Presentation on theme: "A joint project by RSPB and Plug the Gap. Julie Pitt –Director at Plug the Gap –Database marketing and analysis for the charity sector Ruth Smyth –Supporter."— Presentation transcript:
Julie Pitt –Director at Plug the Gap –Database marketing and analysis for the charity sector Ruth Smyth –Supporter Insight Manager at the RSPB –Understanding support and supporters from across the organisation Cath Campbell –Business Information Analyst at the RSPB –Deciphers the information and helps the planning process
Our appeals were stuck in a rut and a couple showed poor results. We wanted to know why. We also wanted to grow, but weren’t sure how.
The RSPB asked Plug the Gap to collaborate on a project. The objective was to learn more about the behaviours of donors in cash appeals and the factors that affected those behaviours.
How many?4- 5 each year What topics? Purchasing a reserve / campaigns Who to?Members, recently expanded How are they segmented? –Active –Lapsed –Deep Lapsed
Were the gift prompts driving the donations or were the donations driving the gift prompts?
We looked around at different appeals; some good, some bad
One appeal stood out and we needed to find out why
Unlike other appeals the gift bands were increased in number and decreased in value spread
We also dissected the prompts and came up with a way of showing the relationship between the previous gift value and the prompts
We ended up with something that looked like this...
This is the highest value within the gift band Gift prompt 1 Gift prompt 2 Gift prompt 3
Gift bands that were too wide consistently failed to perform as Well as those where the band was narrower
Gift bands with unevenly spaced prompts that were too far removed from previous giving at both the top and bottom didn’t perform as well as those that were more evenly spaced and closer to previous behaviour GoodBad
The evidence seemed to suggest that the prompts didn’t always determine the value of the donation...
How do you bring all of these bits of information into an appeal so that it sits together comfortably?
We pared down the information into the key elements that we felt could be applied
Firstly we worked out the modal value for each supporter, removing the impact of large or small gifts
Next we built a gift prompt matrix; with narrow value bands we added 3 prompts and tested each one using our visualisation tool to ensure it met the new spacing criteria
We added an additional criteria; each band should aim to increase the normal giving behaviour by a small amount
And we wanted to break supporters old habits and establish a new one; the gift prompts would be held in place for the period of one years’ worth of appeals even if a supporter changed their normal giving behaviour
Appeal1Appeal 2 M H L Low: Stuck Donated to subsequent appeal at the same prompt level as the previous appeal. Appeal 1 M H L Low to Mid: Move Donated to subsequent appeal at the next prompt level up from the previous appeal. Appeal 2 Appeal 1 Appeal 2 M H L Low to High: Move Donated to subsequent appeal at two prompts up from the previous appeal. High to Mid: Move Donated to subsequent appeal at the next prompt level down from the previous appeal. Appeal 1 Appeal 2 M H L
Popular gifts at five pound increments and use of the prompt values Low Prompt Value £6£12£16£21£26£32£42£48 Most popular donation above low prompt £10£15£20£25£30£50 Most popular donation appears as other prompt? HMMMMNoH