10/27/12 Footer 1

Brave, New Multi-Channel World – Implementing & Measuring Integrated, Multi-Channel Campaign Strategies PRESENTED BY RICHARD BECKER, PRESIDENT–TARGET ANALYTICS

10/27/12 Footer 2

•  The Marketer’s Dilemma: How to Measure Cross Channel Effectiveness

•  The Impact of On-line Advertising on Direct Mail Response

•  Use Case Review #1: International Relief Organization Targets Active & Lapsed with Gift Request #2: Animal Welfare Organization Targets Active & Lapsed with Sustainer Request

•  Best Practices in On-Line Advertising & Multi-Channel Marketing

•  Q & A

AGENDA

10/27/12 Footer 3

THE MARKETER’S DILEMMA: HOW TO MEASURE CROSS CHANNEL EFFECTIVENESS

10/27/12 Footer 4

ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS IN QUESTION

GM Will Remove $10 Million Worth Of Ads From Facebook

Mere days before Facebook goes public, General Motors announced that it will pull $10 million in advertising from the social media site. GM execs told the Wall Street Journal they're not getting appropriate bang for their buck from Facebook's paid ad content.

Wednesday, May 16th – Wall Street Journal

10/27/12 Footer 5

TRADITIONAL MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Click Thru 0.4%

4 clicks per 10,000 impressions served

Conversion 0.005%

1-2 conversions per 100,000 impressions served

Return-on-Ad-Spend 0.25 : 1 25 cents per $1 spent

Typical On-line Advertising Results

10/27/12 Footer 6

TRADITIONAL MODELS OF ON-LINE ADVERTISING

Topic and Interest Targeting Target users from predefined interest categories, inferred from a user browsing history

Keyword Contextual Targeting Use keywords to find web pages for your ads across your ad network

Remarketing / Retargeting Target ads to people who have previously visited your website as they browse other web sites

Self Reported Data Targeting Target ads based on information volunteered by the user via a membership form or user profile

Location Based Targeting Target ads based on a user’s geographic location

Demographic Targeting Target ads based on a user’s estimated age, income, gender, etc.

10/27/12 Footer 7

LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL ON-LINE ADVERTISING

Key Limitations Advertising based on inferences of affinity, interest, and capacity, not previous philanthropic behavior or organizational affinity Advertising is delivered to unknown recipients, limiting the ability to measure its effectiveness on stimulating other on-line and off-line channels Advertising is centered on the on-line actions of web users, such as previously visiting your website, a very limited perspective that does not account for previous philanthropic related behavior or affinity

10/27/12 Footer 8

THE IMPACT OF ON-LINE ADVERTISING ON DIRECT MAIL RESPONSE

10/27/12 Footer 9

•  Targeting moves from “Where they are on-line” to “Who they are.” You no longer have to rely on inferences or demographic profiling to determine who received advertising. Now, you can target prospects based on philanthropic behavior driven predictive modeling.

•  Target the same prospects on-line as you do off-line. Reinforce your brand with the same prospects you are mailing, telemarketing, or targeting with other 1:1 marketing channels. Create response lift across all channels by using true integrated, multi-channel marketing.

•  Measure on-line advertising effectiveness. Understand exactly how brand impressions on-line affect donor behavior across all solicitation channels. For example, measure how brand impressions on-line lift direct mail performance.

MOVING TO TARGETED ADVERTISING

10/27/12 Footer 10

HOW IT WORKS - CONCEPTUAL

Your Organization’s Target Prospect List

On-Line Matching

Advertising Served to Your Target Prospect

•  Your Active Donor File •  Your Lapsed Donor File •  Your Acquisition Marketing List •  Any List Source Consisting of Name & Postal Address

•  Matches Your Input List to On-line Users to a Network of On-Line User Profiles

•  Wherever your Target Prospect Goes on the Web, Serve Them Advertising

10/27/12 Footer 11

WHY IT WORKS

Direct Marketer focus is focused on the transaction

Reinforcing the brand to build awareness, favorability, and consideration is often overlooked

10/27/12 Footer 12

USE CASE REVIEW

10/27/12 Footer 13

USE CASE #1 - INTRODUCTION Client •  International Relief Organization

Campaign Objective •  Complement direct mail campaign targeting active & lapsed donors with on-line display

advertising, serving direct mail recipients advertising impressions during 3 month direct marketing campaign

•  Improve overall campaign response and donations as a result of on-line advertising •  Realize a minimum 1:1 return on advertising spend (ROAS)

Campaign Scope

# of Household Records – Mail File 1,006,374

Campaign Duration 3 Months

Campaign Timing October 3, 2011 – December 31, 2011

Digital Campaign Spend $50,207

Cost per Thousand Impressions $9.60

10/27/12 Footer 14

USE CASE #1 – BRAND EXPOSURE

Total Mail File - # of Households 1,006,374

Total # of Households with Cookies 518,402

% of Mail File with Cookies 51.5%

Total # of Households Served Ads During Campaign 183,160

% of Mail File Served Ads 18.2%

% of Mail File with Cookies Served Ads 35.3%

# of Ads Served 5,229,916

Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household 28.6

Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household Per Month 9.5

183,160 Households were delivered 5,229,916 Ad Impressions Over 3 Months

Brand Exposure

10/27/12 Footer 15

USE CASE #1 – ON-LINE PERFORMANCE Click Thru & Click View Activity

Total # of Households Served Ads During Campaign 183,160

# of Ads Served 5,229,916

Total Unique Households with Click Thru 2,003

Households with Click Thru as a Percent of Total Households Served Ads 1.09%

Click Thru Based Conversions 16

Conversion % (Click Thru Based Conversions as a Percent of Total Click Thru) 0.8%

Click Thru Based Revenue $1,244

View Based Conversions 644

Conversion % (View Based Conversion as a Percent of HH Served Ads) 0.4%

View Based Revenue $93,091

On-Line Only Activity Associated with Connection360 produced 660 donors and $94,335 in donations, yielding an “On-Line Only” Return on Ad Spend of 2:1

10/27/12 Footer 16

USE CASE #1 – TOTAL CAMPAIGN LIFT Test vs. Control – Affect of Advertising on All Channels

Control Cookie No Ad Served

Test Cookie Ad Served Lift

Unique Households 183,160 183,160 -

Total Conversions 12,999 16,642 3,643

Total Revenue $906,729 $1,165,136 $258,407

Total Conversion Rate 7.10% 9.09% 28.0%

$ Per Household $4.95 $6.36 28.5%

Average Gift Per Donor $69.75 $70.01 0.4%

Total Activity Associated with Connection360 produced 3,643 donors and $258,407 in donations, yielding an Total Return on Ad Spend of 5:1

10/27/12 Footer 17

USE CASE #1 – PERFORMANCE SUMMARY $258,000

5:1 ROAS Ad Spend

Incremental Revenue

$50,207

Return on AD Spend (ROAS)

Return on ad spend of 5:1. $50,207 cost against $258,000 in incremental revenue

9.09%

+28% Control Group: No Digital Ads

Test Group: Digital Ads Served

7.10%

Response Rate

Response rates were 28% higher for those that were served banner ads than the control

$6.36

+29% Control Group: No Digital Ads

Test Group: Digital Ads Served

$4.94

$ per Household

The $69 average donation was comparable between test and control; $$ per HH was 29% higher for the test group

10/27/12 Footer 18

USE CASE #2 - INTRODUCTION Client •  Animal Welfare

Campaign Objective •  Complement direct mail campaign with on-line display advertising, serving direct mail

recipients advertising impressions during 3 month direct marketing campaign •  Improve overall campaign response and donations (and specifically optimize sustainer

donations) as a result of on-line advertising •  Realize a minimum 1:1 return on advertising spend (ROAS)

Campaign Scope

# of Household Records – Mail File 1,399,508

Campaign Duration 3 Months

Campaign Timing December 20, 2011-March 12, 2012

Digital Campaign Spend $75,756

Cost per Thousand Impressions $9.00

10/27/12 Footer 19

USE CASE #2 – BRAND EXPOSURE Brand Exposure

Total Initial Mail File 1,399,508

Total # of Targetable Households after DLX match 1,343,963

Total # of Targetable Households with Cookies 867,695

% of Targetable Households with Cookies 65%

Total # of Households Served Ads During Campaign 306,027

% of Targetable Households Served Ads 23%

% of Targetable Households with Cookies Served Ads 35%

# of Ads Served 8,417,329

Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household 27.5

Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household Per Month 9

306,027 Households were delivered 8,417,329 Ad Impressions Over 3 Months

10/27/12 Footer 20

USE CASE #2 – TOTAL CAMPAIGN LIFT

Total Activity Associated with Connection360 produced 321 additional sustainer donors and $143,636 in donations, yielding an Total Return on Ad Spend of 2:1

Gift Type Conversions % Conversions Avg. Donation 12 Month Value Total Revenue

One-Time 15,895 89.6% $38 $38 $605,067

Sustainer 1,799 10.1% $30 $362 $651,124

Other 41 0.2% $27 $27 $1,113

Total 17,735 $1,257,303

Gift Type Conversions % Conversions Avg. Donation 12 Month Value Total Revenue

One-Time 15,181 91% $38 $38 $577,874

Sustainer 1,478 8.9% $30 $362 $534,972

Other 30 0.2% $27 $27 $822

Total 16,689 $1,113,667

Test

Control

Test vs. Control – Affect of Advertising on All Channels

10/27/12 Footer 21

USE CASE #2 – PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 5.80%

+6.3% Control Group: No Digital Ads

Test Group: Digital Ads Served

5.46%

Response Rate

Response rates were 6% higher for those that were served banner ads than the control

$2.16

+5.4% Control Group: No Digital Ads

Test Group: Digital Ads Served

$2.05

$ per Household

$ per HH was 5% higher for those that were served banner ads; average gift per donor was comparable

12.5%

+34%

Test Group: Digital Ads Served

9.3%

% Donations via Web

Gifting via the web for the test group represented a 34% increase versus the control

Control Group: No Digital Ads

10/27/12 Footer 22

BEST PRACTICES IN ON-LINE ADVERTISING & MULTI-CHANNEL MARKETING

10/27/12 Footer 23

•  The ad should strive to accomplish 3 things: -  Drive brand awareness -  Communicate cause message & reason to donate -  Clear call to action

•  Your campaign should adhere to these 3 things: -  Effective multi-channel marketing must be integrated -  Only use marketing channels with clear performance measurements -  Prior philanthropic behavior is the best indicator of future philanthropic behavior

KEY IDEAS

10/27/12 Footer 24

•  Do: Use strong brand reinforcement with prominent brand name display - CLEAR •  Do Not: Use intrigue in an effort to get people to click thru

•  Do: Keep the message simple, with an obvious call to action – URGENCY •  Do Not: Promote social media or other intermediary steps to your desired outcome

•  Do: Use imagery to compliment your effort to reinforce your brand – USE EMOTION •  Do Not: Use imagery that does not involve a living person or animal

•  Do: Use consistent creative across all landing pages and off-line media - CONSISTENCY •  Do Not: Treat on-line advertising as a stand-alone channel, it exists to reinforce your brand

•  Do: Make the donation form and landing page as simple as possible - SIMPLICITY •  Do Not: Drive click thru’s to your homepage or page other than the donation page

•  Do: Use rich media, flash, and color to attract attention – BOLD •  Do Not: Use white as the background for your on-line ads

BEST PRACTICES – DO’S AND DON’TS

10/27/12 Footer 25

GREAT CREATIVE

10/27/12 Footer 26

GREAT CREATIVE

10/27/12 Footer 27

Q & A