We wanted to see what the current ‘best practices’ were in Canada when it came to online fundraising so we signed up for email and gave to 152 charities tracking the user experience and communications along the way. The results will shine a light on where organizations are at today, the gap between best practices and what is actually happening, and the areas of opportunity when it comes to digital marketing with a focus on four key areas: 1. Email Signup 2. Email Communication 3. Online Donation Experience 4. Gift Acknowledgement In this session, you will learn what other organizations from across the country are doing — well and not so well — and what you can be doing to accelerate your online fundraising. From email communications, to landing page design, to donation page gift arrays, you’ll get tons of research backed tips and insights in this jam packed presentation. Vice President of Innovation and Optimization at NextAfter LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradyjosephson/ Brady is a charity nerd, entrepreneur, digital marketer, professor, and writer. He’s the Vice President of Innovation and Optimization at NextAfter — a fundraising research lab and consultancy on a mission to unleash the most generous generation in the history of the world. Brady works with nonprofits, thought leaders, and philanthropic partners to develop research and create content that can help organizations reach more people, acquire more donors, and generate more dollars to fund their world-changing work. Brady lives just outside Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada with his wife Liz, dog Melly, and cat Thor.

1. THANK YOU!DO YOU LIKE GETTING
GIFTS?

4. 152 ORGANIZATIONS.
921 WEB PAGES.
1,234 EMAILS.
3 KEY AREAS.
1 STUDY.
Started January 15, 2018. Data collection ended June 1, 2018.

6. WHO ARE WE?
WHY DO THIS STUDY?

7. Combines the perpetual learning of a marketing and
fundraising Research Lab with the practical application of
a Consultancy.
To help nonprofits reach more people, acquire more donors, and
generate more dollars to fund their world-changing work.
FORENSIC RESEARCH APPLIED RESEARCH
1100+ Fundraising Experiments
• 198 million donor interactions
• 2.3 million conversions
250+ Emails
• Subject Lines
• Copy
• Design
300+ Donation Pages
• General Donation Pages
• Instant Donation Pages
• Campaign Donation Pages
175+ Advertising
• Facebook Ads
• Google AdWords
• On-Site Pop-ups
150+ Landing Pages
• Email Signups
• Online Courses
• Petitions/Pledges
Some Research Partners

8. Combines the perpetual learning of a marketing and
fundraising Research Lab with the practical application of
a Consultancy.
To help nonprofits reach more people, acquire more donors, and
generate more dollars to fund their world-changing work.
RESOURCES COURSES TOOLS

9. THE RESEARCH
PROCESS.

10. WHO IS IN THE STUDY?

11. Organizations by Type
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Welfare Health Religion Benefits to
Community
Education Other

12. Organizations by Size
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
$50M+ $10M to $50M $5M to $10M $1M to $5M Less Than $1M

13. Organizations by Province

14. HOW DID WE SCORE IT?

15. Three Key Online
Fundraising Areas

16. Three Key Online
Fundraising Areas

17. Three Key Online
Fundraising Areas

18. WHY SO MUCH FOCUS
ON EMAIL?

19. An Association

20. A Faith Based Organization

21. An Education Organization

22. An Advocacy Organization

23. THE SIZE AND QUALITY OF
YOUR EMAIL LIST IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT WILL
INFLUENCE YOUR ABILITY TO
RAISE MONEY ONLINE.

24. AND IT’S NOT JUST
ABOUT MONEY ONLINE.

25. $148 $159
$301
$494
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Online Only Offline Only Offline w/ Valid Email Multichannel
Source: Provided constituent and transaction data for 2015-2016 (excluding corporate and and $10k+HPC donors)
Average Revenue Per Donor by Cohort
Just adding email
communication
increases value
90%

26. WHAT ARE THE KEY
FRAMEWORKS NEEDED
TO UNDERSTAND THE
STUDY?

27. Three Key Online
Fundraising Areas

28. Email Signup
Email
Envelope
and Body
Optimizing Each Micro-Decision
Dec
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
Donation Page and
Process (mi)
Yes

29. Email Signup
Email
Envelope
and Body
Optimizing Each Micro-Decision
Dec
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
Donation Page and
Process
Value
Cost
(mi)
Yes

30. Email Signup
Email
Envelope
and Body
Optimizing Each Micro-Decision
Dec
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
Donation Page and
Process
Dec
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
Cost
Value
(mi)
Yes

31. VALUE
COST
Email Signup
Email
Envelope
and Body
Optimizing Each Micro-Decision
Dec
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
Donation Page and
Process
Dec
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
(mi)
Decision
Cost
Value
(mi)
Yes

32. VALUE COST
CONVERSION MOTIVATION VALUE
PROPOSITION
(CLARITY)
INCENTIVE FRICTION ANXIETY

33. VALUE COST
CONVERSION MOTIVATION VALUE
PROPOSITION
(CLARITY)
INCENTIVE FRICTION ANXIETY

34. VALUE PROPOSITION:
An answer to one critical question:
“If I am your ideal supporter, why
should I donate to you rather than
another organization (or at all)?”

35. Appeal
0- No Interest
1- Possible Interest
2- High Interest
Exclusivity
0- Anywhere Else
1- Somewhere Else
2- Nowhere Else
How to Rate A Value Proposition
How bad do they want what you’re offering?

36. Appeal
0- No Interest
1- Possible Interest
2- High Interest
Exclusivity
0- Anywhere Else
1- Somewhere Else
2- Nowhere Else
How to Rate A Value Proposition
How bad do they wantto supportwhat you’re offering?

37. How to Rate A Value Proposition
How quickly and clearly do they understand
your offering?
Clarity
0- Takes 4+ seconds to understand
1- Takes 1-3 seconds to understand
2- Understand it instantly

38. How to Rate A Value Proposition
How likely will they believe what you’re claiming?
Believability
0- Unbelievable
1- Somewhat believable
2- Easily believable
Trustworthiness
0- Questionable, sketchy
1- Comparably OK
2- Feels safe

39. Scoring
Three key areas - 66 points
• Email Signup – 17 points
• Fundraising Email – 23 points
• Online Giving Experience
(with gift acknowledgement) –
26 points (4)

40. SO JUST COPY ALL OF
THE GOOD STUFF RIGHT?

41. DATA
INSIGHTS PROOF

42. DATA
INSIGHTS PROOF
TESTING

43. THE STUDY.

44. OVERALL RESULTS.

45. Overall Grade Distribution
100
40
10
2 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
F D C B A

46. WHA-WHA.

47. Curved Grade Distribution
5
74
49
22
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
F D C B A

48. Overall Grade by Charity Type
78% 78%
81%
77%
72%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Welfare Health Religion Benefits to
Community
Education Other

49. Overall Grades by Area
0 1 36 6 6
15
10 1014
23
28
117
112
105
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Email Signup Fundraising Emails Online Giving Experience
A B C D F

50. EMAIL SIGNUP.

51. Curved Grades for Email Signup
6
38
56
38
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
F D C B A

52. Average Overall Score for Email Signup
51% 50%
54%
51% 51%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Welfare Health Religion Benefits to
Community
Education Other

53. WHAT WERE THE
RESULTS?

54. Average Desire
Not Appealing
59%Somewhat
Appealing
35%
Very Appealing
6%

55. Average Exclusivity
Can get it
anywhere
62%
Somewhat
exclusve
30%
Not available
anywhere else
8%

56. Was More Than One Sentence Used to Communicate the Value
Proposition?
No
68%
Yes
32%

57. “An email newsletter!
Wow! Where do I
sign up!”

58. WHAT ARE SOME
EXAMPLES?

59. Some Good

60. Some Good

61. Some Good

62. Some Good

63. Some Good

64. Some Good

65. Some Not So Good

66. Some Not So Good

67. Some Not So Good

68. Some Not So Good

69. SOME OFFER IS BETTER
THAN NO OFFER.

70. WHAT ARE SOME
EXPERIMENTS?

71. Experiment ID:#8489
CONTROL TREATMENT
27.9%
In Conversion Rate

72. Experiment ID: #8546
TREATMENT
CONTROL
47.2%
In Conversion Rate

73. Experiment ID: #6266
•Original article
template used on
IllinoisPolicy.org
•Contained one link in
footer to sign up for
newsletter.
Control

74. Experiment ID: #6266
Treatment 1 (Inline) Treatment 2 (Slide Out)

75. Experiment ID: #6266
Control Treatment 1 (Inline) Treatment 2 (Slide Out)
470.2%
In Emails Acquired
350.1%
In Emails Acquired

76. IS IT ALL ABOUT THE
VALUE PROPOSITION?

82. FRICTION IS A CHOICE!

83. EAMIL SIGNUP
RESOURCES.

84. A New Model for Email Acquisition
We recently launched a full online course . . .
• Based upon learnings from over 300 tests
on email acquisition using Facebook
• We created benchmarks using over
50 different email acquisition campaigns
• 11 unique modules of content ranging from
offer creation and acquisition page layout to
key metrics and troubleshooting

85. COURSES.NEXTAFTER.COM

86. FUNDRAISING EMAILS.

87. How Many Organizations Sent an Appeal?
Did not send an
appeal
58%
Sent an appeal
42%

88. Send an Appeal or Not By Type
30
22
18
12
5
1
27
9
11
13
3
1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Welfare Health Religion Benefits to
Community
Education Other
Did NOT send appeal Did Send Appeal

89. Curved Grade for Fundraising Emails
94
12
24
20
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
F D C B A

90. Average Overall Score for Fundraising Emails
60%
63%
67%
62%
49%
74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Welfare Health Religion Benefits to
Community
Education Other

91. Time Until Solicitation
5
7
8
11
16
17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Immediately 1 week 2 weeks 3 - 4 weeks 1-2 Months 3+ Months

92. Appeal Score Percentage by Time Sent
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Immediately 1 week 2 weeks 3 - 4 weeks 1-2 Months 3+ Months

93. WHAT WERE THE
RESULTS? CAN I SEE
SOME EXPERIMENTS
TOO?

94. Type of Email Sender
Organization
77%
Individual
23%

95. Experiment ID:#8010
CONTROL TREATMENT
27.5%
In Open Rate

96. If An Ask Is Made, Is It Clear What Your Donation Will Be Used
For?
Yes
61%
No
39%

97. Experiment ID:#6186
CONTROL TREATMENT

98. TREATMENT
Experiment ID:#6186
CONTROL
246%
In Conversion Rate
67%
In Click Rate
209%
In Revenue

99. THE GOAL ISN’T
CLICKS. IT’S
DONATIONS.

100. Does the Email Look Like a Personal Solicitation?
No
97%
Yes
3%

101. Experiment #4174
CONTROL TREATMENT
80.3%
IN CLICKS
112.5%
IN DONATIONS

102. Experiment #4171
CONTROL TREATMENT
145.5%
IN DONATIONS

103. Look Closer CONTROL TREATMENT
• Logo placement
reduced

104. Look Closer CONTROL TREATMENT
• Call to action
button moved to
text/link

105. Look Closer CONTROL TREATMENT
• More personal and
relevant salutation

106. Look Closer CONTROL TREATMENT
• More human
sounding
introduction to the
campaign

107. Look Closer CONTROL TREATMENT
• Logo placement
reduced
• Call to action
button moved to
text/link
• More personal and
relevant salutation
• More human
sounding
introduction to the
campaign
145.5%
IN DONATIONS

108. PEOPLE GIVE TO
PEOPLE. NOT EMAIL
MARKETING MACHINES.

109. WHAT ARE SOME
EXAMPLES?

110. Some Good

111. Some Good

112. Some Good

113. Some Good

114. Some Good

115. Some Good

116. Some Good

117. Some Good

118. Some Good

119. Some Good

120. Some Good

121. Some Good

122. Some Good

123. Some Good

124. Some Good

125. Some Good

126. Some Good

127. Some Good

128. Some Not So Good

129. Some Not So Good

130. Some Not So Good

131. Some Not So Good

132. Some Not So Good

133. Some Not So Good

134. Some Not So Good

135. Some Not So Good

136. Some Not So Good

137. Some Not So Good

138. Some Not So Good

139. Some Not So Good

140. Some Not So Good

141. Some Not So Good

142. Some Not So Good

143. Some Not So Good

144. Some Not So Good

145. Some Not So Good

146. SOME EMAIL
FUNDRAISING
RESOURCES.

147. COURSES.NEXTAFTER.COM

148. COURSES.NEXTAFTER.COM

149. ONLINE GIVING
EXPERIENCE.

150. Online Giving Experience Grades
105
28
10
6 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
F D C B A

151. Curved Online Giving
Experience Grades
11
38
57
31
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
F D C B A

152. Online Giving Experience
Scores by Type
54% 53% 54% 54%
46%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Welfare Health Religion Benefits to
Community
Education Other

153. WHAT WERE THE
RESULTS? WHAT ARE
SOME EXPERIMENTS?

154. Does The Landing Page Convey A Strong Value Proposition?
61
63
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No Kind Of Yes

155. Is There More Than One Sentence on the Donation Page?
No
36%
Yes
64%

156. Does The Landing Page Convey A Sense Of Urgency?
105
39
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No Kind Of Yes

157. Is There An Incentive Tied To The Call-to-action?
No
73%
Yes
27%

158. Experiment
CONTROL TREATMENT
150%
In Donations

159. Experiment
CONTROL TREATMENT
148.4%
In Donations

160. Experiment
From This To This
68.1%
In Donations

161. Are There Buttons, Menus, Or Other Navigational Elements
Present On The Landing Page?
Yes
75%
No
25%

162. Are There Multiple (Different) Calls-to-action Present On The
Landing Page?
No
54%
Yes
46%

163. Are Gift Array Buttons Useful (not radio)?
No
51%
Yes
49%

164. How Many Pages (Besidesthe Landing Page) Does It Take to Complete Your
Donation?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

165. Experiment #4171
CONTROL TREATMENT
20.2%
IN CONERSION RATE

166. More Experiments
From This
To This
195%
In Donations

167. Experiment
CONTROL TREATMENT
63.1%
In Donations

168. Experiment
176%
In Donations
Straight to
Thank You Page
CONTROL TREATMENT

169. Is There The Presence Of Credible Third-party Endorsements?
No
69%
Yes
31%

170. Do They Have Their Charitable Registration Number On The
Donation Page?
No
39%
Yes
61%

171. Some Good

172. Some Good

173. Some Good

174. Some Good

175. Some Good

176. Some Good

177. Some Good

178. Some Good

179. Some Good

180. Some Good

181. Some Good

182. Some Good

183. Some Good

184. Some Good

185. Some Good

186. Some Good

187. Some Good

188. Some Good

189. Some Good

190. Some Not So Good

191. Some Not So Good

192. Some Not So Good

193. Some Not So Good- Whiplash

194. Some Not So Good–Decision Friction

195. Some Not So Good–Decision Friction

196. Some Not So Good

197. Some Not So Good

198. SOME DONATION
PAGE RESOURCES.

199. COURSES.NEXTAFTER.COM

200. GO DEEPER.

201. BRADY@NEXTAFTER.COM
@BRADYJOSEPHSON
NEXTAFTER.COM
bit.ly/canadianscoreca