Tracy Tuten's List: Royall

• “One statistic that hasn’t fluctuated in five years of tracking attitudes toward college savings is that 80 percent of parents believe that a college education is a minimum requirement for a decent job,” said Matt Golden, vice president, Fidelity Financial Advisor Solutions College Planning.
• 3) Making Shared Sacrifices to Achieve College Savings Goals
  Three-quarters of parents (75 percent) said they do not want to burden their children with college loans (up from 65 percent in 2007). In a five-year period, families have significantly increased their use of a range of strategies for managing college costs and generating additional income.
• Strategies20072011 Have a child live at home and commute38%48% Encourage child to attend public college or university34%44% As child to graduate in fewer semesters13%44% Have child work part-time49%59% Ask child to help pay for college36%46% Have non-working spouse go back to work11%18% Parent gets a second job11%17%

1 more annotation...

• So, how can you do better than most and effectively market to college students? Let's look at five simple steps.

   
  1. Admit you are old
     
     Most decision-makers are too old or disconnected to adequately understand the student demographic. Having a kid in college does not qualify. Being older than college students is fine... so long as you do not pretend to speak their language, understand their tastes, or tell them what to do.
     
  2. Keep things simple, and find someone young
     
     Having common courtesy and sending short messages are better than trying to be hip. All age groups respect honesty and brands that are true to themselves. If you can afford it, hire someone who has an Xbox or knows how to play beer pong. If you cannot afford that, how about an intern who can provide some insight?
• • Embrace segmentation
    
    Before all else, segment your customers and identify which ones are college students. Do you do that? Only when you have that information can your marketing become truly effective. Armed with information, you can change the message, send relevant emails, create college landing pages, and design campaigns that look like they were meant for students.
    
  • Provide an incentive
    
    Amazon provides free Prime subscription to students. Apple offers students deep discounts on its products. But offering student discounts is not the only option you have. Could you offer better service? Better terms and conditions? A free trial? Whatever your differentiator for the student segment is, make sure it includes an incentive.
    
  • Use targeted marketing
    
    Create separate landing pages, email marketing strategies, social media accounts, and mobile applications so that you can segment your message. Present your unique value proposition in a channel dedicated to students.
• Think about this: At StudentUniverse, my company, we get deals for students from more than 50 airlines and numerous merchants; one-third of all US college students visit our site; and verified students can become members for free. Airlines establish a connection with students, drive incremental business, and fill seats—all in a socially acceptable manner. (If you, as a business traveler, sat next to a student on an airplane who got a discount for her ticket, would you mind?). Most important, our airline partners are building relationships today with the students who will soon be their business travelers, thereby building loyalty.

1 more annotation...

• It's Time For
  More Innovations In Annual Giving
  Bob's brand-new CASE book - More Innovations in Annual Giving: Ten Global Departures That Worked - features creative annual giving strategies from institutions around the world, including Australia, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, France, the U.K. and beyond.  Included are examples of data mining, leadership giving, reunions parent funds, faculty and staff appeals, the Internet, direct mail and more.  Read more about the book and order from the CASE Books website.

• Most donors in their 20s and 30s prefer to learn about nonprofits through social media, according to a new survey.

• About 65 percent of respondents said they liked to learn about a nonprofit through its Web site, compared with 55 percent who said they turned to social networks, e-mail newsletters (47 percent), print (18 percent), and face-to-face conversations (17 percent).

• When young adults turn to a Web site, the “about us” section draws their attention most. Nearly nine in 10 young people said that’s where they go to seek information, according to the survey, conducted by two consulting companies, Achieve and Johnson, Grossnickle, and Associates.

   

  Other information young people want on a Web site:

   
   
  • 43 percent said they look immediately for proof about the ways their donations make a difference.
   
  • 41 percent seek volunteer opportunities.
   
  • 41 percent look for an events calendar.
   
  • 30 percent gravitate to videos and photos.
• Participants in focus groups said they wanted to understand an organization’s mission in less than a second after visiting the Web page.

1 more annotation...

• Colleges seeking to turn recent graduates -- members of the millennial generation -- into donors should connect with them online and show them tangible examples of how their donations will impact the institution, fund-raising consultants said at a conference Monday.
• The report, put out by the Millennial Impact project, is the third annual one. The project, which is sponsored by Feldmann and White’s agencies, works to help organizations -- including higher education institutions -- learn how to engage the millennial generation in fund-raising efforts.  The project studies how young adults aged 20-35 are persuaded to volunteer and give financially.
• According to the report, 65 percent of respondents said they prefer to get information about organizations via their websites. The next highest -- 55 percent -- said they rely on social media, and 47 percent said they want updates via e-newsletters.

• According to the report, 77 percent of respondents said they owned a smartphone, and 80 percent of those smartphone owners said they have used it to connect with an organization, usually by reading e-mails, e-newsletters or other updates.

   

  Although more millennials are accessing information about organizations via mobile devices, White said she’s not sure this will translate into more smartphone donations: “We think the future of giving on your mobile device is uncertain,” she said, adding that 85 percent of respondents said they had never donated to a nonprofit on their mobile device -- 47 percent because they had never been asked, and 42 percent because they were worried about security or privacy.

• According to the report, 75 percent of respondents said they gave to charities within the last year, and the majority of these donors gave between $1 and $50. Almost three quarters – 70 percent – said they gave online, and 39 percent said they donated money in person.

   

  

3 more annotations...

• For Mother's Day, the group has started a fundraising campaign though Pinterest that invites donors to pin personalized squares to an online quilt honoring a mother or another loved one.

• The most effective information graphics boil down a complex issue to its key elements and tell a simple story. They can start conversations online, encourage people to take action, and, in some cases, even lead nonprofits to improve their programs because they can more easily see the needs.

• • good example of a website

• The fact is that the older generation still gives the largest gifts, even as their generation decreases in numbers, while younger donors, from Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) to Generations X (1965-1980) and Y (1981-1991), must be encouraged to fill the ranks. The problem is that the same methods that appeal to older donors don't always work with younger donors.
• Giving on a website increases with the younger group so that for Gen X it is nearly equal to mail, and for Gen Y it is greater than mail.
• As we can see, mail is predominant for Matures, but for all the other generations, there are multiple channels, with websites and email ranked as most important; and Facebook and other social media registering as lower but significant for Gen X and Y. The study also found that peer solicitation is strong across the generations, especially when donors have a pre-existing relationship with the charity.
• Surprisingly, traditional media is the primary way all generations learn about a particular cause, with the exception of Matures. Matures rank mail as the primary way they learn about a charity. Interestingly, mail ranks in the first three choices by Boomers (19%) and Gen X (16%), but it doesn't even show up for Gen Y.
• Most donors, across generations, engage with a charity through a direct donation, but many attend events, visit the charity's website, or volunteer first. The younger the donor, the more ways of engaging turn up.
• Specifically, younger donors are more likely to support a charity when friends/ family ask versus the charity asking them.
• Younger donors represent relatively open targets. The best way to reach them is either through inspirational stories in the media or better still, via their friends."

• Suggestions from the Study

    
   
  • Reconsider if your charity is heavily dependent on direct mail as a way to acquire new donors. 
  • Remember that while direct mail may motivate a donation, givers are quite likely to actually donate via your website. 
  • Donors acquired by one channel (for instance, the Internet) may want to continue giving by way of another channel (such as direct mail). 
  • Websites are crucial even when a donor sends a check. Most donors now research on the Internet. 
  • Donors use multiple channels, responding to a friend's post in social media, but then writing a check or donating online, for instance. The study even found that 50% of Matures report using Facebook. 
  • Younger donors "channel hop," depending on how they feel at the moment and where they are. 
  • Make sure you have a database that can track as many types of interaction with donors as possible. 
  • Avoid organizational silos. Your direct mail people and your online fundraising people should cooperate. 
  • Don't write off direct mail. However, the content and style will likely change. 
  • Word of mouth is important. We are deluged with information and often turn to the advice of friends and colleagues. Friend-to-friend communication must be a part of any fundraiser's strategy. 
  • Any strategy is only as good as the quality of your message and ability to motivate and inspire donors. Go for the heart first, then the head.

6 more annotations...

• A recent survey of member institutions by <!--bib1-->Eduventures (January 2009) indicated that 75 percent of public institutions and 45 percent of private institutions had already made advancement budget cuts in fiscal year 2009 and many anticipated more cuts in fiscal year 2010.
• Before the arrivals of the new university president and senior vice president for advancement in 2005, fundraising was lacking the financial resources and programmatic sophistication to launch a successful capital campaign. Schools and units operated completely independently of one another. The decentralized approach created an environment in which immediate institutional needs drove fundraising priorities without regard for the donor's interests. Advancement was generally seen as a tool to pay the bills or solve specific short-term problems and lacked an articulated ‘ennobling’ purpose to inspire transformational contributions.
• A donor-centric approach was adopted to steer the advancement program in a new direction. It is the art and science of building relationships with donors by focusing on their dreams and aspirations and discovering ways to align them with your organization. Organizations that are not donor centric often form weak, transactional relationships with limited donor engagement. Some institutions treat their donors as property, owned by specific schools or units. They discard their competitive advantage by prohibiting donors from expressing their interests regardless of their institutional affiliation. This may lead to limited donor engagement, involvement and financial support. They can alienate prospects who have the ability to transform the institution. ‘Donors have choices where to bestow their generosity. Nonprofits that maintain a product focus instead of a customer focus will fail to optimize their share of philanthropic dollars’ (<!--bib2-->Greenberg, 2004, p. 256).
• ‘Giving is visceral. Individuals will view your long list of details and specifics with pious and quiet admiration, but this will seldom move mega givers to audacious action’ (<!--bib3-->Panas, 2005, p. 129)
• The first and most important component of the model was to listen to the donor to become familiar with their philanthropic hopes, dreams and interests. Once this was understood, each donor strategy began with an annual fund component followed by a major gift, typically solicited during a campaign, then eventually a conversation centered on an ultimate gift including a bequest. The strategy may take years to execute, with adjustments over time, however, keeping the end in mind is the guiding principle.
• The next part of the strategy was to build the donor relationship by developing consistent and loyal leadership annual giving and stewarding these donors in both traditional and unique ways. To achieve this, a new annual fund program was developed, fostering a habit of giving over a minimum 5-year period and embody the philanthropic spirit of the University's greatest benefactor, George Eastman.
• The George Eastman Circle is a University-wide leadership annual (unrestricted) giving society that recognizes aggregate giving of US$1500–50 000 per year for 5 consecutive years.
• The use of the multi-year strategy serves two critical purposes. First, it builds a ‘book of business’ ensuring reliable support year to year. This is particularly important in a down economy. Second, consistent high-level annual giving breeds loyalty and larger giving; it is the best behavioral predictor of major gifts in a campaign.
• According to Jim Thompson, 21–29 percent of donors who give at the $1000 level for 5 or more years make a major gift during a campaign (<!--bib4-->Thompson, 2004).
• The program was innovative in several ways. The launch was modeled on the nucleus phase of a capital campaign with the enlistment of key volunteers and stakeholders, a case statement and charter statement, a defined period of time with special kick-off and closing events. A strategy of making a 5-year pledge to build donor loyalty and secure a long-standing ‘book of business’ was aggressively employed.
• A large, portable donor wall was designed to be used at key events, providing prominent recognition for these contributors. In addition, a permanent listing will be displayed at the University.
• Another benefit of the program is the 5-year commitment. This allows staff to devote more time to the stewardship of new members and the solicitation of prospective members rather than asking annual donors to renew every year.
• Panas, J. (2005) Mega Gifts: Who Gives Them, Who Gets Them. Medfield, MA: Emerson & Church Publishers, p. 129.
• Thomson, J. (2004) Annual Fund Analysis to Predict Likelihood of Major Gift Commitments. Study conducted by Thompson, J. while employed at Washington University, St. Louis, MD.

12 more annotations...