BENCHMARK STUDY ON PEER-TO-PEER FUNDRAISER RECOGNITION

Volunteer Fundraiser Motivation

Volunteer Fundraising Motivation reports the findings of the 2016 Turnkey Benchmark Study on Peer-to-Peer Fundraiser Recognition. The findings offered in this e-book reflect in-depth research of 83 programs from 33 different organizations in the U.S. from Jan. 1, 2012 to Nov. 1, 2015. We look (with great envy) at the benchmark studies of platform providers, who benefit from the natural normalizing influence of drawing data from their own platforms.

Our data is drawn from a variety of platforms that are used by our clients. The data we use every day is normalized only after going through the process of gift certificate creation, distribution, and ultimately redemption. Those data points, in and of themselves, are meaty, but not meaty enough. To build out a fuller picture, our analyst collects more data points than we use in order to inform this study and our work including, for example, the records of fundraisers who do not meet recognition levels.

As examples, a few of the clients involved in this study include The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Alzheimer’s Association, Hydrocephalus Association, Melanoma Research Foundation, Ride for Roswell, JDRF, AFSP and LUNGevity.

These organizations’ events included walks, noncompetitive runs, and do-it-yourself (DIY) efforts. In the second part of this paper, we will address other event types.

Collectively, these organizations raise more than $100 million in online event fundraising per year in individual fundraiser income (which excludes event registration fees, sponsorship funds, and funds donated to the event at-large instead of to the individual). The data represents over 1.5 million individual fundraisers and 198,000 recognition earners, and emanate from program designs that included multi-level certificate redemption recognition programs. We excluded any programs for which only one level of recognition was offered, where recognition was given regardless of whether it was desired, or for which experiential, and thus difficult to measure, recognition was offered. And, since successful communication of recognition offers is integral to successful application of a program, any programs which did not include robust outreach with recognition offers were not included.

ABOUT THIS E-BOOK

The purpose of this study is to establish benchmark data, methods, and language for the recognition of volunteer fundraisers (participants) in peer-to-peer fundraising, as well as provide the psychological underpinnings of demonstrated behaviors.

At Turnkey we use the word “recognition” often. But other people use other words like “appreciation,” “acknowledgment,” or “thanks.” These words wrap around a human impulse that is powerful, quantifiable, and actionable. The impulse to be recognized is rooted in our DNA, a baked-in manifestation of our evolutionary need to socialize in order to survive.

Economist Daniel Pink’s research on motivation shows that the happiest and most satisfied among us are people who have found a sense of purpose — that what they do serves something meaningful beyond their own self-interest, that what they do serves society at large. How does that connect to recognition?

Humans have evolved to seek out connections. To put it simply, our ancestors who were most sensitive to the feedback of their group were

the ones who survived (try making it out on the African Savanna without a little help from your friends).

In his recent book, “Social, Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect,” psychologist Matthew Lieberman writes that, “our brains crave the positive evaluation of others almost to an embarrassing degree. It is easy to imagine [feeling rewarded by] positive feedback from the people who matter most to us, but would social feedback from complete strangers have the same effect? Surprisingly, yes.”

Clearly we are all born with an antennae that is finely tuned to how others are responding to us: they recognize us. And it turns out we don’t even have to know the person for their recognition to be rewarding.

Social scientists know recognition is powerful, but how do data analysts see recognition? How would one quantify the power of recognition and why would we care to do so?

PURPOSE

A lot of money is spent on the type of recognition we are studying here — between 1.6% and 4.5% of funds raised, depending on the size of the fundraising program.

Much more money is raised through the successful use of recognition.

Unless we understand how people respond to various types of recognition, we run the risk of weakening, rather than strengthening, their connection to our organizations.

Here, we will identify nonprofit participant behavioral trends with respect to the application of measurable recognition. The type of recognition studied in this paper is recognition applied through email messaging and branded recognition gift offers for high-level fundraising by volunteers.

Other types of recognition are important, but are difficult to apply and measure with integrity. As an example, on-site awards ceremonies at event sites are powerful, but it is very difficult to ensure that they happen all the time, the same way, from one event to the other.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

1

2

3

Wired to Connect

In the 1984 film Places in the Heart, actress Sally Field portrays a 1930s southern widow trying to keep her farm out of foreclosure, a role that won her the Academy Award for best actress. Her acceptance speech was particularly heartfelt and revealing when she famously exclaimed, “I can’t deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me.”

Many think that actors are somehow more motivated than other people to seek out recognition. But actors are no different from anyone else — we are all driven to be liked by others. In fact, feedback from others that tells us that we are liked, admired and valued is central to our well being. We have evolved to find recognition highly rewarding; it is baked right into our DNA.

It has only been in the last decade, since the ability to perform brain scans has become more widely available, that we have come to understand the degree to which our brains are hard-wired to respond to positive recognition from others. In one recent study, subjects read messages written to them by friends, family, and significant others while lying in a functional MRI scanner.1 When the subjects read statements that conveyed positive emotional feelings towards them (e.g., “you seem to care for me more than you care for yourself”) the brain’s neural reward system was strongly activated. It turns out that this is the same reward pathway that is activated when one eats a favorite food. Although there is certainly a lot of difference between receiving a kind note from your friend and eating a favorite meal, this tells us just how central this type of acknowledgment is to our brains. The psychologist who conducted the research, Dr. Matthew Lieberman, describes how feedback from our social groups — social rewards — activates the reward system of the brain. “Just as social and physical pain share common neurocognitive processes, so too do physical and social rewards share common neurocognitive processes.”2

1 Inagaki, T. K., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2013). Shared neural mechanisms underlying social warmth and physical warmth, Psychological Science, Vol. 24, No. 11, pp. 2272-2280.

2 Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social, Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Crown Publishers, New York, p. 75.

THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT

In this study we will primarily look at two types of people:

A person who earns a recognition gift for a particular amount of fundraising and who actually redeems for that gift.

This person we call a

A person who earns a recognition gift for a particular amount of fundraising and who decides NOT to redeem for that gift.

This person we call a

RECOGNITION

1RECOGNITION SEEKER

2RECOGNITION DECLINER

Recognition gifts offered were all selected using our best practice of the gift being of a value that represents insufficient justification to fundraise. To summarize the idea of insufficient justification, gifts selected are not easily monetized in the recipients’ minds and could not be construed as pay or financial incentive.

Two case studies are presented to illustrate particular points. These case studies are two-year studies to show trends over time, and the event structure was held constant by the client in each year.

Some of the different ways to measure recognition impact include evaluation of:

1. year-over-year overall results;

2. the behaviors of recognition seekers vs. recognition decliners;

3. the percent of people who seek recognition; or,

4. later behavior segregated by current behavior in regard to recognition and fundraising.

We’ll be presenting all of these methods based on analysis of the entire data set, or portions of it as the integrity of our data allowed. In some cases, we’ll note that we use a smaller data set with high integrity rather than a larger data set with low integrity. Perfect integrity to us means that every header’s column of data is completely populated. Or, it could mean that two different

data sets all have the same elements represented. This is the primary challenge when collecting data from myriad organizations, which collect, store and manage data in a number of different ways.

The programs analyzed here are all Turnkey clients and thus subscribe to our best practices, enumerated here:

• Recognition program is reinforced with behaviorally-triggered e-communications

• Recognition program is promoted on fundraising platform online

• Recognition program does not provide opt-out to participants except through non-redemption

• No gift is available through a retail entity nor through the nonprofit except through fundraising

• No gift is easily “priced” in one’s mind

• All gifts bear the nonprofit brand

• Gifts are selected based on a budget of 5-7% of the income level (a percentage that declines as the income level being rewarded increases)

• Actual gift expense for programs in terms of gifts varies with size of organization, but range from 1.6% of fundraising for large programs, to 5% of fundraising for very small programs

KEY FINDINGSFor walk and DIY events, we found…

Overall redemption rate was 50.51% among recognition earners, or all those who were offered a recognition gift

Recognition seeker average fundraising was $1,097 vs. recognition decliner average fundraising of $865

Recognition seeker median fundraising was $585 vs. recognition decliner median fundraising of $465

REDEMPTION PERCENTAGE

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

50.51%

AVERAGE RAISED

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

$1097

RECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S

$865

MEDIAN RAISED

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

$585

RECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S $465

FIGURE A FIGURE B FIGURE C

In 98.39% of the programs (61 out of 62), recognition seekers raised more, on average, than recognition decliners

In all but 2 programs (3.22%) recognition seeker median is higher than recognition decliner median

PROGRAMS

$465

PROGRAMS

FIGURE D FIGURE E

Overall note: Minimum fundraising levels for these programs ranged from $100-$2,500, with the most common minimum level being $250.

In 73% of programs recognition seeker median is at least double the minimum recognition amount

In 23% of programs recognition decliner medians were at least double the minimum recognition amount

PROGRAM COSTS AS A PERCENT OF INCOME30

+ M

ILLI

ON

AN

D U

ND

ER

1.60%

20 T

O 3

0 M

ILLI

ON

AN

D U

ND

ER

2.20%

10 T

O 2

0 M

ILLI

ON

AN

D U

ND

ER

2.50%

5 TO

10

MIL

LIO

N A

ND

UN

DER

3.00%

1 TO

5 M

ILLI

ON

AN

D U

ND

ER

3.39%

1 M

ILLI

ON

AN

D U

ND

ER

4.50%

MEDIAN RAISED IS AT LEAST DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LEVEL

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

73%

RECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S

23%

FIGURE F

FIGURE G

We found that Year 2 behaviors are predictable based on Year 1 behaviors. If Year 1 participants fundraise and respond positively to a recognition offer, Year 2 behavior will show higher fundraising and retention. Seeing this behavior in the large sample set supporting the case study below, and having seen it in other analyses, we are comfortable equating “mission-alignment” with “seeks recognition.”

WHAT DOES MISSION ALIGNMENT DO FOR THE FUTURE?

As an example, if Mary earned a recognition gift through fundraising, whether she actually wants the gift or not will tell you a lot about her future behavior. If she wants that gift, she is more likely to return and fundraise, and when she does, she’ll fundraise at a higher level. If she doesn’t want the gift she earned, her future fundraising will decline and she is likely to fundraise at lower amounts.

Make People Nouns, Not Verbs

Humans have a strong need to feel that they belong and are hard-wired to seek out and sustain social relationships. People identify themselves in terms of the groups they belong to, and this sense of group can profoundly affect their behavior. You can stimulate group identity just by the way you have people talk about themselves or the way you phrase a question. For example, research shows that if people say, “I am a chocolate eater” versus “I eat chocolate a lot,” it will affect the strength of their preference for chocolate. People who describe themselves as chocolate lovers report significantly greater liking for chocolate.3 “Eater” is a noun. “Eat” is a verb. This noun-versus-verb idea can guide the ways we establish, strengthen, and maintain people’s connections to various groups.

What affects the multitude of ways people respond to various social messages? The principle of consistency has long been understood by psychologists to be a major driver of behavior. Put simply, people have a strong desire to appear to be consistent to others, and more importantly, to themselves. Individuals shape their sense of self – who they are – by analyzing how they have behaved in various situations in the past.4 For example, if someone has previously donated to the American Cancer Society, they have self-identified as someone who is generous and interested in the common good of curing cancer. Psychologists call this self-identification a person’s “intrinsic label.” Once a person has begun to develop an intrinsic label —

“I am a cancer-fighting evangelist” (note the noun here) — they can be more easily motivated to perform behaviors that are consistent with their intrinsic label.

One classic study has demonstrated that people who agree to display a small window sticker are much more likely to agree later to display a large sign than are people who were never asked to display the small window sticker in the beginning. Agreeing to the smaller initial request has caused them to self-identify as the type of person who is willing to support various causes. As the researchers explained, “What may occur is a change in the person’s feelings about getting involved or taking action. Once he has agreed to a request, his attitude may change, he may become, in his own eyes, the kind of person who does this sort of thing, who agrees to requests made by strangers, who takes action on things he believes in, who cooperates with good causes.”5

Not displaying the larger sign would be inconsistent with their intrinsic label. Getting people to comply with behaviors that are consistent with their intrinsic label sets up a self-reinforcing cycle. For example, every time someone volunteers for the American Cancer Society, the stronger their intrinsic label of “cancer-fighting evangelist” becomes, which makes them more likely to engage in even more volunteerism to remain consistent. It is important, however, not to push the level of the request too quickly. Someone who has put a small sticker on their window is likely to put up a yard sign, but probably not likely to work a phone bank for a weekend.

THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT

3 Walton, Gregory & Banaji, Mahzarin, (2004). Being what you say: the effect of essentialist linguistic labels on preferences, Social Cognition, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 193-213.4 Cialdini, Robert B. (2006). Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion, Harper Business Press, p. 154.5 Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966) Compliance Without Pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique, JPSP, 4, 196-202.

One’s intrinsic label (or self-label) is how one sees oneself. For example, a fundraiser’s intrinsic label might be “I am a cancer fighter.” Recognition-messaging programs can help build that label through behaviorally triggered messaging regarding recognition opportunities.

Along the same line, recognition gift redemption is a marker of how well the nonprofit recognition program did at a) encouraging the fundraiser to raise money, and b) reinforcing the fundraiser’s intrinsic label. The gift itself, being visible to the fundraiser who earned it, provides opportunities to reinforce intrinsic labeling through self-perception over the year.

CASE STUDY ONE

Walk Recognition Seekers Have Better Year Two Performance

We took one large client that hosted a fundraising walk for a deeper dive into Year 2 behavior. This program represented over 200,000 participants per year. We looked at how recognition seekers performed in Year 2 vs. recognition decliners.

We matched Year 1 participants to Year 2 participants using a two-step system. We matched first by unique identifier, which did not produce a significant number of matches. The second step was to match by first name, last name, email address combination. The final group we studied included those who earned recognition in Year 1, and were present in the data set in Year 2.

Our findings in summary for this walk client, when studying those who earned recognition Year 1 and returned in Year 2:

n 51% of the time the recognition seeker returned in Year 2, a much higher rate than the overall retention rate of 16% and much better than the industry standard of 30%*

n 41% of the time recognition decliners returned in Year 2,

also better than overall and industry averages (FIGURE H) n If you were a recognition seeker you are likely to raise

more money than your previous year 35% of the time, compared to the 29% for recognition decliners

n Recognition seekers are also 26% less likely to be a

$0 fundraiser in Year 2 and 20% more likely to earn recognition in Year 2 compared to recognition decliners

* The 2014 BlackBaud Peer-to-Peer Fundraising Study, July 2015.

Walk Event - Year 2 Rocks

PERCENT OF RETURN IN YEAR TWO

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

51%

RECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S

41%

OVE

RALL

EVE

NT

RETU

RN

16%

IND

UST

RY S

TAN

DA

RD30%

FIGURE H

Less is More

Across many social situations it is typical to reward someone for their contributions and performance. How can rewards affect a person’s intrinsic label? Quite profoundly, it turns out – but not in the way you might imagine. For example, in a study of high school students going door-to-door to solicit donations for their school, students were offered one of three different incentives:

1) Large incentive (10% of the donations they collected) 2) Small incentive (1% of the donations they collected) 3) No incentive (no monetary outcome)

Of the three groups, the students who received no incentive collected the most money, followed by the group that received the large incentive, with the students receiving a small incentive coming in third. This result can be interpreted in the framework of how people develop congruent attitudes from their behavior.6 When people are offered large external rewards, they adopt the attitude that they are performing the behavior to secure the

reward. On the other hand, when the reward is modest (or nonexistent), people adopt the congruent attitude that they are performing the action because of an internal desire. “I am collecting donations because I am an advocate for my school” is a behavior consistent with their intrinsic label.

Psychologists refer to this “less-leads-to-more effect” to explain how small rewards can be more effective than large rewards in motivating behavior.7 When trying to increase or sustain someone’s commitment by providing a reward, it is essential that the person cannot use the reward to justify what they are saying or doing. In other words, the incentive must be seen as providing “insufficient justification” to produce the behavior.8 No one volunteers all weekend to get a nonprofit association’s logo-embossed jacket or baseball hat, but when you start saying “thank you” with an iPad or other retail merchandise, an unconscious conversation ensues: “Hey, was this iPad worth my time (the 50 hours I volunteered)?”

THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT

6 Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1490-1501.

7 Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (1994). Generalization of dissonance reduction: decreasing prejudice through induced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 395-413.

8 Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203.

So sometimes incentives can turn out to be demotivating. Why is this? People live in two worlds — one characterized by social exchanges and the other characterized by market exchanges. We apply different norms to these two kinds of relationships. A person whose intrinsic label is that of an “American Cancer Society Evangelist” is in a social relationship with the American Cancer Society. He supports the American Cancer Society because he believes it is the right thing to do. Giving him an iPad, (which the American Cancer Society does not do, by the way) sends the message that he is “getting paid” for volunteering, which is not why he is there. Setting up the mere suggestion of a “pay for services” exchange communicates that people are in a market relationship, not a social one. Introducing market norms into social exchanges violates the social norms and hurts the social relationship. As psychologist Barry Schwartz says, “When we lose confidence that people have the will to do the right thing, and we turn to [financial] incentives, we find that we get what we pay for.”9 And once people have reframed a social relationship into a market relationship, it is very difficult to get them to go back. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely describes it this way: “Once you’ve offered to pay for her delightful Thanksgiving dinner, your mother-in-law will remember the incident for years to come.”10

THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT

9 Schwartz, Barry. (2015). Why We Work. Simon & Schuster, p. 59.10 Ariely, Dan. (2010). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.

Harper Perennial, p. 76.

For the purposes of this report, event types have been divided into two groups:

Walks, non-competitive runs Run, ride, endurance and other competitive or open-market events and activities

BUT NOW IT GETS A LITTLE WEIRD

1 RETAIL UNATTRACTIVE 2 RETAIL ATTRACTIVE

Retail Unattractive (RU) events are usually walks or fun runs. To be clear, “unattractive” doesn’t mean bad — it means no one would buy the experience. These events typically do not charge a registration fee or require special training in order to participate. Participants are encouraged, but not required, to fundraise. These events have no analogy in the for profit world, since no consumer is willing to pay for this same experience. The above analysis has to do with RU events. Now, we will take a look at Retail Attractive (RA) events.

Retail Attractive (RA) events are typically runs, long-distance walks, cycling or other endurance events that are timed and/or otherwise tracked. These competitive events often preclude some populations from participating, due to the challenging nature of the activity performed or due to a high cost of participation (think “expensive bike” or “able to take three days off work”). Competitive and/or high production value events usually charge a registration fee and many have a required fundraising minimum. These events compete with for-profit organizations offering a similar experience for a price.

For a long time it didn’t matter that we called retail unattractive (RU) events “walks.” And even today, there are few if any other RU activities of fundraising significance. But, the reason we do use that language is that the numbers and types of Retail Attractive (RA) events are huge! We needed a way to bucket those events using the attribute that makes the most difference. Oddly, no attribute makes more difference in planning how to motivate people to fundraise than whether the offer or the activity is something people would actually buy on their own. If the activity has sales potential, inevitably a registration fee and/or minimum fundraising is required. And with those types of events comes a different kind of relationship with a fundraiser — a “market relationship.”

What does it mean to be in a market relationship? Market relationships are transactional — behavior is extrinsically motivated by money, or things to which you can attach a price. In contrast, when people perceive themselves to be in social relationships, behavior is intrinsically motivated — they behave in a certain way because they believe it is the right thing to do.

RETAIL UNATTRACTIVE

RETAIL ATTRACTIVE

Retail attractive events offer an experience to which people can attach a price tag. The registration fee becomes a price and other parts of the interaction are monetized as well, like recognition. What does this do to the social relationship that volunteers and fundraisers have with the organization sponsoring the event? It is demotivating. Adding financial incentives to situations in which people are motivated to work hard and well without them seems to undermine rather than enhance the motives people already have. Economist Bruno Frey calls it “motivational crowding out.” Psychologists Edward Deci, Richard Ryan, and Mark Lepper talk about how “extrinsic” motivation, like the pursuit of money, undermines “intrinsic” motivation. The introduction of money can even switch someone from a social relationship with intrinsically inspired motives, to a market relationship with extrinsically inspired motives.

As an example, if Johnny shows up to park cars because he wants to fight cancer, and you reward him by giving him the airline tickets donated to the event, he will move into a market relationship with your nonprofit. Next year, in order to park cars, you’re going to need to pony up more airline tickets.

RA events tend to engage participants in market relationships in several ways: by charging registration fees, by requiring minimum fundraising, and by offering rewards with clearly defined retail value. The implications of a market relationship on participant behavior are exactly what you would expect: “I want a great deal. I want a better deal next time. I am going to shop around for the best experience. I am not all that loyal.

I will only do what is expected of me in the deal we made, but not much more than that.” Those in the endurance market recognize their typical participant in that description.

The body of data we have for RA events is smaller, still covering over 28,000 recognition earning fundraisers, which represents a larger but unknown number of registrants. In this market, registrants who do not achieve minimum fundraising required to participate are either not reported, or reported in very different ways. Thus, we don’t include the number of total registrants.

Here is how we segmented events:

Retail Attractive

Marathon Cycling Cold Water Plunges Participation Model Walks Timed Non-Marathon Runs ClimbsFitness Participation ProgramsSailingEvents with Registration FeesYogaMental Challenges / Puzzles

Retail Unattractive

WalksDIYRun/Walk: No Registration Fee/Timekeeping

Public Displays of Affiliation

What type of reward is best to keep people connected to organizations, and in social relationships with them? Recall that using something as small as a decal can help solidify an intrinsic label, but using a too-valuable reward can be demotivating.

Perhaps not surprisingly — for the reasons already mentioned – money has been shown to be a very poor motivator.11 In contrast, social incentives have been shown to be highly motivating, especially when the incentive incorporates verbal praise or positive feedback.12 As effective as they may be, it is difficult to systematize verbal rewards in an organization that may have many thousands of volunteers spread throughout the country or even the world. So nonprofits typically turn to recognition items, tangible “thank yous” that (hopefully) reinforce the volunteer’s “intrinsic label” or identification with the cause. People wear school rings, hats and all other manner of clothing that feature their alma mater’s logo. These items say, “I am a Buckeye, Terrapin, Gator, etc.”. They are PDAs – Public Displays of Affiliation. Branded items from nonprofit organizations strengthen a person’s self-label in the same way. When someone wears a Relay For Life T-shirt, it does more than just identify him or her as a supporter of the cause to his or her peers. The most important eyeballs that see the Relay logo belongs to the person

who is wearing the shirt, because of the way it strengthens their intrinsic label.

Positive social feedback — in the form of verbal praise or a carefully chosen tangible item – is a strong reinforcer of behavior. So why isn’t it used more often to motivate people in all types of situations, in school, on the job, as well as with nonprofit volunteers? Psychologist Matthew Lieberman, an expert on the effect of social reinforcement on the brain, answers that question this way: Recognition “...isn’t yet part of our theory of what people find rewarding. We don’t understand the fundamentally social nature of our brains in general and the biological significance of social connection in particular. As a result, it’s hard for us to conceptualize how positive social feedback will be reinforcing within the most primitive reward system of our brains.”13 Humans are primed from birth to find even an acknowledgment from a stranger to be rewarding. What happens when we apply recognition in a consistent manner? Social connections grow stronger – and it is a virtuous cycle. Dr. Lieberman concludes, “Positive social regard is a renewable resource. Rather than having less of something after using it, when we let others know we value them, both parties have more.”

THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT

11 Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191-209.12 Hildum, D. C., & Brown, R. W. (1956). Verbal reinforcement and interviewer bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 53(1), 108.13 Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social, Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Crown Publishers, New York, p. 78.

.

RA events have wild variation in structure, making them very hard to compare on the recognition front. We have some compiled data results, and are presenting a case study of one large program indicative of the results we see.

We want to be clear that this study does not cast judgement on RA vs. RU events. We work hard to recognize, study and react to their differences and what that means to our ability to use recognition to drive fundraising behavior.

Fundraisers in Retail Attractive Events Have Stronger Event Alignment than Mission Alignment

RA event participants are more interested in the event activity than the mission, but that can be hard to see in analyses. According to the 2014 Blackbaud Peer-to-Peer Fundraising Study, one can clearly see that walk income is driven by donations solicited by peer-to-peer fundraisers. It is, however, a confusing picture for those not familiar with this space, as it looks to be the same on paper for Endurance, Cycling, and 5K events.

Mission-Alignment Plays Smaller Role In Motivating Event-Aligned Participants

Walks as compared to 5K events offer the clearest picture of the goings-on inside the registrant’s mind. In a walk, the vast majority of income is derived from solicited donations, with little income from registration fees. Walk participants are mission-aligned and will solicit donations. In 5K’s, far less income is derived from solicited online donations, even though the data represent some events which require fundraising. For the most part, 5K participants pay for entry in the form of a registration fee for the experience. Online outreach is low because mission-alignment is low. The participant has the intrinsic label of “runner,” not “fundraiser.” Runners run. Fundraisers fundraise.

For endurance and cycling events, income is driven by required fundraising minimums which are, in effect, a price. So, although intrinsic label is “athlete,” the fundraising requirement makes the athlete look intrinsically aligned with the nonprofit. Except for the tiny number of mission-aligned athletes that we sniff out for our marketing collateral, our participants are athletes paying for their activity with fundraising, not fundraisers out for a some exercise. One potentially confusing attribute that market relationship participants possess is that they return to the event in high numbers. That can look like mission-alignment, but is typically indicative of their dedication to their sport.

Graph from 2014 Blackbaud Peer-to-Peer Fundraising Study

Yet even in the RA environment where we have created a market relationship, recognition still works to some degree. While these participants look to be more event-aligned than mission-aligned, recognition seekers still brought in more money than those who earned but did not seek recognition. This tells us that recognition still plays an important part in RA events, but in psychological terms, we are swimming upstream against human nature using social incentives in a market relationship.

When evaluating the recognition programs of many national programs, we find (anecdotally) that those programs are heavily populated with gifts that equate to money. Using this type of monetized gift reinforces the market relationship (this type of program is not represented in our study, but is represented in the referenced Blackbaud study).

The RA programs represented here have far fewer extrinsic incentives than the typical national RA program. The reason for that is that these programs are Turnkey clients and we steer clients away from extrinsic incentives. BUT, the market relationship is still at play as these events charge registration fees and/or have required minimum fundraising. All that is to say, were we privy to the statistics about programs with recognition that might feel like “pay,” the statistics would be even more skewed from RU program statistics than they are already.

Here, we even included as RA events walks with registration fees because the fact that a market relationship was inspired was most important. It was a quandary to decide where to put walk events with a registration fee, like deciding where the dog which plays the violin should sit in the orchestra.

KEY FINDINGSFor Retail Attractive events, we found…

Overall redemption rate was 68.24% as compared to the RU redemption rate of 50.51%

Recognition seekers out-fundraised recognition decliners by $929 average fundraising vs. $698 average fundraising

Recognition seekers median fundraising was $500 and recognition decliners median fundraising was $390

REDEMPTION PERCENTAGE AVERAGE RAISED

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

$929

RECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S $698

MEDIAN RAISED

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

$500

RECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S $390

FIGURE I FIGURE J FIGURE K

RETA

IL A

TTRA

CTIV

E

68.24%

RETA

IL U

NAT

TRAC

TIVE

50.51%

The elevated redemption rate in Figure I is indicative of a market relationship inspired by registration fees and minimum fundraising amounts. The elevated redemption rate, if it could talk, would say, “I want everything for which I have paid. Now give me my cap.”

In 58% of programs, recognition seekers median fundraising is at least double the minimum recognition level amount. Whereas in only 25% of programs were recognition decliners median fundraising at least double the minimum level amount. Recall that in RU events, 73% of programs showed recognition seeker median fundraising doubling the amount of the minimum recognition amount.

MEDIAN RAISED IS AT LEAST DOUBLE MINIMUM LEVEL

23%

73%

25%

58%

FIGURE L

Overall note: The fundraising levels required to earn recognition ranged from $100 - $544, with the most common being $250.

RA R

ECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

RA R

ECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S

RU R

ECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

RU R

ECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S

CASE STUDY TWO

Recognition Seekers Have Better Year Two Performance

But even in the market environment, recognition has impact. We present as a case study a cycling client whose program has over 8,000 participants.

We matched Year 1 participants to Year 2 participants using a two-step system. We matched first by unique identifier, which did not produce a significant number of matches. The second step was to match by first name, last name, email address combination. The final group we studied included those who earned recognition in Year 1, and were present in the data set in Year 2.

Our findings in summary for this cycling event, when studying those who earned recognition Year 1 and returned in Year 2:

n 70% of the time recognition seekers returned to ride again in Year 2 vs. the overall retention of 26%, and better than the industry standard of 58%.*

n 60% of the time recognition decliners returned to ride in Year 2, (FIGURE M) also better than overall and industry percentages.

n If you were a recognition seeker, 45% of the time you were likely to raise more money in Year 2, as compared to 36% of the time for recognition decliners.

n Recognition seekers are also 24% less likely to be a $0 fundraiser in Year 2 and 21% more likely to earn recognition in Year 2 compared to recognition decliners.

n We took the recognition seekers and recognition decliners from Year 1 and looked at only those who earned again in Year 2. We found that both group’s fundraising averages increased. (FIGURE N)

* The 2014 BlackBaud Peer-to-Peer Fundraising Study, July 2015.

RA Cycling Event - Recognition vs. Transactionalism Throwdown

PERCENT OF RETURN IN YEAR TWO

RECO

GN

ITIO

N S

EEKE

RS

70%

RECO

GN

ITIO

N D

ECLI

NER

S

60%

FIGURE M

RECOGNITION SEEKERS

2014

$1,306

2015

$1,380 FIGURE N

2014

$1,168

2015

$1,276

RECOGNITION DECLINERS

n Those who earn and seek recognition raise more than those who earn but do not seek recognition.

n Those who earn and seek recognition return to fundraise more often than those who earn but do not seek recognition.

n The act of seeking (redeeming) a recognition gift is a marker for future high-retention and future high-fundraising.

n By building recognition seekers’ intrinsic label through behaviorally triggered messaging and branded recognition, we are building a multi-year fundraising relationship.

n Recognition redemption is a measurement of how well we did at installing and nurturing a participant’s intrinsic label. Happily, it also provides the opportunity to reinforce their intrinsic label throughout the year, if Turnkey best practices are used.

n Use of gifts that can be mentally monetized, which inspire a market relationship with participants, will encourage participants to accept recognition for reasons other than mission alignment, resulting in higher redemptions and costs, with no commensurate elevation in fundraising.

CONCLUSIONS

Turnkey is a 27-year-old company which uses recognition to mobilize everyday people to fundraise, rally others and become evangelists for our clients’ causes. Our icon, the dandelion, is representative of the nature of peer-to-peer fundraising. Volunteer fundraisers and dandelions – turning one into many.

www.turnkeyp2p.com

T 804.545.1000

email: info@turnkeyp2p.com