Volunteer Connect E-newsletter Market Research Survey

Prepared for: John Forsythe, Instructor & Michael Schwartz-Oscar, Executive Director

Prepared by: Laura Ankerson, Globe University

December 10, 2014

Table of Contents

Volunteer Connect E-newsletter Market Research Survey Report

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3

Background..........................................................................................................................3

Problem/Issue.......................................................................................................................3

Conclusion of Data..............................................................................................................4

Introduction......................................................................................................................................5

Methodology....................................................................................................................................6

Research design...................................................................................................................6

Data collection method........................................................................................................6

Target audience and Sampling Procedure............................................................................6

Results..................................................................................................................................7

Limitations.........................................................................................................................12

Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................................................................13

Conclusions........................................................................................................................13

Recommendations..............................................................................................................13

Appendix........................................................................................................................................14

Figure 1: Survey Questions for Volunteer Center E-Newsletter.......................................14

Figure 2: Coding Format for Volunteer Center Questionnaire..........................................16

2

Executive Summary

Background

The Volunteer Center of Brown County is a local non-profit organization that acts as the liaison between many non-profit organizations in the community and the members of the community who have an interest in or already are performing volunteer work.

The center has started a weekly electronic newsletter that is emailed to members of their database, this list includes interested persons, active volunteers, and paid employees of the various local non-profits.

Market research is being conducted to assess the use and utility of the weekly e-newsletter as scored by those who receive it via the newsletter’s recipient database. The target audience at this juncture are volunteers on one end of the spectrum and the organizations that need volunteers on the other end of the spectrum.

Problem/Issue

The e-newsletter was brainstormed, created, and implemented without prior market research to determine the attitudes or views of the intended target audience. The e-newsletter has been implemented and given 6-weeks to allow enough time for the target audience to form an opinion.

The first week it was emailed to 1,596 people and 522 opened the email. In week 6 it was emailed to 1,656 people and 492 opened the email. Last week was the 10th e-newsletter email and it was sent to 1,664 people and 419 opened the email. The e-newsletter started with a 32.7% open rate, by week 6 the open rate dropped to 29.7%, and as of week 10 the open rate was at 25.1%. This is an overall drop in open rates by 7.6 percentage points, a total of 23.3%.

The issue is declining open rates. The survey is intended to research if there is a significant drop in readership due to content or length of the e-newsletter. Respondents were given an open comment box to state why they chose an answer that reflected negatively on the survey. It will be these comments that will help guide recommendations based on the statistical data.

Determining if the declining open rates is a primary issue or a secondary one will depend on whether there is evidence to prove that volunteers view content, relevancy, length, and other factors differently than paid employees of NPOs. If there is a significant difference in responses from volunteers versus paid employees of NPOs then the decline in open rates is likely a result of the e-newsletter not meeting the needs of one or both target audiences. If the data proves there is a difference further review of the goals of the Volunteer Center’s e-newsletter will need to be evaluated, as well as the potential for adjustment to the intended audience being targeted.

3

Conclusion of Data

To better clarify the results of the data we will only be considering those that either declared themselves a paid employee of a non-profit organization or a volunteer; we will not include data from those who declared other or declined to answer.

A Chi-Squared test was performed on the following three aspects of statistical data:1. How many e-newsletter did you actually read?2. Is the content relevant to your needs?3. Is the length of the e-newsletter acceptable?

Stating the hypothesis for null, meaning no difference in the reading habits and opinions of paid employees of non-profits and volunteers; or the alternative hypothesis, meaning there is a difference in the reading habits and opinions of paid employees of non-profits and volunteers, would look like this

A. The null hypothesis is our desired result; a. H0: π ≤ 0.

B. The alternative hypothesis is the opposite; a. Ha: π > 0.

C. We will assume that the null hypothesis is correct unless our evidence against it is compelling.

D. If the null hypothesis is not correct then further research may need to be performed to determine where the differences are greatest and a more detailed review of the proper target audience may be necessary.

The results of the Chi-Squared tests conclude in all three tests that the alternative hypothesis is true. This means that paid employees of non-profits and volunteers clearly read a different quantity of the e-newsletters, they both have different ideas of what relevant content is, and they both have different ideas of what is an acceptable length for the e-newsletter.

4

Introduction

The Volunteer Center of Brown County has been assisting with recruitment of members of the local community to fill the volunteer needs of non-profit organizations throughout Brown County for over 25 years.

In September 2014 Michael Schwartz-Oscar took over as Executive Director and it is his vision to bring the Volunteer Center into the 21st century through various online methods. There is real financial savings to be gained through reducing paper consumption, printing costs, and postage fees by utilizing electronic connection methods to reach potential volunteers and non-profits.

The most recent addition to the Volunteer Center’s electronic presence has been the implementation of an electronic newsletter that is delivered weekly and contains information about volunteer opportunities, fundraising events, and material needs of non-profits called Wishlists, and two special features, one to highlight a volunteer and one to highlight a local non-profit.

This market research has the intended purpose of gauging the e-newsletter’s reach, effectiveness, and overall usefulness. The results of this survey will be used to improve the Volunteer Connect e-newsletter and provide a benchmark measure by which to calculate whether any changes made impact the effectiveness positively or not. This report will focus on quantity of newsletters read, attitude on content, and length of format.

5

Methodology

Research Design

Prior to the start of the weekly e-newsletter there was no exploratory research conducted, the purpose of this survey is to address both descriptive and causal research to find out the following:

1. Is there a unique group of recipients that are reading many, if not all, the weekly e-newsletters?

2. Is there a particular feature within the content that readers like more than others, or is there one they dislike more than anything else?

3. Is the length of the newsletter acceptable and is the content relevant to their needs?a. There is an opportunity for open ended commentary pertaining to low scoring

answers and these will be reviewed on a qualitative basis only.

Data Collection Method

The survey questions were created (see example in Appendix page 14) and presented for review to the staff of the Volunteer Center. Revisions, corrections, suggestions, and clarifications were made and the survey was approved by the Executive Director, Michael Schwartz-Oscar.

The actual survey was created online via www.constantcontact.com where the e-newsletter is created and published weekly. The online version was then sent via link for testing to the staff members where once again there were revisions, corrections, suggestions, and clarifications; final approval for live publishing was given by the executive director again.

The survey was emailed to everyone on the e-newsletter recipient list on December 2, 2014 and results were taken until December 11, 2014. There were 97 total responses, 91 completed surveys, and 6 partial surveys (these were not counted in the statistics) out of 1,707 surveys sent out. That is a response rate of 5.68%, which is quite low by industry standards; however, the completion rate was 93.8%, which is very high by industry standards.

Target Audience and Sampling Procedure

Currently the target audience is the complete list of recipients listed in the email database, the sample size included everyone on this list. The data being analyzed is random within the sample and everyone on the list had an equal opportunity to participate in the survey and share their opinion. There is a Quota Sample aspect to this because the recipients were the only target, and since both volunteers and paid employees of NPOs are the foundation for the research the sample size may be small, but participation from both audiences were very close to even.

6

Results

Three Pivot tables were created and a corresponding Chi-Square test was performed comparing the variable in question to answers given by both target audiences. We will discuss each pivot table and Chi-Square test separately.

The first analyzes data from Paid Employees of NPOs and Volunteers regarding how many of the 6 e-newsletters sent did they actually read.

How many e-newsletters out of 6 did you read?Count of Q3.1 Column Labels

Row LabelsPaid

Employee VolunteerGrand Total

Qty read 1 7 5 12Qty read 2 5 6 11Qty read 3 7 4 11Qty read 4 4 7 11Qty read 5 4 2 6Qty read 6 6 12 18

Grand Total 33 36 69

In this table it appears that there is a fairly even distribution between those who read only one newsletter compared to those who read all six in the Paid employee column. On the other hand, in the Volunteer column the number of people who read all six newsletters was dramatically higher than the number of people who read three or fewer.

When the data is put into the Chi-Square test structure the differences are made apparent when comparing the actual data (number of people who read a particular quantity) versus the expected number of people who would read each quantity if there was no difference between the groups.

IF NO DIFFERENCEActual Data Collected Expected Data based on %

Paid Employee

Volunteer Total

% of Total

Paid Employee Volunteer

Read 1 7 5 12 0.17391 5.739130435 6.260869565 Alternative TrueRead 2 5 6 11 0.15942 5.260869565 5.739130435 Alternative TrueRead 3 7 4 11 0.15942 5.260869565 5.739130435 Alternative TrueRead 4 4 7 11 0.15942 5.260869565 5.739130435 Alternative TrueRead 5 4 2 6 0.08696 2.869565217 3.130434783 Alternative TrueRead 6 6 12 18 0.26087 8.608695652 9.391304348 Alternative TrueTotal 33 36 69 1.00000

7

By taking the total number of people who read each quantity and dividing it by the total number of responses we find the expected percentage of people in the total email list that should be reading each quantity. Without rounding the numbers we should expect to see 17.4% read 1 newsletter, 15.9% read 2, 3, or 4 newsletters, 8.7% read 5 newsletters, and 26.1% read all 6 newsletters (*there is a ±0.1% difference).

However, the results we actually get are that an equal or higher number of Paid employees of NPOs are reading 3 or fewer newsletters than is expected and less than expected numbers of Paid employees are reading 4 or more newsletters.

The results for Volunteers are the opposite and we see that fewer than expected are reading 3 or fewer newsletters and more than expected are reading 4 or more newsletters.

What we can tell from this is that the alternative hypothesis is true and there is a difference between the groups when it comes to reading the newsletter. Should the goal of the newsletter be re-evaluated to become more attractive to Paid employees of NPOs or should the target audience be re-evaluated to focus more directly on the needs of the volunteer?

8

The second analyzes data from Paid Employees of NPOs and Volunteers on whether the content of the newsletter was relevant to them.

Is the content relevant?Count of Q8.1 Column Labels

Row LabelsPaid

EmployeeVoluntee

rGrand Total

Always 1 2 13 15Often 2 16 14 30Sometimes 3 12 8 20Rarely 4 2 1 3Never 5 1 1

Grand Total 33 36 69

In this table it appears the distribution is more centralized in each group, but the Paid employees find the length less agreeable than the Volunteers who rated it heavily in the Always and Often categories.

When the data is put into the Chi-Square test structure the differences are made apparent when comparing the actual data (number of people felt the content was relevant: Always or Often; neutral; or unacceptable: Rarely or Never) versus the expected number of people who would feel that way if there was no difference between the groups.

IF NO DIFFERENCEActual Data Collected Expected Data based on %

Paid Employee Volunteer Total

% of Total

Paid Employee Volunteer

Always 2 13 15 0.21739 7.173913043 7.826086957 Alternative TrueOften 16 14 30 0.43478 14.34782609 15.65217391 Alternative TrueSometimes 12 8 20 0.28986 9.565217391 10.43478261 Alternative TrueRarely 2 1 3 0.04348 1.434782609 1.565217391 Alternative TrueNever 1 1 0.01449 0.47826087 0.52173913 Alternative TrueTotal 33 36 69 1.00000

By taking the total number of people who chose an answer equating to relevant (Always and Often), neutral (Sometimes), or irrelevant (Rarely or Never) and dividing it by the total number of responses we find the expected percentage of people in the total email list that should find the newsletter content relevant, neutral, or irrelevant. Without rounding the numbers we should expect to see 65.2% find the content is relevant, 29% that are neutral in that Sometimes the content is relevant, and 5.8% that find the content irrelevant.

9

However, the results we actually get are that fewer numbers of Paid employees of NPOs find the content relevant than was expected and higher numbers of Volunteers find the content relevant than was expected.

What we can tell from this is that the alternative hypothesis is true and there is a difference between the groups when it comes to the relevant content of the newsletter. Should the content be altered to appeal to more Paid employees of NPOs or should the target audience for the newsletter be re-evaluated to focus more on the needs of volunteers?

10

The third and final pivot table analyzes data from Paid Employees of NPOs and Volunteers on whether the length of the newsletter was acceptable.

Is the length of the e-newsletter acceptable?Count of Q7.1 Column Labels

Row LabelsPaid

EmployeeVoluntee

rGrand Total

Always 1 8 18 26Often 2 16 15 31Sometimes 3 7 3 10Rarely 4Never 5 2 2

Grand Total 33 36 69

In this table it appears the distribution is more centralized in each group, but the Paid employees find the length less agreeable than the Volunteers who rated it heavily in the Always and Often categories.

When the data is put into the Chi-Square test structure the differences are made apparent when comparing the actual data (number of people felt the length was acceptable: Always or Often; neutral; or unacceptable: Rarely or Never) versus the expected number of people who would feel that way if there was no difference between the groups.

IF NO DIFFERENCEActual Data Collected Expected Data based on %

Paid Employee

Volunteer Total

% of Total

Paid Employee Volunteer

Always 8 18 26 0.37681 12.4347826

1 13.56521739 Alternative True

Often 16 15 31 0.44928 14.8260869

6 16.17391304 Alternative TrueSometimes 7 3 10 0.14493

4.782608696 5.217391304 Alternative True

Rarely 0 0.00000 0 0 Null

Never 2 2 0.02899 0.95652173

9 1.043478261 Alternative TrueTotal 33 36 69 1.00000

By taking the total number of people who chose an answer equating to acceptable (Always and Often), neutral (Sometimes), or unacceptable (Rarely or Never) and dividing it by the total number of responses we find the expected percentage of people in the total email list that should find the newsletter length acceptable, neutral, or unacceptable. Without rounding the numbers we

11

should expect to see 82.6% find the length acceptable, 14.5% that are neutral in that Sometimes the length is acceptable, and 2.9% that find the length unacceptable.

However, the results we actually get are that fewer numbers of Paid employees of NPOs find the length acceptable than was expected and higher numbers of Volunteers find the length acceptable than was expected.

What we can tell from this is that the alternative hypothesis is true and there is a difference between the groups when it comes to the relevant content of the newsletter. Should the length be altered to appeal to more Paid employees of NPOs or should the target audience for the newsletter be re-evaluated to focus more on the needs of volunteers?

Limitations

There are numerous limitations to this research, first and foremost being the limited sample size and the small number of responses within that sample size. Another limitation is that because this was an email survey there is no primary conversation happening with the respondent to prod for more information or dig deeper for qualitative information. The survey does provide an opportunity for the respondent to elaborate on their answers, but it was not made a required question for completion.

Questions with a range of values were sure to not overlap answers (example Q13.1 Age range, see survey in Appendix page 14); however, they were given a null option if they declined to give that information. The statistics used in this report used data from respondents that declared their association with a non-profit as either a Paid employee or a Volunteer, this reduced the number of input records by 20 respondents but it was necessary to quantify the results between the two groups.

Another limitation the survey had was that all questions had explicit and clear choices for answers and all these were required in order for the survey to be considered complete. If someone did not complete all required questions the survey results would not be included in any analysis. This was the case with 6 survey responses, that data was not used in the test.

12

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between Paid employees of NPOs and Volunteers. The Alternative hypothesis was the opposite, that there is a significant difference between these two groups.

In all three tests the data showed there is a difference between the groups. Volunteers read more of the newsletters than the Paid employees. Volunteers felt the content was more relevant to their needs than Paid employees, and they also felt that the length of the newsletter was acceptable more often than Paid employees.

The results conclude there is a distinct difference between these two groups and that distinction needs to be considered in all recommendations.

Recommendations

It is recommended that further evaluation should be performed on the proper target audience for the e-newsletter based on the goals of the Volunteer Center to recruit more volunteers. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the e-newsletter should cater more to the likes and expectations of volunteers instead of the non-profit organizations if the goal is higher recruitment of volunteers in the community.

Additionally, volunteers rated the length of the newsletter and the content relevancy higher than the paid employees of non-profits, from which we can draw the conclusion that the featured sections of content ranked by volunteers in order of “Favorite” to “Least Favorite” should be looked at more closely to ensure that the content is geared to attracting more volunteers.

Open ended comments need to be looked at individually and assessed for validity by the staff at the Volunteer Center. It is also important to note that some comments were neutral or suggestive in nature and those ideas should be reviewed also.

Overall, the newsletter meets the needs of Volunteers much better than it does the needs of Paid employees of NPOs, therefore it is also recommended that marketing efforts should be focused on potential volunteers in the community, while utilizing the non-profit’s needs as the foundation of relevant information. Review the ranking of content sections and adjust them to better suit Volunteers since that is the objective behind what the Volunteer Center’s mission is in the community.

13

Appendix

FIGURE 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR VOLUNTEER CENTER E-NEWSLETTERThis is a quick 10 minute survey to assess the new weekly e-newsletter, Volunteer Connect, distributed by the Volunteer Center of Brown County. We appreciate your time. Your feedback is vital to our goal of meeting the needs of both the non-profit organizations in our community and the volunteers and donors who support them. We hope that you will take a few minutes of your time to answer the survey so we may continue to improve and support your needs. Thank you.

There have been 6 editions of the Volunteer Connect weekly e-newsletter, please answer the following:

1. How many do you recall receiving? 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. How many did you click to open?1 2 3 4 5 6

3. How many did you actually read?1 2 3 4 5 6

4. There are 5 main content sections in the e-newsletter, please rank them in order from your favorite to your least favorite section to read, where FAVORITE = 1 and LEAST FAVORITE = 5. ___Volunteer of the Week

___Volunteer Opportunities ___Community Partner Wishlists

___Upcoming Fundraisers & Events___Community Partner Spotlight

5. Do you use the interactive Table of Contents links to navigate directly to the content you’re interested in?

a. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never6. Do you find the interactive Table of Contents helpful in navigating the e-newsletter?

a. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never7. Is the length of the e-newsletter acceptable?

a. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never8. Is the content of the e-newsletter relevant to your needs?

a. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never9. How often have you volunteered for a non-profit because you saw their need in this e-

newsletter?a. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

10. How often do you share this e-newsletter with others?a. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

***If you answered “Rarely” or “Never” to any of the previous questions please choose the one that is most important and share with us why you chose your answer. ____________________________________________________________________________

14

11. Please indicate whether you have interacted with the Volunteer Center in the following ways:

a. Visiting the office Yes No Unaware of this optionb. Telephone Yes No Unaware of this optionc. Email Yes No Unaware of this optiond. Website Yes No Unaware of this optione. Facebook Yes No Unaware of this optionf. LinkedIn Yes No Unaware of this optiong. Twitter Yes No Unaware of this optionh. YouTube Yes No Unaware of this optioni. Pinterest Yes No Unaware of this option

12. Gender designationMale Female Decline to answer

13. Age range18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Decline to answer

14. Employment statusStudent Employed outside of home Self-employedCurrently not working Retired Decline to answer

15. How are you associated with a non-profit organization?Paid employee Desire employment VolunteerDesire to volunteer Receiver of services None of these

16. Would you like to receive more information?Yes, both volunteer & non-profit Yes, volunteer optionsYes, specific non-profit Maybe, I’ll contact youNo, I am not interested Decline to answer

15

FIGURE 2: CODING FORMAT FOR VOLUNTEER CENTER QUESTIONNAIRE

Question Numbers

Coding

1 - 3 1 = 12 = 23 = 34 = 45 = 56 = 6

4 1 = Favorite2 = |3 = |4 = |5 = Least Favorite

5 - 10 1 = Always2 = Often3 = Sometimes4 = Rarely5 = Never

11.1 – 11.9 0 = Unaware of this option1 = No2 = Yes

12 0 = Decline to answer1 = Female2 = Male

13 0 = Decline to answer1 = 18 – 242 = 25 – 343 = 35 – 444 = 45 – 545 = 55+

14 0 = Decline to answer1 = Student2 = Employed outside of home3 = Self-employed4 = Currently not working5 = Retired

15 0 = Decline to answer1 = Paid employee2 = Desire employment3 = Volunteer4 = Desire to volunteer5 = Receiver of Services

16 0 = Decline to answer1 = Yes, both2 = Yes, volunteer3 = Yes, non-profit

16

4 = Maybe5 = No, not interested

17