Analysis Greatest hits – the final countdown29 November 2011

Robbie BuscombeIndividual Giving Manager – Projects and Operations

Steven WhiteDirector of Operations

1

• The introduction– About Marie Curie Cancer Care– Data Objectives in 2009– Foundation Audit

• The final countdown– The top ten analytical

techniques

• The future

• The music quiz results

2

Agenda

IntroductionAbout Marie Curie Cancer Care and where we were in 2009

3

About Marie Curie Cancer CareMarie Curie Nurses• The charity is best known for its network of over 2,000

Marie Curie Nurses working in the community to provide end-of-life care, totally free for patients in their own homes.

• Last year we cared for more than 31,000 terminally ill patients in the community and in our nine hospices.

• There is a Marie Curie Nursing Service available to 96 per cent* of the UK.

• We mainly care for people with cancer but we also care for people with other life-limiting illnesses such as dementia, Motor Neurone Disease and heart failure.

• To access a Marie Curie Nurse, patients and/or their carers should speak to their GP or District Nurse.

4

About Marie Curie Cancer CareMarie Curie Hospices• Marie Curie has nine hospices• It is the largest provider of hospice beds outside the NHS• Marie Curie Hospices provide care for patients with cancer

and other illnesses and provide support for families and carers, all completely free of charge.

Research• Marie Curie’s pioneering programme of palliative care

research is showing how we can better care for cancer patients.

• The charity has two centres for palliative care research, The Marie Curie Palliative Care Unit in London and The Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool. It also funds seven fundamental scientific research groups which investigate the causes and treatments of cancer.

5

About Marie Curie Cancer CareSupporting the Choice to Die at Home• Research shows around 65% of people would like to die at

home if they had a terminal illness, with a sizeable minority opting for hospice care. However, more than 50% of cancer deaths still occur in hospital, the place people say they would least like to be.

• Since 2004 Marie Curie Cancer Care has been campaigning for more patients to be able to make the choice to be cared for & die at home.

Funding• Around 70%of the charity’s income comes from the generous

support of thousands of individuals, membership organisations and businesses, with the balance of our funds coming from the NHS.

• Our services are always free of charge to patients & their families, which means that in 2010-12, we will need to raise more than £140 million. We spend more than £83 million a year on our care and research activities.

6

Where Individual Giving was in 2009• Had developed four appeals and Shine On (quarterly supporter newsletter)

as core mailing activity• Supported regional and other fundraising departments but did not have

access to their data• Had a good base of skills across the organisation to facilitate growthBUT…• Some datasets where not centrally owned (i.e. not on the main database)• Used a complicated RFV selection model – mailing segments with very few

supporters• Had no structured selection model for non-core mailings e.g. pledger

acquisition mailing• Generally there was a poor understanding of the content/quality of the data

and how it could be used• There was a lack of skills across the organisation to handle the required

change7

Analysis Objectives in 2009• Due to the recent introduction of the new CARE database, and limited

analytical capacity of the previous database, little analysis has been undertaken

1. Provide some essential basic reporting for Direct Marketing campaigns to enable tactical decisions to be made

2. Provide a suite of regular reports that can inform (Fundraising Management Team) of the volume, recency, frequency and retention of supporters at a high level

3. To support the implementation of the MCCC strategic plan (2008-11) by providing robust data on which to base long term investment decisions

4. Ultimately this analysis should be the first step in developing audience segmentation to support development of MCCC’s Stewardship Strategy

8

9

I’m worried that the strategic thinkers in this organisation don’t know or aren’t involved in the database architecture/structure.

Everything is in the database - we just can’t get any information out quickly… I use Excel.

Everyone is so focussed on their own detail and work in their own silos.

Not allowed to say that things don’t work well. Defensive culture is too positive.

The 4 different teams that communicate with my mum have no idea of her overall enthusiasm and value to Marie Curie.

We are the least report focused organisation I’ve come across.

Foundation Audit Spring 2009 – some quotes

If we have one record for everyone – people will quickly understand the relevance of the base.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

£0

£10,000,000

£20,000,000

£30,000,000

£40,000,000

£50,000,000

£60,000,000

£70,000,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ber o

f sup

port

ers

(new

or

laps

ed)

Inco

me

£

Calendar Year

Income with overlay of the number of New and Lapsed Supporters1989 to 2008

Fundraising Income

Number of new supporters (first gave in that year)

Number of lapsed supporters (last gave in that year)

10

Example of audit – the number of supporters lapsing has exceeded the level of new supporters during the years 2004 to 2007

11

1. Hygiene

2. Education

5. Tactical Reporting

3. FundraisingCloser to the

Database

4. SingleSupporter View

6. Delivery Software

7. Strategy

Process

Legacies

Online

Audit outcome – where did MCCC want to be ?

The Final CountdownOur analysis top ten

12

At number 10 – categorisation• SQL roadmap – developing analysis summary tables

– Single Supporter View(s)– Financial History Merge– Mailing History Merge– Source Code mapping – Reports (LTV, MASt)

13

wft_mailing_history_merge

mailing_history

mailings

segments

contact_mailings

wft_financial_history_merge

financial_history

sources

segments

financial_history_details

products

rates

order_payment_history

segment_cost_centres

legacy_bequest_receipts

declaration_tax_claim_lines

orders

wft_first_transaction& wft_last_ transaction

wft_mast_report

wft_ssv_ltv

contacts

wft_ltv_report

wft_regional_report

wft_model_scoreswft_fnsplit

At number 9 – reporting

14

Lifetime Value Model 2,823 £56,400,198 0 2,104 £17,046,210 0 4

Recruitment Year Quarter

Total Legacy

Counts = 2,823

Total Legacy

Amount =

£56,400,198

Total Legacy

Pledge Counts = 0

Total High Value

Counts = 2,104

Total High Value

Amounts =

£17,046,210

Supporters

Recruited65,845

Supporters

Active Yr316,977

Yr3

Retention 25.8%

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10

Active Supporters 64,879 22,372 16,977 13,877 11,441 9,817 7,462

Retention Rate 34.5% 26.2% 21.4% 17.6% 15.1% 11.5%

Average Donation £86.51 £45.97 £48.39 £47.02 £57.62 £56.07 £21.90

Total Donations £5,612,704 £1,028,442 £821,436 £652,465 £659,230 £550,480 £163,425

Acquisition costs of £0.00 £0

Retention costs £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0

Total costs £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0

Total Contribution £5,612,704 £1,028,442 £821,436 £652,465 £659,230 £550,480 £163,425

Cumulative Contribution £5,612,704 £6,641,147 £7,462,583 £8,115,048 £8,774,278 £9,324,758 £9,488,182

Lifetime value £85.24 £100.86 £113.34 £123.24 £133.26 £141.62 £144.10

LIFETIME VALUE MODEL

REPORT

Grand Total Grand Total

Grand TotalGrand Total

2004_2005

Grand Total

FRONT SCREEN

SAVE SCENARIO

RESET

EDIT

All

Grand Total

Grand Total

Grand Total

Grand Total

Grand Total

T1 Desc T2 Desc

T3 DescFirst Gift Type

T4 Code

Contact Type

Ownership Group

First Gift Origin

First Gift Purpose

First Gift Payment Group

First Gift Source

Grand Total

At number 8 – knowledge transfer• Transfer of skills / Mentoring• Examples of training given in 2011

– LTV Insights – Selection briefs– SQL– Updating reporting tools– Advanced Excel– SmartFocus

15

select contact_number, product, transaction_date, fhd.amount, rank() OVER (PARTITION BY contact_number, product order by transaction_date desc) AS r, row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY contact_number, product order by transaction_date desc) AS w, dense_rank() OVER (PARTITION BY contact_number, product order by transaction_date desc) AS d from financial_history fh join financial_history_details fhd on fh.batch_number = fhd.batch_number and fh.transaction_number = fhd.transaction_numberorder by contact_number, product, transaction_date desc

16

MO

DU

LEFU

NCT

ION

SHO

RTCU

TTA

SKEX

AM

PLES

Arro

w K

eys

Mov

e be

twee

n ce

lls

Mov

eCT

RL +

Arr

ow K

eys

Mov

e to

end

of r

ow/c

olum

nCT

RL

Sele

ctCT

RL +

SHI

FT +

Arr

ow K

eys

Sele

ct e

ntire

row

/col

umn

CTRL

+ S

HIFT

/

Mov

eCT

RL +

PAG

E UP

/PAG

E DO

WN

Mov

e be

twee

n w

orks

heet

s

Sele

ct a

llCT

RL +

ASe

lect

enti

re ta

ble

Sele

ct a

llCT

RL +

A, C

TRL +

ASe

lect

enti

re w

orks

heet

FIN

DCT

RL +

FFi

nd d

ata

SORT

Sort

s dat

a:As

cend

ing,

des

cend

ing

or cu

stom

FILT

ERCT

RL +

SHI

FT +

LFi

lter d

ata

REM

OVE

DU

PLIC

ATES

Rem

ove

dupl

icat

e re

cord

s fro

m d

ata

COPY

CTRL

+ C

Copy

cells

CUT

CTRL

+ X

Cut c

ells

PAST

ECT

RL +

VPa

ste

cells

GO T

OCT

RL +

G

CON

CATE

NAT

EJo

ins m

ultip

le ce

lls to

geth

er in

to o

neCO

NCA

TEN

ATE(

A1,"

----

",A2

)A1

& "-

---"

& A

2

FIN

D AN

D RE

PLAC

ECT

RL +

HFi

nds t

ext a

nd re

plac

es w

ith n

ew te

xt

SUBS

TITU

TESu

bstit

utes

old

text

for n

ew te

xt in

a

strin

gSU

BSTI

TUTE

(D3,

"old

_tex

t", "

new

_tex

t")

TRIM

Trim

s any

spac

es fr

om th

e en

d of

the

text

TRIM

(A1)

LEFT

Retu

rns t

he fi

rst '

num

_cha

rs' f

rom

a

strin

gLE

FT(A

1,'n

um_c

hars

')

MID

Retu

rn sp

ecifi

c num

ber c

hara

cter

s fro

m

the

spec

ified

star

t poi

ntM

ID(A

1,st

art_

num

,num

_cha

rs)

RIGH

TRe

turn

s the

last

'num

_cha

rs' f

rom

a

strin

gRI

GHT(

A1,'n

um_c

hars

')

FIN

DFi

nd o

ne te

xt st

ring

with

in a

seco

nd

strin

gFI

ND(

find_

text

, with

in_t

ext,

[sta

rt_n

um])

IFRe

turn

s one

val

ue if

spec

ified

co

nditi

on is

TRU

E, a

nd a

noth

er if

that

co

nditi

on is

FAL

SEIF

(A1=

' ',v

alue

_if_

true

,val

ue_i

f_fa

lse)

AND

Retu

rn T

RUE

if al

l arg

umen

ts a

re T

RUE,

if

not F

ALSE

AND(

A1='

',A2

=' ',

...)

OR

Retu

rn T

RUE

if an

y of

the

argu

men

ts

are

TRUE

, if n

ot F

ALSE

OR(

A1='

',A2

=' ',

...)

VLO

OKU

PSe

arch

the

first

colu

mn

of a

rang

e, a

nd

retu

rn a

val

ue fr

om a

ny ce

ll on

the

sam

e ro

w o

f the

rang

eVL

OO

KUP(

look

up_v

alue

, tab

le_a

rray

, col

_ind

ex_n

um,F

ALSE

)

HLO

OKU

PSe

arch

the

first

row

of a

rang

e, a

nd

retu

rn a

val

ue fr

om a

ny ce

ll on

the

sam

e co

lum

n of

the

rang

eHL

OO

KUP(

look

up_v

alue

, tab

le_a

rray

, row

_ind

ex_n

um,F

ALSE

)

ISER

ROR

Chec

k to

see

if an

err

or e

xist

s in

a ce

llIS

ERRO

R(va

lue)

AUTO

SUM

Auto

mati

cally

sum

, ave

rage

, cou

nt,

find

min

/max

of a

rang

e of

cells

SUM

Sum

the

valu

es in

a ra

nge

SUM

(ran

ge)

SUM

IFSu

m th

e va

lues

in a

rang

e if

they

mee

t a

cond

ition

SUM

IF(r

ange

, crit

eria

, sum

_ran

ge)

SUM

PRO

DUCT

Mul

tiplie

s cor

resp

ondi

ng co

mpo

nent

s in

giv

en a

rray

s and

retu

rn th

e su

m o

f th

e pr

oduc

tsSU

MPR

ODU

CT(-

-(ra

nge=

"…")

,sum

_ran

ge)

Crea

te P

ivot

Inse

rt P

ivot

Tab

le

Dipl

ay P

ivot

Add

Row

Add

Colu

mn

Add

Page

Fie

ldAd

d Va

lues

Chan

ge V

alue

s

Calc

ulat

ed F

ield

Fill

Dow

nCT

RL +

DFi

ll Bl

anks

GoTo

Spe

cial

>Bla

nks>

CTRL

+Ent

er

Bord

ers

Fills

Cond

ition

al

Form

atting

ALT

+ O

+ D

Appl

y fo

rmat

to ce

lls th

at m

eet c

erta

in

cond

ition

s

Crea

te C

hart

F11

or A

lt +

F1Cr

eata

a ch

art

Chan

ge C

hart

Mak

e ch

ange

s to

a ch

art

UNDO

CTRL

+ Z

Undo

the

last

acti

on

REDO

CTRL

+ Y

Redo

the

last

und

one

actio

n

Char

ts

Editi

ng

Nav

igati

on

Expl

orati

on

Man

ipul

ation

Calc

ulati

on

Pivo

ts

Disp

lay

Example of Excel – free tips guide!

At number 7 – Response Uplift

17

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

£4.00 £5.00 £7.50 £10.00 £12.50 £15.00 £17.50 £20.00 £25.00 £30.00 £40.00

Res

po

nse

Rat

e %

Ask Amount £

Response Rate sensitivities Versus Ask £

A

B

C

• RUM modelling looks at populations of the supporter base who respond with different elasticities

Business As Usual Ask amount Ask test

Number records

Number responses Mean £ Median £ Response Rate

ROI (assumes 40p per pack)

£12 £5 26,685 1,315 £8.81 £5.00 4.9% 109%£12 £12 79,914 3,000 £11.00 £5.00 3.8% 103%£12 £15 26,305 961 £10.85 £5.00 3.7% 99%

£15 £10 10,235 1,564 £10.46 £10.00 15.3% 400%£15 £15 30,854 4,006 £11.02 £10.00 13.0% 358%£15 £20 10,162 1,207 £11.74 £10.00 11.9% 349%

£25 £15 8,282 1,286 £19.32 £15.00 15.5% 750%£25 £25 24,655 3,549 £20.39 £20.00 14.39% 734%£25 £35 8,292 1,025 £22.24 £20.00 12.4% 687%

£50 £50 11,540 1,848 £53.33 £50.00 16.0% 2135%236,924 19,761 8.3%

BAU Ask Amount

Number Mailed

Amount if all BAU

Best Ask test (ROI)

Amount if all Best Ask test

Difference £ Difference %

£12 132,904 £54,860 £5 £57,696 £2,836 5.2%£15 51,251 £73,300 £10 £81,916 £8,617 11.8%£25 41,229 £121,025 £15 £123,705 £2,680 2.2%£50 11,236 £95,952 n/a £95,952 £0 0.0%

Total 236,620 £345,137 £359,270 £14,132 4.1%

At number 6 – Lifetime value

18

• Presented to Chief Executive• Updated in-house• Essential metrics and understanding of performance• But historical and dependent on costs• Introducing Projected LTV …

From Basics To Bottom Line

10 to 6 are prerequisites before we can truly influence the bottom line … what makes the biggest difference are 5 to 1

19

At number 5 – Projected ROI

20

• Identifies key drivers of long term ROI:– Volume– Cost per acquisition for regular givers– Average Direct debit value– Attrition Rates– Suppression rates & Gift Aid penetration

• Feeds these assumptions into a cash flow model:– plus other assumptions around upgrade, reactivation, cross sell, loyalty

costs, financial discount rates etc. but we can start simple!

• Projects cash flow over 5 year period and shows:– Return on Investment– Breakeven period– Net financial contribution (income – expenditure)

• Can be used to compare channels and understand sensitivities to key drivers. Many assumptions can be quantified using LTV outputs

At number 5 – Projected ROI cont.

21

Inputs: use sliders to modify assumptions Outputs: shows projected cash flow over 5 years<- Low volume High volume ->

Volume 20,000 Survivors Income Expenditure Net Income Cumulative Net<- Low CPA High CPA -> Yr1 10,769 1,715,238£ 2,189,027-£ 473,789-£ 473,789-£

CPA £100 Yr2 8,215 1,137,615£ 48,003-£ 1,089,612£ 615,824£ <- Low value High value -> Yr3 6,894 868,590£ 34,700-£ 833,891£ 1,449,714£

Average Value £100 Yr4 5,914 690,729£ 27,285-£ 663,443£ 2,113,158£ Yr5 5,400 579,671£ 22,105-£ 557,565£ 2,670,723£

Attrition profile 4. High <- High attrition Low attrition -> Yr1-5 4,991,843£ 2,321,120-£ 2,670,723£ Non-Starters 13% 5 Year Return on Investment: 2.15 Month 1 7%Month 2 6% Number of survivors: Cumulative Net Income - showing breakeven year:Month 3 5%Month 4 4%Month 5 4%Month 6 4%Year 1 40%Year 2 25%Year 3 17%Year 4 15%Year 5 10%

4 <- Low High suppression ->

% Suppressed 0% 0<-Low High Gift Aid ->

% Gift Aided 80% #

0% 20% 40% 60%

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 -£1,000,000

-£500,000

£-

£500,000

£1,000,000

£1,500,000

£2,000,000

£2,500,000

£3,000,000

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5

Return On Investment Projection Tool

• Shows possible H2H scenario (high churn, high average value). Net income of £2.7m over 5 years and ROI of 2.15– If Yr1 attrition reduced to 30% then income rises to 3.7m (£1m gain)– If Yr1 attrition rises to 55% then income falls to 1.3m (and 1.6 ROI with breakeven

delayed to year 3)

At number 4 – Retention

22

Filter Criteria: Summary Measures: Attrition Summary:Recruitment Year 2009 Gross recruits: 9,805 No-Show Rate: 10%Source Type Face to Face Starters: 8,810 Yr1 attrition 25%Payment Method (All) Active supporters: 5,571 Yr2 attrition #N/APayment Frequency (All) Active value pa: 69£ Yr3 attrition #N/ASonar Lifestage (All) Income to date: 98£ Yr4 attrition #N/ASonar Wealth (All)Contact Age (All)

1. Cumulative attrition curves over first 24 months: 2. Cumulative attrition at 3, 6, 12 months:

Shows cumulative attrition as percentage of starters. Monthly curves only shown where >100 starters. Shows cumulative attrition at 3, 6 and 12 months on file. Attrition only shown where >100 starters.

3. Average monthly attrition rate over first 24 months: 4. Annual attrition up to 5 years:

Shows average monthly attrition as percentage of those active at start of month Annual attrition by year on file as percentage of those active at start of year

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Months on file

Jan 09Feb 09Mar 09Apr 09May 09Jun 09Jul 09Aug 09Sep 09Oct 09Nov 09Dec 09Overall

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Jan 09 Feb09

Mar09

Apr09

May09

Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug09

Sep09

Oct09

Nov09

Dec09

Recruitment Month

Starters

No-Show Rate

3m attrition

6m attrition

12m attrition

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Months on file

Update Report

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5Year on file

Regular Giver Retention Tool

This is the Marie Curie 'Regular Giver Retention Tool' developed by Wood for Trees. This tool will help you understand attrition rates for regular givers and the 'quality' of supporters recently recruited.

Use the filters to the right to select a recruitment year (and optionally other filters) The hit 'update report' button to refresh data for the selected cohort.

See 'Instructions' sheet for more detail on definition of report filters and measures.

See Instructions

• “The retention tool is fabulous. It allows me to track and monitor no show & attrition rates across all agency & in-house campaigns. This insight into which streams have the best retention & their best cost per acquisition in the long term is consequently a great help for budgeting & strategy.”

• “The tool identifies “hotspots” during the donor journey by showing attrition at months 3,6 and 12. This will prove extremely useful when reviewing methods, contents & timings of supporter communications. Monitoring other supporter information such as average gift, age, wealth & other sonar profiles will allow a greater insight into targeting regular givers”

Yr1 Attrition

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%Yr1 Attrition has increased over recent

years: from c.10% pre-2005

To c.25% in recentyears

2010 in particular is showing signs of early

high attrition

Trending towards 20%-30% driven by high proportion of F2F

Predictors0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

F2F

DM

TM

2008 Yr1 attrition low at 15% overall: Channel clearly

an important factor<25 25-35 35-54 55+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Sonar and age also shown to be predictive

Affluent Less Affluent

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

At number 4 – Retention cont.

At number 3 – prediction models …• “There seems to be little science applied from a segmentation or data modelling

standpoint when campaigns are being developed” Data IQ Autumn 2011 article on Closing the Fundraising Analysis Gap

24

8 out of 10 charities who expressed a

preference

– To simplify the SmartFocus selections and time taken to produce the segments - reduce the number of cells (52 segments for XMS 2008 wave 1)

• The XMS 2009 selection had 5 segments!

– To consider targeting other sub-populations of the database not previously “understood” from a data viewpoint, as likely candidates to respond.

• Identified ‘good prospects’ within committed givers and regional supporters

– To improve ROI - Analysis of the last 5 XMS mailings had shown:

• 11,745 supporters have responded to all 5 mailings!

• 23,650 supporters continually being mailed XMS and never responded. Equates to £10k per annum potential saving!

• Employment of prediction model has been one factor in helping DM maintain good results. A £200k net contribution gain Vs Budget

– To transfer knowledge back to MCCC

• Provision of scoring code

• Develop the audience selection briefs

25

Campaign Prediction - Background and objectives

2626

GDA 2008 GDA 2009 GDA 2010 GDA 2011

£586,861 £608,947 £668,425

£814,977

Net Income from Great Daffodil Appeal Mailing has grown substantially in line with the

use of the Wood for Trees Scoring Model

Model not used

Model used

Great Daffodil Campaign – Marie Curie’s most heard of campaign

August 2007 August 2008 August 2009 August 2010 £-

£100,000

£200,000

£300,000

£400,000

£500,000

£600,000

CNA 2008 CNA 2009 CNA 2010 CNA 2011 £-

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

XMS 2007 XMS 2008 XMS 2009 XMS 2010 £650,000

£700,000

£750,000

£800,000

£850,000

£900,000

GDA 2008 GDA 2009 GDA 2010 GDA 2011 £-

£100,000

£200,000

£300,000

£400,000

£500,000

£600,000

£700,000

£800,000

£900,000

AWA Warm XMAS WARM

CNA WARM (CASH ONLY)

GDA WARM

Pre-model

Pre-model

Pre-model

Pre-model

Post-model

Post-model

Post-model

Post-model

Strength of model visible across all four major campaigns

At number 2 – Legacies• A word on the legacy pledger model …

28

Equal Model Decile

Predicted Response

Rate

Observed Response

Rate1 6.8% 6.7%2 3.4% 3.6%3 2.4% 2.3%4 1.9% 1.9%5 1.7% 1.7%6 1.2% 1.5%7 1.0% 0.9%8 0.7% 0.7%9 0.5% 0.5%10 0.4% 0.4%

Average 2.0% 2.0%

Received Legacy Mailing

Model Decile

Predicted Response

Rate

Observed Response

Rate1 0.49% 0.48%2 0.21% 0.21%3 0.14% 0.15%4 0.09% 0.08%5 0.06% 0.06%6 0.03% 0.03%7 0.02% 0.02%8 0.02% 0.02%9 0.02% 0.02%10 0.02% 0.01%

Average 0.11% 0.11%

Not Received Legacy Mailing (exclude supporters with no donations)

And this weeks number 1 – duplicates!

29

30

1 No of Groups 13,352

11627 No of Groups (1) -

No of Groups (2) 352 No of Groups (3+) 13,000

out of 13,352 groups No of Unique Records 13,352

No of Dupes 54,438

No of Uniques (matched to HOUSE) -

Show: No of Uniques (new records) 13,352

Group Number Ref Match Type Match Key Score TITLE INITIALS SURNAME11627 45732 Rule_7510_P_AnyGiven 50-59 Mrs White

11627 7858811 Rule_7510_P_AnyGiven 50-59 Ms R White

11627 45732 Rule_7510_P_AnyGiven <50 Mrs White

11627 8207272 Rule_7510_P_AnyGiven <50 Ms N White

4

GRO

UPS

REC

ORDS

Viewed Status

Match Type

Viewing Group

Key Score

MATCH

MATCH

MATCH

MATCH

MATCH ALL

ACCEPT

ALL

Definitions

ALL

ALL

ALL

30

Garbage In = Garbage Out

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

July 2010 February 2011 May 2011 July 2011 September 2011

Number of duplicates

So pop pickers …a recap on our top ten

10. Single Supporter View / Categorisation11. Measurement12. Transfer Knowledge13. Response Uplift Testing14. Lifetime Value

15. Projected ROI16. Retention17. Prediction Modelling18. Legacies – any science!19. Data Integrity

10 to 6 are the foundation, 5 to 1 are more tangible and impact bottom line!

31

What next for analysis

32

Introduction

• More on …

– Projected ROI

– Legacies

– Simple segmentation + communications overlay• Reviewing the effectiveness of communications

33

What next ?

Active Raffle Supporters

Lapsed Raffle Supporters

Active Regular Givers Tenure 0-1 year

Lapsed Regular Givers Lapsed 0-2 years

Active Cash Appeal Givers Tenure 0-1 year

Lapsed Cash Appeal Givers Lapsed 0-2 yearsShow

Show

Show

Show

Show

Show

Show

Show

Show

Show

Number of Supporters 8,430

Number of Communications 87,751

Number of Responses 813

Contactable Supporters 7,538

Average Number of Comms 12

Totals

Response Rate

Cash Appeal Total Communications 14,836 Total Responses 509 3.4%

Supporters Contacted Supporters 6,688 Number of Supporters who responded 342 5.1%

Received no cash appeals 1,742 Responded to no cash appeals -

Received 1 cash appeal 3,851 Responded to 1 cash appeal 96

Received 2-3 cash appeals 1,296 Responded to 2-3 cash appeals 76

Received 4-6 cash appeals 1,337 Responded to 4-6 cash appeals 71

Received 7-10 cash appeals 172 Responded to 7-10 cash appeals 67

Received over 10 cash appeals 32 Responded to over 10 cash appeals 32

34

Step 1 – MACRO Simple

Segmentation

Step 2 – Communication

Propensity Modelling (MICRO)

Step 4 – Targeting

Step 3 – Establish some rules

On retention… communications

• Continue to use

– Lifetime Value (historic)

– Committed Retention

– Projected ROI (Future LTV)

35

On acquisition …

Answers to our music quiz

36

And finally…

Europe – The Final Countdown 10. The Foundations – Build Me Up Buttercup11. The Housemartins – Build12. Supertramp – School13. Pink Floyd – Money14. Foo Fighters – All My Life15. Kaiser Chiefs – I Predict A Riot16. The Faces – Stay With Me17. ABBA – Knowing Me Knowing You18. Wham – Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go19. Garbage – The World Is Not Enough

37

The artists and titles are …

Questions?

Thank you…

38