The document discusses strategies for implementing multichannel donor marketing at nonprofits. It outlines the opportunity for nonprofits to adopt multichannel approaches to reach younger donors across different channels like mail, email, social media, mobile, and television. It also presents a case study of Amnesty International's successful multichannel response to human rights crises in the Middle East. Key challenges discussed include integrating data and messaging across channels, determining which channels drive responses, and changing organizational structures to better support multichannel marketing.
6. Or 2011? Mail Face-to-Face Email Telemarketing Nonprofit Supporter Television (DRTV) Mobile Social Networks Website
7. The Problem Part 3: Other big trends Nonprofit offline donors are aging Donor files are shrinking Retention is falling (and online low already) Direct mail costs are increasing / fundraising margins are shrinking Nonprofits need (younger) more valuable donors
8.
9. Income about the same as onlineHow about revenue and retention?
12. Building sustainer files is all about multichannel DRTV Web and phone Face-to-face Follow-up online and offline Mail donors converted via telemarketing Online / telemarketing / (limited mail) Great, largely untapped and lowest startup costs
14. Making multichannel work Integrated campaigns Multichannel conversion series Acquisition, renewals, appeals, etc. Leverage your online and offline data Targeting activists for telemarketing Which mail to send to online donors Timely upgrades Etc.
15. How to get there: Moving toward integration “Coordinating group” Sometimes coordinated; other times conflicting Limited use Coordinated; multi-directional Generally consistent voices Limited customization $$ Integrated Common + shared metrics Fully incorporated Coordinated; multi-directional conversation Consistent voices when desirable Yes; based on constituent behavior $$$ Org structure Goals / strategies Multichannel data Communications across types / channels Voices Supporter focus (and result) Siloed Disparate (sometimes conflicting) Not available Uncoordinated; one-way Inconsistent voices No customization; often org-centric $
16. Levels of integration: Welcome series example DM donors receive DM asks, appeals Online supporters receive online $$ asks, appeals OR advocacy / engagement Offline donors—give emails; sent to url to donate Online supporters receive advocacy / engagement + $$ asks, appeals Online donors put into DM / TM streams Offline donors—optimized to give emails; sent to customized urls TM—Entered directly into online form Online supporters receive integrated advocacy / engagement / $$ asks based on name source + behavior Targeted online supporters rapidly put into customized TM and DM streams
17. Middle East & North Africa: Amnesty International’s Response to to the Unfolding Human Rights Crisis
18.
19.
20. Successes 60% higher pledge rate than projected in our telemarketing efforts Saw 50% credit card rate Exceeded February’s online income projections by more than 60% Blog traffic was our second highest to date, with 60,000+ page views Facebook likes increased by nearly 100,000 # of Twitter followers grew by 40%
21. What was working in our favor? Success driven in large part by the fact that this issue was headline news that sustained public interest for several weeks Issue’s visibility & overriding urgency made internal decision to promote issue across channels a no-brainer No need for prolonged deliberation Ability to marshal coordinated response involving key parts of organization positioned us for success
23. Questions/Challenges: Tactical How to best tailor ask to appropriate channel? Play to each channel’s strengths in developing treatment strategy: Fundraising and social networks still evolving Focus instead on word-of-mouth Supporters derive intrinsic benefits from spreading the word about good causes to their networks for friends and family Mobile & urgent call-in actions
24. Questions/Challenges: Data Integration For multi-channel donors, how do we know which channel is driving response? If donors are not responding to a given channel, does that mean it’s “not working?” Some channels easier to monitor than others How do we optimize the performance of multi-channel efforts when the solicitation channel and transaction channel may be different?
36. E.g., DM drives people online; online shares credit for website revenue with DM
37. Culture External Affairs: Strong ethic of teamwork, focus on department goals above individual unit goals. DR and New Media: share audience, coordinate messaging. DR and PG: share audience, marketing efforts target DR donors DR and MG: Gift officers cultivate high$$ DR prospects. PG and MG: gift officers identify PG prospects Entertainment Relations: credited for messaging from celebs, supports PG and MG cultivation events
41. Session Evaluation Each entry via text or web is a chance to win great NTEN prizes throughout the day! TEXT Text < 11NTCmulti > to 69866. ONLINE Use < 11NTCmulti > at http://nten.org/ntc/eval Session Evaluations Powered By:
Notas do Editor
Humans are multichannel, and they want to be treated with a holistic approach
And now, 20 years later, there are more channel options than ever before
• Amnesty uses advocacy to educate supporters and effect change – push US government, UN and international bodies to respect human rights. The funds we raise are used to assist with that advocacy.• During the Egyptian protests, Libyan protests, and those in Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain, etc, AI has mobilized supporters to demand the right to peaceful protest, freedom of speech, right not to be tortured/unlawfully detained, etc (and continues to do so)• To accomplish this, we used multiple channels• (Area graph shows: stacked, not static #s; only MENA information; jan 25-feb 28)Graph highlights:• During this time, peaceful protesters across the Middle East and North Africa were making history (and still are)! At the same time, some were shot, tortured, harassed, violently dispersed using tear gas, water and rubber bullets, and otherwise thwarted by the state• Amnesty has had teams on the ground in multiple countries, documenting human rights abuses and informing action• emails were our largest driver but part of a multichannel effort• huge spikes in activity when AI staff and other human rights observers were arrested, and again when Libyan action was launched (UN)• up to 9 tweets per day, 4 press releases and facebook posts a day, 3 blog entries – on this issue alone
Direct mail response was softer than anticipated; didn’t make it in the mail until just a few days before Mubarak stepped down; wasn’t able to respond to changing conditions on the ground as quickly as we were via digital channels and the phone
Tailoring message example: Cross-channel marketing doesn’t mean sending the same ask out to each communication vehicle Orgs still need to tailor the ask to be channel-appropriate In our experience, fundraising asks typically haven’t performed all that well on social media So with the human rights crisis in the Middle East, for instance, we pushed related actions on Facebook and Twitter to promote list acquisition instead of heavily promoting fundraising asks We also will only typically promote actions to our mobile list if there’s an urgent, related call-in action
Example: We know that social media like Facebook and Twitter are big drivers of word-of-mouth and traffic (they are both in our top 10 referring domains), but we don’t see many gifts sourced to them relative to other channelsWe suspect that our donors engage with us via social media, but we as of yet don’t have the tools to monitor this We also can’t tell to what extent our donors and email subscribers are also engaged with us through social media channels
Like many other organizations, we have struggled ever since the advent of our online program with how to improve integration between our online and offline programs
