Integrated Marketing Campaign - Donate Life America

Page | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As Donate Life America’s 2012 campaign to register 20 million new organ donors draws to a close, the organization is challenged with increasing donor registration in the near future. With lackluster support among the 18 to 24 year old demographic, Donate Life aims to increase donor rates and advocacy among this age group. The following report analyzes primary and secondary research in order to determine motivations, barriers to entry, and trends associated with organ donation.

Insights into how 18 to 24 year olds perceive organ donation inform an eight-month integrated marketing communications plan to increase donor designation share by 400,000.

An overview of the landscape surrounding organ, tissue and eye donations in the United States uncovers several key barriers to reaching 18 to 24 year olds. There is a lack of education about organ donation registration and procurement procedures, including some significant misconceptions. Organizations such as the American Red Cross, the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association are also contending for awareness, action, and advocacy from 18 to 24 year olds.

Primary research was conducted to examine motives for registration, opinions on the registration process, and determine the best ways to communicate with the 18 to 24 year old demographic. A combination of in-depth interviews, focus groups, and an online survey identified key trends within different potential audiences. Research shows that parents often influence the decision of college students to donate, and that overall lack of awareness about organ donation processes is one of the main reasons this age group does not donate. To reach these audiences, a combination of new and traditional media is needed to penetrate the market.

Four potential audiences were considered for the campaign. Firstly, 18 to 24 year olds not in college account for over half of their age group, but are too geographically diverse for a targeted campaign. College students that are 25 years or older make up a large percentage of students, but vary greatly in age and involvement on campus. “Distracted Activists” (18 to 24 year old college students) is the most attractive segment. With over 12 million individuals concentrated in colleges across the country, and a high level of interaction on social media sites, this group will be able to quickly spread Donate Life’s message. A secondary audience of “Participating Parents” was also identified.

An integrated marketing communications plan was developed based on the research and findings. The It’s That Easy campaign will launch in October 2013 to increase incremental donor registrations and create advocacy in accordance with marketing and communication objectives. With a focus on creating an online donor community specifically for the primary audience, It’s That Easy will use public relations, online advertising, sales promotions and direct marketing to communicate the ease of the donation process, and foster conversation around organ donation within both audiences. With a strategic media schedule and a final budget of $99,982, the It’s That Easy campaign positions organ, tissue and eye donation as a convenient and relevant cause for 18 to 24 year olds.

Page |2 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Organizational Profile .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Situational Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Competitive Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 SWOT Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Donate Life America’s Target Market ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Primary Research ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Qualitative Research: In-Depth Interviews ............................................................................................................................... 6 Qualitative Research: Focus Groups ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Quantitative Research: Online Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Key Strategic Points .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Segmentation and Target Audience Selection ............................................................................................................................. 11 Positioning Strategy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Marketing Objectives................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Communications Objectives.................................................................................................................................................... 13 Campaign Concept – It’s That Easy ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Tactics.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Public Relations....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Online Marketing .................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Sales Promotions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Advertising .............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Direct Marketing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Budget and Timing ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Page | 3 ii

INTRODUCTION Donate Life America (Donate Life) is a nonprofit organization committed to increasing organ, eye, and tissue donation within the United States. It works through an alliance of national organizations and state teams to facilitate donor registration and effective donor education programs, as well as motivate the public to register as organ donors (Donate Life America, 2012).

Donate Life realizes that awareness, education, and advocacy of organ donation are critical for the continued growth of its donor database. Although almost 43% of US citizens are on state donor registries, more is needed to educate the public and increase the overall number of registered donors. New markets need to be segmented, analyzed, targeted, and developed in order to ensure Donate Life America achieves its goals. The organization is challenged with communicating its brand and message to the 18 to 24 year old “Millennial” mindset. To address this requirement in 2013, Donate Life has sponsored the 2012-2013 American Marketing Association’s Collegiate Case Study Competition.

The following report identifies key trends within the donation industry in order to attract the 18 to 24 year old demographic outlined in the project brief. The objective of the campaign is to determine the best methods of communicating with the 18 to 24 year old demographic in order to increase donor designation share and advocacy. The primary and secondary research identify motivations, barriers and perceptions towards organ, eye and tissue donation; as well as influential marketing initiatives to communicate to the target audience. The report includes an integrated marketing campaign to effectively reach the target audience, and attain the objectives outlined by Donate Life America.

For readability, this report will refer to organ, eye, and tissue donations as organ donation.

ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE Donate Life America was founded in 1992. It is composed of national and state coalitions across the United States, with the mission to “drive individuals, organizations and communities to increase the number of designated organ, eye and tissue donors who save and heal lives” (Donate Life America, 2012). The organization is based in Richmond, Virginia, and is funded by sponsorships, public contributions and community donations.

Donate Life supports state-level donor foundations and their activities while educating and motivating the American public on the importance and need for organ donation. It uses brochures, program kits, and educational materials to inform its audience and grow the donor registry. National campaigns are also executed to grow awareness across the country, and to support local campaigns. (Donate Life America, 2012) In 2006, Donate Life launched the Donor Designation Collaborative (DDC), a national effort to increase donation rates by ensuring that each state has the appropriate systems in place for donor registration, as well as creating easy access to these records during times of need. The DDC encourages the state teams to adopt, test and share best practices that increase the number of registered donors nationwide.

In October 2011, the DDC achieved one of its core goals when Donate Life reached 100 million registered US donors. Increased success during the last year of the campaign led to record-breaking numbers of cornea and tissue transplant registrations, and Donate Life drafted the 2012 goal of an additional 20 million new donors. The campaign has featured competitions and events such as a Donate Life Flash Mob, Donate Life Virtual Fashion Show, Donate Life Champions, National Blue and Green Day, and the Donate Life Linking Hands for Life campaign (Donate Life America, 2011).

Now ready to celebrate its 21st year, Donate Life is looking towards the next big campaign to build on its past success. Further growth must be grounded in the wave of emerging donors – those coming of age and entering colleges around the country. A successful campaign in this market will guarantee the ongoing success of Donate Life in 2013 and beyond.

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS To attain an intimate understanding of the existing organ donor landscape, multiple levels of research were required in order to formulate: lists of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; in-depth knowledge of any competing organizations; understanding of potential target markets.

KEY FINDINGS Based on secondary research, these are the key findings pertaining to Donate Life and the 18 to 24 year old audience.

Opt-out or “presumed consent” legislative systems in Europe are highly successful Several European countries have achieved high rates of donor registration with a presumed consent system. Instead of the opt-in system currently in place in the US, individuals must opt-out if they do not want to be a donor. Consider a comparison of

Page | 1

Germany (an opt-in country), which has a donor registration rate of 12%, and neighboring Austria (an opt-out country), which has a donor rate of over 99% (Thaler, 2009). As these two countries have similar histories and ways of life, it is evident that presumed consent has a significant impact on donor registration.

A General Lack of Education in Organ Donations Procedures A study of the effectiveness of organ donation campaigns among specific segments (including university communities) found that the lack of information or misrepresentation of organ donation registration and procurement procedures plays a significant role in the lack of donation consent (Feeley, 2009). A 2012 report looking at organ donation within college students in the US illustrates the need for education on the subject.

“Research with adolescents indicates that an overall lack of knowledge about organ donation coupled with the lack of awareness or knowledge about how to become a donor while applying for a driver’s license was the most frequently reported barrier to becoming a registered donor” (Peltier, 2012).

Peltier also explains that organ donor registration among college students sits at approximately 23%, significantly below registration targets (Peltier, 2012).

The lack of education about organ donation is especially apparent within the 18 to 24 year old demographic. The 2010 Donate Life National Survey identified two of the top four reasons for not registering to become an organ donor as: “not sure how to register” and “didn’t know you had to register at DMV/website.” Additionally, 53% of respondents strongly agreed/somewhat agreed with the statement “I have not registered to be an organ or tissue donor because I am not sure how to do so” (Donate Life America, 2010). A qualitative study of college students concluded that their low knowledge of the donation process, the sign up process, and time commitment all contribute to their low donor rates (D'Alessandro, 2012).

Significant misconceptions regarding organ donation exist within the American population. Many of these misconceptions are created by what Americans watch on television (Feeley, 2009). According to the Donate Life National Survey, 59% of people believe that individuals with more money or power are more likely to receive organs (Donate Life America, 2010). Many people also believe that organ donation conflicts with religion. The only religions that are explicitly against organ donation are Gypsies and Shintoism (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services).

A Need for Convenience to Increase Organ Donor Registrants and Advocates Millennials have come to expect added flexibility and a “time and place shift” into their space when interacting with organizations and other people (EcSell Institute, 2011). The Millennial Impact Report 2012 also indicates that providing content in a convenient and easy format is important when trying to involve Millennials with nonprofit organizations and create sharing and engagement within the age group. The report also mentions that an organization’s website needs to make it easy for Millennials to donate (MCON12, 2012).

With respect to organ donation, two of the top four reasons for not registering were: “no time” or “just haven’t done it or considered it” (Donate Life America, 2010). These responses, in conjunction with 18 to 24 year olds reliance on technology for convenience, reveals the need to provide the target market with a fast and easy way to register and support organ donation. One way to address registration barriers is by creating more convenient avenues for registration.

As outlined by the Millennial Impact Report 2012, 77% of people aged 20-35 own a smartphone. One of the most significant benefits of smartphones is their ability to provide information quickly and easily (MCON12, 2012). Interactivity with mobile devices is also increasing; 67% of Millennials use their mobile device to check emails, and 51% use it to for updates about organizations. The prominent use of mobile devices, considering their sharing capabilities, indicates a high level of personal connections through these devices (MCON12, 2012). In a recent study of 500 American college students, 38% said that they would not be able to go ten minutes without checking their wireless devices (Kessler, 2011). This indicates a high level of dependency on new technologies that offer convenient and instantaneous content updates.

The Power of Personalization Interpersonal communications are a significant component of a successful organ donation campaign at the college level. Providing college students with campaign material to converse over has been shown to increase donation rates. However, the right people are required to foster those conversations; organ donation professionals are required to act as a trustworthy and knowledgeable source of information in order to combat misperceptions. Creating a donor community among college students as well as providing local donation incentives will increase donation rates (Morgan, 2009).

A Need for Conversation on Organ Donation within the 18 to 24 Demographic Communication between family and friends is an effective way to address organ donation misconceptions and increase registration numbers. Professor Laura Siminoff from Case Western Reserve University states, “People do have some thoughts and have heard of organ procurement and donation and plantation. They come in with a set of beliefs…Everybody needs to go through this conversation that tells them all about the issues about donating organs, that they can donate anything they do or do not want to donate” (ABC News, 2012).

Page | 2

Organ donation rarely occurs without the consent from the next of kin. It is important to ensure that one’s family members are aware of their intentions to donate. In addition, there is an increasing trend of families declining donation even if the deceased is a registered donor (Wenger, 2010). Conversation about organ donation between the donor and their family is essential. There is a consensus between experts that the willingness to discuss organ donation with one’s family increases when a person has a greater knowledge of the donation process (Wenger, 2010), corroborating the need for education.

Donate Life has only 1,571 Twitter followers and 586 tweets. Of Donate Life’s Facebook “likes,” only 4.2% are actually talking about organ donation. Donate Life’s has only 39 followers on Pinterest. If Donate Life is going to increase donor rates among 18 to 24 year olds, conversation needs to be initiated and maintained on channels that are popular with that age group.

COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS The following section analyses competitive American nonprofit institutions, similar to Donate Life, which are vying for awareness, action, and advocacy from the same primary segment of 18 to 24 year old college students. Social media comparisons for each company and Donate Life can be found in Appendix 1.

THE AMERICAN RED CROSS The American Red Cross (ARC) is the US’s leading blood donation organization. Much like Donate Life, the ARC has uncovered two main reasons why people do not donate blood: they have never thought of it, and the fear of needles. The ARC supplies 40% of the US’s blood supply (American Red Cross, 2012). It was ranked by Cone Communication’s Nonprofit Power Brand 100 report as having the fifth strongest non-profit brand image in America. Its estimated brand equity is $3.15 billion (fourth of American nonprofits) (Cone Communications, 2009).

In 2006, the ARC recorded 9.5 million individual blood donors who donated an average of one pint of blood per visit. The ARC reports that less than 38% of Americans are eligible to donate blood (American Red Cross, 2012). Eligible donors have an 8.35% donation rate, which is a 3.17% donation rate among all Americans based on the 2006 population of 299,398,484 (United States Census Bureau, 2012).

The ARC also organizes support relief programs for natural disasters at home and abroad. The Haiti Earthquake Relief Campaign is one of the most recent and successful initiatives that the ARC participated in, and proved the effectiveness of mobile marketing. The ARC has over 400,000 Facebook fans and 600,000 Twitter followers. This online presence has made connecting people affected by disasters much easier (American Red Cross, 2012). SMS donations came from 3 million unique donors. 20,000 of those donors opted to receive email communications from the ARC. The majority (95%) of the text message donors were first time donors to the ARC. The campaign donations totaled $32 million (Butler, 2010).

A 2011 holiday campaign urged consumers to funnel holiday spending into Red Cross donations. The same campaign later tackled New Year’s resolutions and again, urged viewers to donate in 2012. The campaign was integrated across social media, with a Facebook page devoted to their 2011 holiday gift giving catalog and donation match program on Twitter from Craig Newmark of Craigslist (Nudd, 2012).

In 2008, the ARC worked with 3M and co-sponsored a NASCAR race team. NASCAR is estimated to reach one quarter of Americans. 3M donated their sponsorship space, estimated to be worth $500,000 each race. This partnership resulted in approximately $20 million of free advertising for the ARC (Olson, 2012).

AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY The American Cancer Society (ACS) is the leading nonprofit organization for cancer research and initiatives and the largest voluntary health organization in the United States. It provides medical and psychological support, and financial aid to those affected by cancer. It was ranked by Cone Communication’s Nonprofit Power Brand 100 report as having the strongest nonprofit brand image in America. Its estimated brand equity is $1.36 billion (eighth of American nonprofits) (Cone Communications, 2009).

According to the ACS’s 2011 Annual Report, public support was $888,314,000 that year. Contributions were $179,215,000, 20% of total public support, and special events raised $526,190,000, 60% of public support (American Cancer Society, 2011).

The ACS’s partnerships with sporting associations like the NFL generate its most notable promotional work. These partnerships aim to raise awareness among North American sports-enthusiasts; however, the initiative is somewhat controversial. According to Business Insider, only 5% of each sale is donated to the ACS. The NFL explains that surplus funding goes back into marketing the campaign and other ACS initiatives (Rueters, 2012).

The ACS has over 300,000 followers on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. Its YouTube account has over 4000 subscribers and nearly 250 videos segmented by associated events, committees, and research topics (American Cancer Society, 2012).

Page | 3

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION The American Heart Association (AHA) has 22.5 million volunteers and supporters. It funds research, lobbies for stronger public health policies, and provides tools and information to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. The AHA is the US’s largest and longest standing voluntary organization that fights cardiovascular disease. It has 2,600 employees in150 locations.

The AHA collaborates with the American Stroke Association, which in 2011 managed to accumulate 667 million media impressions across America (America Heart Association, 2011). It was ranked by Cone Communication’s Nonprofit Power Brand 100 report as having the seventh strongest nonprofit brand image in America. Its estimated brand equity is $897.8 million (twelfth of American nonprofits) (Cone Communications, 2009).

In 2011, the AHA reached out to 1.9 million students from nearly 29,000 schools to share personal stories of young survivors and teach the students about healthy lifestyles. This initiative resulted in a 63% rise in online registrations and a 53% rise in online revenue. Three million unique donors raised $232 million. Corporate relations were a sizeable source of contribution in 2011, totaling $30 million (America Heart Association, 2011).

In 2004, the AHA began a campaign entitled “Go Red for Women” to support the nearly 500,000 women who fall victim to cardiovascular disease each year. Database marketing proved integral to the success of this campaign. In 2009, the AHA noticed that charitable donations had dropped to only 6.6% of total earnings, significantly lower than 15% in 2007. The organization enlisted the support of direct marketing agencies which ran tests to see who would react favorably to certain messaging.

Personalized calls-to-action generated 1,887 new donations through a unique landing page. Overall, the “Go Red” campaign raised $1.65 million from 2,778 unique donors (Martinez, 2010).

ANALYSIS Through the analysis of prominent, health related nonprofit organizations in America, several marketing strategies and tactics have been identified as effective ways of reaching Donate Life’s target market.

The American Red Cross and American Cancer Society have both developed large online presences to reach their target markets the ARC with 400,000 Facebook fans and 600,000 Twitter followers respectively, and the ACS with 300,000 Facebook and Twitter followers.

Mobile marketing has allowed the American Red Cross to generate 3 million unique donors, 95% of which were first time donors (Butler, 2010).

The American Heart Association leveraged its database to create personalized messages that increased response and conversion rates, generating 1,887 new donations through a unique landing page (Martinez, 2010).

The American Red Cross and the American Cancer Society both attain free promotion from corporations looking to improve their brand image. The ARC’s partnership with 3M saw its logo placed on the hood of a NASCAR vehicle for one racing season.

This kind of sponsorship reaches 75 million NASCAR fans and would normally cost $20 million. The American Cancer Society has gained even more awareness for breast cancer by partnering with sporting associations like the Nation Football League (Rueters, 2012).

SWOT ANALYSIS The following analysis recognizes the internal and external factors relevant to the operation of Donate Life America and the implementation of a campaign to reach 18 to 24 year olds.

STRENGTHS Organization size and reach – Donate Life maintains 51 State Teams and works with 58 Organ Procurement Organizations. It has a strong board of directors and continues to grow its number of affiliates. This consolidates the strengths of each partner into a larger body with broader reach, recognition, status, and credibility (Donate Life America, 2012).

Large list of affiliates – State-level organ donor registries and organizations have worked closely with Donate Life for 20 years to improve its systems, processes, and tools to drive more registrations. This has created a cooperative affiliate network across the country, giving Donate Life ready access to data, markets, and campaign platforms (Donate Life America, 2012).

Strong brand equity – The Donate Life brand and logo has remained consistent, and has been well represented in state-level campaigns. With a strong leadership board and history of successful awareness campaigns, Donate Life is the trusted partner of organ donation causes in America (The Associated Press, 2012).

Ongoing campaign successes – The achievements of the Donor Designation Share (DDS) and supporting campaigns have increased levels of confidence, and inspired deeper involvement and commitment from Donate Life’s communities and affiliates (Donate Life America, 2012).

Page | 4

WEAKNESSES Incomplete reach of the US States – Donate Life has excellent coverage across the states, with some very active local affiliates; however, some states are still complacent and need further motivation to participate fully with the campaign suggestions and tools Donate Life provides. This means that potential organ donor markets may be overlooked (Donate Life America, 2012).

Inconsistent local-level messaging – Some state-level Donate Life websites (and campaigns) are exemplary, with clear, aligned messaging, attractive layouts, easy navigation, strong calls to action, and immediate association with the Donate Life brand (Donate Life California, 2012). However, while Donate Life strives to uplift the efforts of every state-level organization, some are still lacking (LifeCenter Northwest, 2012). There is very little unity in terms of messaging, content, layout, or information when considering state sites as a whole. Consistent messaging about making organ donation easy for the audience will have to be implemented, otherwise it may be difficult for Donate Life to execute a nationwide campaign.

Perceived difficult registration process – The public often associates registering as a donor with visiting the DMV. There is limited awareness that the process can be done online legitimately. Donate Life America has focused on raising support, not awareness of how easy it is to register.

No government mandate – While Donate Life works closely with government entities—such as the US Department of Health and Human Services—to influence legislation that would improve donation numbers, it has no direct mandate to act on the government’s behalf.

Funding – Donate Life relies on generous donations from sponsors and friends of the organization to execute its activities. This dependence is a potential weakness, as Donate Life has few internal revenue streams besides its branded promotional item sales.

Their recent association with The Giving Curve may result in another revenue stream, but is yet to be tested and assessed (Donate Life America, 2012). For the time being, Donate Life must maximize funding through its marketing campaigns.

OPPORTUNITIES Shifting Millennial perceptions of organ donation – The achievements of Donate Life are proportionate to the shift in the population’s perceptions regarding organ donation. As more people are becoming educated and talk about it, organ donation registrations have increased. The Millennial generation is socially aware, and looking to make informed, independent decisions of their own, based on peer input and their own rationale (The Boston Consulting Group, 2012). 85% of Millennials are motivated by a compelling cause, but 79% of them also mentioned that a lack of time posed as a barrier to donation (Achieve, 2011). This highlights how important addressing convenience and ease will be in the campaign messaging.

Changing 18 to 24 perceptions of philanthropy – Today’s American 18 to 24 year old is far more aware and involved in altruistic activities than previous generational cohorts. He or she is looking to validate and establish themselves by “giving back” in a way that is meaningful and rewarding, without feeling pressured or emotionally coerced (The Boston Consulting Group, 2012). Youth are far more likely to appreciate and respond to organizations that speak to them on their terms. These organizations must connect with young Americans at their level of interest and understanding (Achieve, 2012).

Technological communication advancements – In this online era, nonprofits have the ability to communicate constantly and immediately with their publics, with messages tailored to individual consumer preferences of format, time, and device (MCON12, 2012). Consumer touch-points have multiplied, while interaction and multimedia capabilities add another layer to the message that can be transmitted. The ongoing proliferation of preference for social media as a tool to connect, interact, share, and deliver content - especially among Millennials - creates many marketing opportunities for astute organizations (Mounce, 2012). Social influences, peer opinions, and the search for convenience are major stimuli for their decisions.

Closing communication gap between age groups – As generation X, Millennials, and Boomers gravitate towards social media platforms as a way of sharing conversations and influence, there is an opportunity to extend campaign reach by leveraging these closer, larger networks in ways that are both easy and convenient (Mounce, 2012).

THREATS Lack of organ donation education – From the myths associated with organ donation, to the registration process, to what happens upon death, very few younger people are fully educated on the facts of organ donation (Flaman, 2012). There is also a predisposed reluctance to actively seek out this information. Media portrayals of illegal organ harvesting and hearsay have exacerbated misinformation and misconceptions (Harbaugh C, 2011).

Multifaceted competition, skeptic consumers – 18 to 24 year old college students are a major potential consumer market of almost every organization. 18 to 24 year olds have recently reached independence maturity and are earning and spending their own money. They are bombarded with marketing messages every day as they are just beginning to form lifelong consumer

Page | 5

habits (Henkes, 2012). Because of this, many individuals in this age group have adopted a cynical view towards marketers, preferring to gather their own information and make their own decisions (Mihailidis, 2012).

Association with mortality – It is impossible to fully separate organ donation from the inevitability of one’s demise. While positive messaging is effective at conveying the benefits that can come from it, death is not a comfortable topic for young college students who feel their lives have just begun (Luxmoore, 2012). This makes it difficult to insert organ donation into everyday conversation.

Diversity of audience – America is experiencing a multicultural eruption in colleges and universities. Millennials are the most diverse age group in recent history. Minority groups are growing, exceeding the number of traditional students, and the concern is that they be treated equally and fairly. Anyone who wishes to engage or interact with a minority or cultural group must understand and respect that group, and tailor communications accordingly (Practice Central, 2007).

DONATE LIFE AMERICA’S TARGET MARKET Donate Life has a mandate to convert as many US citizens to donors as possible. It has achieved success through its state-level affiliates and national support campaigns. The US currently has the 3rd highest organ donor rate per million people, third only to Spain and Portugal, both of which employ a presumed consent system (The Economist, 2012). As 90% of US citizens maintain a favorable view on organ donation, and over 62% are inclined to register, Donate Life’s target market is broad and significant (Donate Life Case Brief, 2012).

Demographically, there are approximately 237,745,000 US citizens above the age of 18 (United States Census Bureau, 2012).

Roughly 100 million are already registered, meaning Donate Life’s target market size is approximately 85.4 million ((237,745,000–100,000,000)*.62). Both males and females are active participants in organ donation. Although organs are needed from all ethnicities across the country, some minorities have higher instances of certain diseases. African Americans and Hispanics are three times more likely than Caucasians to suffer from end-stage renal disease, due to high blood pressure (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). Therefore Donate Life’s target market includes all visible minorities. The potential market for donation advocacy is the 90% of the country in favor of the organ donation.

Geographically, Donate Life’s target market is located in the United States. The number of each state’s donors varies considerably based on state legislation and local organ donation procurement organizations. As Donate Life’s purpose is to encourage registration, the states with high populations but low levels of procurement would be its main targets. As per Donate Life’s Donor Designation Share analysis, these states include Texas, California, Mississippi, and New York (Donate Life America, 2012). Psychographically, the target market supports organ donation.

PRIMARY RESEARCH Qualitative and quantitative research was used in support of secondary research and to increase understanding of the target market. The main focus was on understanding the most important trends, motivations, and barriers in organ donation registration, advocacy, and marketing. The research included 28 in-depth interviews, three focus groups, and an online questionnaire with 368 respondents.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS Qualitative research consists of three sets of in-depth interviews: 18 to 24 year old, older than 25, and an interview with an organ donation expert. The interviews revealed the motivations for and barriers to organ donation as they relate to each demographic.

18 TO 24 AGE GROUP IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS Qualitative research includes 15 in-depth interviews with college students between the ages of 18 and 24 (eight females and seven males). Eight of these students were already registered organ donors and seven were not. The interviews provided insights into personal motives for registering or not registering, the registration process, and the best ways to communicate with the college student demographic. The interview questions are outlined in Appendix 2.1.

Motivations and Barriers to Registration Reasons for registration among those who were already registered donors were practical in nature. Specifically, they believed that donating organs they would no longer need made sense. The overall consensus could be summed up in “why not?” Those who had not registered all mentioned that they would become donors in the future but hadn’t already mainly because of registration conveniences issues.

When interviewees were asked why they didn’t donate, most indicated that registration was out of the way, not top of mind, or that it just hadn’t been brought to their attention. The need for easy and convenient registration was also apparent when

Page | 6

interviewees were asked how to motivate others to register. A common response was to motivate them by making it easy or illustrating how easy the process is. Several interviewees were also unaware of being able to register online which they said would help motivate others to register, as it would be easier. The responses of non-registrants conflicts somewhat with the experience of those who did register, who said that registration was already easy and convenient. Ensuring registration is convenient and easy, and communicating those concepts effectively, must be addressed in the campaigns implementation.

Family Impact on Registration Decision Six of the eight who had already registered said all of their family members were also organ donors. Of those who were not registered, only one said that their father influenced their decision not to register. When family influence occurs, it tends to be in support of organ donation, suggesting that people who are not yet organ donors have not addressed the issue at all, not that they have explicitly decided to not to be a donor. 14 of the 15 interviewees cited family as the most influential people in their lives, with an emphasis on parents. This is significant because it could help in define an audience for Donate Life.

Influential Marketing Channels Social media was identified as the most effective medium for reaching 18 to 24 year old college students with donation messages. Television advertisements and in-person campaigns were also identified as strong mediums for communicating with students. Several interviewees also identified celebrity endorsements as influential media. In terms of content, most interviewees preferred positive stories of survival as well as education and facts about donation.

25+ AGE GROUP IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS Thirteen in-depth interviews were conducted with adults aged 25 and over, as per Appendix 2.2. Five males and eight females were interviewed. Seven of these interviewees (two males, five females) were registered donors. All interviewees were employed. One was attending a post-secondary institution. Interviews were conducted with those outside of the defined target market as 18 to 24 year olds showed a trend of identifying family members as influencers. Interviews were conducted with the older demographic because of their potential as a secondary market.

Motivations and Barriers to Registration The consensus among registrants was that they “won’t need them after death.” Half of those who had not registered said they had not thought about it. All non-registrants would have theoretically said “yes” to becoming a donor. All interviewees indicated that it was important to register because it helps save the lives.

The most significant barrier to registration was lack of education. Interviewees wanted to be knowledgeable on the subject before making a decision. They also indicated what factors would motivate others to donate; several said educating others on the process was most important. Myths in general were not a prevalent issue; however, two misperceptions arose from certain nonregistered donors. The first was that health officials would not try as hard to save their lives if they were donors; the second was that organs were sold to the highest bidder.

Organ Donation Perceptions and Sentiments All registered donors associated organ donation with helping people, saving lives, and creating life after their own death. More than a quarter of the interviewees made the connection between organ donation and giving or generosity. Their decisions to become donors caused most interviewees to feel positively about themselves or their actions. When asked what they felt about individuals who were not donors, the term “selfish” came up nearly half of the time; although, they did recognize it to be a personal choice. This was consistent with the younger demographics sentiments. When non-registered interviewees were asked how they felt about individuals who had not chosen to be donors, indifference and apathy were the main sentiments. Only half of these interviewees associated organ donation with good or saving lives.

Creating Conversations on Donation None of the interviewees claimed to talk to their family or friends about becoming their organ donor status or about organ donation in general. Some interviewees stated that they may have mentioned it on occasion but serious conversation had never developed. Five of the six unregistered interviewees were unaware of their family’s stance on organ donation. Four of them stated the conversation had never come up. In general, conversations with friends and families were focused on their day-to-day lives; however, three of the six interviewees mentioned that “life” or “life advice” were popular conversation topics, which illustrates that there is opportunity for discussions on organ donation.

Channels of Conversation and Influence Among interviewees, the most influential people in their lives were members of their family. Parents, siblings and spouses were cited as influential by every interviewee.

The interviewees participate in online conversations through email and social media. Several interviewees retrieve their news and current events through television programs and advertisements; although, many use online sources and mobile phone applications. Other interviewees use Google as their first step in educating themselves on topics similar to organ donation.

Page | 7

Influential Marketing Components The interviewees identified two forms of content that would have significant influence for marketing registration. The first was inspirational stories. Ten of the thirteen interviewees mentioned that stories were what they would like to see in an organ donation marketing campaign. The second was statistics. Nine of the thirteen interviewees indicated that facts would be a powerful tool for influencing the donation decision.

ORGAN DONATION EXPERT IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW One in-depth interview was conducted with an organ donation expert, specializing in marketing communications and community involvement. As an employee of a local procurement organization, she focuses on developing social media sites and coordinating local events to raise awareness for organ donation.

Marketing Campaign Messaging The interviewee identified several methods of messaging that have had success communicating the importance of organ donation to the overall target market. Organ recipients who have told their own stories have helped increase awareness of, and overcome misconceptions around, organ donation. Student in-depth interviews corroborate this idea. Other messaging has been communicated that organ donation is about helping to save another life after you have had the chance to live your own. Many families who have donated a loved one’s organs express that donation is a means for ongoing remembrance.

Targeting 18 to 24 year olds The interviewee suggested that the best way to target 18 to 24 year olds is with social media. Stories about donation and the efforts of individuals and organizations can easily be shared through this medium. Any stories that directly relate to younger generations will resonate more with the target audience.

The interviewee said that they began a “remind me card” program that allowed people to write their name and email on a small card and give it to the volunteer who would email them information about donation. This was done after identifying that people are often too busy to stop and talk. Following up to provide them with convenient and easy to access information was beneficial in educating and registering them.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: FOCUS GROUPS The qualitative research includes two focus groups with individuals between 18 to 24, and one secondary focus group with individuals aged 45 to 65. This secondary focus group was conducted because of their influence on the primary market. In general, the focus groups provided insights into the motivations and barriers the participants had encountered in the organ donation process. The questions posed are outlined in Appendix 2.3.

18 TO 24 YEAR OLD COLLEGE STUDENT FOCUS GROUPS Two focus groups were designed in order to understand perceptions about organ donation, barriers to registration, and ways to connect with the audience. Each group was made up of six individuals aged 18 to 24, with balanced gender distribution.

Parental Influence Several participants cited family influence as a reason for or against their decision to register as a donor. Two participants explained that they were not organ donors because their parents are against it, whereas another individual became an organ donor because her entire family was registered. Family influence has been identified throughout the qualitative research.

Lack of Awareness The majority of participants cited the lack of discussion about donation as a reason for not registering. Participants agreed that current levels of marketing to raise awareness about donation were not enough. They were not aware of any advocacy groups at their colleges. One respondent stated, “It’s an empty topic. It’s a topic people choose to be aware of themselves.”

Online and Offline Connection Two schools of thoughts emerged when participants were asked what channels would be most effective in reaching them in an organ donation campaign. One group suggested that internet, social media, and information booths would be the most effective means of reaching them because of the convenience and ease associated with online media and personal connections. The other group felt newspapers, magazines, and television news would be most effective because of their broad reach.

Positive Attitudes Most participants had positive views on organ donation. When asked to complete the sentence “I associate organ donations with…” participants responded: “helping others” and “people who want to give back.” Similarly, when asked, “When I think of being an organ donor, I feel…” participants responded: “helpful,” that they were “saving a life,” and “contributing to science.”

This suggests that positive sentiment already exists in this demographic, and that there is an opportunity to deepen the knowledge and connection individuals have with organ donation.

Page | 8

45 TO 65 YEAR OLD FOCUS GROUP The objective of the secondary focus group was to understand the decision-making process, concerns about organ donation, and effective messaging and media that would appeal to individuals aged 45 to 65.

Private Decision Participants in the secondary focus group expressed that the decision to register is a private and personal one. They respected their friends’ decision regarding donations and did not bring it up in conversation regularly. Three out of six participants were organ donors. The others were not opposed to it, but had not registered. As this topic was not discussed regularly amongst the participants’ peer groups, lack of education about organ donation was one reason why the individuals have not registered.

Barriers to Donation When discussing concerns regarding organ donation, culture was considered one of the reasons why individuals do not donate.

Several participants brought up religious and cultural beliefs as reasons why others may not donate. Although the participants did not hold these beliefs personally, this confirms that there may be existing misconceptions about organ donation that exist among cultural groups. Another concern one individual raised was that as people age, there may be a chance that their organs may not be suitable for donation. This misperception was also evident in the secondary research.

Media and Content Participants suggested that traditional forms of media such as television news, newspapers, and radio would be most effective for reaching an older demographic. They also suggested brochures at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and that personal appeals would be effective as well. The participants also believed that facts and statistics about the benefits of organ donation would be effective for reaching their age group. Maintaining a simple message was considered important to help spread the content among different demographics. With this campaign’s budgetary constraints, traditional forms of media might be difficult to utilize, but it is important to ensure that the secondary market is still targeted through appropriate media.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: ONLINE SURVEY An online survey was conducted to gain statistical insight into the opinions, influences, perceptions and activities surrounding organ donation. Aimed primarily at the 18 to 24 year old demographic, the survey consisted of 38 metric and non-metric questions, and used a series of dichotomous, multiple choice, rank-order, Likert scales, open-ended, and demographic questions.

These are fully described in Appendix 3.

The survey was conducted during October and November 2012 with 368 candidates. A screening question excluded respondents under 18 years old, but responses above the 18 to 24 demographic were retained for further insights into the potential secondary market identified during qualitative research. The data was collected using purposeful sampling, with respondents reached through personal and social networks. While it was a non-probability sample, every effort was taken to increase the quality and representativeness of the sample.

RESPONDENT SUMMARY 368 responses were collected; 172 respondents were aged 18 and 24, while 118 were between 25 and 34 years old. 47% were registered organ donors, 41.8% of respondents were male, and 58.2% were female.

ANALYSIS In the 18 to 24 year-old segment, 81% “Approved” or “Strongly Approved” of organ donation, but only 41% were registered organ donors. 25% stated their reasoning as “not having thought about it before” and 30% as “I haven’t gotten around to it.” This shows a clear need to grow awareness as well as make registering as easy as possible. More than half of the group also intended to register “soon” or “one day.” This exposes a trend towards donor support, but also a large amount of complacency.

29% of respondents older than 24 explained that they “haven’t gathered enough information” and 39% said “I haven’t gotten around to it.” This showed that while students may tend to want to make more informed decisions as they get older, the level of complacency and need for convenience is key. An assumption may be that procrastination may transition from “not considered the issue at all” to “over-consideration” – perhaps as an excuse. This demonstrates the importance of raising awareness and stimulating action in younger groups. 40% of Millennials states that a key reason they haven’t taken action is that they’ve never been asked, feeding into the under-consideration of organ donation among this segment (MCON12, 2012).

42% of 18 to 24 year olds used the DMV for donor registration, even though it has only an 11% preference level. This is supported by numerous complaints against the waiting times and bureaucracy involved when dealing with the DMV (Packer, 2010), and highlights the need for a quicker and easier way to register as a donor. Only 13% chose to register online (notably, less than half of the respondents were aware that they could register online), and 7% registered during school drives. This is in contrast with 28% of non-donors who stated that, should they register, they would do so online.

Page | 9

Among respondents older than 24, around 25% preferred registering in each of the following three categories: at the DMV, a hospital/clinic, or online. Notably, there was a 4% increase of people who stated they would “likely never register” between the younger and older groups, once again showing the importance of forming donor decisions and action early.

An interesting comparison among the primary market is that 76% deemed registering at a clinic or hospital an official declaration, while only 60% felt the same about online registration. Respondents are wary of the validity of online registration; although, 40% said that a stronger online presence would make them more inclined to register. Further analysis of the primary research suggests that the online registration is viewed as “too simple” for what some consider to be a major decision.

Nine out of ten people in the primary market were neutral or comfortable about discussing organ donation. This figure was only slightly higher among respondents over 24 years old. 43% of the primary and 57% of the older market can speak comfortably about organ donation with their friends or family. This reinforces previous findings that organ donation is viewed positively, but that complacency persists and registration needs to be made as easy and visible as possible.

Just over half of 18 to 24 year olds stated that if their friends talked about donation, they would be more inclined to register (slightly less for respondents older than 24); however, school campaigns were considered more influential at 65%. This reinforces the need to roll out awareness campaigns at the local school level; however, less than 20% said that they had an active organ donor awareness presence in their school. Over a third said that one did not exist, but was needed. This may play into their desire for convenience. As these students are at school anyway, registering would be made easy.

Myths and misconceptions around organ donation were addressed to assess how prevalent these may be. In both markets, two thirds did not believe that organs are harvested illegally by doctors. Only 10% of the primary segment believed that organs are prioritized to the highest bidder, and that donors do not receive adequate care from doctors in life-threatening situations. Only 14% of the secondary segment believed these to be true. Approximately a third of all respondents believed that only people who live healthy and responsible lifestyles could be organ donors, signifying the need for further education.

Facebook remained the top social media platform for conversation among the 18 to 24 year olds at 95%, and 78% for older respondents. Twitter and YouTube follow at 48% and 45% respectively for 18 to 24 year olds. Older respondents put Google+ at 29%. Over 40% of respondents over 44 years old used Facebook for conversation, but preferred Google+ at 47%.

Respondents came from a wide range of ethnicities and religions; however, over 90% said their religion, and over 95% said their ethnicity, played no part in their donor decision. Those that said ethnicity played a part were mostly of Asian descent, and those quoting religion were widely dispersed, though mostly Catholic and Mennonite.

Cross tabulation showed a significant relationship between education level and donor status. 54% of high school graduates and 66% of those who had completed post-secondary education were registered donors, while only 32% of college/university students were currently registered. 53% of respondents older than 24 were registered donors. One interpretation could be that the population waits until a later point in life (after all their schooling) to register, which could explain to the low number of registered donors among 18 to 24 year olds.

SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE DATA The issue of complacency has been highlighted, not only in young groups but in older groups as well, despite strong support for organ donation. This supports the need to make the registration process easy, and to allow them to register through channels in their “chosen space.” While the potential donor decision-making process is simple (almost given), soliciting action in a way that meets their demands is a challenge.

The data also shows guardedness against online registration, and a higher than expected number of people registering at hospitals or clinics. People may feel that online registration is too “unofficial” or informal – they need someone to guide them or educate them through the process, or confirmation that an easy online method is legitimate. Engaging in donation conversations would have a major influence on potential donors; however, the conversation is currently not being started. They feel open and positive about the topic, but are simply not being given a reason to discuss it during their daily lives.

KEY STRATEGIC POINTS The research demonstrates that the campaign solution must address four key barriers in order to meet the overall objectives: Convenience – The primary audience will most likely respond to messages which are delivered at a time and places, and in format and tone that integrates seamlessly with their everyday lives. The message vehicles must fit with how they currently consume and interact with information. The target market will respond to messages that are easy to decipher and respond to. The message must be clear, concise, and delivered in a way that moves them as little as possible out of their comfort zone. It must be made clear that it is very easy for them to register as organ donors.

Page | 10

Conversation – Conversation will create awareness and advocacy. The target market responds to messages that are simple, but thought provoking. Online conversations are starting to dominate the 18 to 24 year old range. This group exchanges an average of 1,914 messages every month (Nielsen), and the average Facebook user has 319 friends and 126 Twitter followers (Goo, 2012). Social media platforms are an opportunity to create conversations through just a few advocates (Pring, 2012). The campaign must initiate and sustain conversations with relevant and engaging content.

Education – 18 to 24 year olds respond to messages that contain a mix of entertainment and information. Communications must contain information that directly addresses any questions they have, enabling them to make an easy decision. Relevant educational material is the key to breaking barriers and improving registration numbers.

Positivity – Organ donation carries an undertone of mortality which the target market prefers to avoid. The focus must be on the positive aspects of organ donation rather than the consequences of not donating (D'Alessandro, 2012). The target audience wants to positively impact others, but the motivating factor should not be guilt. They are motivated by personal benefits, entertainment and fun (Young J. H., 2012). They want to know, “what’s in it for me?” This reward can be the knowledge that they are doing good, affiliation with a group, or some other small form of compensation (Young E. , 2012).

SEGMENTATION AND TARGET AUDIENCE SELECTION The 18 to 24 year old market outlined by the Donate Life America Case Brief has been segmented into two different audiences: current college students, and 18 to 24 year old non-scholars. Two alternative markets have also been identified as potential secondary markets: parents of college students and college students over the age of 24. These segments are presented graphically with estimated numbers given in Appendix 4.

“Distracted Activists”: college students aged 18 to 24 – Primary Audience Distracted Activists are 18 to 24 years old, in school, supportive of causes, and looking to make a positive impact through activism. However, they are also extremely busy, they are time-poor, and distracted. They are continuously bombarded with messages competing for their attention, so they have developed strong filters. They tend to rely on convenient information.

Currently, there are 12 million 18 to 24 year old college students in the US (Pew Research Center, 2010). Between 85% and 96% of them are on social media sites, meaning they are very well connected with their peers and family (D'Alessandro, 2012).

This audience is highly centralized in colleges and universities across the nation. 57% of college students own a smartphone and 97% of those access social media sites on their device (Yu, 2012). Primary and secondary research demonstrates that this audience has the most potential to achieve Donate Life’s objectives.

“Participating Parents”: parents with children in college aged 18 to 24 – Secondary Audience As determined by primary research, parents of 18 to 24 year old college students are influential and well connected to their children. 47% of 18 to 24 year olds still live at home and 50% are still reliant on their parents for financial aid (Pew Research Center, 2010). 73% of adults aged 30-49 and 57% of those 50-64 are active on social media, and 48% of those “friend” their child on Facebook (Brenner, Pew Internet: Social Networking (full detail), 2012). Currently, YouTube reaches 59% of all 35 to 49 year olds, and 52% of 50 to 64 year olds (YouTube, 2012).

“Friends and Followers”: 18 to 24 year olds not in college Currently, there are over 30 million 18 to 24 year olds in the United States. Of those, 39.6% are currently enrolled in a college or university (Pew Research Center, 2010). This illustrates that there is a significant number of 18 to 24 year olds that are not enrolled; however, because they are not concentrated geographically, they are not a viable primary audience for this campaign.

Nevertheless, these youth are still connected with the primary audience. 92% of people aged 18-29 are using social media (Brenner, Pew Internet: Social Networking, 2012), which means the campaign will likely spillover into this segment.

“Overgrads”: college students 25 and older Currently there are just over 20 million college students in the US (US Department of Commerce, 2011). 12 million are between the ages of 18 to 24, and approximately 8 million are 25 years or older (Pew Research Center, 2010). As they vary greatly in age and involvement on campus, they are a less viable audience than 18 to 24 year olds. However, because of their proximity to the primary audience, there will be considerable spillover to these students.

DISTRACTED ACTIVISITS - PRIMARY AUDIENCE Demographically, Donate Life’s primary audience for the fall 2013 campaign is aged 18 to 24 years old. It is made up of male and female students who are enrolled in a college within the United States. There are approximately 30.4 million 18 to 24 year olds in the United States (College Participation Rates, 2009). Approximately 12.5 million are enrolled in a college (United States Census Bureau, 2011). As the mean number of organ donors for college students is 23%, approximately 2.875 million have already registered, with 9.625 million yet to register (Peltier, 2012). This does not mean that only unregistered donors should be targeted as advocacy can be created among those who have already registered. Ethnically, approximately 1.64 million of these

Page | 11

college students are African American, 2.08 million are Hispanic, and 0.75 million are Asian (United States Census Bureau, 2011). As they are students, they maintain a low annual income; on average, 21.7% of 18 to 24 year olds are employed part-time and 15.4% are employed full-time.

Geographically, “Distracted Activists” are found in colleges and universities across the country. The two states with the highest concentration of 18 to 24 year old college students are California with over 1.5 million, and Texas with just under 0.8 million (College Participation Rates, 2009). Both states happen to have low donor designation shares (California, 31% and Texas, 12% of the population 18 and over) (Donate Life America, 2012).

Psychographically, “Distracted Activists” are Millennials (the largest generation in America, with 92 million people (Stern, 2010)). Millennials are accustomed to the internet and are not likely to do things on paper when there is an easier, faster way of doing it online. Millennials like things to be fast and easy and they question everything; hence, the nickname “Generation Why” (Shayon, 2012). Millennials like to be connected which has led to a strong online presence. In addition, they are tech savvy, and often place a large amount of importance on the newest technology. This generation feels a sense of ownership over the digital realm. This generation is also goal-oriented, assertive, high achieving, and wants to make a difference. There have been high expectations on this generation from the beginning and they work hard to achieve good grades (Gleason, 2008).

Behaviorally, “Distracted Activists” are highly active online and engaged in social media. Over 85% of all college students are social networkers, and 96% of these are 18 to 19 years old. Use of video sharing sites continues to increase as 92% of Millennials engage in them (D'Alessandro, 2012). “Distracted Activists” also contribute to online content; 20% have posted a video of themselves online. (Pew Research Center, 2010). College students have large social networks and often use instant messaging and text messaging to share viral videos and other online content with each other (D'Alessandro, 2012). 57% of college students use smartphones, 75% sleep next to them and 97% of those with a smartphone use it for engaging in social networks (Yu, 2012). “Distracted Activists” also connect with nonprofit organizations online. 67% of Millennials have interacted with a nonprofit over Facebook. When learning about nonprofits, 65% of the Millennials prefer to engage through their websites and 55% prefer social media (MCON12, 2012). 53% of “Distracted Activists” are actively involved in crowdsourcing (Paul, 2012), a method of gathering education and knowledge through peers about products or brands. “Distracted Activists” respond to messages that are clear, honest, relevant, and “in their space and in their face.”

SECONDARY AUDIENCE – PARTICIPATING PARENTS Research of the primary audience has revealed a strong influence from parents, elders, and family members. A wide age range has begun to prefer social media as a communications method, and one of the results is that 18 to 24 year olds are involving themselves more in conversations with their parents and extended family, bridging the gap between parents and children (Pew Research Center, 2010). People are more willing to honestly express their personal feelings and opinions around more sensitive subjects, such as organ donation, on social media platforms (Bryant, 2009). Such conversations have influenced how parents interact with their children. Parents are taking more of an interest in their kids’ activities, choices, and external influences. This has an effect on their decisions, opinions, and actions.

The “Distracted Activists” are starting to stay in their parents’ homes longer than in previous decades, often throughout their college years (D'Arcy, 2012). This is due to growing financial constraints, student debt concerns, and a shrinking “social gap” between young adult children who are rapidly maturing and taking interest in adult matters, and parents who are becoming increasingly aware and involved in younger activities and trends. This extended co-habitation allows more time for parents to engage in conversation, extend influence, and engage in discussions with their children (and vice-versa).

For these reasons, Participating Parents are adults 44 years or older who are major family influencers. Geographically they are located across the country and not necessarily in close proximity to their children, although many of their kids still live at home with them. This audience has one child or more at a college or university; is reasonably active on social media (and counts their children among their friends or followers); and is socially aware but not overly focused on altruistic actions (recycles, buys organic, and drives an eco-friendly car) but wish they had the time or opportunity to do more (Metlife, 2010). Women are more likely to stay in touch with their children via social media. These mothers follow their children’s’ social feeds and represent a larger portion of social media users (Marketing Charts, 2009).

POSITIONING STRATEGY The campaign will invoke the target market’s known affinity for immediate, stimulating experiences, and their demand for personal interaction with brands that wish to secure their attention. The use of excitement, curiosity, and fun must be matched with easy-to-access information, and quick means of making decisions and taking action. This will be achieved by using both sensory gratification and favorable positioning strategies to ensure a positive brand identity with the target market.

Page | 12

This positioning will effectively reach Donate Life’s target market with messaging that is clear, relevant, and instantly recognizable. It will focus on creating interest, delivering information, and generating the immediate action required (Nelson, 2012). Creative and tactical elements will deliver a form of immediate gratification, avoiding any complicated or timeconsuming messaging. Execution vehicles must penetrate the places and spaces where the target market spends most of their time, and fully integrate with their lives to meet their need for convenience.

The campaign must also be unique to distinguish itself from any competitor executions as well as previous Donate Life campaigns; the target market responds to entertaining, interesting and humorous appeals (Soul Sight, 2012). This perspective has not been effectively leveraged in recent Donate Life campaigns.

Constant physical and virtual reminders of Donate Life and the campaign should be provided to those engaged. This can be in the form of physical items, user generated content, guerrilla tactics, or even knowledge and experience. This will stimulate further conversation and sharing, leading to awareness and advocacy beyond the campaign’s execution period.

MARKETING OBJECTIVES The overall objective of this campaign is to generate 399,044 incremental organ, eye, and tissue registrants (a cost per registrant of $0.25) among the campaign’s target audience by the end of May 2014.

COMMUNICATIONS OBJECTIVES The campaign’s communications objectives work in five stages: awareness of public relations tactics, media impressions, website hits, conversion rate, and advocacy. Visitors to the website would already have an awareness of the campaign, so they will have already been exposed to the concept of organ donation before they view it. With that in mind, visitors are assumed to have a 50% conversion rate. The following objectives consider the reach of various tactics to determine realistic expectations at each of the five stages.

Awareness • To create 75% awareness of public relations tactics at the schools where they occur. The combined school populations are 87,279, an awareness of 65,459.

Media Impressions • To generate 4.18 million social media impressions from public relations events, assuming 20% of 65,459 students with an average of 319 friends shares something about the events (Goo, 2012).

• To generate 25 million media impressions with strategic media releases during and after each event.

Website Hits • To attain 698,089 website hits based on an industry standard click-through rate of impressions from website hits (2.19%) (Sanu, 2012).

• To attain 100,000 additional website hits from YouTube in-stream advertisements (798,089 hits in total).

Registrants • To attain a 50% conversion of website visitors (just under 400,000 incremental donor registrations).

Advocacy • To encourage advocacy through each stage of the communication objectives, particularly after registration.

• To establish and maintain a network of advocates during and after the 2013-2014 campaign.

These objectives consider only the first level of sharing to determine impressions. Any digital content has the potential to be reshared, particularly interactive content like contests and sweepstakes. At two degrees of separation (friends of friends), the average Facebook user reaches 159,569 other Facebook users (Goo, 2012). Because there is no way to accurately predict the flow of content too far beyond the first share, the numbers at each of the five stages have been kept conservative.

CAMPAIGN CONCEPT – IT’S THAT EASY To ensure Donate Life’s 2013 campaign achieves its objectives, and that all strategic and tactical decisions are properly integrated, a common campaign theme has been selected. The positioning statement It’s That Easy captures how easy it is to register to become a donor, and how easy it is to share your decision. It is grounded in the research that “Distracted Activists” are more likely to engage with organ donation when it is presented in a convenient and easy to use format. It’s That Easy will

Page | 13

foster organ donation conversations in person and online with exciting and targeted campaign tactics that appeal to “Distracted Activists.” These conversations will increase awareness and advocacy of organ donations through media that appeal to both target audiences. Increased awareness and advocacy will enable Donate Life to reach its donor registration goals.

The It’s That Easy campaign will rely heavily on digital content as it is both cost effective and relevant to “Distracted Activists.”

Key public relations initiatives will be the driving force behind the campaign’s social marketing. All tactics will work to achieve the communication and marketing objectives. It will run from October 2013 until May 2014.The Creative Brief is shown in Appendix 5, and the proposed campaign branding is shown in Appendix 6.1.

TACTICS Two inexpensive, but highly unique, public relations “stunts” will generate campaign awareness, donor conversations, and advocacy at key points during the campaign. As research indicates, social media is a highly effective conversation platform and the perfect place to build an online community. However, social media is only the means of conversation, not the subject of conversation. It’s That Easy public relations tactics will provide the conversation content, as well as digital content for the campaign’s website, www.itsthateasy.co. Sales promotion and advertising tactics make up the campaign’s support platform.

These tactics include contests and collateral materials, online advertising, and a new website. Ultimately, each of these tactics will drive donor registration and advocacy.

PUBLIC RELATIONS Two public relations stunts will be the driving force of the It’s That Easy campaign. At strategic times during the campaign, these stunts will engage students in highly creative activities to generate interest and participation in the campaign. The connecting theme will be making students’ lives easier in unique and unexpected ways. Each stunt will be a way to engage and inform “Distracted Activists” about just how easy registering as an organ donor is, as well as add an element of fun and lightheartedness to this campaign to help distance the message from the issue of mortality. The events will also create an on-site opportunity for the students who are directly impacted by the stunt to register as donors. Each event will generate video content for the website, and provide an opportunity for media exposure.

Objectives • Initiate and maintain campaign awareness by driving website traffic • Educate and engage “Distracted Activists” on a personal level • Generate impressions through news outlets and social media • Provide a convenient time and space for donor registration • Create shareable and relevant content to foster advocacy THE EASY PART The campaign kickoff has two stages, the first of which will take place at California State University, Long Beach, on a day between October 7th and 11th. A class of 200 or more students taking a midterm exam at this time will be selected to participate in The Easy Part. The final page of their midterm will feature a blank page with the phrase “NOW FOR THE EASY PART” to create a sense of curiosity and anticipation. Once the exam is in progress, a Donate Life team will set up The Easy Part experience directly outside the examination hall. Interested onlookers will be invited to help begin the celebration by being set up in the tent immediately before the students arrive.

After the exam, all 200 students will be led from the hall by a Donate Life ambassador with no explanation other than that they are about to experience The Easy Part. The tent will be set up to celebrate that they have finished their exam. As they exit the exam hall, they will be cheered on by the Donate Life street teams, emcee, and the recruited onlookers. The event will feature free drinks and food; and, will partner with a well-known artist to provide live music. The competitive analysis demonstrated how nonprofit campaigns can rely to some extent on the goodwill of businesses and celebrities to keep costs down. Invites will be extended to celebrities on the Donate Life America Stars Who Care list.

Once the celebration atmosphere of the tent has been established, street teams can begin to interact with students and onlookers to explain the It’s That Easy campaign concept and inform them about organ donation. The tent will be branded with the campaign theme, social media icons, and itsthateasy.co. Screens will project a live Twitter feed of the conversation generated by the campaign hashtag (#ItsThatEasy).

Students will be introduced to some of the major campaign activities: #ItsThatEasy, the What’s That Easy? Meme contest, and itsthateasy.co. The street teams will have iPads to present digital content and give the students a convenient means to register.

The event will be engaging, fun and informative. The one to one interaction created by the event gives street teams the opportunity to address any barriers to registration among students. The tent will be open for four hours, giving the initial students

Page | 14

time to message their on-campus friends and invite them to the event. The tent will see approximately 1,500 unique visitors. A film crew will capture the entire process. Footage will be used to create a video montage which will be posted to the website.

Captions will guide viewers through the process and explain the campaign. The end of the video will be captioned with: the number of Facebook likes, the number of new Twitter followers, and the number of new donors generated by the event. The closing caption will be the tagline “It’s That Easy” and a video annotation “Register to be an organ donor today.”

Media advisories and releases to local news sources will expand the initial reach of the campaign among both “Distracted Activists” and “Participating Parents” (see Appendix 7.1). The Los Angeles Times Media Group Campaign Planner identifies KTLA as an effective source. KTLA can potentially reach four million households across the southland (Los Angeles Times, 2012). Additional media releases will be sent to the Long Beach Post, and school specific outlets such as the Beach Report: the magazine of California State University, Long Beach.

The second stage of The Easy Part happens during the third and fourth weeks of October. Final pages of exam booklets at schools around the country will feature the words “THAT WAS HARD… THIS IS EASY” and itsthateasy.co. The objective is to generate curiosity with “Distracted Activists.” Students from these exams will visit the website to find out what’s “that easy,” and be introduced to the campaign by the video montage from the event, as well as other interactive online content. This unique method of contacting Distracted Activists will pique their interest and drive traffic to the website.

As this is a unique method of reaching out to students on a national level, there will also be opportunity for broader exposure. An example is The Ellen Show, which consistently ranks second in talk show viewership at 3.5 million weekly viewers (Kondolojy, 2012). The Ellen Show has a history of conveying fun, light-hearted, yet inspirational and feel good stories (About the Show, 2012).

GO EASY! The second surprise stunt will occur on January 13th, 2014, at the University of Texas at Austin. This will remind “Distracted Activists” about the campaign after the holiday lull. This will be three months into the campaign when momentum from The Easy Part will have subsided and another push will be needed. Hype for this stunt will be pushed through social media and itsthateasy.co during the holidays, indicating that students can expect something in January at an undisclosed campus, once again piquing their curiosity.

On the 13th, students will be greeted by a fleet of 40 electric golf carts, fully branded with the campaign theme. Donate Life ambassadors will chauffeur students to class from the nine campus parking garages, bus loops, and residences. The ambassadors will leverage the time in the carts to connect with students by talking about organ donation, handing out collateral, and encouraging donor registration. The enjoyable nature of this event steers away from the undertone of mortality usually associated with organ donation. Student mobile devices also allow for quick and easy on-site registration.

Once again, this process will be video documented and compiled into a montage to post on itsthateasy.co. The video will show the students participating in this fun and surprising event, and at the same time learning about the campaign and its purpose. By creating a follow-up stunt, a feeling of expectation will be established among students within American Universities as they anticipate where and when Donate Life will strike next.

The media releases for Go Easy! will be syndicated and published through an American University press wire service that will provide university papers with content (please refer to Appendix 7.2). This will ensure that the identified audience will be targeted through the PR garnered from this syndicated article. An example of an effective source is The Statesman, which reaches 1.2 million people per week in print, and 2.2 unique visitors per month online. Statesman.com garners 18.5 million page views and 4.5 million visits per month. 33% of its online readers are between 18 and 34 (Statesman Solutions, 2012).

Justification for Events The campaign begins in October to give Donate Life America and its affiliates time to coordinate the initial event. The structure of this tactic generates the necessary buzz to launch a national campaign at an extremely low cost. The videos introduce the campaign concept with content that relates to “Distracted Activists.” The unique and unexpected method will open the lines of communication and jump start an online community that the rest of the campaign can build on. 72% of 18 to 23 year olds claim that experiential marketing makes them more receptive to brand and product advertising (Floren, 2006). Although social media is the main driver of the It’s That Easy campaign, these events are necessary to create initial content and awareness.

California is the logical choice for The Easy Part because the state has a low donor registration rate of 31%, and because Donate Life America and other organ donation initiatives are highly active in that state. New legislation is currently being implemented to “ensure organ and tissue donation is taught in health and science classes statewide” (Donate Life California, 2012). Easy Go! occurs in Texas because of its extremely low donor designation share of 12% (Donate Life America, 2012). Both states have dense “Distracted Activist” populations. In California, 1,515,338 “Distracted Activists” make up 40.5% of the state’s total enrollment. In Texas, 796,276 “Distracted Activists” make up 31.6% of the state’s total enrollment (College Participation Rates, 2009). Both universities were chosen specifically for their large student bodies. California State University, Long Beach has

Page | 15

36,279 students (California State University, Long Beach, 2012), and the University of Texas at Austin has 51,000 students.

92.3% of the 37,459 undergrads at the University of Texas are between the ages of 18 and 24 (University of Texas at Austin, 2012).

AMA ACTIVATIONS The American Marketing Association’s (AMA) state chapters will benefit from collateral material that they can use when they engage with students. AMA chapters will be sent an “AMA activation pack” which will consist of a branded tablecloth to attract visitors and a simple guide about how to set up and operate the booth. Itsthateasy.co will be accessible on a computer at the booth for registration and information. AMA chapters have existing ambassadors who can circulate the material and disseminate the key message directly to anyone not reached by other campaign tactics. Onsite activations are important to ensure continual traffic to online sites and social networks.

The AMA chapters are an existing resource that must be utilized to extend the reach of the campaign in a cost effective manner.

These chapters provide a means of reaching the target audience on a personal level, and extend the campaign theme by providing more convenient locations for students to be educated and register as organ donors.

ONLINE MARKETING “Distracted Activists” spend much of their time in the online sphere. 85% of all college students are on social media (96% among 18 to 19 year olds) (D'Alessandro, 2012). Primary research illustrated that they receive their news and current events online, and when researching a topic, Google is their first stop. The secondary audience is also heavily involved online. For example, 55% of all adult women aged 18 to 55 are active on YouTube (YouTube, 2011).

Donate Life must leverage the personal connections the online sphere provides. Connecting with both audiences online will create awareness and engagement with Donate Life’s online advertisements, itsthateasy.co, and It’s That Easy social media networks. Online content can easily be released in multiple languages, so communications can be adapted to the different minorities in the US. This engagement will ultimately increase donor registrations and advocacy.

All online interactions will be measured through each vehicle’s individual measurement tools. Facebook will count “Likes,” contest entrants, shares, comments, and all measurable engagement; Twitter measurements will include the increase in Donate Life followers on national and state accounts. Analytics built into itsthateasy.co will measure website hits and engagement with the content on the site. Total impressions will also be used to measure the reach of the It’s That Easy campaign.

Objectives • Generate website traffic • Create audience engagement • Develop social media impressions FACEBOOK A Facebook page will be created specifically for the It’s That Easy campaign, as exampled in Appendix 6.2. The Facebook page will be promoted through all material and PR initiatives throughout this campaign. 35% of Facebook’s total users fall between the ages of 18 to 25. The average Facebook user also spends 15 hours and 33 minutes on Facebook monthly, slightly above 23 minutes per each visit (Burbary, 2011). The objective of the Facebook page will be generating conversation and regular interaction with potential and registered donors to build registration and advocacy. Facebook depends on algorithms to determine the relevance of a user’s newsfeed content based on three factors: affinity, weight, and recency.

Affinity is based on the “friendliness” Facebook users have with an organization or fellow users. This level of interaction determines the order of results on the newsfeed. The more interactions that a user has with an organizations page, the more often an organization will show up on their newsfeed. From a tactical standpoint, this means the Facebook page needs to be used to create relevant content that the target audience will want to engage with regularly.

Weight is the second consideration that determines the favorable placement of content in a Facebook user’s newsfeed. Weight refers to the type of content being shared, with content such as photos and videos ranked more relevant than posts and “Liked” statuses. Therefore, photos, videos, and other relevant content is necessary to ensure that It’s That Easy’s messages make regular appearances on the newsfeeds of our target audience.

Lastly, recency works in the algorithm to filter out the older posts, making them less likely to appear. This means, from an organization’s perspective, content needs to be regularly uploaded to ensure that recency is maintained, making more impressions on the target audience (Newman, 2011).

It’s That Easy’s Facebook page will achieve these three considerations with regular posts that are relevant to “Distracted Activists.” This content will vary depending on the phase of the campaign. The early stages will focus on content built around

Page | 16

featured memes generated from users through the initial contest. Concurrently, regular posts will educate the public about the convenience of registration, break through misconceptions built around organ donation, and entertain the audience with lighthearted and engaging content (i.e. posts/links titled “20 things that make you say It’s That Easy”). #ITSTHATEASY The official hashtag of the campaign (#ItsThatEasy) will be launched during The Easy Part event and used to track conversation around the campaign. The hashtag is an easy way measure the campaign’s reach, and index conversations into an organized timeline (Solis, 2011). Social media management systems such as HootSuite or Tweetdeck will allow real time tracking of the conversation surrounding the campaign, as well as provide additional analytics for metrics such as: mentions, link clickthroughs, and retweets. At the campaign’s kickoff, The Easy Part, a live Twitter feed will be used to encourage the attendees to tweet and join the social media conversation, increasing social media impressions.

The Donate Life America Twitter page (@DonateLife_) will host Twitter content from It’s That Easy. The rationale behind using @DonateLife_ and not creating a specific Twitter handle is to tap into existing Donate Life followers. Twitter posts during the campaign will follow the same format as those on the Facebook page, but diverge from the Facebook-specific algorithms of affinity and weight. The status of Twitter posts rely entirely on recency, so the posts will have to be uploaded on a regular basis, at high traffic times, and with tactics that maximize tweet engagement. An example of the revamped twitter page is in Appendix 6.2.

Increased engagement can be achieved through a variety of tactics. Weekend posts are reported to produce 17% more engagement than weekday posts. Likewise, 30% more engagement can be achieved with tweets uploaded between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Posting tweets with less than 100 characters also increases tweet engagement by 17%. Hashtags double a tweet’s level of engagement, but must not be over utilized as tweets with more than two hashtags are 17% less engaging. Lastly, retweets must be encouraged. Simply urging the readers to retweet a post increases the “retweet rate” by 12 times. Additionally, writing out “retweet” instead of “RT” in the post almost doubles the likelihood of the post being retweeted (Fuseworks Studios, 2012).

WWW.ITSTHATEASY.CO A website specifically developed for the It’s That Easy campaign will be integrated into the Donate Life server’s back-end database and security so that it can record new registrants. Crosslinking will ensure that certain content does not need to be updated on two sites. The domain will be purchase in September for 12 months, depending on traffic.

The landing page will feature strong campaign and Donate Life branding to associate it with other campaign tactics, and offer very simple navigation and registration options. It will link to an interactive game-based education tool surrounding organ donation (focused on addressing myths and barriers in a simple, entertaining manner) with scores, timing, and social media sharing capability. The website will feature a link to a Spanish version, recognizing a prominent ethnic group in the US. Links and icons to the It’s That Easy Facebook page, Twitter account, and the Donate Life parent site will encourage social media interaction and sharing. Visitors may register as organ donors on the site. Calls to action will be prominently displayed throughout the site. For an example, please see Appendix 6.3.

The website will also support and/or host the integrated campaign content and tactics, all of which will increase traffic. This content includes: the What’s That Easy? contest; the Take the Easy Quiz sweepstakes; video content, from both YouTube instream produced videos and existing Donate Life content; and an educational blog of administrator and user-generated content.

The website will be the hub of the campaign. Itsthateasy.co will be tailored towards high levels of engagement, and visitors are expected to have a high registration rate during their visit thanks to appropriate messaging and interactive features.

SALES PROMOTIONS Although it’s morally debatable to incentivize donor registration through sales promotions, certain tactics can be used to drive traffic to the website and increase engagement with the campaign. Sales promotions will also provide relevant and exciting content for the website and social media networks.

Objectives • Provide content for online space • Incentivize engagement with It’s That Easy tactics to drive donor registrations • Educate through interactive media and collateral material WHAT’S THAT EASY? MEME CONTEST It’s That Easy’s first contest will run from October 7th to December 31st, 2013. A simple online image manipulator/meme creator will allow visitors to upload an image of something they feel best represents “easy” (likely something entertaining/humorous) in

Page | 17

their lives. Once uploaded, the user can enter a header they choose, but the footer will contain the standard It’s That Easy tagline and the Donate Life logo. The caption and the tagline will create a humorous or interesting image based on the user’s creativity – a “meme,” extremely popular among the target demographic with immense social sharing capability (Lee, 2012) (Brown, 2012) (Arandilla, 2011). Email addresses of entrants will be gathered during the entry process for future communications and winner notifications.

Once created, the user can share their image link (hosted on itsthateasy.co) with their Facebook, Twitter and Instagram networks; and, encourage their friends to vote for their image. Users may enter more than once. Becoming a registered donor will not be an entry requirement, but the site and entry process will encourage entrants to become donors.

At the end of every month, the image which receives the most votes will be awarded an Apple iPad mini package including a wireless stand/keyboard, and an It’s That Easy/Donate Life branded case. This competition will run from the start of the campaign until the end of December. The meme generator will remain on the site for user interactivity even after the contest ends. Meme samples are shown in Appendix 6.4.

TAKE THE EASY QUIZ SWEEPSTAKES The Take the Easy Quiz Sweepstakes will run from January 1st to February 28th, 2014. To enter the sweepstakes, participants will complete a ten question quiz on itsthateasy.co. The quiz will inform participants about organ donation in light, humorous ways.

At the end of the quiz, entrants will provide personal information that will be put into the campaign database, including an opt-in to receive future communications during the campaign. Winners are chosen bi-weekly. The prize will once again be iPad mini packages with preloaded applications. Question examples can be found in Appendix 6.5.

The sweepstakes provides “Distracted Activists” with educational content in an entertaining way that breaks down barriers to registration with necessary information. At the end of the quiz, participants will be invited to share their score and the quiz with their social networks.

DONATE LIFE’S AMBASSADOR OF THE MONTH CONTEST Donate Life’s Ambassador of the Month contest will run from March 1st to April 30th, 2014. College students will be encouraged to nominate peers who have made a significant contribution to organ donation registration and awareness. Nominations will be submitted through itsthateasy.co. Donate Life employees will judge the submissions based on the commitment the student has displayed to the organ donation community.

A winner will be selected at the end of each month to have their story shared on itsthateasy.co and It’s That Easy social media networks for a two week period. Each winner will receive an iPad mini pack. This contest recognizes the contributions of members of the online community. Sharing their success will demonstrate ways in which others in the community can contribute to organ donation registration.

COLLATERAL MATERIALS Collateral has a significant impact as long as it is relevant (Werts, 2009). It’s That Easy branded pin-buttons, stickers, and brochures will be handed out to anyone looking for information. Plastic donor cards will be issued by mail to the first 25,000 campaign registrants, as well as distributed to anyone who registers through the AMA activation sites and the two public relations events.

The collateral materials will be distributed at all publicity events and AMA activations. The brochures will feature It’s That Easy and Donate Life branding, and contain clear messages addressing misconceptions and opinions about organ donation, educating the target market. Facebook and Twitter icons, itsthateasy.co, QR codes, and basic donation information will also be provided on the brochures. Samples are provided in Appendix 6.6.

ADVERTISING YouTube in-stream advertisements will serve as a campaign support tactic as the budget does not allow for extensive advertising. These advertisements will build awareness of the campaign theme and drive click-through rates to itsthateasy.co.

Objectives • Generate awareness among primary and secondary audiences • Provide a targeted avenue for click-throughs YOUTUBE IN-STREAM ADVERTISEMENTS The campaign will include the production of two “It’s That Easy” YouTube in-stream videos. Each scene will depict one of the target audience’s regular activities, integrating the registration messaging into their lives in a relevant way. These activities will

Page | 18

be juxtaposed with the message theme “you can save/change a life this easily.” This is a simple way to associate organ donation with the lifestyle of “Distracted Activists.” The message is simple and requires little deviation from their normal habits. An example storyboards can be found in Appendix 6.7. Two potential examples are described follow: • •

Students at a drive-thru are asked what meal they would like, what sides, and what drinks. They respond in a casual way. They are then asked if they would like to save/change a life, to which they respond positively. They drive off, and It’s That Easy and Donate Life messages appear.

A student walks down a locker-lined hallway. His/her phone beeps. A close up of the screen shows a common message, e.g. “Jennifer wants to connect with you. Do you want to connect?” The student clicks “Yes” and continues his/her walk. The phone beeps again and he/she responds positively to another message. This happens a third time at which point the screen reads “Sarah would like you to save her life. Would you like to save Sarah?” Once again, the student responds “Yes.” It’s That Easy and Donate Life messages appear.

Each video will get two weeks as the featured video on itsthateasy.co, the first beginning on November 1st, 2013, and the second on December 1st, 2013. Google’s Trueview Adwords for Video will be built into the in-streaming videos, which will be hosted on YouTube videos popular with “Distracted Activists,” such as music videos and viral content. The first in-streaming video will begin on November 1st, 2013, and the second on January 20th, 2014.

Up to 30% of Trueview video campaigns can be targeted demographically. The video that hosts the in-stream advertisement will be selected using Adwords to further target “Distracted Activists” (Allen, 2012). In-stream videos have immense potential because Adwords allows for a scalable advertising budget. Once each video has generated 50,000 clicks at $0.10 per click, the video will no longer be hosted. YouTube reaches both of It’s That Easy’s primary and secondary audiences with 800 million unique visitors per month (Google, 2012).

DIRECT MARKETING Direct marketing will be used as a support tactic for the It’s That Easy campaign. As highlighted in the key findings, providing college students with campaign material to converse over has been shown to increase donation rates. Direct marketing also allows Donate Life to test and measure the success of campaign tactics.

Objectives • Reinforce brand benefits and awareness • Provide a lasting positive impression EMAIL MARKETING Email marketing will be the primary direct marketing tactic because it is the third most preferred method among Millennials for learning about nonprofits (Achieve, 2012). Sweepstakes entries, website registration and on-site activations will capture the information for the email databases. Interaction with registrants will begin with transactional emails, sent to individuals when they submit an entry to a contest or enter the sweepstakes. This email will thank the individual for his/her interaction and will include links to itsthateasy.co, thumbnails of the latest blog posts, as well as a link to register as a campus ambassador. This helps to close the feedback loop from on-site activations.

Transactional emails build a high customer/donor confidence, mainly because “people don’t really trust websites, but when they get a confirmation message, it feels like something is actually happening” (High Road Solution, 2005). Follow up transactional emails increase trust in a brand by as much as two points on a seven point scale. Transactional emails also improve brand affinity and engage the individuals on a brand’s house list (High Road Solution, 2005).

Personalized emails will regularly provide individuals with updates on the latest news surrounding the campaign. There will be a three to one ration of informational to promotional emails to build trust. These emails will be measured based on the clickthrough rates to the different links provided in them. A/B testing will determine the most effective subject line and offer placement in order to maximize open rates. Emails will drive registrations to future contests and sweepstakes and build affinity for the cause. In support of the other campaign tactics, emails will be able to increase the registration rate from event activations.

REGISTERED DONOR CARDS The first 25,000 donors who register through the It’s That Easy campaign will receive a personalized letter with a campaign branded donor card attached. These cards will indicate each individual’s status as an organ donor, and create a lasting positive impression. Each card will feature It’s That Easy branding along with the Donate Life logo, social media icons, itsthateasy.co, and a signature strip. Registered donor cards are a tangible benefit that will extend the length of the campaign. Historically, online registration has not provided new registrants with an equivalent of the organ donation symbol often found on driver licenses. These registered donor cards give online registrants physical proof of their donor status, and provide crucial

Page | 19

information in case of emergencies. Donor cards will also be distributed at the AMA activation sites, and at the two public relations events, increasing the number of people who receive that tangible benefit. See Appendix 6.8 for an example.

BUDGET AND TIMING The It’s That Easy campaign runs from October 2013 through May 2014, as per the timeline in Appendix 8. The schedule revolves primarily around two key public relations stunts, which will occur in October and January. These stunts, along with the accompanying sales promotions, contests and sweepstakes, will maximize campaign visibility for the target audience. A detailed budget has been developed to demonstrate how much money should be allocated toward each tactic.

With a total campaign budget of $100,000, $22,982 will be allocated to the first public relations stunt The Easy Part. These costs include the setup, entertainment and food, and the film crew and production costs. $18,464 will be spent on the second stunt, Go Easy, with the majority of the funds allocated to golf carts, drivers, film crew and video production. $41,176 will be allocated to advertising, which includes website design and YouTube in-streaming. $12,360 will be put toward campaign collateral, including brochures and a tangible organ donor card. A contingency fund of $5000 has been set-aside for any unexpected expenses that may arise during the period of the campaign. The total spent on the campaign after the contingency fund was $99,982. For a detailed breakdown of the budget, see Appendix 9.

CONCLUSION The It’s That Easy campaign conveys the benefits of registering for organ donation and the convenience of the registration process. It captures and engages “Distracted Activists” by providing them with educational and interactive content; and, creates opportunities to register. Advocacy is established by providing the audience with relevant material through forums and media that encourage content sharing with peers and family.

With 9.625 million unregistered “Distracted Activists” and 12.5 million potential advocates, the size of the audience and their geographical location requires a campaign with a broad reach and relevant content. Limited by a budget of $100,000, tactical decisions were made to maximize public relations and less expensive vehicles that are relevant with both “Distracted Activists” and their “Participating Parents”. These media choices provide a strong online presence through an engaging website and constant educational, lighthearted, and provoking content. Online advertising will be YouTube in-streaming that will appeal and reach both the primary and secondary audiences. Sales promotions will include two contests and a sweepstakes that incentivize engagement with Donate Life’s online content and encourages registration and advocacy.

Relevant, shareable content in the “Distracted Activist’s” space will drive organ donation registrations and encourage advocacy.

Achieving each communication target will garner the 400,000 registrations needed to accomplish the campaign’s marketing objective. Ultimately, It’s That Easy will establish organ donation registration and Donate Life America as an important topic among “Distracted Activists.”

Page | 20

WORKS CITED College Participation Rates. (2009). Retrieved November 14, 2012, from NCHEMS Information Center: http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/?year=2009&level=nation&mode=data&state=0&submeasure=331 About the Show. (2012, 12 05). Retrieved from Ellen; The Ellen DeGeneres Show: http://www.ellentv.com/page/2009/08/07/about-the-show/ American Cancer Society. (2012, 11 18). Retrieved from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVJ7WThkjFQ&list=PL0EB39EA7E6B8D8D1&index=2&feature=plpp_video ABC News. (2012, July 3). Communication Could Increase Organ Donation. Retrieved November 2012, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117351&page=1#.UMD-muOe-3B Achieve. (2011). Millennial donors. The Case Foundation.

Achieve. (2012, June 21). The Millenial Impact Report 2012. Retrieved from The Millenial Impact Website: http://themillennialimpact.com/ Allen, J. (2012, 04 23). Search Engine Watch. Retrieved 12 01, 2012, from Google AdWords for Video Launches with Improved Targeting on YouTube: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2169479/Google-AdWords-for-Video-Launches-withImproved-Targeting-on-YouTube America Heart Association. (2011). Annual report 2010-11. Dallas: American Heart Association.

American Cancer Society. (2011). American Cancer Society Annual Report 2011. Retrieved from American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/whoweare/annualreport/annual-report American Cancer Society. (2012, 11 18). Golf Passes. Retrieved from American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/involved/participate/golftournaments/golf-passes American Red Cross. (2012, 10 13). Blood Facts and Statistics. Retrieved from American Red Cross: http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-facts-and-statistics Arandilla, R. (2011, September). The Power of Internet Memes And A Lot Of Fun Along The Way. Retrieved from www.1stwebdesigner.com: http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/power-internet-memes/ Bennett, S. (2011, December 29). Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn - The Social Media Statistics of Today. Retrieved December 2012, from All Twitter: The Unofficial Twitter Resource: http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/social-mediastatistics_b17188 Brenner, J. (2012, November 13). Pew Internet: Social Networking. Retrieved December 2012, from Pew Research Center: http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx Brenner, J. (2012, November 13). Pew Internet: Social Networking (full detail). Retrieved November 15, 2012, from Pew Internet: http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx Brown, S. (2012). User Interfaced. Retrieved from Why Are Memes Popular?: http://userinterfaced.com/why-are-memespopular/ Bryant, C. W. (2009, 07 06). Are people more honest or dishonest on social networks? Retrieved from How Stuff Works: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/social-networking/information/social-networks-honesty.htm Burbary, K. (2011, 03 07). social media today. Retrieved from Facebook Demographics Revisited – 2011 Statistics: http://socialmediatoday.com/kenburbary/276356/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics Butler, D. (2010, 08 27). Red Cross Haiti campaign attracts 3M unique mobile donors. Retrieved from Mobile Marketer: http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/messaging/7169.html

Page | 21

California State University, Long Beach. (2012). Institutional Research and Assessment on Demand Reporting. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from California State University, Long Beach: http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/univ_svcs/institutionalresearch/ondemand/index.php?sas=1&term=20124&report=enr&coll ege=ut&dept=999 Cone Communications. (2009). The Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100. Boston: Cone Communications.

D'Alessandro, A. M. (2012, June). A large-scale qualitative study of the potential use of social media by university students to increase awareness and support for organ donation. Progress in Transplantation, 22(2). Aliso Viejo, CA, USA: The InnoVision Group.

D'Arcy, J. (2012, 03 21). More adult kids living with parents and in no rush to depart. Retrieved from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting/post/more-adult-kids-living-with-parents-and-in-no-rush-todepart/2012/03/20/gIQAYtK8PS_blog.html David Lee King. (2010, 05 13). Facebook & YouTube Demographics. Retrieved from David Lee King: http://www.davidleeking.com/2010/05/13/facebook-youtube-demographics/ Donate Life America. (2010, February 22). Donate Life America: 2010 National Survey Question Responses. Retrieved November 2012, from Marketing Power: http://www.marketingpower.com/Community/collegiate/Documents/DLA%202010%20National%20Survey.pdf Donate Life America. (2011, April 1). National Donor Designation Report Card. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from Donate Life Website: http://donatelife.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DLA-Report-BKLT-30733-2.pdf Donate Life America. (2012). 2012 Donor Designation Success Study. Donate Life America.

Donate Life America. (2012, November 20). About Us: Donate Life America. Retrieved from Donate Life America Website: http://donatelife.net/about-us/ Donate Life America. (2012, November 16). Donate Life America News. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from Donate Life America: http://donatelife.net/dl-news/ Donate Life America. (2012). Donate Life America: 2012 Annual Update. Retrieved November 2012, from Donate Life America: http://donatelife.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DLA-Annual-Update-2012-Final-35715_lowres-over-5mb.pdf Donate Life America. (2012, November 25). Give to DLA: Donate Life America. Retrieved from Donate Life America Website: http://donatelife.net/give-to-dla/ Donate Life America. (2012, November 20). Local Contacts: Donate Life America. Retrieved from Donate Life America Website: http://donatelife.net/local-contacts/ Donate Life America. (2012, November 25). Number of Organ, Eye & Tissue Donors Continues to Rise. Retrieved from Donate Life America Website: http://donatelife.net/number-of-registered-organ-eye-tissue-donors-continues-to-rise/ Donate Life California. (2012, November 26). Donate Life California homepage. Retrieved from Donate Life California Website: https://www.donatelifecalifornia.org/ EcSell Institute. (2011). Understand the Millennial Generate So You Can Manage Better. Retrieved December 2012, from EcSell Institute - A Powerful Community of Executive Sales Leaders: http://www.ecsellinstitute.com/blog/bid/76422/Understand-the-Millennial-Generation-So-You-Can-Manage-Better Feeley, T. H.-I. (2009, October 2). Promoting Organ Donation through Public Education Campaigns: A Random-Effects MetaAnalysis. Amherst, NY, USA. Flaman, P. (2012, November 24). ORGAN AND TISSUE TRANSPLANTS: SOME ETHICAL ISSUES. Retrieved from University of Alberta Website: http://www.ualberta.ca/~pflaman/organtr.htm

Page | 22

Floren, J. (2006, July 18). Experiential Marketing to 18 - 34 year olds. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from Imedia Connection: www.imediaconnection.com/content/10397.asp Fuseworks Studios. (2012, 07 20). Maximize Your Tweets. Retrieved from Socialmedia Today: http://socialmediatoday.com/628901/maximize-your-tweets Gleason, P. (2008). Meeting the Needs of Millennial Students. Retrieved December 7, 2012, from In Touch: http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/students2/intouch/archives/2007-08/vol16_no1/01.htm Goo, S. K. (2012, May 16). Facebook: A Profile of its "Friends". Retrieved December 7, 2012, from PewResearCenter Publications: www.pewresearch.org/pubs/2262/facebook-ipo-friends-profile-social-networking-habits-privacy-onlinebehavior Google. (2012). YouTube In-Stream Ads. Retrieved 12 01, 2012, from Google User Content: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.youtube.com/en//yt/advertise/medias/pdfs/ins tream-onesheeter-en.pdf Green, L. (2012 йил 23-10). Everyone a Winner: Getting Better Brand Engagement with Sweepstakes and Contests. From ifeelgoods: http://www.ifeelgoods.com/blog/brand-engagement/everyone-a-winner-getting-better-brand-engagementwith-sweepstakes-and-contests/ Harbaugh C, A. M. (2011, 03 16). Portrayal of organ donation and transplantation on American primetime television. Retrieved from National Center for Biotechnology Information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410759 Henkes, M. (2012, November 25). Upstream: Alarming consumer attitudes to excessive marketing. Retrieved from Marketing Tech Website: http://www.marketingtechnews.net/news/2012/mar/05/upstream-alarming-consumer-attitudes-excessivemarketing/ High Road Solution. (2005). The Benefits of an Effective Transactional Email Program. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from High Road Solution: website.highroadsolution.com/wp-content/uploads/benefits-effective-transactional-email-prgm.pdf Kessler, S. (2011, May 31). 38% of College Students Can't Go 10 Mintues Without Tech. Retrieved November 2012, from Mashable: http://mashable.com/2011/05/31/college-tech-device-stats/ Kondolojy, A. (2012, 12 5). TV by the Numbers. Retrieved from Syndicated TV Ratings: 'Judge Judy' is Number 1 in Households, but 'Big Bang Theory' is on Top With Viewers, 'Dr Phil' Matches High for Week of November 19-25, 2012: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/12/05/syndicated-tv-ratings-judge-judy-is-number-1-in-households-butbig-bang-theory-is-on-top-with-viewers-dr-phil-matches-high-for-week-of-november-19-25-2012/160468/ Lee, J. (2012, 02 20). Memes' popularity surges. Retrieved from Los Angeles Loyalan: http://www.laloyolan.com/news/news_analysis/memes-popularity-surges/article_218e9ffe-5b87-11e1-a4fc001a4bcf6878.html LifeCenter Northwest. (2012, Nov 23). Search Results Page. Retrieved from Life Center Northwest Website: http://www.lcnw.org/?s=donate+life+america&x=0&y=0 Los Angeles Times. (2012, 12 08). Portfolio KTLA. Retrieved from Los Angeles Times Media Kit : http://mediakit.latimes.com/portfolio/ktla Luxmoore, N. (2012, 04 11). What's the Point of Death. Retrieved from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/young-people-close/201204/whats-the-point-death Macale, S. (2011 йил 08-10). 98% of online US adults aged 18-24 use social media. From The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2011/10/08/98-of-online-us-adults-aged-18-24-use-social-media/ Marketing Charts. (2009, 07 09). Tech-Savvy Moms Increase Social Media Use by 462%. Retrieved from Marketing Charts: http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/tech-savvy-moms-increase-social-media-use-by-462-9699/

Page | 23

Martinez, J. (2010, 12 29). American Heart Association's database insight boosts donations. Retrieved from Direct Marketing News: http://www.dmnews.com/american-heart-associations-database-insight-boosts-donations/article/193441/ MCON12. (2012). The Millennial Impact Report.

Metlife. (2010). Demographic Profile: America's Gen X. Retrieved from Metlife: https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/Profiles/mmi-gen-x-demographic-profile.pdf Mihailidis, P. (2012, November 24). Introduction: Citizenship in a Hyper Media Age. Retrieved from Media Literacy Website: http://hofstramass112.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/beyond-cynicism-mihailidis-mit-press.pdf Morgan, S. E. (2009). The Intersection of Conversation, Cognitions, and Campaigns: The Social Representation of Organ Donation. Communication Theory. West Lafayette, Indiana, United States.

Mounce, D. A. (2012, November 25). Content versus channel — getting response, not followers. Retrieved from Inside Tucson Business: http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/sales_marketing/pr_corner/content-versus-channel-getting-responsenot-followers/article_d5f359f6-29e2-11e2-a9c9-001a4bcf887a.html Nelson, E. M. (2012, 08 02). Millennials Want to Party With Your Brand But On Their Own Terms. Retrieved 11 28, 2012, from Ad Age: http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/millennials-party-brand-terms/236444/ Newman, K. (2011, 04 16). The ultimate guide to the Facebook Edgerank algorithm. Retrieved from Econsultancy: http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/7885-the-ultimate-guide-to-the-facebook-edgerank-algorithm Nudd, T. (2012, 10 13). Ad of the Day: Red Cross Give something that means something, not just more junk, says this animated holiday spot from BBDO. Retrieved from Adweek: http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/ad-day-redcross-137193 Olson, E. (2012, 10 13). National Red Cross Campaign Begins as a Logo on a Stock Car. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/business/media/13adco.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin& Packer, A. (2010, 03 21). DMV has long line of excuses for delays. Retrieved from Las Vegas Review Journal: http://www.lvrj.com/news/dmv-has-long-line-of-excuses-for-delays-88756172.html Paul, S. (2012, 04 16). Millennial Consumers: Engaged. Ontimistic. Charitable. Retrieved 12 04, 2012, from Mashable: mashable.com/2012/04/16/millennial-consumer-study/ Peltier, J. W. (2012, September). A sequential decision framework for increasing college students' support for organ donation and organ donor registration. Progress in Transplantation, 22(3). Aliso Viejo, CA, USA: The InnoVision Group.

Pew Research Center. (2010, February 24). Millennials; Confident. Connected. Open to Change. Retrieved December 2012, from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-open-tochange/ Pew Research Center. (2010, 02 24). The Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1501/millennials-new-survey-generational-personality-upbeat-open-new-ideastechnology-bound Practice Central. (2007, 07 12). Reaching Out to Diverse Populations: Opportunities and Challenges. Retrieved from Practice Central: Resources for Practicing Psychologists: http://www.apapracticecentral.org/ce/courses/diverse-populations.aspx Pring, C. (2012, May 10). 99 Social Media Stats for 2012. Retrieved December 2012, from THe Social Skinny: http://thesocialskinny.com/99-new-social-media-stats-for-2012/ Rueters. (2012, 10 12). Breast Cancer Awareness Month NFL Campaign Gives Just 5% To Charity. Retrieved from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/nfl-breast-cancer-pink-campaign_n_1961307.html

Page | 24

Sanu, S. (2012, 10 26). Higher Click-Through Rates On Facebook Ads Drive Advertisers And Revenue To The Social Network.

Retrieved from Seeking Alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/953971-higher-click-through-rates-on-facebook-adsdrive-advertisers-and-revenue-to-the-social-network Shayon, S. (2012, 10 24). Gen Y's Top Issues: Economy, Environment and Education [Report]. Retrieved from Brand Channel: http://www.brandchannel.com/home/category/generation-why.aspx Solis, B. (2011 йил 15-06). The Hashtag Economy. From Fast Company: http://www.fastcompany.com/1760484/hashtageconomy Soul Sight. (2012). Unlocking the Millennial Mindset: Key Strategies for Engagement. Illinois: Soul Sight.

Statesman Solutions. (2012). Austin American - Statesman. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from Statesman Solutions: www.statesmansolutions.com/products-services/austin-american-statesman/ Stern, L. (2010, May 19). Generation Y: Educated, underemployed and in debt. Retrieved November 27, 2012, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/19/us-column-personalfinance-idUSTRE64I4M220100519 Stobbe, M. (2012, May 2). Facebook Organ Donor Initiative Prompts 100,000 Users To Select New Option. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/facebook-organ-donorusers_n_1471821.html Thaler, R. H. (2009, September 26). Opting in vs. Opting Out. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html?_r=0 The American Cancer Society. (2012, 03 19). New CDC Ads Show Harsh Consequences of Smoking. Retrieved from The American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/new-cdc-ads-show-harsh-consequences-ofsmoking The Associated Press. (2012, November 18). Donate Life Louisiana gets national award. Retrieved from telegram.com: http://www.telegram.com/article/20121118/APN/311189879/0 The Boston Consulting Group. (2012). The Millenial Consumer - Debunking Stereotypes. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group.

The Economist. (2012, February 18). Organ Transplants: Life after Death. Retrieved December 2012, from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21547819 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (n.d.). Religious Views on Donation. Retrieved November 2012, from organdonor.gov: http://www.organdonor.gov/about/religiousviews.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012, February 22). Why Minority Donors Are Needed. Retrieved November 2012, from organdonor.gov: http://www.organdonor.gov/whydonate/minorities.html United States Census Bureau. (2008). Degree-Granting Institutions, Number and Enrollment by State: 2008. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from United States Censu Bureau: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0280.pdf United States Census Bureau. (2009). Traffic Fatalities by State. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from United States Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1104.pdf United States Census Bureau. (2011, October). School Enrollment. Retrieved November 2012, from United States Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/2011/tables.html United States Census Bureau. (2012, 10 13). Population estimates. Retrieved from US Census: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2006/index.html

Page | 25

United States Census Bureau. (2012, December 4). State and County Quickfacts. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from United States Census Bureau: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html University of Texas at Austin. (2012). About UT. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from University of Texas at Austin: www.utexas.edu/about-ut US Department of Commerce. (2011, October). School Enrollment. Retrieved November 2012, from United States Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/2011/tables.html Wenger, A. V. (2010, April 22). Predictors of family communication of one's organ donation intentions in Switzerland.

Retrieved November 2012, from National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066387/ Werts, C. E. (2009, 06). Conference Swag, Goodies, Tchotchkes and Collateral Materials. Retrieved from Information Today Inc.: www.infotoday.com/online/may09/werts/shtml Young, E. (2012, 07 17). Turning Young Alumni Into Donors. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/17/young-donors-need-be-reached-online-and-tangible-explanationsimpact Young, J. H. (2012, 02). Inside the Millennial Mind. Retrieved from North Bay Biz: http://www.northbaybiz.com/General_Articles/General_Articles/Inside_the_Millennial_Mind.php YouTube. (2011, May). Demographics. Retrieved December 2012, from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/yt/advertise/demographics.html YouTube. (2012). Demographics - YouTube. Retrieved from Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/yt/advertise/demographics.html Yu, F. (. (2012). MOBILE/SMART PHONE USE IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Retrieved November 22, 2012, from Decision Sciences Institute: http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi2012/proceedings_2012/papers/Papers/PA144.pdf

Page | 26

0|Page

CONTENTS Appendix 1: Social Media Comparisons ...................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix 2: Primary Research .................................................................................................................................... 2 Appendix 2.1: Quantitative Research - Survey ....................................................................................................... 2 Appendix 2.2: Qualitative Research - In-Depth Interview Questionnaire ............................................................. 5 Appendix 2.3: Qualitative Research - Focus Group Questions .............................................................................. 7 Appendix 3: Survey Analysis Charts ............................................................................................................................ 8 Appendix 4: Target Market Demographics Breakdown ........................................................................................... 9 Appendix 5: Creative Brief ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Appendix 6: Creative Executions ............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix 6.1: Campaign Branding ......................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix 6.2: Facebook Group, Twitter & YouTube Page................................................................................... 11 Appendix 6.3: Website .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix 6.4: Meme Competition Samples ........................................................................................................ 14 Appendix 6.5: Quizz Sample Questions ............................................................................................................... 14 Appendix 6.6: Collateral Materials ....................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix 6.7: Video Storyboards ......................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix 6.8: Donor Card..................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 7: Media Releases ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 7.1: “The Easy Part” Launch Event ....................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 7.2: Go! Easy Event ................................................................................................................................ 18 Appendix 8: Timeline ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix 9: Budget................................................................................................................................................... 20

1|Page

APPENDIX 1: SOCIAL MEDIA COMPARISONS

Donate Life America # Followers # Tweets # Following

1,515 578 516

# Likes # Talking about it

98,181 1,709

# Subscribers # Videos # Video Views

37 15 3,765

American Red Cross Twitter 797,280 2,538 36,101 Facebook 465,896 21,271 YouTube 11,376 504 4,008,105

Worst Performers

American Cancer Society

American Heart Assoc.

313,866 2,640 196,327

41,104 8,167 4,532

347,793 2,723

48,180 222

4,587 249 7,111,113

3,281 354 2,337,224

Best Performers

1|Page

APPENDIX 2: PRIMARY RESEARCH APPENDIX 2.1: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH - SURVEY

2|Page

3|Page

4|Page

APPENDIX 2.2: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH - IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

5|Page

6|Page

APPENDIX 2.3: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH - FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

7|Page

APPENDIX 3: SURVEY ANALYSIS CHARTS Analysis of the survey data is highlighted in some of the charts below. These focus on influential factors and preferences of those surveyed, which further support the campaign rationale.

8|Page

APPENDIX 4: TARGET MARKET DEMOGRAPHICS BREAKDOWN The following graph breaks down the basic demographic groups that will be reached by the It’s That Easy campaign.

9|Page

APPENDIX 5: CREATIVE BRIEF

10 | P a g e

APPENDIX 6: CREATIVE EXECUTIONS APPENDIX 6.1: CAMPAIGN BRANDING

The core branding of It’s That Easy retains the colour scheme of Donate Life America, and makes reference to the brand identity by incorporating the stylized coiled circle on the first letter. The curved swish references the horizon of the Donate Life logo as well, while the font also brings the overall theme in close unison to the Donate Life brand. This core campaign theme, logo, typeface, colours and layout will be carried throughout all of the It’s That Easy creative executions.

APPENDIX 6.2: FACEBOOK GROUP, TWITTER & YOUTUBE PAGE

11 | P a g e

Note: YouTube’s native layout is wider than most, and as such, the branding has to be modified. Various executions are possible

12 | P a g e

APPENDIX 6.3: WEBSITE A mockup of the It’s That Easy landing page is shown below. All elements are aimed at easy navigation and ways to connect, learn, and register as a donor. The main video image will rotate to highlight the most important or recent campaign elements.

The website will be fully optimized for mobile devices. The website is optimized for common 1280px. widescreen displays.

13 | P a g e

APPENDIX 6.4: MEME COMPETITION SAMPLES Memes are amusing, relevant portrayals of life widely adopted and hugely popular amongst the target market, with massive sharing potential. Below are some sample executions students may submit to the online meme competition.

APPENDIX 6.5: QUIZZ SAMPLE QUESTIONS

14 | P a g e

APPENDIX 6.6: COLLATERAL MATERIALS Stickers and backpack buttons will be given out at events and AMA activations to create conversations and grow awareness.

High quality brochures will also be produced, aimed at educating students.

Brochure Front

Brochure Back

Brochure Inside Front

Brochure Inside Back

15 | P a g e

APPENDIX 6.7: VIDEO STORYBOARDS

A college student is walking onto campus, casually chatting to friends. His phone beeps, signaling a message, so he digs in his pocket and retrieves his cellphone.

The close up of his phone shows a familiar line: “Max would like to connect with you. Would you like to connect with Max?” “Yes” and “No” icons are shown. The student is shown clicking “Yes”

The camera zooms out and the student continues walking. The same beep is heard, and he again reaches for his cell phone.

Another familiar text has come through. “Sarah has poked you. Poke Sarah back?”. It is something familiar, easy, and fun, so the student clicks “yes” again. These texts, and responding to them, are familiar, fun, convenient, and easy to do.

Once again we see a full view of the student continuing to walk on. Again, his cell phone beeps in a new message, so he reaches for it a third time.

This time the message is different, but in the same style and message delivery format: “Olivia would like you to save her life. Would you like to save her life?” Without much hesitation, the student clicks “Yes”

The camera zooms out to see the student putting the phone back in his pocket and walking off (fade out). The last question has not fazed him at all, and he carries on with his everyday life.

The Donate Life America It’s That Easy branding is shown with subscript suggesting viewers register online as soon as possible.

16 | P a g e

APPENDIX 6.8: DONOR CARD The donor card will be issued to those who register immediately during the events, or at AMA activations, and will be sent as a limited edition premium to the first 25,000 people to register online.

APPENDIX 7: MEDIA RELEASES APPENDIX 7.1: “THE EASY PART” LAUNCH EVENT

17 | P a g e

APPENDIX 7.2: GO! EASY EVENT

18 | P a g e

APPENDIX 8: TIMELINE

19 | P a g e

APPENDIX 9: BUDGET Public Relations The Easy Part Final Exam Page Food Food Delivery Charge Catering Staff Personnel Equipment Stage Bars Bar Stools Tables Table Linins Canopy (40" x 90") Electrical Equipment Projection Screen Projector DJ Turntable/Speaker Package Lighting Collateral Materials Banners Personnel Event T-shirts IPad2 Film Footage and Production Total Cost: The Easy Part Go! Easy Golf Carts Drivers Campaign Stickers Film Footage and Production Total Cost: Go Easy AMA Activations AMA Packages Postage Table Banners Table Sheets Total Cost: AMA Activations Sales Promotions Contest/Sweepstakes iPad Mini Packs Total Cost: Contests/Sweepstakes Collateral Stickers Buttons Brochures Donor Cards Total Collateral Cost Online Marketing and Advertising Website Content Website Design In-Stream Advert Production Advertising Space Total Advertising Cost Contingency Total Expenses

Quantity

Price

Total

52,000 600 4 5

$ 0.04 $ 8.95 $ 103.35 $ 60.00

$ 1,893 $ 5,370 $ 50 $ 413 $ 300

2 10 40 10 10 2

$ 65.00 $ 45.00 $ 6.25 $ 14.50 $ 23.00 $ 1,750.00

$ 130 $ 450 $ 250 $ 145 $ 230 $ 3,500

2 2 1 6

$ 44.95 $ 149.95 $ 384.95 $ 174.95

$ 90 $ 300 $ 385 $ 1,050

6 9 4 -

$ 123.35 $ 10.00 $ 399.00 -

$ 740 $ 90 $ 1,596 $ 6,000 $ 22,982

40 40 40 -

$ 150.00 $ 160.00 $ 1.60 -

$ 6,000 $ 6,400 $ 64 $ 6,000 $ 18,464

34 34 34

$ 21.86 $ 19.23 $ 5.99

Quantity

Price

$ 743 $ 654 $ 204 $ 1,601 Total

11

$ 525.00

$ 5,775 $ 5,775

10,500 10,500 50,000 50,000

$ 0.19 $ 0.32 $ 0.11

Quantity

Price

$ 1,997 $ 3,360 $ 1,503 $ 5,500 $ 12,360 Total

2

$ 5,000.00

$ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 3,800 $ 33,800 $ 5,000 $ 99,982

20 | P a g e