e-giving : the implementation of the e-giving platform ... › main › is › sites ›...
TRANSCRIPT
Department of EconomicsUniversity of Fribourg
E-giving :The implementation of the e-giving
platform "Easy"
A case study
Electronic Business
Lilian BussDavid Papaux
[email protected]@unifr.ch
Supervised by :Professor Dr. Andreas Meier
Luis Terán
May 12th- 2013
Abstract
The company Easy is trying to develop a new system in Switzerland for e-giving. Its goal is to provide a plateform where it will be possible to makean online-donation to any Swiss nonprofit- organization. This plateform willprovide an opportunity for every swiss NPO (even the smallest one) to getincomes through an electronic transaction, that therefore can be implemented onelectronic-services. At the moment there is no such offer existing in Switzerland.This research paper is a study case of Easy and its main goal is to investigatehow the Swiss people will react on such an offer, what their needs are and howEasy can reach as many users as possible and gain them as loyal customers.
key words : e-giving, online fundraising, e-commerce, e-business,
website design, website qualities, swiss nonprofit-organisations,
Easy, Elsy
Contents
1 Introduction 51.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.1.3 Nonprofit-Organisations and Fundraising . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2.1 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.3.1 Research Processing and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Presentation of Easy 92.1 The Easy Systems Ltd. (Elsy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 The Association EasyGive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 The Products of Easy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Theoretical Background 113.1 E-Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1 E-Marketing for NPOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.1.2 Customer Relationship Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 B2C: E-Commerce through a Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2.1 Website-Quality-Design: Variables for a Successful Website 153.2.2 Creating Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Website Quality: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Research Analysis 214.1 Interview with the Easy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.2 Poll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.1 The questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244.2.2 Characteristics of the sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5 How to develop easy.ch 325.1 Propositions for Easy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.1.1 Mobile application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1
6 Conclusion 356.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356.2 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366.3 Critical assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2
List of Figures
1.1 Fundraising exchange process[3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Performance indicators for e-Marketing (according to Gräf, [2]) . 133.2 Maturity model for organizations [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.3 The Kano Model [12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.4 Website Quality Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1 Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.2 Poll’s results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1 Top Smartphone Operating Systems, Forecast Market Share andCAGR, 2012-2016 [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3
List of Tables
3.1 Website Design Features [12] [9] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.2 Combination of the Two-Factor Model and the Kano-Model [12] 18
4.1 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.2 Poll’s results about “information service” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.3 Poll’s results about “handling the website” . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
1.1.1 Background
In the last decade the importance of Internet increased exponentially. Switzer-land has more than 5.3m users [1]. As a result, a lot of people are using internetfor e-commerce. All different kinds of businesses and branches go online andadapt and develop e-services that improve their offers and benefit. So doesthe company to be analyzed in this report: Easy. They develop a so called“e-giving” platform. Because Switzerland is one of the countries with the high-est density of Nonprofit-Organisations, e-giving has a very high developmentpotential. The idea of Easy is to provide e-giving services for non-profit or-ganizations1 in Switzerland. Easy wants to maximize the technological andcommunicational possibilities to provide a most broad and complete offer to theNPO and (potential) donators. The original idea came from Germany and is yetunknown in Switzerland. In Switzerland exist platforms for crowd funding orprocurement of donators to NPO. Easy develops an online marketplace com-bined with mobile technology (Application) and offline-commerce (HelpCard-Gift Card).
1.1.2 Motivation
NPO are per name and definition not profit-orientated and legally not allowedto make a profit, but of course they use the available money to generate amaximum benefit or use it in the interest of their generic goals. The financingof NPO occurs mainly through donations, legacies or state finances.[11] Easy
is particularly interesting because they develop a new medium or channel tocreate donations and money. Because there is no other company like Easy in
1In this report two terminologies are used for the same “thing”. NPO for non-profit or-
ganization and NGO for non governmental organization. Actually both are the same. In
Switzerland NPO is much more used but in the world NGO is more used.
5
Switzerland, the challenge is pretty great. If the concept of Easy succeeds, thatmeans NPO can reach new potential donators and strengthen the relationshipmanagement with existing contributors. The system of Easy could as well serveas example for other industries or other NPO in foreign countries.
1.1.3 Nonprofit-Organisations and Fundraising
Nonprofit-Organizations have a responsibility towards their donators, for in-stant by transmitting as much donations as possible to the funded projects.Every donator knows that some of his donation goes as well into different in-ternal areas of the organization itself (e.g. administration, human resources,marketing). But the lower those costs, the more satisfied are the donators (aslong as the quality of the NPO doesn’t decrease).[3] The Internet allows to lowerseveral costs, especially through e-marketing. Fix costs still remain: creatingcontent, human resources and other expenditures are not vanished by using thenew distribution channel Internet. But variable costs can be lowered substan-tially: costs of printing and selling (that often make up more than 50% of thecosts) transform into negligible expenses: with electronic medias, the marginalcosts are very small compared to the fix costs [2]. But the growing pressure ofcompetition for financial resources, members, cooperation partners and publicawareness strengthens the necessity of professionalization and openness of thecommunication culture for network based exchange-processes.[6] To accomplishprojects, NPO need resources. One possibility to receive those funds is throughfundraising.
The donators have no obligation to give. They do it if they feel the cause isespecially relevant[3]. In the market there are interactions between three entities(figure 1.1). The entities are:
• The NPOs. In this group there is the market of fundraisers / fundraisingorganization.
• The market of donators.
• Market of impacts. The donation recipient.
The donators use a NPO as intermediate to reach their “good-will-goals”. Forexample John Doe wants to help the children of Africa’s poorest countries. Hecan’t do it directly by himself so he uses a NPO like “terre des hommes schweiz”to do it. He will give money to them and that will in turn have an impact onthe children of Africa’s poorest countries. But primary process for fundraisershappens between the donator and the fundraising-organization itself.
Especially for NPOs, the Web 2.0 offers huge possibilities because they canoffer to their users and stakeholders an inside view, they can give them thepossibility to participate and to get involved and therefore strengthen the rela-tionship and trust of the users. NPOs can gain authenticity and credibility ifthey present themselves in the right way and include the users in the activities.According to Peter Buss, the (potential) donator then feels taken seriously and
6
Figure 1.1: Fundraising exchange process[3]
most of all he feels appreciated, which in return leads to a higher probabilitythat he will make a future donation [3].
1.2 Objectives
Three main objectives are included in this research paper
• Show and analyze the possibilities of an e-giving platform in Switzerland.
• Explore the wishes and needs of the donator/ user side of an e-givingplatform in Switzerland
• To provide a good analyze and suitable advices for the development ofEasy.
1.2.1 Research Questions
Those objectives are accompanied by several research questions:
• How can the website be made interesting with that people spend time onit? Once the potential donator is on the website, he has to get interestedin its content and get more information so that he will actually spend timeon the website and visits agin.
• How can Easy be developed with the help of new technologies to make itmore attractive? Actually there are much more formats than a website. A
7
lot of users are using applications on their smart phones. To include thenewest technologies (both website and mobile, generally in all the offers)within the development of Easy seems very important. Donators need tobe affected emotionally.
• How can the conversional-rate from “user to donator” be as high as pos-sible? Once the user becomes an interested surfer and hence a potentialdonator the aim is that he actually makes a donation, recommends theservice and uses it again.
1.3 Outline
Through answering the research questions, this thesis paper tries to help Easy
to enhance and improve their offer. The thesis can serve as well as informationfor other upcoming e-giving platforms in Switzerland and provide to NPO’s ingeneral a suitable analysis that can be partially reused for their activities ordeveloping strategies.
donators can be participating in this thesis directly: mostly through the pollthey can help to build a website that corresponds the demands and requirementsof themselves.
1.3.1 Research Processing and Methods
First of all the dialogue with the managing director of Easy was taken on toget general information about Easy. In a second step, an interview was sent tothe director and one employee of Easy to get to know their more detailed opin-ion about plans and strategies. A solid theoretical background with referenceson different topics like e-marketing, e-communication, fundraising, functionalqualities of website design, e-commerce and e-business were needed to provideadvices and predictions and scientific models. In a third step the ideas andknowledge were be “tested” by an electronic poll with randomly selected peopleto know their opinion and if some parts of the Easy strategy need to be adjustedor enhanced. The phraseology and selection of the questions within the poll arebased on different conceptual models that will be presented in this researchpaper. Variables concluding from those models were combined to create mosteffective and relevant questions. The outline of the poll offers a combination ofa qualitative and quantitative analysis. This combination of a qualitative andquantitative analysis should deliver a most useable result that at best can beincluded into Easy itself.
8
Chapter 2
Presentation of Easy
The subject of interest in this case study is a new upcoming enterprise that isstill in development. Easy
1 will offer a website with a huge and throughoutSwitzerland unique collection of certified Nonprofit-Organisations. The user willbe able to search randomly or specifically for an organization of his choice tomake a donation. The idea of the website is connected to other new instruments,that will be presented in the following subchapters. Three different parts con-stitute the offers and the „enterprise“ of easy: Easy Loyalty Systems Ltd, theEasyGive association and the donation-marketplace easy.ch. [4]
2.1 The Easy Systems Ltd. (Elsy)
The Easy System Ltd. (Elsy) is initiator and operator of the donation mar-ketplace www.easy.ch and rents for a fee the „market stands“ to the NPO andthereby generates its earns. The subsidiary of the two companies InterpriseCorp. and NonproCons Corp. has as general purpose to yield services in theinformation-technology area. It is the vision of Elsy that people can casuallyuse the various digital mobile instruments in their daily lives in a way to be ableto exchange their ideological concerns easily and cost-effectively, combined withthe possibility to support those concerns financially. [4]
2.2 The Association EasyGive
The association EasyGive is charitable and offers for free the electronic donation-form EasyGive on easy.ch through which the donations for the NPO are made.As a charitable or non-profit association, EasyGive receives better conditions
1to simplify the name we will call the organization in this thesis just “Easy” even though
the different parts of if have specific names. If we will mention “Easy” we will henceforth mean
the internet-marketplace easy.ch. (the content now online on easy.ch is not the marketplace
but general information about Easy and its purpos.
9
with the payment processors than Elsy would ever get as a commercial en-terprise. This donation-transfer through a special donations account owned byEasyGive (to which Elsy has no access to), is for NPO on easy.ch for free.That again means that the NPO receives 100% of the donations (100CHF of adonation by the amount of 100CHF). In return the donators are asked as wellfor a donation for the association so that the work of the money transfer canbe financed. Around 20-30% of the donators will give as well a certain amountto EasyGive, due to experiences in Germany. The vision of the associationEasyGive is to facilitate and stimulate the donation through digital communi-cation instruments and in this way EasyGive likes to strengthen and positionthe thought of philanthropy to all sections of population but particularly to theyounger generation. The association EasyGive finances itself as well throughdonation and offers its services as well to other organizations and projects ifasked for. [4]
2.3 The Products of EasyEasy (as a whole concept) was created by the idea to support and simplify thedigital communication between organization and donator. [4]
• easy.ch: the first step is to publish the Easy donation-market online: Awebsite where more than 1000 Swiss NPO will be able to present them-selves to donators.
• Another product by Easy is the HelpCard Easy: a donation-gift-cardand the first product of its kind in Switzerland. The donator can buy sucha card online on easy and offer it to friends as a gift. The gift-receiveragain can honor the HelpCard on easy.ch and furthermore choose whichNPO should receive the donation.
• The third product of Easy is still in development but the concept ismobile interaction: the EASYApp will enable the sharing and exchangingof stories, pictures and experiences through EASYTag.
10
Chapter 3
Theoretical Background
3.1 E-Business
3.1.1 E-Marketing for NPOs
E-marketing assumes that the classical marketing rules are still valid, but therealization can have new or different instruments and possibilities. The popularformula AIDA (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action) is a universal maxim, as wellfor e-marketing: Attention must be attracted to a website, interest aroused,desire created, and sales actions triggered [2]. Nowadays the marketing andespecially the e-marketing should be highly individualized. Or as Meier andStormer put it: Generalized mass marketing has evolved into mass customizedmarketing [2].
From Surfer to Key Customer
The intention of online marketplaces like Easy is to have a conversional rate ashigh as possible. Having a high number of website visitor is important but evenmore important is that those visitors use the service regularly. A key elementtherefore is to “change” an online surfer into becoming an online key customer:a user who donates frequently. The road to accomplishment leads throughunderstanding the different development stages of a user and the mechanics orprocesses that happen between the stages. If those processes are understood,they can be influenced, the online surfers can be led to become a online keycustomer. Meier and Stormer distinguish in the customer development modelfive different groups of customers[2]:
1. The Online Surfer: The first stage of customer is the user who mostlysurfs randomly in the internet and uses the website passively. The goal ofthis first stage group is to allure as many surfers as possible. In order toto that, the website’s URL must be known or attainable through differentlinks. (search engines, online listings, other websites etc.)
11
2. The Online Consumer: “the surfer develops into an online consumer if thecompany succeeds in establishing goal-directed and repeated contact withthe customer”[2]. The online customer comes repeatedly on the website,looks for dialogue and not just information, he has a greater interest inthe offered product or service. Objective has to be to keep the onlinecustomer as long as possible on the website and to increase his utilizationof the services he’s interested in.
3. The Online Prosumer: The term is a combination of the two words: pro-ducer and consumer[2]. The prosumer is active and becomes personallyinvolved. He expresses his opinion and is interested in personalized andnot just standardized products. He is integrative part of the value chain.The customized prosumer is important for e-marketing as the organizationreceives more detailed profile information. Having a group of active pro-sumer leads towards a important community building (that strengthensthe loyalty of users towards the organization). The goal of the third stageis to actively integrate the prosumer hence both sides benefit.
4. The Online Buyer: The fourth group is characterized by its decision topurchase or buy something. “The fourth stage is therefore delicate andputs the organization’s website to test. If the offering and ordering pro-cesses are difficult to realize or are incorrect, then the customer’s confi-dence is soon affected. The positive dialog that was maintained until thencan suddenly turn negative if the payment process is time-consuming andcomplicated.[2]” The goal of the organization has to be not only to gainan online-buyer but to maintain him as a satisfied customer. The organi-zation therefore has to tend to strengthen confidence of the online-buyerin the online service and the company itself.
5. The Key Online Customer: This group is prepared to make repeat pur-chases. The difference between an online-buyer and a Key Online Cus-tomer is the frequency and amount he completes a transaction or purchase.The goal of the fifth stage is to have a satisfied and loyal regular customer.The Key Online Customer is motivated by special and or individual of-fers, supplemented services and a visible development or actualization ofthe website. The goal of the organization therefore has to be to offer forexample customized special offers, or to create exclusive contents or prod-ucts. Furthermore the organization has to maintain the attraction of thewebsite for its Key Online Customers.[2]
The grouping of those five stages is enabled by technical recording. A web-site’s owner receives detailed information on the performance and can therebycollect data that helps him to improve its service. Along with users interac-tion records (number of visitors, date, accessed pages etc.), a behavior analysis(search habits, pages that motivate a user to interact, information about theuser itself) builds performance indicators for the customer groups. Accordingto Gräf (see Figure 3.1)[2] those indicators can be used and converted for thecustomer development process in e-marketing.
12
Figure 3.1: Performance indicators for e-Marketing (according to Gräf, [2])
The first performance indicator counts the perception of the online activity.In relation to the aimed size of the target group, the degree of recognition can beexpressed. The next step is one of the most challenging, namely to convert onlinesurfers into online consumers. As the figure shows, in this first step the degree ofinteractivity can be measured. Furthermore technical records enable a statisticabout the length of the stay. It’s important that not only the homepage gets hitsbut that the visitors surf through a high number of pages: to qualify for groupX2, the user has to visit at least three pages and remain on the website for morethan three minutes. Along with technical interactivity as measured with X2,personal interaction is of interest as well and indicates the dialog effectivenessthat makes a consumer become a prosumer (X3). X4 reflects the variable ofsales: this performance indicator is fulfilled if the prosumer becomes a buyer.The ratio of buyers compared with surfers reflect the conversional rate that mostorganizations want to achieve or at least learn how they can achieve it. The laststep of the performance indicators shows the customer loyalty, meaning that oneuser has a behavior of repeated buys. This performance indicator however canonly be measured if the website allows a user registration (or if the surfer canbe marked using a cookie) thus the user becomes identifiable. If an organizationuses the performance indicators, recommendations can be developed in order toimprove and optimize e-marketing and the website’s content and service.[2]
Conclusion of E-Marketing
In summary Meier and Stromer[2] explain that e-marketing assumes that anelectronic business passes through four stages of maturation for exhausting itspossibilities (see Figure 3.2): Stage D: The service offers information about the
13
Figure 3.2: Maturity model for organizations [2]
company, the product or other general intelligence. Stage C: different functionsand services (e.g. search engines, newsletters, FAQs, chat rooms or discussionforums) enable a communication from the organization but as well a dialoguewith the user. Stage B: In this stage the business transaction is performed (fromordering to payment and distribution) Stage A: Products, services and contentare personalized and customized. A customer connection gets enabled throughone-to-one marketing or other individual(ized) services. The graph shows: Ashigher a e-business is situated the more value a company receives from it. Butat the same time the complexity of the offer increases. Stage B most often needsan investment in web-based applications and with the growing importance ofe-commerce; organizations acknowledge the value of stage A and attempt tooffer a personalized service online.[2]
3.1.2 Customer Relationship Management
In order to increase customer value and hence customer loyalty, an organizationneeds to care for a customer or in professional terms, Customer RelationshipManagement (CRM) is needed. CRM presumes a business wide strategy thatincludes all areas, communication channels as well. CRM is at once product-oriented, service-oriented and customer-oriented. In the last few years it hasbeen observed that customers behave more individually and therefore customerloyalty decreased. Because of global markets, amongst others enabled by inter-net, the competitiveness between companies increased. CRM focuses to incor-porated individual customer desires resulting in customer retention.[2]
14
Individualization through customer classification
There exist various techniques and methods to analyze and classify the cus-tomers. For a organization such as Easy, the decision-tree could be helpfulto individualize e.g. the website’s interface. This implements the possibilityof recognition of the single user (see subchapter 3.1.1 registration and cookies)With the help of the decision-tree, the customer can be divided in differentcategories, calculated by an appropriate algorithm and data collection.[2] But agood classification is based on a good technical application that could producemore costs if Easy has not yet such a program.
3.2 B2C: E-Commerce through a Website
Easy combines several theories or theoretical frameworks. Generally its placedin the B2C and B2B area: Easy as an organization (business) sells servicesto donators (customers) or other NPO (business). The business side as wellpossesses the influential characteristics of a non-profit orientated business modeland the consumer-side acts in a persons wellfare-behaviour- its rather a socialthan an economic value he gains through involving himself in a act of business.
The role of websites change: they no longer just serve as an informationsource but with an increasing number of internet users, businesses and organi-zations try to implement the website as well to sell their products or to generatemoney. In case of NGO this mainly suggests online-donations. Generally spokenin the field of B2C the user becomes a customer.[12] The success of a website de-pends on two groups: new consumers and repeated consumers, the latter morecritical concerning that retention is more difficult than attraction. According tovon Dran and Zhang, consumer retention happens through consumer satisfac-tion and because they regard the website as the window to/ of the organization,the website and its quality is key-element to consumer satisfaction. The qualityof the website interface or design has crucial effects on the users perception andpotential attitude towards the organization.[12] In literature there are differentopinions and researches that argue if traditional marketing methods can be ap-plied to an new environment or not. Guidelines and models are developed alongwith studies about the (new) expectations of consumers.
3.2.1 Website-Quality-Design: Variables for a Successful
Website
The Kano Model[12]
Kano, a japanese management consulter and researcher defined three levels ofcostumer expectations that must be fulfilled for an e-business to succeed:
• basic quality: the consumer takes them for granted, doesn’t think aboutthem nor takes its presence noticed but the absence generates complaintsand negative feedback.
15
• performance quality: the costumer consciously notes their presence andattributes a higher quality to the product. Their absence leads towardsdisappointment.
• exciting quality: they delight costumers and inspire loyalty. Their exis-tence is not consciously noted but they lead towards a higher satisfactionand give the product or service a unique attribute.
The Kano Model assumes that with the implementation of those qualities byothers, the features are getting “back-assigned”: exciting qualities become per-formance quality and performance qualities basic qualities. Applied to websiteenvironment, the basic qualities are those which get the website into the gameand deliver expected needs of a user on a website. The performance qualitiesensure that the website stays in the game. The exciting quality is what makesa website the leader in the game, generates loyalty: things that make the userdelighted and that he didn’t expect from a website of its kind. (see Figure 3.3)
Figure 3.3: The Kano Model [12]
The Two-Factor Model[9]
In their study of the Two-Factor Model for website design, Zhang and von Dranconstructed a list of numerous features in the web environment. (see Figure3.1) After refining, they came up with a list of 32 features which they gave toa student-test-group to categorize the features after their importance. Zhangand von Dran classified them in a second step according to the qualities in theKano Model. (see Figure 3.2)[12]
16
Table 3.1: Website Design Features [12] [9]
FID FeatureF01 Learned new knowledge and/or skills by using the website
F02 Use of humor
F03 Multimedia
F04 Fun to explore
F05 Assurance that user-entered data is encrypted
F06 Users can control order or sequence of information access
F07 Users can control how fast to go through the website
F08 Users can control difficulty level of information to be accessed
F09 Attractive overall color use
F10 Sharp displays.
F11 Attractive screen background and pattern
F12 Adequate brightness of the screens/pages
F13 Eye catching images or title on the homepage
F14 Indication of system loading/responding time
F15 Support for different platforms and/or browsers
F16 Stability of the website availability
F17 Indication of the user’s location within the website
F18 Navigation aid
F19 Presence of overview, table of contents, and/or summaries/headings
F20 Structure of information presentation is logical
F21 Reputation of the website owner
F22 Identification of site owners/designers
F23 Unbiased information
F24 Absence of gender or racial/ethnic biases and stereotypes
F25 Information on the website stays for a reasonable period of time before it disappears
F26 Accurate information
F27 Appropriate detail level of information
F28 Up-to-date information
F29 Relevant information
F30 Complete coverage of information
F31 Content that supports the website’s intended purpose
F32 Novel (new) information
Respecting the Kano-Model’s input that the belonging category of a qualitychanges with time, it could be assumed that multimedia today is not anymorecounted as exciting but as a performance quality that is strongly noted by theusers. Other concerns about the Kano-Model are that the study has not proventhat the ranking of the features is the same for all different kinds of websitesand depend as well on the users individually. Methodological criticism could aswell be the top-down approach of Kano’s model. [12]
17
Table 3.2: Combination of the Two-Factor Model and the Kano-Model [12]
Q Type Q Features Most important FeaturesBasic F12, 17, 31, 22, 26, 23, 14,
25, 16
Visual design-Accuracy of info-Site
responsiveness
Performance F18, 20, 11, 09, 29, 28, 15,
05, 10, 19, 06, 07, 13, 30,
27, 21
Easy to navigate-Clear layout of info-visual
design-up to date info-comprehensiveness of
info
Exciting F08, 02, 32, 01, 04, 03 Multimedia
Multiple info sources-timely info-approp.
explanatory text-search tool-security of
data-product & service price concerns
3.2.2 Creating Emotions
Emotions are subjective states of feelings, triggered by willful or unconsciousperceptions and processes of external stimuluses, leading towards a certain re-action or behavior. The actions are always a sum of various emotions. Adonation decision is as well an emotional decision because it is based upon aemotional experience value. Positive experiences that lead to a good feelinghave a positive affect on the decision to make a donation. Corresponding canbe assumed that negative experiences lead to bad feelings and therefore thedecision of not making a donation is more likely. Because of that, fundrais-ing is successful if it responds to the feelings and emotions of the (potential)donator. [3] For that reason a website whose purpose is to collect donations,should trigger the feelings and activate positive emotions. In the article “Cre-ating emotions via B2C websites”[8] the three authors present- amongst otherthings, a conceptual model of six characteristics, that affect and generate mostlikely emotional reactions. The characteristics identified are: vividness, in-
teractivity, challenge, interaction speed, machine memory and al-
lowable social interactions. Depending on how a websites implementsand performs on those variables, positive or negative emotions may result. Ofcourse, most of those characteristics are connected to each other: vividness orrichness is closely tangled to interactivity: including animations, videos, imagesetc. leads to a more vivid online media that stimulates a greater involvement ofthe user. User-interaction is supported by speed: on the one hand regarding thedownload-speed and loading time of the website’s content, on the other handa good heuristic is never require a user to have to click on more than threelinks to achieve an objective [8]. Slow interaction speed has a negative effecton the evaluation of a website and therefore evokes negative emotions. Anotheraspect of interactivity is the possibility to interact socially with other customerson a website. A wide range of possibilities enable such an interaction: read-ing the ratings provided by others, reading and writing recommendations up tochat rooms or other direct-exchange-areas, hence from a simple word of mouthrecommendation to physical participation in brand communities. The charac-
18
teristic Machine Memory was partly already discussed in subchapter 3.1.1 and3.1.2. Important to realize is that using registration-data is more likely to evokepositive emotions. If cookies are used it can lead to negative emotions as theuser feels “followed” if he receives e.g. on a different website a banner with per-sonalized recommendations of another website. Positive emotions through theusage of cookies are more likely evoked by showing the user recommendationson the website itself. The combination of Machine Memory and vividness leadsto Telepresence: the compelling sense of being present in a mediated virtualenvironment [8]. After all, in addition to these issues, a unique characteristic ofthe website itself has a positive effect on emotions. Website-hosts should con-sider as well that an extreme experience will have a disproportionately strongeffect on emotions. Naturally people look for a “happy ending effect”, meaningthat the last emotion felt has the strongest effect on a individual’s overall eval-uation of the experience.[8] What was called vividness till now, another articlerather calls playfulness, which refers to perceiving enjoyment when customersinteract with e-commerce websites. Such an enjoyable experience not only mo-tivates users to interact but also encourages their repeated visits. To make theusers enjoy their visit, to motivate them in engaging with the website, to pro-mote customer’s excitement and to offer them an aesthetic (attractive) designare aspects of playfulness.[5] The article combines the most important contentsof the Kano-[12] and Two-Factor Model[9] (see chapter 3.2) and the articleCreating Emotions [8]. Huang and Benyoucef[5] name Usability, Infor-
mation quality, System quality, service quality and playfulness asthe core characteristics of a e-commerce website. Huang and Benyoucef howevergo a step further by pointing out “participation” as the most important char-acteristic of the Web 2.0 in general. Therefore they see a transformation frome-commerce toward social commerce: social commerce focalized stronger on so-cial interaction and user generated content and is oriented towards social goals(networking, information sharing) where e-commerce focuses on business goals(maximizing efficiency, one-click buying, machine memory). For the authorssocial commerce leads to more creative and collaborative approaches in onlinemarketplaces and supports the users development towards his individualizationneeds.[5]
3.3 Website Quality: Summary
To unite and summarize the different qualities, variables and characteristics, fourmain categories were established that result in a solid framework for professionalwebsite quality. (see Figures: 3.4)
19
Figure 3.4: Website Quality Features
(a) Framework
Aspects layers
Function /
service
search option, time, structure,
machine memory, reliability,
usability, navigation aid,
interactivity
Design /
user-
interface
vividness, multimedia,
interactivity, authenticity, color
combination, easyness, fun,
usabilty, playfullnes,
personalized
Information
/ content
accurate, timely, relevant,
completeness, FAQ,
interactivity, transparancy,
trust, appropriate detail level
of information, personalized,
machine memory
securityfinancial transactions, business
transaction, confidence, privacy
organisation
image, logo, trustfulness,
reputation, identification of site
owner
(b) hierarchy
The hierarchy categorizes the single parts of the framework with an order in-fluenced by the Kano-Model[12] and the Maturity-Model[2]. The different partsare connected and influence each other and various layers are to be found withinseveral aspects. Emotions were not taken as single quality because respectingthe findings of the previous chapter 3.2.2, emotions are created and triggered inall levels of a website. In the hierarchy-figure 3.4b the organization surroundsthe other qualities because the organization, its reputation and product arebasic conditions to even built up the other levels.
20
Chapter 4
Research Analysis
The research was split in three different parts. First, the dialogue with thedirector of Easy was established through E-Mail to receive some basic infor-mation. In a second step a written questionnaire was send to the director andan employee of Easy. The second part of the research was an online-poll towhich randomly selected people were invited to participate. The third part ofthe research was accomplished through gaining knowledge by existing literatureand research.
4.1 Interview with the Easy
Both, the director and employee of Easy received the same questions. Thosequestions were organized similar to the topics of the theory chapter3 or theonline-poll respectively. Consequently the questions were divided into differentcategories such as: Information, Background knowledge, Design, Emotions andMarketing. By doing that, the answers should have been more comparablewith the results of the theory chapter and the concordance with the poll-results(introspection - perception by others).
Information:
Easy wants to direct the users attention towards “find an organization and sup-port it”. To reach this goal, Easy tries to gain the users confidence throughinformation, words, transparency (e.g. every NPO with a market stand has tosupply a business report, statutes and an activity-description). Easy controlsthe NPO-quality on the base of a ZEWO-certification, which will be communi-cated clearly to the users. Furthermore Easy itself will publish the same reportsas the NPO have to. Easy explains to the user its charitable legal characterand hence the need for donations. Another information that will be highlightedis the fact that a 100% of the donations will go directly to the NPOs and addi-tionally that for the users the utilization of Easy is for free. Contrary to this,Easy won’t be “advertising” (but the information is available) the fact, that
21
NPO have to pay a fee if the wanna buy additional space to present themselves.The only thing that won’t be publicly accessible is the contract between Easy
and the NPO.
Background:
This category targeted mostly the technical infrastructure and possibilities Easy
has available to analyze the user-traffic and in a second step we wanted to knowif Easy is able to track and categorize the users. This part is probably oneof the things that has not yet been fully implemented. The traffic will for thetime being be analyzed with Google Analytics. In addition to that, Easy willcollect E-Mail-Addresses by offering a newsletter. In a future step a registration-required area is planned as well. But while asking about the plan to get a mosthigh conversional rate (meaning surfer to loyal customer) it became clear thatthis aspect is one of the most challenging for Easy. Furthermore, a classificationas explained in the subchapter 3.1.2 would be very useful, but has not yet beentechnically viable. The strategy to gain users as repeated customers will focus onthe fact that the donation is completely for free. As example: if there is a suddencatastrophe people now donate by SMS or phone-calls (e.g. Swiss Solitary), butby using Easy they will save the fees installed by the TIC-Companies.
Design:
In its strategy-concept1, Easy defined clearly their objectives towards “Design& Functionality”:
• A unique and broad selection of attractive and emotional appearing mar-ket stands will be available, as well a strong pictorial front-end with asimple and intuitive user guidance.
• Create stimulating-systems and exciting features and services with thehelp of the market place, that users only receives on Easy, that makesthe users shopping experience vivid, varied and emotionally appealing.
• The positive donation-decision (good feeling) should be supported.
• Provide evidence of the credibility of the sponsorship (mediated by thegraphics, transparency in information and customer friendly business con-ditions)
• Implementing a set of user-binding tools (“I will visit this market placeregularly for making donations”)
Not all the ideas will be realized in the first edition of the website. One of themain problem is the miss-communication with the programmer (and partner)who doesn’t implement the ideas as planned. As example: The color red servesas a symbol for “action” and should lead the user towards making a donation.
1The strategy-concept is highly-confidential and therefore not in the appendix.
22
But instead of two red buttons the programmer created ten red buttons thatseem rather irritating than motivating. Furthermore the left selection should use2/3 of the space while the general information and search-field on the right sideshould require 1/3 of a pages space and should as well contain three pictures foremotionalisation. But again, miscomprehension led to a different realization. Tothe question if there will be a pre-defined number of multimedia on the website,the answer pointed out again the problems with the programmer: in the activeuser area there should be placed a lot of pictures that act as eye-catcher, theproblem is that the informational pages don’t contain any picture because theprogrammer doesn’t want to spend additional time on it. As the poll will show:this was clearly one of the negative points: the informational pages appearedheavy, boring and with too much text that led towards an information overload.
Emotions:
Easy tries to arouse emotions by means of pictures and videos, not just byEasy itself but as well in the project-descriptions of the NPO. Even though thedialogue with the users should be supported, Easy deliberately relinquishes toaddress the user with the familiar-form -because of the age of the target-group(35-50). Meanwhile the interviewees acknowledge that the website currently hasnot enough dialogue-options. This fact was detected and will be changed soon.Generally positive emotions (happiness, excitement) and the “feeling of commu-nity” should be strengthened throughout the whole website. As interactivity isan important element that provokes emotions, the interviewees were asked aswell if there are some interactive tools in planning (as of now there weren’t anyvisible): Indeed, the user will be able to share single projects and his commit-ment on other social networking sites. Additionally there will be a contact formwhere the users can send their suggestions about adding or deleting a NPO orwhere they can encourage an NPO directly to rent a market-stand on Easy.
Marketing:
Asking about the marketing-plans, the interviewees explained that a plan of ac-tion for marketing is in progress. The general strategy paper is marketing-biasedbut the particular actions still in development. To generate a most high trafficon the website, tools such as Google Ads, the donation-form that participat-ing NPO will receive for free for their website, a newsletter or additional socialnetworking channels will be implemented. Furthermore the NPO will be encour-aged to advertise for Easy as well, because they will save time and costs if theywon’t have to install their own online-donation forms. The NPO should fur-thermore encourage their users and peer-groups to use the “sharing-possibility,as they can support their NPO without donations but through mobilization.
23
4.2 Poll
There is already a prototype of the platform Easy online. A delay of progressof the prototype website and for several other reasons (confidentiality, dataprotection, later marketing advantages) the participants were not allowed tosurf directly on the prototype website as was first planned to do. Therefore apdf document concluding different pages of the prototype platform was attachedto the questionnaire. So the interviewees could see what the website looks likeand give their opinion about it. To fit the swiss population, the poll was made ingerman and translated in french. However the prototype website and hence thepdf were only available in german. In addition, the director of Easy wished,that the poll wasn’t anonymous thereby he’s in control who has received aninside-view of the prototype. Therefore all participants had to declare theirapproval of leaving their names and additionally not to share any informationthey received by looking at the pdf.
4.2.1 The questions
Based on the literature, different questions were asked to evaluate the potentialof the Easy-Website.
• The success of an e-commerce website is based on reaching a potentialhigh number of user and to gain them as new customers and in a secondstep as repeated consumers. So for Easy its important to to have a highconversional rate from surfer to loyal customer. [2] So some questions wereoriented to know if users will stay on the website, visit it again and in theend if they would use the website to make a donation.
• Those implementations and characteristics were established in theory mostlyby using the articles of von Dran and Zhang [12] and Andreas Meier [2].Variables excluded from the models and theory built another pillar of thepoll: The quality of the website interface or design has crucial effects onthe users perception and potential attitude towards the organization [12].So according to von Dran and Zhang, different questions were asked toevaluate the basic quality, performance quality and the exciting qualityof the website (e.g. The Kano-Model: 3.3, the Two-Factor-Model: 3.1,Combination of the two models: 3.2).
• While dealing with those models and the literature another importantfactor was established: Emotions. As Emotions are decisive for fundraising/ making donations and as well for the success of a website, supplementaryliterature was added to the research. This way the poll was improved andwith that the analysis too. (See: 3.1.2 and 3.2.2)
4.2.2 Characteristics of the sample
50 persons were interviewed with an electronic poll.
24
Gender
50% males and 50% females
Age
The table 4.1 shows all the different age categories. It was important to interviewa lot of persons who are already working. Because the target group of Easy forthe Website are male and female people between the age of 35-50 years. Themost important donator-group in general is above 60. The web-savvy grouptherefore is as well younger than 35 so it was important to have their opinionincluded as well.
Table 4.1: Age
Number of persons Percentage
< 30 13 26%
30-60 26 52%
60+ 11 22%
Occupation
As the figure 4.1a shows, 26% were student, 14% self-employed, 40% employedand 20% other. We achieved to have more than 50% people who are working,an attribute of Easy’s target group. The category “other” are mostly retiredparticipants.
Donator
It is very interesting to see that 92% of the interviewees already donate (figure4.1b). Of the 8% who haven’t made any donation yet, 25% give a positive answerto the question if they would donate (more) thanks to a platform like Easy.50% are uncertain and 25% wouldn’t make a donation anyway. Generally 26%of the interviewees think that when the Easy platform once will be online, theywould donate more often (see figure: 4.3c). In addition 72% of the participantswould prefer if Easy gives its thanks at the end of the transaction. (MultipleChoice was enabled but the preferences are clearly detectable) see figure 4.3e.
Age differences
An interesting question is if there are any remarkable differences between theage-groups. The results show only marginal differences between the groups of>30, 30-60, 60+ in the evaluation of Easy. In the youngest group there isa higher proportion of participants who haven’t made any donations yet. Allparticipants within the 60+ group have made a donation at least once. The30-60 group has the highest percentage of “no-answers” (50%) to the questionif they would donate more often because of a platform like Easy. The 60+
25
Figure 4.1: Characteristics
(a) Occupation (b) donators repartition
group has a 40% no-rate, the >30 only 30.77%. The most frequent explanationwas that the participants have their fix NPO which they make donations to andtherefore won’t need additional possibilities. With 60% no-answers the 60+group is the only one that declines Easy an additional donation clearly. Thequestions about the attractiveness of the website divide the three groups: theyoungest group likes the design very much witch 84.6%, the 30-60 year olds areonly with 59% in favor with the design. In-between the 60+ group is situatedwith 70% endorsement. The results for the amount of multimedia-usage arecorrelating with the attractiveness of the website. That the group of 30-60 isthe most critical one is as well reflected in their answer about the fun-factoror the trustworthiness of the website: they still rate it positively but with thelowest rate compared with the other two groups. The final question if theparticipants would make a donation after getting to know Easy, the answersare again correlating with the donator-comportment: the strongest value hasthe 60+ group, the lowest one the >30 group. All other values and evaluationsdon’t show significant differences between the age-groups.
4.2.3 Results
Information Service / Content Qualities
“Information” is one of the fundamental qualities a website has to offer its users.In Meier and Stromer’s Maturity-Model (see Figure: 3.2) it represents the ba-sic stage towards a successful website. Information is a key element to otherwebsite qualities (see Figure: 3.4b) and leads towards the “exciting quality”,using Kano’s term (see Figure: 3.3). Therefore one of the main topics in thepoll were questions about Information Service. In a matrix, the intervieweeswere able to rate from 1-6 if the statements applied to their experience andfurthermore weight the statements corresponding to their subjective overall sig-nificance. (See Tab: 4.2) Generally the results show that Easy offers goodinformation to the user who appreciates it as well. The evaluation of the ques-tions show an average of at least 4.36. The logical structure and the informationthe user needs to make a donation are weighted with high importance and atthe same time, the current state satisfies the users quiet well. (see Figure:
26
4.3) Only one questions was rated with less than 4 points while weighted with81%, meaning the missing information is be of great importance: If the userknow who’s behind Easy. On the one hand the results have to be relativizebecause one out of the seven pdf-pages was a description about Easy. Buton the other hand it shows, that the design of the description is probably notattractive enough and therefore the users don’t read the text and fail of havinginformation about “who is Easy”. An interesting link can be made between themissing information about Easy and the rating of multimedia: only 12.50%of the participants who gave the grad 1 to the questions “do you know who’sbehind Easy” indicate that there is not enough multimedia on the website. Themajority (37.5%) assess the amount of multimedia as “perfect”. Good to knowfor Easy are the results to the question if the information about the prevailingproject would influence the choice of making a donation: The average ratingis at 4.59%, however 42.86% rate this point with “6”. Easy can conduct theconsequence that a sold market-space with more presence and more informationwill influence the amount of donations towards this project positively. This canbe a strong argument towards the NPO to buy a market-stand and thereforefor Easy to have a higher return. Another aspect that is highly appreciatedby the participants is the fact that the donator can choose freely if he wantsto make an additional donation for Easy. Asked if they actually would makean additional donation, most of the participants (35.8% and more rating thecomment field) indicate that they would as long as its not time-costly. Hencethe automatic but optional field that generates a suggestions in relation to thedonation-amount was a very good idea by Easy and should be kept along forany means. Generally the poll shows that the participants trust the website andthat they have almost all the information they need to donate and on top theyare pretty satisfied about it (a result of 4.62 on 6) see table 4.2. Easy seemstrustworthy to most of the people (average 4.31, more than 50% rated with 5or 6) but taking into account the weighting of 97%, there is still potential forEasy to improve its trustworthiness that seems to be an essential point for ane-commerce-shop. Suggestions about what is missing are for example the wishto have more information about the sales-transaction: what happens with thedonation in the sense of how is it processed towards the NPO, the users wish aswell some more information about how Easy finances itself. Another interestingpoint mentioned by several users concerns the lack of interactivity: There arefor instant suggestions to show how much donations were already made for aproject, success stories by other users, recommendations (as indicator for trust)and statements of external observants, founders, employees etc. And most ofthe participants demand for timely, new and latest news: the page has to be upto date in their opinion.
Design Qualities
The design of a website has crucial impact on the users perception. In theKano-Model (see: 3.3) the design is existing in all three levels: if it’s not user-friendly it gets evaluated negatively but it can as well arouse positive emotions
27
Table 4.2: Poll’s results about “information service”
Evaluation
from 0 to 6 (6
= best)
Importance (in
percent)
I got new information 4.36 62%
Information are logic and structured 4.59 71%
I got all the information to donate 4.62 88%
The information about the projects
can influence my choice
4.54 69%
I got too much information 2.65 47%
I didn’t got enough information 2.45 55%
I know who is behind Easy 3.67 81%
Table 4.3: Poll’s results about “handling the website”
Evaluation
from 0 to 6 (6
= best)
Importance (in
percent)
I trust the website 4.36 99%
I had pleasure to surf on it 4.06 67%
I find my way easily through the
website
4.86 78%
I find all the information fast enough 4.45 75%
28
such as excitement that influences the performance quality of a website. There-fore the participants were asked the very simple question if they think Easy isattractive: 64% selected “yes” and only 12% think the design is not attractive:4.3a. As already mentioned previously, the users rate the amount of multimediaas “perfect”. There are enough and not too much images (figure 4.3b), eventhough in the text-biased pages more multimedia is wished for. But as elabo-rated earlier, there is a gap between the age groups. In the optional commentfield the analysis of the design evoked two pols: several people valued the de-sign positively with the grounds that the simple red-blue design reflects well onthe simplicity and makes the handling easy and user-friendly (see Figure 4.3).Another group criticized the design with arguments such as it appears “hand-made”, boring or irritating. It provokes a “cold” mood and isn’t suitable for anorganization such as Easy nor other fundraising NPO. The logo of Easy wasanother criticized point: to a few users it appears “old” and not up to date andrather suitable for a discounter than Easy. On the question if it would be funto surf on the website, the average grade is a 4.02, meaning just enough. Hencethe outline of the website and its structure are rated very positive and proveda lot of compliments within the comments. Those are two important qualities(combination of functionality and design) that fulfill basic needs of the users.Another quality that is a mixture of functionality, design and content is the“search option” Easy offers to its users. A majority of users rated it as veryuseful and showed positive emotions towards this possibility. (It was mostlymentioned in the design-section of the poll).
Functional Qualities
Several functional qualities were already analyzed. The search option was eval-uated very positive, a suggestion of a user concerning the search option is,that Easy installs a “NPO of the month-category” to simplify a user’s choice.The time factor was not criticized and taking into account the definition of theKano-Model [12] that means that as a basic quality its presence gets evaluatedneutrally. Time was pointed out as a decisive-factor whether to make a do-nation to Easy or not. But critically examined, the factor Time couldn’t betested completely because of the utilization of the pdf-file instead of the websiteitself. The structure was assed very positive, clear, simple and user-friendly.Concerning the handling the average rate of finding its way on the website isat 4.86. while more than 70% rated this question with 5 or 6. (see table 4.3)This rating confirms the good, simple and clear structure of Easy. Users feelsecure and confident to find the information they need (average of 4.45, morethan 50% chose 5 or 6 as grade. see: 4.3). Interactivity is one of the qualitiesthat needs improvement and therefore will be discussed later on in this thesis.Machine memory, reliability and navigation aid wasn’t evaluable by the users.
29
Figure 4.2: Poll’s results
(a) Attractiveness of the web-
site
(b) Quantity of multimedia on the website
(c) Effect of Easy on donation-habits (d) donators will to pay a supplement
for Easy
(e) When should Easy give its thanks for the
donation
30
Emotions
Emotions is the quality thats missed the most by the users. At least thoseemotions that provoke a unique positive feeling and excitement. The basicfeatures are available and therefore there were no significant negative emotionstowards Easy with one exception: the design. But the emotions belonginginto the performance quality (see: The Kano-Model 3.3) are missing. Mostof all, the interactivity of the website has huge improvement potential, bothinteractivity within the website and social interactivity with other users or onother social networking sites. Furthermore the participants requested up-to dateinformation, perhaps with special projects. Those variables can also producepositive emotions that Easy can use to improve its performance.
Summarizing, the playfulness, (social) interaction and interactivity are thosequalities that are most in need for improvement. At the moment those qualitiesare slightly covered by the text-biased pages, but therefore the structure receivespositive feedback and in the end that generates positive emotions as well.
Other relevant comments, likes, dislikes and suggestions
• During a donation, it has to be very clear which amount is destined to the NPO
and which one is destined to Easy.
• The amount that will be given to Easy has to be very explicit.
• The actual website is only available in german and it can represent a problem
for the french speaking users.
• The website will look more professional if it is translated in the national lan-
guages
• It would be interesting to see how much a NPO needs for a specific project.
• The information about the projects have to be accurate and regularly updated
• The general idea of Easy and the possibility to make a donation online were
appreciated.
• It is not enough personal or personalized.
• Too many projects on one page.
• Sometimes they don’t know if they can trust the website or not.
• The user don’t have the informations if their data is protected or not.
• Emotions are missing
• Less content at the beginning.
• Easy should create a mobile application.
• A hotline that the user can call should be installed.
• Change the color.
31
Chapter 5
How to develop easy.ch
5.1 Propositions for Easy
The website www.easy.ch is at the moment not yet available to the public. Easy
is in a elaborating phase and there are several ways to develop the platform.The interview with Easy showed that they put great value into transparency.Compared with the poll results, Easy could probably improve the informationabout itself to earn the trust of the users. But Easy has to pay attention thatwhile enhancing the information about itself, it won’t be presented as text-biasedlayout but with included multimedia. Attention must be attracted to a website,interest aroused, desire created, and sales actions triggered [2]. The article aboutCreating Emotions[8] presented an interesting idea: namely to include avatarsas sales agents or guide on a website has been shown to increase satisfactionwith the retailer, improve attitudes toward the product, and increase purchaseintentions. An avatar could enhance the interactivity and therefore playfulnessstrongly. But on the other hand it shouldn’t be too “playful” to not loose the se-riousness of Easy. The avatar should probably not be placed on the front pagebut on text-biased sites an avatar could increase satisfaction and lead to posi-tive emotions towards Easy. Other possibilities for creating emotions through“playfulness” are for instant if Easy would program a “Tracking-System” wheredonators can on one hand track virtually the potential way and impact of theirdonation, and on the other hand, where the donators can track their favoriteNPO or specific projects of them, to receive constant news about it. A cus-tomized interface with a login area that can be changed by the registered usercreate more interactivity, more data about the user itself that can be analyzedby Easy and furthermore, it supports the community building (depending onthe other services offered within the login-area). To combine several aspectsthat were mentioned in the previous chapter, Easy could install a virtual userguidance, welcoming the surfer individually, asking him what he would like todo (get to know Easy, look for a [specific] organization, make a donation, toexplain what happens with the data etc.), so the user can save time to reach
32
Figure 5.1: Top Smartphone Operating Systems, Forecast Market Share andCAGR, 2012-2016 [7]
his goal and receives an interactive guidance tool that helps him navigatingthrough the website. Both, the interviewees of Easy and the poll participantshave made a request of having social sharing and recommendation buttons: thisway the donators can share their donation-experience with others on other so-cial networking sites and advertise this way for Easy (I made a donation toimagine Basel using Easy) and the NPOs (I support Greenpeace).
Within the internet there are endless possibilities for Easy, for example ainteractive world-map with trouble-spots could show the most current projects(floated animal home in Schaffhausen, earthquake in China etc.). A ratherutopian idea that can perhaps be realized in a later state of process is a separatecrowd-funding-area: thereby the users participation can be engaged. Easy
could enable an area where users can upload their own projects or projects theylike which need funding. Though it should clearly be separated from the othercontent because the quality-control about the content can’t be assured in thesame way as with the certified organizations. But it would cover almost all theimportant functions of a good website (interactivity through user participation,machine memory because of the data collected by uploading users and theirpreferences because of the uploaded project, individualization, social interaction,and a performance quality of the “unexpected” that creates additionally strongemotional effects.
5.1.1 Mobile application
Besides improving the website itself, several users asked for a mobile app. Ob-serving the market-developments and the intention to create the EASYApp, inthe following subchapter are a few facts about mobile applications. The sales ofsmart-phones increased 45% in 2012 with around 717 millions of sold units. 68%of them are running with Androïd . Smart-phones represent 42% of the globalmobile phones sales [7]. The figure 5.1 shows the repartition of smart-phonesfor every operating systems.
Features, reliability and performance are the most important expectations
33
for the consumer regarding the selection of their smartphone and the mobileapplications [10]. A study shows that 64% of the usage time of smart-phonesis dedicated to the use of applications. 85% of the consumers declared thatthey prefer to use a mobile application over a mobile website. The reasonsin favor of the application that are quoted most often are their speed, theirergonomic, their adapted size to fit the screen and finally their capacity to recallthe native functions of the respective devices [10]. The figure 5.1 shows thatthere are two main operating systems that are used on smart-phones. So it wouldbe interesting to develop an application on Androïd and iOS . If Windows
expands in the future, an application running on this operating system couldbe attractive as well.
The application should be easy to use and with a registered account pre-viously made on the website of Easy or directly within the App, valid forboth, website and app. If users have their own accounts on the website, thenthey can register their credit card or data and then just have to enter a pass-word before making a donation (through the mobile application). Apple withthe AppStore already uses this method like a lot of other companies (CFF ,Postfinance,...).
The quality of the mobile application is very important because a lot of usersnotice grave imperfections and later quote those mistakes within the applicationoverview in the store. 84% of the users are influenced by the quotes and thenotices to buy or download an application. That is why the publishers of appsnecessarily have to become aware that the reliability and the performance arethe most essential criteria for the users. [10]
34
Chapter 6
Conclusion
6.1 Summary
Easy wants to provide electronic business for any swiss NPO through its web-site. That kind of services already exist in other countries like Germany but notyet in Switzerland.
The public reacted pretty well to this prototype and the presentation ofEasy and therefore its implementation on the market should be a success ifsome improvements are taken into consideration. The research question abouthow such a website can be made interesting to the users so that they comeback can be answered by the help of the presented models and theories (TheKano-Model, the Two-Factor-Model, Creating Emotions): Easy has to focuson the main qualities such as: Information Service, Functional Service, Design,Security and Emotions. The main challenge of Easy lies at the moment bycreating and offering some interaction-possibilities to make the website moreattractive. Those social interaction on other social networking sites will as wellpromote the service of Easy. Additional trust can be gained if the participatingNPO will as well advertise for Easy and support and recommend its offer. Theresearch question on how Easy can become more attractive by the help of newtechnologies contains as well several options as answers: For once the researchpaper presented the concept of machine memory with whose aid a customizeduser-interface can be created. Other possibilities are related to the creation ofemotions and a more attractive design, perhaps with the help of already existingapplications (tracking possibility, social sharing, recommendations etc.). Theidea of a mobile application is supported strongly by the current developmentsin this market too. The third research question treated the problem of convertusers to donors. As the chapter From Surfer to Key Customer 3.1.1 showed,those steps are measurable by the help of technical means. To support thoseprocesses, the performance of the website has to be improved and developedconstantly. Again the qualities of function, design, information, security and theorganization and its reputation itself play an essential role in this development.
35
Generally the research showed that a great part of the users are ready to supportthe development of Easy with donations or other means. The structure andthe information-service of the website are already pretty good. But some morework needs to be done concerning the design and (social) interactivity of thewebsite.
6.2 Outlook
The evaluation through the different qualities of the study show that someimprovement can be made by Easy. Therefore its important to measure thepotential impact and return of investment concerning the propositions in thisresearch and to put it in relation with the available finances that Easy has. Theproblems within Easy between conceptual planning and actual programmingcan’t be solved by this paper but at least the research shows that the strategybeing in the development stage is on the right track and therefore it should be inthe interest of the programmer to implement as many suggestions and ideas aspossible. Generally this project has a big potential if the swiss population getsto knows about it. Specially with the background knowledge that the futuredonators will be so called digital natives and therefore be used to all kinds ofelectronic processes and businesses realized online. But the potential of Easy
lies not only in the future as the results of the poll show: as well the group >30is very interested to participate on a e-giving platform like Easy.
6.3 Critical assessment
Even if it is hard to evaluate a website with a pdf, especially the part about“handling the website”, people participated very well and the rating was gener-ally positive too. Surfing on a real website would be easier than to see somescreen shots and then trying to imagine the website, putting links between thedifferent pages and to test it thoroughly. But the feedback recieven by the par-ticipants was good, the appreciate the idea of an e-giving-platform like Easy
very much. The participation at the online-poll was even overwhelming. Morepeople than expected participated in a very intense way. Most of the people gavevery detailed answers and used the optional text fields extensively. Thereforethe results and empirical research became bigger and more detailed as plannedbut because of the good insights gained, they weren’t dismissed to shorten theresearch paper. Building the theoretical background was inasmuch difficult asno literature with focus on Switzerland was found. Most studies and researchpapers were made by american or asian researchers. The more relevant becomesthis research paper that enables a special look and the habits and needs of theSwiss population. During the development of this research it became more andmore interesting for the people behind Easy, who want now to continue thisstudy by making another online-poll as soon as the prototype-website is on-line. Therefore this study is of great importance for Easy and consequently
36
the main objectives of this research paper are fulfilled. The benefit for othere-giving platforms in Switzerland is unknown especially because Easy holds apioneer-position in this area. Perhaps because of that this study can offer aswell some pioneer-thoughts about the combination of e-commerce and e-givingwithin Switzerland.
37
Liste des symboles
Androïd Operating system for smartphones made by Google
Avatar In computing, an avatar is the graphical representation ofthe user or the user’s alter ego or character. It may takeeither a three-dimensional form, as in games or virtualworlds, or a two-dimensional form as an icon in Internetforums and other online communities. It can also refer toa text construct. It is an object representing the user orpresenting something to the user. The term avatar can alsorefer to the personality connected with the screen name, orhandle, of an Internet user.
CFF Swiss national Railway
Google Ads PPC program where webmasters can create their own adsand choose keywords. http://adwords.google.com
Google Analytics Google Analytics lets you measure your advertising ROI aswell as track your Flash, video, and social networking sitesand applications.http://www.google.com/analytics
iOS Operating system for smartphones made by Apple
NGO Non-governmental organization
NPO Non-profit organization
TIC-Companies Technology and Information Companies. (e.g. Swisscom)
URL Uniform Resource Locator
ZEWO-certification Schweizerische Zertifizierungsstelle für gemeinnützige,Spenden sammelnde Organisationen.Swiss Certification-Board for charitable, fundrasing organ-isations
38
Bibliography
[1] Website. URL www.net-metrix.ch.
[2] Henrik Stromer Andreas Meier. eBusiness & eCommerce. Springer, 2009.
[3] Peter Buss. Fundraising Grundlagen, System und strategische Planung.Haupt Verlag Bern, 1. edition edition, 2012.
[4] EASY, May 2013. URL http://www.easy.ch.
[5] Benyoucef Morad Huang Zhao. From e-commerce to socialcommerce: A close look at design features. Electronic Com-merce Research and Applications, 2012.12.31:online, 2012. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2012.12.003.
[6] Katrin Kiefer. Nonprofit-organisationen im social web- aktuelle entwick-lungen und erfolgsmessungen. In University of Fribourg, VMI. informationportfolio of: 10. Internationales Colloquium der NPO-Forscher, 29.-30.March 2012, 2012.
[7] Alexandre Laurent. Smartphones : un marché en crois-sance de 45 pourcent sur 2012, android en tête. Website,December 2012. URL http://www.clubic.com/smartphone/actualite-529111-smartphones-croissance-45-2012-android-tete.html.
[8] Christine Vallaster Marilyn Y. Jones, Mark T. Spence. Creating emotionsvia b2c websites. Business Horizons, 51:419–428, 2008.
[9] Gisela M. von Dran Phing Zhang. Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: A two-factormodel for website design and evaluation. Journal of the American Societyfor Information Science, 51(14):1253–1268, 2000.
[10] La rédaction. Enquête compuware : besoins et attentes des utilisateurs demobile. Website, April 2013. URL http://dsisionnel.com/2013/04/03/enquete-compuware-besoins-et-attentes-des-utilisateurs-de-mobile/.
39
[11] Giroud Charles Schauer Reinbert Schwarz Peter, Purtschert Robert. DasFreiburger Management-Modell für Nonprofit-Organisationen. Haup Ver-lag, 2009.
[12] Zhang Ping von Dran Gisela M. Expectations and rankings of websitequality features: Results of two studies on user perceptions. In Proceedingsof the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2001.
40
Appendix
1. Interview with Easy
2. pdf used for the poll
3. Poll results
41
1
!"#$%&'$()('#*)+,-.)/0%1)2$#$%)34556)789%'$:8)0;<=">#?)
!
"#$%&'()*%#+#
! ,-! .%&(/$!0+1)!*2&!3(4!5/1+#'+&67!8+092+4!4*#3!3*+!+&4)+#!"#$%&'()*%#+#7!3*+!:5;<!3+'!=4+&!>+&'*))+0#!'?92)+@
!
!"#$%&$%"#%&'()*#"+*,"-#&.#$&.#,%(+,/,0%&+"%1& 4)*'')!
! ,-! .*+!>+&4/92)!:5;<!3(4!A+&)&(/+#!3+&!=4+&!B/!1+8*##+#@!
! 2"%3%&4#5-(6*,"-#%#7&8"%3%&9-(,%:
! C&(#4D(&+#B!EB-F-!G+3+!HIJ!'*)!+*#+'!K(&6)4)(#3!'/44!3*+!L(2&+4&+92#/#17!3+#!L(2&+4M+&*92)!/#3!3*+!;)()/)+#!2*#)+&0+1+#!/#3!*2&+!CN)*16+*)!M+492&+*M+#O7!P0(&2+*)7!6%4)+#0%4+4!I%&)(07!,QQR!3+&!;D+#3+!(#!HIJ7!S+'+*##T)B*16+*)!3+4!A+&+*#47!3+&!(/92!4+*#+!U+92#/#1!%$$+#0+1)7!P%#)&%00+!TM+&!HIJ!/#3!'*44M&N/920*92+!"#2(0)!1+'-!V:.JW;)(#3(&3
! ,-! .+092+!"#$%&'()*%#+#!8+&3+#!M+8/44)!#*92)!(#!3+#!=4+&!8+*)+&1+1+M+#@
! ;*+&%"#&<=*(>+,*#$?&@%3$&>-+,%,
Der user hat alle Infos. Ausnahme. Der individuelle Vertrag mit einer NPO, mit dem sie einen Marktstand mietet. Achtung. Gabriela irrt: Dass ein Marktstand gebührenpflichtig ist, wird dem user kommuniziert.
! ,-! .+092+4!*4)!3*+!X(/D)B*+01&/DD+!>%#!:5;<@! E50)+&7!S+4920+92)7!H+/4D+#3+&7!&+1+0'N44*1+!4D+#3+&!+)9O
! &A"BC,&-55"0"%33&$%5"#"%(, & 4BC&$%#>%&=D##%(&.#$&!(*.%#&0E"+BC%#&FG&.#$&HG&I*C(%&*3,7& & (%)%36D++")%&JK%#$%(4##%#7&$"%&'#3"#%&0*C3%#&E-33%#:&I.#)%&A%.+K%#$%("##%#
Achtung. Gabriela irrt. Das ist so definiert:
Für EASY Website: Männer und Frauen 35-ca. 50
Tablet und Mobile: Männer und Frauen bis 35
!
2
Y+4*1#
! ,-! .+092+!S&/#3TM+&0+1/#1+#!4)+2+#!2*#)+&!3+'!'%'+#)(#+#!Y+4*1#!>%#!:5;<@
& & L:&M3*(%&N+%(5/C(.#):&O"%3,&*.5&$*+&JK%#$%#&C"#:&P-,&Q&RB,"-#&Q&JK%#$%# & S:&T"#>+&R.+E*C3&USVFW&(%BC,+&4#5-(6*,"-#%#&*33)%6%"#%(&A*,.(&.#$&J.BC5.#>,"-# & F&X"3$%(&QY6-,"-#*3"+"%(.#) & & UT%"$%(&"+,&%+&+-7&$*++&$"%&@(.#$/Z%(3%).#)%#&.#$&$"%&N6+%,0.#)&>*.6& & 6",%"#*#$%(&>-((%+K-#$"%(%#:W & J-&C*Z%#&E"(&LG&(-,%&X.,,-#+&.#$&#"BC,&S&E"%&-K,"6*3&ED(%:&
Die Strategie legt für die Zielgruppe Privatspender (=User) betr. Design und Funktionalität als Vorgabe fest:
- Eine einzigartige, breite Auswahl an attraktiven Marktständen anbieten - Emotional wirkendes, stark bildhaftes Front-End mit einfacher und intuitiver
User-Führung einrichten. - Anreizsysteme und spannende Features und Serviceleistungen des
Marktplatzes schaffen, die der User nur hier bekommt, die für ihn das Shopping auf diesem Marktplatz lebendig, abwechslungsreich und emotional reizvoll machen und die in ihm einen positiven Spendenentscheid fördern (Gutes Gefühl)
- Nachweis der Glaubwürdigkeit der Trägerschaft erbringen (vermittelt durch die Grafik, Transparenz in der Information und kundenfreundliche Geschäftsbedingungen)
- User-Bindungstools einrichten („Diesen Marktplatz besuche ich regelmässig, wenn ich spenden will“).
Das wird in der ersten Startvariante nicht in allen Punkten voll umgesetzt sein. Verständnisproblem beim Programmierer
! ,-! .N20)!*2&!M+8/44)!+*#!A+&2N0)#*4!>%#!C+Z)[K/0)*'+3*(!EF*03+&!+)9-O!/#3!8+##!G(7!(/$!8+092+#!:&$(2&/#148+&)+#!M+&/2)!3(4@
3
! 46&*>,"8%#&N+%(Z%(%"BC&+-33%#&8"%3%&X"3$%(&)%#.,0,&E%($%#7&$*&$"%+%&Z%>*##,%(6*++%#&& $*+&R.)%#6%(>&+-5-(,&*#0"%C%#:&;"%+&3D++,&+"BC&"#&*33%#&[("#,\&.#$&J-B"*3&=%$"*&& J%",%#&#*BCE%"+%#:&& & 46&4#5-(6*,"-#+Z%(%"BC&)"Z,&%+&>%"#&%"#0")%+&X"3$7&E*+&$*(*.5&0.(/B>5/C(,7&$*++&$%(&& [(-)(*66"%(%(&>%"#%&O%",&*.5E%#$%#&6]BC,%:& 4)*'')
:'%)*%#+#
! ,-! .*+!>+&4/92)!:5;<!:'%)*%#+#!M+*'!=4+&!B/!8+96+#@
& 4$%*3%(E%"+%&E/($%&&Y*+^&6",&$%(&JK%#$%("#&+K(%BC%#:&J"BC&Z%$*#>%#&.#$&T%",%#&.#$&& %"#&<;.?&EDC3%#&+,*,,&%"#%(&*33)%6%"#%#&X%5%C3+5-(6:&;*+&C%"++,7&$*+&$"(%>,%&_%`,"#)&& ED(%&%"#%&Y6-,"-#*3"+"%(.#)&+-E"%&$"%&X"3$%(7&.#$&2"$%-+7&E%3BC%&)(-++&Y6-,"-#%#&& E%B>%#&+-33,%# &
:*#4()B!>%#!F*03+!(/92!A*3+%4!+)9-!(/92!M+*!3+#!K(&6)4)N#3+#!3+&!HIJ\!;D&(92+!
Y/W]%&'!8/&3+!8+1+#!3+&!V*+01&/DD+!(/$!3+&!.+M4*)+!#*92)!+*#1+4+)B)!E:#)492+*3!>%#!S(M&*+0(!'*)1+)&(1+#O-!Y(4!(#3+&+!4)*'')-!Y*+!.+M4*)+!'(92)!#%92!B/!8+#*1!Y*(0%1!'*)!3+'!;D+#3+&!^_!+&6(##)!/#3!8*&3!1+N#3+&)!
.+092+!:'%)*%#+#!8+&3+#!2(/D)4N920*92!(#1+4D&%92+#@!
! a%35%("#+,"#>,:&@.,&ED(%&*.BCb&_%"3&%"#%+&@*#0%#&+%"#&Uc-66.#",^W7&I*)$"#+,"#>,7&& .#$&X%3-C#.#):& & ;"%+&6/++,%&%")%#,3"BC&*#)%(%),&E%($%#7& & $-BC&6",&$%(&)%)%#ED(,")%#&J",.*,"-#&>*.6&%"#3]+Z*(:&
Es geht um positive Emotionen (Freude, Überraschung). Helferinstinkt gibt es nicht.
! ,-! ;*#3!*#)+&(6)*>+!K?10*926+*)+#!1+D0(#)@!E4D&*92!6(##!3+&!=4+&!4*92!*&1+#38%!*#)+&(6)*>!(#!3+&!.+M4*)+!M+)+*0*1+#@O!
! \&;"%&N+%("#&+-33&[(-d%>,%&,%"3%#&>]##%# & \&;"%&N+%("#&+-33&"C(&Y#)*)%6%#,&0%")%#
Stimmt. Und: Kontaktformular. User können auch anregen, eine NPO auf die Liste zu nehmen oder zu streichen oder diese anzuregen, einen Marktstand zu mieten
4
C2+%&*+!`3(2*#)+&a
! ,-! .(4!4*#3!3*+!K*))+0!/'!'?10*924)!>*+0+!`;/&$+&a!B/!`0%b(0+#!;D+#3+&#a!/'B/8(#3+0#@!P?##)!*2&!3(4!(/92!*&1+#38*+!'+44+#@!5#2(#3!>%#!8(4@
& S:& Y\=*"3&R$(%++%#&,(*B>%# @--)3%&R#*3^,"B+
Stimmt. Und. Newsletter
! ,-! P(##!:5;<!3*+!=4+&!6()+1%&*4*+&+#@!=#3!3(3/&92!3(4!"#)+&$(9+[!5#1+M%)!*#3*>*3/(0*4*+&+#@
& ;*+&ED(%&E.#$%(Z*(&b\W&;-BC&d*7&+-3BC%&$"%&+BC-#&)%+K%#$%,&C*Z%#7&&+-33%#&%"#&T-)"#&Z%>-66%#:&
Ja, das kann easy
! ,-! .*+!>+&4/92)!*2&!+*#+#!=4+&!(/$!3+&!.+M4*)+!B/!`X(0)+#a!/#3!*2#!B/'!;D+#3+#!B/!'%)*>*+&+#@! 2"%35D3,")%+&R#)%Z-,
Und: Spendenaufrufe z.B. bei Katastrophen (glückskette, jeder Rappen zählt etc.). Jede spende ist da gratis, anders als z.b. bei SMS Spenden
!
K(&6+)*#1
! ,-! .*+!8+&3+)!*2&!3*+!I0())$%&'!>+&'(&6)+#@!
=*(>%,"#)>-#0%K,&+,%C,&#-BC&#"BC, na, na…
J,(*,%)"%&+,%C,:&LH&J%",%#&3*#):&J,*(>&6*(>%,"#)\3*+,"):&A-BC&#"BC,&+,%C,&$%(&=*(>%,"#)\R>,"-#+K3*#:
! ,-! ;/92)!*2&!3*+!V/4(''+#(&M+*)!'*)!3+#!)+*0#+2'+#3+#!HIJ!*#!F+B/!(/$!K(&6+)*#1!/#3!$(004!G(7!*#!8+092+&!]%&'@!
! =*(>%,"#)>-#0%K,&+,%C,&#-BC&#"BC,7&$*&&9%Z+%",%&#"BC,&6-Z"3%,*.)3"BC&"+,&e\U& & E"($&%+&'#3"#%&8-(&*33%6&)--)3%&R$&9-($+&)%Z%# & O.$%6&+"#$&R#3D++%&)%K3*#,&E-&$"%&[3*,,5-(6&8-()%+,%33,&E"($:&
5
& 9%",%(%+&"+,&#-BC&-55%#
Jede NPO mit Marktstand bekommt ein gratis online Spendenformular von easy für die eigene Website. Damit wird automatisch auf easy und die DL aufmerksam gemacht
! ,-! .*+!>+&4/92)!*2&!'?10*924)!>*+0!`C&($$*9a!(/$!3+&!;+*)+!B/!+&&+*92+#@
& L:& 2"*&$%(&'()*#"+*,"-#%#&+%3Z%(:&;"%&OY4_\!NAM_4'A&(%),&$*0.&*#7
& S:& $*++&$"%&'()*#"+*,"-#%#&"C(%&N+%(&6-Z"3"+"%(%#:&J-&)%#%("%(%#&+"%&_(*55"B&+%3Z%(7&%Z%#+-&E"%&"C(%&JC*("#)\!.#>,"-#%#
& F:& @--)3%&R$+&.#$&'K,"6"%(.#)&$%(&X.,,-#+&5/()--)3%
& f:& Y"#Z"#$.#)&$%+&JK%#$%#*Z3*.5+&)%#%("%(,&%Z%#5*33+&*.5&$%#&J%",%#&+%3Z%(&_(*55"B&5/(&.#+:&&
Sowie:
Spendenformular bei den NPO
Einbindung der SM
Aktuelle Sammlungsaufrufe
Newsletter
! Muss Gabriela im Einzelnen noch entwickeln
Auswertung Antwortbögen ansehen/bearbeiten/löschen | Rohdatenexport (Standardwerte ändern): Excel ™ CSV
Umfrage Online
AGB
Datenschutz
Kontakt
Impressum
Blog
Nützliches
Wie funktioniert Umfrage Online?
An öffentlichen Umfragen teilnehmen
Studenten
Bleiben Sie in Kontakt!
Folgen Sie uns auf Facebook
Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter
Sprache
Dansk
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Norsk
Português
Suomi
Svenska
eBusiness: case-study Easy (e-giving)
Sprache: Deutsch, Français
Umfrageresultate für den externen Zugriff freigeben
Nach Vollständigkeit filtern: Nach Teilnahmedatum filtern:
Alle Antworten aller Teilnehmer auswerten Resultate nicht nach Teilnahmedatum einschränken
Nur Antworten der Teilnehmer auswerten, welche die Umfrage bis zumSchluss beantwortet haben
Filter aktualisieren Anzahl angezeigter Teilnehmer: 53 / 80 | Anzahl Antworten: 1'592
1.
Anzahl Antworten: 53 Antworten:
- Michelle Huber- Anna Grüninger- Anne-Marie Buss- Martine Laplume- Lukas Künzli- Caroline Buss- Ms- peter buss- Nadine Koller- Alexandra Leistikow- Nicola Goepfert- Irene Bush- Danie Loustalot- Anna Tina Heuss- Catherine Wehren Staehelin- Beat Hänni- roland fassbind- Ruedi B. Brandenberger- Martin Immenhauser- Iris la Reine- Dieter Dietz- Jürg Rohner- Cecilia Nyilas- Florian Sacharuk- Attilia Bianchi- Daniel Zöbeli- Alexandre Bruelhart- Josef Reichmann- Daniel Kaufmann- Sabin Müller- Häner Andreas- Hans-Rudolf Steinberger- Agnes Dormann- Rosamunde Schmidheini- Liliana-Martine Müller- Jean-Claude Ruffieux- Biderbost Jean-Marc- Patricia buss- Aranka Poloznik- Katja Christen- Adrian Imhof- Anthamatten Olivier- Anna Ganzoni- Ruedi B. Brandenberger- Balthasar Wicki- Papaux Simon- Kim Veronika- Terrapon Sophie- Papaux Jean-Marc- Papaux Elia- Yvonne Canetta- Yerly Yvan- Naomi Dankyi
2.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
53 (100.00%)Ja, ich bin einverstanden.
3.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
25 (47.17%) ja, öfters
24 (45.28%) ja, selten
4 (7.55%) nein
4.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
16 (30.19%) ja
23 (43.40%) nein
14 Antwort(en) aus demZusatzfeld:- weiss nicht- Vielleicht- möglicherweise schon- vielleicht- weiss nicht- peut-être- weiss nicht- eventuell- weiss nicht- je ne sais pas encore- vielleicht- Vielleicht- das hängt davon ab, wie michdie Plattform dazu verführt- Peut-être
5.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
0 = unwichtig100 = sehr wichtig
Arithmetisches Mittel: 70.75
Mittlere absolute Abweichung: 25.56
6.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
4 (7.55%) ja, klar
19 (35.85%) ja, wenn es mich nicht mehr Zeitkostet
17 (32.08%) nein
13 Antwort(en) aus demZusatzfeld:- höhe meiner spende- wie sehr EASY daraufangewiesen ist.- wenn nicht zuviel verlangt wird- Zweck der Spende muss klarsein- Wem man mit Easy spendenkann/darf- wieviel?- wieviel, in Prozent- du montant de la donation- combien- ob es eine Untergrenze gibt- combien ca sera- Explizit wahrscheinlich nicht,würde ich in spende integrieren.(Kann mit dem iphone den balkennicht bewegen oben) eigentlichist es wichtig, dass gratis, würdeaber einen kleinen % an easyabzweigen. Bearbeitungsgebühr- , ob weitere EASY-Vorschlägeüberzeugen
7.
Anzahl Teilnehmer: 52
1
(1)2
(2)3
(3)4
(4)5
(5)6
(6)
nichtbeurteilbar
(0) Ø G 1 2 3 4 5 6
! % ! % ! % ! % ! % ! % !
Ich habe auf der Websiteneue Dinge erfahren
- - 5x 10.00 5x 10.00 13x 26.00 21x 42.00 6x 12.00 2x 4.36 62%
Die erhaltenenInformationen sindlogisch und strukturiert
- - 3x 6.12 2x 4.08 12x 24.49 27x 55.10 5x 10.20 2x 4.59 71%
Ich habe alle Infosgefunden, die ich zumSpenden bräuchte
1x 2.22 3x 6.67 2x 4.44 13x 28.89 12x 26.67 14x 31.11 7x 4.64 86%
Die Informatien zu deneinzelnen Projektenbeeinflussen meinSpendenverhalten
4x 8.16 4x 8.16 4x 8.16 5x 10.20 11x 22.45 21x 42.86 3x 4.59 68%
Ich habe zuvieleInformationen erhalten
8x 17.78 16x 35.56 8x 17.78 7x 15.56 5x 11.11 1x 2.22 7x 2.73 48%
Ich habe zu wenigeInformationen erhalten
13x 28.26 16x 34.78 8x 17.39 3x 6.52 3x 6.52 3x 6.52 5x 2.48 56%
Ich weiss wer hinter"EASY" steht
8x 16.67 6x 12.50 6x 12.50 8x 16.67 13x 27.08 7x 14.58 4x 3.69 81%
Ø = Jeweiliger Durchschnitt pro Zeile in PunktenG = Jeweilige Gewichtung der Wichtigkeit pro Zeile in % (0% unwichtig / 100% sehr wichtig)
8.
Anzahl Antworten: 14 Antworten:- die Seiten 5 -7 sind katastrophal - das liest ja keine und keiner- mehr infos zu den Projekten, evt wird das dann so sein -> schwierig zu sagen im pdf...- Ich habe leider nicht in Erfahrung bringen können, ob es nur die Möglichkeit für "einmalige" Spenden gibt oder auch fürsolche, die sich monatlich wiederholen.- habe allgemein Mühe mit Geldtansaktionen via mail da die Urheber immer schwierig zu eruieren sind.- Ich will nicht durch Werbung auf EASY abgelenkt werden. EASY soll nicht durch Werbung von Dritten "missbraucht" werden.Ich will wissen, wie der Zahlungsverkehr läuft und geregelt ist. Ich will wissen auf welchem Weg ich eine Rückbestätigungmeiner Spende erhalte.- Wo sind die Seiten der Website/pdf-Dateien ?- Es ist noch schwierig zu antworten, da die Seite nicht interaktiv ist.- le fichier PDF est seulement en allemand?- Ich komme von dieser Seite nicht mehr zur Webadresse von EASY und kann deshalb die Fragen gar nicht beantworten.Auch ein neues Öffnen der Umfragewebseite führt nicht zu den vorhergehenden Seiten.- ob es eine App gibt für mein Smartphone- Hmm... Erfolgsgeschichten von usern?!? Also solche fie schon gespendet haben? Im moment fehlt vielleicht etwas anvertrauen?!?- Wie wird "EASY" finanziert?- Cela aurait fait plus professionnel d'avoir l'information en français!...- Die Gesamtzahl an Spendern pro Projekt wäre interessant. Erfolgsberichte der Organisationen. Dringendste Projekte. Vonexternen Beurteilern ausgezeichnete Projekte. Gründer und Mitarbeiter Statements.
9.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
35 (66.04%) ja
6 (11.32%) nein
12 Antwort(en) aus demZusatzfeld:- Etwas steif, aber besser für dieÜbersicht- etwas kühl vom design- was ist attraktiv?- zuwenig aussagekräftig- Bisher: Nein- schwer zu sagen- graphisch könnte sieaufgewertet werden- il serait attractif en français- Tendenziell etwas zuviel Infosauf einer Seite- ich konnte sie gar nichtanschauen.- Il manque la traduction enfrançais- designmässig etwashandgestrickt
10.
Anzahl Antworten: 52
27 (51.92%) genau richtig
5 (9.62%) genügend, aber schlechteAuswahl
5 (9.62%) zu viele
8 (15.38%) zu wenig
7 Antwort(en) aus demZusatzfeld:- siehe Pkt 8- Schwierig zu beurteilen, da PDF.- Bisher unklar- schwierig zu beurteilen da nichtinteraktiv- à améliorer- für mich schwierig zubeurteilen, da nicht Experte- ich konnte sie gar nichtanschauen.
11.
Anzahl Antworten: 29 Antworten:- Dass man Organisationen/Projekte nach seinem Wunsch suchen kann, das garantiert, dass man nicht einfach irgendeinerOrganisation spendet, sondern einer, die einem am Herzen liegt. Ebenso finde ich es gut, dass zum entsprechnendenProjekt oder der Organisation Informationen zur Verfügung stehen. Wichtig ist aber, dass diese Angaben korrekt und aktuellsind.- Die Schrift, die Farben, einfach das ganze Design.- Mit Bezug auf das Design, sind mir keine positiven Aspekte aufgefallen ;( In diesem Fall müsste ich mir die Subpage einereinzelnen ONG ansehen können. Auf der Unterseite wird die Mission gegebenenfalls mit einem Film, Bildern ausführlicherbeschrieben.- Übersichtlichkeit- gute übersicht über alle projekte, gut, dass Suchfunktion- Einfach gehalten in zwei Hauptfarben rot und blau -> übersichtlich- Klar strukturierter Aufbau, ansprechende Schrift, einfache Seitenhandhabung- Dass ich zwischen verschiedenen Kategorien wählen kann.- Nichts- Guter Einstieg. Man sieht sofort, um was es geht und wofür man Spenden kann. Übersichtliche Darsteller der Empfängerund der Projekte. Einafcjes Handling.- nicht zu überladen, aber trotzdem übersichtlich- Einerseits erfahre ich viel über mir bisher noch nicht gut bekannte Organisationen/Projekte, ...- Die Seite ist übersichtbar. Mir gefallen die Bildern sehr.- Schlichtheit. Nicht so viele Farben.- l'initiative est très bonne- dass die Logos abgebildet sind der Organisationen und nicht ausgehungerte Kinder dass man Schweiz und Ausland trennenkann nach Spende- Suchfunktion gleich rechts oben- Bilder sind sehr schön- Die Bilder und dass es einigermassen einfach zu bedienen ist- que j ai le choix entre CH et létranger ainsi que je peux décider si je veux faire une donnation à EASY ou non.- dass man per Internet spenden kann- ca semble tout a fait easy- Die suchoption für die spende- Struktur- Die Website ist sehr übersichtlich gestaltet, man bekommt einen sehr schnellen Überblick.- übersichtliches Design- je ne sais pas, je trouve le site peut attractif.- Die Idee ist super. Eine übersichtliche Seite mit möglichst allen Organisationen und einer Auswahl an möglichen Themenund Kriterien- das gibt mir das Gefühl, dass ich als Spenderin die für mich passendste Option auswählen kann.- La simplicité
12.
Anzahl Antworten: 29 Antworten:- Es sind recht viele Informationen, wer hinter Easy steckt und was mit meinen Daten geschieht. Es kann auch verwirrendsein, weil man am Schluss nicht mehr genau versteht, was mit den persönlichen Daten geschieht. Evtl. könnte es auch sein,dass sich die Spender über Easy informieren, welche Organisation in Frage kommt für das persönliche Interesse und dannaber direkt spendet, damit die persönlichen Angaben nicht noch einer weiteren Organisation zur Verfügung steht und manmit Post oder Mails überhäuft wird.- Ich habe ausschliesslich das 'Logo' der ONGs gesehen. Von Multimedia kann ich in diesem Kontext nicht reden!- Logo von EASY ziemlich langweilig und scheint mir aus den 01er, 02er-Jahren zu kommen.- Design in Rot/Blau/Weiss etwas kühl...- Die reinen Text-Seiten sind etwas voll.- der persönliche Charakter der Spende geht ein wenig verloren- Dass ich mich wahrscheinlich mit vielen Projekten auseinandersetzen muss, um auszuwählen.- Grafik ist zu Starr, Farbgebung wenig ansprechend. Folgt dem Gedanken transparent und einfach nicht. (Zuviels Balken,zuviele Rahmen)- Die Botschaft kommt nicht an- Die Seite wirkt im zweiten Teil (ab EASY - Die Idee) sehr textlastig. Dies wirkt ein bsischen wie ein Disclaimer. Ich binnicht sicher, ob die Spender das alles wissen wollen. Vielleicht müssten die Kernbotschaften direkter angegangen werdenoder es müsste mehr die Adressatenoptik berücksichtigt werden.- ich mag keine "Hunde in Not" Spenden.- ... anderseits könnte angesichts der Fülle von Informationen und Wahlmöglichkeiten auch ein Gefühl des Verlorenseinsentstehen. Spontane Idee: Wie wäre es mit einem "Angebot des Monats" pro Sparte? Die Ausführungen zur Abwicklung undzum Datenschutz usw. sind für meinen Geschmack zu umfangreich. easy bleibt für mich irgendwie anonym, ein bekanntesGesicht sollte für den sorgfältigen Umgang mit den Spendengeldern bürgen.- Vielleicht sind zu viele Projekte auf eine Seite zusammengestellt.- Zu viel Text. Keine Seite zum "schnell reinguggen"- la manière dont vous présentez ce projet pourrait être meilleure- noch nichts gefunden- sieht für mich aus, wie ein Billigdiscounter- Ich habe etwas Mühe, mich in der Vielzahl der Spendenmöglichkeiten zurecht zu finden.- es könnte noch einfacher zu bedienen sein- je sais pas si je peux faire confiance à lInternet ou pas.- mir fehlt eine App fürs Smartphone, ich habe ein Samsung von meiner Enkelin erhalten, die erklärte mir, dass es für fastalles ein App gibt.- si mes données sont protégées ou non- Blau/rotes design- würde gern mehr bilder sehen, design könnte noch ein wenig verbessert werden, aber nur wenig!!!- Das rot-blaue Design trifft meinen Geschmack nicht, das Farbkonzept passt irgendwie nicht.- Mir fehlen Informationen zur "Easy Loyalty Systems GmbH"- ça fait vraiment cheap!...- Das Layout (Logo, Gestaltung) scheint mir fast etwas sachlich und trocken für das emotionale Thema des Spendens. Essieht ein bisschen aus wie die Swisscom Webseite (blau und rot).- Bedeutungsgrösse in der Graphik stärker betonen: Es ist bisher Alles etwa gleich gross und scheinbar gleich wichtig ?
13.
Anzahl Antworten: 26 Antworten:- die Seite 2 ist etwas sehr in die Länge gezogen - mehr Breite fände ich besser- Bezüglich der geschickten Screenshots, habe ich das Gefühl es handelt sich ausschliesslich um einen Katalog zumALLEINIGEN Zweck, dass der User spendet (ist ja auch das Ziel). Meiner Meinung müsste man mehr Wert auf Emotionensetzen, damit die Spendefreudigkeit verstärkt einsetzt. Allerdings vermitteln Information wie z.b. der Verweis auf denJahresbereicht Seriösität.- Logo von EASY- Ich würde versuchen, die Texte etwas zu kürzen. Vielleicht wäre es noch möglich, dies ein wenig prägnanter zuformulieren.- -- Schwierig zu sagen, müsste ich mich eingehender damit befassen.- bin nicht der e banking spender typ..- Das ganze Tier in einem schwierigen Umfeld zeigen. Mehr Bilder mit verschiedenen Tieren in Notlage.- siehe oben- Kategorien, wo man entscheiden kann WEN oder was man spenden will - Tiere - Kinder - Kriegsopfer - Alte Leute -Bergprojekte- siehe oben- Plakativer auf der Startseite und textliche Vertiefung bei den einzelnen Unterseiten- difficile, à ce stade, de répondre- .- weniger Inhalte/Projekte, mehr selektiv nach der Suche- Generell finde ich "Marktplätze" zum Spenden nicht so toll.- .- EIN APP !- une hotline avec une personne physique qui répond aux questions y relatives- Il manque le choix de la langue.- -- ich habe es schon erwaehnt.- Ich würde denn Hintergrund in einer anderen Farbe oder mit einem Muster machen und das ganze auch in etwasfröhlicheren Farben gestalten.- La partie communauté, partage des expériences, feedbacks, recommendations, n'est pas claire: comment sera-t'elleimplémentée?- Vielleicht würde ich wirklich am ehesten die Farben auf der Webseite ändern.- Bildausschnitt im bisherigen Link zu gross für Bildschirm: ich muss dauernd hin und her fahren.
14.
Anzahl Teilnehmer: 52
1
(1)2
(2)3
(3)4
(4)5
(5)6
(6)
nichtbeurteilbar
(0) Ø G 1 2 3 4 5 6
! % ! % ! % ! % ! % ! % !
Wirkt die Websitevertrauensvoll?
1x 2.08 4x 8.33 7x 14.58 10x 20.83 19x 39.58 7x 14.58 4x 4.31 97%
Würde es dir Spassmachen auf der Websitezu surfen?
3x 6.12 6x 12.24 6x 12.24 11x 22.45 18x 36.73 5x 10.20 3x 4.02 66%
Hast du das Gefühl, duwürdest dich auf derWebsite zurecht finden?
- - 2x 4.35 5x 10.87 6x 13.04 17x 36.96 16x 34.78 6x 4.87 79%
Ich finde alle Infos schnellgenug
- - 4x 9.76 6x 14.63 6x 14.63 17x 41.46 8x 19.51 10x 4.46 74%
Ø = Jeweiliger Durchschnitt pro Zeile in PunktenG = Jeweilige Gewichtung der Wichtigkeit pro Zeile in % (0% unwichtig / 100% sehr wichtig)
15.
Anzahl Teilnehmer: 53
12 (18.75%) wenn ich „Jetzt spenden“anklicke
3 (4.69%) wenn ich das Formular & denBetrag ausgefüllt habe
46 (71.88%) am Ende der Transaktion
2 (3.13%) Ein Dank ist nicht nötig
1 Antwort(en) aus demZusatzfeld:- Einen Tag später per Emailnochmals
16.
Anzahl Antworten: 39 Antworten:
- Es muss aktuell und informativ sein und angenehm zu bedienen. Ebenso muss die Suchfunktion gut sein, was man aberanhand eines PDF nicht testen kann.- gute Projekte unterstützen, promoten damit interessante Projekte darauf aufmerksam werden, verschiedene Projekte(Tierheime, Organisationen mit verschied. Zielen, z.B für ältere Menschen, für Kinder und Schulbildung, für sauberesTrinkwasser, gegen Prostitution in Südamerika und so weiter..)- aktuelle Projekte zuvorderst bringen- Falls die Plattform User-freundlich ist, komme ich gerne zurück. Im Allgemeinen würde ich Spenden per Mausklickaufgrund der Einfachheit und Schnelligkeit als positiv bewerten. Allerdings sollte der Spender anschliessend nicht mit 1000Mails und Anforderungen zum erneuten Spenden unterlassen. Updates zur Entwicklung eines Projektes / einer ONG solltemaximal jeden dritten Monat erfolgen. Am Ende kommt es dennoch auf die Spendenfreudigkeit des Users an. Easy kann denProzess ausschliesslich vereinfachen.- Nichts. Ich gehe eher von einem Projekt aus und unterstütze es dann, als dass ich auf eine Plattform gehe, um zu sehen,wen ich denn unterstützen könnte.- dafür kann Easy wohl nicht viel machen... motivation muss von mir kommen. aber wenn Easy präsent und bekannt istbleibt es in den köpfen und leute kommen wieder -> werbung- Ja. Immer wieder eine neue Auswahl von Projekten treffen, die als erstes gezeigt und vorgestellt werden, auf die mansomit schnell und ohne langes Suchen aufmerksam gemacht wird.- Es erleichtert beim Spenden. Man muss nicht lange suchen, sondern kann sogar noch durch die Suchfunktionverschiedenste Organisationen finden, denen man etwas spenden möchte. Daher würde ich die Seite wieder besuchen.- Projektberichte zu unterstütztem Projekt schicken und ermuntern, nochmals zu spenden, damit das Projekt weiterhinerfolgreich ist.- Wahrscheinlich nicht, da ich an einige ausgewählte Organisationen direkt spende, die ich auf der Website nicht gesehenhabe.- nein- Ich spende individuell ohne Hilfswebsite- EASY muss nichts machen. Ich muss vom Begünstigten wissen, ob ich über EASY spenden kann.- Reminder per E-Mail- Vielleicht mich zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt daran erinnern, adss ich schon einmal für ein bestimmtes Projket gespendenthabe und dass nun dieselbe Organisation ein neues Projket anbietet.- vielleicht. EASY könnte ca 3 Wochen nach der ersten Spende eine Dankesmail machen und nochmals nach 6 Monaten.- Resultate der Spenden verkünden. Einkünfte und was damit ermöglicht wurde- EASY muss nicht mich als regelmässigen Spender ansprechen, sondern Leute zum Spenden animieren, die das bisher nichtoder zu wenig tun und von denen man annehmen kann, dass sie auf traditionelle Kanäle nicht ansprechen.- Ja, würde ich. :)- Easy darf nichts anbieten!! Sonst verliert die Seite an Vertrauenswürdigkeit. Easy muss im Hintergrund stehen sonst kommtdie Frage auf, ob wirklich der ganze Franken bei den NGOs ankommt.- Oui je le visiterai. Easy doit être un site honnête, qui vérifie l'honnêteté des associations, qui se donne les moyens devérifier la traçabilité après que les dons sont versés à travers son site. Il en va de la crédibilité de Easy.- Erinnerungsmail mit Danke für die letzte Spende und evtl. News zu Neuerungen oder dazugekommenen Organisationen- Mit regelmässigen Newslettern gezielt auf einzelne Projekte aufmerksam machen (bewerben).- Kurze übersichtliche Projektnews auch malzeigen, was bewirkt wurde.- Mich ankicken. Ich komm auf keine Website, wenn dies der Alltag und die Arbeit nicht von mir erfordert.- mehr Angebote für ältere Leute in Not- me rappeler car il m'arrive que j oublie des choses...- immer noch ein APP bitte oder eine Mail mit Dankes und Erinnerungsfunktion- faire des rappels- Newsletter, werbung, auftritt bei facebook- ja klar! das interesse und "spendelust"der leute muss irgendwie erweckt werden!- Informationen zu Projekten von den NPO's.- une actualité, éventuellement newsletter, information lorsqu'un projet est fini avec descriptif de la réalisation- Eigentlich müsste es so sein, dass ich von externen Quellen dran erinnert werde, dass es EASY gibt - wenn EASY michselber erinnert, z.B. als Newsletter, finde ich es aufdringlich oder lese es gar nicht. Wenn ich z.B. auf facebook sähe, "X.liked dieses Projekt auf EASY" oder "X. hat auf EASY gespendet für.." oder in den 20min. steht, man kann für diese oder jeneKatastrophe via easy spenden.. dann würde ich das machen.- Reminder per E-mail- Mich immer wieder daran erinneren (per Email), dass ich doch wiedermal herzlich willkommen bin ...- De nouvelles informations- Apporte de nouvelles informations- Apporter de nouvelles informations
17.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
25 (47.2%): ja
28 (52.8%): nein
18.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
26 (49.06%)männlich
27 (50.94%)weiblich
19.
Anzahl Antworten: 53 Antworten:
- 30- 19- 55- 29- 22- 22- 28- 57- 26- 28- 21- 56- 58- 42- 67- 73- 69- 68- 45- 27- 49- 69- 33- 24- 80- 42- 27- 55- 38- 30- 46- 67- 51- 71- 69- 74- 50- 24- 32- 25- 28- 47- 30- 68- 50- 24- 26- 25- 56- 55- 58- 52- 16
20.
Anzahl Antworten: 53
1 (1.89%)SchülerIn
13 (24.53%)StudentIn
22 (41.51%)Angestellt
7 (13.21%)Selbstständig
10 (18.87%)sonstiges
21.
Anzahl Antworten: 11 Antworten:
22.
Anzahl Antworten: 13 Antworten:- Ist bereits erfolgt ;)- Fragen mit "was würde ich tun" sind schwer beantwortbar. Und vlt wären Gründe für das Nichtspenden interessant!- Im Moment nicht- Informationen zu Website/Pdf-Dateien- Zum Verständnis: Seit längerer Zeit lasse ich immer denselben Organisationen, die ich persönlich kenne, Spendenzukommen, weil ich den Eindruck habe, dass dies nachhaltiger ist. Wenn ich vom Angebot von EASY nicht Gebrauch machenwerde, so hängt dies nicht mit EASY zusammen, sondern mit meinem Spendenverhalten.- -- nach grossen Katastrophen eine Mail an alle registrierten Teilnehmer machen mit Bitte die Seite an Freunde / Familieweiterzuleiten via Link. Idee: für jede Person, die auf Weiterempfehlung einen Betrag spendet; wird EASY auch eineneinmaligen Betrag (bsp. 5%) für das gleiche Projekt dazulegen.- ja, ein App bitte- faire une hotline- Go on!!! Yes we can, haha- -- Ich finde EASY eine super Idee. Ein Problem, weshalb ich nicht via EASY spenden würde: ich habe bereits meine festenSpendenabos. EASY sollte also Leute ansprechen, die sich nicht regelmässig für eine Sache engagieren möchten, sondern ausirgendeinem Grund plötzlich Lust haben, zu spenden. Daher müsste man EASY eher aus einem Impuls benutzen, z.B. weilman über etwas Trauriges in der Zeitung liest oder weil man von jemandem auf eine Aktion aufmerksam gemacht wird.- Toll, weiter so !
Student Konto
Abmelden ([email protected])Umfragen Mein Konto Produkte & Preise + Neue Umfrage erstellen
Alle Umfragen Umfrage bearbeiten Layout Einstellungen Email-Versand Auswertung (80 Teilnehmer)
Vor- & Nachname: *
Ich erkläre mich hiermit einverstanden, dass ich die Informationen nicht an Dritte weitergebe und daspdf in keinster Weise veröffentliche, vervielfalte oder auf irgendeine Art als zum Zweck dieser Umfrage verwende.HERZLICHEN DANK IM VORAUS!
Falls du nicht damit einverstanden bist, darfst du dieses Umfrage-Fenster nun schliessen :) *
Ja, ich bin einverstanden.: 100.00%
Hast du schon mal gespendet? *
nein: 7.55%
ja, öfters: 47.17%
ja, selten: 45.28%
Würdest du dank einer Online-Plattform wie "EASY" öfters spenden? *
Andere: 26.42%ja: 30.19%
nein: 43.40%
Findest du es wichtig, dass die Spende für den User & die NPO gratis ist? *
0 13 26 39 52 65 78 91
0
5
10
15
20
Würdest du nach einer getätigten Spende auch zusätzlich EASY noch etwas spenden? *
Andere: 24.53%
ja, klar: 7.55%
ja, wenn es mich nicht mehr Zeit kostet: 35.85%
nein: 32.08%
Informationen
Folgende Informationen fehlen mir:
Findest du die Website attraktiv? *
Andere: 22.64%
nein: 11.32%
ja: 66.04%
Menge von Multimedia / Bildern:
Andere: 13.46%
zu wenig: 15.38%
zu viele: 9.62%
genügend, aber schlechte Auswahl: 9.62%
genau richtig: 51.92%
Was gefällt dir besonders gut?
Was gefällt dir nicht so gut?
Was fehlt dir resp. würdest du ändern?
Auf einer Skala von 1 - 6:
Wann soll sich EASY bei dir für deine Spende bedanken? *
Andere: 1.56%
Ein Dank ist nicht nötig: 3.13%
wenn ich „Jetzt spenden“ anklicke: 18.75%
wenn ich das Formular & den Betrag ausgefüllt habe: 4.69%
am Ende der Transaktion: 71.88%
Würdest du die Website ein 2., 3., 4. Mal besuchen? Was muss EASY machen / anbieten, damit du wieder kommst?
Die Frage aller Fragen nachdem du EASY besucht hast: Tätigst du eine Spende? *
ja: 47.17%
nein: 52.83%
Geschlecht: *
männlich: 49.06%weiblich: 50.94%
Alter: *
Beruf / Tätigkeit: *
sonstiges: 18.87%
Selbstständig: 13.21%
SchülerIn: 1.89%
StudentIn: 24.53%
Angestellt: 41.51%
Falls du gerne weitere Infos zu der Studie erhalten willst, gib bitte deine E-Mail-Adresse an.
Hast du noch weitere Tipps, Ideen, Kritik, Meinungen, die du uns & oder EASY gerne mitteilen möchtest?
Gefällt mir 2,1 Tsd. 110
© 2007 - 2013 enuvo GmbH