Reaching Out to Donors of Other Faiths
2003 National Catholic
Development ConferenceLos Angeles, CASeptember 30, 2003
Kevin Whorton, Director Direct Response FundraisingCatholic Relief ServicesBaltimore, Maryland
Overview
Why Pursue “Other Faiths”…
Two simple answers:
We appeal to non-Catholics
We need to appeal to other non-Catholics
Our Appeal to non-Catholics
The sensibilities of Catholic Social Teaching Common sense appeal
Dignity and equality of the Human Person Rights and responsibilities Social nature of humanity The common good Subsidiarity Solidarity Option (concern) for the poor Stewardship
Very key issues that appeal equally to non-Catholics
Evidence of Our Appeal
Our founding: Eastern Europe after World War II
Our donor base: 94% Catholic (Epsilon profile in 1999)
Still name recognition issues Tempting to conclude that it reduces our appeal in
some sectors Program expansion hindered
Poor performance with Hispanics Odd program structure
$28-$32 average acquisition gift $140 average value per donor per year
Our Culture
Diversity We work in more than 90 countries
Most of our field staff are “national”—from that nationWe work closely with partners in all of our work, entities
in that nation including Caritas Staff are very mixed
Catholic, other Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim Many are historically “field people” (However Catholics hold the most senior positions
within countries and Baltimore) Language, attitude of economic development
In many ways, seems stronger than faith or Catholic Social Teaching
Facing the
Challenges
External Challenges
Continually a more crowded field Non-Catholic organizations are successfully mining
territory No longer the “franchise” that once existed Breakeven results on program
Hard to expand outside Catholics Working in a tough space: development organization that
sounds religious Very few advantages, many disadvantages of structure Media/public image Relationship for government funding
Works with many religious partners in the field (e.g., Caritas) More of a focus on cooperation within the community
Avoid redundancy, maximize efficiency of operation
Internal Challenges
Attitudes Distrust of “junk mail and telemarketing” Budget and staffing cutbacks in current environment
(due primarily to public funding) Inadequate access to internal information
Yet, a strong program Good renewal rates
Recently, poor conversion rates of new donors Loss of 10 percentage points on renewal Loss greater at the low dollar, core remains strong
Integrated Marketing within CRS
Outreach Across Channels: Fundraising
Corporate We apply social screens which sharply reduces
the range of organizations we can work with Sharply curtailed in-kind giving long ago
Foundations Work with some small family foundations Many of the FADICA list were not “prospects” Some of our goals are large, secular (e.g. Gates)
Major gifts/planned giving Strong Catholic focus
However, performance historically lags behind direct response
Outreach Across Channels: Awareness Raising
Marketing We apply social screens which sharply reduces the
range of organizations we can work with Sharply curtailed in-kind giving long ago
Advertising Worked closely with a mix of commercial and Catholic
publications in four test markets/SMSA Proven effect on fundraising: negative
Poor readership of diocesan publications Increase in aided/unaided awareness Slight increase in response rate, lower average gifts
Media Considerable focus on Catholic publications Need to maintain broader-based readership
Outreach Across Channels: Integrated Marketing
Web Much younger approach
Future vehicle for “the right donor” Key to new acquisition Best method for approaching non-Catholics Tie-ins (Hungersite) Advocasy Content management initiative (micro-sites)
Also allows focus on “dual constituencies” Communicate to donors who care about an issue Communicate to programs about what donors want/like
Outreach Across Channels: Church/U.S. Operations
Integrating agency strategy Potential challenge: “social justice” lens
Marketing department challenges view Conflicts with opinion research:
Positioning study Segmentation study
Both document less than supportive attitudes Conflict: “what works” vs. “where we’re going”
Our position: “dual constituency” provides an umbrella A way to help donors organize how they think about us Hurts short term, should support long-term results
Direct Marketing
Program
Evidence from Our Testing
Confusing mix: We tested several packages successful enough to retest Our standard control (six years running)
Double buckslip, not much personalization Mission oriented text No premium
“Gold angel token” Very similar package, but using token as attention-getter
“Urgent letter” Traditional letter format, more text explaining what we do Different external appearance/teaser
Evidence from Our Testing: Package Comparison
A B C
# Mailed 364,945 150,000 50,000
% Response 0.71% 1.23% 0.77%
Average Gift $36.48 $23.73 $55.52
Rev/M $257.26 $292.99 $424.76
CPDR $1.38 $1.54 $0.93
A: New Refugee ControlB: Control with Gold Angel TokenC: Urgent Letter Package
Audience Selections
Mailing lists Two separate brokers
One for our “Catholic” track One newer for “international” (secular) lists The latter still performs poorly—
Response rates are roughly 60% that of Catholic lists Average gifts are comparable, if a bit higher Cost per dollar raised varies campaign to campaign “International lists” are generally Catholic selections of
lists of people chosen for non-religious behavior
Considerable use of modeling
Ethnic Marketing Programs
Abandoned early Spanish language approach Dismal results, impossible to justify as an “investment” Premium sensitive people
New: present CRS activities targeted to interests Developed first prospect package for Korean-American
audiences Colors, content, photographs all reflect Korean programs Careful introduction to donations, charities, unrestricted gifts
Branch more into international Pro: Appeal, strong results among other orgs Con: Many peer organizations are already there Relationships:
Historically constrained by Caritas relationships Practical: many are sophisticated fundraisers …
Our Message
How We Describe CRS
Historical perspective Established 1943 as War Relief Services International Relief and Development Agency Assist needy in more than 90 countries
worldwide Program areas include
Agriculture Civil justice Child survival Small loan programs HIV/AIDS Education Emergency relief Health
Insight Driving Our Marketing
Positioning Study (Wirthlin Worldwide)
“Where we are” in the minds of donors 90 two-hur interviews with major, minor,
prospective donors Laddering: taking a participant’s comment and
asking WHY more to probe Often a method used to assess the brand mindset:
defining CRS according awareness/attitudes of donor
Concerns: “Urban legends” and “pooled ignorance”!
Positioning Map: Relief Organizations
Religious
Secular
Domestic International
Other Axis Options
Relief/Development
Child/Adult
Specialized/General
Catholic
Charities
International Red CrossUNICEF
CRSLWR
World Vision
CARE
Salvation Army
WR
Save The Children
Peace Corps
SVDP
Copy Issues
Developing more “first person” stories
Added staff in Nairobi/Johannesburg Better relationships with field staff Easier stories, sometimes as simple as writing back to sitrep
(situation report) authors
Becoming more “granular” in our approach Raising money for specific causes Better balance between restricted and unrestricted Adding capacity to do small volume, topical
mailings/campaigns
Design Issues
Typical packages Crowded, everything “tests in”
Devout inserts—prayer cards Tests of Mass cards work well
Often some pushback internally Fortunately, considerable autonomy on copy, business
decisions Loath to feature: flies, famine, undignified portrayals
Ongoing concern: CRS is very well respected in development world Yes, aura dims with our target audiences How to make it convey? How to make audiences relate to us and the need?
In Conclusion
Focusing On
What We Control