In the last Open House email, we shared a few brand tracking insights about the impact of the brand refresh, the importance of Shared Values and Organizational Trust, and overall channels of influence.
In this edition, we’ll dig into motivators of giving in general and share data about how donor motivation is or is not moving donors through the donor funnel for Ronald McDonald House®.
TrueSense tracks the Ronald McDonald House brand through the eyes of donors and potential donors now that all of the Chapters are using the new brand.
The last update focused on the early impact of the brand refresh, the impact of donor sentiments, and the influence of different media channels. For this update, we’ll dig into the motivations behind giving in general and explore how people with those motivations are moving through the Ronald McDonald House® funnel.
There are several motivators that are tracked as part of this process. Motivators are not means to show why someone gives to a specific nonprofit, but instead, they’re meant to provide the reason why people give to nonprofits in general.
By combining motivators with sentiment and other demographic/geographic data, you can dig into the segments of people who are giving to a specific nonprofit and the strengths and hurdles that this nonprofit faces when it comes to donor perception.
Here’s the list of motivations being tracked:
Respondents are not limited to just a single motivator.
There are two primary ways that we split the data for Ronald McDonald House:
Let’s first look at the data by age.
|
|
|
A couple of things stand out in this data.
First, the awareness to usage (donation) falls off. The 55+ audience is dramatically more aware of Ronald McDonald House across every motivation segment, yet this audience converts from awareness to making a gift (usage) at roughly half the rate.
Second, the difference in motivators varies by age. “Encouraged by someone” and “tax benefits” motivators show the widest awareness gaps when broken out by age. The 55+ audience is more likely to donate to organizations because of the tax incentive and because people ask them to than the younger demographic while “seen evidence of impact” and “moral/ethical beliefs” have the smallest discrepancy across the age demographic.
Now let’s look at that data across key milestones in the donor funnel. Instead of looking at the whole funnel, let’s focus on a couple of key points: Awareness –> Consideration and Consideration –> Usage (donation)
|
|
|
Although the data shows the drop-off is largest between Consideration –> Usage for both audiences, it also shows that there is room for improvement from Awareness –> Consideration with the 55+ audience.
For the 25–54 audience, the Awareness –> Consideration step is healthy: More than half of aware individuals at least consider supporting Ronald McDonald House. The problem is that only 34% of those who consider donating actually donate.
The best-performing segment here is “seen evidence of impact.” This is the highest rate (40%) of any segment for either age group, and it shows the importance of impact stats and tangible impact for this donor segment.
For the 55+ audience, the problem is compounded at both stages. Awareness–> Consideration averages just 43%, meaning that despite good awareness (more than 80%), only about half even considering giving to Ronald McDonald House. For this age group, the Consideration –> Usage drops further to just 26% on average.
“Encouraged by someone” is the motivator that sees the smallest drop-off. This shows the importance of visibility in the community and the value that the House’s community brings to potential donors.
The common ground? The bright spot for this age group is “encouraged by someone.” This matches the rate of the younger audience and shows the impact of peer influence across all age groups.
When looking across all demographics, the data shows a few things when it comes to motivators.
First, people who are motivated by “seen evidence of impact” and “encouraged by someone” are the most likely to convert. This shows the impact of having the House’s community involved in sharing the House’s mission. In other words, people are enormously influential.
Second, people who are motivated by “moral/ethical beliefs” are the least likely to convert. These donors typically respond to action and specific language that shows values alignment. This is a priority for the FY27 TrueSense program as discussed in Q1’s creative tour. It’s a theme that we’ll continue to discuss throughout the year.
Third, there’s a lot of competition for the 55+ audience’s philanthropic dollars. The drop-off higher in the funnel shows the importance of investing in channels with which they are engaging and the need to focus on showing the need. With many Chapters ramping up for capital campaigns, the understanding of the need should grow. The challenge is to ensure that the 55+ audience feels connected to that need and that its support of direct response programs is making a difference.
The Ronald McDonald House brand is strong among people who give to nonprofits, regardless of their motivation to give. Ronald McDonald House’s emotional storytelling is impactful, especially for those with certain motivators. There is still a good opportunity to continue to increase the number of people who donate throughout all motivators across all age groups, especially as the new brand continues to strengthen its foothold across audiences.
A Note About This Data: These insights are pulled from our continual tracking of several nonprofit brands through the lens of a direct response audience. Our brand tracking is conducted in collaboration with a business partner that conducts surveys every month.