2010_eNonprofit_Benchmarks_Study

8/7/2019 2010_eNonprofit_Benchmarks_Study

1/27

AUTHORED BY:


2/27

3

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis report was written by Steve Peretz and Sarah DiJulio o M+R Strategic Services (M+R) and HollyRoss o the Nonproft Technology Network (NTEN).

Steve Daigneault, Katlyn Carter, Arielle Holland, Jessica Bosanko, Jeremy Hatter, Marjory Garrison,and Vanessa Fernandez provided invaluable assistance with writing, editing, data collection, anddata coding. Steve Peretz aggregated and analyzed the 31 nonproft participants datasets. CharlesYesuwan did the graphic design and prepared the report or printing.

Special thanks to all o our nonproft study partners or sharing their data and making this study possible.

Additional thanks to MobileActive.org, Mobile Commons, and mGive or allowing us to reprint anexcerpt o the 2010 Nonproft Text Messaging Benchmarks in this study.

ABOUT M+R STRATEGIC SERVICESM+R is dedicated to helping our clients advance their missions in order to bring about positivechange. We do this by helping organizations and campaigns we believe in develop smart ande ective strategies, hone their messages, mobilize their members, build grassroots support, raisemoney, and communicate e ectively with the media, the public, and decision-makers, both onlineand o ine.www.mrss.com

ABOUT NTEN: THE NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY NETWORK NTEN is a community trans orming technology into social change. We aspire to a world where allnonproft organizations skill ully and confdently use technology to meet community needs and ulfll theirmissions. We connect our members to each other, provide pro essional development opportunities,educate our constituency on issues o technology use in nonprofts, and spearhead groundbreakingresearch, advocacy, and education on technology issues a ecting our entire community.www.nten.org

This complete report is available or ree download online at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com.

For more information about the report, please contact:Steve Peretz, M+R Strategic Services, (917) 438-4627, [email protected] Ross, NTEN, (415) 397-9000, [email protected] 2010 M+R Strategic Services and The Nonproft Technology Network

CONTENTSI. Introduction.................................................................................................4

II. Email Messaging.........................................................................................6

III. Email List Size............................................................................................14

IV. Online Fundraising....................................................................................20

V. Online Advocacy .......................................................................................33

VI. Glossary of Terms......................................................................................39

VII. Study Methodology ...................................................................................42

Appx A. Social Media..............................................................................................45

Appx B. Text Messaging.........................................................................................47


3/27

5

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Introduction

Introduction2009 was a challenging year or online undraising and advocacy, with the economy in a continuingtailspin. Despite the millions o new online activists and donors engaged during the historic 2008 elections,approximately hal o the nonprofts in this years study saw their online undraising revenue stay even withor below last years revenue numbers.

This study includes brand-new data collected rom 31 nonproft organizations covering all o calendar year 2009. This years study calculates, or the frst time, online undraising benchmarks or the shareo online revenue attributable to di erent types o gi t programs, such as monthly giving, one-time gi ts,and tribute gi ts.

Another new addition in the 2010 study is the inclusion o not only analysis by sector, but also by the sizeo the email list. We have historically ound that there is a relationship between email list per ormanceand size, and with this years study, weve grouped study participants into three tiers or email list sizeand ound signifcant di erences in benchmarks based on this analysis. The three tiers are Small (under100,000 deliverable email addresses), Medium (100,000 to 500,000 deliverable email addresses),and Large (over 500,000 deliverable email addresses).

In order to provide a more realistic picture o how results vary by nonproft, in most o our charts weveincluded the range o results rom the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile, in recognition o the actthat these data points represent a variety o programs that per orm di erently.

In acknowledgement o how other online and technology mediums are beginning to claim a largershare o the online marketplace, we have, or the frst time ever, included both Social and Mobilebenchmarks or nonproft advocacy and undraising. These chapters represent excerpts o ourmuch larger reports published earlier in 2010 (both ull reports are available or download atwww.e-benchmarksstudy.com). Although you may be tempted to compare the results o the 2009 study with this years study, wewant to emphasize that the 2010 study represents just a single snapshot in time. The make-up o the

participating nonprofts varies rom year to year, and there ore we cannot confdently extrapolate year-over-year trends by placing the two studies side-by-side.

For instance, the 2010 study shows almost identical advocacy and undraising response rates to the2009 study. But when we limit our analysis to just the 18 nonprofts who participated in both studies,we ound that undraising response rates dropped by .05 percentage points or these groups andadvocacy response rates ell by 2 percentage points. While this set o 18 groups was well above thebenchmark in the 2009 study, their data in the 2010 study is more in line with their peers.

As you analyze your own email and online undraising program, bear in mind that the only trend thatreally matters is your own trend. These benchmarks should complement and enhance your own analyticsprogram, but not serve as a substitute or it!

KEY FINDINGS OF THE 2010 BENCHMARKS STUDY

Nonprofts with Small email lists (under 100,000 subscribers) had a much higher openrate, click-through rate and double the email undraising response rate o Medium andLarge nonprofts, but also had double the unsubscribe rate o their larger peers.

Email undraising response rates were .13%, and email advocacy response rates were 4.00%.The average gi t size or a one-time online gi t was $81.33.

Annual email fle churn was just under 17%. The average study participant sent 4 emails per subscriber per month, but Environmental

nonprofts sent their subscribers 5.2 emails per month, while Health nonprofts sent just 2.1emails per month, on average.

Online undraising grew overall by 4.5% between 2008 and 2009, and or hal o thenonprofts in our study, online revenue either held steady with 2008 or declined. Thisdecline was driven by a drop in the average gi t size.

Environmental nonprofts in our study raised 96% o their online revenue rom one-time gi ts.Health nonprofts, on the other hand, raised 50% o their online revenue rom other gi ts(including event giving) and tribute gi ts. International groups lead the way through monthlygiving, which made up more than 25% o their online revenue.

Our per ormance analysis (pages 32 and 38) ound that the largest di erence between high andlow per orming email programs was in email click-through rates. I youre looking to emulate themost success ul email programs in our study, then work to improve your click-through rates!


4/27

7

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Email Messaging

Email Messaging

EMAIL MESSAGING RESULTS BY MESSAGE TY

OPEN RATE CLICK-THROUGHRATE RESPONSE RATEUNSUBSCRIBE

RATE

All Message Types 14.09% 2.55% 0.23%

Fundraising Emails 12.82% 0.78% 0.13% 0.23%

Advocacy Emails 14.26% 4.65% 4.00% 0.19%

Email Newsletters 14.57% 2.78% 0.25%

For every sector and across all organization sizes, we evaluated three distinct types o messages undraising appeals, advocacy alerts and email newsletters.

We ound that advocacy emails had the highest click-through rate o any type o email, while emailnewsletters had both the highest open rate and the highest unsubscribe rate. Fundraising emails,meanwhile, had the lowest open rate. This snapshot provides easy benchmarks or any organization but in the sections that ollow (and

or email newsletters on pages 10 and 11) we take a deeper look at each o these message types bysector and by list size.


5/27


6/27

11

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Email Messaging

The Small groups in our study had approximately double the email newsletter click-through rate oeither Medium or Large groups, matching their higher overall email click-through rate.

EMAIL NEWSLETTER CLICK-THROUGH RATES

International organizations stood out or their low email newsletter click-through rate.

The explanation or this extremely low rate could be two old: First, International organizations lack thestrong emphasis on advocacy that Environmental and Rights groups o ten have many o the groupsin the Environmental and Rights sectors actually lead their email newsletters with an advocacy action.

Second, International organizations lack the very personal connection to a disease that Health groupso ten have. Health groups can eature content about new developments in research that are extremelyimportant to the recipients o their email newsletters. International groups, on the other hand, have amission that is rarely as directly personal or the email recipient.

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%

All Sectors Environmental Health International

2.78%

3.56% 3.61%

1.32%

2.69%

HOW TO READ THIS CHART

The green (or red) triangle indicatesthe average; the number shown isthe average value.

The vertical line indicates therange o normal values or thesegment; the top o the line is the75th percentile and the bottom othe line is the 25th percentile.

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

14.09%

In this example, the averagevalue is 14.09% and any valuebetween 11% and 16% wouldbe considered normal.

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%

2.78%2.04%

2.71%

4.96%

All Sizes Large-size(over 500,000)Medium-size

(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


7/27


8/27

15

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Email List Size

Email List Size

EMAIL LIST CHURN

Annual list churn the rate at which email addresses go bad in a given year was 16.83% in2009.

To calculate churn, we divided the number o subscribers who became unreachable in a 12-monthperiod by the total number o subscribers in the system during that same period. To be included inthe churn metric, study partners were required to track churn each month to account or people whosubscribe and unsubscribe rom an email list in the same year.

14 o our nonproft study partners tracked their list churn monthly and were included in this metric. Themetric urther splits churn into two subsets: unsubscribes and email addresses lost or other reasons(spam complaints, addresses bouncing, discontinued email addresses, etc.).

83.17%

9.95%

6.88%

Unsubscribed

Other Churn

Subscribers Retained


9/27

17

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Email List Size

EMAIL UNSUBSCRIBE RATESThese charts show the rate at which recipients unsubscribe rom all types o email messages. Forthis broad look, we combined rates rom di erent sorts o messages to look at di erences amongorganization types. To see di erences among message types, re er to page 7.

Environmental and Rights groups, which typically ocus heavily on recruiting new list subscribersthrough online advocacy, had the lowest email unsubscribe rates. In addition, as we show elsewhere,advocacy emails themselves had the lowest unsubscribe rate, so it is possible that nonprofts that senda high volume o advocacy emails actually have lower overall unsubscribe rates. (Bear in mind thatour analysis did not look at the relative volume o di erent types o email messaging we are in erring

rom their missions that the Environmental and Rights nonprofts are more likely to send more advocacyemails.)

0.50%0.45%0.40%0.35%0.30%0.25%0.20%0.15%0.10%0.05%0.00%


0.23%

0.17%

0.28%

0.41%

0.13%

Small groups had the highest unsubscribe rate. However, these lists are also very responsive toundraising appeals, so the high unsubscribe rate or Small groups may have resulted rom having

more attentive lists, which, on the whole, is a positive thing.




20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

14.09%


0.50%0.45%0.40%0.35%0.30%0.25%0.20%0.15%0.10%0.05%0.00%

0.23% 0.20%0.16%

0.41%


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


10/27

19

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Email List Size

Although list growth by sector varied widely, we saw more consistent trends when we evaluated studyparticipants by list size. The Large groups saw the lowest rate o growth, while Small groups grew by51.32% on average. Clearly, it is ar easier to achieve a strong rate o growth when starting small!

ANNUAL LIST GROWTH

Nonproft email lists grew in 2009, but sectors didnt see common growth rates. Although some emaillist growth can be organic, or most nonprofts it is largely a unction o the e ort and resources anonproft invests in growing their email list and, as the next chart shows, o list size.

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

-10.00%


24.40%

13.02%

35.22%39.26%

11.03%




20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

14.09%


80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

-10.00%

24.40%

11.10%

21.53%

51.32%


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


11/27

21

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Online Fundraising

OnlineFundraising

FUNDRAISING SHARE BY GIFT TYPE

Environmental groups in our study appeared to be ocusing their e orts on one-time gi ts and didntsee as much revenue rom other types o gi ts. It is possible that these nonprofts would beneft rominvesting urther in monthly giving and tribute gi t programs.

International groups and, to a lesser degree, Rights groups saw more monthly giving revenue. Thisis likely a result o the marketing activities o these nonprofts, which, in several cases, were heavilyinvested in promoting their monthly giving programs, including through o ine channels such as DirectResponse TV.

Several International groups also saw a healthy amount o revenue through tribute gi ts, which includesthe online gi t catalogs o ering symbolic gi ts around the holidays, which have proven quite success ul

or some nonprofts.

Health groups show a very di erent giving make-up. Just under hal o their revenue came rom one-time gi ts. The other category, which includes event undraising such as walk-a-thons, made upnearly 40% o online revenue or Health groups. However, the uniquely personal nature o event-driven

undraising may make it di fcult or other nonprofts to easily replicate these results.

Health groups also saw signifcant revenue rom tribute gi ts (not associated with events). Unlike theInternational groups, these tribute gi ts are more typically honorary or memorial gi ts, and again, areprobably di fcult to replicate in other sectors.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% All Sectors Environmental Health International

One-time Mont hly Tribute Ot her

78.39%

9.20%

4.07%

8.33%

95.67%

3.54%

49.61%

0.38%

10.21%

39.79%

66.09%

25.58%

7.18%

1.15%

79.68%

9.32%

2.57%

0.79% 8.43%


12/27

23

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Online Fundraising

CHANGE IN ONLINE GIVING FROM 2008 TO 2009Please note that the charts on pages 22 and 23 use medians rather than means. For the other chartsin our study, the median and mean rates were quite similar, and we felt that the mean was the most accurate representation of the results. For these percent changes, the data was markedly skewed and so medians offered a more accurate picture of a typical nonpro t in each sector.

2009 was an unpredictable year or online giving. While the median nonproft in our study saw onlinegiving grow by 4.5% rom 2008 to 2009, the results varied dramatically by segment. Environmentaland Health groups saw strong growth on average, while International and Rights groups actually sawa decline in total revenue online.

The biggest contributor to the decline in undraising or many nonprofts? The shrinking average gi t

size. And or International and Rights groups, that lower average gi t was compounded by a drop-oin the total overall number o online gi ts made.

International groups may also have seen a decline in their number o gi ts because there were ewerglobal emergencies in 2009, as compared to 2008.

Looking at the change in online giving by list size rounds out the picture. Small groups saw theironline giving increase, driven by an increase in average gi t size. Medium groups saw their number oonline gi ts increase, which in turn drove an increase in online giving, despite a decrease in averagegi t size. However, Large groups saw both their number o gi ts and average gi t size decrease, andso their online giving decreased as well.

25.00%20.00%15.00%10.00%5.00%0.00%

-5.00%-10.00%-15.00%-20.00%


4.5%

13.6%

-4.5%

10.7%

19.7%

-10.8%

20.5%18.5%

2.8%

-9.5%-4.8%

-8.8%

-15.6%-10.4%

-5.8%

Percent Change in Dollars Donated from 2008 to 2009

Percent Change in the Number of Online Gifts from 2008 to 2009

Percent Change in Average Gift from 2008 to 2009

25.00%20.00%15.00%10.00%5.00%0.00%

-5.00%-10.00%-15.00%-20.00%

4.5%

13.6%

-4.5% -3.7%-5.3%

-16.2%

11.5%

19.7%

-4.9%

5.9% 4.6%

-1.1%

Percent Change in Dollars Donated from 2008 to 2009Percent Change in the Number of Online Gifts from 2008 to 2009Percent Change in Average Gift from 2008 to 2009


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


13/27

25

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Online Fundraising

AVERAGE ONLINE GIFT ONE-TIME VS. MONTHLY

Overall the average one-time online gi t was quite high at $81.33 which, in our experience, istypically higher than what most nonprofts see via other channels such as Direct Mail. Also in ourexperience, online donors are more a uent and younger than traditional o ine donors.

Among the di erent sectors, the International nonprofts had a much higher average gi t size, both orone-time and monthly giving, than any other sector. This trend may re ect the unique mission o anInternational nonproft which is to take your donation to another part o the world and improve lives compared to the availability o non-monetary ways to make meaning ul contributions to organizationsdoing work in the U.S., rom volunteering to taking an advocacy action.

Small groups saw both a higher average one-time gi t and a higher average monthly gi t than largergroups. This may be a result o a smaller proportion o their donations coming over email; in ourexperience, passive donations made through the website not in response to an email message havea higher average than donations made in response to an email ask.

$81.33

Average One-time Gift

Average Monthly Gift


$24.25

$56.06

$21.12

$72.55

$24.82

$135.60

$31.05

$61.34

$18.87

$81.33

Average One-time Gift

Average Monthly Gift

$24.25

$71.65

$22.51

$76.08

$22.93

$100.65

$29.91


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


14/27

27

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Online Fundraising

EMAIL CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL ONLINEREVENUE

The percentage o an organizations online revenue coming directly rom email varies widely bysector. Some nonprofts have extremely email-dependent programs, while others rely more heavilyon other sources to drive online giving.

Most Environmental groups in our study saw more than hal o their overall online undraising revenuecome rom email, while Health and International groups saw a smaller share rom email.

The overall undraising strategy or Environmental groups is typically based on one-time gi ts, whereasInternational groups typically see higher web giving and giving rom monthly donors (both are sourcesnot as heavily associated with one-time gi t emails). Similarly or Health groups, event undraisingdoes not rely on outbound emails to the same degree as the one-time gi t email strategies employed byother groups. This suggests one reason why the email contribution to overall online revenue is relativelyhigher or Environmental groups.

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%


39.90%

58.90%

7.87%

19.60%

38.36%

The di erence between the list sizes was less pronounced than the di erence within each sector,though Small groups were less likely to see a large share o their overall online revenue come in overemail than larger organizations. It is possible that Small groups could raise additional unds onlinewere they to invest in growing their email programs.




20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

14.09%


80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

39.90%41.23% 45.59%

26.14%


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


15/27


16/27

31

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Online Fundraising

EMAIL FUNDRAISING PAGE COMPLETION RATES

Across all sectors, the average page completion rate or email-driven undraising pages was 21.44%,though we did see a rather large range o rates, particularly when analyzed by sector. Internationalgroups led the feld with a page completion rate o 29.05%, while the Rights groups had the lowestrate with 13.45%.

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%


22.81% 22.75%

29.05%

13.45%

21.44%

This may be driven in part by the act that the International groups whose primary unction is to raiseunds may have better trained email subscribers (who are also more likely to have made a previous

donation).

Small groups made up or a low page completion rate with open and click-through rates higher thanthose or larger list sizes, resulting in a higher average response rate to Small group undraising emails.

For smaller nonprofts in particular, the similarity in page completion rates among organizationlist sizes should come as good news: once a prospective donor can be led rom an email to yourorganizations donation page, a smaller organization has about as good o a chance to see that

donation completed as a larger organization would. The lesson or all nonprofts? Organizationswill likely gain more by optimizing open and click-through rates on undraising emails than they willby maximizing page conversion on email-driven donation pages!




20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

14.09%


40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

21.44% 20.97%23.20%

18.55%


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


17/27

33

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

EMAIL FUNDRAISING PERFORMANCE

OPENRATE

CLICK-THROUGH

RATE

PAGECOMPLETION

RATERESPONSE

RATEUNSUBSCRIBE

RATE

High Response Rate 16.42% 1.48% 23.38% 0.28% 0.38%

Middle Response Rate 12.07% 0.57% 22.31% 0.10% 0.18%

Low Response Rate 10.32% 0.29% 17.20% 0.04% 0.19%

To analyze the study participants by per ormance we frst divided them into three segments accordingto their email undraising response rate. Then we averaged the rates o the groups in each segment.This allows us to analyze where in the process people decide not to donate and helps us fgure outwhich rates to ocus on to increase email undraising response rates.

There was a modest, but notable, di erence between the High and Low per orming response rategroups in terms o open and page completion rates. The place where the High per orming groupsshowed the strongest di erence in their per ormance was in the undraising email click-through rates.This tells us that it may make the most sense or all groups to ocus on strategies to improve their email

undraising click-through rates as a means to improving their overall email undraising response rate,with a secondary ocus on open rates.

I you are a nonproft with an email undraising response rate in the middle range and a pagecompletion rate already in the low 20% range, you may be unlikely to see signifcant gains in youremail undraising per ormance rom optimizing the page completion rate (although improvementscan be more dramatic i you optimize your page completion rate or website visitors).

Nonprofts with a low email undraising response rate may beneft rom some work to optimize theirpage completion rate, though, arguably, only a ter making improvements to click-through rates and

open rates.

Interestingly, we ound a positive correlation between email undraising response rate and unsubscriberate. The high unsubscribe rate on your undraising email may be a sign that people are paying attention.

For undraising email, the correlations between open rate and response rate (r=.746), click-throughrate and response rate (r=.819) and unsubscribe rate and response rate (r=.406) were statisticallysignifcant (p


18/27

35

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Online Advocacy

EMAIL ADVOCACY RESPONSE RATESPlease note that the charts in this section only look at email sent to the full le or a random sample of the

le asking recipients to take a simple online action. For data about higher-threshold and of ine actions,such as making a phone call, responding to a survey, or attending an event, please see the 2009 eNon- pro t Benchmarks Study (which is available for download at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com.)

Environmental groups led the feld with an average email advocacy response rate o 5.30%, whileHealth groups held the lowest position at 2.45%.

We have ound that people who join an email list through an advocacy action are much morelikely to have higher email advocacy response rates; since many Environmental and Rights groupshave historically built their email fles primarily through online advocacy recruitment, we were notsurprised to see higher email advocacy response rates rom these groups.

Interestingly, the Small groups did not lead the pack in email advocacy response rates. Unlike in manyother areas (open rates, email click-through rates, email undraising response rates, etc.) where theSmall groups had signifcantly higher rates, they actually lagged behind Medium groups in this case.

This may be due to the act that the Small groups, while they have a more responsive list overall, haveinvested less heavily in email list building activities. One critical way in which many o the Mediumand Large nonprofts built their email fles was through online advocacy campaigns. Other researchweve done has shown that people who have taken an online advocacy action in the past aremuch more likely to do so again.

It is possible that, in this case, many Medium and Large groups beneft rom the act that their largerlists are made up o many experienced online activists.

8.00%

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%


5.30%

2.45%3.31%

4.09%4.00%




20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

14.09%


8.00%

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%0.00%

4.00%

2.89%

4.62%4.19%


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


19/27

37

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Online Advocacy

In contrast to open and click-through rates, where Large and Medium groups o ten lagged behind,Large and Medium groups had a higher advocacy page completion rate than Small groups.

As mentioned previously, this is likely due to the act that the Large and Medium groups are more likelyto have built their email fles using advocacy recruitment campaigns. The people on their email fle,while perhaps less sensitive to email overall, are more experienced in taking online actions.

EMAIL ADVOCACY PAGE COMPLETION RATESPlease note that the charts in this section only look at email sent to the full le or a random sample of the le asking recipients to take a simple online action.

The two sectors with the highest email advocacy response rates Rights and Environment also hadthe highest page completion rates. This is likely due to the act that as these organizations regularly

eature online advocacy actions, their subscribers are likely well versed on how to take action, andtheir subscribers are unlikely to click on a link unless they intend to complete the orm.

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%


85.38% 86.49%

72.53%78.08%80.08%




20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

14.09%


100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

80.07%

60.39%

86.66%

80.08%


(100,000 to 500,000)Small-size

(under 100,000)


20/27

39

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

EMAIL ADVOCACY PERFORMANCEPlease note that the charts in this section only look at email sent to the full le or a random sample of the le asking recipients to take a simple online action.

OPENRATE

CLICK-THROUGH

RATE

PAGECOMPLETION

RATERESPONSE

RATEUNSUBSCRIBE

RATE

High Response Rate 15.93% 7.51% 92.94% 7.03% 0.11%

Middle Response Rate 13.64% 4.55% 83.02% 3.58% 0.19%

Low Response Rate 13.73% 2.71% 62.54% 1.75% 0.27%

To analyze the study participants by per ormance, we frst divided them into three segments accordingto their email advocacy response rate. Then we averaged the rates o the groups in each segment.This allows us to analyze where in the process people decide not to take action and helps us fgure outwhich rates to ocus on to increase email advocacy response rates.

In this case, the di erent segments didnt see much di erence in open rates. But the High per ormingemail advocacy response rate groups had more than double the click-through rate o the Low per orminggroups this is the single biggest di erence in their overall per ormance. Wed recommend that nonproftslooking to improve their email advocacy response rates start by ocusing on increasing their click-through rate.

Secondarily, improving the page completion rate and the open rate should also yield benefts, butthese are not as signifcant as improving the click-through rate.

As expected, we also ound a negative correlation between email advocacy response rate andunsubscribe rate; that is to say, a higher email advocacy response rate and a lower unsubscribe

rate are seen together.

For advocacy email, the correlations between click-through rate and response rate (r=.959), pagecompletion rate and response rate (r=.559), open rate and response rate (r=.490), and unsubscriberate and response rate (r=-.469) were statistically signifcant (p


21/27

41

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Glossary of Terms

ADVOCACY OR ACTIONSRe ers to simple or basic online actions, such as signing an online petition or sending an email to adecision maker. Advocacy email is distinguished as having one ask, with that ask being or an onlineaction. Advocacy rates were calculated rom simple advocacy email sent to the ull fle or a randomsample o the ull fle. Top level rates, such as those or all message types and email volume, include

ull fle, random sample, and targeted advocacy email. CLICK-THROUGH RATECalculated as the number o people who clicked on any trackable link in an email message divided by thenumber o delivered email messages. People who clicked multiple times in one email were only countedonce. In other words, i a subscriber clicks on every link in a message 10 times, this was counted the sameas i the subscriber had clicked once on a single link.

DELIVERABLE EMAILSDistinguished rom all emails, which includes email addresses where the email was delivered and emailaddresses where the email bounced.

EMAIL NEWSLETTERSDistinguished as having multiple links or asks, which can include undraising or advocacy asks.

FULL FILEAll o the deliverable email addresses o an organizations subscribers, with the ollowing two exceptions:Email not sent to an organizations subscribers living outside o the U.S. still counts as ull f le and email notsent to negligible groups o subscribers who are regularly suppressed such as board members or majordonors still counts as ull fle.

FUNDRAISING EMAIL Distinguished as having one ask, with that ask being or a donation. LIST CHURNCalculated as the number o subscribers who became unreachable in a 12-month period divided by thesum o the number o deliverable email addresses at the end o that period plus the number o subscriberwho became unreachable during that period. Study participants were required to track the number osubscribers who became unreachable each month to account or subscribers both joining and leaving anemail list during the 12-month period who would otherwise go uncounted. MONTHLY GIFTA donation where the donor signs up once to donate on a regular schedule. Also known as a sustainer.

OPEN RATECalculated as the number o HTML email messages opened divided by the number o delivered emailmessages.

PAGE COMPLETION RATECalculated as the number o people who completed a orm divided by the number o people who clickedon the link to get to that orm. For the purposes o this study, it was not always possible to use the numbero people who clicked on a link to a specifc orm, so we used the number o unique clicks in the message.

PERCENTILEThe percent o observed values below the named score. 25% o the observations are below the 25thpercentile; 75% o the observations are below the 75th percentile. The values between the 25th percentileand 75th percentile are the middle 50% o the observed values.

RANDOM SAMPLEA segment o the ull email fle selected at random, such that there would be no reason to expect a di erentrate than an email sent to the ull fle.

RESPONSE RATECalculated as the number o people who took the main action requested by an email message dividedby the number o delivered email messages. We only calculated response rates in this study or donationsor or simple online actions, such as signing a petition or sending an email to a decision maker. For dataabout higher-threshold and o ine actions, such as making a phone call, responding to a survey,or attending an event, please see the 2009 eNonproft Benchmarks Study (which is available ordownload at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com).

TARGETED EMAIL A segment o the ull email fle selected purpose ully, such as by geography or past action. For example,emailing people in a city, emailing past donors, emailing past action takers, emailing people who havenot taken an action, or emailing people who have not made a donation would all be examples o targetedemail.

TRIBUTE GIFTA donation where the donor makes a gi t in someone elses name or someones memory, sponsors a child,or buys a symbolic gi t or a special occasion, such as a wedding, birthday or holiday.

UNIQUE CLICKSThe number o people who clicked on any trackable link in an email message, as opposed to the numbero times the links in an email were clicked. I a subscriber clicks on every link in a message 10 times, thiscounts as 1 unique click.

UNSUBSCRIBE RATECalculated as the number o individuals who unsubscribed in response to an email message divided bythe number o delivered email messages.


22/27

43

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Study Methodology

StudyMethodology

The 2010 eNonproft Benchmarks Study collected email messaging, list subscriber and online undraisingand advocacy data rom 31 U.S.-based national nonproft organizations or the calendar year o 2009.We analyzed the results o 851 million email messages sent to over 15 million list subscribers; morethan 185 million dollars o online donations rom over 2.7 million online gi ts; and 3.9 million advocacyactions.

The average given or a metric is the mean unless otherwise specifed. To calculate the benchmarks metricsreported in this study, we frst calculated a metric or each group and then calculated an average acrossgroups so that no single group had more weight than any other. Each benchmark aggregates data romat least 3 study participants. Not all study participants reported data or every metric.

Study participants provided data on individual email messages sent in 2009, including the date themessage was launched, the number o delivered email messages, the number o unique clicks or a

message, the number o actions taken, the number o donations made, the amount donated, and thenumber o unsubscribes. Study participants coded their individual email messages by type (simple onlineadvocacy action, undraising, email newsletter, other) and urther coded each email with a simple onlineadvocacy action by audience ( ull fle or random sample, targeted). Advocacy rates were calculated romemail with a simple online advocacy action sent to the ull fle or a random sample o the ull fle. Otherrates were calculated rom all email o the type being analyzed.

In addition, study participants provided donation data coded by type (one-time, monthly, tribute, other)and provided list size data and aggregate online undraising data or 2008 and 2009. Gi ts that couldbe classifed as both monthly gi ts and tribute gi ts ( or example, a monthly donation to sponsor a child)were classifed as monthly gi ts or the purpose o this study.

Calculating list churn or a year requires data snapshots at regular intervals over the course o the year.Looking at list size and new or lost email addresses only at the beginning and end o the year may notaccount or subscribers who join during the year and then unsubscribe or become undeliverable be orethe year ends. Study participants were required to track the number o subscribers who became undeliverableeach month to contribute to the list churn metric; 14 study participants met this standard.

Although you may be tempted to compare the results o the 2009 study with this years study, we want toemphasize that the 2010 study represents just a single snapshot in time. The make-up o the participatingnonprofts varies rom year to year, and there ore we cannot confdently extrapolate year-over-year trendsby placing the two studies side-by-side.

This years study segments groups by sector, the size o their deliverable email fle, and the response rateo their advocacy and undraising email.


23/27


24/27

47

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Appendix B: Text Messaging

were calling the weekly an action rate: the number o actions per an, per week. This is perhapsthe most critical metric to measure the success o your Facebook Page! A high an action rateleads to even more an engagement, since news eeds carry all that activity to potential new ans.Our study partners weekly an action rate was 2.5%.

TWITTEROrganizations can track their Twitter statistics using a variety o ree and paid web tools. Althoughthese tools do o er some good basic data, datasets are sometimes limited. Many provide dataonly rom the previous 30 days; others experience lag time or display data in inconsistent periods;some provide data that quite simply isnt help ul! No matter which system you choose or yourorganization, keeping your own o ine data or long-term tracking is critical.

The organizations in our data set sent on average our to fve tweets per day, with the number o

monthly posts varying widely. The average monthly ollower growth or our Twitter sample was 9% much higher than average monthly growth on both Facebook Fan pages (3.75%) and nonproftemail lists (2.8%). It is also worth noting that Twitter itsel has seen exponential growth uniquevisitors grew by 1,200% rom November 2008 to November 2009. In our study, organizationsTwitter growth is inclusive o churn; at publication time, we could not fnd a ree and reliable toolto track un- ollows separately rom growth.

As with Facebook, a primary driver o ollower growth is the ability or ollowers to share, or retweet,an organizations message on Twitter with their own ollowers. In our sample we ound a trendrelating tweets to ollower growth: more tweets lead to more retweets, which lead in turnto more ollower growth. O course, this assumes your tweets are worth reading and that caveat,along with the rapid growth o Twitter overall during the study period, prevents us rom determiningstatistically signifcant relationships between the number o tweets an organization sends and theresulting growth that organization should see.

Text MessagingExcerpted from 2010 Nonpro t Text Messaging Benchmarks, authored by Michael Amoruso and

Jessica Bosanko of M+R Strategic Services, and Katrin Verclas of MobileActive.org. Republished withpermission from MobileActive.org and thanks to the support of sponsors Mobile Commons and mGive.The full study is available for download at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com/mobile/

Because mobile phones are the one device that most people keep handy at all times, textmessaging o ers nonproft organizations a power ul technology or undraising, recruitment andengagement. The 2010 Nonproft Text Messaging Benchmarks report is the frst o its kind,providing benchmarks and metrics by which nonproft organizations can measure their successwith text messaging and cataloguing the various ways in which organizations are alreadyusing text messaging.

LIST SIZEText list growth is currently quite rapid, occurring at a median rate o 49.5% annually. Themedian monthly mobile list growth rate was 2.6%, with growth rates increased dramaticallywhen organizations ran recruitment campaigns, in some cases exceeding 10% (and sometimesupwards o 30%).

Among the organizations that participated in this study, all o which are advocacy-oriented andhave established email programs, more than 80% o text subscribers joined an organizations textprogram by entering their mobile phone number on advocacy, donation or text message sign-uppages on a website managed by the organization.

19%

17%

2%

Keyword Signup

Uploads

Website Opt-in

Email Platform Data Sync62%


25/27

49

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

Appendix B: Text Messaging

But even absent a large email list, text messaging can be a use ul recruitment mechanism ororganizations with a strong o -line or social media presence. Television ads and events can provideopportunities or text list-building when compu ters arent close at hand. And keyword recruitment asking potential recruits to join the list by texting a keyword to your organizations shortcode can

be particularly e ective, especially when an incentive is provided or people to sign up.Text-to-give undraising can also help an organization build its list. A ter making a donationto an organization, the donor receives a text message allowing him or her to opt-in to uturetexts messages.

Unsurprisingly, ast mobile list growth o ten translates into high list churn rates. The 2010benchmark annual mobile churn rate was 30.7%. One likely reason or the high mobile churnrate is the prominence o opt-out language. Industry best practices strongly encourage includingopt-out language regularly in text messages language that takes up a large percentage o amessage that contains only 160 characters to begin with. Another import ant actor contributingto churn is that whenever a text subscriber switches phone numbers, or keeps phone numbersbut switches carriers, he or she will be opted out o an organizations list automatically.

Advocacy Fundraising Go-to-web Informational

0.43%

0.92%

0.41%

0.54%

Unsubscribe Rates

OUTBOUND MESSAGINGOrganizations can use text messaging or a wide variety o purposes in addition to advocacy and

undraising. These other types o messaging may be purely in ormational, direct supporters to thewebsite, or prompt text responses rom subscribers about issues not directly related to advocacy.Among the organizations we studied, the benchmark messaging volume was 1.6 messages permonth.

The massive volume o text donations that owed to relie organizations in the wake o the Haitiearthquake in January 2010 demonstrated what makes mobile undraising so power ul: it allowspeople to give quickly and easily rom almost any location. However, despite the great success omobile undraising during the Haiti relie e orts, undraising via text messaging is still somethingo a work in progress. In addition to complicated rules or soliciting unds via text messaging, a$10 donation limit on mobile donations is a ar cry rom the $68 average donation to nonproftsin response to email solicitations.

Advocacy text messages are generally o two types: text petition and text-to-call. With text petitions,subscribers are asked to support an organization by responding with a given keyword (e.g.

PLEDGE). With text-to-call messages, subscribers are asked to call a target by either dialing aspecifc number or responding to the message with the word Call. The average petition responserate or study partners was 14.6% and the text-to-call response rate was 4.7% both signifcantlyhigher than equivalent metrics or email advocacy.

Text-to-call Petition

4.67%

14.64%

Advocacy Response Rates


26/27

51

2 0 1 0 e

N o n p r o

f t B e n c

h m a r k s

S t u d y

www.aarp.org

www.americanrightsatwork.org

www.care.org

www.fghtcolorectalcancer.org

www.c .org

www.de enders.org

www.diabeteshands oundation.org

www.earthjustice.org

www.easterseals.com

www.ed .org

www.greenpeace.org

www.humanesociety.org

www.hrc.org

www.theirc.org

www.komen.org

THANK YOU TO OUR NONPROFIT STUDY PARTNERS

www.lcv.org

www.naral.org

www.nmss.org

www.nw .org

www.oceana.org

www.ox amamerica.org

www.plannedparenthood.org

www.plannedparenthoodaction.org

www.planusa.org

www.railstotrails.org

www.savedar ur.org

www.saveourenvironment.org

www.si.edu

www.wilderness.org

www.t4america.org

www.unice .org

www.uan.org


27/27

METRICS FOR ONLINE ADVOCACY ANDFUNDRAISINGEMAILSOpen Rate Click-Through Rate Page CompletionRate Response Rate

All Sectors 14.26% 12.82% 4.65% 0.78% 80.08% 21.44% 4.00% 0.13%

Environmental 15.61% 12.71% 6.52% 0.83% 85.38% 22.81% 5.30% 0.14%

Health 13.63% 12.24% 3.28% 0.45% 72.53% 22.75% 2.45% 0.05%

International 13.63% 12.08% 3.78% 0.50% 78.08% 29.05% 3.31% 0.14%

Rights 12.87% 14.18% 4.65% 1.35% 86.49% 13.45% 4.09% 0.16%

All Sizes 14.26% 12.82% 4.65% 0.78% 80.08% 21.44% 4.00% 0.13%

Large 11.91% 11.49% 3.01% 0.66% 80.07% 20.97% 2.89% 0.11%

Medium 12.93% 11.44% 5.43% 0.54% 86.66% 23.20% 4.62% 0.08%

Small 20.46% 17.29% 5.60% 1.62% 60.39% 18.55% 4.19% 0.25%

METRICS FOR ONLINE REVENUE

Average Gift -One Time

Average Gift -Monthly

Share of Online RevenueOne-Time

Gifts Monthly Gifts Tribute Gifts Other

All Sectors $81.33 $24.25 78.39% 9.20% 4.07% 8.33%

Environmental $56.06 $21.12 95.67% 3.54% 0.79% 0%

Health $72.55 $24.82 49.61% 0.38% 10.21% 39.79%

International $135.60 $31.05 66.09% 25.58% 7.18% 1.15%

Rights $61.34 $18.87 79.68% 9.32% 2.57% 8.43%

2010 eNonpro t Benchmarks Study

2010_eNonprofit_Benchmarks_Study

Documents