Engaging with supporters based on their behaviour, preferences and needs

Steve Thomas David Williams-Jones#stevethomas393 _________________

13 May 2014

Some of our clients

Our partners

Today’s agenda

• Introduction – what is segmentation anyway?

• Part 1: Making the most of limited resources

• Part 2: Engaging supporters beyond money

One size doesn’t fit all

Why Segment?

Appreciation of motivations

• Communication

• Tone of voice

Facilitates different marketing strategies

• Product

• Media

• Right ‘ask’

Make the appropriate level of investment

Look-a-like logic

RFV Analysis

Categorisation of behaviour into 3 dimensions:

1. Recency

2. Frequency

3. Value

How to segment?

Frequency

Recency

Value

9

Creating segments

8

4

13

6

7

2

Frequency

Recency

Value

Part 1: Making the most of fundraising resources by smart prioritisation

Initial findings & recommendations

• Good donor recording on Progress CRM database

• Segment active supporters

• For BD, focussed on Recency, Frequency and Value. But,– Integrate non-financial support in future?

– Motivations?

• Processes:– Load donor Journey module

– Data-informed

– Admin-light routine

– Donor-driven

Communication Cycle v Donor-driven

Communication Cycle Donor-driven Journey

Driven by Charity needs Donor timescales

Campaign decisions Database rules

Frequency Campaigns and appeals

sent to most

Triggered ‘drip’ communications –

typically weekly/ monthly

Content Newsletters, appeals, e-

comms

Thanking, reassuring, asking,

upgrading

Nature Designed and written for

each campaign

Standard pack.

Digital personalisation.

Priority communication

One conclusion:

• Process to routinely convert one time donors to a second gift

– Reassure that first made a difference

– Pre-packed second gift pack

– Different prompts and copy based on first gift

– Event sponsors have different motives

– Standard packs sent routinely

Overall giving since 2011, value:

• Large part of value is with 900 donors (2% of volume)

• Also medium Value is €250 – 999

Implications• 6 segments:

– Very high value– High value suypporters– Medium value– Donors– Medium level donors– Low level donors

• Introducing a Donor Cycle for each segment• Utilise database and suppliers for routine ‘drip’

communication triggered by donor actions• Progressive lapsing to make sure that we do not spend all of

the donation on newsletters and appeals• All supporters continue to be treated courteously …• … but some will repay more investment and engagement

than others

Re-balance allocation of investment

• Before:

– Individual donors represent c.36% of fundraising

– Target fundraising ratio of 12%

• Over investing in low value donors – at the expense of HVDs

• Re-balance the investment:

– Increase expenditure on HVDs and MVDs

– Reduce spend on low value base

• Assuming that incomes stay the same. If segnments respond in proportion to spend increase:

– HVD and MVD growth but decline in low level donors

– Major Donors taking more overhead from reduced value donor cells

• Re-distribution of spend creates 19% growth in overall income

• Overall fundraising ratio improves from 13% to 11%

Part 2: Scripture Union and understanding more than money

More than money

Give

Act

Pray

About Scripture Union

• A Christian charity with a publishing arm

• Use the Bible to inspire children, young people and adults to know God

• Income £7m, 85 staff, 3,000 volunteers

• Schools & churches

• Holidays

• Publishing – print and digital

• Part of international movement of 120 organisations

Project aims

• Identify patterns of support so that we can devise a supporter development strategy to

– boost supporter satisfaction

– maximise retention

– increase income

• Make routine using ProgressCRM database

Supporter Journeys

First Gift

Became

committed

giver

Joined

membership

Became

committed

giver

Volunteered

Volunteered

Legacy

Pledge

Supporters in obvious groups

• Donors

• Product buyers

• Teachers

• On-line resources

• Prayer groups

• Volunteers

• Church reps

First steps

• Installed the Supporter Journey module

• Tracked what were felt to be the important milestones in support – e.g.

– Made their first purchase; first donation; became a recurring / committed donor; pledged a legacy

• Identified the common patterns…

First engagement: purchase

Initial findings

• Most common first engagement is buying something. Of those, 81% do nothing else.

• Legacy pledges

– No obvious route

– Less than 1% pledge anyway

– Of those that do, three-quarters started as cash donor

• Most committed givers don’t buy resources or subscribe

• Best lifetime value start as Committed Giver (4x)

The challenge

• With only a minority donating, traditional RFV measures inappropriate

• A more holistic view of relationships with supporters:– Understand behaviours

– Respect supporters’ motivations

– Develop ‘journeys’ to enhance relationships

• Analytical approach:– Identify and develop appropriate data to collect

– Pragmatic - first and useful pass to put into action

– Learn for further work

Feedback & Results

Workshop Report

Data Analysis

Segmentation Propensity model

Segmentation & Engagement Workshop

Touchpoints Triggers

The process

The solution - beyond RFV

Categorisation of behaviour into 3 new enhanced dimensions:

1. Recency

2. Responsivity

3. Involvement/Value

1. Recency

2. Frequency

3. Value

Tracking the new segments

Creating segments

Responsivity

Recency

Involvement/ Value

Our new fruit salad

• Recency – how long since latest activity?

<1 year; 1 - 2 years; 2 - 3 years; 3 - 4 years; >4 yrs

• Responsivity – contact in : contact out

more in-bound than out; in-bound is 30% of out

• Involvement – ‘richness’ of activity

Volunteers; signed-up; purchasing; etc

• More in future - social media?

The solution – segmentation criteria

Recency

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4

3

2

1

0

Responsivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10

4

3

2

1

0

Involvement/ value

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4

3

2

1

0

• Model breaks down the silos

– Pray, Act, Give

– Real and virtual

• Most recent activity

Model brings RRI together

The solution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Donor

Purchaser

Volunteer

Subscriber

Bible Enthusiast

Ist Tuesday

Live

Back analysed an earlier campaign

– RFV Selected

• Grapes: 30% of volume and lost money

– RRI had identified as lapsed

• Limes: 15% of mail and broke even

– RRI had identified as self-motivated

• Apricots: 50% of mail = 150% of net income

Socio-demographics became more clear

Strawberries (4):Segment 4: Strawberries Index

Counts % 0 100 200Age

Rank 91-100 (Old) 576 5.9 59 ████

Rank 81-90 595 6.1 61 ████

Rank 71-80 742 7.6 76 ██

Rank 61-70 1034 10.6 106 █

Rank 51-60 1135 11.6 116 ██

Rank 41-50 1212 12.4 124 ██

Rank 31-40 1373 14.1 141 ████

Rank 21-30 1160 11.9 119 ██

Rank 11-20 1023 10.5 105Rank 1-10 (Young) 918 9.4 94 █

Apricots (3):Attributes

Counts % 0 100 200

Age

Rank 91-100 (Old) 2015 11.6 116 ██

Rank 81-90 2402 13.8 138 ████

Rank 71-80 2309 13.3 133 ███

Rank 61-70 2230 12.8 128 ███

Rank 51-60 2004 11.5 115 ██

Rank 41-50 1732 9.9 99

Rank 31-40 1468 8.4 84 ██

Rank 21-30 1141 6.6 66 ███

Rank 11-20 1010 5.8 58 ████

Rank 1-10 (Young) 1101 6.3 63 ████

Cardiff

As did geography

Row Labels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 81.71% 0.53% 1.07% 2.32% 3.54% 5.95% 0.22% 0.66% 0.18% 3.41% 0.06% 0.00%

2 0.68% 84.82% 2.22% 5.26% 4.22% 0.09% 0.45% 0.01% 3.48% 0.12% 1.12% 0.00%

3 6.79% 3.27% 91.14% 0.07% 2.17% 0.02% 4.58% 0.00% 1.62% 0.02% 0.09% 0.00%

4 1.40% 1.34% 0.00% 82.80% 8.92% 0.30% 0.00% 13.28% 0.56% 5.75% 1.18% 0.00%

5 6.05% 5.98% 2.81% 7.58% 75.54% 0.88% 0.92% 0.64% 0.32% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00%

6 2.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.02% 78.81% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00%

7 0.04% 0.00% 2.32% 0.00% 1.76% 1.10% 76.34% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

8 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 1.17% 0.65% 0.65% 0.07% 65.53% 1.01% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00%

9 0.02% 2.31% 0.22% 0.01% 2.12% 0.27% 5.40% 1.49% 68.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

10 0.33% 0.01% 0.00% 0.37% 0.03% 0.78% 0.00% 0.93% 0.00% 85.12% 0.01% 0.00%

11 0.13% 1.74% 0.21% 0.40% 0.03% 10.37% 11.12% 14.08% 24.68% 0.06% 93.35% 0.00%

12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.79% 0.01% 3.37% 0.00% 4.75% 4.20% 100.00%

Also showed how people move

Example: Segment 10 – ‘Walk-in’ Greengages.

Sign-up to Strawberries (4) or purchase and become Plums. Do not naturally donate

12 final names developed by SU team

Greengages Popped-in

Plums Spectrum

Limes Personals

Apricots Stakeholders

Strawberries Browsers

Oranges Wavering

Nectarines Job done

Apples Taken for Granted

Pears Family Time

Grapes Exiting

Raisins Gone

Currants Long Gone

What are we doing now?

Analysis

• Sub-segment Stakeholders even further

• Wide-ranging but high value

What are we doing now?

Creative

• More appropriate ‘asks’ and challenges by segment, e.g.:

Personals

No cash ‘ask’. Hand-raising pack

Two-stage purchaser conversion pack

Copy test based on generational challenges rather than child empathy

What are we doing now?

Donor Journey

• Donor Journey per segment

Stakeholders

I give : I get

Recognition and personalisation per stage

Tracking and managing segment movements

Becoming more investment per segment driven

Summary - recommendations

1. Segment your supporter base, messages and asks

2. Track and manage movements between segments

3. Integrate non money giving

4. Communicate on donor terms and timescales

5. Work the performance KPIs

6. Invest according to potential

7. Make progress steadily and keep things simple

For more information contactpurple-vision.com