Scrolling through my twitter feed the other day, I came across some research about charities failing to make an impact online. This intrigued me, so here are the main points in the report.
The foreword automatically got my attention, 47% of people abandon making their donation before they get to the end of the transaction. This is similar to the percentage of people that abandon their shopping basket, showing the importance of an engaging and intuitive donation journey.
Digital engagement is a phrase I seem to be hearing about more and I agree with the report it is something that charities need to be taking more seriously. Volunteers, supporters and donors want to feel connected to you and talk to your charity, this should never be forgotten. The top three opportunities highlighted are:
- Embracing social media
- Being mobile
- Moving away from the “traditional” donate model
An interesting line in the report is “charities need to stop copying and start learning about how donors actually behave online and this goes much deeper than reviewing Google Analytics reports.” This is an interesting point, but don’t we all learn by being inspired by what other charities/companies are doing and adapting it to our needs. However, I do agree that research needs to be done on understanding online behaviour, it goes far beyond what Google Analytics can provide you with.
The research was based on three charities Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Cancer Support and Marie Curie Cancer Care. The charity donation framework reminds me of member journey in my first marketing job at a gym and more recently the donor life cycle. Within the report it gives some good tips on how to engage, and nudge donations through having suggested amounts. It reminds me of the donor life cycle, because it remembers that fact you need to reward donors, by a simple thank you. This is something social media can definitely help with.
The outcomes of a charities work is something that people are increasingly wanting to know. The research suggests the Cancer Reserach UK website emphasis the urgent need for funding and what it goes towards is motivating donations. Brownie points to CRUK as this features on the website as a direct result of many visitors viewing the support us page before committing to the donation page- showing they listen to their audience. Whilst writing my dissertation one of the most interesting points that came out of my research was that everyone felt more comfortable with Dog Trust adverts, when compared with NSPCC for the simple reason they understood what their money was going to, although they felt strongly about both causes.
“During usability testing sessions, 67% of the participants commented that it is not clear why Marie Curie Cancer Care need donations.” I feel this reinforces the previous paragraph and the need to clearly state what your charity can achieve as a direct result of donations.
One of the recommendations for Macmillan is “showing social proof” so people like your Facebook page and this encourage their friends to donate to the charity. This raises some interesting points and I would be intrigued to see how this is achieved. Perhaps social media has its part to play in this by showing who has liked that page, a live twitter feed of donors, quotes from donors and so much more potential.
The report also highlights that CRUK now allow their donors to choose how their donations will be used. This seems to be something that more charities are starting to do with Children in Need doing this last year, with you being able to choose what area you wanted to support. I think this shows an increase in donors wanting to control what projects they fund and perhaps connects to how connected they feel towards that cause.
This report is full of some really useful insights and I would definitely recommend you read it for yourself and see how you can apply it to your charity. It can be found here.
