A Marketing Strategy for the

The Red Hook Initiative

Amanda Edwards, Paul Franz, Jason Medeiros & Anthony Schloss

December 1, 2009

Introduction:

The Red Hook Initiative (RHI) began in 2002 as a project of Long Island College Hospital that was aimed at increasing awareness and creating solutions for women’s health in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Red Hook. A demand for more services beyond health issues grew quickly, and RHI became its own stand alone non-profit in 2006. At this time RHI established its “4 pillars” model; support in education, employment, health and community development. RHI’s programs and services support at least 350 Red Hook residents each month.

Most of their programs serve the community’s youth, as they are most vulnerable to the neighborhood’s deleterious effects. The neighborhood struggles with gang activity, drugs and crime. Slightly more than half of Red Hook’s residents do not have a high school diploma, and the drop out rate is a concern.

A large part of RHI’s successful model is to create change from within. Nearly all of RHI’s employees are residents of the Red Hook Houses, New York’s second largest public housing development. This practice creates a livable wage for residents in a place that lacks job opportunities and extends RHI’s impact beyond being solely a service provider.

Research Question:

RHI just completed a successful first round of a capital campaign to help the organization move into a larger and more centrally located space. The new space not only will allow RHI to offer more services, but the location and aesthetics of the new facility are expected to attract more residents. Given the expected increase in demand, we have been asked to help RHI consider how to approach the second phase of the capital campaign, which will fund the program’s increased capacity. We were asked specifically to look into strategies that could yield higher donations from repeat givers as well as strategies that could attract sizable first-time donations from wealthier Brooklyn residents in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Points of Differentiation:

RHI’s structure is very much connected to its mission. Its belief that true change must come from the community itself is reflected by its hiring of community members to serve as staff. This practice develops the skills of Red Hook’s residents while providing the services the community needs. All of RHI’s work, in fact, is embedded with this sense of community. It is the organization’s core competency: attention to and knowledge of the needs of its customer base.

RHI can highlight its success and growth as an organization. The “family” feel that pervades the organization can be used to distinguish RHI from its competitors. Since

2

employees’ salaries and organizational overhead stays in the community, a significant portion of the money fundraised by the organization is put back into the community, a metric that many donors focus on.

The targeted focus of RHI’s services is unique to the area. RHI is the only resource devoted specifically to the residents of the housing project. The other nonprofit groups in the neighborhood may provide similar services, but none work exclusively with the needs of this neighborhood.

Methodology

Market Segmentation: We decided to focus on the neighborhoods bordering Red Hook - Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Park Slope, and Carroll Gardens - due to their geographic proximity to Red Hook and the their affluent and educated population. Average per capita income levels in these three bordering neighborhoods range from $55,000-$80,000 with an average net worth per household of $500,000+.1 People in this income bracket and demographic tend to have patterns of charitable giving at relatively high and/or consistent levels. These neighborhoods serve as a significant untapped market.

Literature Review: We conducted a review of relevant literature to ascertain current research-based strategies of philanthropies. The review explores ideas of donor identity and factors that influence giving. The review was crafted to address the populations of donors we were asked to investigate: repeat donors and first-time givers. A full report on this review is included in the findings section.

1 Cobble Hill Neighborhood in Brooklyn…Detailed Profile. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from City Data: http://www.city-data.com

Brooklyn Heights Neighborhood in Brooklyn…Detailed Profile. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from City Data: http://www.city-data.com

Park Slope Neighborhood in Brooklyn…Detailed Profile. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from City Data: http://www.city-data.com

The Skinny on 11201. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from U.S. Census Data Comparison: http://www.zipskinny.com

The Skinny on 11215. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from U.S. Census Data Comparison: http://www.zipskinny.com

Demographic Data by Zip Code. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from Point 2 Homes Real Estate: http://www.homes.point2.com

3

Analysis of Competitors: We performed a competitor analysis of other philanthropies whose missions correlate to the interests of Brooklyn donors. We identified national organizations with similar missions and goals as RHI. We used an online tool that measures the website usage of each organization because in our interviews and surveys the majority of donors preferred to give via the Internet. We compiled data on website use for competitor organizations such as the YMCA, the United Way and Big Brothers Big Sisters. To address the competition with consumer spending outside of charitable giving, we assessed what motivates individuals to donate.

Online Survey: Our team created an online survey with questions designed to assess patterns of giving among residents of target neighborhoods. Questions gave insight into how much people tend to give, what types of causes they tend to give to, motivation for giving, level of interest in community development work and personal connections to Red Hook. We used these data to inform our consumer profiles. The survey link was disseminated among various contacts of ours in the target neighborhoods and over 25 people completed the survey. Upon disaggregating the response data, we discovered some patterns of giving in southwest Brooklyn, which we then used in tandem with our research from the literature review to help shape our donor profiles and strategy recommendations. A copy of the survey questions can be found in Appendix B.

Interviews: We conducted a series of phone interviews using our personal contacts in the Brooklyn area as connections. Interviews were done with people in age groups that corresponded to our donor profiles (ages 25-36 and 45-50+). The questions were qualitative in nature and allowed respondents to fully express their ideas about charitable giving. These interviews provided a better sense of people’s motivation to give and their impressions of Red Hook. The interviews serve as a valuable qualitative tool for understanding the needs of potential donors to whom Red Hook Initiative is marketing their campaign. Responses also offered insight into the currently neutral or negative attitudes about Red Hook currently held by the target population. We also spoke to two members of RHI’s Board of Directors to assess their impressions of the organization’s efforts. The interview protocols as well as a representative sampling of the data can be found in Appendix A.

Findings

Literature Review

Based on information gathered from our initial conversation with the Red Hook Initiative, our review focused on identifying factors that lead to building donor loyalty as well as increased giving over time:

4

Hibbert & Horne (1996) investigate these issues in the broadest context. The authors compare the consumer-decision process to the donor-decision process. The article recommends that organizations consider the contexts in which they market their organizations. Organizations should consider what information is provided, how it is provided, when it is provided, and where it is provided. By thinking about the contexts in which they market, organizations can make the decision to give relatively easy or difficult.

Sargeant & Woodliffe (2007) are more specific and conclude that there are five factors that drive commitment to a charitable organization: perceived service quality, shared beliefs, perceived risk, the existence of a personal link to the organization/cause, and trust.

Complementing this outlook on loyalty, Sargeant, Ford & Hudson (2008) evaluate how contributing to non-profit organizations can become part of an individual’s perception of their identity. The authors advise that organizations examine how they brand their institution as the messages they communicate may enhance these sentiments or prevent such relationships from occurring.

Given the link between charitable giving and identity, we looked for studies that comment on either how to establish such a connection or to maximize it once it exists. The work of Merchant, Ford & Sargeant (2009) examines how storytelling can be used as a means to connect an individual’s emotions to the act of giving. They outline the steps a story should take to establish this connection. By concluding with what describe as a “defining moment,” stories can help a donor form a connection to how their money will be used.

Kanti Bag & Roy (2008) evaluate a very different aspect of donor identity. Less concerned with the donor’s identification with the organization, the authors focus on how the relative amount people give can impact their identity. They argue that by designing a fund where individual donations are announced after each phase, organizations should expect increased giving from these individuals over the course of the fund. By offering this information, donors have the opportunity to assess their position within a giving community.

We tested these conclusions to assess which elements Brooklyn-area residents find important. Residents tend to identify with their own neighborhoods rather than Brooklyn as a whole. Our donor profiles outline how Brooklyn-area residents identify with their communities and the non-profits to which they contribute.

References

Hibbert, S. & Horne, S. (1996). “Giving to charity: questioning the donor decision process.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(2), pp. 4-13.

5

Kanti Bag, P. & Roy, S. (2008). “Repeated charitable contributions under incomplete information.” The Economic Journal, Vol. 118, pp. 60-91.

Merchant A., Ford, J. & Sargeant, A. (2009). “Charitable organizations' storytelling influence on donors' emotions and intentions.” Journal of Business Research. [Article in press]. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013

Sargeant, A., Ford, J. & Hudson, J. (2008) “Charity brand personality: The relationship with giving behavior.” Nonprofit and Volunteer Sector Quarterly, 37(3), pp. 468-491.

Sargeant, A. & Woodliffe, L. (2007). “Building donor loyalty: Antecedents and role of commitment in the context of charity giving.” Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), pp. 47-68.

Competitor Research Analysis

Ritchie and Weinberg (2000) explain the differences between nonprofit and for-profit competition, offering a series of potential competitive forces for nonprofits. “Combative competition" explains what happens when two or more organizations provide similar services. "Collegial Competition" arises when a variety of organizations are providing different services to the same general population and are compelled to partner and work together. Finally, "alternative competition," which best describes the kinds of forces RHI faces, indicates a lack of both direct competition and overwhelming pressure to partner. In alternative competitive environments, organizations still must compete for grants and donors, but they will be competing primarily based upon the broader preferences of those funders. What is more important, then, is clear delineation of the core mission of the organization and the value of the services it provides.

Under alternative competition, RHI falls most nearly under “preference-based” and “technology-based” competition typologies. "Preference-based" competition indicates a fundamental difference between the organizations competing for the same funds, where each organization must appeal to the preferences of individual funders. The "technology-based" typology indicates a technical advantage, whether that is in terms of digital resources, information, or equipment. This category of competition applies to RHI because among similar organizations, they have the distinct technological advantage of a new building in the heart of Red Hook. Regardless of all other aspects of the organizations, this is a fundamental competitive advantage that should be remembered. As both a non-profit seeking funds and as a community center, RHI's competitiveness hinges on the preferences of their potential donors and users. Our data suggests that many local donors do prefer to support the kinds of services that RHI provides, but not all donors are created equal. Some of those potential donors we surveyed preferred to give to their colleges or to national or global organizations rather than to local efforts.  Under preference-based competition, it is better to emphasize the services that fit for some donors, rather than trying to be everything to everyone.

6

RHI does have a competitive advantage over any organization with a similar mission in the Brooklyn area. Because RHI is moving into a brand-new building, it has capacity that most other organizations lack, and it can provide in-person services and shelter in a way that competitors cannot. Its locality is a technological advantage in courting funders: there is a real place that needs real support here, rather than just an organization.

Web-Site Usage

The most striking feature of the websites for the United Way, the YMCA, and Big Brothers Big Sisters is the lack of traffic they receive. While those national organizations are broken into smaller local chapters which handle most of the real funding and traffic, it remains surprising how little web-traffic those NPOs are doing.

Quantcast.com estimates that approximately 100K people per month visit liveunited.org, 200K per month visit YMCA.net, and 34K per month visit bbbs.org. Those numbers are strikingly low for extremely successful nationwide organizations (consider that the Home Depot – an RHI funder – receives over 8 million web-visitors a month; Stanford.edu receives 1.8M). The types of data that can be accumulated by Quantcast are striking as well. Almost two thirds of users of the sites of RHI’s national competitors are female, with significant use by African Americans (for United Way and BBBS) and Asians and Hispanics (for the YMCA).2 All three sites are frequented by users with Bachelors degrees or higher, but the YMCA and BBBS skew towards wealthier users, while the United Way towards economically disadvantaged. Because the United Way is more focused on autonomous local chapters than BBBS and YMCA are, this suggests that funders are not looking to the national website for information, and that users who do end up there tend to be participants in the United Way's programs.

It seems that community-oriented nonprofits are missing out on an opportunity to raise funds over the Internet, a notion corroborated by a 2008 study by Convio. The study indicates that many funders prefer to give online, even though few organizations actively pursue online donations. While RHI operates in a limited area with a limited audience, they may benefit from increasing their online visibility inside of Brooklyn.

References:

Convio, Sea Change Strategies and Edge Research. (2008). The wired wealthy: Using the Internet to connect with your middle and major donors. Convio.

Ritchie, R. & Weinberg, C. (2000). “A typology of nonprofit competition: Insights for social marketers.” Social Marketing Quarterly. 6(3), pp. 64-71.

Potential Donor Profiles

2 Data collected from www.quantcast.com

7

The data we collected led us to conclude that potential donors are driven to donate to organizations by the following: how attractive that work is to them and their personal connection to either the work itself or to the people served. They also prioritize the need to understand the mission of the organization, to feel that money is used effectively, and to feel that they are part of a community attempting to reach a specific goal. The degree to which donors feel all of these “needs” varies. Donors may also possess a need to compare favorably to peers (i.e. giving at or above the same level) or to attain some type of status for their philanthropic contributions.

Our research revealed that there is a lack of connection or sense of community between Red Hook and targeted neighborhoods. When people in our target population do give, they are not giving to Red Hook due to their lack of knowledge and connection with the area. Our respondents cited that it is difficult to access to Red Hook through public transportation. There is no convenient subway stop, which means visitors often have to drive from other neighborhoods; not all residents have cars or are willing to drive around the city.

We constructed the following three donor profiles from our data collection:

The New Young Giver: Age 26-35, gives $0-$249 to charity annually: This donor is more likely to give to local causes or organizations than those in a similar age group who give more money annually. They choose whom to give to based primarily on the mission of the organization and a personal connection to the organization. If this donor knows someone who works for or has been personally affected by a non-profit, they are more likely to give to that organization. When determining which local non-profit to give to, this donor considers a personal relationship to those being served by the organization to be most important factor in their decision. Of the services that RHI offers, community development and after-school programs are of great interest. It is likely that a donor in this group has never been to Red Hook. Giving is done primarily via the Internet.

The Affluent Analytic: Age 26-35, gives more than $250 to charity annually: This donor needs to be in agreement with the mission of the organization or to be part of a community of givers committed to a specific goal in order to give to a non-profit. The type of organization favored by this donor varies based on individual interests and background. Donors give to national, local, and civic/cultural organizations. The type of work done and effectiveness of a non-profit are the primary motivating factors for this donor. Of the services RHI offers, job

8

readiness/employment support training and after-school programs are of great interest. Most of these donors have been to Red Hook, primarily for shopping, dining, and brief social visits. Giving is done primarily via the Internet.

The Entrenched Brooklynite: Age 36 and older, gives more than $250 to charity annually: This donor prefers to give in person or through print media (i.e. response cards), but uses Internet giving occasionally. Their giving behavior is driven by the type of work done by the organization and the effectiveness of the organization. For the most part, this donor prefers to give to civic or cultural organizations such as the MOMA or the Metropolitan Opera. They also give locally to private schools their children or families are affiliated with or to cultural assets in their neighborhood (i.e. Brooklyn Botanical Gardens). They have a strong sense of community defined by their neighborhood. For example, if this donor lives in Park Slope they consider giving locally to be giving to a cause in Park Slope. There is little sense of connection with other neighborhoods. Association is predominantly within their own corner of Brooklyn with little sense of what is happening in other neighborhoods.

Recommendations

We have the following six recommendations for RHI as they embark on the second phase of their capital campaign. We want to emphasize that these suggestions are intentionally broad and strategic. The more specific among our recommendations should be read as models of the kind of activities RHI might consider using to raise capital.

) Emphasize After-School Programs:

Our research into donor behaviors suggests that among the services RHI provides, after-school programs have the broadest appeal. This conclusion is reflected in the funding habits of organizations like the United Way, who is a donor for RHI, and makes a priority of funding after-school and mentoring initiatives. Future fundraising tactics could highlight this aspect of RHI's services and demonstrate its effectiveness and import to the RHI mission. Some specific approaches may be to:

- Increase visibility of positive youth activities- Showcase the skills & talents of Red Hook youth- Engage Red Hook youth in service outside of Red Hook

2) Create a Tiered Giving System

9

Tiered giving levels, while not universally applicable or appealing to some donors, are considered an effective practice in the nonprofit and foundation world and is supported by the work of Kanti Bag & Roy (2008). Our interviews suggest that donors who are not motivated by tiered levels of giving do not find it de-motivating either, and the benefits of such a system can be substantial. Those who are motivated by tiered levels of giving – usually middle-aged and older donors – tend to see tiered levels as a status symbol, and could give more in order to reach a higher “circle” in the tiered system.

By evaluating donation history, RHI can identify pockets of common donation levels, and can set tiers slightly above those levels during this capital campaign. If, for example, a substantial number of past donors gave $20 previously, setting one tier at $25-49 will encourage those donors to each add $5 to their individual donations. Likewise, donors who previously gave $200 might be motivated to give $250. Reaching certain tiers of giving might also include rewards (tours, meeting with employees, participation in some service) that would allow funders to see their money in action.

3) Market RHI’s Core Competency: Attention to and knowledge of the needs of its customer base.

Local donors and donors who are particularly concerned with the effectiveness of the organizations they give to like to know that money reaches its intended beneficiary. Because RHI is a local organization in every sense of the word, it would be advantageous to calculate and market, in as many ways as possible, how embedded RHI is in its community. Hibbert & Horne (1996) show how simplifying the decision-making process for donors increases an organization’s appeal. That RHI employs local citizens – some of whom have no other source of income – is a profound point of differentiation and indicator of the effectiveness of the organization. In addition to its economic impact on the community, RHI could use other statistical to data to represent how deeply it permeates the community.

4) Share Red Hook Success Stories

While donors often like to see statistics indicating range of services and overall effectiveness, they are hooked by the anecdotes that define an organization. RHI's website already includes these personal stories, and our research validates that good storytelling is a key component to any marketing strategy. These stories, however, are lengthy text narratives that could be overlooked or glossed over. RHI could explore other mediums (on the website or otherwise) to communicate these messages efficiently.

Merchant, Ford & Sargeant (2009) indicate that audiences are interested in two parts of the story: the conflict (to emotionally engage the audience) and the “defining moment” (the point at which the organization provides aid and allows the audience to envision their gift having a similar effect).

10

RHI should consider highlighting a particular story or a small set of stories in each of its key service areas, so that it can reach its range of prospective donors.

5) Maximize the Potential of the Internet

Increasingly, funders prefer to give over the Internet even though many organizations are not proactive about recruiting Internet donors. We recommend that RHI maximize the potential of its online donation feature. Some options could include:

Market RHI on Brooklyn or Red Hook Blogs as well as other alternative Internet media outlets

Asking current restaurant partners to link to the RHI homepage (or Facebook cause) from their sites would increase Internet visibility.

Signing up with Quantcast.com – or another web-traffic quantification service – would allow RHI to accurately profile its web audience. A sampling of the types of data Quantcast can offer can be seen in Appendix C.

Among younger donors, the Internet is an increasingly pervasive reality. Leveraging the opportunities it offers is a key to increasing fundraising capacity.

6) Host a fundraiser at the RHI site.

Personal connections with an organization are a powerful motivator for givers. Bringing funders to RHI's new building would help to bring home the work that the organization is doing, and would allow RHI a forum to hear directly from funders about what they see in the services RHI provides. Moreover, because RHI is moving into a new building, this kind of fundraiser would be timely and appropriate, and would likely attract a sizable portion of current and prospective funders with sufficient press. Bringing in restaurant or wine bar partners to provide refreshments would strengthen those bonds as well.

Conclusion

We believe that these suggestions work in concert. Many of them include methods that Red Hook already employs – a validation of its current strategy – and offer suggestions on how to maximize their potential given the target markets. They all also call for increased visibility of the great work Red Hook accomplishes. Since the target markets either know little about Red Hook, or do not connect Red Hook to their Brooklyn identity, the challenge for RHI will be to make its cause part of the subjective worlds of these individuals. The Internet and the budding commercial presence within Red Hook are two locations that are part of the lives of potential donors. Using these spaces to attract attention could help facilitate this connection.

Appendix A: Interview Protocols & Sample Data

11

Interview Protocol for Brooklyn Residents:

Which neighborhood do you live in?

Do you donate to charities or non-profits?

o What kind of organizations do you donate to? Do you prefer to donate to local or national non-profits, and why?

o How do you choose where to donate? What values or beliefs must an organization possess in order for

you to contribute? Does knowing how your dollars will be spent and how much of an

impact it will have motivate your giving? Do you tend to have a personal connection to the causes of the

organizations you give to? Do you feel that your giving makes you a part of the organization's

community?

o How do you feel about tiered levels of giving (gold, silver, bronze, etc)?

If you were a neighborhood organizer for an affordable housing community, what would your priorities be?

o Important issues for public housing

What is your overall impression of Red Hook? o Do you spend time in Red Hook and why?

Would you like to foster relationships between Brooklyn neighborhoods?

Is it important for communities to be connected, to participate with your neighbors who are different than yourself?

What's valuable about giving to Brooklyn organizations?

Why are vibrant/safe/successful neighborhoods/red hook important to NYC?

Representative Data from Brooklyn Resident Interviews:

12

On donor motivators…

- “There is a strong Brownstone Brooklyn mentality in our neighborhood. Many families are well-to-do and care about the same circle of things, like supporting the Metropolitan Opera.”

- “Our two priorities [in a non-profit] are efficiency of spending & low overhead cost and a real charitable purpose.”

- "I would give more locally, but I don’t feel they are marketing to me"

- "Personal connections are my usual reason for giving"

- "A better strategy for New Yorkers is not neighborhoods but core beliefs-success, rising out of poverty, empowerment"

- "I like smaller, leaner orgs better- not national orgs, they are too big"

- "What an organization is doing matters more than the location."

On tiered levels of giving…

- “[Tiered giving levels] definitely affect us.”

- “If we see a level a little higher than that we intend to give, we give the extra money.”

- "Tiered level is a good tactic, but only makes me feel bad”

- “We find [tiered giving levels] annoying, but it has an effect.”

On Red Hook…

- “The only real contact we have with Red Hook is IKEA and our kids used their parks for sports.”

- "[I don’t travel to Red Hook,] not unless I'm going to IKEA. It's hard to get to Red Hook from Park Slope unless you drive. I do have a car but I don't really drive it except for work and when I go out of the city."

- "I wouldn't mind getting to know Red Hook better... I would assume others in Park Slope would check it out more if it were easier to get to."

- “[Red Hook is] gentrifying but still a bit rough around the edges and somewhat isolated from the rest of Brooklyn." 

Interview Protocol for RHI Board Members:

13

What compels you to be a part of RHI?

What are RHI’s strengths and weaknesses? o  Are there any services RHI should offer?  Are their neighborhood needs

they don't, but could address?

What is you conception of how RHI markets itself to donors?o Is there a better way to present RHI to donors? o What is RHI’s most marketable asset? o What kind of data does RHI use to market itself?

What kinds of people donate to RHI? o How does RHI reach out to other Brooklyn neighborhoods?

Is there opportunity for other BK residents to get involved?  How would they find out about that?

How can we create trust (investment, satisfaction, personal relations, consistency of interaction) in previous donors?

Are attitudes about Red Hook changing?o How has RHI changed to adapt to that?

Representative Data from Board Member Interviews:

On RHI’s strengths and weaknesses…

- “No distinction between community and organization”

- “Really feels like family

- “Different people use it differently (one time users, repeat users like kids who come to hang out somewhere safe.”

- “The organization takes on a “middle class parenting role,” which can be difficult.”

- “Hard for model to totally succeed (100% staffed by residents).”

- “When working with a coworker’s family, sometimes the employees themselves can be confused and pulled in different directions.”

- “[RHI could be] a single-stop place for all public benefits.” On marketing…

14

- “When they can get people to visit, they are often in, or hooked-“

- “[We could] connect old Red Hook to New Red Hook.”

- “[We could develop a] sister city idea between neighborhoods” On potential target audiences…

- “People who just moved to Brooklyn and want to take on Brooklyn ownership.”

- “People who grew up in BK”

- “Trusted, existing networks- Alumni groups, block associations, Frisbee teams (sports teams who use Red Hook fields).”

 What they think are important strategic issues…

- How do we stand out?

- “[How do we] get to people to hear, or see the real lives being affected, and what the effect is?”

 

Appendix B: Survey Questions

15

1. Age: _ 21-25 _ 26-35 _ 36-49 _ 50+

2. Select, in order of their importance, up to three types of organizations to which you donate money:

  1 2 3Schools & Universities (Alma maters or otherwise)

Faith-based Organizations & Religious institutionsCivic or Cultural Organizations

Local charities & non-profit organizations

National Charities & Foundations

Global Nonprofits I do not make charitable contributions

3. The average amount of money that I tend to donate to an organization on a yearly basis is: _ $0 - $249 _ $250 - $499 _ $500 - $9,999 _ $1,000 - $4,999 _ $5,000 - $10,000 _ > $10,000

4. Which of the following attributes has the greatest impact on your decision to give? _ You agree with the organization's mission. _ You trust your money will be put to good use. _ You feel a part of a community of givers committed to a specific goal.

16

5. Rank, in order of your preference, the following mediums through which one could make a donation.

  1 2 3 4Internet (via online payment)

Phone pledgePrint media (Mail-in donation)In person (via a fundraiser or otherwise)

6. Does seeing a published list of the relative amounts others have donated influence your giving behavior?_ Yes_ No

7. Rank, in order of their relevance to you, the following reasons why you might contribute to a local non-profit.

  1 2 3 4 5Relationships to the individuals who are servedThe demographic being servedThe type of work being accomplishedYour knowledge of the program's effectivenessHistorical or Social significance of the neighborhood served

17

8. Rank, in order of their relevance, three services that would compel you to contribute to an organization that served a disadvantaged group in your community.

  1 2 3Affordable & Public Housing Renovation

After-School Programming for YouthJob Readiness & Employment Support TrainingHealth Education (Physical, Social, Emotional)Community Development & AdvocacyI do not see these services as priorities

9. Check off all of the following neighborhoods in which you have ever lived, worked, or frequented. For purposes of this survey, frequented means having visited at least once a month to shop, dine, or make social visits. _ Brooklyn Heights _ Carroll Gardens _ Cobble Hill _ Downtown Brooklyn _ DUMBO _ Navy Yard _ Park Slope _ Red Hook _ None of these apply to me.

Appendix C: Quantcast Data Sample

18

The following charts are representations of web site use for the United Way: http://www.quantcast.com/liveunited.org

19