Date post: | 29-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | childrens-hospital-trust |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
What’s Trending in Philanthropy: Information and Innovation
2012 Creating Connections Conference Shelley Brown
Christopher Maddocks
“…(we)areinaconfluenceoftwosectors(healthcareandphilanthropy)undergoingprofoundtransforma:on,eachthefocusofextensivedebate.”
EmergingTrends:TheChangingLandscapeof HealthCarePhilanthropyAHP2010
OurPhilanthropicLandscape…
Volatility investment RECESSION transformation cost containment Vigilance ROI donor-centric IMPACT compliance
COLLABORATION Competition transparency metrics INNOVATION
ACCOUNTABILITY “May we live in interesting times….” Confucius
Today’sChallenges Risingfinancialobliga0ons,shrinkingpublicsupport(financialandmoral),increasedneedforunrestricteddollarsandtransparency
“Goingglobal:”morecompe00on,moreopportuni0es,greatersophis0ca0on
ShiBindonormo0va0onfrom“doinggood”to“inves0ngincommunity/cause”
Thenewimpera0ve:transforma0on
OurBestResponse
Keeptothebasicprinciples—buildthebase,deepenrela0onships,makethecase
Usenewmediaandmethodsinserviceofthoseprinciples—toextendreachandshapecontent
Informdecision‐makinganddonors:knowyourdonorsandletthemknowyou
Investinnewideasandcreatetransforma0onalopportuni0esfordonors
Today’sConversa:on
Sharethegoodnews:revenueinhealthcareupby8%in2010(children’shospitalsamongthegreatestsuccesses)!
Highlighttrendsandexperienceshapingour‘bestresponse’—informa0on,innova0on,investment
Sharesuccess(andnotsomuch)stories Ques0ons???
INFORMATION:TRENDSANDEXPERIENCE
INFORMATION:TRENDS
Genera:onalShiKsTechnologyusageisthemostcommonthemeforhowtheemerginggenera0ons(GenX,Millennial)definethemselves
Source: Pew Research Center - http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Feb/National-Religious-Broadcasters.aspx
GadgetGenera:ons
Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx
MobileRevolu:on83%ofalladultsaremobilephonesubscribers
45%usesmartphones
Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx
OntheirMobiles
63%ofAdultsarewirelessInternetusersIncreasedby26percentagepointsinjust3years
Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.slideshare.net/PewInternet/state-of-social-media-2011
FromMobiletoSocial50%ofalladultInternetusersareonsocialnetworks
Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx
SocialRevolu:onAdultsaged50–64arethefastestgrowingpopula0on,Havinggrownfrom25%to52%adop0onin3years
Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx
Halfofadultsaged18–49usesocialmediaonadailybasis
Systema:callySocial
Source: Pew Research Center -http://www.slideshare.net/PewInternet/state-of-social-media-2011
AccordingtothePewProjectforDigitalandAmericanLife
Forsocialnetworkusersbetween18and49yearsold,theprimaryreasontousesocialmediaistoconnectwithfriendsand
groupstheylike.
Forusersover50,thetopreasontoistoconnectwithfamily.
AFriendlyBunchSocialmediausersaged18–34havetwiceasmanyfriendsasusersaged47–56andfour0mesasmanyasusersaged66–74.
Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx
Butwhataboutthewealthy?
Itturnsout,they’renotthatdifferent…
TheWiredWealthy
• Atandemofresearchstudiesexaminedtheonlinehabitsoftheaffluent.
• OneresearchprojectbyEdgeResearchandConviostudiedtheonlinehabitsof3,443majorgiBdonorswithincomegreaterthan$200,000
• ThesecondstudybyMcKinseyandCompanyandtheHewlelFounda0onexaminedonlinebehaviorsandinforma0onneedsformajorgiBdonors.
OnlineHabits
40
donations. Looking forward, 46 percent said that they expect to make a greater percentage of their charitable gifts online within the next 5 years.34 While our focus in this paper is on more af!uent donors, this trend is certainly encouraging and supports our belief that online platforms will increasingly be an effective channel.
Barriers to greater impact
While the trends described above are promising, nonpro"t market intermediaries have yet to realize their full potential. Many intermediary organizations are subscale and offer limited products, services, and value. They could be doing much more to disseminate the valuable information generated by foundations and others and to facilitate collaboration and partner-ships. Lastly, intermediaries could add signi"cant value to the nonpro"t market by shining an objective light on nonpro"t performance.
Insuf!cient scale
The nonpro"t marketplace is served by hundreds of intermediary organizations. With few exceptions, they tend to operate as unconnected islands—despite the fact that intermediaries by de"nition are meant to help connect those who are not yet connected. We believe that
34 Convio, Sea Change Strategies, and Edge Research, “The Wired Wealthy: Using the Internet to Connect with Your Middle and Major Donors,” March 24, 2008.
Online usage is high for affluent
Source: Mendehlson Affluent Survey, 2006; Pew Charitable Trust; Luxury Institute; expert interviews
Percent
Exhibit 11
7
1414
23
1714
22
27
3841
17
29
24
4445
2325
32
40
48
Banking Made a purchaseTravel information or reservations
<$100K
$100-150K
$250K or more
$150-250K
Financial information/stock trading
Gatheredinformation for
shopping
WiredWealthyClusters
!"#$%&'(%)*+(%,-()./-0()-123,4(!2563-/6( ( %,-()./-0()-123,4(
(
78(
!
!"#$%&'()$*+,#$*($-.$/((0$#.$1).*$,2."#$#+($2(+,'&.3/$.4$#+(/($56"/#(3/7$&#$-.(/$0,1($,$
5(3#,&)$,0.")#$.4$/()/(8$
!(6.*$,3($#*.$#,26(/8$9+($4&3/#$:;&%"3($<=$>3.4&6(/$1(?$,##3&2"#(/$4.3$(,5+$.4$#+($#+3(($56"/#(3/8$
9+($/(5.)-$:;&%"3($@=$>3(/()#/$56"/#(3$23(,1-.*)/$4.3$(,5+$.4$#+($0,A.3$/(5#.3/$.4$).)>3.4&#/$
*($/#"-&(-$:(8%87$B)&0,6$C(64,3(7$D(,6#+7$(#58=8$E6(,/($#,1($#+($/(5.)-$#,26($*&#+$,$%3,&)$.4$
/,6#$F$#+($>3.>.3#&.)/$,3($3(46(5#&'($.4$#+($%3.">/$*+.$5+./($#.$>,3#&5&>,#(7$,)-$0,?$.3$0,?$
).#$3(46(5#$#+($56"/#(3$-&'&/&.)/$.4$#+,#$()#&3($/(5#.38$G."3$0&6(,%(7$&)$.#+(3$*.3-/7$0,?$',3?8$
$
!
! "#$%&'()*+',!-##.#/*!
012!3)4!1156!
7%*8%$!7())#9&(/*!
:;2!3)4!;:0<6!
=$$!>8*')#**!
?@2!3)4!;@006!
=A#/%B#!%B#! HI$?3/$.6-$ JK$?3/$.6-$ JL$?3/$.6-$
=A#/%B#!&(&%$!B'C&!
:/(64M3(>.3#(-=!
N<<7HK<O?(,3! NP7@<@O?(,3! N<@7QPIO?(,3!
2!D%A#!B'A#)!()$')#! IQR$ IKR$ SJR$
R$E3(4(3$.)6&)($ JQR$ JKR$ HQR$
R$E3(4(3$0,&6$ @LR$ LKR$ LSR$
2!E'*'&!9+%/'&F!G#H!*'&#!
/#B8$%/$F$:.)5($>(3$0.)#+$
.3$0.3(=!
<QR$ QR$ <R$
2!"#%I!J(*&!9+%/'&F!#J%'$*$
:SJR$.3$0.3(=$
H@R$ @SR$ PR$
=9&'A'&'#*!I()#!()$')#!/#B8$%/$FK!
R$T(,-$26.%/$$ <LR$ IR$ QR$
R$9,1($>.6&#&5,6$,5#&.)$
.)6&)($
LJR$ <IR$ SR$
2!U)%,%($&)!/.5&,6$
)(#*.31/$.)6&)($:,>>3.V8=!
H@R$ <PR$ <@R$
!
9.:5/-(7+(;-4(#33/.<53-(!=>?1/.6=@(%1<2-(
(
(
(
!
!
=IA(9%9FL!
M8H$'9!=CC%'/*!
3)4!1?N6!
=)'J%$!
O#$C%/#!
3)4!;006!
7+/'*&'%)!
P')'*&/'#*!
3)4!056!
Q)A'/(!
3)4!;<?6!
D#%$&+!
3)4!;;<N6!
R)&#/)%&S$!
"#$'#C!T!U#A4!
3)4!1;56!
M8H$'9!
V#$#A'*'()!
3)4!;;06!
'-213.=@6,.?(
A--B-/6(HLR$ HHR$ H<R$ HKR$ @@R$ @<R$ <KR$
!16512(
!=@@-C3=/6!LIR$ H@R$ HKR$ HJR$ HHR$ HKR$ HPR$
#22(D56.@-66! @KR$ <JR$ @KR$ <QR$ LHR$ HKR$ H<R$
(
9.:5/-(E+(!2563-/('-?/-6-@313.=@(F=/(&1C,(A-C3=/(
HowTheyChoosetoGive
• TheHewlelresearchfoundagrowingsegmentof“strategic”or“outcome‐oriented”philanthropists(comprisingroughly1/3ofmajordonors)whodemandgreaterinforma0onbeforemakingagiB.
• Thesedonorsincreasinglyuseonlineinforma0onsourcestoinformkeycharitablegivingdecisions:– Whichorganiza0onstoini0allysupport– Whichorganiza0onstocon0nuetosupport
26
In light of this demand for more and better performance information, !nancial institutions with signi!-cant donor services—including JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, UBS, and Schwab Charitable—are expanding their philanthropy-related products and advisory services, offering more donor education forums, collecting nonpro!t performance information, and/or adding professional staff with nonpro!t expertise. Several !nancial executives interviewed were enthusiastic about partnering with nonpro!t-sector intermediaries and foundations in an effort to gain access to more information on nonpro!ts and better serve their high-net-worth customer base.23
Suggestions for improvement
There is good reason to believe that better information would result in more impactful choices by indi-vidual donors. As one !nancial services professional put it, “I believe performance information is like e-mail was in the ’80s. Donors don’t know they want it because they can’t imagine it, but they will !nd it very useful once it’s widely available.”
23 As this paper was published, a severe credit crisis was roiling the !nancial markets. While it is impossible to predict how the crisis will play out, it may reduce the near-term capacity of some !nancial institutions to expand their philanthropic services.
What motivates high-net-worth donors?*
* Defined as households with Incomes greater than $200,000 or assets in excess of $1 millionSource: The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Bank of America Study of High Net Worth Individuals: Initial Report, 2006
Impact-driven
Important motivations for charitable giving by
HNW households (percent
15
15
16
20
21
21
31
35
36
36
40
47
53
58
75Less money spent on admin
Able to determine impact of gifts
More financially secure
Better return on investment
Not already financially committed
Knew of more organizations
Able to use skills in nonprofits
More access to research
Understood goals of nonprofits
More info on giving vehicles
Name would not be made public
More time
Less legal red tape
Able to compare notes with peers
Not already leaving donations in estate1
1
8
26
27
29
57
62
62
62
64
69
82
83
86Meet critical needs
Giving back to society
Reciprocity
Desired impact
Nonprofits provide services
Being asked
Set an example
Identification with causes
Religious beliefs
Expected in social network
Good business sense
Leaving legacy
Limit funds to heirs
Percentage of HNW households reporting that they would
give more to charity if the following occurred
Exhibit 7
Why give? Why give again?
26
In light of this demand for more and better performance information, !nancial institutions with signi!-cant donor services—including JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, UBS, and Schwab Charitable—are expanding their philanthropy-related products and advisory services, offering more donor education forums, collecting nonpro!t performance information, and/or adding professional staff with nonpro!t expertise. Several !nancial executives interviewed were enthusiastic about partnering with nonpro!t-sector intermediaries and foundations in an effort to gain access to more information on nonpro!ts and better serve their high-net-worth customer base.23
Suggestions for improvement
There is good reason to believe that better information would result in more impactful choices by indi-vidual donors. As one !nancial services professional put it, “I believe performance information is like e-mail was in the ’80s. Donors don’t know they want it because they can’t imagine it, but they will !nd it very useful once it’s widely available.”
23 As this paper was published, a severe credit crisis was roiling the !nancial markets. While it is impossible to predict how the crisis will play out, it may reduce the near-term capacity of some !nancial institutions to expand their philanthropic services.
What motivates high-net-worth donors?*
* Defined as households with Incomes greater than $200,000 or assets in excess of $1 millionSource: The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Bank of America Study of High Net Worth Individuals: Initial Report, 2006
Impact-driven
Important motivations for charitable giving by
HNW households (percent
15
15
16
20
21
21
31
35
36
36
40
47
53
58
75Less money spent on admin
Able to determine impact of gifts
More financially secure
Better return on investment
Not already financially committed
Knew of more organizations
Able to use skills in nonprofits
More access to research
Understood goals of nonprofits
More info on giving vehicles
Name would not be made public
More time
Less legal red tape
Able to compare notes with peers
Not already leaving donations in estate1
1
8
26
27
29
57
62
62
62
64
69
82
83
86Meet critical needs
Giving back to society
Reciprocity
Desired impact
Nonprofits provide services
Being asked
Set an example
Identification with causes
Religious beliefs
Expected in social network
Good business sense
Leaving legacy
Limit funds to heirs
Percentage of HNW households reporting that they would
give more to charity if the following occurred
Exhibit 7
Why give? Why give again?
WiredWealthyTake‐Away
• Majordonorsreadyouremailandsocialmedia• TheymakeafirstgiB– Becausetheybelievethatyoumeetcri0calneeds– Becausetheywanttomakeanimpact
• Theycon0nuetogive– WhentheyknowtheirgiBimpact– Whentheyseereturnonphilanthropicinvestment– Whentheyunderstandyourgoals
20
Actively use information to drive performance and underpin fact-based conversations about impact
It is not enough to gather the right kinds of information; nonpro!t leaders need to use that information to drive performance and make decisions that lead to greater social impact. Every nonpro!t should have a robust performance management system. A good system sets annual targets, gathers data on how well those targets are being met, triggers periodic discussions on what needs to be done to address emerging shortfalls, and rewards leaders that achieve goals important to the mission. A periodic review of the strategies underlying the targets is an equally essential element of a performance-oriented culture.
Nonpro!ts should also use this information to engage with stakeholders in a candid dialogue about successes, failures, and lessons learned. Just as for-pro!t companies typically track a broad range of metrics to drive operational performance and a subset of metrics to report
Availability, accessibility, and
quality of proxy informationYes
No
Exhibit 5
Management
and support
Feedback
Metrics
Program and
goals
Type of information
Is the information . . .
Mission
Strategy
Logic model4
Management team/board
Peer networks
Funders
Beneficiary feedback
Expert/peer/donor ratings
Awards
Output metrics
(e.g., # of meals served)
Organization metrics (e.g.,
staff size, turnover)
Financial metrics
(e.g., fundraising costs)
Knowable?
Publicly
available?1
Easy to
get?2 Analyzed?3
1 Publicly available through a nonprofit’s annual report or website
2 Searchable and easy to get online through aggregated website(s)
3 An independent third party has analyzed the information
4 Alternatively termed an impact model or theory of change
20
Actively use information to drive performance and underpin fact-based conversations about impact
It is not enough to gather the right kinds of information; nonpro!t leaders need to use that information to drive performance and make decisions that lead to greater social impact. Every nonpro!t should have a robust performance management system. A good system sets annual targets, gathers data on how well those targets are being met, triggers periodic discussions on what needs to be done to address emerging shortfalls, and rewards leaders that achieve goals important to the mission. A periodic review of the strategies underlying the targets is an equally essential element of a performance-oriented culture.
Nonpro!ts should also use this information to engage with stakeholders in a candid dialogue about successes, failures, and lessons learned. Just as for-pro!t companies typically track a broad range of metrics to drive operational performance and a subset of metrics to report
Availability, accessibility, and
quality of proxy informationYes
No
Exhibit 5
Management
and support
Feedback
Metrics
Program and
goals
Type of information
Is the information . . .
Mission
Strategy
Logic model4
Management team/board
Peer networks
Funders
Beneficiary feedback
Expert/peer/donor ratings
Awards
Output metrics
(e.g., # of meals served)
Organization metrics (e.g.,
staff size, turnover)
Financial metrics
(e.g., fundraising costs)
Knowable?
Publicly
available?1
Easy to
get?2 Analyzed?3
1 Publicly available through a nonprofit’s annual report or website
2 Searchable and easy to get online through aggregated website(s)
3 An independent third party has analyzed the information
4 Alternatively termed an impact model or theory of change
INFORMATION:EXPERIENCE
OurTake‐Away Surveydonorsandindustrybestprac0ces—andapplythelearnings! Burkedonorsurveycorroboratedcommonwisdom:designateappeals,communicateimpact,increaseonlineandofflineconnec0ons
Digitalmediaassessmentconfirmedwhatworked(interac0ve)andwhatdoesn’t(textmessaging)
Informdecision‐makinganddonors:knowyourdonorsandletthemknowyou
Investinnewideasandcreatetransforma0onalopportuni0esfordonors
INNOVATION:TRENDSANDEXPERIENCE
INNOVATION:TRENDS
MobileInnova:on?
• InJanuary,PewandtheBerkmanCenteratHarvardreleasedareport:tled“RealTimeCharitableGiving”thatanalyzestrendsinmobilegiving.
• Findingsincluded:• 9%ofdonorshavegivenviatextmessage• 43%indicatedtheywereinfluencedtogivebyfriendand
familysharingviasocialmedia• 50%ofmobilegiverssaytheyweredrivenbyimpulse• 58%ofmobilegiversindicatethataKertheirdona:on,
theirconnecttothereceivingorganiza:onis“nottooclose”or“notatall”
Source: Pew Research Center, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, mGive Foundation, “Real-Time Charitable Giving”, January 12, 2012, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/MobileGiving.aspx
NotStrategicGiving
SocialInnova:on?
Communica:onvs.givingchannel
PAGE 7 Using Facebook to Meet Your Mission: Results of a Survey • !"#$%&'((
In addition to constituent impact, we asked respon-dents about goals not directly involving constituents that can be easily quanti!ed. "ese included website tra#c, donations, email list size, and moving people to action, or advocacy actions.
Respondents reported the most success using Facebook to direct new people to their websites—almost 300 re-ported “some” or a “substantial” increase in web tra#c attributable to Facebook. Free web analytics tools, like Google Analytics, make tracking visitors from a link on a Facebook page one of the most measurable goals included in this survey.
Survey respondents interested in moving people to take some form of action for a cause, like signing petitions or other advocacy actions, also reported more success than failure—66 percent achieved moderate to sub-stantial results. Online petitions and other political or advocacy actions are not di#cult, demand little time, and are easily spread through Facebook and other social media.
DRIVING TRAFFIC AND ACTIONS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Increased WebsiteTraffic
Moved Peopleto Take Action
IncreasedEmail List
Increased Donations
% A
pplic
able
Res
pond
ents
)*+,%-./+0**1%2+34%)567+%/*8,969:+89,%9*%./96*8;
CASE STUDY
The Bookkeeping Center Based in New York City, The Bookkeeping Center prepares low-income and unemployed individu-als for new careers in bookkeeping and finance through classes and job placement training. Staff usually spends about two hours a week on Facebook posting articles and videos about finding and keeping jobs, and about the accounting community in general, to provide students with extra help. They’ve encountered some difficulty using Facebook to share informa-tion with constituents because many students lack Internet access, or even computers, and as a result most discussion remains offline.
However, the Bookkeeping Center has seen great results using Facebook to connect with other individuals at both locally and nationally. Its Facebook presence drives traffic to the organization’s website, and Google Analytics
(continued on page 8)
See Appendix A for a more detailed explanation and breakdown of this data.Source: Idealware, “Using Facebook to Meet Our Mission”, June 2011, http://www.volunteertoday.com/PDF/Facebook_survey_2011_v2.pdf
PAGE 10 Using Facebook to Meet Your Mission: Results of a Survey • !"#$%&'((
We also asked respondents about the results they achieved for several goals that are frequently mentioned by nonpro!ts using Facebook but are that are di"cult to quantify or measure. #ese include providing infor-mation, increasing awareness and spreading resources more widely. Because they can be di"cult to quantify, many are a measure of an organization’s perception rather than its success. #is sort of data can’t be standardized, and it’s di"cult to generalize, but it does provide insight into how organizations think about Facebook.
Almost across the board, survey respondents said they’d had success—at least 80 percent reported moderate to substantial positive results in all three of these goals. Half of all respondents reported that using Facebook had increased awareness of their organization, but said they did not see a notable increase in any kind of con-stituent. What does awareness mean to an organization if it doesn’t result in attracting new people, and why would one increase not accompany the other? Don’t make any of these objectives a goal until you have solidly de!ned what it means to increase awareness or spread information and can work to achieve what you set out to achieve.
Each of these perceived goals means something di$erent to each organization. What would they mean to yours?
INCREASING AWARENESS AND INFORMATION
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% R
espo
nden
ts
Providedadditional information
Spread our informationmore widely
Increasedawareness of
our organization
No effect
Minimal
Some
Substantial
100%
)*+,%-./+0**1%2+34%0563)%.7.8+9+,,:
Youcan’tuseittofundraise…Butyoursupporterscan.
© June 2011 | 2000 Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC 29492 T 800.443.9441 E [email protected] W www.blackbaud.com
5
Figure 5: Fundraising Methods
Online Tools: Easy or Difficult to Use
It’s fair to say that online fundraising is easy and effective for peer-to-peer fundraising events. When
asked to rate the online fundraising tools provided by the nonprofit, from one ("extremely difficult") to
ten ("extremely easy"), on average respondents gave the tools an eight. This high rank provides great
opportunity for organizations to incorporate online tools into their event strategies. Organizations should
consider how they are currently messaging online tools and uncover if there are additional ways to spread
the word or provide instructions on how peer-to-peer fundraisers can be utilizing the tools.
Survey respondents were asked if they used the online tools provided by the organizations. Of the
45 percent of respondents who used online tools, 58 percent personalized their pages. It is worth
mentioning that while 45 percent used online tools, 73 percent of respondents used email while
fundraising. It appears that some respondents choose to use their established personal email accounts
rather than the email tool provided by the nonprofit organization.
Additional Blackbaud research, outside of the survey, shows that individuals who personalize their pages
and use online tools raise six times more funds than non-users. Ease-of-use is one reason participants
raise more online, but every time a participant goes online to check their fundraising progress, send an
email, or update their fundraising page, the organization is able to connect with them about their work,
the cause, and the impact they are making. Building relationships online and offline with peer-to-peer
fundraisers is crucial to event and fundraising success.
Figure 6: Did you use online tools? Figure 7: Did you personalize your page?
Peer-to-Peer Event Fundraising Consumer Survey
Letters/postal mail
Email Phone calls In-person asks Social networking/
media
Hosted an event
(guest bartender
night, house party,
bake sale, etc.)
Other
41%
73%
58%
80%
49%
31%
18%
Yes45%
No55%
Yes45%
No55%
Continued on following page
Source: Blackbaud, “Peer-To-Peer Event Fundraising Consumer Survey”, June 2011 https://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/WhitePaper_RunWalkRidePeerToPeerParticipantSurvey2011.pdf
IfThey’llShareThis…They’llcertainlysharethis…
Itisn’tallfundraising…
AVisualTrend
• Visualandinterac:vemedia(i.e.video)areontherisewiththetrendtowardssmallercompu:ngdevices
• Contentneedstobeincreasingly‐able
Be(P)interes:ng
• Pinterest– Highly‐visualsocialnetworkofimages– LaunchedTwoYearsAgo– 10MillionUniqueVisitorsperMonth– 2,702%IncreaseinvisitorssinceMay2011– AverageTimeonSite=15.8Minutes– 50%ofusershavekids– 28%ofUsershaveHouseholdIncome>$100k– 40%ofusersare35yearsoldorolder
Innova:onTakeAway
• Leveragemobilesolu0onsthatservedonors.Givethemrichcontentorgivethemtoolstobelerfundraiseforyou.Thinktwiceaboutmobilegiving.
• Unleashyourcontentandmakeit‐able.Search‐able,scan‐able,embed‐able,comment‐ableandmob‐able(i.e.mobile‐friendly).
• Highlyvisualcontentandvideoarewell‐suitedtomoibleandtabletcomputers.
• Usesocialtomagnifyyourbrand–talkaboutyourmissionandoutcomes–itisn’tallfundraising.
INNOVATION:EXPERIENCE
InvestmentPays…andPaysOff
• Advantagenewtechnologyandstrategiestoextendreachofexis0ngevents
• Makewayforthenew:UseROIanalysestorefreshandreplacefundraisingac0vi0es
• Tailorengagementandgivingopportuni0estoappealtothe“venturephilanthropy/investment”mindset
• Gowherethedonorsare—theglobalcommunity
BuildanInclusiveApproach
• Researchshowedthatsocial,digitalandmobiletrendscutacrossdemographicandeconomiclines.
• Bewaryofadop:ontrends.• Thinkaboutmobileopportuni:esthatmeetdiversecons:tuentsneeds.Considersolu:onsthataren’tjustfocusedoneventorannualdonors.WhatwouldaMajorGiKdonorwantinanapp?Avolunteersolicitor?
SocialInnova:onBeeverywhere.Integratesocialintoallyourother
channelsandbringcontentfromyourotherchannelstosocial.
QUESTIONS?
ThankYou!!ShelleyBrown
VicePresident,Opera:onsChildren’sHospitalTrust
ChristopherMaddocksDirector,Informa:onManagement&Technology
Children’[email protected]
Resources
Emerging Trends: the Changing Landscape of Health Care Philanthropy (AHP 2010) The Online Giving Study Network for Good and TrueSense Marketing The Cygnus Donor Survey 2011 Twitter – @clm2134 Presentation – www.issuu.com/clm2134/ Pinterest Board – pinterest.com/clm2134/emerging_trends