roi as a fundraising kpi

1 Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Until there’s a home for everyone

ROI as a fundraising KPI for Face to

Face and Door to Door – 40 mins

Paul Butland

e: paul_butland@shelter.org.uk

t: 07500 331 446

2

ROI as a fundraising KPI for Face to

Face and Door to Door

Why Shelter decided to create the role of In- House Quality and

Retention Manager

How we identify those high quality donors on the street (who is

likely to give for a long period of time)

When we suggest regular giving is not the best option for that

person and why

What age groups we target on the street

How we look at site retention

How we have made improvements to F2F retention

How we plan to re-evaluate volume/average gift/retention and cost,

in order to focus on the sum of the parts

3

Why Shelter decided to create the role of

In- House Quality and Retention Manager

to improve F2F and D2D fundraising standards and ROI

to shift focus from volume to retention - Committed

Tackle 1 & 2 Pay drop off

Ensure quality management for increasing the size of its in-house F2F and D2D

Brand visibility

PFRA rule book compliance

logic - higher the quality of the fundraising - better supporter experience

acquisition -better the retention

represent the In-House team in wider supporter journey

4

How we identify those high quality donors

on the street

analyse the data that we already had in Raisers Edge

build live retention reports for fundraisers, team leaders and operations

Identify which Fundraisers had the best / worst retention

Find out what they were doing and who they were targeting

It is clear that there the following things have a market effect on retention

Age

Average gift

Site

Employment

biggest factor is the fundraiser themselves

5

F2F retention by age group

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-b.18-25 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-c.26-30 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-d.31-35 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-e.36-40 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-f.41-45 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-g.46-50 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-h.51-55 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-i.56-60 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-j.61-65

6

What age groups we target on the street

18-24 isn’t viable for regular gifts by direct debit

retention over year too poor to use In-House teams to recruit

Do not target under 24s - in place since 2009

Exceptions – never turn someone away

Commitment issue – students and young people

Don't Direct Debit if no regular income

big challenge as the F2F /D2D typically attract younger Fundraisers

like tends to attract like

Focus now on over 35’s as this is much better

7

Over 35 effect VOLUME

Miss Flirty Mr Steady Miss Frank

8

Over 35 effect COST

Miss Flirty Mr Steady Miss Frank

9

Fundraiser vs Over 35’s

There is no doubt that percentage over 35 affects retention rate

clear difference between fundraiser retention and over 35 percentage.

A fundraiser who generates a higher number of over 35 supporters will have a better

retention, but the two things are not mutually exclusive

A bad fundraiser is a bad fundraiser despite age

fundraiser affects retention in a more significant way then age e.g. Mr Steady

10

F2F Retention by Average Gift

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-b.£30-£45 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-c.£45-£65 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-d.£65-£90 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-e.£90-£120 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-f.£120-£140 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-g.£140-£170

11

Average Gift and Retention

Average gift definitely has an effect on retention

You can’t really consider average gift without considering three things:

Site

Gift Aid percentage

Employment status

Comfort is everything!

Can’t consider AG without site

12

How we look at site retention

Old logic is out – all sites are not the same

Sites are categorised 1-4 and based on / retention / income per sign up

/ cost

Sites need to be treated differently based on rating

Retention of people giving £10 per month is great on some sites, and

£4 is bad

Other sites £10 is bad and £4 is good

Not going into too much detail – we aren't throwing them out, we are

just using a different strategy! ;)

13

1 1

2

3

4

14

When we suggest regular giving is not the

best option for that person and why

Cost per means no point in getting sign up if it isn’t long term

Times have changed - Exposure and sustainability mean volumes are lower in

general

‘Top heavy’ ROI or returns in the first year is not there

This high volume ‘chugging’ tactic is exhaustive and un-sustainable in the long

term

Students / No regular income – suggest different gift unless they explicitly state

that they can do it for the long term

We need to fish with a net with bigger gaps – get them later

15

Quality vs Quantity - How F2F

Fundraising Looks over a financial year

Fundraiser has biggest impact on retention

There are different types of fundraiser - but they generally fall into two

categories

1. The Fundraiser

2. The signer-up-er-er

(Figures not entirely accurate but are based in reality! ;) )

Axis explained

16

Mr Caresalot v Mr Folderspinner v Ms

Business by volume

Mr Caresalot Mr Folder spinner Ms Business

17

Mr Caresalot v Mr Folderspinner v Ms

Business - Cost v Income

Mr Caresalot Mr Folder spinner Ms Business

18

Break even point

If average gift was £7 and if we assumed that there would be no more

attrition on these active donors:

16 months for us to break even on Mr Folderspinner

8 months to break even on Mr Caresalot

3 months to break even on Ms Business

19

Sustainability

Ms Business- has almost covered cost due to her retention being so

good

Unlikely we will ever meet cost from Mr Folderspinner for previous

financial year

Signing up too many people is unsustainable. Like over fishing, it is

exhaustive and sacrifices quality to long term detriment

Focus is clearly in the wrong area / outdated

20

Which is more sustainable?

Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3

21

In-efficient v efficient

As the previous slide shows:

245 people are no longer giving via Fund 2

180 people are no longer giving via Fund 3

96 people are no longer giving via Fund 1

22

More return over time for Fund 1....

Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3

23

......because there are more people still

giving / retention is better

As the retention gradient is less steep for

Fund 1, we recoup costs much quicker

Fund 1’s retention is 70% to date from last FY

Fund 2’s is 42%

Fund 3’s is 49%

24

…but…retention without minimum ask

and low vol is misleading

Mr Retentionnovol Mr Perfect Ms Wasteful

25

.....because income is too low vs cost

Mr Retentionnovol Mr Perfect Ms Wasteful

26

There is a 15% 2 pay retention

difference between Fund 3 and Fund 2...

Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3

27

....but Fund 3 is almost as cost effective

due to significant average gift

Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3

28

If retention is awful ......

Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund Awful

29

...then we never raise any money!

Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund Awful

30

How we have made improvements

to F2F retention

3% better cumulatively this year for F2F than this time last year

Increased focus - improved 1 pay and 2 pay retention

Fundraisers know we are using live retention reporting - there is no scope for ‘dodgy’ fundraising

Live reporting means Managers are now able to see problems arising as they happen

Presentation on ROI to all managers – they get it!

Retention league tables – retention is becoming focus

Training and development - being overhauled more quality long term giving as its framework

All teams now using PDA’s which is improving speed of process and 1st payment – improving 1 pay retention

31

Being honest with ourselves

Charlie Laurie, Head of In-House - Forward thinking, Brave and dynamic. –we

have to test the ideas!

she has really kept and eye on the ball with regards to trends and particular

retention

This has made it possible for such focus to be on retention in our in-house team

32

Dinosaurs will die....

‘Chugging’ happened and still happens when we use primitive forecasting models

i.e. Volume, average gift and retention are all lump in together.

Volume only considered the most important factor as it is the thing that we had

most control over

ROI is really about the people that are still there after year 1

The bigger the gap between these volumes, the worse we are off

What if Machine – Built to help clarity importance of retention to Managers

33

Get real!

Don’t use misleading mathematics .

Incentivise the right thing!

Don’t create a cult mentality only volume is

necessary.

Don’t speculate. Prove it

Get buy in from managers

34

Scenario is: Normal

Average vol 2500

Total 2500

INCREASE VOL BY

Retention 1 pay was

Retention 2 pay was

AVG Gift £7.77

Income 1 year £129,434.71

Scenario is:

Normal

£129,434.71

Scenario is: Increase 1 pay and 2 pay retention by 10%

£155,803.84 £26,369.12

Scenario is: Vol increase 10% retention normal £142,378.19 £12,943.47

Scenario is: Increase AG by 10% £142,428.16 £12,993.45

The What if machine

35

SUMMARY

ROI – is the important factor

Need to asses cost v income more important

than start income

Income largely informed by retention

Looking at AG over year is dated (e.g. £120)

To improve retention – need live reports not

historical data

36

The Future

We are moving towards a model where we

are no longer looking at volume as the

main KPI for fundraisers

Not looking at retention as sole KPI either

– We need balance

We are going to deal with sites in a

different way

Not going to reveal what we are doing

specifically, but it is going to be awesome!

37 Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Until there’s a home for everyone

Thank you

Paul Butland

e: paul_butland@shelter.org.uk

t: 07500 331 446