Reaching Out to Donors of Other Faiths

2003 National Catholic

Development ConferenceLos Angeles, CASeptember 30, 2003

Kevin Whorton, Director Direct Response FundraisingCatholic Relief ServicesBaltimore, Maryland

Overview

Why Pursue “Other Faiths”…

Two simple answers:

We appeal to non-Catholics

We need to appeal to other non-Catholics

Our Appeal to non-Catholics

The sensibilities of Catholic Social Teaching Common sense appeal

Dignity and equality of the Human Person Rights and responsibilities Social nature of humanity The common good Subsidiarity Solidarity Option (concern) for the poor Stewardship

Very key issues that appeal equally to non-Catholics

Evidence of Our Appeal

Our founding: Eastern Europe after World War II

Our donor base: 94% Catholic (Epsilon profile in 1999)

Still name recognition issues Tempting to conclude that it reduces our appeal in

some sectors Program expansion hindered

Poor performance with Hispanics Odd program structure

$28-$32 average acquisition gift $140 average value per donor per year

Our Culture

Diversity We work in more than 90 countries

Most of our field staff are “national”—from that nationWe work closely with partners in all of our work, entities

in that nation including Caritas Staff are very mixed

Catholic, other Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim Many are historically “field people” (However Catholics hold the most senior positions

within countries and Baltimore) Language, attitude of economic development

In many ways, seems stronger than faith or Catholic Social Teaching

Facing the

Challenges

External Challenges

Continually a more crowded field Non-Catholic organizations are successfully mining

territory No longer the “franchise” that once existed Breakeven results on program

Hard to expand outside Catholics Working in a tough space: development organization that

sounds religious Very few advantages, many disadvantages of structure Media/public image Relationship for government funding

Works with many religious partners in the field (e.g., Caritas) More of a focus on cooperation within the community

Avoid redundancy, maximize efficiency of operation

Internal Challenges

Attitudes Distrust of “junk mail and telemarketing” Budget and staffing cutbacks in current environment

(due primarily to public funding) Inadequate access to internal information

Yet, a strong program Good renewal rates

Recently, poor conversion rates of new donors Loss of 10 percentage points on renewal Loss greater at the low dollar, core remains strong

Integrated Marketing within CRS

Outreach Across Channels: Fundraising

Corporate We apply social screens which sharply reduces

the range of organizations we can work with Sharply curtailed in-kind giving long ago

Foundations Work with some small family foundations Many of the FADICA list were not “prospects” Some of our goals are large, secular (e.g. Gates)

Major gifts/planned giving Strong Catholic focus

However, performance historically lags behind direct response

Outreach Across Channels: Awareness Raising

Marketing We apply social screens which sharply reduces the

range of organizations we can work with Sharply curtailed in-kind giving long ago

Advertising Worked closely with a mix of commercial and Catholic

publications in four test markets/SMSA Proven effect on fundraising: negative

Poor readership of diocesan publications Increase in aided/unaided awareness Slight increase in response rate, lower average gifts

Media Considerable focus on Catholic publications Need to maintain broader-based readership

Outreach Across Channels: Integrated Marketing

Web Much younger approach

Future vehicle for “the right donor” Key to new acquisition Best method for approaching non-Catholics Tie-ins (Hungersite) Advocasy Content management initiative (micro-sites)

Also allows focus on “dual constituencies” Communicate to donors who care about an issue Communicate to programs about what donors want/like

Outreach Across Channels: Church/U.S. Operations

Integrating agency strategy Potential challenge: “social justice” lens

Marketing department challenges view Conflicts with opinion research:

Positioning study Segmentation study

Both document less than supportive attitudes Conflict: “what works” vs. “where we’re going”

Our position: “dual constituency” provides an umbrella A way to help donors organize how they think about us Hurts short term, should support long-term results

Direct Marketing

Program

Evidence from Our Testing

Confusing mix: We tested several packages successful enough to retest Our standard control (six years running)

Double buckslip, not much personalization Mission oriented text No premium

“Gold angel token” Very similar package, but using token as attention-getter

“Urgent letter” Traditional letter format, more text explaining what we do Different external appearance/teaser

Evidence from Our Testing: Package Comparison

A B C

# Mailed 364,945 150,000 50,000

% Response 0.71% 1.23% 0.77%

Average Gift $36.48 $23.73 $55.52

Rev/M $257.26 $292.99 $424.76

CPDR $1.38 $1.54 $0.93

A: New Refugee ControlB: Control with Gold Angel TokenC: Urgent Letter Package

Audience Selections

Mailing lists Two separate brokers

One for our “Catholic” track One newer for “international” (secular) lists The latter still performs poorly—

Response rates are roughly 60% that of Catholic lists Average gifts are comparable, if a bit higher Cost per dollar raised varies campaign to campaign “International lists” are generally Catholic selections of

lists of people chosen for non-religious behavior

Considerable use of modeling

Ethnic Marketing Programs

Abandoned early Spanish language approach Dismal results, impossible to justify as an “investment” Premium sensitive people

New: present CRS activities targeted to interests Developed first prospect package for Korean-American

audiences Colors, content, photographs all reflect Korean programs Careful introduction to donations, charities, unrestricted gifts

Branch more into international Pro: Appeal, strong results among other orgs Con: Many peer organizations are already there Relationships:

Historically constrained by Caritas relationships Practical: many are sophisticated fundraisers …

Our Message

How We Describe CRS

Historical perspective Established 1943 as War Relief Services International Relief and Development Agency Assist needy in more than 90 countries

worldwide Program areas include

Agriculture Civil justice Child survival Small loan programs HIV/AIDS Education Emergency relief Health

Insight Driving Our Marketing

Positioning Study (Wirthlin Worldwide)

“Where we are” in the minds of donors 90 two-hur interviews with major, minor,

prospective donors Laddering: taking a participant’s comment and

asking WHY more to probe Often a method used to assess the brand mindset:

defining CRS according awareness/attitudes of donor

Concerns: “Urban legends” and “pooled ignorance”!

Positioning Map: Relief Organizations

Religious

Secular

Domestic International

Other Axis Options

Relief/Development

Child/Adult

Specialized/General

Catholic

Charities

International Red CrossUNICEF

CRSLWR

World Vision

CARE

Salvation Army

WR

Save The Children

Peace Corps

SVDP

Copy Issues

Developing more “first person” stories

Added staff in Nairobi/Johannesburg Better relationships with field staff Easier stories, sometimes as simple as writing back to sitrep

(situation report) authors

Becoming more “granular” in our approach Raising money for specific causes Better balance between restricted and unrestricted Adding capacity to do small volume, topical

mailings/campaigns

Design Issues

Typical packages Crowded, everything “tests in”

Devout inserts—prayer cards Tests of Mass cards work well

Often some pushback internally Fortunately, considerable autonomy on copy, business

decisions Loath to feature: flies, famine, undignified portrayals

Ongoing concern: CRS is very well respected in development world Yes, aura dims with our target audiences How to make it convey? How to make audiences relate to us and the need?

In Conclusion

Focusing On

What We Control