1 / 97

Revitalising RFV

Revitalising RFV. A joint project by RSPB and Plug the Gap. I ntroduction and B ackground. Who we are. Julie Pitt Director at Plug the Gap Database marketing and analysis for the charity sector Ruth Smyth Supporter Insight Manager at the RSPB

hidi
Download Presentation

Revitalising RFV

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revitalising RFV A joint project by RSPB and Plug the Gap

  2. Introduction andBackground

  3. Who we are • Julie Pitt • Director at Plug the Gap • Database marketing and analysis for the charity sector • Ruth Smyth • Supporter Insight Manager at the RSPB • Understanding support and supporters from across the organisation • Cath Campbell • Business Information Analyst at the RSPB • Deciphers the information and helps the planning process

  4. Why did we do it? Our appeals were stuck in a rut and a couple showed poor results. We wanted to know why. We also wanted to grow, but weren’t sure how.

  5. The RSPB asked Plug the Gap to collaborate on a project. The objective was to learn more about the behaviours of donors in cash appeals and the factors that affected those behaviours.

  6. Appeals at the RSPB • How many? 4- 5 each year • What topics? Purchasing a reserve / campaigns • Who to? Members, recently expanded • How are they segmented? • Active • Lapsed • Deep Lapsed

  7. Investigation

  8. We started off with some basic concepts

  9. Some things we knew. Some things we knew we didn’t know. Some things we didn’t know we didn’t know.

  10. But we chucked in another one as well

  11. Some things we thought we knew, but did we?

  12. We pulled together lots of campaign reports, pieces of analysis and some views and ideas of the people that worked with appeals and data

  13. Pulling them together and reviewing across activities expanded our understanding

  14. We could identify what we knew and we could identify where the holes were

  15. And we knew there was a lot of stuff that we didn’t have any ideas about

  16. But most importantly we were able to see that some of the things we thought we knew just weren’t true

  17. myths! Lies, damn lies...and statistics!

  18. We crossed referenced all of the information from all of the different sources

  19. This showed us which pieces of insight didn’t stand up to statistical scrutiny,

  20. ...and which pieces of our understanding were assumed

  21. The plan

  22. Armed with all of this information we came up with a radical plan

  23. Step 1: Create an RFV matrix

  24. ...but structure it so that it accurately reflects the donors behaviour

  25. Step 2: Analyse gift prompts

  26. ...but not in the tried and tested way that Is normally seen

  27. Step 3: Take the findings and apply them to an appeal

  28. ...but make sure the results are measurable

  29. Step 1: RFV

  30. We looked closely at the R the F and the V

  31. We kept in mind that each variable had to accurately reflect the behaviours of the supporters

  32. Recency is easy: measure the time between the last gift and another fixed point

  33. Frequency is harder: Should this be the number of times a supporter has given?

  34. That’s OK but what if someone has been asked to give 10 times and donated twice are they the same as another supporter who has been asked twice and donated twice?

  35. There’s a subtle difference in their behaviours: ask twice > get twice Versus ask ten times > get twice

  36. The difference is their propensity to donate which should put them in different cells in the matrix

  37. Value is the hardest: last, highest, average

  38. We approached this by thinking of how we would feel as supporters in a few different scenarios

  39. “I had a windfall and was able to donate a little more. I normally give ten pounds but I was able to give one hundred pounds.”

  40. There are many reasons why supporters donate an amount that falls outside of their normal pattern of giving.

  41. As a supporter I would feel “put upon” if my chosen charity felt that I could now afford to give at a much higher value than normal, just because of a single higher value gift.

  42. With this in mind we opted to use the mode value: the value that best reflected the supporters’ normal giving behaviour

  43. It lets supporters know that we value their contribution regardless of how big or small. We avoid making them feel that their contribution is never quite enough by always pushing them for more.

  44. What did we find & what did we learn?

  45. Most supporters fell into only a few cells in the matrix

  46. Delving deeper it seemed that most supporters gave ten pounds; a lot less than previously thought

  47. They gave ten pounds because they were always asked for ten pounds so they gave ten pounds...

  48. ...and on and on it went!

  49. Which brings us very neatly to...

  50. Step 2: analyse gift prompts

More Related