Campaign Benchmarking Statistics

What makes benchmarking tricky is that every charity doesn't aim to recruit identical donors - hence the Queen Alexandra Hospital Home has seen stunning returns of over 5:1 on recruitment because they have targeted high value donors through niche lists, whereas many organisations target the bottom end of the giving scale, often using gimmicks of all kinds, and are happy with 1:1 despite the notion that once incentivised, always incentivised ... IFAW is a good model for this with its free umbrellas and T-shirts ... great results btw but I don't know whether IFAW donors are loyal to the brand or the incentives.

It's interesting to note CAF's research which shows that some 8% of donors account for some 60% of individual giving and that they are equally AB (not ABC1) men and women ... while less than 10% of charitable giving comes from the £2-£3 a month donors ...

Alastair

Matt, thanks for replying. Actually in my experience, even on recruitment, you get a great deal of variation on ROI's, and indeed a variety of judgements as to what is an acceptable ROI.

I think I know a little about the reruitment model you use (very successfully) at Shelter, and yes, on that model, if you aren't getting about 0.7 on reg gifts in year 1, the model doesn't really work. I think it also relates to the recruitment channel that (I think) you use most of the time. (Apologies if I'm making too many assumptions here).

However, if you work in different channels, or for a charity that doesn't recruit onto committed giving, the picture changes. Similarly, a lot depends on what you do to donors (or can do to them) after you recruit them - pretty obviously you can wear a less attractive recruitment ROI if you have very favourable ROI's from other activities thereafter (e.g. upgrades, if it's regular giving).

Basically, there are all sorts of ways that you can cut up the numbers, and you'd be amazed at what some people are doing.....though arguably not all of it is good!

In answer to your supplementary, yes, I certainly know of organisations who recruit at a lower ROI than that and make a success of it. I also know of those who recruit at way above it, as it happens!

There's a wider point here. People sometimes think that there is an 'ideal' model for donor recruitment (not saying you're suggesting that, but some people do). In fact, there are lots of models, and it largely depends on who your donors are, how they relate to you, the dynamics or responsivesness of your ask. I think it's important that people stand back and ask themselves what's right for their cause, and indeed if it's something novel.

I say this because I've seen new fundraisers arrive at a charity and try to impose a set formula. Sometimes, it's like watching a train crash develop.

Hi there,

Just to clarify. My email was referring to acquisition and ROIs. I agree that you'll get variations in response rates ave gifts etc between different charities.

However, for charities with significant acquisition budgets, their ROIs tend to cluster, because its not sustainable for a charity continue to use a channel if the ROI is poor.

So when you look at charities that are successfully using a particular acquisition channel (say cold Direct mail) with a particular product (say direct debits) their overall ROIs will be similar. Because they will increase (or decrease volumes) until they hit their benchmark to optimise their acquisition budget.

In my experience that point is around 0.7/0.8 to 1 for Reg gifts.

Perhaps as a supplementary question - it would be interesting to know if there are any charities that continue to use a channel below this ROI ?

Thanks
Matt
Head of Direct Marketing
Shelter

[quote]Is there any information that is UK charity sector specific that shows average response rates, and average roi's, so I can benchmakr myself against what is currently happenning in the industry? Thanks.[/quote]

It's terribly hard, actually. The DMIS figures are OK up to a point, but as they don't properly split out recruitment and donor mailings, it's ahrd to glean much from them.

You could also look at the Fundratios comparisons, which are OK, but rely on data from the charities involved which may be more or less accurate and complete.

I'm going to disagree with Matt Goody, despite his great experience and success, in that in my experience ROI's and response rates/average gifts vary very greatly from cause to cause, and what's acceptable to one isn't to another.

I suppose the bottom line has to be that: do your results work for you, do they give an ROI that works in your programme, and for your charity, and is there anything you could do to improve on them?

Brian Gilliland
Managing Director
Gilliland Direct Marketing Ltd

In terms of RoI for recruitment. Most charities, in the end, tend to get similar values.

Because to optimise recruitment spend - organisations will maximise recruitment for each channel until the RoI drops to a pre-set benchmark (or they reach capacity for that channel), then move spend onto the next best channel.

eg for RG recruitment, in my experience, the benchmark point for most charities is around 0.8 to 1 in year 1

If they get lower than that for a channel they move their spend elsewhere.

Matt Goody
Head of Direct Marketing
Shelter

Lisa is right when she says "What makes the most difference to response rate is often the ask and the quality of the targeting"
A good place to start is to look back over your inhouse data and ensure that you are doing at least as well as you have ever done, then find other similar charities around you and persuade them to share how well they are doing. Why is that so difficult! A good place to start there would be your local Institute of Fundraising Branch.
That would at least give you some real data to crunch yours against!

There is the [url]www.DMIS.co.uk[/url] website which provides benchmarking for the whole DM industry, and has some charity sector specifics. Its useful but dont treat the rates as gospel - the results are based on a limited number of charity results and often based on the "big charities" not smaller organisations.

So to make life difficult, benchmarking is a complex area, and the previous submissions are totally right - response rates vary. But I recommend you consider ROI and average gift in conjunction with RR. The type of ask (cash, raffle, RG), the gift amount, type of cause needs to be considered, and the strength of the charity's brand. The cause alone makes a huge difference. Response rates for a low profile medical research charity will struggle to compare favourably to those enjoyed by a high profile childrens charity!

I have worked with charities for some years now and seen a huge variety of response rates. What makes the most difference to response rate is often the ask and the quality of the targeting. Use of premiums such as pens, Tshirts or tote bags can also massively impact on response.

Why is targeting crucial? Well, if you ask for a regular gift of £10 a month and target a low income retired female 70+, you will have a lower RR than if you ask a doctors wife aged 40-50 for the same amount. Use a broker's insight to make sure you get the best response from your direct mail.

Rule of thumb - warm mailings to your housefile should outperform your cold mailings by a factor of 2. As list brokers who plan for many charities, we can appraise your response rate and give you a feel for how well you are doing or you could do. Drop us a note if you'd like some help. [email]info@edmmedia.co.uk[/email] or call Lisa on 020 8238 5950

We provide a FREE quick and dirty benchmarking service to charities called BenchMach - you get a repot and everything:)

Contact [email]laura@twcat.co.uk[/email]

[quote]Is there any information that is UK charity sector specific that shows average response rates, and average roi's, so I can benchmakr myself against what is currently happenning in the industry? Thanks.[/quote]
Unless you're working within a very well-defined area for which there's a lot of data, I'd be surprised if you could make any meaningful comparisons between charities. RSPB and hospice data, say, couldn't usefully be compared without a fairly detailed attempt to figure out the baseline propensity to give for each. And that'd just be for cold mailings. For warm mailings, it's going to depend a substantially on how wide you're casting the net, I'd have thought.