deconstructing integration (and how to put it all together for best results) - redengine digital...

!

Deconstructing Integration (and How to Put It All Together for Best Results)

Olga Woltman, Director, Online Giving, Special Olympics Liz Murphy, Founder, RedEngine Digital

#Bridge14 @redengine @lizred

!

!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

BRAND

DONOR EXPERIENCE

TECHNOLOGY & DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

!

Staffing Structure

Is there an ideal? •  The standard model

•  Digital & DM together makes sense/ the new norm

•  What about social and mobile? Who should they belong to?

•  Do mobile and web analytics belong in IT or direct response?

•  SEO, the website?

Executive Level

Communications/Marketing

Direct Response/

Digital IT Events

!

Staffing Structure

At SOI, Direct Response has always resided in a single department reporting into the same person (mail, phone, digital, legacy giving, donor services)

Why it works •  Shared goals

•  Day-to-day awareness and collaboration

•  Lends itself to integration across a lot of other key elements

Potential Pitfalls

•  Conserted efforts to integrate and collaborate with communications & marketing teams, key areas for digital channel

•  Leader sets the tone – which can be key to success, or not.

!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

BRAND

DONOR EXPERIENCE

TECHNOLOGY & DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

!

Budgeting & Revenue

Why it works •  Shared goals, removes barriers to

collaboration

•  Not worrying about who owns the money, we are channel agnostic

Potential Pitfalls

•  Individual accountability is still important

•  Requires a cultural shift at every level

BUDGETS ARE

AWESOME

!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

BRAND

DONOR EXPERIENCE

TECHNOLOGY & DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

!

Integrated Direct Marketing Program

•  Long history of collaboration with chapters •  Centrally managed direct response •  Phased approach

•  Channel-agnostic revenue sharing model

!

Shared Revenue

(Net)

!

Why It Works

•  Shared commitment to mission •  Successful program, cost-efficiencies and revenue,

the impact of not working together is too great •  Voluntary participation and greater capabilities

•  Managed with the help of advisory group •  Credibility built over many years

•  Treating chapters as client: reporting, responsiveness, accountability

•  Clear (contractual) expectations and processes

!

•  There can be scary revenue risks •  Going after the “sacred cows” •  Digital channels can be controversial

•  Attachment to existing metrics •  Cannot anticipate every scenario -- or every

personality •  Making changes too quickly or mandating

participation •  Increased program management complexity

Pitfalls

!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

BRAND

DONOR EXPERIENCE

TECHNOLOGY & DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

!

• Mess of marks to be inserted here…

!

Brand: Bringing it all together

!

Clear Brand Hierarchy

Why it works •  Clarity of the brand helps amplify the voice and helps

organization stand out (including in the mind of the donor)

Potential Pitfalls •  A long and complex journey to bring all the pieces

together and, over time, complete transition •  Possible negative impact on revenue

•  Brand vision that does not resonate with donor audience

!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

BRAND

DONOR EXPERIENCE

TECHNOLOGY & DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

!

Why Integrated?

•  Because Target, Walmart, Best Buy does it. Why not your org?

•  It’s a user turnoff if your messaging, offers, brand experience are not aligned

•  Consumers expect and want it

18 / Special Olympics

!

Consumers Say “Integrate!”

Source: MyBuys and e-retailing surveys via Steve Olenski

!

Consider Consumption Trends

!

Purchase Influences Differ with Generations & Type of Purchase

!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

BRAND

DONOR EXPERIENCE

TECHNOLOGY & DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

!

Must Get Rid of the Data Silos

•  If the engagement and transaction history of each customer could be tracked across all these interaction paths, then we’d have a 360-degree view of the customer.

OFFLINE DATA

DIGITAL DATA

CALL CENTER DATA

SOCIAL DATA

!

•  LTV •  Source coding strategy & beyond •  Chart your data flow – what,

when, where – visually •  CRM, CMS, Social Media, Web

Analytics – capture and pass back data (unique IDs), then move into donor database

•  For full picture of channel interaction, “tag” all interactions

All About the Backend

Copyright Creative Commons

!

Still Major Obstacles

•  “New” digital interactions (display ad viewthroughs) •  Limitations of legacy donor databases •  Technical workarounds to include granular sourcing

(ie., digital is not just one channel from investment perspective)

•  Time and money to redo data synchs •  Adjustments for new CRM data changes

•  Major expense and time undertaking


!

Other Obstacles

•  “It’s an IT project.” Requires multi-departmental group (including fundraisers) to identify data capture, mapping and reporting needs

•  Lack of pre-planned training and education for teams and partners

•  Accessibility for cross-departmental team members and partners

•  Others you’ve encountered?


!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

TECHNOLOGY

BRAND

MESSAGING

DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

Communication Matrix: Channels & Programs

!

Shared Outlook or Google Calendar

Courtesy of Humane Society of US

!

Campaign Calendars

•  Alignment of key channels & alignment across departments

!

Year-End Coordination with Programs

•  Ongoing communication throughout planning •  Shared materials and schedule to help align efforts

!

Channels & Timing

Why it works •  To a donor, cause is a single entity

•  Alignment helps take in consideration needs across departments and teams

•  In the process, we are able to identify opportunities

•  Accept that calendar is not perfect or final

Potential Pitfalls

•  Online & offline planning occurs at different points, requires deliberate effort to align

•  Time & fineness are required to build commitment

•  Trying to create a perfect tool that meets all needs

!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

TECHNOLOGY

BRAND

MESSAGING

DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

Competition

•  Organizational priorities and programs •  How do you balance competing revenue goals per

month, per year? (Events, public awareness) •  Inter-departmental calendar and coordination

•  More integration organizationally? •  Are you competing in the mail and online with

chapters? •  Add that to your external competitors


!

Bonus Tip

•  When working with chapters, consider forming an advisory group (including nay-sayers) to help define the new program. Giving stakeholders a sense of ownership is key to getting the buy-in.


!

INTEGRATION

STAFFING STRUCTURE

BUDGETING & REVENUE

ORGANIZATION

TECHNOLOGY

BRAND

MESSAGING

DATA

CHANNELS & TIMING

COMPETITION

ATTRIBUTION

!

ATTRIBUTION IS HARD!!!!

WHAT IMPACT DO ONLINE MARKETING ACTIONS HAVE ON OFFLINE GIVING?

What role does remarketing play in conversions?

DO

ES A

CQ

UISITIO

N

MA

IL DR

IVE G

IVING

ON

LINE?

What is the donor LTV

based on origin channel?

How many of CPC donors

are newly acquired versus

renewed?

!

Must Understand the Consumer Multi-Device Buying Path, Too

Doesn’t account for Direct Mail, print, phone, other

!

Omni-Channel Measurement Is the Biggest Challenge

To identify the optimal marketing mix and investment, you have to know how the aggregate effect of the channels, NOT just measure each individually.

!

How Is A Channel Assisting Other?


Source: Google

!

Google Analtyics Channel Groupings

!

Campaign Goals & Measurement

•  Identify, set up and tag your data sources and paths to conversion– ‣  Goals, attribution,

assisted conversions

by source, event tagging, etc.

!

Universal Analytics (new upgrade from GA) allows you to see cross-device behavior and combo of devices per transaction and revenue


!

Evaluating Multi-Channel Investment


Source: Google

!

Google (UA) Attribution Model


!

Changes Your View


Source: Eric Tsai

!

Back to Data Integration

•  Acquisition match back •  CRM match back •  How to identify new donors, monthly

upgrades, value of view throughs •  Channel interaction and investment


!

Connecting Offline & Online Audiences

•  Special Olympics EOY Facebook Custom Audience Test •  Facebook CRM ads targeting direct mail donors, lapsed donors and non-

donors during EOY matching gift campaign •  Test Group A featured donors who received a Matching Gift direct mail

package AND were served Facebook ads •  Test Group B included lapsed donors and non-donors who received a non-

Matching Gift direct mail piece AND were served Facebook ads •  Match rate from Facebook was 50%

•  DM lapsed and non-donors who saw FB ads (test) and who did not see ads (control)

•  153% ROI with online gifts only for donor group, plus small gift increase in mail

•  FB ads lifted avg gift in mail for lapsed/non-donors by nearly 20% and generated 21% more revenue than DM group who did not see ads.

•  CARE BB360 •  Lifted avg gift by 24% •  Increased revenue by 30%

!

Facebook EOY CRM Retargeting

•  Facebook CRM ads targeting direct mail donors, lapsed donors and non-donors

•  Test Group A featured donors who received a Matching Gift direct mail package AND were served Facebook ads

•  Test Group B included lapsed donors and non-donors who received a non-Matching Gift direct mail piece AND were served Facebook ads

•  2 Control groups (donor and non) who did not see Facebook ads

!

Facebook EOY CRM Retargeting

•  For donors, FB ads generated 153% ROI with online gifts, plus small avg gift increase in mail

•  For non-donors, FB ads lifted avg gift in mail by nearly 20% and generated 21% more revenue than DM group who did not see ads. for every $1 spent online, we raised $8.50 in the mail.

• Match rate from Facebook was 50%

!

ADA Integrated Email & DM


Direct Mail Donors Pre-Email

Direct Mail Donors Post-Email

!

ADA Matching Gift Campaign

•  2-email series to 20,000 direct mail donors – two segments

•  4-email series to house file and DM donors got emails #2-4 (suppressed from email #1)

•  Pre- and post-emails integrated with direct mail campaign (DM included GA tagged vanity url for online donations) ‣  Pre-email sent March 5 ‣  Direct mail in home March 8-15 ‣  Post email sent March 19

!

A $20K Surprising Result! •  Small return via email and 5% lift in DM giving •  BUT $20,105 attributable revenue came in via the

vanity URL donation form •  DM donors who received emails were 3x more likely to

give online and give a gift 32% higher than those who didn’t receive emails

•  Many first-time online gifts from this group

!

Email was a huge influencer

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

3/8/2013 3/15/2013 3/22/2013 3/29/2013 4/5/2013 4/12/2013 4/20/2013 4/28/2013 5/6/2013 5/14/2013

Number of Dona7ons via Vanity URL by Date

3/15/2013 Direct Mail in home date (mailed

3/2/2013)

3/19/2013 Post Direct Mail Email

4/17/2013 Email #2 Deploys

5/1/2013 Email #3 Deploys

!

Thank you!

Questions? Olga Woltman, [email protected]

Liz Murphy, [email protected]

Don’t forget to visit the Solutions Showcase!

Many of the ideas discussed today are on display at the

Solutions Showcase!

#Bridge14