The Online Yield From Direct Mail
Stacy Guidice at Grizzard sent us these interesting stats on the extent to which first-time online gifts are driven by direct mail.
Analysts at Grizzard matched first-time online gifts against mailing lists used in parallel for one of their clients, Rescue Missions.
A median of 35% of first-time online gifts could be matched back to direct mail appeals — with highs of 62% and 60% in two cases.
Maybe you online fundraisers out there owe your direct mail colleagues a bottle of wine!
Anyone else with direct mail > online stats like these to share?
Tom
9 responses to “The Online Yield From Direct Mail”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
I’ve long suspected this. It’s why being in multiple channels is so important. A rising tide raises all boats. Thanks for sharing!
88% of our online gifts in this last FY were directly attributable either to our telephone or direct mail appeals.
At Amnesty USA, we did a similar analysis and found that 25% of a fiscal year’s worth of online revenue from first-time donors was contributed by recipiants of, but not respondents to, a DM acquisition piece.
Thanks for the call out Tom! I’m looking forward to seeing others comments and experiences. “A rising tide raises all boats” is a great saying for this by Claire.
I hope the online fundraisers and their direct mail colleagues are having a glass of wine while developing the initial strategy. Great results.
Tom, it is great to see more organizations recognizing the value of one channel driving gifts to another. We have been doing this type of analysis for over 10 years for our clients and find that we can attribute anywhere from 27% to over 40% of online gifts to a mail piece. In addition, to jump on last week’s telemarketing bandwagon we also see a spike in mail and online gifts from donors who say “no” to a telemarketing call. This reinforces the importance of keeping messaging consistent across channels.
Bless you guys for being a voice of sanity. Thanks a million for sharing results, all.
It’s worth considering the baseline of the ratio when doing this sort of analysis. “x% of online revenue was contributed by recipients of a DM acqusition piece” actually tells you about overstating the online revenue – which is interesting, but not normally decisive. “Income from a DM acquisition piece was increased by x% when online revenue from the recipients was also taken into account” provides clarity on the real ROI of the acquisition activity, and is critical in determining allocation of spend.
The two ratios are of course related, but not in concert with each other. Unless you stick to one, less numerate colleagues might get confused.
Yes! Finally someone writes about channel.