Emerging Trends

Page 1

What’s Trending in Philanthropy: Information and Innovation

2012 Creating Connections Conference Shelley Brown Christopher Maddocks


“…(we)
are
in
a
confluence
of
two
 sectors
(healthcare
and
philanthropy)
 undergoing
profound
transforma:on,
 each
the
focus
of
extensive
debate.”

Emerging
Trends:

The
Changing
Landscape
of
 
Health
Care
Philanthropy



AHP
2010


Our
Philanthropic
Landscape…
 Volatility investment RECESSION transformation cost containment Vigilance ROI donor-centric IMPACT compliance COLLABORATION Competition transparency metrics INNOVATION ACCOUNTABILITY 
 “May we live in interesting times….”

Confucius


Today’s
Challenges
   Rising
financial
obliga0ons,
shrinking
public
 support
(financial
and
moral),
increased
need
for
 unrestricted
dollars
and
transparency
   “Going
global:”
more
compe00on,
more
 opportuni0es,
greater
sophis0ca0on


   ShiB
in
donor
mo0va0on
from
“doing
good”
to
 “inves0ng
in
community/cause”
   The
new
impera0ve:
transforma0on


Our
Best
Response
   Keep
to
the
basic
principles—build
the
base,
 deepen
rela0onships,
make
the
case
   Use
new
media
and
methods
in
service
of
those
 principles—to
extend
reach
and
shape
content

   Inform
decision‐making
and
donors:

know
your
 donors
and
let
them
know
you
   Invest
in
new
ideas
and
create
transforma0onal
 opportuni0es
for
donors


Today’s
Conversa:on
   Share
the
good
news:

revenue
in
healthcare
up
 by
8%
in
2010
(children’s
hospitals
among
the
 greatest
successes)!
   Highlight
trends
and
experience
shaping
our
 ‘best
response’—informa0on,
innova0on,
 investment
   Share
success
(and
not
so
much)
stories
   Ques0ons???


INFORMATION:
TRENDS
AND
 EXPERIENCE


INFORMATION:
TRENDS


Genera:onal
ShiKs
 Technology
usage
is
the
most
common
theme
for
how
the
 emerging
genera0ons
(Gen
X,
Millennial)
define
themselves

Source: Pew Research Center - http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Feb/National-Religious-Broadcasters.aspx


Gadget
Genera:ons

Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx


Mobile
Revolu:on
 83%
of
all
adults
are
mobile
phone
subscribers
 45%
use
smartphones

Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx


On
their
Mobiles
 63%
of
Adults
are
wireless
Internet
users
 Increased
by
26
percentage
points
in
just
3
years

Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.slideshare.net/PewInternet/state-of-social-media-2011


From
Mobile
to
Social
 50%
of
all
adult
Internet
users
are
on
social
networks

Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx


Social
Revolu:on
 Adults
aged
50
–
64
are
the
fastest
growing
popula0on,

 Having
grown
from
25%
to
52%
adop0on
in
3
years

Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx


Systema:cally
Social
 Half
of
adults
aged
18
–
49
use
social
media
on
a
daily
basis
 According
to
the
Pew
Project
for
Digital
and
American
Life
 
 For
social
network
users
between
18
and
49
years
old,
the
 primary
reason
to
use
social
media
is
to
connect
with
friends
and
 groups
they
like.
 
 For
users
over
50,
the
top
reason
to
is
to
connect
with
family.

Source: Pew Research Center -http://www.slideshare.net/PewInternet/state-of-social-media-2011


A
Friendly
Bunch
 Social
media
users
aged
18
–
34
have
twice
as
many
friends
as
 users
aged
47
–
56
and
four
0mes
as
many
as
users
aged
66
–
74.

Source: Pew Research Center - http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/Jan/The-New-Environment-for-Advocates--NGOs.aspx


But
what
about
the
wealthy?
 It
turns
out,
they’re
not
that
different…


The
Wired
Wealthy
 •  A
tandem
of
research
studies
examined
the
online
 habits
of
the
affluent.
 •  One
research
project
by
Edge
Research
and
Convio
 studied
the
online
habits
of
3,443
major
giB
donors
 with
income
greater
than
$200,000

 •  The
second
study
by
McKinsey
and
Company
and
 the
Hewlel
Founda0on
examined
online
behaviors
 and
informa0on
needs
for
major
giB
donors.


donations. Looking forward, 46 percent said that they expect to make a greater percentage of their charitable gifts online within the next 5 years.34 While our focus in this paper is on more affluent donors, this trend is certainly encouraging and supports our belief that online platforms will increasingly be an effective channel.

Online Habits 

Exhibit 11

Online usage is high for affluent

<$100K $100-150K $150-250K $250K or more

Percent 48 45

44

41

38

40 32 29

27

25

24

23

23

22

17

17 14

14

14 7

Travel information or reservations

Banking

Made a purchase

Gathered information for shopping

Source: Mendehlson Affluent Survey, 2006; Pew Charitable Trust; Luxury Institute; expert interviews

Barriers to greater impact

Financial information/ stock trading


!(6.*$,3($#*.$#,26(/8$9+($4&3/#$:;&%"3($<=$>3.4&6(/$1(?$,##3&2"#(/$4.3$(,5+$.4$#+($#+3(($56"/#(3/8$ 9+($/(5.)-$:;&%"3($@=$>3(/()#/$56"/#(3$23(,1-.*)/$4.3$(,5+$.4$#+($0,A.3$/(5#.3/$.4$).)>3.4&#/$ *($/#"-&(-$:(8%87$B)&0,6$C(64,3(7$D(,6#+7$(#58=8$E6(,/($#,1($#+($/(5.)-$#,26($*&#+$,$%3,&)$.4$ /,6#$F$#+($>3.>.3#&.)/$,3($3(46(5#&'($.4$#+($%3.">/$*+.$5+./($#.$>,3#&5&>,#(7$,)-$0,?$.3$0,?$ ).#$3(46(5#$#+($56"/#(3$-&'&/&.)/$.4$#+,#$()#&3($/(5#.38$G."3$0&6(,%(7$&)$.#+(3$*.3-/7$0,?$',3?8$ $ !

Wired
Wealthy
Clusters

! =A#/%B#!%B#!

"#$%&'()*+',!-##.#/*! 012!3)4!1156! HI$?3/$.6-$

=A#/%B#!&(&%$!B'C&! :/(64M3(>.3#(-=! 2!D%A#!B'A#)!()$')#! R$E3(4(3$.)6&)($ R$E3(4(3$0,&6$ 2!E'*'&!9+%/'&F!G#H!*'&#! /#B8$%/$F$:.)5($>(3$0.)#+$ .3$0.3(=! 2!"#%I!J(*&!9+%/'&F!#J%'$*$ :SJR$.3$0.3(=$ =9&'A'&'#*!I()#!()$')#!/#B8$%/$FK! R$T(,-$26.%/$$ R$9,1($>.6&#&5,6$,5#&.)$ .)6&)($ 2!U)%,%($&)!/.5&,6$ )(#*.31/$.)6&)($:,>>3.V8=!

7%*8%$!7())#9&(/*! :;2!3)4!;:0<6! JK$?3/$.6-$

=$$!>8*')#**! ?@2!3)4!;@006! JL$?3/$.6-$

N<<7HK<O?(,3!

NP7@<@O?(,3!

N<@7QPIO?(,3!

IQR$ JQR$ @LR$ <QR$

IKR$ JKR$ LKR$ QR$

SJR$ HQR$ LSR$ <R$

H@R$

@SR$

PR$

<LR$ LJR$

IR$ <IR$

QR$ SR$

H@R$

<PR$

<@R$

!

9.:5/-(7+(;-4(#33/.<53-(!=>?1/.6=@(%1<2-( (


How
They
Choose
to
Give
 •  The
Hewlel
research
found
a
growing
segment
of
 “strategic”
or
“outcome‐oriented”
philanthropists
 (comprising
roughly
1/3
of
major
donors)
who
 demand
greater
informa0on
before
making
a
giB.
 •  These
donors
increasingly
use
online
informa0on
 sources
to
inform
key
charitable
giving
decisions:
 –  Which
organiza0ons
to
ini0ally
support
 –  Which
organiza0ons
to
con0nue
to
support


What motivates donors?* Why givehigh-net-worth again?

Impact-driven

Why give again? that they would ng byWhy give? Percentage of HNW households reporting give more to charity if the following occurred Important motivations for charitable giving by Percentage of HNW households reporting that they would HNW households (percent

give more to charity if the following occurred

75

86 Less money spent on 86 admin Less money spent on admin Meet critical needs 83 Giving back to Able society to determine impact Able to determine impact of gifts 83 of gifts Reciprocity

82

82Desired impactMore financially secure 69 69 64 62 62

62 57

Nonprofits provide services Better return Being asked

Set an exampleNot

64 on investment 62

58

More financially secure

62 Knew of more organizations

Religious beliefs

Able to use Expected in social network

57

Better return on investment

More access to27research 26

Leaving legacy

Knew of more organizations

Understood8goals Limit funds to heirs

1 giving vehicles More info on 1

36

Name would not be made public

More time

35 31

Able to compare notes with peers 21 Not already leaving donations in estate

Name would not be made public

40 36 36

36

Understood goals of nonprofits

of nonprofits Less legal red tape

47

40

More access to research

More time

53

47

Not already financially committed

skills 29 in nonprofits More info on giving vehicles

Good business sense

58

53

already financially 62 committed Able to use skills in nonprofits

Identification with causes

75

21

35 31 21 21 20 16 15 15

20 16

* Defined as households with Incomes greater than $200,000 or assets in excess of $1 million Source: The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Bank of America Study of High Net Worth Individuals: Initial Report, 2006

Less legal red tape

15 institutions with signifiAble tofor compare peers information, financial In light of this demand more andnotes betterwith performance cant donor services—including JP Morgan Chase,in Wells Fargo, Bank of 15 America, UBS, and Schwab Not already leaving donations estate


Wired
Wealthy
Take‐Away
 •  Major
donors
read
your
email
and
social
media
 •  They
make
a
first
giB
 –  Because
they
believe
that
you
meet
cri0cal
needs
 –  Because
they
want
to
make
an
impact

•  They
con0nue
to
give
 –  When
they
know
their
giB
impact
 –  When
they
see
return
on
philanthropic
investment
 –  When
they
understand
your
goals


uality of proxy information

No

y, accessibility, and Is the information . . . Publicly Type of information Knowable? available? proxy information Strategy

Type of information Knowable? Management team/board

Management and support

Mission

Peer networks

Strategy

Funders Beneficiary feedback

4

model

Expert/peer/donor ratings

ManagementAwards team/board Output metrics

Peer networks Metrics (e.g., # of meals served) Organization metrics (e.g., staff size, turnover)

Financial metrics Beneficiary feedback (e.g., fundraising costs)

Expert/peer/donor ratings

Publicly available through a nonprofit’s annual report or website Searchable and easy to get online through aggregated website(s) An independent third party has analyzed the information Alternatively termed an impact model or theory of change

Awards

Analyzed?3

No

Is the information . . .

Logic model4

Funders

Yes

Mission

Program and goals

Feedback Logic

1

Easy to get?2

Publicly available?1

Easy to get?2

Analyzed?3


INFORMATION:
EXPERIENCE


Our
Take‐Away
   Survey
donors
and
industry
best
prac0ces—and
 apply
the
learnings!
   Burke
donor
survey
corroborated
common
wisdom:

 designate
appeals,
communicate
impact,
increase
 online
and
offline
connec0ons

   Digital
media
assessment
confirmed
what
worked
 (interac0ve)
and
what
doesn’t
(text
messaging)

  Inform
decision‐making
and
donors:

know
your
 donors
and
let
them
know
you
   Invest
in
new
ideas
and
create
transforma0onal
 opportuni0es
for
donors


INNOVATION:
TRENDS
AND
 EXPERIENCE


INNOVATION:
TRENDS


Mobile
Innova:on? 

 Not
Strategic
Giving •  In
January,
Pew
and
the
Berkman
Center
at
Harvard
 released
a
report
:tled
“Real
Time
Charitable
Giving”
 that
analyzes
trends
in
mobile
giving.
 •  Findings
included:
 •  •  •  •

9%
of
donors
have
given
via
text
message
 43%
indicated
they
were
influenced
to
give
by
friend
and
 family
sharing
via
social
media
 50%
of
mobile
givers
say
they
were
driven
by
impulse
 58%
of
mobile
givers
indicate
that
aKer
their
dona:on,
 their
connect
to
the
receiving
organiza:on
is
“not
too
 close”
or
“not
at
all”

Source: Pew Research Center, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, mGive Foundation, “Real-Time Charitable Giving”, January 12, 2012, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/MobileGiving.aspx


Social
Innova:on?


about Facebook. )*+,%-./+0**1%2+34%0563)%.7.8+9+,,:

DRIVING TRAFFIC AND ACTIONS

solidly defined what it mea spread information and can set out to achieve.

Each of these perceived goa different to each organizati mean to yours?

Communica:on
vs.
giving
channel
 100% 90%

80% )*+,%-./+0**1%2+34%)567+%/*8,969:+89,%9*%./96*8;

80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

% Respondents

% Applicable Respondents

90%

Minimal

70%

100%

No effect

Some

60%

Substantial 50% 40% 30%

30% 20% 10%

20% 10%

0%

Increased Website0% Traffic

Moved People to Actionour Provided Take Spread

Increased Email List Increased

Increased Donations

additional information awareness of information more widely organization Source: Idealware, “Using Facebook to Meet Our Mission”, Juneour 2011, See Appendix A for a more detailed explanation and breakdown of this data.

http://www.volunteertoday.com/PDF/Facebook_survey_2011_v2.pdf

In addition to constituent impact, we asked respondents about goals not directly involving constituents that can be easily quantified. These included website traffic, donations, email list size, and moving people to

CASE STUDY

The Bookkeeping Center Based in New York City, The Bookkeeping Center


You
can’t
use
it
to
fundraise… 
 Peer-to-Peer Event Fundrais But
your
supporters
can.

Figure 5: Fundraising Methods 80% 73% 58% 49% 41% 31% 18%

Letters/ postal mail

Email

Phone calls

In-person asks

Social networking/ media

Hosted an event

Other

(guest bartender night, house party,

Source: Blackbaud, “Peer-To-Peer Event Fundraising Consumer Survey”, June 2011 bake sale, etc.) https://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/WhitePaper_RunWalkRidePeerToPeerParticipantSurvey2011.pdf

Online Tools: Easy or Difficult to Use It’s fair to say that online fundraising is easy and effective for peer-to-peer fundraising events. When


They’ll
certainly
share
this… If
They’ll
Share
This…


It
isn’t
all
fundraising…


A
Visual
Trend
 •  Visual
and
interac:ve
media
(i.e.
video)
are
on
 the
rise
with
the
trend
towards
smaller
 compu:ng
devices
 •  Content
needs
to
be
increasingly
‐able


Be
(P)interes:ng
 •  Pinterest
 –  Highly‐visual
social
network
of
images
 –  Launched
Two
Years
Ago
 –  10
Million
Unique
Visitors
per
Month
 –  2,702%
Increase
in
visitors
since
May
2011
 –  Average
Time
on
Site
=
15.8
Minutes
 –  50%
of
users
have
kids
 –  28%
of
Users
have
Household
Income
>
$100k
 –  40%
of
users
are
35
years
old
or
older


Innova:on
Take
Away
 •  Leverage
mobile
solu0ons
that
serve
donors.

Give
 them
rich
content
or
give
them
tools
to
beler
 fundraise
for
you.

Think
twice
about
mobile
giving.
 •  Unleash
your
content
and
make
it
‐able.
Search‐able,
 scan‐able,
embed‐able,
comment‐able
and
mob‐able
 (i.e.
mobile‐friendly).


 •  Highly
visual
content
and
video
are
well‐suited
to
 moible
and
tablet
computers.
 •  Use
social
to
magnify
your
brand
–
talk
about
your
 mission
and
outcomes
–
it
isn’t
all
fundraising.


INNOVATION:
EXPERIENCE


Investment
Pays…and
Pays
Off
 •  Advantage
new
technology
and
strategies
to
extend
 reach
of
exis0ng
events
 •  Make
way
for
the
new:

Use
ROI
analyses
to
refresh
 and
replace
fundraising
ac0vi0es
 •  Tailor
engagement
and
giving
opportuni0es
to
 appeal
to
the
“venture
philanthropy/investment”
 mindset
 •  Go
where
the
donors
are—the
global
community


Build
an
Inclusive
Approach
 •  Research
showed
that
social,
digital
and
 mobile
trends
cut
across
demographic
and
 economic
lines.


 •  Be
wary
of
adop:on
trends.
 •  Think
about
mobile
opportuni:es
that
meet
 diverse
cons:tuents
needs.

Consider
 solu:ons
that
aren’t
just
focused
on
event
or
 annual
donors.

What
would
a
Major
GiK
 donor
want
in
an
app?
A
volunteer
solicitor?


Social
Innova:on

Be
everywhere.

Integrate
social
into
all
your
other
 channels
and
bring
content
from
your
other
channels
to
 social.


QUESTIONS?


Thank
You!!
 Shelley
Brown


 Vice
President,
Opera:ons
 Children’s
Hospital
Trust
 shelley.brown@chtrust.org
 
 Christopher
Maddocks
 Director,
Informa:on
Management
&
Technology
 Children’s
Hospital
Trust
 christopher.maddocks@chtrust.org


Resources Emerging Trends: the Changing Landscape of Health Care Philanthropy (AHP 2010) The Online Giving Study Network for Good and TrueSense Marketing The Cygnus Donor Survey 2011 Twitter – @clm2134 Presentation – www.issuu.com/clm2134/ Pinterest Board – pinterest.com/clm2134/emerging_trends


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.