Paul Butland, Shelter

1. Until there’s a home for everyone
ROI as a fundraising KPI for Face to
Face and Door to Door – 40 mins
Paul Butland
e: paul_butland@shelter.org.uk
t: 07500 331 446
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
1

2. ROI as a fundraising KPI for Face to
Face and Door to Door
 Why Shelter decided to create the role of In- House Quality and
Retention Manager
 How we identify those high quality donors on the street (who is
likely to give for a long period of time)
 When we suggest regular giving is not the best option for that
person and why
 What age groups we target on the street
 How we look at site retention
 How we have made improvements to F2F retention
 How we plan to re-evaluate volume/average gift/retention and cost,
in order to focus on the sum of the parts
2

3. Why Shelter decided to create the role of
In- House Quality and Retention Manager
 to improve F2F and D2D fundraising standards and ROI
 to shift focus from volume to retention - Committed
 Tackle 1 & 2 Pay drop off
 Ensure quality management for increasing the size of its in-house F2F and D2D
 Brand visibility
 PFRA rule book compliance
 logic - higher the quality of the fundraising - better supporter experience
acquisition -better the retention
 represent the In-House team in wider supporter journey
3

4. How we identify those high quality donors
on the street
 analyse the data that we already had in Raisers Edge
 build live retention reports for fundraisers, team leaders and operations
 Identify which Fundraisers had the best / worst retention
 Find out what they were doing and who they were targeting
 It is clear that there the following things have a market effect on retention
Age
Average gift
Site
Employment
 biggest factor is the fundraiser themselves
4

5. 100%
F2F retention by age group
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-b.18-25 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-c.26-30 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-d.31-35
2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-e.36-40 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-f.41-45 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-g.46-50
2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-h.51-55 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-i.56-60 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-j.61-65
5

6. What age groups we target on the street
 18-24 isn’t viable for regular gifts by direct debit
 retention over year too poor to use In-House teams to recruit
 Do not target under 24s - in place since 2009
 Exceptions – never turn someone away
 Commitment issue – students and young people
 Don't Direct Debit if no regular income
 big challenge as the F2F /D2D typically attract younger Fundraisers
 like tends to attract like
 Focus now on over 35’s as this is much better
6

7. Over 35 effect VOLUME
Miss Flirty Mr Steady Miss Frank
7

8. Over 35 effect COST
Miss Flirty Mr Steady Miss Frank
8

9. Fundraiser vs Over 35’s
 There is no doubt that percentage over 35 affects retention rate
 clear difference between fundraiser retention and over 35 percentage.
 A fundraiser who generates a higher number of over 35 supporters will have a better
retention, but the two things are not mutually exclusive
 A bad fundraiser is a bad fundraiser despite age
 fundraiser affects retention in a more significant way then age e.g. Mr Steady
9

10. F2F Retention by Average Gift
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-b.£30-£45 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-c.£45-£65
2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-d.£65-£90 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-e.£90-£120
2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-f.£120-£140 2011/12-Face to Face-Regular Giving-g.£140-£170
10

11. Average Gift and Retention
 Average gift definitely has an effect on retention
 You can’t really consider average gift without considering three things:
Site
Gift Aid percentage
Employment status
 Comfort is everything!
 Can’t consider AG without site
11

12. How we look at site retention
 Old logic is out – all sites are not the same
 Sites are categorised 1-4 and based on / retention / income per sign up
/ cost
 Sites need to be treated differently based on rating
 Retention of people giving £10 per month is great on some sites, and
£4 is bad
 Other sites £10 is bad and £4 is good
 Not going into too much detail – we aren't throwing them out, we are
just using a different strategy! ;)
12

13. 1
2
3
4
13

14. When we suggest regular giving is not the
best option for that person and why
 Cost per means no point in getting sign up if it isn’t long term
 Times have changed - Exposure and sustainability mean volumes are lower in
general
 ‘Top heavy’ ROI or returns in the first year is not there
 This high volume ‘chugging’ tactic is exhaustive and un-sustainable in the long
term
 Students / No regular income – suggest different gift unless they explicitly state
that they can do it for the long term
 We need to fish with a net with bigger gaps – get them later
14

15. Quality vs Quantity - How F2F
Fundraising Looks over a financial year
 Fundraiser has biggest impact on retention
 There are different types of fundraiser - but they generally fall into two
categories
1. The Fundraiser
2. The signer-up-er-er
 (Figures not entirely accurate but are based in reality! ;) )
 Axis explained
15

16. Mr Caresalot v Mr Folderspinner v Ms
Business by volume
Mr Caresalot Mr Folder spinner Ms Business
16

17. Mr Caresalot v Mr Folderspinner v Ms
Business - Cost v Income
Mr Caresalot Mr Folder spinner Ms Business
17

18. Break even point
 If average gift was £7 and if we assumed that there would be no more
attrition on these active donors:
16 months for us to break even on Mr Folderspinner
8 months to break even on Mr Caresalot
3 months to break even on Ms Business
18

19. Sustainability
 Ms Business- has almost covered cost due to her retention being so
good
 Unlikely we will ever meet cost from Mr Folderspinner for previous
financial year
 Signing up too many people is unsustainable. Like over fishing, it is
exhaustive and sacrifices quality to long term detriment
 Focus is clearly in the wrong area / outdated
19

20. Which is more sustainable?
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
20

21. In-efficient v efficient
 As the previous slide shows:
245 people are no longer giving via Fund 2
180 people are no longer giving via Fund 3
96 people are no longer giving via Fund 1
21

22. More return over time for Fund 1....
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
22

23. ......because there are more people still
giving / retention is better
 As the retention gradient is less steep for
Fund 1, we recoup costs much quicker
 Fund 1’s retention is 70% to date from last FY
 Fund 2’s is 42%
 Fund 3’s is 49%
23

24. …but…retention without minimum ask
and low vol is misleading
Mr Retentionnovol Mr Perfect Ms Wasteful
24

25. .....because income is too low vs cost
Mr Retentionnovol Mr Perfect Ms Wasteful
25

26. There is a 15% 2 pay retention
difference between Fund 3 and Fund 2...
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
26

27. ....but Fund 3 is almost as cost effective
due to significant average gift
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
27

28. If retention is awful ......
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund Awful
28

29. ...then we never raise any money!
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund Awful
29

30. How we have made improvements
to F2F retention
 3% better cumulatively this year for F2F than this time last year
 Increased focus - improved 1 pay and 2 pay retention
 Fundraisers know we are using live retention reporting - there is no scope for ‘dodgy’ fundraising
 Live reporting means Managers are now able to see problems arising as they happen
 Presentation on ROI to all managers – they get it!
 Retention league tables – retention is becoming focus
 Training and development - being overhauled more quality long term giving as its framework
 All teams now using PDA’s which is improving speed of process and 1 st payment – improving 1 pay retention
30

31. Being honest with ourselves
 Charlie Laurie, Head of In-House - Forward thinking, Brave and dynamic. –we
have to test the ideas!
 she has really kept and eye on the ball with regards to trends and particular
retention
 This has made it possible for such focus to be on retention in our in-house team
31

32. Dinosaurs will die....
 ‘Chugging’ happened and still happens when we use primitive forecasting models
 i.e. Volume, average gift and retention are all lump in together.
 Volume only considered the most important factor as it is the thing that we had
most control over
 ROI is really about the people that are still there after year 1
 The bigger the gap between these volumes, the worse we are off
 What if Machine – Built to help clarity importance of retention to Managers
32

33. Get real!
 Don’t use misleading mathematics .
 Incentivise the right thing!
 Don’t create a cult mentality only volume is
necessary.
 Don’t speculate. Prove it
 Get buy in from managers
33

34. The What if machine
Scenario is: Normal
Average vol 2500
Total 2500
INCREASE VOL BY
Retention 1 pay was
Retention 2 pay was
AVG Gift £7.77
Income 1 year £129,434.71
Normal
Scenario is: £129,434.71
Increase 1 pay and 2 pay retention by 10%
Scenario is: £155,803.84 £26,369.12
Scenario is: Vol increase 10% retention normal £142,378.19 £12,943.47
Scenario is: Increase AG by 10% £142,428.16 £12,993.45
34

35. SUMMARY
 ROI – is the important factor
 Need to asses cost v income more important
than start income
 Income largely informed by retention
 Looking at AG over year is dated (e.g. £120)
 To improve retention – need live reports not
historical data
35

36. The Future
 We are moving towards a model where we
are no longer looking at volume as the
main KPI for fundraisers
 Not looking at retention as sole KPI either
– We need balance
 We are going to deal with sites in a
different way
 Not going to reveal what we are doing
specifically, but it is going to be awesome!
36

37. Until there’s a home for everyone
Thank you
Paul Butland
e: paul_butland@shelter.org.uk
t: 07500 331 446
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
37