2011 donorCentrics Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report · 2011 donorCentrics™ Internet and Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report An Introduction to Multichannel Giving and

copy July 2011 | 2000 Daniel Island Drive Charleston SC 29492 T 8004439441 E solutionsblackbaudcom W wwwblackbaudcom

ContentsAn Introduction to Multichannel Giving and Donor Value 2

Summary of Findings 3

The Data Used for Analysis 4

A Note About Multichannel Communications 4

Differences in Online and Offline Giving 5

The Growth of Online Giving 5

Demographic Differences 6

Differences in Giving Behavior 6

Differences in Long-Term Value 7

Who Gives Through More Than One Channel 10

Online and Offline Multichannel Giving 10

Other Acquisition Channels 10

Online-to-Offline Migration 11

Where Multiple Giving Channels Increase Retention and Value 13

Online-Acquired Donors 13

The Impact of Cross-Channel Giving on Giving Amounts 14

Creating a True Single Channel Environment 15

A Note About Mail-Acquired Cross-Channel Donors 15

Past Multichannel Giving Does Not Predict Future Value 16

The Continuing Importance of RFM Segmentation 16

Segmentation by Gift Frequency and Giving Level 16

Segmentation by Recency 17

About Target Analytics 18

About Blackbaud 18

2011 donorCentricstrade Internet and Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report Including an Analysis on Online Giving in the Context of an Integrated Direct Marketing Program

Authored by Helen Flannery and Rob Harris

Appendices

Appendix A 19Participating Organizations

Appendix B 20Lifetime Giving by Origin Gift Level for Donors Acquired in 2008

Appendix C 21Four Year Migration of Donors Acquired by Mail in 2007

Appendix D 22Annual Giving for Donors Acquired in 2008

2011 donorCentricstrade Internet and Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report

copy July 2011 | 2000 Daniel Island Drive Charleston SC 29492 T 8004439441 E solutionsblackbaudcom W wwwblackbaudcom 2


An Introduction to Multichannel Giving and Donor Value

The increase in online giving over the past several years has generated renewed interest among nonprofit direct marketers about the

value of multiple-channel donors Fundraisers want to know if donors who give to an organization through more than one source mdash

through both direct mail and the Internet for example mdash give larger gifts or can be retained at higher rates than those who give through

only one source

For the past five years Target Analytics has organized and led donorCentrics benchmarking groups for large nonprofit organizations

with a particular focus on online giving and how online donors are integrated into a traditional direct marketing program The data

gathered from this service allows us to draw some general conclusions about multichannel giving

It is difficult to make a simple statement about whether multichannel giving always correlates with higher donor retention or higher

long-term value The subsequent giving behavior of donors can only be determined by looking at a large number of factors including

the channels they use as well as their giving loyalty recency frequency and monetary giving amounts and demographic profile

Comparing the behavior and value of multichannel donors to that of single channel donors is particularly difficult to do accurately

because multichannel donors are by definition multiple-gift donors as well and the effects of higher gift frequencies must be

accounted for in any analysis

While multichannel giving has become a popular objective of nonprofits as a way to build constituent support the large majority of

donors on file give through only one channel and use only direct mail as their vehicle for donations The only donors who do significant

multichannel giving are new donors acquired online who switch in large numbers to direct mail giving in subsequent years

This is the group of donors for which multichannel giving results in improved performance The Internet is a successful acquisition

channel but it has not proven to be an effective one for retention It is the ability of online-acquired donors to become multichannel

donors mdash that is to start giving through direct mail mdash that significantly boosts the retention and long-term value of this group of

donors far beyond what they would be if online giving were the only channel available

The presence of past multichannel giving for steady donors already on file however is far less predictive of higher value and retention

than the traditional recency frequency and monetary giving amount factors that direct marketers have used for decades

These findings are explained in greater detail on the following pages



Summary of Findings

bull For the large direct marketing organizations participating in our online benchmarking groups the majority of gifts are still

received through direct mail

bull Although direct mail remains the dominant channel for new donor acquisitions as well it has become increasingly common for

new donors to give their first gift online

bull Online-acquired donors are significantly younger and tend to have higher household incomes than mail-acquired donors

bull Online-acquired donors tend to give much larger gifts than mail-acquired donors

bull However online-acquired donors tend to have slightly lower retention rates than mail-acquired donors

bull In aggregate online-acquired donors have much higher cumulative value over the long term than traditional mail-acquired

donors

bull However long-term value varies depending on the donorrsquos origin gift level The substantially larger gift amounts given by online-

acquired donors can mask issues with retention

bull Multichannel giving is not ubiquitous The majority of multichannel donors are those who are acquired online and then subsequently

start giving direct mail gifts This is the only situation in which there are significant numbers of cross-channel donors across all

organizations

bull Every year large proportions of online-acquired donors switch from online giving to offline sources mdash primarily to direct mail The

reverse is not true however only a tiny percentage of mail-acquired donors give online in later years

bull When online-acquired donors move offline they tend to do so soon in their first renewal year They then continue to give

offline in similar proportions in subsequent years Eventually just under half of all online-acquired donors convert entirely to

offline primarily direct mail giving

bull Robust direct mail programs drive up the retention and long-term value of new donors acquired online Without the ability to

become multichannel givers by renewing their support via direct mail this group of donors would be worth far less Other than

monthly recurring giving programs established direct mail programs are the best method for gaining repeat gifts from online-

acquired donors

bull When online-acquired donors move offline in subsequent years of giving it does have some negative effect on their value in the

renewal year The higher the donorrsquos original gift level the less they upgrade and in fact the more likely it is that the donor will

actually downgrade if they move offline However these lower gift amounts are far outweighed by the higher retention of online-

acquired donors provided by the direct mail channel

bull For the consistent givers who comprise the majority of donors already on file the presence of past multichannel giving is generally

not a significant factor in predicting future retention or long-term value Traditional RFM factors are far more predictive



The Data Used for Analysis

In 2010 a total of 28 major national nonprofit organizations participated in Target Analyticsrsquo donorCentrics online benchmarking

meetings To provide a factual basis for discussion we provided participants with analytic reports comparing the behavior of their

online and offline donors

The data in the donorCentrics reports and all data in this study is derived solely from transactional giving data downloaded from each

organizationrsquos fundraising database There is no anecdotal or self-reported data As part of the process all participants reviewed and

approved these metrics for accuracy

The data presented in the analysis that follows is from the most recent data available for all 28 organizations participating in 2010 For

one group of 14 organizations the donorCentrics analysis covers giving for the 12 months ending December 2010 and the previous

four years for the other group of 14 organizations the donorCentrics analysis covers giving for the 12 months ending June 2010

and the previous four years The most current 12 months of data for all 28 organizations together includes transactions for over 15

million donors and more than $1 billion in revenue For a list of participants in both groups please see Appendix A at the end of this

document

The organizations that participate in our online benchmarking groups are prominent national nonprofits covering a range of sectors

including animal welfare the environment health human services international relief and societal benefit These organizations

receive the majority of their direct marketing revenue from direct mail Revenue from sustainer giving and from other channels such

as telemarketing and the Internet makes up a relatively small portion of the overall total Revenue from large-scale events such as

walkathons is not included in this analysis only a handful of participating organizations conduct these events

For all charts that show revenue per donor or retention rates we have excluded donor populations of fewer than 100 donors For all

charts that show revenue per donor amounts we have excluded all donors acquired at origin gift amounts of $250 or above For the

first three charts that show the percent of gifts or donors brought in online we have excluded any international relief organizations

that had atypical amounts of giving in January 2010 mdash attributable to recovery efforts following the severe earthquake in Haiti in that

month While this growth was significant it was not reflective of what organizations in any other industry sector experienced or of

what the relief sector itself experiences in typical years

Throughout this analysis all results are reported as medians mdash the middle value of the group of 28 participating organizations

Medians represent the giving behavior and program performance of a typical organization more accurately than either averages or

aggregates which can be skewed by organizations with larger donor populations or higher revenue

A Note About Multichannel Communications

The Internet offers many ways to communicate with donors and prospects mdash email solicitations website content advertisements

and various forms of social media While this study analyzes the effects of multichannel giving on donor value it draws no conclusions

about the effects of ongoing multichannel communications



Differences in Online and Offline Giving

The Growth of Online Giving

For the organizations participating in our donorCentrics

Internet benchmarking groups the vast majority of gifts are

made through direct mail The typical organization receives

more than three-quarters of its total gifts through direct mail

and only 10 of its gifts online

Direct mail acquisition is also responsible for three quarters

of all new donors

Over the past several years however the overall number of

gifts given online and the number of donors acquired online

have both grown steadily The Internet is becoming an

increasingly significant source of giving and of new donor

acquisition in particular

Participants in the online benchmarking groups are a self-

selected group of organizations which are particularly

focused on the topic of online giving and therefore have

larger online programs than other similar nonprofits

Percentages of gifts and donors coming in online will be

smaller for the industry as a whole

Demographic Differences

Online-acquired donors have different demographic profiles

and different giving patterns than traditional primarily direct

mail-acquired donors

Most notably online-acquired donors are significantly

younger than mail-acquired donors

Given the high average age of donors to many benchmarking

organizations the online channelrsquos ability to attract younger

donors is very appealing

Distribution of New Donorsby Channel2010 Medians

16

76

8

JoinedOnline

Joinedby Mail

Joinedby OtherOffline

Distribution of All Giftsby Channel2010 Medians

10

79

11

Online Mail OtherOffline

Trends in the Percent of Donors Giving Online2006-2010 Medians

9

5

12

5

8

14

6

9

16

7

10

7

New Donors Multi-Year Donors All Donors

Distribution of New Donors by Agewithin Origin Channel

2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+



Online donors also tend to have higher household

incomes than mail-acquired donors

Differences in Giving Behavior

Online-acquired donors tend to give much larger

gifts and to give more in total revenue each year

than mail-acquired donors

This is true even when controlling for the age and

income of the donor

Distribution of New Donors by Household Incomewithin Origin Channel

2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+

Revenue per New 2010 Donorby Age and Origin Channel

2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Revenue per New 2010 Donorby Household Income and Origin Channel

2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+

Revenue per New 2010 Donorby Origin Channel

2010 Medians

$62

$32

Joined Online Joined by Mail



However online-acquired donors tend to have

slightly lower retention rates than mail-acquired

donors

This is also generally true even when controlling for

the age and income of the donor It is even more

pronounced when controlling for origin gift amount

as shown in the next section

Differences in Long-Term Value

In aggregate online-acquired donors have much

higher cumulative value over the long term than

traditional mail-acquired donors

Original gift amount is one of the most important

determinants of long-term value and online-

acquired donors join at much higher levels than

donors acquired by mail

However there is some evidence of sub-par

retention and accompanying lower long-term value

for donors acquired online at higher giving levels

New Donor Retention Rateby Origin Channel

2010 Medians

2830

Joined Online in2009

Joined by Mailin 2009

New Donor Retention Rateby Age and Origin Channel

2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

New Donor Retention Rateby Household Income and Origin Channel

2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+

Lifetime Revenue per Original Donor(All Origin Gift Levels)

2010 Medians

$197

$158

$72 $66$51

$118

Joined in 2007 Joined in 2008 Joined in 2009



Online donors are acquired at disproportionately higher levels than donors acquired through direct mail Most direct mail donors join

at $10 $15 and $25 while most online donors join at $25 $50 and $100

At the lower origin gift levels (below $25) where mail donors are more common online-acquired donors outperform mail-acquired donors

in long-term value At these levels the larger gifts given by online donors in subsequent years result in higher cumulative revenue per donor

over the long term

At the $25 origin gift level where online and offline donors join in somewhat similar proportions they have similar cumulative revenue

per donor after several years

At the higher origin gift levels ($50 and above) where online donors are more common mail-acquired donors begin to outperform

online-acquired donors over the long term At these levels of giving the higher retention rates of mail-acquired donors tend to result

in higher cumulative revenue per donor in subsequent years

There may be a number of explanations for this pattern

One is that acquisition gift levels below $25 are not natural giving points for online donors and they readily upgrade out of them

Relatively small numbers of online donors join at the lowest gift levels and not surprisingly those who do tend to upgrade

significantly in their second year of giving ndash whether they stay online or not in that second year

2010 Lifetime Giving by Origin Gift Levelfor Donors Acquired in 2007

Medians for Donors Acquired at $1-499

Joined OnlineJoined by Mail

Percent ofOriginal Donors

$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499

Percent of Original DonorsGiving in 2010

$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499

2010 Lifetime Revenueper Original Donor

$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



These lower acquisition gift levels are typical giving ranges for direct mail donors however and as expected those donors do only

nominal upgrading in subsequent years

At the higher end of the scale on the other hand direct mail donors are relatively rare While a $50 gift is a typical size for an

online gift it is a large direct mail acquisition gift Fewer than 12 of all mail-acquired donors join at $50 or above each year

and those who do are likely to be significantly more invested in the organization than those who join at lower levels It is not

surprising that donors acquired by mail at these higher levels have higher retention rates than their online-acquired equivalents

and that this results in higher cumulative value over the long term

In general then most online-acquired donors are acquired at origin gift levels where they under-perform their mail-acquired equivalents

This may be due more to the specific characteristics of the donors and their relative level of commitment to the organization than the

fundraising practices used to cultivate them

For a version of the chart on the previous page showing donors acquired in 2008 please see Appendix B



Who Gives Through More Than One Channel

Online and Offline Multichannel Giving

While multichannel giving is a popular topic in the direct marketing

fundraising community it is not ubiquitous in practice Significant

multichannel communication may occur notably via email website

content or social media but not multichannel giving

Multichannel donors are almost exclusively online-acquired donors

who later start giving direct mail gifts This is the only situation in

which there are consistently significant numbers of cross-channel

donors across all organizations

In our analysis of giving channel migration we focus on donors who

gave only one gift in their acquisition year These one-gift donors

make up the vast majority (82) of all donors so they can serve as a

reasonable proxy for the entire donor population and provide a control

for giving frequency without making the study unduly complex

What we found is that every year high percentages of online-acquired donors switch from online to offline giving primarily to direct

mail The reverse is not true however only a tiny percentage of mail-acquired donors give online in later years

In other words the number of donors who migrate from online to offline giving can be significant to an organization while the number

who migrate from offline to online giving may not be noticeable at all

Other Acquisition Channels

Donors do of course join through channels other than direct mail and the

Internet Donors may be acquired through a number of disparate channels

such as DRTV events telemarketing and face-to-face canvassing

However these other offline acquisition techniques together make up

only about 8 of all acquisitions each year And of the 28 organizations

participating in our benchmarking analysis only a few employed one or

more of these channels

Organizations that do significant face-to-face canvassing DRTV or

event acquisition do tend to see large numbers of those donors converting

to regular monthly sustainer or direct mail giving in later years But because

so few organizations employ each technique for our 28 participants there is

no movement between these different offline sources on the scale of the

movement of online-acquired donors to direct mail

Distribution of 2010 Renewal Gifts by ChannelMedians for Donors Acquired as

One-Gift Donors in 2009

60

32

9 7

3

91

Joined Onlinein 2009




Evidence from our benchmarking groups suggests that organizations that use a wide range of techniques mdash beyond direct mail and the

Internet mdash to acquire new donors do tend to have robust fundraising programs While implementation of these multichannel acquisition

programs often requires higher levels of investment having a variety of acquisition methods available often results in greater success

Online-to-Offline Migration

When online-acquired donors move offline they tend to do so quickly in their first renewal year They then continue to give offline in

similar proportions in subsequent years After three or four years about half of all online-acquired donors are giving offline gifts and

over 40 are giving exclusively offline primarily through direct mail



In addition as the chart on the previous page shows new donors who were retained in their second year (here in 2008) are far more

likely to still be giving four years later (in 2010) than donors who lapsed in their second year

In fact of the 2007 online-acquired donors who were still giving in 2010 more than half of them had given for all four of the years

they had been on file Most donors give consistently over consecutive years or they lapse out and do not return Donors who skip

years mdash who have a pattern of lapsing and reactivating mdash are relatively rare

For a version of this chart showing the four-year migration of mail-acquired donors see Appendix C



Where Multiple Giving Channels Increase Retention and Value

Online-Acquired Donors

Multichannel giving does correspond with higher retention and increased donor value for one key population new donors acquired

online This is the only group in which significant numbers of donors readily switch giving channels

If the Internet was the only giving channel available to these new donors their retention rates and subsequent long-term value would

be a fraction of what they actually are It is the ability to use another channel mdash specifically direct mail mdash that drives up the retention

and long-term value of a population of newly acquired donors

Direct mail is a very effective method of getting repeat gifts from donors Over time the high giving amounts of online donors coupled

with the high donor retention rates provided by direct mail make for a powerful combination

The charts on the following page illustrate the difference that the availability of multiple giving channels makes over time for new

online-acquired and mail-acquired donors They compare the actual performance of all donors acquired in 2007 to the performance

of the same set of donors including only gifts given to their channel of origin

The lines that include all giving

show the donorsrsquo behavior in the

real (multichannel) world The lines

that include only giving to the origin

channel simulate what the donorsrsquo

giving would be if they were only

able to give in a single channel

world

This analysis shows that having

multiple channels makes only a

small difference for mail-acquired

donors Donors who join through

direct mail do not gain a significant

advantage from the ability to

give through other channels in

later years They typically prefer

to continue giving through the

same channel by which they were

acquired

In contrast the ability to give

via different channels makes a

significant difference for online-

acquired donors When offline gifts

are excluded from online-acquired

donorsrsquo giving their retention and

resulting cumulative long-term

value both drop considerably



In the real multichannel world each donor that was acquired online in 2007 was worth $197 by 2010 If all of their offline giving is

excluded their value drops to $128

For versions of these charts showing year-by-year trends for donors acquired in 2008 see Appendix D

The Impact of Cross-Channel Giving on Giving Amounts

There is some concern that moving online donors to offline primarily direct mail channels will result in downgrades of gift amounts

When online-acquired donors move

offline it does indeed have a negative

effect on revenue donors who switch

to offline channels upgrade less than

donors who stay online For our bench-

marking participants donors acquired

online in 2009 upgraded by $10 when

they stayed online but only $2 when

they moved offline in 2010

In addition the higher the donorrsquos

original gift amount the less they

upgrade and in fact the more likely

it is that they will actually downgrade

if they move offline

Donors acquired online at $10-$14 for example upgraded by roughly similar amounts in their renewal year whether they stayed

online or moved offline Donors acquired online at $100-$249 on the other hand downgraded when they moved offline

Again to control for the effects of gift frequency we have restricted this analysis to the 82 of annual donors who are single gift

givers

Over the long term this downgrading is still outweighed by the increased retention rates that result when online-acquired donors

become multichannel donors mdash that is when they give by direct mail

Donors acquired at the

$100-$249 level in 2007

are a case in point In

the real multichannel

world each donor that

was acquired online in

2007 was worth $310

by 2010 If all of their

offline giving is excluded

their value drops to $231



22 of the original donors acquired in 2007 are still giving in 2010 but this number drops to only 12 when all offline giving is

excluded This also means that the disparity in long-term value between these two populations will only increase in future years

Creating a True Single Channel Environment

The single channel simulations above cause any online donors who renewed offline to appear as though they were lapsed In reality

of course some of these donors would have given again through the online channel

Although the fall-off in donors and revenue would probably not be as dramatic as presented here it would still be substantial

While the Internet has proven a source for new donor acquisition it is not a reliable channel for renewing donor support In past

years we have worked with organizations who could not integrate online giving with the rest of the direct marketing program due to

technology constraints and they did experience steep drop-offs in online-acquired donor populations similar to what is shown in

these simulations

With testing we could determine exactly how many online-acquired donors would have given again if no offline means of renewal

existed But because of the dominance and success of direct mail programs organizations are justifiably reluctant to hold any online-

acquired donors out of the direct mail stream

A Note About Mail-Acquired Cross-Channel Donors

Donors who join through direct mail and then start giving online typically give much larger gifts and have higher cumulative long-term

value than donors who only ever give by mail

However the number of mail-acquired donors who migrate to online giving is so small that it has very little impact on overall revenue



Past Multichannel Giving Does Not Predict Future Value

The Continuing Importance of RFM Segmentation

Most donors on file are steady donors who have given recently Excluding new donors 72 of all 2010 givers had also given in 2009

For these consistent donors already on an organizationrsquos file the presence of past multichannel giving is generally not a significant

factor in predicting future retention or value Traditional recency frequency and monetary amount (RFM) factors that encapsulate the

donorrsquos engagement and prior giving behavior are much more predictive of future performance

For example if a donor has given one gift of $50 in each of the last four years that donor will give similar amounts and will retain at

the same rate in the current year regardless of whether that donor has given only online only offline or a combination of online and

offline gifts in the past

Segmentation by Gift Frequency and Giving Level

To determine whether multichannel giving alone accounts for higher value or better retention of donors already on file we must first

control for RFM variables

Isolating the effects of gift frequency is particularly important

because multichannel donors are by definition multiple-gift

donors as well and multiple-gift donors invariably perform

better than one-gift donors If the performance of mainly two-

gift multichannel donors is compared against that of mainly

one-gift single channel donors the multichannel donors

will always perform better mdash not necessarily because they

are multichannel donors but because they are multiple-gift

donors

The charts in this section show donors acquired online in

2007 divided into two different populations One group

donors who gave online in 2009 serves as our proxy for

single channel donors because they are still giving by

their channel of origin The other group donors who gave

offline in 2009 serves as our proxy for multichannel donors

because they have switched channels

These charts compare single channel and multichannel

giving in the RFM segments where online-acquired donors

are the most plentiful one-gift donors who gave last year at

the three most common giving levels for online donors

This analysis shows that when controlling for RFM factors

those donors who remained giving only within the online

channel in 2009 (single channel donors) and those donors who had migrated to offline giving in 2009 (multichannel donors) gave similar

amounts in 2010



In other words the fact that a donor has past evidence of

multichannel giving makes little or no consistent difference in the

amount they will give this year

This stands in stark contrast to the donorrsquos prior-year giving

level which accounts for a great deal of difference in the amount

the donor will give this year

Single channel and multichannel donors in each of these RFM

segments also renew at essentially the same rates in the following

year Gift frequency and giving level each have a greater impact

on a donorrsquos renewal rate than does multichannel giving

Segmentation by Recency

Only 30 of active multi-year donors are reactivated meaning

that they were lapsed last year

An analysis which segments donors by recency mdash their last year

of giving before the current year mdash shows similar results to the

giving level analysis in the previous section

Recency is the most important determinant of retention The

effects of recency are much more significant than the presence

of multichannel giving



About Target Analytics

Target Analytics a Blackbaud company delivers data-driven collaborative solutions designed to help nonprofit organizations

maximize their fundraising potential Target Analytics was the first company to bring forward-thinking nonprofit organizations together

to establish industry-standard benchmarking and openly discuss successful strategies and practices

About Blackbaud

Blackbaud is the leading global provider of software and services designed specifically for nonprofit organizations enabling them

to improve operational efficiency build strong relationships and raise more money to support their missions Approximately 24000

organizations mdash including The American Red Cross Cancer Research UK Earthjustice International Fund for Animal Welfare Lincoln

Center The Salvation Army The Taft School Tulsa Community Foundation Ursinus College the WGBH Educational Foundation and

Yale University mdash use one or more Blackbaud products and services for fundraising constituent relationship management financial

management website management direct marketing education administration ticketing business intelligence prospect research

consulting and analytics Since 1981 Blackbaudrsquos sole focus and expertise has been partnering with nonprofits and providing

them the solutions they need to make a difference in their local communities and worldwide Headquartered in the United States

Blackbaud also has operations in Australia Canada Hong Kong the Netherlands and the United Kingdom For more information visit

wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices

Appendix A Participating Organizations

The 28 organizations participating in online benchmarking in 2010 were divided into two groups of 14 organizations each One

group used a July-June reporting year while the other group used a January-December reporting year The organizations included

Group 1 (Reporting Year July-June)

Alzheimerrsquos Association

ASPCA

Amnesty International

CARE

Defenders of Wildlife

Humane Society of the United States

Earthjustice

Mercy Corps

National Multiple Sclerosis Society

National Parks Conservation Association

Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited

Union of Concerned Scientists

US Fund for Unicef

Group 2 (Reporting Year January-December)

ALSACSt Jude Childrenrsquos Research Hospital

AmeriCares

Covenant House

Environmental Defense Fund

Feeding America

Habitat for Humanity International

International Fund for Animal Welfare

International Rescue Committee

March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children

Smithsonian Institution



Appendix B Lifetime Giving by Origin Gift Level for Donors Acquired in 2008



Appendix C Four-Year Migration of Donors Acquired by Mail in 2007



Appendix D Annual Giving for Donors Acquired in 2008

copy May 2011 Blackbaud Inc

This white paper is for informational purposes only

Blackbaud makes no warranties expressed or

implied in this summary The information contained

in this document represents the current view of

Blackbaud Inc on the items discussed as of the

date of this publication

All Blackbaud product names appearing herein are

trademarks or registered trademarks of Blackbaud

Inc The names of actual companies and products

mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their

respective owners



An Introduction to Multichannel Giving and Donor Value

The increase in online giving over the past several years has generated renewed interest among nonprofit direct marketers about the

value of multiple-channel donors Fundraisers want to know if donors who give to an organization through more than one source mdash

through both direct mail and the Internet for example mdash give larger gifts or can be retained at higher rates than those who give through

only one source

For the past five years Target Analytics has organized and led donorCentrics benchmarking groups for large nonprofit organizations

with a particular focus on online giving and how online donors are integrated into a traditional direct marketing program The data

gathered from this service allows us to draw some general conclusions about multichannel giving

It is difficult to make a simple statement about whether multichannel giving always correlates with higher donor retention or higher

long-term value The subsequent giving behavior of donors can only be determined by looking at a large number of factors including

the channels they use as well as their giving loyalty recency frequency and monetary giving amounts and demographic profile

Comparing the behavior and value of multichannel donors to that of single channel donors is particularly difficult to do accurately

because multichannel donors are by definition multiple-gift donors as well and the effects of higher gift frequencies must be

accounted for in any analysis

While multichannel giving has become a popular objective of nonprofits as a way to build constituent support the large majority of

donors on file give through only one channel and use only direct mail as their vehicle for donations The only donors who do significant

multichannel giving are new donors acquired online who switch in large numbers to direct mail giving in subsequent years

This is the group of donors for which multichannel giving results in improved performance The Internet is a successful acquisition

channel but it has not proven to be an effective one for retention It is the ability of online-acquired donors to become multichannel

donors mdash that is to start giving through direct mail mdash that significantly boosts the retention and long-term value of this group of

donors far beyond what they would be if online giving were the only channel available

The presence of past multichannel giving for steady donors already on file however is far less predictive of higher value and retention

than the traditional recency frequency and monetary giving amount factors that direct marketers have used for decades

These findings are explained in greater detail on the following pages



Summary of Findings









donors





organizations









acquired donors





















document





























of all new donors






















16

76

8

JoinedOnline

Joinedby Mail



10

79

11



9

5

12

5

8

14

6

9

16

7

10

7



2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+










income of the donor


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$62

$32






donors

















2010 Medians

2830




2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$197

$158

$72 $66$51

$118








over the long term














$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners



Summary of Findings









donors





organizations









acquired donors





















document





























of all new donors






















16

76

8

JoinedOnline

Joinedby Mail



10

79

11



9

5

12

5

8

14

6

9

16

7

10

7



2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+










income of the donor


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$62

$32






donors

















2010 Medians

2830




2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$197

$158

$72 $66$51

$118








over the long term














$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners















document





























of all new donors






















16

76

8

JoinedOnline

Joinedby Mail



10

79

11



9

5

12

5

8

14

6

9

16

7

10

7



2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+










income of the donor


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$62

$32






donors

















2010 Medians

2830




2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$197

$158

$72 $66$51

$118








over the long term














$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners











of all new donors






















16

76

8

JoinedOnline

Joinedby Mail



10

79

11



9

5

12

5

8

14

6

9

16

7

10

7



2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+










income of the donor


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$62

$32






donors

















2010 Medians

2830




2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$197

$158

$72 $66$51

$118








over the long term














$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners










income of the donor


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$62

$32






donors

















2010 Medians

2830




2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$197

$158

$72 $66$51

$118








over the long term














$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners





donors

















2010 Medians

2830




2010 Medians

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+


2010 Medians

Less than$25000

$25001-$50000

$50001-$75000

$75001-$100000

$100001-$145000

$145001+


2010 Medians

$197

$158

$72 $66$51

$118








over the long term














$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners







over the long term














$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499


$1-9

$10-14

$15-24

$25-34

$35-49

$50-74

$75-99

$100-249

$250-499



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners



















































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners






































60

32

9 7

3

91









































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners







































world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners






























world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners






















world











acquired

































givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners

























givers




$100-$249 level in 2007





2007 was worth $310















these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners












these simulations






























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners























donors















amounts in 2010




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners




























About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners







About Blackbaud










wwwblackbaudcom



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners



Appendices






ASPCA


CARE



Earthjustice

Mercy Corps



Oxfam America

Trout Unlimited


US Fund for Unicef



AmeriCares

Covenant House


Feeding America




March of Dimes

Operation Smile

Planned Parenthood

Project Hope

Save the Children






















respective owners





















respective owners


















respective owners















respective owners

Documents

2011 donorCentrics Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report · 2011 donorCentrics™ Internet and Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report An Introduction to Multichannel Giving and