reactivation

When does a match light a flame?

nickellinger, , , , Leave a comment

We’ve talked about how a lead donation can be as or more effective than a matching gift campaign and how using a lead donation can also calm the overhead related concerns of donors.  

From that, it may sound like I’m anti-match.

 

mission2bimpossible2bfuse2blighting2bmatch2btv

(insert Lalo Schifrin score here:
BUM BUM BABA
BUM BUM BABA
WAHNAHNAAAH WAHNAHNAAAH etc.)

But I’m not.  It’s a widely used tool that I’ve found to be effective in several cases and, unlike most tactics, the donors I talk to also seem to enjoy matching campaigns.

Some research can help shed some light on when to use a match and when not to.  Karlan, List, and Shafir published a study in the Journal of Public Economics (and who doesn’t pick that up for a little beach reading over the summer) looking at match rates.  

Normal studies tend to focus on whether the match works overall: yes it does or no it doesn’t.  This study, however, gives some guidance on when to deploy a match.  It also cross-deployed the match with a test of urgency, which is one of the building blocks of influence.

So there were four test conditions:

  • Matching gift with urgency (with a reply device and PS that said things like “NOW IS THE TIME TO JOIN THE FIGHT!”; you can tell it’s urgent because it’s in ALL CAPS!).
  • Matching gift without urgency
  • Control with urgency
  • Control without urgency

And they did a bunch of other stuff also that is not relevant for our purposes here, including testing different match sizes and timings and such.

The authors found that urgency actually hurt the appeal in many cases (probably, they hypothesize, because there was no particular reason given for the urgency; when it was combined with a match deadline, this negative effect disappeared).

As for the matching gift, there was evidence that it worked, but it only worked for donors who had made their previous gift in the past year.  These donors were 3.2% more likely to donate with a match in place and their average gift went up.  On the flip side, donors who had last given more than 12 months prior had their response rate drop when the match condition was in place.

I mentioned earlier that the donors with whom I spoke seemed to like the tactic and that seems to be supported by this study: active donors do like a match.  However, it seems to bump into trouble when the person has not donated reanecdotalcently.

There’s likely one exception to this (and this is based only on anecdotal evidence, so take this with an appropriate-sized amount of salt).

I have found that people who have given to a match before are more likely to give to a match again.  Thus, if you are suppressing out 13+ month donors from your match campaign, I’d counsel you to leave the ones who have shown the tactic has worked for them.

Want more studies and analysis like this?  Please sign up for my free enewsletter.

When does a match light a flame?

Reactivating lapsed donors

nickellinger, , , , Leave a comment

Getting lapsed donors to reactivate is second only to getting the second gift in terms of its importance on keeping your program from bleeding donors.

I often give Blackbaud a hard time, but the point in their report that you much treat lapsed donors differently is vitally important. The cost to (re)acquire is usually lower than the cost to acquire a new donors, and they almost always have better retention rates (remember how I said to track lapsed reactivation retention separately? This is why) and higher average gifts than a newly acquired donors. In fact, because of this, you should be willing to spend more to reacquire donors than to acquire them anew.

But at the same time, you can throw money away in lapsed reactivation just as easily as you can in acquisition. It’s little use to try to get someone back who, well,

He's just not that into you
Or she.

In an ideal world, you would be using modeling to find out which of your donors are most likely to reactivate. But in that ideal world, there would be no need for nonprofits, so it’s pretty clear we don’t live there. Yet.

So what can you do quickly, easily, and most importantly cheaply? Here are a few ideas:

Catch donors before they lapse. Look in your file for two things – people who don’t give as much as they used to and people who don’t give as often as they used to. You can view these folks as “relative lapsed.” They are telling you that they don’t value you as much as they used to relative to other charities or other things going on in their lives.

Identify lapsed donors who are giving to other organizations. An ideal way to do this is by joining list cooperatives, as recommended in the acquisition post. This will lead to the modeling discussed earlier. Another way of doing this is in your merge/purge process. As you rent outside lists, you run those against your file to make sure you aren’t paying for people who already have as donors. If you mark these donors who match outside lists, you will have a good indication of who are donating to other organizations (and, hence, are still alive and philanthropic generally). These lapsed donors will generally perform better than the average lapsed donors.

Identify people who just aren’t responding. Unfortunately, you can’t tell who is or isn’t opening an envelope and people may not answer a phone call for a few reasons not having to do with lapsing. However, you can tell who is and isn’t opening your emails. If you can run a report for people who haven’t opened an email in the past, say, six months, first of all, don’t email those people as much. This is a topic for a separate post, but just because you can email everyone at no marginal cost doesn’t mean you should email everyone. Suppressing these supporters for most emails will help your delivery and open rates and also help you specialize your tactics. The more salient lesson for lapsed donors is if someone isn’t opening your emails, yet their email address is still good, chances are they aren’t in love with your organization anymore and less likely to renew.

You also may want to see how many times you have mailed someone and see after how many times people in your file generally have their response rate fall off. If very few in your organization give after being solicited 24 times without a response, you may want to make this a part of your lapsed suppression criteria.

Go to the familiar. If a piece worked for someone before, send it or something like it to them again to try to reacquire them (whether an acquisition or a donor piece). This is why I recommend mailing deeper into lapsed categories for people who have given to that piece in the past. Similarly, finding messaging similar to what someone has responded to in the past makes someone more likely to respond.

Vary your messaging. This seems like it might contradict the previous one (and it does). But after so many times, messaging can also lose its effectiveness, so you might try a new tactic someone hasn’t seen before to attract them back.

Know who is worth getting back. Remember that lifetime value calculation? You will want to make sure that you aren’t investing to get people who will not pay back their investment in the long term. If someone donates $5 per year and it costs $5 to get that donation, then no amount of investment should be expended to get that person back.

So those are some retention basics in terms of technique. But the biggest thing is to treat your donors like humans – addressing your appeals to their desires and treating them politely and like an individual.

Thanks for reading and let me know if there are other topics you’d like covered.

Reactivating lapsed donors

How to measure retention

nickellinger, , , , , Leave a comment

Often, you will see people ask “what’s your retention rate” and get answers like 50% or 60% or whatever.  But there are different types of retention that add up to that overall retention rate.

Yesterday, I said that your direct marketing program was like a bucket with a hole in it.  We’re going to change this a bit today to say that your program is like a pipeline with a bunch of holes in it.  This is the lifecycle of your donor.  To define some terms:

  • Prospective donors are people who haven’t given yet, but might.
  • New donors are donors who are giving their first gift to your organization. I said we’d be defining terms.  I didn’t say they’d be hideously complex.
  • Converted donors/second gift donors/first-year donors are all terms for people who have gotten over the hump and given to your organization within the next year
  • Multi-year donors are people who have given reliably over multiple years
  • Lapsed donors are donors who haven’t given in a while. In a lifecycle analysis, this is frequently put at a time horizon (e.g., given the past year or past two years), but in reality it’s often militated by a broader analysis.  For example, if someone donates $5, you will stop trying to retain them much sooner than someone who donates $100).
  • Deep lapsed donors are lapsed donors, only really lapsed. Again, when this is is defined by your organization.
  • Lapsed reactivated/reinstated are people who were lapsed and have since given a gift. This is an important category often overlooked, in that these reactivated donors can’t be treated like people who just gave their second gift, but neither are the part of that key multi-year donor group.

Blackbaud indicates that the average retention rate is about 50% — that is, of your file, half will give you a gift in the next 12 months.

But as you can see, that’s oversimplified.  First-time donors are less likely to retain with a retention rate about 27%; multi-year retention is 58%, according to Blackbaud’s white paper on the topic.

But they only look at these two categories for retention.  It’s best to look at your retention rate in four buckets:

  • New
  • First-year
  • Lapsed reinstated
  • Multiyear

This is why retention rate as an overall metric camouflages what is happening in your file.  You may have a higher overall retention rate than you did a couple of years ago, but lower retention rates in all of these categories, similarly because you have more multiyear and fewer new donors than you did in years past.

If you prefer, lapsed could be included in here; I don’t because I think of lapsed retention as reactivation – there has to be an effort to reacquire donors, rather than talking to those whose attention you have already.

The other reason it’s important to look at each of these groups separately is that they require different strategies for retention.  With new donors, you have been a first date.  You have learned a tiny bit about them and they about you.  Also, to stretch the dating analogy, your relationship at first is new and exciting.  You can explore things early on like sustainer asks and that person might be in the afterglow of giving and your outstanding onboarding process (more on this later this week) and willing to entertain that notion.  Testing different messages and learning instruments like surveys are par for the course.

Conversely, for your multiyear donors, you should know what they like and don’t like.  Do they give only in the fall and when their gift is matched?  Do they love advocacy appeals?  Is your calendar hanging in their house and are all of their mailing labels yours (i.e., premium donors)?  Not only can you know these, you are expected to know and play back to them – see Ellinger’s Peak of Ideal Customization for details.

One additional retention metric to be aware of is an output from retention rate: lifetime value.  Here’s the formula for lifetime value:

clv-equation
Because everyone loves calculus

Wait!  Please don’t leave!

This is the overly complicated version.  You can ignore discount rate because the cost of money is so low. What you really want are “what is the net value of a person’s donations to an organization going to be?”  The key inputs to this are:

  • What are they giving?
  • What does it cost to get them to give that, initially and ongoing?
  • What is the likelihood that they will give gift 2 from now (and three and four and five) – that is, what is their retention rate? That’s the calculus portion of this – you sum each donation that someone will give, discounting it by the likelihood that they will give it

Retention rates, like compound interest, are magical, rippling through your program for good or ill for years to come.  Tomorrow, we’ll look at the inverse of the retention rate – why people stop giving.

How to measure retention