Integrated Direct Marketing

Where Do Online Givers Live?

Megan Contakes — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:54:18 +0000

For all you geo-targeters, according to Convio the most generous online donors live in the following cities …

1. Seattle, WA

2. Alexandria, VA (that’s where I live)

3. Washington, DC (that’s where I work)

4. Arlington, VA

5. Cambridge, MA

6. Ann Arbor, MI (that’s where I was born)

7. Berkeley, CA

8. San Francisco, CA

9. Bellevue, WA

10. St. Louis, MO

Will Changes to USPS Delivery Service Hurt Direct Mail Fundraising?

Megan Contakes — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:07:59 +0000

We are monitoring closely proposed changes to the United States Postal Service (USPS) and how such changes may impact your direct mail fundraising program.

The most significant proposals include elimination of Saturday delivery and changes to First Class service that would eliminate overnight delivery and extend the delivery window beyond its current three-day maximum.

Elimination of Saturday delivery requires Congressional approval. Lawmakers representing rural constituents have raised serious objections to the proposal, and its future is uncertain at this time.

Changes to the delivery schedule for First Class mail can be implemented without Congressional approval and are tentatively scheduled to take effect this spring.

Elimination of Saturday delivery would be the most problematic for your direct mail fundraising program. Mail that is currently spread out over six days would be delivered in just five. This would increase the number of mail pieces your donors receive on any given day and intensify the competition for their attention.

Going from six days to five would also increase the amount of time it takes for mail to reach donors. This would have some impact on the speed with which returns are received by you.

The changes to the delivery schedule for First Class mail will pose fewer complications. Currently, Third Class postage is used for the overwhelming majority of direct mail pieces you send to donors and potential donors. Only a small portion of high-dollar names, monthly sustainer bills, and some acknowledgments receive First Class outbound treatment. However, the adjustments to the First Class delivery schedule will impact the return rate of BRE, or Stamped Reply Envelope mail to your lockbox operation.

Recommendations and Initiatives

1) Continue to collect email addresses and telephone numbers.

2) Maximize the use of Third Class postage.

3) Continue to refine segmentation.

Apple Users Are the Most Generous Online Donors

Megan Contakes — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:30:09 +0000

A new study by Razoo found that online donors using an iPad or Mac are more generous than their Blackberry and PC counterparts.

iPad (and iOS) Users Are the Most Generous Donors

Apple’s iOS device users are far more generous than Android, Blackberry and Windows mobile device users. Average donation value by mobile device:

• iPad $168.67
• iPhone $102.80
• Android $91.42
• Blackberry $24
• Windows $18.75

Mac Users Are More Generous than PC Users

The average donation from Mac users was 7.2% more than Windows users. People using Safari (Apple’s browser) were also the most generous by a significant margin. Average donation by browser:

• Safari $134.77
• Internet Explorer $122.11
• Chrome $113.00
• Firefox $111.34

Check out Razoo to see the full study and their helpful info graphic. Thanks to Kimberly Seville for the tip.

Direct Mail Dominates Online Giving

Megan Contakes — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:05:10 +0000

Target Analytics

Target Analytics’ newly release benchmarking report for online and multichannel giving shows direct mail continues to dominate online giving, generating nearly 80% of gifts.

Report summary:

For the large direct marketing organizations participating in the online benchmarking groups, the majority of gifts are still received through direct mail.

Although direct mail remains the dominant channel for new donor acquisitions as well, it has become increasingly common for new donors to give their first gift online.

Online-acquired donors are significantly younger and tend to have higher household incomes than mail-acquired donors.

Online-acquired donors tend to give much larger gifts than mail-acquired donors. However, online-acquired donors tend to have slightly lower retention rates than mail-acquired donors.

In aggregate, online-acquired donors have much higher cumulative value over the long term than traditional mail-acquired donors. However, long-term value varies depending on the donor’s origin gift level. The substantially larger gift amounts given by onlineacquired donors can mask issues with retention. Multichannel giving is not ubiquitous. The majority of multichannel donors are those who are acquired online and then subsequentl start giving direct mail gifts. This is the only situation in which there are significant numbers of cross-channel donors across all organizations.

Every year, large proportions of online-acquired donors switch from online giving to offline sources — primarily to direct mail. The reverse is not true, however; only a tiny percentage of mail-acquired donors give online in later years.

When online-acquired donors move offline, they tend to do so soon, in their first renewal year. They then continue to give offline in similar proportions in subsequent years. Eventually, just under half of all online-acquired donors convert entirely to offline, primarily direct mail giving. Robust direct mail programs drive up the retention and long-term value of new donors acquired online. Without the ability to become multichannel givers by renewing their support via direct mail, this group of donors would be worth far less. Other than monthly recurring giving programs, established direct mail programs are the best method for gaining repeat gifts from online acquired donors.

When online-acquired donors move offline in subsequent years of giving, it does have some negative effect on their value in the renewal year. The higher the donor’s original gift level, the less they upgrade and, in fact, the more likely it is that the donor will actually downgrade if they move offline. However, these lower gift amounts are far outweighed by the higher retention of onlineacquired donors provided by the direct mail channel.

For the consistent givers who comprise the majority of donors already on file, the presence of past multichannel giving is generally not a significant factor in predicting future retention or long-term value. Traditional RFM factors are far more predictive.

Download the full report.

Incremental Gains Are Not Enough

Megan Contakes — Tue, 24 May 2011 20:25:55 +0000

Few things are more valuable to a direct response program than control packages. They deliver predictable results mailing after mailing, allowing fundraisers to accurately project and deliver income.

Many mature direct response programs rely on control packages in their acquisition, renewal, and appeal programs. In most cases the controls have been in place for years and are generally presumed to be unbeatable.

Rather than focus on establishing new control packages, organizations tend to focus their time, attention, and valuable testing dollars in search of incremental gains from existing packages.

While this is the “safest” approach since it limits risk to overall income, it tends to result in stagnating income growth, especially in a difficult economy where incremental income gains barely cover the inevitable decrease in donor retention.

Rather than focusing on how to make an established control work a little bit better, fundraisers should focus on what makes the control work (e.g., message, issue positioning, timing) and look to develop new packages that significantly increase revenues, improve retention, and drive significant income growth.

Join the conversation on Facebook.

You Are Only as Old as You Think You Are

Megan Contakes — Mon, 23 May 2011 21:27:00 +0000

What drives propensity to give in direct mail donor acquisition? If you had asked me that question a month ago, I would have said prior giving history and age.

If you asked me again today, I would say the same thing. And here’s why.

We recently applied an age overlay to post-merge acquisition data to determine the total extent age plays in driving response rate and average gift.

We found average gift held pretty steady across all age groups and was largely a function of list and market, but age was a major factor in response rate across the board. Donors over the age of 60 were 60% more likely to respond than their younger counter parts. Donors over the age 60 were nearly three times more likely to give than the highly coveted donors aged 19 – 40.

While we agree it is important to have a diverse base of donors (which means some outreach to younger donors), it is more important to have a robust base of donors, which you will find at the higher end of the age spectrum

Our best advice? Stop thinking like a hip 25-year-old and start thinking like a hip 60-year-old.

Join the conversation on Facebook.

Now There Is a Unique Teaser

Megan Contakes — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:55:22 +0000

I am always on the lookout for a good teaser and, I must say, this is a new one for me. Our graphic designer, Ruthanne, wants to know how something is “free” if it is “pre-paid.” She has a good point.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Premium

Megan Contakes — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:25:09 +0000

Tchotchkes. Junk. Trinkets. Gewgaws.

I used to think premiums were a cheap way to acquire and retain donors. I was convinced that the types of donors who responded to premiums would have a low life-time-value and force us to keep upping the ante with nicer premiums until we priced ourselves out of the market.

Boy was I wrong.

Turns out when we analyzed the life-time-value of premium vs. non-premium acquired donors we found that the value of the donor depended on the list—not the package—the donor was acquired from.

That means that the life-time-value of donors acquired from our core lists was unaffected by the premium offer, but the premium allowed us to acquire two to three times as many of these valuable donors.

The premium also allowed us to mail into new lists that we had not been able to make work with a non-premium offer. We did see a decreased life-time-value as we pushed further into new markets, but the trade off was well worth it since we were able to acquire thousands of new members who were previously unreachable.

We also found that using a premium to secure that all-important second gift did not diminish the donor’s likelihood of becoming a monthly giver, or upgrading over time.

Thinking of giving premiums a try? Minimize your risk by starting with low-priced options—like note cards or a notepad—and testing to your core lists. Premiums have been so successful for so many mailers that most premium vendors will allow you to test at the roll-out cost, which means you won’t have to pay exorbitant costs for a very small print run.

How to Succeed in Direct Marketing by Really Trying – the 60-30-10 Rule

Megan Contakes — Wed, 04 May 2011 21:11:55 +0000

A number of factors go into the success or failure of a direct marketing campaign, but ignoring the 60-30-10 rule is a sure-fire way to fall short of your goals …

60% of Success is in the List

Every well-conceived direct response campaign has gross income, cost, and net revenue projections. Selecting a list of donors whose performance history, affinity for your organization, and active status allow you to meet those goals is the first key to success.

As simple as this may sound, getting the list wrong is probably the most common direct marketing mistake organizations make. If you are mailing to a list that lacks the interest or the means to accept your offer, nothing else really matters.

30% of Success is in the Offer

What are you asking the fundraising prospect or donor to do? Join, renew, make a special gift, sign a petition, donate to receive a tote bag?

Giving donors the right offer at the right time is three times as important as the creative. Why? Because donors give when you give them a good reason (offer) to give.

Take a look at your Renewal #1 control package. Is it a winner because the copy and art are perfect, or is it a winner because you ask donors to renew when it is the appropriate time for them to do so?

10% of Success is in the Creative

I know creative is the fun part, and, for too many organizations, it is the primary area of focus in their direct response program. If you have a good team or agency who can manage list and offer, then no problem. But if you don’t, and you are overly focused on the creative without devoting sufficient time to list and offer, you are probably falling short of your income goals.

Does that mean you can be sloppy in your creative, off message, offer a lot of rhetoric and no substance, forget to thank the donor? Of course not. But it does mean that without the right list and offer the hours you devote to perfecting the creative will never pay off.

Is Direct Mail Dead? (Or the Case for Integration)

Megan Contakes — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:19:11 +0000

Is direct mail dead? No, it is evolving.

Direct mail was once a stand-alone program often separated from other development and communications activities. Today, it is an integral part of a well executed multi-channel strategy.

Several recent studies underscore the benefits of integration. Consider the numbers …

Only 7.6% of total fundraising comes from online giving. That means 92.4% of all donations come from somewhere else (chiefly direct mail). 1

65% of donors visit a charity’s website before giving. 2

37% of donors who give online say that when they receive a direct mail appeal from a charity they use the charity’s website to give their donation. Of those:

50% of generation X/Y donors say they give online in response to a direct mail appeal.

26% of boomers respond to direct mail via the web.

More than twice as many online donors say they were prompted to give an online gift in response to a direct mail appeal compared to when they received an e-appeal. 3

Think direct mail appeals only to older donors? Check out these charts from Campbell Rinker …

Direct mail isn’t dead, but a lack of channel integration may be killing your program.

1. Blackbaud 2010 Online Giving Report, February 2011

2. Convio, Sea Change Strategies and Edge Research: The Wired Wealthy, 2008

3. Campbell Rinker, January 2011