Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Until there’s a home for everyone
ROI as a fundraising KPI for Face to
Face and Door to Door – 40 mins
Paul Butland
t: 07500 331 446
2
ROI as a fundraising KPI for Face to
Face and Door to Door
Why Shelter decided to create the role of In- House Quality and
Retention Manager
How we identify those high quality donors on the street (who is
likely to give for a long period of time)
When we suggest regular giving is not the best option for that
person and why
What age groups we target on the street
How we look at site retention
How we have made improvements to F2F retention
How we plan to re-evaluate volume/average gift/retention and cost,
in order to focus on the sum of the parts
3
Why Shelter decided to create the role of
In- House Quality and Retention Manager
to improve F2F and D2D fundraising standards and ROI
to shift focus from volume to retention - Committed
Tackle 1 & 2 Pay drop off
Ensure quality management for increasing the size of its in-house F2F and D2D
Brand visibility
PFRA rule book compliance
logic - higher the quality of the fundraising - better supporter experience
acquisition -better the retention
represent the In-House team in wider supporter journey
4
How we identify those high quality donors
on the street
analyse the data that we already had in Raisers Edge
build live retention reports for fundraisers, team leaders and operations
Identify which Fundraisers had the best / worst retention
Find out what they were doing and who they were targeting
It is clear that there the following things have a market effect on retention
Age
Average gift
Site
Employment
biggest factor is the fundraiser themselves
5
F2F retention by age group
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-b.18-25 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-c.26-30 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-d.31-35 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-e.36-40 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-f.41-45 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-g.46-50 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-h.51-55 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-i.56-60 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-j.61-65
6
What age groups we target on the street
18-24 isn’t viable for regular gifts by direct debit
retention over year too poor to use In-House teams to recruit
Do not target under 24s - in place since 2009
Exceptions – never turn someone away
Commitment issue – students and young people
Don't Direct Debit if no regular income
big challenge as the F2F /D2D typically attract younger Fundraisers
like tends to attract like
Focus now on over 35’s as this is much better
7
Over 35 effect VOLUME
Miss Flirty Mr Steady Miss Frank
8
Over 35 effect COST
Miss Flirty Mr Steady Miss Frank
9
Fundraiser vs Over 35’s
There is no doubt that percentage over 35 affects retention rate
clear difference between fundraiser retention and over 35 percentage.
A fundraiser who generates a higher number of over 35 supporters will have a better
retention, but the two things are not mutually exclusive
A bad fundraiser is a bad fundraiser despite age
fundraiser affects retention in a more significant way then age e.g. Mr Steady
10
F2F Retention by Average Gift
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-b.£30-£45 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-c.£45-£65 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-d.£65-£90 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-e.£90-£120 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-f.£120-£140 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-g.£140-£170
11
Average Gift and Retention
Average gift definitely has an effect on retention
You can’t really consider average gift without considering three things:
Site
Gift Aid percentage
Employment status
Comfort is everything!
Can’t consider AG without site
12
How we look at site retention
Old logic is out – all sites are not the same
Sites are categorised 1-4 and based on / retention / income per sign up
/ cost
Sites need to be treated differently based on rating
Retention of people giving £10 per month is great on some sites, and
£4 is bad
Other sites £10 is bad and £4 is good
Not going into too much detail – we aren't throwing them out, we are
just using a different strategy! ;)
13
1 1
2
3
4
14
When we suggest regular giving is not the
best option for that person and why
Cost per means no point in getting sign up if it isn’t long term
Times have changed - Exposure and sustainability mean volumes are lower in
general
‘Top heavy’ ROI or returns in the first year is not there
This high volume ‘chugging’ tactic is exhaustive and un-sustainable in the long
term
Students / No regular income – suggest different gift unless they explicitly state
that they can do it for the long term
We need to fish with a net with bigger gaps – get them later
15
Quality vs Quantity - How F2F
Fundraising Looks over a financial year
Fundraiser has biggest impact on retention
There are different types of fundraiser - but they generally fall into two
categories
1. The Fundraiser
2. The signer-up-er-er
(Figures not entirely accurate but are based in reality! ;) )
Axis explained
16
Mr Caresalot v Mr Folderspinner v Ms
Business by volume
Mr Caresalot Mr Folder spinner Ms Business
17
Mr Caresalot v Mr Folderspinner v Ms
Business - Cost v Income
Mr Caresalot Mr Folder spinner Ms Business
18
Break even point
If average gift was £7 and if we assumed that there would be no more
attrition on these active donors:
16 months for us to break even on Mr Folderspinner
8 months to break even on Mr Caresalot
3 months to break even on Ms Business
19
Sustainability
Ms Business- has almost covered cost due to her retention being so
good
Unlikely we will ever meet cost from Mr Folderspinner for previous
financial year
Signing up too many people is unsustainable. Like over fishing, it is
exhaustive and sacrifices quality to long term detriment
Focus is clearly in the wrong area / outdated
20
Which is more sustainable?
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
21
In-efficient v efficient
As the previous slide shows:
245 people are no longer giving via Fund 2
180 people are no longer giving via Fund 3
96 people are no longer giving via Fund 1
22
More return over time for Fund 1....
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
23
......because there are more people still
giving / retention is better
As the retention gradient is less steep for
Fund 1, we recoup costs much quicker
Fund 1’s retention is 70% to date from last FY
Fund 2’s is 42%
Fund 3’s is 49%
24
…but…retention without minimum ask
and low vol is misleading
Mr Retentionnovol Mr Perfect Ms Wasteful
25
.....because income is too low vs cost
Mr Retentionnovol Mr Perfect Ms Wasteful
26
There is a 15% 2 pay retention
difference between Fund 3 and Fund 2...
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
27
....but Fund 3 is almost as cost effective
due to significant average gift
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
28
If retention is awful ......
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund Awful
29
...then we never raise any money!
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund Awful
30
How we have made improvements
to F2F retention
3% better cumulatively this year for F2F than this time last year
Increased focus - improved 1 pay and 2 pay retention
Fundraisers know we are using live retention reporting - there is no scope for ‘dodgy’ fundraising
Live reporting means Managers are now able to see problems arising as they happen
Presentation on ROI to all managers – they get it!
Retention league tables – retention is becoming focus
Training and development - being overhauled more quality long term giving as its framework
All teams now using PDA’s which is improving speed of process and 1st payment – improving 1 pay retention
31
Being honest with ourselves
Charlie Laurie, Head of In-House - Forward thinking, Brave and dynamic. –we
have to test the ideas!
she has really kept and eye on the ball with regards to trends and particular
retention
This has made it possible for such focus to be on retention in our in-house team
32
Dinosaurs will die....
‘Chugging’ happened and still happens when we use primitive forecasting models
i.e. Volume, average gift and retention are all lump in together.
Volume only considered the most important factor as it is the thing that we had
most control over
ROI is really about the people that are still there after year 1
The bigger the gap between these volumes, the worse we are off
What if Machine – Built to help clarity importance of retention to Managers
33
Get real!
Don’t use misleading mathematics .
Incentivise the right thing!
Don’t create a cult mentality only volume is
necessary.
Don’t speculate. Prove it
Get buy in from managers
34
Scenario is: Normal
Average vol 2500
Total 2500
INCREASE VOL BY
Retention 1 pay was
Retention 2 pay was
AVG Gift £7.77
Income 1 year £129,434.71
Scenario is:
Normal
£129,434.71
Scenario is: Increase 1 pay and 2 pay retention by 10%
£155,803.84 £26,369.12
Scenario is: Vol increase 10% retention normal £142,378.19 £12,943.47
Scenario is: Increase AG by 10% £142,428.16 £12,993.45
The What if machine
35
SUMMARY
ROI – is the important factor
Need to asses cost v income more important
than start income
Income largely informed by retention
Looking at AG over year is dated (e.g. £120)
To improve retention – need live reports not
historical data
36
The Future
We are moving towards a model where we
are no longer looking at volume as the
main KPI for fundraisers
Not looking at retention as sole KPI either
– We need balance
We are going to deal with sites in a
different way
Not going to reveal what we are doing
specifically, but it is going to be awesome!
37 Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Until there’s a home for everyone
Thank you
Paul Butland
t: 07500 331 446
