There’s an underlying phenomenon here that’s highly relevant, I think, to nonprofit fundraising.

Pew reports that more than half of adult cell phone owners used their cell phones while they were in a store to seek help with their purchase decision:

• 38% of cell owners used their phone to call a friend while they were in a store for advice about a purchase they were considering making;
• 24% of cell owners used their phone to look up reviews of a product online while they were in a store; and,
• 25% of adult cell owners used their phones to look up the price of a product online while they were in a store, to see if they could get a better price somewhere else.

What’s really going on here? Consumers are looking for reassurance … and they’re looking for it from the source they trust most — other consumers who are friends or who have written reviews based on their own experience. And they’re looking for comparison information, specifically with respect to price … seeking value for money.

In short, they’re realizing … “I don’t need to be on my own making this decision. Advice is just  a few taps away.” They are being trained to consult with others because it’s so easy and immediate.

So, now they’re home, having purchased a new iPhone or iPad, and your prospect mailing shows up. What might they do?

I wouldn’t necessarily say that they’ll pick up the phone and ask a friend … “Should I give to Worldvision or Save the Children?” Although indeed some might inquire of a friend if they support either. Or they might recall reassuringly that a friend has ‘liked’ one of the organizations on their Facebook page.

What I do think many (most even?) will do is go online for some form of validation. They’ll go to the organization’s website and poke around.

And, given the consumer shopping experience described above, where peer referrals are hugely important, what should they readily find?

I would suggest — above all — TESTIMONIALS!

Testimonials both from very satisfied beneficiaries of the organization’s work and from real donors who appreciate the organization’s accomplishments. Testimonials in a variety of formats, from short quotes to short videos.

Secondarily, but definitely not with the same weight as the testimonials, strong ratings from the charity raters (or some other straightforward reassurance/evidence about financial accountability and transparency). Price comparison isn’t really a relevant concept in the fundraising setting. But reassurance about money being properly managed and delivering big bang for the buck clearly is.

Few offers (or solicitations) are considered in isolation anymore. The best thing you can do to address that reality is make sure your online presence is your prospect’s reassuring friend.

Tom

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

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

As reported by the Center for Media Research, a recent study from Exact Target indicates we shouldn’t hyper-ventilate over Likes. They’re actually pretty casual, especially when it comes to brands.

CMR cites these study conclusions:

• “Like” is deceptively simple and infinitely complex, with subtle variations in meaning that are highly dependent on context and the individual user
• “Like” is a form of self-expression, especially among younger consumers, with ties to the right brands to earn “cool points” among their peers
• Many consumers want some tangible benefit in exchange for their “Like.” This may be in the form of deals, discounts, or exclusive information.
• “Like” is ambiguous. From the consumer perspective, it’s often unclear what they’re committing to with their “Like.”
• “Like” is light-hearted. Brands shouldn’t read too much into a “Like.” It’s casual and fun-and users expect casual, fun posts in return.

This last point is perhaps the most important take-away, concludes the report. “As a public declaration of brand affinity, “Like” is relatively lightweight and not an endorsement.”

The study notes that only 42% of active Facebook users agree that marketers should interpret “Like” to mean they are a fan or advocate of the company. And CMR observes: “‘Like’ does not equate to permission for one-to-one marketing. Instead, it represents consent to receive broadcast marketing messages, while leaving the door open (or at least unlocked) for taking the relationship further.”

So fundraisers, don’t come on too strong to those who merely ‘Like’ you!

Tom

P.S. You can register and download the study here.

With more time being spent on social nets, and Facebook in particular (it’s now having half billion user days!), it’s a platform nonprofits have to master. And at the same time, everything that’s ‘good’ for Facebook isn’t necessarily good for marketers … or for personal privacy.

Here are three articles that might give you some perspective on Facebook.

Probably of most direct and immediate help to nonprofits using Facebook is this excellent review of the current Facebook situation by Beth Kanter. As usual, her advice (which I read as ‘cautious optimism’) is sound, and her piece includes several very useful links to related resources.

Next, I’d point you to this item from Social Media Insider giving a commercial marketer’s perspective. Advises this writer, David Berkowitz: “There is no question that marketers need Facebook more than Facebook needs marketers. What do you do about it? Be engaging. Be relevant. Figure out what’s social about your brand. Set objectives. Measure results. Budget accordingly.”

A report from his agency on the changes notes: “The new changes should generate a tremendous amount of additional content on Facebook. That means brands will have an even harder time breaking through the clutter. Brands will have to be even more strategic, creative, and relevant to their fans to stand out.”

And for those of you who worry most about privacy, this Wall Street Journal article — Facebook Defends Getting Data From Logged-Out Users — should stir your juices!

I confess to still being an email guy, and a blogger on the side. But Facebook, warts and all, is a force to be reckoned with. As Beth says, however, stay focused on results … a ‘friend’ is not a result.

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

Today we have even more social net data from Nielsen.

Like Pew, Nielsen notes some especially strong growth amongst older demographics, in this case pointing out that internet users over age 55 are driving the growth of social networking through mobile devices. 40% of all social media users access these nets via their mobile phone (37%) or IPad (3%) .

Nielsen reports that social nets and blogs now account for 23% of the time Americans spend online. The core demographic — female, age 18-49, educated.

While the research didn’t ask specifically about charitable giving, the report does note that 70% of active online adult social networkers shop online, 12 percent more likely than the average adult Internet user.

I would hypothesize a similar ‘consumer’ pattern with respect to online giving. Evidence: Social netters are 26% more likely to give their opinion on politics and current events. And without giving stat details, Nielsen says that offline, active adult social networkers are more likely than the average adult Internet user to be found at political rallies … tweeting, no doubt!

Finally, 53% follow a brand on a social net … it could be yours!

Tom

P.S. The report indicates usage of all the major social net sites, and includes some limited international data as well.

Says Pew in its latest study:

“Fully 65% of adult internet users now say they use a social networking site like MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn, up from 61% one year ago. This marks the first time in Pew Internet surveys that 50% of all adults use social networking sites.”

And regarding Boomers, our largest giving cohort:

“… among the Boomer-aged segment of internet users ages 50-64, social networking site usage on a typical day grew a significant 60% (from 20% to 32%). ‘The graying of social networking sites continues, but the oldest users are still far less likely to be making regular use of these tools,’ said Mary Madden, Senior Research Specialist and co-author of the report. ‘While seniors are testing the waters, many Baby Boomers are beginning to make a trip to the social media pool part of their daily routine.’”

So, Boomers are climbing aboard the social sites in appreciable numbers … 51% have now “ever” used a social site. Beginning to hold fundraising interest for me.

Tom

Add that to the latest online video usage numbers from Comscore … the average US internet user viewed 18.5 hours of online video in July. And, as usual, we ask … were any of those videos yours?

Tom

Drawing from a study by Jen Schradie reviewing Pew Internet Research data, he notes that education level is by far the most significant predictor of participation with the ‘social Web’ versus age or any other factor. The study tracked the relationship between socio-economic status and 10 online activities (using Facebook, blogging, video sharing etc) most likely to influence the public, opinion shapers and policy makers.

In an article titled Is the Internet for elites?, he concludes:

“The most vocal and active segments of the Internet are disproportionately debating, discussing and promoting the most elite-focused and elite-themed content. The logical result is that the ‘social Web’ seems less like a desperately needed haven of dissidence, envelope pushing and new thinking, and more like just a bigger but equally poorly produced version of ‘Hardball’ — a place dominated by talking points, gossip, status-quo worship and general politician star-f***ing, not by what rank-and-file America is generally interested in or worried about.”

What do you think? Is the ‘social Web’ just another Hardball or is it a venue for ‘envelope pushing and new thinking’.

If you’re only looking at political and issue debate, perhaps Sirota is right.

But many nonprofits and their fundraisers are not focused on that debate. Instead they are focused on a mission that is far removed from politics, be it digging wells in Africa or generating support for the arts in Boston. For them, social media are simply another channel to develop and engage with an interested community of believers. To say nothing of the individual empowerment social media enable … as demonstrated in our post earlier this week … If This Doesn’t Inspire You …

Tom

P.S. Sirota’s latest book is “Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now.”