billions of dollars could be at risk if the government placed a limit on charitable giving deductions. Both the The Chronicle of Philanthropy and The NonProfit Times covered the story. Today, Stephanie Strom, Philanthropy reporter for The New York Times did a nice article around data from the Convio system that shows, at least behaviorally, the year-end tax deadline makes a big difference in online giving volume and revenue.

While the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, what is clear is that donor behavior in the last week of the year, particularly on the last day of the year, seems to suggest that getting that last gift in under the tax deadline is extremely important.

We looked back at online giving trends in the last week of the year, compared to the rest of the year and found that on 12/31 there was more than 13 times the number of donations and more than 22 times more funds raised than daily averages the rest of the year.

Here is some other interesting data that seems to confirm, at least behaviorally, that altruism and the tax-deduction go hand in hand (or hand in wallet).

• In the last week of the year (from 12/25 - 12/31), clients processed 4.9x the number of donations that they did in an average week.
• The amount raised was an even larger lift (7.7x the amount raised in an average week) indicating that the average gift size was also larger (57% larger).
• While every day in the final week of the year (including Christmas) saw an increase in average donations, the last 3 days of the year showed the most dramatic increases:
       1. 12/29 = 5x donation count and 7.8x in funds raised,
       2. 12/30 = 7.5x in donation count and 11.5x in funds raised,
       3. 12/31 = 13.2x in donation count and 22.5x in funds raised).
• In the last week, the top 10% of organization saw >10x increase in number of donations and >15x increase in funds raised.

Bottom line is that the last week of the year and in particular the last day of the year is huge for online fundraising.  About 90% of organizations take some advantage of this phenomenon with the top third of organizations raising 10x or more in the final week when compared to an average week. 

Dave Hart, our CTO offered me these observations about the data: The 10x lift would be a good target for an end of year fundraising campaign (a solid B grade), and an organization should not stop fundraising until the very end of the year.  An A grade for an end of year campaign would be 15x the normal weekly volume raised in the final week of the year.

This type of data is one of the many benefits of providing our nonprofit clients software and service through the SaaS model. It also can help provide insight into what your organization can and should be doing in the last week of the year. It also shows the need to have a donor database that allows you to segment based on the date of the gift, so that you can communicate, making sure you are top of mind on the last day.

It’s not too late – here are some tips from some of our experts that can help you make the most of the last week.

One final thought and question. I worked at an organization that was very active in water conservation.  One of our experts would always, and I mean always, get upset if people conserved water “for the wrong reasons.”  We had some deep and interesting discussions about that. My guess is that most people donate to your organization for more altruistic reasons over “just” the tax-deduction, but at the end of the day, does it matter if they give only for the deduction?

A little bit more about the data. This data excludes special events related (TeamRaiser) gifts and recurring donations and represents clients that: 
• were active fundraising prior to 1/1/2008
• averaged >1 donation/day in 2008 (ie. had more than 365 donations in 2008)