1 / 39

2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study. Presented by Sarah DiJulio, M+R Karen Matheson, M+R Steve Daigneault, Amnesty International Mathew Grimm, Environmental Defense Fund. INTRODUCTIONS. Methodology. 21 Major Nonprofit Organizations Civil/Legal Rights Environmental International Health

hart
Télécharger la présentation

2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2008 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study Presented by Sarah DiJulio, M+R Karen Matheson, M+R Steve Daigneault, Amnesty International Mathew Grimm, Environmental Defense Fund

  2. INTRODUCTIONS

  3. Methodology • 21 Major Nonprofit Organizations • Civil/Legal Rights • Environmental • International • Health • January 2006 – December 2007 Data • 12,000 Email Messages • 6.5 Million Subscribers • 14 Million Email Advocacy Actions • $100 Million Dollars in Online Donations

  4. KEY FINDINGS

  5. POSSIBLE FACTORS

  6. DIGGING DEEPER

  7. 2007 NUMBER OF ONLINE GIFTS BY GIFT SIZE

  8. 2007 AMOUNT RAISED ONLINE BY GIFT SIZE

  9. 2007 ACTION TAKERS vs. ACTIONS TAKEN

  10. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

  11. Our open and click rates havedeclined sharply in the past year Problem with our messaging? Benchmarks are vital in putting our efforts into perspective We’re not experiencing anything that others aren’t EDF’s Use of Benchmarks

  12. 40% of online dollars come during December. Perfect time to test. 55% of those dollars come via EDF.org website – many prompted by our email Two previous December tests showed that those getting fewer messages gave at statistically the same rate as those getting more messages. Year-end Testing: Why Do It?

  13. Year-end Message Quantity Test A random 15% of the list received only the three messages in red. The rest of the list received the full compliment of messages listed to the left.

  14. Those that received fewer messages had a 0.59% giving rate over the course of the campaign. The others gave at a rate of 0.91%. So much for the previous findings? Further tests will be structured to find the “sweet spot” between 3 and 13 messages! Why take the time and effort to message unnecessarily, risking unsubscribes when you don’t have to? Year-end Message QuantityTest Results

  15. Donation form won - brought in 8% more gifts (number of gifts) Raised 8% more dollars in donations $1,000 and under Raised 10% more dollars in donations $500 and under Did not hinder homepage interaction – bounce rate for the homepage stayed relatively unchanged Year-end Homepage Test Results

  16. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

  17. We Publish Our Stats • We send meaningful stats to all staff and provide analysis to encourage them to focus on: • List growth: requires extraordinary efforts (paid marketing, SEO) • Current events and personal stories: actions perform better w/ either element • Syndication: web traffic and RSS feeds are email alternatives • Search rankings: dependent on good writing • Fundraising: everyone contributes to our fundraising success • By publishing comprehensive meaningful stats for the entire organization, we spark curiosity and competition among staff.

  18. Action Web Confirmation • By comparing ourselves to other NGOs, we get good ideas to test. • Changing the web confirmation to donation form raised $46,000+ since December and tells us which issue inspires donors. • Top issues: torture, Tibet, Darfur. • Our Tibet action went to 450K+ and raised $15K+ via the web confirmation donation page. • Loser issue: death penalty • Best performing action in Feb., raised $0.

  19. EXAMPLE ANALYSIS SENT TO STAFF: Fundraising: - We continue to monitor actions that inspire our activists to donate. Darfur consistently tops the list of actions garnering the most donations. This month, the Shi Tao action and war on terror related actions also performed well. The death penalty, although it brought in the most actions, did not prompt people to give. We’ve seen similar results in direct mail.

  20. Multivariate testing • Make the most of your web traffic by testing variations of your design. • Tiny changes can have profound affects. • Doesn’t require you to use precious email capital and improves overall usability of your website • Improved usability leads to greater confidence in your organization and less frustrated supporters

  21. Big red button • By changing the standard grey “submit” on our donation form to a large red “submit”, we got a 29% lift in our conversion rate.

  22. Utility nav tweak • changing the order of the utility nav items and changing “donate” to a bold, green “donate now” provided a: • 70% lift in overall traffic to the donation form • 83% lift in total $ raised

  23. Right pointing arrows • Adding some right pointing arrows to the word “Donate” on our homepage donate button provided a: • 5% lift in overall traffic to the donation form • 55% lift in total $ raised

  24. However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. Winston Churchill

  25. Q + A

More Related