relationship fundraising 2.0 - what can we learn from the … · 2017-11-16 · relationship...
Post on 25-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Relationship Fundraising 2.0 - What can we
learn
from the psychology of human relationships?
Prof Adrian Sargeant
@RogareFTT
Critical Fundraising on Facebook
How do we build relationships?
‘Everything we know about how to build
a good relationship as a parent or friend we can apply to
fundraising.’
Stages of a relationship
Dissolution
AWARENESSStage 1
Stage 2EXPLORATION
Stage 3EXPANSION
Stage 4
COMMITMENT
Relational v transactional
“Not all relationships are important all the time…some
marketing is best handled as transaction marketing.”
Swedish marketing professor Evert Gummesson
Relational or transactional?
Transactional
Fundraising
Relational
Fundraising
Relational v transactional
Single Sales
Immediate ROI
Short-term
Purchase
Emphasis
FOCUS
KEY MEASURES
TIMESCALE
ORIENTATION
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Customer
Retention
Lifetime Value
Long-term
Relationship
Major Emphasis
‘Fundraising pendulum’
Beneficary
NeedsDonor
Needs
Stage 1: Awareness
• What will inspire a donor at this stage
Stage 1: Awareness
Stage 1: Awareness
Stage 1: Awareness
Stage 1: Awareness
• What will inspire a donor at this stage
Stage 1: Awareness
• Invest in immersive experiences
Stage 1: Awareness
• Offer donor choices
– Satisfy them by giving them control
– Don’t ask on a first date
– First prove value of communications
Stage 1: Awareness
• Conduct donor surveys
Stage 1: Awareness
• Conduct donor surveys
Stage 2: Exploration – Deepening the
Relationship
•Satisfaction is driven first by the attracted target but then
by the fulfillment of donors’ needs.
•Shift from “how attractive you are” to “what needs this
relationship can mean for them”.
Stage 2: Deepening the relationship
•Satisfaction is first driven by fulfillment of donors’ lower level needs but then transition to be fulfilled by donors’ higher level needs;
– Connectedness
– Autonomy
– Competence
– Growth
– Purpose in life
– Self Acceptance
But
• The higher the level of perceived needs to be met, the more ambiguous and
more uncertain people feel about judging their fulfilment
• The more uncertain, the more likely they are to rely on others to help them
form the judgement
• The more ambiguous people feel about what a fulfilled life means the more
they would look to others to help them define what a fulfilled life means
Stage 2: Deepening the relationship
Stage 2: Deepening the relationship
Stage 2: Deepening the relationship
Stage 2: Deepening the relationship
25© Tom Ahern 2013
How great the ORGANIZATION is = $4,470 in gifts
26© Tom Ahern 2013
CORPORATE communications
DONOR communications
© Tom Ahern 2013
How great the ORGANIZATION is = $4,470 in gifts
© Tom Ahern 2013
How great the DONOR is = $49,600 in gifts
Stage 3 – Expansion
Self-verification theory
• “People can always feel better if others important to them see them in the same way they see themselves.”
• “Both partners reveal themselves, and seek and express validation of each other’s attributes.”
• (Reis and Shaver 1988, 369).
Self-verification theory
• For the clever
fundraiser, the point of
the research is not the
information, but the
participation
Let donors see similarity
• Donors must believe in what you believe in, but …
• Immerse them in other activities that express those beliefs
– perhaps even invent them so that donors can see the
similarity in beliefs.
Similarity of Identity
• Lets explore …
Public Radio Industry
• Over 800 NPR member stations in the US
• Funding:– 1/3 from individuals
• On-air drives, direct mail, telemarketing
– 1/3 from corporate underwriting
– 1/3 from state and local governments, universities and foundations
• Individual donations – $250 million per year
– Average gifts range from $20 - $250 depending on the length of listening
Social Information
• Seattle’s Lakeside Upper School counts … Bill Gates among its alumni. Rumor has it a fundraiser for the high school put the bite on Gates, who asked: “How much is everyone else giving?” About $75 he was told. “So put me down for $75,” said Gates.
-- Forbes, Jan 22, 1996, p. 16
On-Air Drives
• Listeners call to make pledges
• Share social information during the phone
conversation
– Control: say nothing
– Social Comparison: $75, $180, $300
Implementation
Phone Conversation “Hello! Station-Name member line.”
“Are you a new member or renewing member of Station_Name?”
Test Groups Say nothing (control group)
“We had another member who contributed $XXXX.”
○ $75 $180 $300
Dependent Measure “How much would you like to contribute?”
Ethical Concerns No deception
Anonymity protected all donors
Social Information Increased Giving
for New Members(Number of Callers = 317)
$86.58$87.44
$96.98
$111.91
$80.00
$85.00
$90.00
$95.00
$100.00
$105.00
$110.00
$115.00
Control $75 $180 $300
Condition
Mean
Ple
dge A
mou
nt
($)
Social Information Increased
Giving for Renewing Members(Number of Callers = 113)
$0.71
$3.64
$19.07
$26.47
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
Control $75 $180 $300
Conditions
Ch
an
ge in
Con
trib
uti
on
($
)
Long-Term Financial Impact(One Year Later)
• 31%-45% Higher Revenue
$10.62
$22.21
$30.28 $29.95
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Control $75 $180 $300
Condition
Ex
pe
cte
d R
eve
nu
e (
$)
Financial Impact(with very low cost)
• 250 Million Donor Income– 10% Increase
– 25 million.
• Investment?– CPB paid about $250,000
• Return on Investment?– How can we make the results more generalizable, more
precise, and more effective?
Other Fundraising Media: Direct Mail
• Social Information Increase
Contributions in test stations
– We had another member Mary, who has
contributed $300 last year, We invite you
to join this member and make your pledge
today!
– Telemarketing
Boundaries?
How to strengthen the effect?
• Mass Fundraising (Not Major Gifts)
– Segment donors into groups.
Similarity Matters (Mary &vs.Tom, She vs. He)
131.57
160.2
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
Mismatch Match
Condition
Mea
n C
on
trib
uti
on
($
)
Gender Identity Esteem Matters
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Mismatch (N=21) Match (N=22)
Gender Congruency Condition
Mean
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n (
$)
)Low Esteem (-1 std )High Esteem (+1 std
Self-Other Focus Matters
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Mismatch (N=99) Match (N=83)
Identity Congruency Condition
Mean
Hyp
oth
eti
cal
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n
($
)
Self Focus Other Focus
Social Identity and Giving
• Gender Identity
– Gender Identity Esteem
– Self-Other Focus
• Symbolic Social Identity
– Social Networks
• Moral Identity
Survey
• 1237 active members
• Questions– Why do donors contribute to public radio stations?
– What are the psychological characteristics that donors have?
– What is their listening habit?
– What is their listening social network?
– What are their demographics?
Social Network Matters
Amount Donated Based on Number of
Acquaintances who Listen to StationX
101.83
119.19
113.74
122.02
132.31
$100.00
$110.00
$120.00
$130.00
$140.00
1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15
Number of people
Ave
rag
e
Am
ou
nt
Do
nat
ed (
$)
Only Friend Listeners Matter
TABLE: DV: Total Giving in the Past Thirty Years on Family Friends Network
Model 1 Model2 Model3
IV of Interests
Family Friends Network 10.601*** 6.916** 6.353**
(2.464) (2.253) (2.255)
Usage Information
YearsListening 376.421*** 299.627***
(25.355) (30.165)
HoursListening in the past year 117.072*** 112.743***
(25.314) (26.490)
Number of Other Stations -24.509 -12.178
(24.922) (26.290)
Social Norms
Estimate of Others Listening 119.913***
(26.005)
Demographic Variables
Gender (Dummy) 11.323
(54.184)
Age 112.245
Education-College 16.709
Education-GraducateCredits 211.359*
Education-Advanced Degree 254.732***
White or Not 235.347*
Married or Not 228.760***
N 1164 1075 972
R-Squared 0.016 0.215 0.283
Note: Dependent variable represents the total contribution of the past 30 years.
* Significantly different from zero at the 10% level.
** Significantly different from zero at the 5% level.
*** Significantly different from zero at 1% level.
TABLE: DV: Total Giving in the Past Thirty Years on Co_Worker Network
Model 1 Model 3 Model 5
IV of Interests
Co-Worker Network 15.29 -6.332 -17.224
Satisfaction about making Donations
Happiness & 111.502*** 108.250***
Satisfaction
Reasons For Giving
Station_Factor -13.991 -53.930
Norm_Factor -72.668* -23.341
Funding_Factor 78.808** 61.931
Scoial_Factor 119.414** 64.971*
Listening_Factor 68.264** 63.084*
Usage Information
YearsListening 301.561***
HoursListening in the past year 69.619**
Number of Other Stations -46.922
Social Norms
Estimate of Others Listening 64.415**
Demographic Variables
Gender (Dummy) -46.098
Age 99.053**
Education-College 112.240
Education-GraducateCredits 288.597**
Education-Advanced Degree 288.948***
White or Not 257.397*
Married or Not 184.595***
N 822 803 698
R-Squared 0.000 .052 .271
Note: Dependent variable represents the total contribution of the past 30 years.
* Significantly different from zero at the 10% level.
** Significantly different from zero at the 5% level.
*** Significantly different from zero at 1% level.
How can we use this information?
• Listeners call to make pledges
• Ask the type of family and friends social
network they have:
– Listener network
– Resident network
Implementation
• Phone Conversation
– “Hello! Thank you for calling XXXXX”
• Test Groups
– Say nothing (control group)
– “Before I take your pledge
• may we ask how many of your friends and family members also listen to XXX Public Radio?
• may we ask how many of friends and family members also live in the XXX area?
• Dependent Measure
– “How much would you like to contribute?”
• Ethical Concerns
– No deception
– Anonymity protected all donors
Only listeners matter!
Listening Network Predicts Giving
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1 20 40 60 80 100
Number of People
Me
an
Am
ou
nt
Ple
dg
ed
($
)Live
Listener NetworkCondition
Control Condition
Can we do better than that?
Yes
• Listeners call to make pledges
• Ask people about their social network:
– Thanks for calling XXX Public Radio
– Thanks for calling XXX Public Radio. Before I take you pledge, may we ask if you have more or less than 2 friends and family members who also listen to XXX public radio?
– Thanks for calling XXX Public Radio. Before I take you pledge, may we ask if you have more or less than 45 friends and family members who also listen to XXX public radio?
– Thanks for calling XXX Public Radio. Before I take you pledge, may we ask if you have more or less than 150 friends and family members who also listen to XXX public radio?
Well….
139
265.83
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
Less More
Comparative Network
Mean
Ple
dge A
mou
nt
($
)
How can you use the idea?
• Programming
– Create talking points
• Development
– Create communication network between listeners
– Prime such networks right before people make a contribution
Does Fundraising Stop here?
• How can we help donors give?
• What does giving make our donors?
Morality MeasuresBelow is a list of traits that people possess. Please indicate how much you believe you actually
possess such traits, and how much you ideally would like to possess such traits.
Actual: Your own beliefs concerning the moral traits you think you actually possess now.
Ideal: How much you would like to possess this trait: the type of person you wish, desire or hope to be.
Please rate the extent to which you believe you actually possess the traits next to “Actual”; and the extent to which you ideally would like to posses such traits next to “Ideal” on the following one to nine point scale.
Caring Actual: Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Completely
Ideal: Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Completely
Compassionate Fair Friendly GenerousHelpful Hardworking Honest
Kind
Morality: Survey Results
6.5
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.1
8.3
8.5
Actual Ideal
Types
Mo
ra
l Id
en
tit
y
Male
Female
Morality: Survey Results
1.18
1.2
1.22
1.24
1.26
1.28
1.3
1.32
1.34
1.36
1.38
Male Female
Gender
Mo
ral
Id
enti
ty D
iscre
pa
ncy
Discrepancy
Morality
Control Condition
“Thank you for being/becoming a member.”
Moral Condition
“Thank you for being/becoming a XXXX member.”
○ XXXX= two randomly selected words from the following five
words
Caring
Compassionate
Friendly
Kind
Helpful
Morality Increases Giving in Females
$114.06
$85.16
$103.83
$99.07
Male Female
Control
Morality
How to do it yourself?
Caring Compassionate
Fair Friendly
Generous Helpful
Hardworking Honest
Kind
That’s some serious stuff!
• Social Information
• Social Networks
• Morality
• Religious Identity
• How about having some fun??
I/We Implementation
“Thanks to our community’s [your] continuous annual membership support, XXX Radio has the financial resources needed to be there for you, me, and our neighbors [you] each and every day.”
“We’re [You and XXX Radio are] in this together – more than 18,000 listeners join us in playing [play] a critical role in keeping this station – our [your] station – strong. Our [Your] continuous support is vital.”
“As we approach the [the] November anniversary of your last contribution [approaches], we’re [I’m] writing to ask for a renewal of your membership [a renewed commitment]. Your ongoing support will help guarantee another year of our community’s [your] favorite radio programs – shows like Morning Edition, All things Considered, Car Talk, A Prairie Home Companion, and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me.”
Positive Emotion Implementation
Smiley faces versus double circles
CONTENT OF
THE LETTER
We or I
RENEWAL FORM
CONTENT OF
THE LETTER
We or I
RENEWAL FORM
We/Smiley and I/Double-Circles
Increase Contribution in Male DonorsAverage Amount Changed from Previous Contributions by Focus, Emotion and Gender
W e Let t er
$5.45
$1.85
$0.29
$13.46
Female Male
Double circles
Smiley faces
I Letter
$4.38
$18.13
$2.08
$4.71
Female Male
Double cricles
Smiley faces
Because… Positive Emotion(Fredrickson, 2001)
• Broadens the scopes of attention, cognition, and action
• And is both an end and a mean to achieve the end.
Self-enhancement theory
• Katz and Beach (2000) tell us that people are most likely to
seek partners who give them both verification and
enhancement, and that in the absence of the latter, they seek
the former.
• So how can fundraisers can stretch their donors’ imagination
about just how good a human being they can be?
Self-enhancement theory
Identity fusion
• The giving of money is not experienced by the donor as a
‘loss’ or an ‘investment’’ any more.
• The action of giving money, as the theory predicts, should
make the individual feel stronger because of the closer
connectivity they experience with others
Identity fusion
• Should not thank for the donor’s generosity per se…
• …but rather, celebrate shared success
Stage 4: Commitment
• Focus on satisfaction
• Past investment
• Availability of alternatives
But
• Past tangible investment (shared debts, pets, jointly
purchased items
• Past intangible investment (disclosures, effort and time)
• Planned tangible investment
• Planned intangible investment
Download the reports
www.pursuant.com/relationshipfundraising
@RogareFTT
@IanMacQuillin
ian.macquillin@plymouth.ac.uk
@adriansargeant
adrian.sargeant@plymouth.ac.uk
top related