1. Donor Acquisition Innovations that Produce Measurable Results
Presented by:
Reneé Brueckner Operations Director Association of the Miraculous Medal
Kris Matthews President MEGA, Inc.
Rick Witt Senior Vice President Client Services, Wiland

2. Introduction/Agenda What This Means To You Where We Were What We Did
Internal Processes
List Strategy
Coop Involvement
Where We Are Now
What This Means To You

3. Where We Were About Association of the Miraculous Medal
Vision, Mission, Values
History
Active file dropped from 230,000 in 2008 to 175,000 in 2012
Donations down from $8 million to $6.7 million
Expenses increasing led to deficit spending
2011: hired consultant to determine viability, suggest changes
Reorganization and changes to appeal process
Measurable improvement to donor acquisition

4. What We Did: Creative Process Changes
Enlarged Creative Team
Advantages:
Able to make recommendations based on prior experience
Evaluate performance, reply envelope and form processing, potential member reaction

5. What We Did: Creative Process Changes
Creative Team Focus
In every creative team meeting, we made sure to ask two questions…
How does this tie into our mission?
Will our donors value this?

6. What We Did: Creative Process Changes
Created Focus Group
Women who are representative of membership
Advantages:
Able to review envelope and card samples
Compare to previous appeals
Helps the Creative team select best options

7. What We Did: Creative Process Changes
Worked with Outside Vendors for Acquisition Packages
Advantages:
New ideas, based on experience with other organizations
Encouraged us to take chances
Backup in case internal equipment fails

8. What We Did: Creative Process Changes
Logged and Analyzed Comments about Appeals
Analyzed both good and bad comments from members
Changed Appeals to Full Four-Color Packages
Response rate increased from 2.77% to 4.67%. Net income also increased dramatically
Changed reply back to 2-color without affecting response
New Four-Color Package
Original Two-Color Package

9. What We Did: Rental/Exchange Process
Exchanged Active (0-12 month) Names
Prior to 2012, only renting/exchanging inactive names
Universe became smaller and less lucrative
Not renting/exchanging active names was hurting us
Participated in Cooperative Database
Provide file and activity records, updated every two weeks
Names from co-op available at lower cost
Produce better results and higher LTV
Response models had excellent performance

10. What We Did: Effective Data Usage
Mine Inactive Donors
Based on Co-op models
Determine most likely to respond
Participate in Multiple Coops
Increased data
Use our current file more effectively
Hired Data Analyst
Analyze LTV for various rental lists
Help make better decisions for mail plan

11. List Interaction Strategy
Introduction to MEGA, Inc.
List Interaction Strategy
Challenge: Improve Direct Mail Acquisition Results
Find a mix of rental, exchange and coop files that would once again provide AMM with a healthy direct mail acquisition program

12. List Interaction Strategy
Renting Donor Files
: AMM only rented names
List costs rising
Donor file universes shrinking
Results declining
AMM did not have their 0-18 month active donors on the market
Only had access to other organizations’ former donors or paid high fees to rent active names
Rental costs from $90/M to $125/M, which included selection fees, dollar, recency and non-reciprocal fees

13. List Interaction Strategy
August 2015 Medal Results by List

14. List Interaction Strategy
Exchanging Donor Files
2012: AMM made the decision to allow Exchanges with the Active Donor file
MEGA put names on the market and started requesting Exchange partners for their acquisition appeals
Universe of donors available to AMM for acquisition mail campaigns increased by over 1MM names
List costs decreased by 80%
List cost for exchanges can be $14/M to $20/M)
Response rates went up
Cost to acquire new donors went down

15. List Interaction Strategy
Leveraging Coops
2013: Introduced AMM to Wiland
Profile models built from their housefile donors Acquisition response models built from specific campaigns/packages
Opened up a whole new universe of names that otherwise would have been missed
Costs to rent were much lower than renting an organization’s donors from their file
Duplication was much less than on exchange files

16. List Interaction Strategy
Leveraging Coops (continued)
Results from the coop files brought in a high percent of return and a higher average gift than most of the Exchange files in the mailing. Package specific response models are usually the best performing “lists” in our campaigns.
Started testing into other coops to see if we could again tap into another new source of potential donors

17. List Interaction Strategy
AMM Acquisition Performance by Calendar Year

18. List Interaction Strategy
Results
Lowered overall Cost/Donor or Cost to Acquire new donors
Increased available universes for mailing
Increased Acquisition quantities, therefore increasing AMM’s donor file
By growing their donor file they were able to realize more net income for their program

19. Modeling Strategy: Ongoing and Iterative
Introduction to Wiland and Cooperative Databases
Evolving Strategy
Delivered nine separate model options since September 2012
Different modeling methodologies focused on different desired results.
Six different “response” type models, including four package-specific models focused on driving response rate.
Started looking at options/applications for a multi-model solution to test against current continuation strategies.

20. Modeling Success: Acquisition and Lapsed Reactivation
Modeled Prospect Names
Consistently performing at or near the top of the mail plan, outperforming conventional rented lists both in terms of initial campaign metrics, and long-term value calculations and/or projections.
Scored/Ranked Lapsed Names (37 – 60 months)
Performing significantly better than house selects from the inactive (12 – 36 month) donor file.
Names from the top rank of the model have delivered a response rate 4X that of the inactive file, with a slightly higher average gift.

21. Lapsed Reactivation Results
Results for Inactive File (12 – 36 Months) for the same campaign = 1.5% response, $20.08 average gift

22. Where We Are Now
For our 2017 Appeal schedule, we are planning to slightly increase rentals and do more data mining on our older inactives.
Focus on LTV not only by list, but by individual mailing.
Cost per new name acquired has decreased by 58% (from $11.68 to $4.95)
Projecting 63,000 new names in 2016.
Renewal rates continue to climb.
Coop sourced names tend to drive higher response and superior LTV.

23. What Does This Mean for You?
Summary/Key Takeaways – Items We Believe Made A Difference In Our Program
Higher quantity and quality names due to decision to exchange actives
Using Coops to rent better prospects at a lower cost, and to effectively mine inactive file
Creative Process – new group with more staff inclusion
Focus Group
Leveraging outside vendors/partners for ideas and production on special packages

24. What Does This Mean for You?
Recommended Action Items
If not currently exchanging or renting active names, work with your board to make that policy change and begin process
Work with consultative oriented list vendors/partners to make sure you are getting the best quality names
Test the Coop market – try an initial one, and be open to expanding to using multiple it makes sense for you
Work with your internal creative process, but be willing to accept help from outside vendors/partners
Make sure to retain focus on you mission throughout the creative process

25. Questions? Thank you for your time!
Reneé Brueckner Operations Director, Association of the Miraculous Medal
Kris Matthews President, MEGA, Inc.
Rick Witt Senior Vice President, Client Services, Wiland