The document discusses generational giving trends among generations Y, X, boomers and matures. Key findings include that while boomers currently give the largest total annual donations, generation Y engages with charities in newer ways like social media and are projected to become the largest donors in the future. The presentation advocates for multichannel fundraising approaches and emphasizing different channels that appeal to various generations.
(64% of US adults qualifiedAbout 148 million donors)Pie Chart size represents size of ADULT population for that Generation(Animated- Matures First) Matures have the highest percentage of donors. Highest yearly average donation, and, the highest aggregate projected donation. But, they are our smallest population and have one of the smallest actual number of donors by Generation . Plus, by virtue of their age, their lifetime potential is dwindling. Boomers average yearly donation is smaller than matures, but have a high percentage of donors, and given their population size, actually generate more in dollars than any other generation. Our Gen Xers, the next largest population actually generate more than Matures, due to donor population size. Their average annual contribution is lower vs. older groups, but still impressive. Plus, their lifetime potential is much greater. Gen Y is more about future potential, with over half currently donating, posting annual contributions averaging about $340, generating over $28 B a year. Another trend we see is that younger generations give give to fewer charities, but when they give, they give similar amounts as older donorsSpend a lot of time focused and soliciting these groups (point to Matures), But the vast majority of the donor universe are Boomers, Gen Y and X – represent huge opportunity in terms of sheer numbers, and will only get more valuable (from a dollar perspective) over timeHence as a fundraiser, if you have the ability to attract them, they can be economic in current terms, and of course constitute higher potential life time value, plus contribute to outreach due to their social networks/ peer influence.Hence as a fundraiser, if you have the ability to attract them, they can be economic in current terms, and of course constitute higher potential life time value, plus contribute to outreach due to their social networks/ peer influence.Question wording:Q4. Approximately how many nonprofit organizations and charitable causes have you donated to in the past 12 months? Q6. Approximately how much do you give in total each year to all charitable or cause-oriented organizations, excluding your school and place of worship? Blue numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
While pluralities to majorities of each age cohort plan to maintain their current level of giving to their top charity A higher proportion of younger donors plan to increase their donations to their top charity next year Older you get, more likely to maintain the status quoQ21: Are you likely to: Increase your donation next year, decrease your donation next year, continue giving the same amount next year.
Time to Give BackJust starting out, don’t have a lot time or money to giveAt point in life where would like to increase my $/time commitment to charityWhat’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
Random, Peer Motivated SupportMost of the charitable giving is random (who asks, emotions)More likely to support a charity when friends/family ask vs. the charity Time vs. MoneyVolunteering is a priority for me Can make more of a difference volunteering my time What’s In It For Me?Like promotional give-awaysLike to support through social events. (i.e. parties, runs, etc)Online ConnectionPromote through social networks Visit a website prior to supporting
Lot of information on this chart. Two most common ways to “give back” are what I know some of you refer to as “tipping” – leaving a buck for charity here or there at the supermarket, etc; and of course check by mail. But what I really want to focus on is some of the generational differences. Gen Y most likely to give in small ways -- $1 at checkout type of gift. No one prevalent channel beyond that -- as likely to give via website as check, same numbers at gift shop, event, etc. More than 1-in-10 say they have participated in mobile philanthropy. Giving thru SM more prevalent than other generations, but still small. Gen X true multi-channel givers -- more likely to give through many of these channels than other generations. Most likely to make online donations (though still a little less than good old check). Both X and Y more likely to participate in something like Gap Red campaign where part of the proceeds fr third party vendor purchase goes to charity. In focus groups we heard that this is a way that they can easily and affordably be charitable. Win-win (i.e. Gap – “I shop there anyway, and it’s a way to feel good”). X using monthly debit more than other cohorts. –NOT REALLY -- THE DIFFERENCE IS WITHIN THE MOE Matures (and Boomers) most likely to mail in a check. A third of Matures have made tribute gifts. More have given via phone solicitation than other generations (though still just a quarter).Q7: Which of the following giving methods have you used in the past 2 years (select all that apply).Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
WOM is seen as the most effective solicitation channel for Gen Y, X, and Boomers For Matures, direct mail is just as effective Younger generations are more open to other forms of solicitation: email (just as effective as dm with Y), social media, phone (though note that they are less likely to have a landline, and we heard in the focus group not as familiar with telemarketing) Mobile solicitation is still its infancy (more on this in a few minutes), but has more acceptance among younger audiences.All generations much more guarded with direct communications if no relationship in place, gets worse as gets older. Mass media the one accepted channel (74% appropriate). Big theme heard in focus groups is Control -- skepticism about getting manipulated. Feel like traditional solicitation channels – phone and mail – are manipulative. They want to feel like they made the choice/they are in control. Giving after hearing a mass media story, and/or being solicited by a friend makes them feel like they made a choice. Prospecting direct mail more acceptable than email across generations by 2:1 (45% to 21%) (different than what we saw on previous slide), but donors described that responding is not always a “feel good” experienceQ22 :Below are a variety of different ways that a charity may approach you and ask for a monetary donation. For each, please indicate how appropriate that approach is.Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
Large majorities of donors report hearing about the mobile philanthropy efforts around Haiti emergency relief. The message cut through the clutter more with younger generations.
Given that the vast majority of donor acquisition is through direct mail, it is important for us to understand how different generations of donors first learned about their top charities, and the relative importance of mail Mail the dominant channel for Matures, but … Mainstream media and WOM top prospecting channels across age cohorts WOM, school, and P2P fundraising more prevalent for Gen Y (not direct) What we also see on this chart is the importance of a cradle-to-grave strategy for building relationships. Even a quarter of Boomers say that they first learned about a top charity during childhood What is also interesting is what IS NOT a top prospect channel – and that is websites (5%) and social networking site (4%). Emerges as a research toolQ10: How did you first learn about (top charity)? Select all that apply. [Top channels cited above]Q11: How old were you when you first learned about (top charity)? (Best guess is fine)Q9: For how long have you been supporting (top charity)? [Average # of years cited]
Direct donation most prevalent, but more likely to be first form of support as age Y (followed by X) more likely to check out the charity’s website as a way to get involved. Also more likely to attend an event and volunteer. Finally, Y most likely to promote charity to others through email, FB, etc. Suggests that younger groups need to go through one or more cultivation steps to build a relationship that can lead to a financial transactionQ12: When you first learned of [Top Charity], in what ways did you become involved with the charity/group? Blue numbering indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
Giving money is the #1 way all generations engage with their top charity today (and increases about 10 pts from first engagement across board) However, younger generations are more likely to engage in all other forms of support w/ their top charity – particularly online engagement (visit website, social media promoter). Active vs. passive engagement.Q15: And how are you currently involved with [top charity] today? (Select items done in past 12 months)Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
Money always trumps other forms of support, but if you look at that dark blue slice, you will see that it continues to grow over time. Money is a smaller piece of the equation for Gen Y and X, offset mostly by other forms of support (read)Q18: Still thinking about the present time, where do you feel you can make the most difference with (Charity).
Lot of information on this chart. Two most common ways to “give back” are what I know some of you refer to as “tipping” – leaving a buck for charity here or there at the supermarket, etc; and of course check by mail. But what I really want to focus on is some of the generational differences. Gen Y most likely to give in small ways -- $1 at checkout type of gift. No one prevalent channel beyond that -- as likely to give via website as check, same numbers at gift shop, event, etc. More than 1-in-10 say they have participated in mobile philanthropy. Giving thru SM more prevalent than other generations, but still small. Gen X true multi-channel givers -- more likely to give through many of these channels than other generations. Most likely to make online donations (though still a little less than good old check). Both X and Y more likely to participate in something like Gap Red campaign where part of the proceeds fr third party vendor purchase goes to charity. In focus groups we heard that this is a way that they can easily and affordably be charitable. Win-win (i.e. Gap – “I shop there anyway, and it’s a way to feel good”). X using monthly debit more than other cohorts. –NOT REALLY -- THE DIFFERENCE IS WITHIN THE MOE Matures (and Boomers) most likely to mail in a check. A third of Matures have made tribute gifts. More have given via phone solicitation than other generations (though still just a quarter).Q7: Which of the following giving methods have you used in the past 2 years (select all that apply).Bold numbering in the table on the right indicates significance at the 95% confidence level
US has a far greater reliance on direct mail than Canadian – especially for prospecting – Canadian donors are more likely to respond at fundraising events, give monthly or donate in honor/tribute. Mobile and social media are much more prolific in US. May bebecausemajor social network channels have been around for longer in the US. US mobile giving refulation much more freedom that in Canada. Regulations are only just now starting to open up. Checkout :58Mailed gift:27Website:32FR event: 41Honour/Tribute: 34Third party vendor: 17Monthly giving: 25Phone: 17Mobile: 3Social networking : 3
Justfyi these #s do not change for generations but have to make the point here that these are all within the margin of error, so the differences are not statistically significant between Can. Generations. That is, we would read the results for Gen Y the same as Civics here for Canada. We will only generally report only things that ARE indeed signif. and what is signif is the overall difference between countries as per your first slide, AND that there is a statistically signif difference e.g. between Gen X and Gen Y and Civics in US but we did not find this to be the case here. Part of this is that we’ve set our margin of error higher -- we are using 4% instead of 2% -- we tend to err on the side of caution with MOE even if our reading may not be quite as senstive.. I wll ask Armand though if we can perform a T-test on it to determine its true sgnificance in this case.
It’s not too early to be courting Gen Ys, but the really significant value lies with Gen X and Boomers
Fundraising is profoundly multichannel
Causation may be impossible to track – chicken or the egg argument
The donor database of the future must track all channels and interactions
Message/channel integration is a more urgent priority than ever.
One organization’s goal to better integrate online and offline fundraising:A new staff person is being put into the fundraising department who will coordinate ALL web related activitiesThey will report to the Director of Advancement – FundraisingBut this can only happen with the buy-in of the CEO
MarkHighlight:Smooth Transition – we will facilitate the design and implementation of a plan for the amalgamation process.Strategic and Tactical development – during the overlap period, we will work with CCS to build KPIs/set strategy. We will take a multi-channel approach. We will focus on data and build a segmentation strategy – looking at how we will convert one time donors to multi donors; single/multi donors to monthly; reactivating lapsed, etc.Success Factors for Transforming an online and integrated fundraising operationStrategic and Tactical developmentIntegrated multi-channel approachAlignment of structure, culture and skills with strategy
The role of social networks in fundraising is important, and still evolving
Mobile’s time is coming, whatever that is
None of this is as important as the content you produce
None of this is as important as the content you produce