dars 2011 pfra's 4th annual donor attrition retention survey
TRANSCRIPT
PFRAUnit 11 Europoint5-11 Lavington StreetLondonSE1 0NZ
June 2011
Dear PFRA member,
Thank you for your interest in DARS 2011, the 4th annual PFRA Attrition Survey, the fourth year we have conducted this analysis. We are happy to supply you with a copy of the presentation made at this year’s PFRA AGM in London on 21st June. However, we would like to make it clear that this presentation includes only the initial analysis of the data and needs to be read bearing the following points in mind:
1. The presentation analysed the responses of 27 PFRA member charities (out of a total membership of 96) who responded to the survey sent to the whole membership.
2. The particular questions asked in the survey required charities to report the number of donors who had made 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc payments.
3. In the interests of consistency, donors who did not make their 1st payment (often known as “no-shows”) have not been included in the calculations, since not every charity knows this information
4. Percentages in all graphs other than ‘Attrition by Charity’ have been calculated by taking the total number of payments reported by all charities and who fell into that particular criterion and calculating the percentage attrition against the total number of payers at 1st month.
(a) Cumulative attrition figures for the first year, therefore, should be read at Month 11, since this point represents all donors that cancelled after having made eleven payments; therefore all remaining donors at this point DID go on to make a full 12 payments.
This preliminary analysis will be followed up by a full written report at the end of September. Further to points raised during the presentation this year, Morag and Rupert will be conducting some additional analysis, which will feature within this report.
In the meantime, while looking at the findings within our presentation, care must be taken not to draw specific conclusions. This is because there are many variables that are at work within the campaigns that have been reported by charities to us.
The findings that we have reported are indicative of general trends that we have deduced from the survey results, but can only be proven by an individual charity when running a head-to-head Test internally within their organisation, ideally where only one variable is changed at any one time.
We very much hope that this survey continues the development of a process of qualitative research, and testing of factors that beneficially impact retention for charities.
The information contained in the presentation and subsequent report are copyright to the PFRA and the authors of the presentation and report (Morag Fleming, Head of Fundraising, Quarriers and Rupert Tappin, Managing Director, Future Fundraising) and we would ask that you do not reproduce or disseminate any of this material (apart from for internal use within your own organisation) without prior permission from the PFRA.
If you would like to receive a copy of the full report when published, then please contact Ian MacQuillin of the PFRA, on [email protected], or call 020 7401 8452.
Yours faithfully
Mick AldridgeCEO, PFRA
DARS 2011PFRA’s Fourth Annual Donor Attrition & Retention Survey
21st June 2011
Devised, analysed & presented by:Morag Fleming – Quarriers
Rupert Tappin – Future Fundraising
Agenda
• Development of DARS 2011 + External environment
• DARS 2011 – the findings!– door & street campaigns run in 2004, 06, 07, 08,
09 &10• Further analysis from Professor Adrian
Sargeant & his team at Indiana University
The Development of DARS
• 10 years+ face-to-face acquisition in UK• DARS provided the 1st benchmark in 2008 for
charities to match to and better manage their donor retention programmes
• Developed to look at the different variables affecting donor retention
• Now in the 4th year
External Market & DARS
• Changing F2F market – 25% increase in door market between 2008 and 2011
• Decrease of 4% in Street market between 2008 and 2011
• Collapse of the banks 2008• Coalition government implement cuts 2010 /11
Developments for 2011
• Reports from 6 years of activity • Up to 5 years worth of payments• More questions on donor communications• In-depth analysis by Professor Adrian Sargeant
and Jen Shang
Attrition is… • … better?
• … worse?
• … similar?
• 19% thought better
• 52% thought worse
• 26% thought similar
DARS 2011 – Campaigns Reported
• Largest number of donors ever reported to DARS– 818,163 individual donors
• 27 charities submitted data from 155 separate campaigns– 74 street campaigns with 342,916 donors– 81 door campaigns with 475,247 donors
• 678,532 donors made at least 1 payment
DARS 2011 – THE ‘REVELATION’?!
Attrition: where is your charity at?
(Reminder: figures are based on all donors making first payment; no-shows are excluded
as not all charities know these)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% Attrition rates by charity: Street 200402
03
04
20
27
41
54
Attr
itio
n r
ate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% Attrition rates by charity: Street 200602
03
04
14
20
27
30
40
41
42
45
54
Attr
itio
n r
ate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334350%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% Attrition rates by charity: Street 2007
01020414273040414245505154
Attr
itio
n r
ate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 240%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% Attrition rates by charity: Street 200801020414202730404142454950515455
Months
Attr
itio
n r
ate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Attrition rates by charity: Street 2009
01020414273040424548495051525455
Attr
itio
n r
ate
1 20%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% Attrition rates by charity: Street 2010
021420304245485455
Attr
itio
n r
ate
Street Attrition
• Attrition appears to be coming down after a peak in 2008 campaigns
• Similar to last year’s survey, 2004, ‘06+ ‘07 campaigns largely clustered closely together
• But 2008 & 2009 campaigns more broadly spread– ?Reflection of growing complexity of campaigns and
interaction of all the variables– Adrian Sargeant analysed significance of each variable
for DARS 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Attrition rates by charity: Door 2004
02
09
15
20
27
30
55
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Attrition rates by charity: Door 2006
02
09
12
15
20
30
40
41
47
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 370%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Attrition rates by charity: Door 2007
02
09
12
15
20
30
40
41
47
49
51
54
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 250%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Attrition rates by charity: Door 2008
0204060912141520272930354041454749515354
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Attrition rates by charity: Door 2009
02040609121415202729303540414548515253
Attriti
on ra
te
1 20%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Attrition rates by charity: Door 2010
02
04
06
09
12
14
15
20
29
30
35
40
47
48
Attriti
on ra
te
Door Attrition
• Attrition rates on the door seem to be going back down from the high they reached in 2009.
• Month 3 2007 - 5-32% best year• Month 3 2009 - 5-45% worst year• Month 3 2010 - 10-35%• This pattern is also evident in month 6
DARS 2011 – THE ‘REVELATION’?!
How does this all fit together to develop
our benchmark?
Campaign Averages by Year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Street 2004
Street 2006
Street 2007
Street 2008
Street 2009
Street 2010
Door 2004
Door 2006
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Door 2010
Payments (Months)
Att
ritio
n ra
te
Campaign Averages for First Year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Street 2004
Street 2006
Street 2007
Street 2008
Street 2009
Street 2010
Door 2004
Door 2006
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Door 2010
Payments (Months)
Att
ritio
n ra
te
Attrition Based on Campaign Averages
• Door 2004 remains the best performing campaign
• Street campaigns perform less well that door campaigns for every year until 2010 when street outperforms door
• Both Street and Door show a marked improvement in 2009 and 2010 shows early signs of being a lower attrition campaign
Long Term Attrition
Street• 5 year attrition between 53% and 88% (04)• 4 year attrition between 49% and 87% (06)
Door• 5 year attrition between 48% and 89% (04) • 4 year attrition between 38% and 82% (06)
DARS 2011 – THE CORE GROUP
How does the Core Group perform?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Campaign averages by year: Door core group
Door 2004Door 2006Door 2007Door 2008Door 2009Door 2010
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Campaign averages by year: Street core group
Street 2004
Street 2006
Street 2007
Street 2008
Street 2009
Street 2010
Months
Attr
itio
n r
ate
No Show Rate
2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
DoorStreet
Analysis By Age Banding
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Campaign averages by year: street, age ≤ 29 years
Street 2004
Street 2006
Street 2007
Street 2008
Street 2009
Street 2010
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Campaign averages by year: street, age 30 - 34 years
Street 2004
Street 2006
Street 2007
Street 2008
Street 2009
Street 2010
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Campaign averages by year: door, age 40 - 44 years
Door 2004
Door 2006
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Series6
Months paid
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% Campaign averages by year: door, age 35 - 39 years
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Door 2010
Months paid
Att
rition
rate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Campaign averages by year: door, age 40 - 44 years
Door 2004
Door 2006
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Series6
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Campaign averages by year: door, age ≥ 45 years
Door 2004
Door 2006
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Door 2010
Attriti
on ra
te
Age of DonorsStreet• Older age band (30-34 years) are performing
better in more recent years than the under 29s– But only in first year; 4-5 year trend is almost identical
Door• Oldest profile (45+ years) is the strongest, but
must balance with fact that sign-up rates of these individuals are lower…
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Campaign averages for first year: street, gift ≤ £8.49
Street 2004
Street 2006
Street 2007
Street 2008
Street 2009
Street 2010
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Campaign averages for first year: street, gift ≥ £10.50
Street 2004
Street 2006
Street 2007
Street 2008
Street 2009
Street 2010
Months paid
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Campaign averages for first year: door, gift ≤ £8.49
Door 2004
Door 2006
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Door 2010
Attriti
on ra
te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Campaign averages for first year: door, gift ≥ £10.50
Door 2006
Door 2007
Door 2008
Door 2009
Door 2010
Attriti
on ra
te
Average Gift Street• In every year the lowest average gift is
performing better than the highest but particularly so in 2009 and 2010
Door• The same is true for the door campaigns
however the 2010 campaign seems to have better attrition in month 1 on the higher gift
Initial Findings From Adrian Sargeant’s Modelling
• Cleanest data set ever seen
• Unique dataset
• Fascinating findings
• Analysis taking four times as long as before
• Following trends are PROVISIONAL subject to further testing of models in US
Number of Charities and Campaigns
• 27 charities• 153 campaigns• Average number
of campaigns submitted by charities is between 5 and 6.
Number of Campaign Submitted
Number of Charities
1 12 33 44 35 36 37 18 59 1
10 111 112 1
Type of Face-to-face Campaigns
• Street and Door-to-Door Campaigns conducted between year 2004 and 2010
Year Street Door-to-door Total
2004 7 8 15
2006 12 9 21
2007 13 12 25
2008 16 20 36
2009 15 19 34
2010 9 13 22
Total 72 81 153
Sample Characteristics• Social Welfare & Disabilities, Children,
Overseas Development and Environmental Causes constitute the largest four categories
TypeNumber of Campaigns
Percentage of Campaigns
Animal welfare 9 5.88Children 27 17.65Environmental causes 23 15.03Health (excluding cancer) 11 7.19Health (Principally cancer) 18 11.76Human Rights 9 5.88Overseas Development 27 17.65Social welfare & Disability 29 18.95Total 153 100
Attrition (Retention) Rate
• Is calculated as– The number of donors making one payment– Divided by– The number of donors remained at a given month
How Valuable Is This Survey?
• On a scale of 1 to 100:– Individual charity internal analysis = 1– Descriptive analysis (graphs, etc) = 5– Modeling (Adrian Sargeant work) = 10
• In light of 27 charities taking part• IF 90+ charities took part, then
–Score would leap to 60-70!
Retention Rate• The interaction effect:
– Does the effect of Type of Campaigns, Campaign Year, Region and Sector change depending on when the retention rate is measured.
• For example, is the degree to which door-to-door campaigns are better than street campaigns bigger in the first year after acquisition, five years after acquisition or does it not change?
• is the degree to which 2010 campaigns are better than 2004 campaigns bigger the first year after acquisition, five years after acquisition or does it not change?
• is the degree to which children campaigns are better than animal welfare campaigns bigger the first year after acquisition, five years after acquisition or does it not change?
Retention Rate
• Interaction Effects:• The effect of Door-to-door gets progressively
stronger as time passes• The effect of campaign year gets progressively
smaller as time passes• The change of the effect of sector on charity
differs depending on sector
Retention Rate by Campaign Region 1-Model 1: Is it a national or a regional campaign?
• Main Effect– National campaigns have 23% lower retention
rate than regional campaigns• Interaction Effects• It changes baseline effect dramatically.
National Campaigns
• National campaigns perform MUCH WORSE
• Although the effect is shrinking over time.
Attrition by Agency or In-house• In month zero In-house
campaigns have a 13.3% higher level of retention than Agency campaigns.
• The size of this effect declines slightly over time – i.e. by 0.4% per month.
• The size of this effect is bigger for Street campaigns than for Door-to-Door campaigns
Time Period (months)
In-house (Compared to Agency)
0 0.1331 0.129
12 0.08224 0.03136 -0.02048 -0.07160 -0.122
Campaign Type
In-house (Compared to Agency)
Street 0.133Door-to-Door 0.052
Conclusions• Attrition peaked in 2008, 2009-10 campaigns
looking to be better• Significant improvement in charities reporting
‘quality’ data, unparalleled in world• Fascinating findings, tip of iceberg shown
today• Further analysis and full report to be delivered
by Prof. Adrian Sargeant in Aug/Sept 2011
Morag Fleming, Head of Fundraising, Quarriers,
[email protected], 01505 616032
Rupert Tappin, MD, Future Fundraising,
[email protected], 0845 644 8026
Adrian Sargeant, Professor of Fundraising, Indiana University,
[email protected], +1 812 935 8123
Wrap-up & Questions