individual giving
As promised: The second best way to reduce your fundraising income
First thing I would like you to do is think of your favourite cause (but not one you work for, or are on the board of). Write down what do you do to support that charity and why.
Now hold that thought and please read on.
Looking at the data from the transactions of seventy NZ and Australian charities, I noted recently that a sure fire way to reduce income and cripple an organisation's ability to do good was to switch money from fundraising to brand awareness.
I promised a second technique to use to hammer your long term 'net good'.
This one is usually championed from above, maybe at board or senior management level.
Despite such awesome ammunition as common sense and Dan Pallotta's book and TED talk, this second approach to crippling your cause still lurks menacingly - sneaking up and destroying hope of growth and usually increasing fundraising staff turnover.
This scourge is 'reducing cost of fundraising'.
Seems a sensible and popular idea really, a lay person without access to insider knowledge would struggle to disagree with that goal. And sometimes for a relatively mature charity with a clear plan it may make sense. But the reality is that fundraising can be very, very expensive and pretending it isn't doesn't help an organisation grow.
It is possible to 'cheat' cost of fundraising and admin cost ratios - for example, by being able to report that some fundraising expenditure is 'education', or by demonstrating that fundraising costs are met by investment returns or a generous donor or two. Most charities can't do this.
But I believe that it all comes down to unrealistic expectations.
With only a few exceptions, growth in fundraising income comes from the acquisition of new, individual donors. After being identified (by the fact that they made a contribution) these lovely new supporters are then communicated with on a regular basis and reminded of the opportunity to feel great again by making another donation.
In the long term, some of these donors may go on to make very large bequests (legacies) and some may make very large donations. Bequests and major donations have a fantastic return on investment (ROI) and effectively bring a charities cost of fundraising down. But in the short and medium term...
In Australia and New Zealand around 90% of all new regular givers (RG) come through 'face to face'. By this, I mean strangers signed up to automatic debits in person from door to door, street or event canvassing.
Around two thirds of ordinary (non-RG) donors are brought in by direct mail.
Just looking at these two mainstream acquisition methods, a reality check tells us that when everything is taken into account, it takes between around twelve and eighteen months for subsequent donations from these donors to cover their costs. In other words, a charity is in the red for a very long time before income from new donors begins to overtake expenditure.
With between 40% and 50% of new face to face and direct mail donors choosing not to support a charity again after around twelve months you can see that a high rate of success (motivating lots of new supporters) would be reflected by a high cost of fundraising.
This inherent contradiction causes us charities a problem if we rate our success on cost of fundraising - which parts of the media tell us we should.
In the long term face to face donors who do stay should end up donating considerable amounts, well in excess of their original acquisition costs. We also know that after many years, direct mail donors will return a good profit if the program is managed well. After a decade, they will have also contributed considerable sums through bequests and regular giving too.
The charity will have been able to much more 'good' because of the investment than it would have otherwise been able to, but probably at a higher cost than what was desired.
Why this desire to keep costs low? Dan Pallotta has his theories about the beginning of charity but mostly nowadays it is a throwback to a golden age when charities were all volunteers and a niche group of people sacrificed lifestyle and everything else to help.
Since then demand and expectations, regulations and laws, outcome measurements and government insouciance have placed a huge burden on charities, requiring them to raise magnitudes of revenue more than before. And this is expensive.
The public are told by bits of media that cost of fundraising is an important measure for them to consider, and uneducated (about fundraising) legal authorities rule on it as a measure. Ostensively to protect from fraud, but in reality punishing and restricting growth opportunities from legitimate activities.
In reality, whether you personally want cost of fundraising to remain low is a moot point. If you want your favourite charity to do the best it can, then surely you want it reaching as many of the people willing to back them as possible? Surely you want it raising as much net income as possible? And surely you want it to do as much good as possible?
Put bluntly if a charity can raise $10m at a cost of $5m or $1m at a cost of $100,000 and it costs $1,000 to save a life - which is best?
Or look at it another way,
Cost of fundraising ratio 50%, 5000 lives saved. Cost of fundraising ratio 10%, 900 lives saved.
Of course, we would all probably prefer $10m raised, $100,000 cost, 9900 lives saved - but it just doesn't work like that for most charities, most of the time. We need a reality check.
The public, many boards, CEOs, senior staff and some bureaucrats simply have completely unrealistic expectations. They imagine this beautiful, pleasant, pretty world where people just up and give. The reality is sophisticated programs of trained professionals buying creative services, data services, print, postage, travel, training, processing, opening mail, computers, software licences and so much more just to get those dollars.
A few charities in Australia got hammered in the press for their high cost of fundraising a little while ago. A quick look at their annual reports or benchmarking data shows that it didn't put donors off giving to them.
In fact, the big fallout from these stories was self inflicted. Only charities who decided to cut their cost of fundraising suffered. Unless you are making some big mistakes with your fundraising, aiming to cut costs will almost certainly cut acquisition which in turn will inevitably hurt your future.
I know, you may be thinking 'it just isn't right. Donors demand low cost of fundraising. But just think back to your favourite charity.
Did you choose them because their cost of fundraising is low? No of course not.
Do you even know their cost of fundraising?
I have done that exercise with thousands of people, and dozens of boards and senior staff teams - and I have only had a handful of people know what the cost of fundraising of their favourite charity is.
We think cost of fundraising is important to donors, when we ask donors they tell us it is important to them, but we look at the data we find out it turns out it is not that important after all.
Check out Dan's video below.
Thanks for subscribing, I really appreciate it and do hope that you find this blog useful. Take care.
New Jobs – NSPCC, Children’s Society and Terrence Higgins Trust
Two new jobs: Terrence Higgins Trust and Scope
The first of two great ways to destroy your individual fundraising!
The last ten years have been pretty darn good for the charity sectors in New Zealand and Australia. External factors such as domestic disasters, (earthquakes, fires, droughts and floods) economy and government policy have all done their best to break the resolve of the sector but overall we have seen great growth amongst professional fundraising charities.
Much of this growth has come from ‘individual fundraising’. This would include regular giving (automatic debits), direct mail, and other appeals.
But despite a good decade, some organizations have bucked the trend and have slipped backwards in their fundraising.
I wanted to get to the bottom of this and been looking at the fundraising transactions of individuals who have supported 70 Australian and NZ charities.
Using this data, and what I knew about these charities, the first thing I noted was that it was internalities (decisions made by employees and boards) not externalities (economy, government change etc) that caused their problems.
Those internalities seemed to only come from two decisions that various charities have made which ended up pushing income from individuals backwards.
This blog covers the first. Another blog is coming about the second.
The first way to destroy your fundraising income seems to be 'Investing in brand'. Putting money into brand awareness, advertising, events, launches; often, but not exclusively, associated with a re-brand.
‘Brand' is incredibly important for the long term survival of a fundraising charity. Having a great brand helps keep loyal donors, win corporate donations and means you are more likely to be front of mind when people write their wills.
But branding is not about big ads, prescriptive fonts and cool logos - it is about how the charity behaves; what it feels like to be helped by them, to help them and to be thanked by them.
Brand is not about how a charity ‘looks’ it is about how people experience that charity.
The best branded charities tell fantastic stories brilliantly and use fundraising advertising activities (like online, direct mail, phone calls, direct response TV and events) to position themselves. Good fundraising is good branding.
There is never a need for a charity to spend money on 'awareness' for fundraising purposes. Awareness definitely helps fundraising, but the cost of achieving increased awareness is simply not worth it compared to investing that money in good fundraising, that in turn, increases awareness.
The other benefit is that good fundraising will increase awareness in the right target audience.
If a charity struggles with fundraising, then brand and brand awareness may well play a part, but spending money on building that awareness is not an effective solution. There are plenty of case studies of charities with no, or little brand awareness, succeeding in fundraising.
Jeff Brooks, author of Future fundraising now (the best fundraising blog) says that a re-brand is a sure fire way to cripple your charity, and he is mostly right. But some, such as Cerebral Palsy Association have proven that a re-brand is not what hurts; it is what you do with your money that is key.
CPA have enjoyed great growth since their rebrand from Spastics Centre, but it wasn't their rebrand that did this, it was their considerable and careful investment in planned fundraising that worked. They invested in donor acquisition and retention from key target audiences.
From benchmarking I can clearly see how some of the charities who stopped growth and went backwards achieved this by switching money from fundraising into ‘branding’.
After a while, the bosses came to their senses and the charities are now heading for growth again after record acquisition years in 2012 and 2013 - despite a very obvious dip in fortunes, these organisations managed to survive.
For these charities the 'brand suicide' attempt failed - but not without victims. Some of these case studies also went through massive change of staff, collectively missed out on tens of millions of dollars and lost the confidence in their marketing and fundraising teams by their boards.
Build, protect and nurture your brand fiercely. Make sure the way you handle complaints reflects your brand. Make sure your communications all tell the story of your beneficiaries. And make sure you don’t waste precious money on building brand awareness.
That won’t guarantee success – but getting it wrong is a great way to guarantee failure.
In an upcoming blog I am going to look at the other decision a few organisations have made to try and reduce their fundraising income.
Sean
Thanks for subscribing, I really appreciate it and do hope that you find this blog useful. Take care.
CRUK wins Best Use of Insight in IoF National Awards 2013
2013 Awards Gallery
A million more people join the ranks of the global super-rich
One third of the new wealthiest are from Asia, according to Royal Bank of Canada research
A million more people joined the ranks of the global super-rich last year, almost a third of them in Asia, as soaring stock markets helped bolster the fortunes of wealthy investors.
The number of "high net worth individuals" climbed by 10% in 2012, taking the total worldwide to 12m, according to research by Royal Bank of Canada and consultancy Capgemini.
Between them, these twelve million people owned assets worth $46.2tn (£29.5tn) – more than three times the entire annual output from the US economy, and a 10% increase on 2011.
A high net worth individual is defined as anyone with $1m (£641,000) or more in "investable assets". The definition excludes the value of a main home and of any "consumer durables" such as cars.
World markets were volatile in the first half of 2012, as the eurozone crisis deepened; but after ECB president Mario Draghi promised to do "whatever it takes" to protect the single currency in July, and the Federal Reserve unleashed a drastic third round of quantitative easing in September, share prices recovered strongly, boosting the wealth of those with investments.
The findings are likely to increase concerns that the benefits of central banks' radical policies to rekindle economic growth have accrued overwhelmingly to those at the top of society, while unemployment remains stubbornly high in many countries and incomes have been under severe pressure.
Britain is home to the fifth-largest group of super-wealthy individuals, according to the report, with 465,000 super-rich individuals, up from 441,000 in 2011.
The wealth report came as the latest UK inflation figures showed that with the consumer price index running at 2.7% in May wages for average British workers have now failed to keep up with prices for more than three years.
Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said, "economic stagnation has caused incomes to fall for most ordinary families but the wealth of the super-rich just keeps on growing. Unless this inequality is tackled Britain could experience a pretty joyless recovery, with the majority of the population seeing little or no benefit when economic growth returns."
The US regained its place at the top of the league table in the report, as the home to 3.73m high net worth individuals, up by more than 11.5% on 2011, as the recovering property market helped repair the damage to wealthy investors' housing portfolios inflicted by the downturn of the past five years.
The Asia-Pacific region was just behind the US, with a population of 3.68m super-rich investors – up by more than 9% on the year.
Europe, where the economy of the single currency zone has now been in recession for 18 months, was home to 3.4m high net worth individuals, but saw a smaller rise in their number, of 7.5%, in 2012.
The researchers also sub-divide the millionaires according to their wealth. There was an increase of 11% in 2012 in the number of people classified as "ultra high net worth individuals", the creme de la creme of the super-rich. These 110,000 people are worth $30m or more, and hold assets worth more than $16tn between them.
A middle group of just over a million people, the "mid-tier millionaires", held $10tn-worth of assets between them; and a much larger group of 10.8m people, which the report refers to as the "millionaires next door", held assets worth $1m-$3m.
The data also underlines the stark geographical divide in the distribution of wealth across the world, with just 140,000 of the 12m super-rich living across the entire continent of Africa. That was an increase of almost 10% from 2011; but still fewer than in Italy, Australia or Brazil.
RBC and Capgemini's analysts forecast that the super-rich will continue getting richer, with the total wealth held by this group expected to expand by 6.5% a year over the next three years.
The super-rich emerge from the survey conducted as part of the research as a relatively conservative group. They managed their assets cautiously in 2012, while fewer than half of them said they trusted financial markets; and fewer than 40% trusted regulators.
The authors said the super-rich respondents to the survey, "exhibited a clear bias toward safety and wealth preservation, allocating nearly 30% of their financial wealth into cash and deposits." This careful approach applied to millionaires of, "all ages and wealth levels, suggesting that the overall lower level of trust in the financial markets may be playing a role."
Heather Stewarttheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
A million more people join the ranks of the global super-rich
One third of the new wealthiest are from Asia, according to Royal Bank of Canada research
A million more people joined the ranks of the global super-rich last year, almost a third of them in Asia, as soaring stock markets helped bolster the fortunes of wealthy investors.
The number of "high net worth individuals" climbed by 10% in 2012, taking the total worldwide to 12m, according to research by Royal Bank of Canada and consultancy Capgemini.
Between them, these twelve million people owned assets worth $46.2tn (£29.5tn) – more than three times the entire annual output from the US economy, and a 10% increase on 2011.
A high net worth individual is defined as anyone with $1m (£641,000) or more in "investable assets". The definition excludes the value of a main home and of any "consumer durables" such as cars.
World markets were volatile in the first half of 2012, as the eurozone crisis deepened; but after ECB president Mario Draghi promised to do "whatever it takes" to protect the single currency in July, and the Federal Reserve unleashed a drastic third round of quantitative easing in September, share prices recovered strongly, boosting the wealth of those with investments.
The findings are likely to increase concerns that the benefits of central banks' radical policies to rekindle economic growth have accrued overwhelmingly to those at the top of society, while unemployment remains stubbornly high in many countries and incomes have been under severe pressure.
Britain is home to the fifth-largest group of super-wealthy individuals, according to the report, with 465,000 super-rich individuals, up from 441,000 in 2011.
The wealth report came as the latest UK inflation figures showed that with the consumer price index running at 2.7% in May wages for average British workers have now failed to keep up with prices for more than three years.
Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said, "economic stagnation has caused incomes to fall for most ordinary families but the wealth of the super-rich just keeps on growing. Unless this inequality is tackled Britain could experience a pretty joyless recovery, with the majority of the population seeing little or no benefit when economic growth returns."
The US regained its place at the top of the league table in the report, as the home to 3.73m high net worth individuals, up by more than 11.5% on 2011, as the recovering property market helped repair the damage to wealthy investors' housing portfolios inflicted by the downturn of the past five years.
The Asia-Pacific region was just behind the US, with a population of 3.68m super-rich investors – up by more than 9% on the year.
Europe, where the economy of the single currency zone has now been in recession for 18 months, was home to 3.4m high net worth individuals, but saw a smaller rise in their number, of 7.5%, in 2012.
The researchers also sub-divide the millionaires according to their wealth. There was an increase of 11% in 2012 in the number of people classified as "ultra high net worth individuals", the creme de la creme of the super-rich. These 110,000 people are worth $30m or more, and hold assets worth more than $16tn between them.
A middle group of just over a million people, the "mid-tier millionaires", held $10tn-worth of assets between them; and a much larger group of 10.8m people, which the report refers to as the "millionaires next door", held assets worth $1m-$3m.
The data also underlines the stark geographical divide in the distribution of wealth across the world, with just 140,000 of the 12m super-rich living across the entire continent of Africa. That was an increase of almost 10% from 2011; but still fewer than in Italy, Australia or Brazil.
RBC and Capgemini's analysts forecast that the super-rich will continue getting richer, with the total wealth held by this group expected to expand by 6.5% a year over the next three years.
The super-rich emerge from the survey conducted as part of the research as a relatively conservative group. They managed their assets cautiously in 2012, while fewer than half of them said they trusted financial markets; and fewer than 40% trusted regulators.
The authors said the super-rich respondents to the survey, "exhibited a clear bias toward safety and wealth preservation, allocating nearly 30% of their financial wealth into cash and deposits." This careful approach applied to millionaires of, "all ages and wealth levels, suggesting that the overall lower level of trust in the financial markets may be playing a role."
Heather Stewarttheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Insight in Fundraising 2013 Award Winners!
Book Now for our Summer Conference 19th July 2013
Head of Data Analysis & Insight: WWF
Head of Data & CRM: British Lung Foundation
Insight in Fundraising Awards 2013 Gala Dinner
Wealth survey shows stark north-south divide
In the south-east, 15% of households have wealth of £1m or more while the proportion drops to just 8% in the north-east
Households in the south-east of England are nearly twice as likely to have wealth in excess of £1m than those in the north of Britain, according to official statistics that underline a deep regional divide.
In the south-east, 15% of households have wealth* – including from their home – of £1m or more while the proportion drops to 8% in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, Scotland and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The proportion of millionaire households is lowest in the north-west at 7%.
The data paints a similar north-south divide when it comes to households in the lowest wealth band. In the north-west and north-east about 25% of households have wealth of less than £50,000 while in the south-east the proportion drops to 15% and for the south west it is 17%.
But while the south-east region around it is clearly the most affluent in the latest ONS Wealth & Assets Survey, London stands out as having polarised wealth distribution. More than a quarter of households – 28% – have less than £50,000. The proportion of millionaire households is 12%, above the national rate of 10%. The ONS wealth measure is calculated by adding together property wealth, financial wealth, physical wealth such as jewellery and private pension wealth.
London's "hollowed out wealth distribution", as the ONS calls it, is starkest in the 45-to-64 age group, 22% of whom are in millionaire households whereas 18% have less than £50,000. The breakdown of wealth by age group also showed that children in London are among the most likely in the country to live in the poorest households. Four out of 10 children in London and in the north-west live in households with less than £50,000, double the proportion for the south-east. For Great Britain overall the share is 30%.Summing up its findings on wealth by age group, the ONS said: "On average, wealth is highest amongst the 45-64 year old age group; remains relatively high amongst the 65-plus age group but is lower for households in which children or young adults (25-44) live."
It found stark contrasts in the wealth of pensioners by region. Nearly a quarter (24%) of pensioners in the north-east live in households with net wealth of less than £50,000. In the south-west it was only 9% of pensioners. At the other end of the wealth scale, 44% of pensioners in the south-east live in a household with net wealth greater than £500,000, more than double the proportion in the north-east at 21%.
The report revealed that one in three households in the north-east had debts larger than their total financial assets.
The Trades Union Congress said the regional divides underscored the need to rebalance Britain's economy.
"Britain's north-south wealth divide runs deeper than pay packets and property values," said TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady. "Reducing this damaging wealth divide depends on rebalancing our economy so that high quality jobs are created throughout the country, as well as tackling the ongoing market failure in private pension provision."
The TUC also echoed now widespread criticism of government measures to help homebuyers, which many fear will drive up property prices. The Help to Buy scheme was branded "moronic" by one City analyst and has been called into doubt by Bank of England governor Mervyn King and the International Monetary Fund. O'Grady said any boost to prices was likely to deepen regional wealth divides.
Katie Allentheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Wealth survey shows stark north-south divide
In the south-east, 15% of households have wealth of £1m or more while the proportion drops to just 8% in the north-east
Households in the south-east of England are nearly twice as likely to have wealth in excess of £1m than those in the north of Britain, according to official statistics that underline a deep regional divide.
In the south-east, 15% of households have wealth* – including from their home – of £1m or more while the proportion drops to 8% in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, Scotland and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The proportion of millionaire households is lowest in the north-west at 7%.
The data paints a similar north-south divide when it comes to households in the lowest wealth band. In the north-west and north-east about 25% of households have wealth of less than £50,000 while in the south-east the proportion drops to 15% and for the south west it is 17%.
But while the south-east region around it is clearly the most affluent in the latest ONS Wealth & Assets Survey, London stands out as having polarised wealth distribution. More than a quarter of households – 28% – have less than £50,000. The proportion of millionaire households is 12%, above the national rate of 10%. The ONS wealth measure is calculated by adding together property wealth, financial wealth, physical wealth such as jewellery and private pension wealth.
London's "hollowed out wealth distribution", as the ONS calls it, is starkest in the 45-to-64 age group, 22% of whom are in millionaire households whereas 18% have less than £50,000. The breakdown of wealth by age group also showed that children in London are among the most likely in the country to live in the poorest households. Four out of 10 children in London and in the north-west live in households with less than £50,000, double the proportion for the south-east. For Great Britain overall the share is 30%.Summing up its findings on wealth by age group, the ONS said: "On average, wealth is highest amongst the 45-64 year old age group; remains relatively high amongst the 65-plus age group but is lower for households in which children or young adults (25-44) live."
It found stark contrasts in the wealth of pensioners by region. Nearly a quarter (24%) of pensioners in the north-east live in households with net wealth of less than £50,000. In the south-west it was only 9% of pensioners. At the other end of the wealth scale, 44% of pensioners in the south-east live in a household with net wealth greater than £500,000, more than double the proportion in the north-east at 21%.
The report revealed that one in three households in the north-east had debts larger than their total financial assets.
The Trades Union Congress said the regional divides underscored the need to rebalance Britain's economy.
"Britain's north-south wealth divide runs deeper than pay packets and property values," said TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady. "Reducing this damaging wealth divide depends on rebalancing our economy so that high quality jobs are created throughout the country, as well as tackling the ongoing market failure in private pension provision."
The TUC also echoed now widespread criticism of government measures to help homebuyers, which many fear will drive up property prices. The Help to Buy scheme was branded "moronic" by one City analyst and has been called into doubt by Bank of England governor Mervyn King and the International Monetary Fund. O'Grady said any boost to prices was likely to deepen regional wealth divides.
Katie Allentheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
British Red Cross – Fundraising BI Developer
The new big thing in fundraising - Direct Mail
There are so many hip new ways to acquire donors in New Zealand and Australia. Twitter, Facebook, face to face, phone, mobile, peer to peer, two-step, payroll giving, email, web sites, Google ads,... but the number one by volume is that new-fangled thing – direct mail.
Seventy charities from the now independent Commonwealth nations of New Zealand and Australia pooled their card file indexes* to study how donors actually behave. They have discovered that direct mail acquired more donors last year than any other form of donor recruitment.
Direct mail has never had it so good, and 2009-2012 saw a 100% increase in the number of new donors acquired through this new-fangled method. Back in 2009, 155,000 of the 267,000 people who made a donation for the first time to one of the 70 charities did so after receiving a direct mail letter (57%). In 2012 that number had increased to around 350,000 new direct mail donors from a total of 508,000 (69%).
Famously championed by social change entrepreneur Dr Barnardo in London in the late 19th century, direct mail is making a bit of a surge in the Southern hemisphere.
When interviewed, Dr Barnardo was delighted that direct mail had taken off so much. “I am verily pleased that direct mail is performing well to help waifs and strays in the colonies.” He said.
“With [former] convicts putting their backs into good, honest work to help those even more disadvantaged than themselves, I believe the outposts of New Zealand and Port Arthur [Australia] may well thrive as independent states separate to mother England.”
Looking at individual charities to work out how these donors are acquired, we see most are acquired through ‘premium direct mail’. This describes a method of breaking down the barrier of getting donors to open an unsolicited envelope by offering a gift in return for simply opening and reading the message.
The gifts could be address labels, tote bags, stationery, key rings or pens.
Whilst acquiring donors through these premium packs tends to lead to lower average donations, it also leads to much higher response rates, higher initial net returns and more long term net income.
In the olden days (a couple of years ago) charities were happy with 0.8% to 1.2% response rates from cold mail, but premium packs tend to get at least three times that.
Unfortunately response rates are not covered by benchmarking, but I know that the average response rate from direct mail from Pareto charity clients who follow our recommended strategy is over 4.5%.
Even with lower average donations and lower second gift rates the maths usually work in the favour of the charity willing to spend more per pack on premium direct mail.
Face to face acquisition of regular givers is still huge in Australia and New Zealand, and I recommend still maintaining (or starting) investment in that area, but make sure you have a balanced porfolio - direct mail cash donors will provide a unique income source and will bring you your future bequests and major donors if you follow the right strategies.
Sean
*Please note – the charities were collaborating by analysing giving patterns and behaviour. None of them have breached any privacy rules by allowing any other member to identify donors as individuals; ie donors’ personal information was never shared between partners in this exercise.
Thanks for subscribing, I really appreciate it and do hope that you find this blog useful. Take care.
Database Marketing Manager – Thames hospicecare
Keep up to date
Advertisement
Latest advertorials
UK Fundraising Social Links
Your UK Fundraising
UK Fundraising - improving the effectiveness of charity and non-profit fundraisers
