The Agitator also reports on the GivingUSA and the Blackbaud Indexes, but unlike those, the Atlas does not rely on surveys or selective data as provided by a limited number of nonprofits. Rather it measures total giving by sector as it occurs monthly. And, unlike either Giving USA or Blackbaud, the Atlas provides an annual forecast of the year ahead that is then updated monthly.

For 2012 the Atlas forecasts continued growth in giving, but at a slower pace — 3.9% in 2012 compared with 7.5% in 2011.

You can learn more about their methodology, the 2011 results and 2012 forecast in a FREE webinar to be presented on February 1st at 3pm EST. Register at www.infiniteconferencing.com/join and type in the participant code 79508108.

Key Takeaways from 2011 Atlas Report

• Contributions totaled $346.17 billion – a 7.5% increase over 2010.

• Giving growth was particularly strong in four states: PA (+13.1%), IL (+ 12%), FL(+10.9%) and TX (+10.0%).

• Growth in giving to Education was particularly strong (+8.9%) while Human Needs/Disaster Giving lagged other sectors (+ just 5.8%).

• Both Individual Giving (+7.8%) and Bequests (+7.5%) grew. And notably, gifts to Donor Advised Funds reached record levels.

Key Takeaways from 2012 Atlas Forecast

• Giving will continue to grow in 2011. But unlike the 7.5% growth rate for 2011, Atlas is forecasting that giving will grow at a slower pace — 3.9%.
  

• The forecast is bright for charities with an environmental mission – projected to be up 8%.

• But the church/religious sector is forecast to grow at just 1.6%.

• Political fundraising will divert some dollars from charitable giving but the impact will not be significant. The Atlas forecasts it will be much less than 1% for overall charitable giving. Of course some sectors will be more affected than others.

How do your 2011 results compare? And what increase in giving have you projected for 2012? Would love to hear from you.

Roger

P.S. I’ve noted in previous posts that if you’re a consultant, an on-staff fundraiser or board member, The Atlas of Giving, with its forecasts by sector and its state-by-state analysis is a “must” for your library. There’s a Free Edition and a Professional Edition. Check ‘em out at www.atlasofgiving.com.

And don’t forget to register for the Atlas February 1st webinar at www.infiniteconferencing.com/join and type in the participant code 79508108.

What struck me was that 76% of the Haiti text givers said their text contributions are “usually a spur-of-the-moment decision”, whereas 45% say that about their online contributions. The surprise is not that text giving is quintessentially impulse giving … to me it’s that such a large percentage, 50%, say that they “usually do  lot of research before donating” online. I would have expected online donations to also be more spontaneous.

This report has tons of valuable information …

• Haiti was the door-opener to text giving for fully 74% of donors who gave via that channel.
• However, nearly all of the 73% of Haiti text donors in this survey who belong to a group or organization, have made a monetary contribution to their group(s) in the past. In other words, most are established donors trying a new channel.
• Many of the Haiti text donors have given again via texting (56% to one of three specified disasters, and 29% to other causes).
• Mobile givers are more racially and ethnically diverse than the overall population of charitable givers. Whites comprise three-quarters (75%) of all charitable givers, but make up two-thirds (63%) of this sample of Haiti donors and just half (51%) of all text donors.
• 43% of text donors encouraged others to give, but 75% who did so encouraged others by talking face-to-face.
• After making their Haiti contribution, six in ten say they haven’t followed the ongoing reconstruction efforts (43% “not too closely” and 15% “not at all”). Here today, gone tomorrow.

There’s just too much in this ‘must read’ report to summarize here, including an interesting profile of text givers versus other givers, and a look at how text givers prefer to communicate with groups in which they are involved (surprises here).

Well done, Pew!

Tom

So … who are you?

If there’s such a thing as the ‘average’ Agitator reader, you are most likely to be a direct response fundraiser, in ‘the business’ for 4-10 years, working in a charity or nonprofit whose annual revenue is less than $10 million. And you read The Agitator, half of you daily, primarily for its strategic focus.

But that ‘average’ profile doesn’t really give the full picture of what is a rather diverse readership. For example, 47% of readers have been in the biz over ten years … 23% over twenty years. Plenty of experience that group can share with the 53% with less than ten years under your belts.

One way to do that is via more exchange through the Comment feature on our blog. Comments have been steadily rising … but more are better. And you can use our tracking feature to monitor (and participate in) comments on any given post.

And while clearly the core focus of our readers is direct response fundraising — and within that category, direct mail — an almost equal number give yourselves a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ job description. Somewhat to our surprise, there appears to be relatively little ‘specialization’ yet in online fundraising (7% claimed that focus), and relatively few of our readers specialize in major gifts or planned giving (another 7%).

25% of our readers work on the ‘other side’ as independent consultants or in fundraising/marketing firms.

Finally, four in ten of our readers work for nonprofits with revenues over $10 million, with half of those working for groups with revenues over $50 million.

About two-thirds of Agitator posts currently relate to direct response fundraising, with the balance fairly evenly divided between broad strategic issues/trends and other specialty subjects. That seems to track well with our readership.

We discovered that the Agitator blog feed is very faithfully read (50% daily, another 40% 2-3 times a week), while fewer blog readers say they also visit the website regularly for its additional offerings. Seem to be two largely different audiences.

We’ve not been as energetic as we should about enriching the website content (over and above the blog posts). But stay tuned. We’ll soon be launching our Innovation Center on the website, which will offer much more in-depth case studies and resources regarding the use of new fundraising tools and approaches … featuring both our own findings and case material furnished by Agitator readers and partners.

So those are the basic stats. We also received several hundred open-ended comments regarding what we might do better or differently. We still working through those, and will report on what we’ve heard and learned.

Thanks again to all who participated. You’ve helped us immensely and hopefully you’ll see The Agitator improve as a result.

Roger and Tom

The Agitator’s esteemed Department of Analytics carefully measured which 2011 posts received the most readership, which garnered the most comments, and which did both.

The result? Something we’ve always suspected. Agitator readers are discerning, forward-looking , and renaissance-like in their interests. Frankly, we expected no less, but it’s always nice to have suspicions statistically confirmed.

In the Department of Forward-looking, our ‘Flat Earth Fundraising‘ series challenging some of the myths and conventions of our trade won high marks for both readership and comments, as did our report on The Future of Fundraising a summary of the “brainiac” session hosted by Blackbaud and moderated and summarized by Adrian Sargeant in Growing Philanthropy in the U.S.

As part of our expedition into the future we also set up The Agitator Lab and, along with DonorVoice broke important new ground on donor retention and loyalty with the first national Donor Commitment  and Retention Study.

Hundreds of Agitator readers participated in webinars and briefings on the Study’s findings  and more than 15 organizations contributed their files to confirm the findings of the national survey. Not everyone was smitten. Some of the 50 national groups whose level of commitment we measured weren’t happy with their low scores and we probably won’t receive a Christmas poinsettia from them.

Fortunately the majority of organizations studied followed up and many are now undertaking more detailed studies to better understand donor commitment and improve their retention rates. Tom’s post, Wouldn’t You Want to Know? pretty much explains why.

In the Department of  Renaissance-thinking, our crack analysts note that not only are Agitator readers interested in big picture, trend-oriented content, but also devour fundraising tips and insights.   Our post on Mark Phillips of the UK’s Bluefrog  fundraising agency’s dry as toast entry called What We Learned at the IFC is one of the year’s must reads. Running neck in neck with Mark’s insights are our posts on Asking Amounts, Infographics Say It With Impact on the benefits of multi-channel fundraising … and even a piece on a the importance of letter spacing in a letter, titled, Magic Fundraising Machine Boosts ROI.

However, looking ahead, Tom’s post, Are Online Fundraisers Stealing Credit? is coming on fast in terms of most read. Starting a food fight between direct mail and online fundraisers is sure to get attention!

Whatever the reason (our esteemed Analytics Department hasn’t the foggiest idea), both the number of readers and their level of participation through the Comments Section and via email to us reached a record high this year. We are grateful.

And, always mindful of George Bernard Shaw’s counsel  that “the mediocre borrow, genius steals” we’re  thankful for the diligence and insight of folks like Ken Burnett at SOFII … Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now, Katya Andresen at The Nonprofit Marketing Blog and, in fact all the talented folks listed in The Agitator’s Blog Roll. They help fill the larder that nourishes us all.

What do you think was ‘naughty’ or ‘nice’ in this year’s Agitator?

Season’s Greetings,

Roger and Tom

Done by Epsilon, the Consumer Channel Preference Study (registration required) focuses particularly on consumer preferences with respect to direct mail and email. But it also looks at social media and mobile. (One disappointment … nothing on telemarketing.)

Some findings:

• 50% of U.S. consumers and 48% of Canadians said they pay more attention to postal mail than email;
• 60% of U.S. consumers and 64% of Canadians said they enjoy checking the mailbox for postal mail, highlighting an emotional connection;
• The least trustworthy channels are social media and blogs, achieving only 6% trust among U.S. consumers and 5% among Canadians.

And specifically, as between direct mail and email, 30% of consumers prefer receiving solicitations for donations in the mail, versus 9% via email.

The reasons for preferring direct mail are (in rank order):

• More private if sent through through the mail
• Already get too much email
• Would prefer not to have to print the info
• A lot of online info can’t be trusted

The reasons for preferring email are (in rank order):

• I can print the info to keep if I want
• Can choose which info I want sent to me
• Can read the info when it is convenient for me
• To save on paper
• Can more easily share the info with others

Epsilon makes this recommendation (among others):

“Use personally addressed direct mail to provide information as well as an emotional lift for consumers. Recognize that more targeted communications are becoming the norm for consumers as they are engaging media on terms they prefer. Every opportunity to express more knowledge of the consumer in the channels they prefer is essential to building a relationship and driving action.”

Amen.

Tom

Whatever. I don’t think I’ve ever seen numbers like these …

Way back in September 2010 a donor survey was conducted by Campbell Rinker for Dunham + Company, a US fundraising consulting firm.

The remarkable findings I’ve just noticed (brought to my attention by a recent Queer Ideas post) relate to the interaction between direct mail appeals and online giving.

Take note:

• 14% of respondents (who were online givers) said that a direct mail letter prompted them to give online versus only 6% who said an email prompted their online gift;
• 1 in 3 donors (37%) who give online say that when they receive a direct mail appeal from a charity they use the charity’s website to give their donation;
• One in two (50%) of generation X or Y donors say they give online in response to a direct mail appeal with 1 in 4 (26%) of boomers turning to online giving when they want to give as a result of receiving a direct mail appeal.  Only 14% of those over 65 will do the same, as 3 out of 4 of this demographic prefer to give by mail.
• 20% say their online giving was prompted by someone asking them to give in person. (WOW … that still happens?!)

Now, I grant that this is survey data, as opposed to hard transaction data, but even so the implications are startling …

As much as one-third of the response to any given direct mail appeal could come in via the nonprofit’s website. And only if your mail appeal directed respondents to a dedicated response page would you possibly know that with any certainty.

So think about that …

Are your direct mail returns being ‘under-counted’, making your mail program look weaker than it actually is?

Are those geeks running your online fundraising getting a bit of a free ride?

Are you integrating your mail appeals and online capture such that you can find out?

Whatever your answer to these questions, the bottomline is that your online ‘donation’ pages had better reflect all known best practice, or you’re killing yourself.

Tom

Our colleagues at DonorVoice are going to replicate in the UK their recent US study of donor commitment.

The call is out for UK charities who would like to participate in the study, which will be conducted in association with Ken Burnett and SOFII. Here is what Ken said about the US study, as well as an Executive Summary describing what that well-received work revealed.

There are two elements to this project. The first will study a representative sample of recent, frequent UK cause donors. This work will provides a national benchmark, computing Donor Commitment ratings for fifty top UK charities and NGOs across the health, human services, international aid & development, youth & children, environment & conservation, animal welfare, and armed services sectors (see full list here).

The second element looks at the same issues using samples (with transaction histories) from house files provided by participating UK organizations. To ensure adequate sample sizes, the study is best suited to larger charities operating on a national scale.

So far, five major groups from the child sponsorship, international relief, higher education, homelessness and environment sectors have signed up. The study can accept up to fifteen participants. UK participants will be charged a £1,000 fee each to cover direct costs of the work.

If you would like to consider participating, the DonorVoice information and sign-up page is here. Participants must sign-up and provide the required donor sample files by the end of December. The study will be undertaken in January, with results released at a in-person briefing in London in February.

From Ken Burnett:

“To have a ‘top 50’ of nonprofits ranked by the commitment of their donors is a breakthrough. You now know what to do to nudge your nonprofit up that list. To be able to delve into your organisation’s donor files and identify where you’re doing well and where you’re falling short, well, that strikes me as near priceless information that should underpin everything for you and your fundraising colleagues.”

Amen!

Tom

Here’s the official descriptive blurb:

The Social Change Impact Report “provides a detailed picture of the state of social change engagement in America: Americans’ beliefs about social change, the issues they care about, the motivations behind their engagement, the actions they are taking to further social change and the tools they use.”

Heaps of interesting stuff here if you’re in the social change or advocacy side of the nonprofit sector.

But here’s what grabbed me: “Americans say they are most likely to get involved in social change in the future as individuals acting on their own or in informal groups (52%)”

And: “Nine out of 10 Americans (88%) agree that digital technology can turn interest in a cause into a movement more quickly than anything else.”

Couple these two proclivities together and you see the potential large-scale abandonment of major social change and advocacy organizations.

Who needs them (i.e., your nonprofit), when you can do it all yourself, or with a few social net friends, digitally?

Faced with this ‘do-it-yourself’ mentality, what is your organization doing to maintain its relevance? If your core business as a nonprofit is supplying timely, specialized information on what to do to save some small bit of the world (isn’t that what most advocacy groups do, in essence?), are you relevant anymore to — or needed by — net-savvy would-be activists?

A possible ‘macro’ reason for the fall-off in donor retention?

Tom

Donor Commitment is an attitude that’s measurable and (when properly measured) predicts donor retention and value very accurately.

And it’s an attitude your nonprofit can influence … as in nurture.

So, here’s a chart showing Donor Commitment (link will give you a readable size) as we’ve measured it across fifty leading US nonprofits and charities. The top five of Donor Commitment are:

1. Childfund International
2. Operation Smile
3. Wilderness Society
4. Environmental Defense Fund
5. Planned Parenthood

The bottom five are:

1. UNICEF
2. United Way
3. March of Dimes
4. Easter Seals
5. Human Rights Campaign

If you’re on the list, and in the bottom half, wouldn’t you want to know why … and what you can do about it?

And if you’re not on the list, isn’t Donor Commitment something you’d like to measure, track and improve in your organization?

If you’re in either of these two groups, perhaps you should be talking to Roger and Kevin!

Tom

Seriously though, I’m not the Luddite I appear to be … hey, I sent two text messages today.

However, that does mean I’m dragging down the curve, according to the latest figures released by Pew Research.

According to Pew, for the American adult texting population as a whole (83% of US adults own cell phones and 73% of those text), the average user sends or receives an average of 41.5 messages on a typical day, with the median user sending or receiving 10 texts daily. This level of usage is the same as reported in 2010.

But hold on to your shorts, the median cell owner age 18-24 sends or receives 50 messages a day … and the average for this tap, tapping cohort is 109.5 messages per day.

Keep in mind that where smartphones are involved, texting is on top of all other uses , including checking email, taking photos, web/social net browsing, using various apps … and even talking. As for talking, 53% of cell owners still prefer to be reached that way if someone needs to reach them.

Most interesting to me is the education factor — against a mean for all users of 41.5 texts per day, the numbers are: for less than high school, 69.4 (I get that … kids); for HS diploma, 45.4; some college, rises to 53.0; College+, drops to 23.8. Most of the professionals I see seem to be texting more than that.

All in all … as a fundraiser, I’d still rather have your email address than your cell number. Any disagreement on that?

Tom