Online giving
With the increase in interest in new technologies it is unsurprising that there are several reports being conducted on online giving overseas. One of the main reports available is conducted by Blackbaud. The annual Charitable Giving Report includes online giving data from more than 3,700 United States (US) NPOs (MacLaughlin 2015). The 2014 report shows that online giving is continuing to grow at a faster rate than overall giving (8.9% between 2013 and 2014, compared to 2.1% between 2012 and 2013). Online giving now equates to approximately 6.7% of total fundraising revenue (excluding grants) (MacLaughlin 2015). Organisations with less than US$1 million in revenue have had the greatest increase both in overall giving (5.8%) and online giving (10.6%) in 2014 compared to 2013. Overall, the biggest increase of online giving went to higher education organisations (MacLaughlin 2015). The report also highlighted that December is the most popular month for donations, in part due to the annual #GivingTuesday event, held annually on the first Tuesday following Thanksgiving, when Blackbaud processed more than US$26.1 million in online donations (MacLaughlin 2015).
Other studies have also confirmed the trend towards increased online giving. In M+R’s benchmarking study of 84 NPOs primarily in the US (but also Canada, Australia and South Africa) total online revenue grew 13% from 2013 to 2014 and website traffic grew 11% (Bugeaud et al. 2015). The Network for Good’s report on more than 45,000 US NPOs’ online giving through Network for Good’s platform revealed a 23% increase in online donations (through the platform) from 2013 to 2014 (Stein 2015)6 and nearly one-third of online donations occurred in December.
Dunham+Company (2013) examined 510 adult donors in the US as part of the Campbell Rinker Donor Confidence Survey 2013. Half the respondents indicated that they donated via a charity’s website in 2013 (fairly consistent with the 48% in 2010 and 57% in 2012). Surprisingly, the study found a 27% increase in donations via a charity’s website from 201013 for donors aged 60 and over. Furthermore the gap between age groups has decreased with 50% of donors under 40 years, 53% of donors 40–59 years and 47% of donors 60+ years donating via a charity’s website. The study also highlighted that more female donors donated in this way than male donors in 2013 (53% and 44%, respectively) (Dunham+Company 2013).
While the website may be the actual point of donation it is not always where it originates. Indeed in 2013 the most common reasons cited for website donations were:
someone asking in person (29%)
nothing in particular (20%)
someone asking through social media (18%)
an appeal letter received in the mail (14%), and
something the donor saw on the charity’s website (17%) (Dunham+Company 2013).
When this is examined by age, 24% of donors aged 60 years or older donated via the charity’s website in response to a direct mail appeal asking for donations in this way. Additionally, when asked their preferred method of responding to a letter, 41% of all respondents stated that online was their preferred method (28% of donors aged 60 years and older and 59% of those under 40 years) (Dunham+Company 2013).
In the United Kingdom (UK), online giving represented on average 15% of individual donations and more than half of those surveyed reported an increase in online giving in the previous 12 months. However, more than 30% of respondents estimated that online gifts accounted for less than 5% of their overall donations (Blackbaud 2014a). The UK Giving 2014 report undertaken by the Charities Aid Foundation found that 15% of donors had donated online in the last 12 months, while cash donations remain the most popular channel (used by 55% of donors) (Charities Aid Foundation 2015b). Moreover only 5% of monthly direct donors with an internet-capable device had made a donation to the charity’s own website in the last four weeks. It is unknown, however, what the percentage would be over one year (Charities Aid Foundation 2015b).
Despite the fact that these studies may not have representative samples or examine all forms of online giving they do point to a similar trend—that while still not a major player in the donation space, online giving is increasing faster than giving overall.
Social media
A lot has changed since 2005 in terms of social media. In 2005 only 7% of adults in the US used social media sites. Today, 65% of US adults use these sites (Perrin et al. 2015). Social media has become an increasingly important channel for communication and fundraising, with Facebook leading the way with 1.49 billion monthly active users worldwide (Statista 2015). By comparison, Twitter currently has 204 million monthly active users worldwide. Of this, around half of US Twitter users are aged between 18 and 34 years, while only 6% are aged 65 years and older (Statista 2015). Overall, US Twitter users tend to be younger than US Facebook users (see Figure 16.1).
Figure 16.1 Percentage of US Facebook and Twitter users by age group, 2015 (Statista 2015)
Figure 16.1 shows the percentage of Facebook and Twitter users by age group in 2015. At this time, over 15% of 18 – 24 year olds used Facebook and over 25% of that group used Twitter; over 20% of 25 - 34 year olds used Facebook and around 25% of that group used Twitter; over 15% of 35 - 44 year olds used Facebook and around 18% of that group used Twitter; just under 15% of 45 – 54 year olds used Facebook and around 15% of that group used Twitter; just over 10% of 55 – 64 year olds used Facebook and just under 10% of that group used Twitter; and just under 7% of 65 years and older used Facebook and just under 6% of that group used Twitter.
One of the main advantages of social media is its ability to connect donors and other supporters directly to people within the organisation and enhance engagement with the nonprofit. If examined only in terms of the amount given via social media (6% in the US in 2013) it would be easy to ignore this channel; however, 13% of all donors surveyed in Blackbaud’s Next Generation of American Giving report indicated this as an important way to stay in touch. This was particularly true with Generation Y and Generation X (with 29% and 19% stating this as important, respectively) (Rovner and Loeb 2013). Furthermore, 55% of Gen Y and 47% of Gen X follow a charity on social media and 34% of Gen Y fundraise for a charity via social media (Rovner and Loeb 2013).
Social media use is increasing in the older cohorts with 35% of US internet users over 65 years in 2012 using Facebook, 45% in 2013 and 56% in 2014 (Duggan and Brenner 2013; Duggan et al. 2015). In the UK 19% of social media users are aged 65–74, again pointing to the need to appeal to all age groups via these platforms (Blackbaud 2014a).
Mobile giving
Mobile phones have also evolved significantly since 2005. With no data on mobile internet use in 2005 we can only track it back to 2009, where 31% of US adults owning a mobile phone used it to access the internet. In 2013 and it is 63% (Duggan and Smith 2013). Furthermore, smartphone ownership has increased from 35% of American adults in 2011 to 64% in 2015 (Smith et al. 2015). The most common activities across all age groups undertaken via a smartphone are: text messaging, voice/video calls, internet use and email. While social networking was used by 74% of all smartphone users this was skewed by the younger generation, with 91% of 18–29 year old smartphone users using some form of social networking service on their phone (Smith et al. 2015).
As a relatively new technology it is perhaps unsurprising that donation levels via mobile phone are low. Only 11% of UK monthly, direct donors with an internet-enabled phone were found to have made a donation via a mobile phone in the four weeks before the survey (Charities Aid Foundation 2015b). Most UK organisations involved with mobile technology are primarily focused around SMS/text giving, with 47% of UK NPOs surveyed by Blackbaud currently using SMS/text giving, and a further 22% planning to implement this function (Blackbaud 2014a).
The mGive Foundation has conducted its fourth study of 5,555 US text donors in 2014 (Snyder 2014). While 61% of mobile donors said that this was one of their preferred methods of giving, only 30% specified that this was their usual way to give. The author noted this as likely due to not being given opportunities to make text donations (Snyder 2014).
While in 2013, 62% of text givers were Generation X or millennials (Snyder 2013) in 2014 only 50% came from these age groups, with a further 29% coming from those aged between 49 years and 59 years (Snyder 2014). The amount donated via text has increased since 2013 with 46% of respondents reporting that they gave US$250 or more via text compared to 42% in 2013. Interestingly, 17% of 2014 US respondents reported giving more than US$1,000 in total via text donations (Snyder 2014).
It is important to note that mobile donations do not always need to be via text. Donations via an app or mobile-enabled website are also important tools for NPOs. With 34% of US mobile phone internet users primarily going online via their phone, devices such as desktop or laptop computers are losing their importance (Duggan and Smith 2013). Furthermore, email is now opened more frequently on mobile devices than a desktop computer and 33% of global internet traffic is from a mobile device (i.e. phone or tablet). In Europe alone there has been a 98% increase in mobile traffic from 2013 to 2014 (Webcertain 2014). In Canada 15.3% of internet traffic is via mobile phone, while 10% is via a tablet device. In the US 23.2% of internet traffic is via a mobile phone and 8.8% is via a tablet. This is similar to the UK where 20.8% is via a mobile phone and 13.2% is via a tablet (Webcertain 2014). This is an avenue which needs to be explored further.
Charities may be missing out on mobile donations, with 84% of US NPOs surveyed by Dunham+Company and Next After (2014) not having a mobile-optimised website. In the UK it has been suggested that as many as 50% of potential donors give up trying to donate via mobile due to how difficult it is (Hudson 2013).
Share with your friends: |