1. The Hard Facts About Integrating Audiences What You Might Be Surprised You Didn’t Know and What to Do About It Dolores McDonagh, Principal Consultant, Charity Dynamics Anastasia Staten, Senior Director, Membership, Foundation Fighting Blindness Craig Zeltsar, Principal, NNE Marketing Karen Gleason, VP Client Services, NNE Marketing

2. YEAR END CAMPAIGN: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Determine the financial impact of an online year-end campaign – Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul?: YOY online campaign giving seemed unstable, were we really underperforming or are donors giving to another channel? – Are we competing with other programs: Anecdotally other fundraising activities thought they were losing income, were they? Off-line sophistication online: Leverage the robust direct mail segmentation variables to read results of who received the email campaign Show the value of a multi-channel program: Raising a dollar on-line is cheaper, right?

3. 2012 Year End Campaign Analysis

4. YEAR END CAMPAIGN: THE SET-UP Constituent Database Applied Segments (over 37 variables) Matched to Who Received Year End Online Campaign Created “The Frozen File” 111,902 Records Information about each donor at the start of the campaign Created “The Frozen File” 111,902 Records Information about each donor at the start of the campaign Appended Online Historical Information

5. YEAR END CAMPAIGN: THE SET-UP Created “The Frozen File” 111,902 Records Information about each donor at the start of the campaign Created “The Frozen File” 111,902 Records Information about each donor at the start of the campaign Full Analysis Tool with Drill Down Capabilities Year-End Transactions Made (any gift) Appended Online Actions Taken

6. YEAR END CAMPAIGN: ONLINE ANALYSIS Views year-end gifts and revenue by a defined, mutually exclusive category. The constituents receiving the year-end email campaign contributed $474,439 through 3,655 gifts. 3,017 (2.7% of the people receiving an email) made a contribution. Only 62 people gave to multiple channels.

7. Of the 108,885 people who didn’t make a gift: 80,570 didn’t open any emails. 53,342 had never made a gift. 27,419 had made their last gift 37+ months ago. YEAR END CAMPAIGN: ONLINE ANALYSIS

8. Only 25% of the people who received the emails opened at least one. Worth 57% of the total year-en revenue 40% were 0-6 month donors 22% were 25+ months lapsed Less than 1% of the people opened all of the emails Males and females opened the emails at the same percentage 65+% of the revenue from this group came from people who opened at least one cultivation email YEAR END CAMPAIGN: ONLINE ANALYSIS

9. Only 71 people unsubscribed from email at any point (contributing only 4 gifts totaling $325 to any channel) Interestingly, only 24% of people coded having a connection to the disease on file opened at least one email – the average of the overall campaign. However, disease coded people made up almost 72% of the revenue generated over the course of the period. Although the same percentage of males and females opened an email: Males made up 38% of the audience receiving the emails, yet contributed 47% of the total YE revenue 55% of the actual online revenue was from males. YEAR END CAMPAIGN: ONLINE ANALYSIS

11. Key takeaway: Donor’s past giving history is a predictor of what they will give to in the future. For example, 89% of VisionWalk year-end revenue came from donors with previous event giving on file. Over 99% of mail revenue came from donors with history of giving to membership/annual giving style appeals.

12. Integrate where appropriate; innovate where necessary Consider holding a test track out next year Engage people who have no giving history and encourage opening emails – then convert to donors. Differentiate those with disease code versus those without. Build segmentation criteria into email selection strategy Don’t just select because we can; select because we should. Develop targeted creative to speak to the variety of constituent profiles. For example: Create a year-end giving “event” email message that emphasizes the importance of a year-end giving Support the offline efforts with email copy that references the mail or phone channels. Highlight URL’s in mail or on phone to people who are “online responsive” YEAR END CAMPAIGN: RECOMMENDATIONS

13. 2013 Putting it Into Practice

14. 2013 MEMBER CARD CAMPAIGN Integrated email/direct mail campaign for Multi-Channel Members Copy and Graphics in sync Online version alerted recipients to “Watch their mailbox” for their membership card Shorter email copy ‘hit the high points’ and gave readers the opportunity to renew online.

15. EMAIL CADENCE Four emails over one month bookending 1 st DM effort Pre Mailing #1 Pre Mailing #2 “Resend” Pre Mailing #2 “Resend” Post Mailing #1 Post Mailing #2 “Forward”

16. ONLINE ONLY CONSTITUENTS Received variation of campaign Recent donors received “Renewal” messaging Non donors and long lapsed received “Join Us” messaging Tested customized messaging based on disease coding

17. RESULTS Even though file was 20% smaller in 2013 than in 2012, the integrated mail campaign generated 2% more gifts 20% more revenue 50% more revenue per name in the campaign Even though file was 20% smaller in 2013 than in 2012, the integrated mail campaign generated 2% more gifts 20% more revenue 50% more revenue per name in the campaign

18. READING RESULTS So many changes between 2012 & 2013 make it difficult to read YOY results

19. 2013 YEAR END CAMPAIGN Created A/B test Multi-Channel versus Single Channel 10,000 Multi-Channel prospects received email and direct mail 10,000 received direct mail only even though they were opted into email

20. 2013 YEAR END CAMPAIGN Integrated campaign – Direct Mail – Email – Social – Website Integrated copy message Matching Grant Integrated campaign – Direct Mail – Email – Social – Website Integrated copy message Matching Grant

21. The group that received emails was worth 15.3% more than the group withheld from emails (across all year-end giving) Email did not turn off multi-channel donors Some direct mail donors went online even without email prompting, but complementing direct mail with email lifted web and overall giving. A/B Split Test Results

22. MESSAGING BY DISEASE Did not split test by Disease group - took the leap & utilized personalized messaging in selected email efforts Disease groups were significantly more productive, but it’s not clear that if messaging had an impact or if those willing to share that information are more committed as a group. Stay tuned for more testing!

23. Making it work!

24. INTEGRATION IS HARD WORK Working Interdepartmentally Managing Multiple Vendors Staffing and Resource Restraints Synchronizing Data between Systems Year End Campaign used Annual Report theme of ‘Momentum’

25. Dolores McDonagh Principal Consultant Charity Dynamics dmcdonagh@charitydynamics.com 301-578-8601 Twitter: @charitydynamics LinkedIn: Dolores McDonagh Facebook: Dolores McDonagh http://www.charitydynamics.com Anastasia A. Staten Senior Director of Membership Foundation Fighting Blindness astaten@FightBlindness.org 410-423-0635 LinkedIn: anastasiastaten www.FightBlindness.org Craig Zeltsar Principal NNE Marketing Cell 617-429-7999 | Office 781-777-1951 LinkedIn: craig-zeltsar www.nnemarketing.com Karen Gleason VP of Client Services NNE Marketing Cell 404-822-8880 | Office 781-777-1951 www.nnemarketing.com