Archive for the 'reports' Category

CMS Survey from NTEN

Published
by
Amy Sample Ward
on June 2, 2008
in reports
. 0 Comments

Last week, NTEN released the Content Management System Satisfaction Report (which you can download from their website).  Over 650 people fully completed the survey which covered over 27 different systems.

What I found most interesting was the impact of open source systems on the field:

  • Just over 25% of respondents said open source was in the top 3 of priorities when choosing an CMS
  • Over 1/3 of survey respondents reported using an open source tool already
  • Open source tools (including Drupal, Joomla!, Plone) were given some of the best over all grades by respondents

If you want to find out more about open source solutions, check out the Nonprofit Open Source Initiative.  You can download the report here.

What are you currently using for CMS?  Do you have an CMS or in-house technology staff who manage the website?  If you could ask one question and get a truthful answer in your CMS search, what would you ask?

And then there’s Advocacy

Published
by
Amy Sample Ward
on April 27, 2008
in reports
. 0 Comments

As promised, I wanted to share some thoughts on the advocacy data included in the 2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study from M+R and NTEN (you can read about the email campaign data and the fundraising data, too).

Email Advocacy
The average rate for page completion (filling in a form, etc.) increased from 85% in 2006 to 89% in 2007. Things like improved layout and design of advocacy pages could be the reason for the increase, or that supporters are more comfortble/used to the forms and what to expect when clicking through to the page. I think it is also important to think about the inclusion of auto-complete/fill information either from a personal option on the users’ computers or through a cookie from your site.

Taking Action
Environmental and rights organizations each had about half of their membership taking action in 2007. That is well ahead of health and international organizations. Often, it is hard to simplify the best reason or couple reasons that contribute to the high action rates. Of course, doing everything ‘right’ doesn’t hurt! I suggest signing up on the list for organizations or campaigns that strikes/surprises/motivates/impresses you outside (or in) your sector of work and learn from the ways it is done - how the emails are done (how many, about what, etc.), how you are called to action, how you are rewarded for action if you do take it, etc.

One statistic that is very important to learn from is that of those who are active members, 13% are categorized as ’super activists’ but those 13% account for 42% of the action taken (in 2007). These super activists comprise about 5% of an organization’s list. These are very important members. That much goes without saying; but, what does it mean for your organization’s interaction with them? It’s important to investigate and develop ways for super activists to do the work of cultivating less active or inactive members into taking action, so that you don’t have to. Building a system for interaction between members can allow for further actions that include inviting others to become active when you do, or suggesting actions to your contacts, etc.

Case Studies
#1. Human Rights Campaign

The HRC increased its advocacy response rates in 2007 by a full percentage point and contribute this increase to segmentation of its list. It split the list into five sub-lists based on the members’ past activities/interactions with the organization. HRC could then communicate in a more tailored way with the members on each list.

Today, everyone on the list gets one advocacy action and the one email newsletter per month, plus a fundraising campaign every 2-3 months. Beyond that, audiences for emails are based on demonstrated interest. For example, extra action alerts only go to people who’ve already shown an interest in that issue and to core activists (who have taken 5+ online actions in the page year). Special fundraising campaigns target recent donors. Higher-threshold actions like phone calls and letters to the editor never go to inactives.

Even though there may be fewer people receiving an important action, it is directed at the members more likely to actually do it, instead of becoming another email to someone frustrated by action alerts who only subscribes for the news and information.

#2. Environmental Defense

ED noticed that they were earning 40% of their dollars in the year-end and that people gave at the same rate regardless of how many emails when looking at the data from three consecutive Decembers. In 2007, they took a random 15% of their list and those members received only 3 messages while the rest of the list received 13 (between Thanksgiving and December 31st). The group receiving only 3 messages had a lower donation rate so they plan to do further list testing to find the ’sweet spot’ with their members. What has been the result of list tests like this; if you haven’t yet done any segmenting or testing, do you plan to?

An interesting test that ED conducted on their website took place right on the home page. They used a graphic with polar bears and a call to action for contributions, in one instance, and in the other simply put the donation form in the same spot (top, center of the home page). What they noticed was an increase of 8% more gifts with the donation form, 8% more donations of $1,000 or less and 10% more donations of %500 or less. The lesson they learned was to just put the option completely in front of the visitor, take out all possible clicks, and let them decide right away if they are going to give or not.

What has been the best advocacy campaign/call to action in the last year at your organization? What data did you collect (either quantitative or qualitative) that helped you plan for the next one?

Online fundraising’s little tricks

Published
by
Amy Sample Ward
on April 25, 2008
in fundraising and reports
. 2 Comments

As I started discussing yesterday, M+R and NTEN released the2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study and there is quite a bit of data to get through.  Today, I want to share some of my thoughts about the fundraising benchmarks highlighted in the report and one of the case studies discussed in the report’s launch presentation.

Fundraising Response Rates
It was mentioned in the previous post as well that messaging response rates, including those of fundraising messages, were down last year compared to 2006.  There is a bit of trickiness to that data though:  even though the response rates declined, the overall amount raised online continues to go up partly because of the fact that the average email list has grown by a factor that is larger than the decline in response rates.

The declining open rates still convince me to look for ways to integrate calls into one message so that you have actions/advocacy, fundraising opportunities, and news/information in every email so it isn’t a one shot or nothing deal.

Online Giving
On average, organizations raised 40% of the online giving in Q4 (October-December).  This trend is true as well for gift size.  The study found that gift size dramatically increased at the end of the year (same was true in 2006).  So, the obvious lesson here is to cultivate as many donations as possible at the end of the year.

It seems to me, though, that just as much as you should cultivate donors/donations at year-end, you should find new ways of engaging them in your fundraising needs in other times of the year.  Remember that tying fundraising appeals to current events and other communication campaigns as another option for support (it’s really just another call to action) can bring in new donors and help you identify what issues the supporters care most about.

Case Studies
#1.  Humane Society of the United States

One of the profiles included in the study focuses on the HSUS’ fundraising success.  There are a few things they did to improve their fundraising response rates, one of them was that:

They recruited new advocates on high profile advocacy campaigns, and then converted the new advocates to donors by sending fundraising appeals on the same issue.  This strategy has proved so successful for HSUS that the organization has decided to customize its rolling welcome appeal for new advocates so that new advocates hear from HSUS on the same issue they joined the email list on.  HSUS has extended this segmentation strategy to other appeals, too, by targeting list members with appeals based on those advocates’ and donors’ past online actions.

I think it is incredibly important to note that they didn’t take frequent or high impact DONORS to target in a more direct way with fundraising, but frequent and high impact ACTION-TAKERS.  Fundraising is often not very low on the ladder of engagement with new members.  It makes sense to cultivate other involvement with the organization and then approach with donation opportunities.

#2.  Amnesty International USA

During the report release conference call/webinar/live event, a representative from AI explained some interesting learning they went through with their website and online giving.  Here are some of the areas they made changes and saw results:

  • Changing the web confirmation to donation form raised $46,000+ since December and indicates which issue inspires the donor (this is a confirmation when taking action, filling out a form, etc.)
  • Changing the standard gray “submit” (or “donate” and so on) button on the donation form to a large red “submit” button, they saw a 29% lift in conversion rate.
  • Adding some right-pointing arrows to a “donate” graphic on the home page provided a 5% lift in overall traffic to the donation form and a 55% lift in total dollars raised

It is incredible to think what tiny changes can be made on your website, especially ones like these that take very little time to implement, that can drastically improve your online fundraising success.

There is one more section to the benchmarks study that I’m going to cover tomorrow (the section on Advocacy).  The fundraising section really creates just as many questions as the email data from yesterday.

Where do you find out the most information about a donor right now and how is that reflected on your website?  How are you currently designing ways to cultivate donors outside of the October-December high season?

How do your benchmarks compare?

Published
by
Amy Sample Ward
on April 24, 2008
in reports
. 2 Comments

Today, M+R Strategic Services and NTEN released the 2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study.

This “analysis of online messaging, fundraising and advocacy metrics for nonprofit organization” comes with some surprises and some data that shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to their online benchmarks. The NonProfit Times has a piece on the report here.

I read it this morning and participated in a webinar/conference call with the producers of the report this afternoon. Some of my thoughts are below, and many more will follow in additional posts. If you want to download the report, you can do so right here.

Data and thoughts…

Email Open Rates
One of the first pieces of information most of us look at when considering our effectiveness online is the open rate for email campaigns. As the report indicates, open rates have continued to trend down—2007’s rate was 17.6% with 2006 being at 21.3%. One important factor to remember, though, that really messes with the validity of these numbers, is the the way opens are indicated. Usually there is a one pixel size image that is embedded in the email so that when it loads on the viewer’s screen, the sender’s server is indicated and a open is registered. Many email applications have a preview window that loads an email even if the viewer doesn’t read it. Alternatively, most email clients viewed in a web browser are set by default not to load images. So, a viewer could read an email and even click through to take action or donate, with an open never being registered on the sender’s server.

People have so many emails to get through every day and it is only increasing. My question to consider then, is how do you become a resource or include value in every email without overwhelming the reader? You still want them to click on the donate or take action links, but by increasing the value of the content of your emails (value doesn’t necessarily only mean information, but options for action, etc.), you can increase your open rate and the number of clickthroughs for donations or action because of the visibility.

Message Type
The report measures the success of emails (open rate, clickthroughs, page completion, and response rate) by the three main message types: fundraising, news, advocacy. Rates have declined for each type from 2006 to 2007 but advocacy actions generated slightly higher open rates and significantly higher clickthrough, page completion and response rates. This says to me: provide options for advocacy and fundraising and news in every message! Diversifying your email lists is important, and there is certainly a lot to the impact those more tailored emails get - but that doesn’t mean that they can’t have tailored and appropriate messages for all three areas in an email.

Clickthrough Rates
In this area, the rates vary by issue sector. The environmental organizations that participated (you can find out which organizations were included in the survey here), had the highest clickthrough rates of all participants. What do their email newsletters have that yours don’t? Are they offering/linking to compelling videos and photos? Maybe including compelling stories and reports that require the reader to click through to the website to continue reading or download. Or, maybe there is a link to community features that require leaving the email.

Message Frequency & Subscribers
The report’s findings indicate a correlation between the number of emails sent and the open rate: “when an organization sent five or more emails per subscriber in a month, the open rate dropped by 1%.” Likewise, “the more messages an organization sends, the higher its unsubscribe rate for that month.” This doesn’t mean that you should be wary of emailing your lists. On the contrary. Focus on key questions though, like: What is pertinent, relates to current events, contributes to a campaign, creates positive actions for members? Or, how can we combine some of these smaller messages into a compelling story or segmented email? Don’t let data that could seem negative, cause fear. It’s good to question what you are doing though so that you can really be sure to send the best messages you have to your members.

There are really so many questions that this report brings to mind that should be discussed and not hidden. I encourage you to ask a hard question about some of your data, and get excited for positive places you can go with the answers.

What benchmarks have you seen your organization’s email campaigns hitting or missing? What do you want to be with your data - and are those goals realistic based on these benchmarks?

I’m going to follow this up with some posts on the fundraising data from the report and discussion of some case studies used to flesh out the numbers.

Has your usage increased, too?

Published
by
amysampleward
on January 3, 2008
in reports
. 1 Comment

TechSoup conducted a web usage survey last year and has just released the results of this year’s survey. You can read more about it and download the results from the 2007 survey on their website.

The general increase of web 2.0 tools (social media / new media tools) is not surprising since there is a growing number of people and organizations providing support and education for those interested in getting started. But, there are a few things that I find interesting.

Survey respondents showed a 19% increase in use of RSS feed subscriptions. Using RSS both to distribute and to consume information online has been a topic at the new media training events I have helped put on for Meyer Memorial Trust and a topic that has always created a lot of conversation among the nonprofits I talk to. One great reference on RSS use is Marshall Kirkpatrick. RSS use will also be the topic for the Portland 501 Tech Club meeting on January 14th, with Marshall as our terrific presenter. (Let me know if you are interested in attending!)

50% said that they participated in an online event or training session related to work, which is an 11% increase from last year. I think it’s great that people are taking advantage of the great learning and engagement opportunities online, especially from organizations like NTEN.

What things have you increased your usage of in the past year? What things do you hope to increase your use of in the year to come? I’d love to hear about it!

Social media, only a matter of time?

Published
by
amysampleward
on December 14, 2007
in reports and socialmedia
. 2 Comments

A new report out from Strategy Analytics estimates that social media could be touching an enormous amount of people worldwide, very soon: about 1 in 6 people, according to the report, will be using social media around the world by 2012 (that is just five years!).

“It is clear that user generated media will increasingly compete with professional media when it comes to the attention and free time of users,” comments Martin Olausson, Director of Digital Media Research at Strategy Analytics. “However, if professional media companies choose to embrace social media applications it will enable a more direct and positive relationship with consumers, which will in turn drive increased engagement and loyalty.”

Mack Collier suggest some interesting questions to consider given the reports estimates and what they would mean for everyone.

Some additional things to consider with this news, especially for nonprofits:

  • How are you using social media tools now? (Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, NetworkForGood, Change.org, Wikis, RSS, Podcasts, YouTube, etc.)
  • How will you engage with new audiences and more people as the online community continues to grow? (Does your social media strategy account for engagement now?)
  • How will you adapt to new tools as they emerge? (With more people using the current tools, the need for additional, different, and evolving tools grows.)
  • How can you do your work and serve your community better with more tools and users? (At the end of the day, you still want to be saving the world and not just connecting, right?)

What are your answers? Or, what other questions do you have?

Nonprofits ahead of the curve!

Published
by
amysampleward
on November 28, 2007
in reports and socialmedia
. 0 Comments

Many folks are pointing today to the research and report by Eric Mattson and Nora Ganim Barnes, Pd. D. about the use of social media tools by nonprofits. “Blogging for the Hearts and Donors: Largest US Charities Use Social Media” is based on the results of a survey of 76 executives from the list of 200 Top Charities by Forbes. Mattson and Barnes compared the results of the phone survey to the data on social media usage by the Fortune 500, Inc. 500, and college admission departments. Charities across the board are ahead of the business and college groups when it comes to integrating social media tools (including blogs, video, social networking, podcasting, message boards, and wikis)into their marketing, outreach, and fundraising strategies.

You can read about and download the report here.

One of the things that I found most interesting is the low response for familiarity with and usage of wikis. Wikis are a terrific way to collaborate, connect event or training participants before, during and after workshops, and organize collective learning spaces for a department, organization, or community. Is your organization utilizing a wiki to share knowledge or work on projects together?

I was happy to see that “charities are blogging at a higher rate than any group of businesses studied to date.” It is encouraging that organizations are recognizing the power and ease which blogs offer to provide information quickly to donors, supporters, reporters, and the community. Most organizations’ communications staff are the ones maintaining and writing the blogs. Is this the same at your organization? How do people in organizations and outside of organizations view blogs from the executive director/ceo?

Check out the report and poll your own organization to gauge your internal familiarity and usage—you could be surprised!

For-profits using your cause for marketing?

Published
by
amysampleward
on November 19, 2007
in marketing and reports
. 1 Comment

As more organizations in the for-profit sector take on the causes of nonprofits, reports like the one from PRWeek and Barkley Public Relations emerge. This survey of the field shows the view growing importance of cause marketing in the for-profit sector, from Whirlpool and KitchenAid to Newman’s Own. More consumers are basing their decisions of where to put their money on where a corporation is putting its money.

Corporations enjoy the benefit of giving back to a cause that aligns with their established brand and “heart,” as well as the attraction and retention of consumers drawn to the same cause. Nonprofits targeted through these cause marketing campaigns gain added financial support and recognition.

But what about the millions of nonprofits that are working throughout the country but are either too small to gain the attention of potential corporations or are working in the same field as a much larger organization with more visibility? If your organization provides special meetings and events for children with life threatening diseases but serve only those patients in your local county’s hospitals, a corporation may choose to market with Make-A-Wish Foundation instead because there is a much larger consumer base that already knows that organization and its work.

Cause marketing can really benefit all three parties involved: The corporation, the cause/nonprofit, and the consumers. Everyone can feel good for being a part of positive social activism.

But back to those very small nonprofits…Contact local corporations and discuss how they could sponsor an annual event, fundraiser, or even commit to a 5 or 10-year cause campaign. Be sure that the corporation is one that your nonprofit feels comfortable aligning with, has a mission and public presence that is similar enough to align with your organization, and you are ready and willing to commit to the partnership on your end, too.

What do you think about corporate cause marketing? Is it an entirely different kind of philanthropy?

Staffing Constraints = Technology Adoption

Published
by
amysampleward
on November 15, 2007
in reports and webtools
. 0 Comments

As the baby-boomers start retiring or transitioning out of leadership roles, nonprofits stand in an interesting position. The need for knowledgeable and experienced leaders and management staff in the nonprofit sector is about to become incredibly high. Nonprofits are in a unique position where, unlike the for-profit sector, they are not usually afforded the opportunity to grow their own leaders from the inside due to lack of funds and capacity for development training. (For more information on forecasted leadership staff trends, see the Bridgespan Group’s report “The Nonprofit Sector’s Leadership Deficit.)

What does it mean for nonprofit technology?

It means there is a tremendous opportunity for nonprofits to leverage new media tools to take care of many things for them, freeing up staff time and allowing the community to help carry the organization.

How?

Tools that enable online/viral fundraising can let supporters raise funds, support your cause, and campaign for you online without staff time dedicated to outreach or campaign development. These tools include Change.org, 6 Degrees, and Google Checkout for Nonprofits in various degrees, just to name a few.

Tools that enable wide-spread communication can allow staff to relay information in one space instead of many and cut down on repetition of job responsibilities. Using a blog like those I have mentioned before would provide volunteers, interested citizens, media and members alike the same, complete information in a timely manner without adapting the message and using various staff and communications tools to deliver it. Micro-blogging tools like Twitter are also available to make this far-reaching communications option quick and easy.

There are many more tools available but these are just a couple to get you thinking. Are you already using new media tools to free up staff time?

Grantmakers losing out on the same technology benefits as nonprofits

Published
by
amysampleward
on October 31, 2007
in reports
. 0 Comments

I blogged about the Grassroots Technology report recently published from INOM that highlighted the successes and barriers for grassroots organizations integrating technology into the office and field. The Technology Affinity Group recently published the 2007 Grantmakers Information Technology Survey Report, which has some similarly disappointing results and much fewer signs of hope.

The Council on Foundations conducted the survey of grantmaking organizations via its online survey and benchmarking website. Organizations can use the benchmarking tool to make unique comparisons of the data to go beyond the report’s included statistics.

Anyone who has worked in the nonprofit technology sector can attest that staffing is always an issue. It is often the department that isn’t even a department, projects completed by staff with other titles and job duties or by consultants. Grantmakers are increasingly interested in helping nonprofits increase their technology facilities, whether by staff, education, or hardware. BUT, as this report shows, grantmakers need to be looking at their own organizations before trying to understand how to best help nonprofits.

“Thirty-two percent of respondents indicated the party primarily responsible for technology was the finance/administration staff and 25 percent of respondents indicated the party primarily responsible for technology was in-house technology staff. An Additional 19 percent reported that consultant was the party primarily responsible for technology.” Foundation staffing numbers can be more accurately represented by relevant peers, rather than foundation asset size (as the number above represent) by using the benchmarking tool online.

Technology staff that a foundation does have, is frequently not included in strategic planning (65%), and 84 percent of organizations surveyed said they do not have a technology plan, or have one that is not up-to-date (71% and 13% respectively). Foundations are more likely to have a disaster plan than a technology plan.

Barriers for technology implementation and maintenance are similar to those of nonprofit organizations with cost and lack of staffing coming in as the highest constraints. Following those, lack of training and lack of organizational commitment are the next most frequently cited barriers—again, echoing many of the complaints that nonprofits have voiced.

In two areas that the recent report on grassroots organizations did not cover, we find more disappointing news for grantmakers. The use of open source software in most categories is decreasing. This worries me the most as open source is a terrific way for nonprofits to support software development and decrease costs. Knowledge management is the other unique area, especially important for larger grantmakers, with less than exciting news. Only 2 percent have implemented a knowledge management system!

More than one third (38%) indicated they were not interested in knowledge management, and 47 percent indicated they were trying to define what knowledge management meant to their organization.

A very discouraging report (the third of its kind, COF has surveyed grantmakers in 2003, 2005 and 2007) for the philanthropy sector. Grantmakers should be at the forefront of technology use and capability internally and for external communications. Grantmakers will need to turn these numbers around to better serve, lead, and support the nonprofits they are encouraging to use technology to its fullest.