Unrequited LoveA study on the early UK university non-alumni donor experience

In a remarkable demonstration of their belief, every [donor] has put their hands in their pockets and freely

given of their own money to meet a need, help an ideal or achieve a dream. In doing so, each donor invests a part of himself or herself. His commitment has been

demonstrated. It is a very tangible thing.

“

”Ken Burnett, Relationship Fundraising

Holly Palmer and Lee Durbin, Holly Palmer Consulting

Purpose of this studyWe sought to investigate what non-alumni donors to UK higher education institutions (HEIs) experience when they give a small gift, and to identify our industry strengths and weaknesses with welcoming and engaging new donors.

This study gathered information about the components of the early donor experience and determined what a typical welcome journey looks like. It includes an anonymised assessment of the experience based on established best-practice.

Executive summary• Having ‘mystery shopped’ 15 HEIs from a range

of mission groups, we found concerning incon-sistencies in the online donation journey and welcome experience, particularly regarding what many in the industry would otherwise consider to be the minimum standards.

• Evidence of a predominantly ‘transactional’ approach to fundraising was identified, with very few institutions indicating a desire to estab-lish an ongoing relationship by seeking and responding to the donor’s needs, motivations and preferences through two-way communica-tions.

• There was no strong connection between an HEI’s mission group and the quality of the donor experience, except in the online donation journey where University Alliance were ranked lower overall than the Russell Group and Former 1994 institutions.

• Many institutions were unwelcoming to non-alumni donors through designing online journeys that would be difficult for non-grad-uates to navigate. Three institutions further reinforced this ‘closed shop’ position through a failure to consider the status of the donor as a non-alum after the gift was made.

• While most institutions were successful in connecting the donor to the cause in both the online donation journey and subsequent thank-you letters, with a few creating truly memorable welcome communications, our overall impression is that most HEIs are likely to be missing out on the increased sustainability and growth that can be achieved through a greater emphasis on consistent and donor-cen-tric welcome journeys.

BackgroundThe Commission on the Donor Experience was established in late 2015 to help improve fundraising practices in the UK through placing the donor at the heart of every fundraising organisation. The catalyst for the Commission’s creation was the negative news stories of the summer of 2015 and the questionable activities that charities were seen to be undertaking (Burnett, “Where now for fundraising?”).

Nearly two years has passed since this negative media coverage, and almost 18 months has passed since Sir Stuart Etherington published his report calling for (among other things) increased regulation. More recently two of the largest mainstream charities in the UK, Cancer Research UK and The Royal National Lifeboat Institute, have recognised the need for change by committing to an opt-in approach to fundraising. The Children’s Society has also acknowledged the need for change by adopting an entirely different philo-sophical approach to the business of raising money, committing to a set of “firm, principled, and positive actions” (Rowling). It is therefore timely to explore how the Higher Education Industry (HEI) is faring in its approach to fundraising.

If the early donor experience was not already strong with HEIs, there are certainly fewer justifications in an environment of increased scrutiny and with more information available than ever about what makes a best-practice donor experience.

2

Why the early non-alumni donor experience is worthy of attention

Why the early donor experience?

The need to have a quality donor experi-ence, particularly at its outset, is important for maintaining donor loyalty. In Adrian Sargeant and Elaine Jay’s Building Donor Loyalty, they outline why lapsed supporters stop giving, drawing on the results of a survey of over 20,000 donors from the US and the UK (Jay & Sargeant, 12). They found that not thanking donors adequately, not informing them how their donations would be spent and not offering them sufficient choice in communications were substantial contributors to donor attrition. Establishing good donor relations and a satisfactory level of service early on is therefore key.

The 2017 Fundraising Effectiveness Survey Report also goes some way towards describing the consistent problem that retention presents to fundraising organisations. In their analysis of data from over 10,000 US organisations, they found that every 100 donors gained in 2016 was offset by 99 lost donors through attrition. Their report raises concerns around keeping new donors, with losses in this category being the most pronounced. Any improvements to early donor retention through positively affecting their experience is likely to pay dividends in improved fundraising performance and sustainability. It costs significantly more to acquire a new donor than to keep one.

To add further weight to the assertion that the early experience is key, 2013’s Money for Good UK: Understanding donor motivation and behaviour summarises the findings of an Ipsos Mori survey of UK donors. They found that the ease of donating rates highly with donors as a factor paid attention to when giving to charity (43% mainstream and 40% high-income pay close attention to this). Our study on the early donor experience has therefore consid-ered the giving process as part of the assessed experience.

Interestingly, the results of the same Ipsos Mori survey also showed that donors pay least attention to the thanks and appreciation received for their donation (15% of mainstream donors and 10% of high-income donors said they paid close attention). However, the wording of the question, “how much attention, if any, do you pay to the following factors when giving to charity?”, may prompt donors to reflect on the factors that have stood out to them (very good or very bad), rather than those that are

necessary as part of meeting their minimum expec-tations. It is also possible that donors interpreted the question as a substitute for factors that influ-ence their decision to give and very few are likely to consider (or declare) thanks and appreciation as a motivator. However, in our view many donors would be disappointed if thanks and apprecia-tion were not shown or if it were executed badly, as Sargeant and Jay’s research suggests (Jay & Sargeant, 25).

Why non-alumni?

Non-alumni have now established themselves as significant contributors to both donor numbers and overall philanthropic funds raised at HEIs. The 2016 Ross-CASE Report found that 39% of the new funds received from HEIs in 2014-15 came from non-alumni donors, and that 19% of individual donors were also non-alumni. The experience they receive is therefore also likely to be increasing in importance and improvements here could positively affect retention overall, even though non-alumni may still not be a primary or proactive focus of all fundraising programmes at UK HEIs.

“...too great a focus on acquisition can be a warning sign of eventual failure. That’s because it can blind you to the importance of the process that must occur immediately following aquisition. Namely, focusing on donor commitment, increasing donor value, and ensuring a high retention rate.”

- Roger Craver

3

MethodologyTo ensure greater accuracy and to reduce bias, we chose first-hand experience of HEI fundraising programmes as the data collection methodology. We undertook a ‘mystery shopping’ exercise of 15 HEIs in late January 2017 and documented our findings over a three-month period, the typical amount of time it would take to welcome a new donor and for them to have received more than one communication from a fundraising organisa-tion.

Evaluating the donor experience through asking university staff to document and share the details of their programmes was deemed to be problem-atic. Benchmarking surveys often struggle to achieve a shared understanding of the questions asked from one organisation to the next and can be time consuming to complete. It may also be difficult for staff to know and be objective about what is typically being sent and received.

The data relating to the 15 HEIs have been anonymised in this paper as the objective of this study was not to expose individual institutions but to make observations about the experience that we are offering non-alumni donors as an industry. Although it may be possible (given public donor lists) to identify the universities that are likely to

• The donation was made online via the HEI’s website

• The donation amount was £10

• A health and wellbeing cause was selected as the designation for the gift, a logical type of cause for a non-alumni donor to support

• The same donor profile/details were used

• The donations took place within the same 48-hour period

• Where communications preferences were requested, these were supplied consistently (opt-in to receiving contact from the HEI)

• Any one-to-one communications initiated throughout this process were responded to as consistently as possible.

have been included in the study, no individual institution can or should be singled out. The insti-tutions involved in the study however have been notified of their inclusion.

To attempt to ensure the data collected can be compared from one organisation to the next, the study was completed with the following parame-ters:

SampleTo provide a reasonably comprehensive picture of HEIs in the UK overall, we selected 15 institu-tions according to their mission group. The mission groups included in this study are:

• The Russell Group

• Former 1994

• University Alliance

Unfortunately, Million+ universities were discounted because after sampling 16 HEIs, only one was found to have both an online donation facility and a health and wellbeing priority to which the donation might be directed.

The mission group of Specialist universities was also discounted because the relative anonymity of these institutions was unable to be protected - the sample institutions would have been obvious to determine given the small number that are special-ising in health and wellbeing research and training.

To select the sample, the institutions in each category were assigned a number and a random number generator was used to determine 5 institu-tions per mission group. These were then ratified by determining whether they had both a health and wellbeing priority (and the ability to designate the gift to this) within an online donation facility. Six institutions were disqualified at this stage either because they did not have a health and wellbeing priority or did not allow the designation of the online gift to a health and wellbeing cause.

4

Scope

We have defined this as a typical online journey to donate from arriving at the institution’s main website to receiving a gift acknowledgement email or receipt. This simulates the task that a non-alumni donor might undertake having heard about a worthy health and wellbeing cause via a mainstream news item or through word of mouth. Using this methodology means the donor may be classified as ‘unsolicited’ by the institution.

For the purposes of this study the welcome journey has been determined to mean the direct, personal-ised communications that an institution may send to thank or welcome the donor within the first 3 months of making the gift. It includes thank-you emails or letters and donor welcome packs as well as direct communication between the donor and staff at the institution in relation to the gift.

Donation journey

Welcome journey

The following broadly summarises the scope for the study.

Assessment criteria

1. Data hygiene. Does the donation and welcome journey suffer from merge-field errors and repetitive data collection? Is there any unnecessary transactional text about Gift Aid in the thank-you letter?

2. Cause-centred. Is the institution and its communications respectful of the donor’s interest in the cause and the donor’s desire to ensure the gift is being directed to the right place?

3. Audience-inclusivity. Does the donation or welcome journey alienate non-alumni donors in any way?

4. Donor relations. Is the journey donor-friendly? After giving, is the emphasis on thanking or is it on soliciting further gifts? Does the institution want to understand more about the donor’s relationship with them and attempt to develop it?

5. Timeliness. This may also be described as ‘efficiency’, however it relates to how quick and easy the institution has made it to donate and how timely their subsequent thank-you and welcome is.

Each of the 5 categories were worth 3 points, meaning the donation and welcome journey components were each given a score out of an available 15 points. The universities then received an overall donor experience score out of 30. For full details of the assessment criteria please get in touch with us.

5

Summary findings• Most institutions are recognising the need

to showcase the causes they fundraise for prominently on their website and connect this information seamlessly to their dona-tion forms. Additionally, few institutions made the mistake of wrapping their thank-you communications and welcome packs in campaign or appeal jargon and instead focused on connecting the donor to the cause they have given to.

• There were also a few of shining examples of memo-rable communications due to their attention to detail, use of emotion and/or handwritten elements. One institution also offered a choice as to how the donor would like to be thanked.

• Unfortunately, a third of the institutions did not thank the donor - no thank-you commu-nications were received beyond the automated gift acknowledgement email or receipt. In one case, not even a gift acknowledgement email was provided (despite the transaction being processed and recorded on JustGiving).

• Over two-thirds of the institutions made at least one data hygiene error with the online donation journey, such as repeatedly asking for address information and over half of those that thanked/welcomed the donor also made at least one data hygiene error, such as the use of an incorrect salutation or including transactional Gift Aid confirmation text that had (or could have) already been included in the gift acknowledgement email. This was unexpectedly high.

• If the donation journey was of good quality, this did

not necessarily indicate the welcome journey would also score well and vice versa. The institution with the highest score for the online donation journey also has the lowest score for the welcome journey, and the highest scorer for the welcome journey was ranked in the bottom third for the donation journey.

• Over half of the institutions made it chal-lenging or confusing for non-alumni to donate online by either requiring them to navigate via pages or links exclusively for alumni, or by sending confirmation emails from alumni relations staff/alumni relations email accounts (or both). Two institutions went further and contacted the donor to seek their graduation and date of birth details to ‘find you on the database’ and a third assumed the donor was an alum and began communications accordingly, complete with blank spaces where the graduation year should be.

• There was no significant difference between mission groups regarding the welcome journey scores overall (these were evenly spread at the top, mid and low range of scores), however University Alliance were ranked lower overall than the Russell Group and Former 1994 institutions for their donation journeys.

• Most institutions had reasonably efficient online giving journeys, with the user able to access the donation form from the University home page in 4 clicks or fewer. Of those insti-tutions that thanked the donor, the thank-you letter or email was most often recieved within two weeks of making the gift.

When scored out of 15, how did the anonymised Russell Group, University Alliance, and Former1994 universities perform in their donation and welcome journeys?

L F N O B I K J M A C D G E H0

5

10

15

1312

10

1413 13

1110

12

9

7

9 9 98

Donation Journey

B G K N D F I E M L A C H J O

0

5

10

15

12

10 10

12 121211

0 0

65

0

9

0 0

Welcome Journey

6

The donation journeyCase study: University LReceiving philanthropic donations is unlikely to ever be the primary goal for university websites. This means that providing a reasonably sensible and streamlined experience for donating is something that development teams need to be concerned about and champion with colleagues who are often based in other departments.

University L had clearly understood the importance of the online donation journey and had invested time and effort accordingly.

• Despite University L’s homepage not having a permanent non-alumni friendly link to give (e.g. ‘alumni and supporters’ or ‘give to University L’) they chose instead to feature a story highlighting philanthropically-funded research. This story then linked seamlessly to the campaign website. We feel this showed both an institutional level of commitment to fundraising and an appreciation for audience-focused online journey design.

• The site overall was simple and easy to navi-gate and just three clicks were needed to travel from the home page to the donation form. The campaign website had prominent links to

priority fundraising projects in the top navigation menu and a floating ‘donate now’ button was always accessible.

• The donation form itself was efficient and bespoke to giving (i.e. not designed for buying a product).

• The gift acknowledgement email was well-for-matted. The signatory was the Director of Devel-opment and they included their phone number, adding some gravitas and a personal touch to what is essentially an automated email.

University L was a strong example of getting the basics right with some added flair in the look and feel of the website and acknowledgement email.

While only the basic standards have been assessed as part of the donation journey, there were some areas where we believe University L could take this journey beyond the transactional and into the realm of donor-centrism. For example, the donation form could ask for the motivation for giving, the donor’s relationship to the institution, communica-tions preferences and whether the gift was personal or collected on behalf of others. Answers to these questions would allow University L to understand the donor better to create a custom thank-you and welcome journey.

Case study: University HDespite being a low scorer, Univer-sity H was not alone with many of the mistakes that were made.

• University H processes its online donations through JustGiving. Unfortunately, presumably due to a technical error, the gift acknowledg-ment email was not sent and only a holding email titled ‘we’re processing your donation’ was received. We did confirm however that the donation was processed.

• University H and University C both used Just-Giving to process donations. This negatively affected the efficiency of donating for both insti-tutions through an increased number of clicks to give and created an uneven donation experience with the user having to navigate two separate website aesthetics and structures.

• The journey from the home page to the giving pages was difficult to navigate. The only direct link on the main website was called ‘alumni’ and

the results given by searching ‘donate’ produced three irrelevant results ahead of the giving page link. One of these linked to more information about donating your kidney.

• The giving pages were aimed only at alumni, as evidenced by the header and page content, however we acknowledge that these have subse-quently been updated to be more inclusive.

While most institutions do not receive many unsolicited donations through their website, having a smooth and professional online donation journey will not actively discourage potential donors and may even communicate a sense of legitimacy to making a donation to the cause - and indeed to the institution.

Incidentally, both Universities H and C have failed to thank the donor for the donation beyond the standard JustGiving gift acknowledgement. University C has also subsequently subscribed the donor mistakenly to their alumni e-newsletter.

14/15

7/15

7

Further thoughts on the donation journeyOne of the most unexpected issues encountered was the lack of attention given to the language used in the donation form and acknowledgement email. The act of giving to a charitable cause is a singular process, one that is very different to the purchase of goods or services online. Several institutions have repurposed the university’s existing online payment systems for donation processing without customising the text used on buttons, headers and form fields. Because several institutions using similar platforms had managed to edit this text we are assuming this irrelevant text is not due to a technical limitation. The result is a donation journey which quickly dissolves into a payment transaction or shopping experience.

Here is a sample collection of some of the more unfortunate language used.

The welcome journeyCase study: University G

Not only did University G get the basics right, they created one of the most memorable thank-you letters in the study.

• The thank-you letter from University G was one of only two that were written from the perspec-tive of the lead academic for the research being undertaken (the other was an email from an academic at University K). University G quickly allowed the donor to feel like one of the team with a clever explanation of an academic ‘insider term’ for the research funding shortfall between phases of a clinical trial. In one sentence, Univer-sity G managed to acknowledge the donor’s desire to feel part of the research and provide an interesting anecdote for the donor to share with friends and family (without describing it as such).

• Both the lead academic and the donor relations contact hand-signed the thank-you letter. The donor relations contact also included a hand-written message on a postcard in the pack along with a small and inexpensive gift/token to remind the donor of the cause. While we do not feel the small token added significantly to the pack, it was clear that care had gone into the contents which gave the overall impression of both the donation and the donor being valued.

• This personalised touch perhaps also explains

why it was one of three thank-you letters/welcome packs to arrive more than two weeks after the donation was made. While efficiency is desirable (and University G was scored accord-ingly), in this case it did not create a negative impression due to the quality of the eventual letter.

Although a top scorer, University G could further improve the quality of this thank-you experience by proactively inviting two-way dialogue either within the letter or in a subsequent welcome communica-tion. The donor was invited to be further involved in organising or attending events, however something smaller (and more universally applicable) such as an enquiring as to the donor’s motivation for giving or inviting them to rate the quality of the online donation experience would potentially engage a larger number of donors and provide useful insight to the development team.

The disproportionate focus on the institution and its research rather than the donor was common among many institutions in the study and can be seen in both thank-you letters and welcome packs. It is important to remember that the donor is already convinced of the cause’s merit at this stage (as they would have needed to be assured enough to make a gift), and we feel the objective in these communications should therefore be to convey sincere gratitude for their financial vote of confi-dence and initiate dialogue.

12/15

8

Pay now

Complete payment

Make payment

Case study: University LAs our top scorer for the donation journey component we were disap-pointed to find the thank-you letter and subsequent welcome pack for University L to be lacking in donor focus and care.

• Given how welcoming University L’s website is to non-donors, we were surprised to receive a thank-you letter that assumed not only that the donor was a University L alumna, but also that the donor had received a previous letter from the University requesting their support. It was clear that an error was made in the processing of the donation which affected letter version that was used. Asking for information about the donor’s relationship to the university in the online donation form could go some way to reducing internal errors like this.

• The salutation was incorrect, despite it being correct in the automated gift-acknowledgement email. This is a very easy error to make when manually keying data into a database, which suggests that there are internal process improve-ments that could be made here as well. The unfortunate reality is that receiving a letter with the incorrect name or salutation creates a poor first impression and indicates to the donor a lack of care and respect. That said, these mistakes happen and University L were sadly not alone in making them: University I referenced the donor’s recognition name as that of a completely different donor, and University M used the wrong first name initial.

• Despite being off to a rocky start, by far the worst communication in University L’s welcome journey was the welcome pack which arrived a month after the thank-you letter. This pack continued to treat the donor as an alumna and further bewildered by not discussing the specific research cause donated to, but instead referred to a fund with multiple priorities. Layered on top of this was an introduction to the Universi-ty’s overall campaign which would be of little or no immediate relevance to a new donor giving a small gift to a specific health and wellbeing cause. This was the height of institutional focus over donor focus.

• The welcome pack itself had clearly benefited from significant investment and was aesthetically pleasing, however several of the 9 components fell on the floor when it was opened due to its

loose-leaf folder structure, presumably assisted by the glossy paper used.

• As it had been eight weeks since the dona-tion was made we were surprised to discover a donation form with a clear ask as one of the most prominent elements of the welcome pack. It was particularly unfortunate as the cover letter referred to there being a ‘getting to know you’ questionnaire inside - which was regrettably absent. The donor may be forgiven for assuming the donation form was the questionnaire and not look favourably on this. Re-soliciting donors so soon after their first gift is likely to have an adverse effect on many donors who would otherwise be willing to give to a less pressured schedule. We recommend focusing instead on respecting the donor’s preferences and their interest in the cause, getting to know them and providing outstanding service. In other words, build trust early on and you may earn the right to ask again.

We recommend universities pay attention to getting the basics right before investing heavily in slick campaign literature. Poor data hygiene and a lack of donor empathy will undermine even the most outstanding communications and design.

5/15

9

Further thoughts on the welcome journeyIt was unfortunate that five universities chose not to thank the donor for their gift or welcome them to the supporter community. Although £10 is a small gift, Ken Burnett asserts that we should treat all donors, no matter the size of their gift, as though they might one day leave a legacy (Relationship Fundraising, 51). Thanking a donor is the hallmark of fundraising professionalism and there is never a valid excuse for making assumptions about whether a thank-you is required. When in doubt, the donor should be consulted.

Furthermore, two of the universities were notable as they were the only institutions to make one-to-one contact with the donor. Unfortunately, these interactions exposed a lack of staff prepared-ness for dealing with non-alumni donations.

While the opening line of the first university’s email contained a sincere thank-you for the gift, the remainder of the email was a request for the donor’s full name and graduation details to “allow our database manager to record you[sic] donation on our database, as currently we have been unable to locate you”. While we have no issue with the sometimes-necessary task of directly contacting a donor to clarify administrative issues relating to the gift, this email committed the customer service misdemeanour of inelegantly exposing the mundane inner workings of the organisation. More importantly, it was an opportunity missed to create an interesting dialogue about how the unsolicited donor came to give.

On the subject of customer service offenses, the second university committed a far worse crime. The donor received a similar email to the above, mentioning that the university “had tried to find your name in our database but [were] not successful”. After replying to clarify that they were a non-alumni donor, the donor received no response. We must not forget the basics of service etiquette – all letters, phone calls and emails should be responded to or acknowledged.

Whether you are a member of the database team, an alumni relations officer or a finance manager, remember that when you contact a first-time donor or answer their call you are likely to be the first person from the organisation that the donor has encountered. Make it count.

“The most important thing to know about intangible products is that the customers usually don’t know what they’re getting until they don’t get it. Only then do they become aware of what they bargained for; only on dissatisfaction do they dwell.”

- Theodore Levitt

10

ConclusionUndertaking this exercise has exposed to us the inconsistency of the welcome experiences that HEIs are providing for their non-alumni donors. There is often a tendency to believe that because the causes they promote are worthy, that because their staff are enthusiastic and their institutions are respected, it follows that the experiences they offer to their donors will reflect this – especially when major giving is successful. There is no substitute however for painstakingly evaluating and adjusting the donor experience from the perspective of the supporter, and even the most established fundraising offices would benefit from this (our research suggests that poor practices are not confined to a single mission group). We encourage development staff to (as a minimum) mystery shop their own institutions, and to donate to some mainstream charities or well-re-spected HEIs to draw comparisons.

Unfortunately, evaluations from the perspective of a development professional will not be completely objective, either. Who better to evaluate the donor experience than the donor themselves? If we are to grow the industry and manage the reputation of higher education philanthropy we must better appreciate the relationship-building benefits of asking for and responding to feedback from our supporters. Historic demographic and behav-ioural data from donors will only describe what happened, not why it happened. There is no substi-tute for seeking regular feedback from our donors to make key decisions about issues that affect them.

We hope this paper goes some way towards raising the profile of good donor relations and the need to constantly evaluate and improve the experiences provided to supporters. Rather counterintuitively, fundraising is the business of providing outstanding donor experiences, not the business of raising money. The donor experience at all levels ought to be the primary concern, and Giles Pegram has put it well:

“When Mercedes market a new car they focus on the car, not the need for Mercedes to make money. When we market our charity, what we should be marketing is the donor experience and how that permits and shapes the work that we do. Those who focus in isolation on marketing the cause, the charity, or even the good work being done miss this simple truth.”

We have an enormous responsibility to our donors, as Ken Burnett’s quote on the cover of this paper suggests. When a donor makes a first gift of any size, they are making the first move in what we hope will develop to be a long and mutually fruitful relationship. The least we can do as fundraisers is ensure that their trust, respect and love does not go unrequited.

11

BibliographyBagwell, Sally et al. Money for Good UK: Understanding Donor Motivation and Behaviour. New Philanthropy Capital, 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Burnett, Ken. Relationship Fundraising: A Donor-Based Approach to the Business of Raising Money. 1st ed. London: The White Lion Press, 1992. Print.

---. ‘Where Now for Fundraising?’ Ken Burnett. N.p., 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Craver, Roger. Retention Fundraising: The New Art and Science of Keeping Your Donors for Life. Medfield, Massachusetts: Emerson & Church, 2014. Print.

Etherington, Stuart J. et al. Regulating Fundraising for the Future: Trust in Charities, Confidence in Fundraising Regulation. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Giving to Excellence: Generating Philanthropic Support for UK Higher Education. Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 2016. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Levis, Bill, Ben Miller, and Cathy Williams. 2017 Fundraising Effectiveness Survey Report. Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2017. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Levitt, Theodore. ‘Marketing Intangible Products and Product Intangibles’. Harvard Business Review (1981). Web. 1 May 2017.

Personal Information and Fundraising: Consent, Purpose and Transparency (Case Studies). Fundraising Regulator, 2017. Web. 1 May 2017.

Rowling, Henry. ‘From Fundraising to Engagement - Building a New Experience for Supporters’. SlideShare. N.p., 23 Feb. 2017. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Sargeant, Adrian, and Elaine Jay. Building Donor Loyalty: The Fundraiser’s Guide to Increasing Lifetime Value. San Francisco, Calif.: JB, 2004. Print.

The icons used in this paper have been designed by Popcorn Arts, Nikita Golubev, Vectors Market, Made-byoliver, Roundicons and Freepik from Flaticon.

Acknowledgements

Contact us at:www.hollypalmerconsulting.com

hello@hollypalmerconsulting.com07447590158