2011 donorcentrics Internet and Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report

Transcription

1 2011 donorcentrics Internet and Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report Including an Analysis on Online Giving in the Context of an Integrated Direct Marketing Program Authored by Helen Flannery and Rob Harris Contents An Introduction to Multichannel Giving and Donor Value...2 Summary of Findings...3 The Data Used for Analysis...4 A Note About Multichannel Communications...4 Differences in Online and Offline Giving...5 The Growth of Online Giving...5 Demographic Differences...6 Differences in Giving Behavior...6 Differences in Long-Term Value...7 Who Gives Through More Than One Channel?...10 Online and Offline Multichannel Giving...10 Other Acquisition Channels...10 Online-to-Offline Migration...11 Appendices Appendix A Participating Organizations Appendix B Lifetime Giving by Origin Gift Level for Donors Acquired in 2008 Appendix C Four Year Migration of Donors Acquired by Mail in 2007 Appendix D Annual Giving for Donors Acquired in 2008 Where Multiple Giving Channels Increase Retention and Value...13 Online-Acquired Donors...13 The Impact of Cross-Channel Giving on Giving Amounts...14 Creating a True Single Channel Environment...15 A Note About Mail-Acquired Cross-Channel Donors...15 Past Multichannel Giving Does Not Predict Future Value...16 The Continuing Importance of RFM Segmentation...16 Segmentation by Gift Frequency and Giving Level...16 Segmentation by Recency...17 About Target Analytics...18 About Blackbaud...18 July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W

2 An Introduction to Multichannel Giving and Donor Value The increase in online giving over the past several years has generated renewed interest among nonprofit direct marketers about the value of multiple-channel donors. Fundraisers want to know if donors who give to an organization through more than one source through both direct mail and the Internet, for example give larger gifts or can be retained at higher rates than those who give through only one source. For the past five years, Target Analytics has organized and led donorcentrics benchmarking groups for large nonprofit organizations with a particular focus on online giving and how online donors are integrated into a traditional direct marketing program. The data gathered from this service allows us to draw some general conclusions about multichannel giving. It is difficult to make a simple statement about whether multichannel giving always correlates with higher donor retention or higher long-term value. The subsequent giving behavior of donors can only be determined by looking at a large number of factors, including the channels they use as well as their giving loyalty; recency, frequency, and monetary giving amounts; and demographic profile. Comparing the behavior and value of multichannel donors to that of single channel donors is particularly difficult to do accurately because multichannel donors are, by definition, multiple-gift donors as well, and the effects of higher gift frequencies must be accounted for in any analysis. While multichannel giving has become a popular objective of nonprofits as a way to build constituent support, the large majority of donors on file give through only one channel and use only direct mail as their vehicle for donations. The only donors who do significant multichannel giving are new donors acquired online, who switch in large numbers to direct mail giving in subsequent years. This is the group of donors for which multichannel giving results in improved performance. The Internet is a successful acquisition channel but it has not proven to be an effective one for retention. It is the ability of online-acquired donors to become multichannel donors that is, to start giving through direct mail that significantly boosts the retention and long-term value of this group of donors far beyond what they would be if online giving were the only channel available. The presence of past multichannel giving for steady donors already on file, however, is far less predictive of higher value and retention than the traditional recency, frequency, and monetary giving amount factors that direct marketers have used for decades. These findings are explained in greater detail on the following pages. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 2

3 Summary of Findings For the large direct marketing organizations participating in our online benchmarking groups, the majority of gifts are still received through direct mail. Although direct mail remains the dominant channel for new donor acquisitions as well, it has become increasingly common for new donors to give their first gift online. Online-acquired donors are significantly younger and tend to have higher household incomes than mail-acquired donors. Online-acquired donors tend to give much larger gifts than mail-acquired donors. However, online-acquired donors tend to have slightly lower retention rates than mail-acquired donors. In aggregate, online-acquired donors have much higher cumulative value over the long term than traditional mail-acquired donors. However, long-term value varies depending on the donor s origin gift level. The substantially larger gift amounts given by onlineacquired donors can mask issues with retention. Multichannel giving is not ubiquitous. The majority of multichannel donors are those who are acquired online and then subsequently start giving direct mail gifts. This is the only situation in which there are significant numbers of cross-channel donors across all organizations. Every year, large proportions of online-acquired donors switch from online giving to offline sources primarily to direct mail. The reverse is not true, however; only a tiny percentage of mail-acquired donors give online in later years. When online-acquired donors move offline, they tend to do so soon, in their first renewal year. They then continue to give offline in similar proportions in subsequent years. Eventually, just under half of all online-acquired donors convert entirely to offline, primarily direct mail giving. Robust direct mail programs drive up the retention and long-term value of new donors acquired online. Without the ability to become multichannel givers by renewing their support via direct mail, this group of donors would be worth far less. Other than monthly recurring giving programs, established direct mail programs are the best method for gaining repeat gifts from onlineacquired donors. When online-acquired donors move offline in subsequent years of giving, it does have some negative effect on their value in the renewal year. The higher the donor s original gift level, the less they upgrade and, in fact, the more likely it is that the donor will actually downgrade if they move offline. However, these lower gift amounts are far outweighed by the higher retention of onlineacquired donors provided by the direct mail channel. For the consistent givers who comprise the majority of donors already on file, the presence of past multichannel giving is generally not a significant factor in predicting future retention or long-term value. Traditional RFM factors are far more predictive. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 3

4 The Data Used for Analysis In 2010, a total of 28 major national nonprofit organizations participated in Target Analytics donorcentrics online benchmarking meetings. To provide a factual basis for discussion, we provided participants with analytic reports comparing the behavior of their online and offline donors. The data in the donorcentrics reports and all data in this study is derived solely from transactional giving data downloaded from each organization s fundraising database. There is no anecdotal or self-reported data. As part of the process, all participants reviewed and approved these metrics for accuracy. The data presented in the analysis that follows is from the most recent data available for all 28 organizations participating in For one group of 14 organizations, the donorcentrics analysis covers giving for the 12 months ending December 2010 and the previous four years; for the other group of 14 organizations, the donorcentrics analysis covers giving for the 12 months ending June 2010 and the previous four years. The most current 12 months of data for all 28 organizations together includes transactions for over 15 million donors and more than $1 billion in revenue. For a list of participants in both groups, please see Appendix A at the end of this document. The organizations that participate in our online benchmarking groups are prominent national nonprofits covering a range of sectors, including animal welfare, the environment, health, human services, international relief, and societal benefit. These organizations receive the majority of their direct marketing revenue from direct mail. Revenue from sustainer giving and from other channels, such as telemarketing and the Internet, makes up a relatively small portion of the overall total. Revenue from large-scale events such as walkathons is not included in this analysis; only a handful of participating organizations conduct these events. For all charts that show revenue per donor or retention rates, we have excluded donor populations of fewer than 100 donors. For all charts that show revenue per donor amounts, we have excluded all donors acquired at origin gift amounts of $250 or above. For the first three charts that show the percent of gifts or donors brought in online, we have excluded any international relief organizations that had atypical amounts of giving in January 2010 attributable to recovery efforts following the severe earthquake in Haiti in that month. While this growth was significant, it was not reflective of what organizations in any other industry sector experienced, or of what the relief sector itself experiences in typical years. Throughout this analysis, all results are reported as medians the middle value of the group of 28 participating organizations. Medians represent the giving behavior and program performance of a typical organization more accurately than either averages or aggregates, which can be skewed by organizations with larger donor populations or higher revenue. A Note About Multichannel Communications The Internet offers many ways to communicate with donors and prospects solicitations, website content, advertisements, and various forms of social media. While this study analyzes the effects of multichannel giving on donor value, it draws no conclusions about the effects of ongoing multichannel communications. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 4

5 Differences in Online and Offline Giving The Growth of Online Giving For the organizations participating in our donorcentrics Internet benchmarking groups, the vast majority of gifts are made through direct mail. The typical organization receives more than three-quarters of its total gifts through direct mail and only 10% of its gifts online. Direct mail acquisition is also responsible for three quarters of all new donors. Over the past several years, however, the overall number of gifts given online and the number of donors acquired online have both grown steadily. The Internet is becoming an increasingly significant source of giving and of new donor acquisition in particular. Distribution of All Gifts by Channel 2010 Medians 10% 79% 11% Online Mail Other Offline Distribution of New Donors by Channel 2010 Medians 16% Joined Online 76% Joined by Mail Trends in the Percent of Donors Giving Online Medians 16% 8% Joined by Other Offline Participants in the online benchmarking groups are a selfselected group of organizations which are particularly focused on the topic of online giving and therefore have larger online programs than other similar nonprofits. Percentages of gifts and donors coming in online will be 9% 14% 12% 5% 5% 6% 7% 7% 8% 9% 10% smaller for the industry as a whole. New Donors Multi-Year Donors All Donors Demographic Differences Online-acquired donors have different demographic profiles and different giving patterns than traditional, primarily direct mail-acquired donors. Distribution of New Donors by Age within Origin Channel 2010 Medians Most notably, online-acquired donors are significantly younger than mail-acquired donors. Given the high average age of donors to many benchmarking organizations, the online channel s ability to attract younger donors is very appealing July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 5

6 Online donors also tend to have higher household incomes than mail-acquired donors. Distribution of New Donors by Household Income within Origin Channel 2010 Medians Less than $25,000 $25,001- $50,000 $50,001- $75,000 $75,001- $100,000 $100,001- $145,000 $145,001+ Differences in Giving Behavior Online-acquired donors tend to give much larger gifts and to give more in total revenue each year than mail-acquired donors. Revenue per New 2010 Donor by Age and Origin Channel 2010 Medians Revenue per New 2010 Donor by Origin Channel 2010 Medians $ $32 Revenue per New 2010 Donor by Household Income and Origin Channel 2010 Medians Joined Online Joined by Mail This is true even when controlling for the age and income of the donor. Less than $25,000 $25,001- $50,000 $50,001- $75,000 $75,001- $100,000 $100,001- $145,000 $145,001+ July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 6

7 However, online-acquired donors tend to have slightly lower retention rates than mail-acquired donors. New Donor Retention Rate by Age and Origin Channel 2010 Medians New Donor Retention Rate by Origin Channel 2010 Medians 28% 30% New Donor Retention Rate by Household Income and Origin Channel 2010 Medians Joined Online in 2009 Joined by Mail in 2009 This is also generally true even when controlling for the age and income of the donor. It is even more pronounced when controlling for origin gift amount, as shown in the next section. Less than $25,000 $25,001- $50,000 $50,001- $75,000 $75,001- $100,000 $100,001- $145,000 $145,001+ Differences in Long-Term Value In aggregate, online-acquired donors have much higher cumulative value over the long term than traditional mail-acquired donors. Original gift amount is one of the most important determinants of long-term value, and onlineacquired donors join at much higher levels than donors acquired by mail. However, there is some evidence of sub-par retention and accompanying lower long-term value for donors acquired online at higher giving levels. $197 Lifetime Revenue per Original Donor (All Origin Gift Levels) 2010 Medians $158 $72 $66 $118 $51 Joined in 2007 Joined in 2008 Joined in 2009 July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 7

8 Online donors are acquired at disproportionately higher levels than donors acquired through direct mail. Most direct mail donors join at $10, $15, and $25 while most online donors join at $25, $50, and $100. At the lower origin gift levels (below $25), where mail donors are more common, online-acquired donors outperform mail-acquired donors in long-term value. At these levels, the larger gifts given by online donors in subsequent years result in higher cumulative revenue per donor over the long term. At the $25 origin gift level, where online and offline donors join in somewhat similar proportions, they have similar cumulative revenue per donor after several years. At the higher origin gift levels ($50 and above), where online donors are more common, mail-acquired donors begin to outperform online-acquired donors over the long term. At these levels of giving, the higher retention rates of mail-acquired donors tend to result in higher cumulative revenue per donor in subsequent years Lifetime Giving by Origin Gift Level for Donors Acquired in 2007 Medians for Donors Acquired at $1-499 Joined Online Joined by Mail Percent of Original Donors Percent of Original Donors Giving in Lifetime Revenue per Original Donor $1-9 $1-9 $1-9 $10-14 $10-14 $10-14 $15-24 $15-24 $15-24 $25-34 $25-34 $25-34 $35-49 $35-49 $35-49 $50-74 $50-74 $50-74 $75-99 $75-99 $75-99 $ $ $ $ $ $ There may be a number of explanations for this pattern. One is that acquisition gift levels below $25 are not natural giving points for online donors and they readily upgrade out of them. Relatively small numbers of online donors join at the lowest gift levels and, not surprisingly, those who do tend to upgrade significantly in their second year of giving whether they stay online or not in that second year. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 8

9 These lower acquisition gift levels are typical giving ranges for direct mail donors, however, and as expected, those donors do only nominal upgrading in subsequent years. At the higher end of the scale, on the other hand, direct mail donors are relatively rare. While a $50 gift is a typical size for an online gift, it is a large direct mail acquisition gift. Fewer than 12% of all mail-acquired donors join at $50 or above each year, and those who do are likely to be significantly more invested in the organization than those who join at lower levels. It is not surprising that donors acquired by mail at these higher levels have higher retention rates than their online-acquired equivalents and that this results in higher cumulative value over the long term. In general, then, most online-acquired donors are acquired at origin gift levels where they under-perform their mail-acquired equivalents. This may be due more to the specific characteristics of the donors and their relative level of commitment to the organization than the fundraising practices used to cultivate them. For a version of the chart on the previous page showing donors acquired in 2008, please see Appendix B. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 9

10 Who Gives Through More Than One Channel? Online and Offline Multichannel Giving While multichannel giving is a popular topic in the direct marketing fundraising community, it is not ubiquitous in practice. Significant multichannel communication may occur, notably via , website content, or social media, but not multichannel giving. Multichannel donors are almost exclusively online-acquired donors who later start giving direct mail gifts. This is the only situation in which there are consistently significant numbers of cross-channel donors across all organizations. Distribution of 2010 Renewal Gifts by Channel Medians for Donors Acquired as One-Gift Donors in % 7% 32% 60% 91% In our analysis of giving channel migration, we focus on donors who gave only one gift in their acquisition year. These one-gift donors make up the vast majority (82%) of all donors so they can serve as a reasonable proxy for the entire donor population and provide a control for giving frequency without making the study unduly complex. Joined Online in % Joined by Mail in 2009 What we found is that every year, high percentages of online-acquired donors switch from online to offline giving, primarily to direct mail. The reverse is not true, however; only a tiny percentage of mail-acquired donors give online in later years. In other words, the number of donors who migrate from online to offline giving can be significant to an organization, while the number who migrate from offline to online giving may not be noticeable at all. Other Acquisition Channels Donors do, of course, join through channels other than direct mail and the Internet. Donors may be acquired through a number of disparate channels such as DRTV, events, telemarketing, and face-to-face canvassing. However, these other offline acquisition techniques together make up only about 8% of all acquisitions each year. And of the 28 organizations participating in our benchmarking analysis, only a few employed one or more of these channels. Organizations that do significant face-to-face canvassing, DRTV, or event acquisition do tend to see large numbers of those donors converting to regular monthly sustainer or direct mail giving in later years. But because so few organizations employ each technique, for our 28 participants there is no movement between these different offline sources on the scale of the movement of online-acquired donors to direct mail. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 10

11 2011 donorcentrics Internet and Multichannel Giving Benchmarking Report Evidence from our benchmarking groups suggests that organizations that use a wide range of techniques beyond direct mail and the Internet to acquire new donors do tend to have robust fundraising programs. While implementation of these multichannel acquisition programs often requires higher levels of investment, having a variety of acquisition methods available often results in greater success. Online-to-Offline Migration When online-acquired donors move offline, they tend to do so quickly, in their first renewal year. They then continue to give offline in similar proportions in subsequent years. After three or four years, about half of all online-acquired donors are giving offline gifts and over 40% are giving exclusively offline, primarily through direct mail. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 11

12 In addition, as the chart on the previous page shows, new donors who were retained in their second year (here, in 2008) are far more likely to still be giving four years later (in 2010) than donors who lapsed in their second year. In fact, of the 2007 online-acquired donors who were still giving in 2010, more than half of them had given for all four of the years they had been on file. Most donors give consistently over consecutive years or they lapse out and do not return. Donors who skip years who have a pattern of lapsing and reactivating are relatively rare. For a version of this chart showing the four-year migration of mail-acquired donors, see Appendix C. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 12

13 Where Multiple Giving Channels Increase Retention and Value Online-Acquired Donors Multichannel giving does correspond with higher retention and increased donor value for one key population: new donors acquired online. This is the only group in which significant numbers of donors readily switch giving channels. If the Internet was the only giving channel available to these new donors, their retention rates and subsequent long-term value would be a fraction of what they actually are. It is the ability to use another channel specifically, direct mail that drives up the retention and long-term value of a population of newly acquired donors. Direct mail is a very effective method of getting repeat gifts from donors. Over time, the high giving amounts of online donors coupled with the high donor retention rates provided by direct mail make for a powerful combination. The charts on the following page illustrate the difference that the availability of multiple giving channels makes over time for new online-acquired and mail-acquired donors. They compare the actual performance of all donors acquired in 2007 to the performance of the same set of donors including only gifts given to their channel of origin. The lines that include all giving show the donors behavior in the real (multichannel) world. The lines that include only giving to the origin channel simulate what the donors giving would be if they were only able to give in a single channel world. This analysis shows that having multiple channels makes only a small difference for mail-acquired donors. Donors who join through direct mail do not gain a significant advantage from the ability to give through other channels in later years. They typically prefer to continue giving through the same channel by which they were acquired. In contrast, the ability to give via different channels makes a significant difference for onlineacquired donors. When offline gifts are excluded from online-acquired donors giving, their retention and resulting cumulative long-term value both drop considerably. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 13

14 In the real, multichannel world, each donor that was acquired online in 2007 was worth $197 by If all of their offline giving is excluded, their value drops to $128. For versions of these charts showing year-by-year trends for donors acquired in 2008, see Appendix D. The Impact of Cross-Channel Giving on Giving Amounts There is some concern that moving online donors to offline, primarily direct mail channels will result in downgrades of gift amounts. When online-acquired donors move offline, it does indeed have a negative effect on revenue; donors who switch to offline channels upgrade less than donors who stay online. For our benchmarking participants, donors acquired online in 2009 upgraded by $10 when they stayed online but only $2 when they moved offline in In addition, the higher the donor s original gift amount, the less they upgrade and, in fact, the more likely it is that they will actually downgrade if they move offline. Donors acquired online at $10-$14, for example, upgraded by roughly similar amounts in their renewal year whether they stayed online or moved offline. Donors acquired online at $100-$249, on the other hand, downgraded when they moved offline. Again, to control for the effects of gift frequency, we have restricted this analysis to the 82% of annual donors who are single gift givers. Over the long term, this downgrading is still outweighed by the increased retention rates that result when online-acquired donors become multichannel donors that is, when they give by direct mail. Donors acquired at the $100-$249 level in 2007 are a case in point. In the real, multichannel world, each donor that was acquired online in 2007 was worth $310 by If all of their offline giving is excluded, their value drops to $231. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 14

15 22% of the original donors acquired in 2007 are still giving in 2010, but this number drops to only 12% when all offline giving is excluded. This also means that the disparity in long-term value between these two populations will only increase in future years. Creating a True Single Channel Environment The single channel simulations above cause any online donors who renewed offline to appear as though they were lapsed. In reality, of course, some of these donors would have given again through the online channel. Although the fall-off in donors and revenue would probably not be as dramatic as presented here, it would still be substantial. While the Internet has proven a source for new donor acquisition, it is not a reliable channel for renewing donor support. In past years we have worked with organizations who could not integrate online giving with the rest of the direct marketing program due to technology constraints, and they did experience steep drop-offs in online-acquired donor populations similar to what is shown in these simulations. With testing, we could determine exactly how many online-acquired donors would have given again if no offline means of renewal existed. But because of the dominance and success of direct mail programs, organizations are justifiably reluctant to hold any onlineacquired donors out of the direct mail stream. A Note About Mail-Acquired Cross-Channel Donors Donors who join through direct mail and then start giving online typically give much larger gifts and have higher cumulative long-term value than donors who only ever give by mail. However, the number of mail-acquired donors who migrate to online giving is so small that it has very little impact on overall revenue. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 15

16 Past Multichannel Giving Does Not Predict Future Value The Continuing Importance of RFM Segmentation Most donors on file are steady donors who have given recently. Excluding new donors, 72% of all 2010 givers had also given in For these consistent donors already on an organization s file, the presence of past multichannel giving is generally not a significant factor in predicting future retention or value. Traditional recency, frequency, and monetary amount (RFM) factors that encapsulate the donor s engagement and prior giving behavior are much more predictive of future performance. For example, if a donor has given one gift of $50 in each of the last four years, that donor will give similar amounts and will retain at the same rate in the current year regardless of whether that donor has given only online, only offline, or a combination of online and offline gifts in the past. Segmentation by Gift Frequency and Giving Level To determine whether multichannel giving alone accounts for higher value or better retention of donors already on file, we must first control for RFM variables. Isolating the effects of gift frequency is particularly important, because multichannel donors are, by definition, multiple-gift donors as well, and multiple-gift donors invariably perform better than one-gift donors. If the performance of mainly twogift multichannel donors is compared against that of mainly one-gift single channel donors, the multichannel donors will always perform better not necessarily because they are multichannel donors but because they are multiple-gift donors. The charts in this section show donors acquired online in 2007 divided into two different populations. One group, donors who gave online in 2009, serves as our proxy for single channel donors, because they are still giving by their channel of origin. The other group, donors who gave offline in 2009, serves as our proxy for multichannel donors, because they have switched channels. These charts compare single channel and multichannel giving in the RFM segments where online-acquired donors are the most plentiful: one-gift donors who gave last year at the three most common giving levels for online donors. This analysis shows that when controlling for RFM factors, those donors who remained giving only within the online channel in 2009 (single channel donors) and those donors who had migrated to offline giving in 2009 (multichannel donors) gave similar amounts in July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 16

17 In other words, the fact that a donor has past evidence of multichannel giving makes little or no consistent difference in the amount they will give this year. This stands in stark contrast to the donor s prior-year giving level, which accounts for a great deal of difference in the amount the donor will give this year. Single channel and multichannel donors in each of these RFM segments also renew at essentially the same rates in the following year. Gift frequency and giving level each have a greater impact on a donor s renewal rate than does multichannel giving. Segmentation by Recency Only 30% of active multi-year donors are reactivated, meaning that they were lapsed last year. An analysis which segments donors by recency their last year of giving before the current year shows similar results to the giving level analysis in the previous section. Recency is the most important determinant of retention. The effects of recency are much more significant than the presence of multichannel giving. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 17

18 About Target Analytics Target Analytics, a Blackbaud company, delivers data-driven, collaborative solutions designed to help nonprofit organizations maximize their fundraising potential. Target Analytics was the first company to bring forward-thinking nonprofit organizations together to establish industry-standard benchmarking and openly discuss successful strategies and practices. About Blackbaud Blackbaud is the leading global provider of software and services designed specifically for nonprofit organizations, enabling them to improve operational efficiency, build strong relationships, and raise more money to support their missions. Approximately 24,000 organizations including The American Red Cross, Cancer Research UK, Earthjustice, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Lincoln Center, The Salvation Army, The Taft School, Tulsa Community Foundation, Ursinus College, the WGBH Educational Foundation, and Yale University use one or more Blackbaud products and services for fundraising, constituent relationship management, financial management, website management, direct marketing, education administration, ticketing, business intelligence, prospect research, consulting, and analytics. Since 1981, Blackbaud s sole focus and expertise has been partnering with nonprofits and providing them the solutions they need to make a difference in their local communities and worldwide. Headquartered in the United States, Blackbaud also has operations in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. For more information, visit July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 18

19 Appendices Appendix A: Participating Organizations The 28 organizations participating in online benchmarking in 2010 were divided into two groups of 14 organizations each. One group used a July-June reporting year while the other group used a January-December reporting year. The organizations included: Group 1 (Reporting Year: July-June) Alzheimer s Association ASPCA Amnesty International CARE Defenders of Wildlife Humane Society of the United States Earthjustice Mercy Corps National Multiple Sclerosis Society National Parks Conservation Association Oxfam America Trout Unlimited Union of Concerned Scientists U.S. Fund for Unicef Group 2 (Reporting Year: January-December) ALSAC/St. Jude Children s Research Hospital AmeriCares Covenant House Environmental Defense Fund Feeding America Habitat for Humanity International International Fund for Animal Welfare International Rescue Committee March of Dimes Operation Smile Planned Parenthood Project Hope Save the Children Smithsonian Institution July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 19

20 Appendix B: Lifetime Giving by Origin Gift Level for Donors Acquired in 2008 July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 20

21 Appendix C: Four-Year Migration of Donors Acquired by Mail in 2007 July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 21

22 Appendix D: Annual Giving for Donors Acquired in 2008 May 2011, Blackbaud, Inc. This white paper is for informational purposes only. Blackbaud makes no warranties, expressed or implied, in this summary. The information contained in this document represents the current view of Blackbaud, Inc., on the items discussed as of the date of this publication. All Blackbaud product names appearing herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blackbaud, Inc. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners. July Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC T E [email protected] W 22