1 the next generation of canadian giving · the next generation of canadian giving...

1

blackbaudinstitute.comThe Next Generation of Canadian Giving

The Next Generation of Canadian GivingThe Charitable Habits of Millennials, Generation Xers, Baby Boomers and Civics

http://www.blackbaudinstitute.com

2


CONTRIBUTORSPresented byBlackbaud Institute for Philanthropic Impact

In Conjunction with

Written byMark Rovner, Founding Principal, Sea Change Strategies

Foreword byMike Johnston, President and Founder, hjc

Research byPam Loeb, Principal, Edge Research; Lisa Dropkin, Principal, Edge Research; Sarah Rodgers, Vice President

and Senior Research Analyst, Edge Research; Erin Wagner, Research Analyst, Edge Research

Edited by Hailey Frith, Marketing and Fundraising Coordinator, hjc; Ashley Thompson, Managing Director, Blackbaud Institute;

Erin Duff, Team Lead, Content Management, Blackbaud Institute; Olivia Franzese, Copywriter, Blackbaud

Report design by Anna Key

© August 2018, Blackbaud, Inc.

Contents

3 Foreword

5 Introduction

7 Key Findings

10 Donor Attitudes and Values

14 Transaction and Engagement Channels

21 Recommendations

22 About


http://www.hjcnewmedia.com

3


“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

—Albert Einstein

It has never been more challenging to work in the Canadian charitable sector. The pace of

technological, demographic and cultural change has never been more rapid. In a sector with limited

financial and human resources and skills, we need all the help we can get to make smart, forward-

thinking decisions on where to invest in fundraising, engagement and advocacy.

Whether it’s board members or senior management in Canadian social impact organizations, we are

all hearing the same questions that demand answers and action:

1. Is direct mail dead?

2. Shouldn’t we get more into crowdfunding and mobile phones?

3. What channels should we be investing in?

4. How do we best reach and engage different generations of supporters?

That’s why we’ve been conducting this study in Canada (and the United States) since 2010—to

answer these questions and more.

I was never prouder than when we published our first study back in 2010, and I would visit a social

impact organization’s office only to see employees pull out The Next Generation of Giving report

and have it bookmarked and highlighted. And even better than that—they were distributing the

report internally and using it to focus their conversations on what they should be investing in with

their limited budgets.

Now, eight years later, we believe our study is even more potent as a rolling study over a number

of years. It gives people in the charitable sector the only study they can use to track generational

changes and influences in giving and engagement over time. Humans are very good at seeing

patterns, and we want you to look at all of these studies and continue to find patterns that you

can act on.

FOREWORD


4


Finally, for better or for worse, Canadians look to our Southern cousin (the United States) as a

comparison for so many things—from the economy to social, cultural and political trends. And it’s no

different in the social impact sector. Like in 2013, we’ve put in quickly digestible comparison call outs

throughout the report. Check them out.

This report doesn’t make it simpler for you to make your decisions in a changing Canadian charitable

landscape, but we truly believe it simplifies things for you—and considering the many hats you wear

in your organization, simplification of generational change in giving will help you make changes in the

short term and plan for greater success in the future.

Enjoy!

Mike Johnston President and Founder, hjc


The Next Generation of Canadian Giving blackbaudinstitute.com

5

INTRODUCT ION

Generational change influences decisions that are made on a daily basis. Things like eating habits, the company

people keep, exercise regimes and style choices are all results of generational differences—and philanthropic

decisions are no exception. In a society that is so diversified by age groups, how can organizations establish

strong and impactful relationships with a diverse supporter base?

Ask yourself these questions: How can you engage your passionate young Millennials? What about your loyal

Boomers and Civics? Let’s not forget about your Gen-Xers. While each generation may share the desire to give

back, the ways in which they do this vary between each cohort. The benefit of this, however, is that in a world

where trends change so quickly, generational change is, for the most part, predictable.

While life stages play a prominent role in the decisions people make—especially when it comes to those that

involve finances—the generational environment that people grow up in also inevitably plays a role in their

choices. For example, older generations tend to give more—and more often. Clearly that can be attributed

to the fact that they likely have more disposable income compared to their younger counterparts. However,

while younger generations may not be able to contribute as generously as they’d like from a monetary

perspective, there is ample opportunity to leverage them for donations of time, whether as volunteers,

advocates or event participants.

Another factor that plays a role in philanthropic change is the accessibility and proliferation of multichannel

giving. This concept goes hand-in-hand with generational change and the comfort level of each generation

within the channels they are accustomed to using. For example, mobile giving is increasingly attractive to

digital native younger donors but sparks less interest among older Civics. On the other hand, direct mail is

viewed as the most—or only—appropriate form of solicitation among Boomers and Civics. Understanding

which giving channels your supporters actually prefer vs. which channels are "up and coming" is key to a

strong fundraising strategy.


The Next Generation of Canadian Giving blackbaudinstitute.com

6

This report is the third in a series of generational giving studies presented by the Blackbaud Institute and

conducted by Edge Research. The previously conducted studies (2010 and 2013) have provided trend

information that speaks to donors’ ever-changing attitudes, beliefs and expectations that guide their

philanthropic practices. This study allows readers to weigh supporters’ intentions and behaviours against

what they actually do, shedding light on the inner workings of your donors’ minds. When it comes to

fundraising, that’s an incredible place to be.

About the StudyCommissioned by hjc and the Blackbaud Institute, Edge Research conducted an online survey of 971 Canadian donors, excluding

Quebec. A non-probability sample of adults aged 18+ was drawn from a national survey panel. The deployed and incoming

sample was controlled to be Canadian Census representative, and qualifying participants reported that they had made a monetary

donation to at least one nonprofit organization/charitable cause within the last 12 months (excluding trade unions, children’s

schools, alma maters and places of worship). The survey was in the field February 9–28, 2018. The survey was developed and

refined from a similar survey conducted in 2013.

This study was conducted in conjunction with a similar study in the United States. The initial drafts of this study and much of the

final content are based on the U.S. version, authored by Mark Rovner of Sea Change Strategies. Many of the research questions

were framed by Edge Research and used for the Canadian analysis. The Blackbaud Institute for Philanthropic Impact published

this report and provided a key editorship role, ensuring integrity of the research and analysis, and hjc provided additional editorship

and analysis to bring this edition to Canada.


7


Key Findings

The Greatest Generation is in its sunset years.

Those born before 1946—now in their mid-70s and up—

remain a significant giving force, but their star is fading. In

2010, this generation dominated the philanthropic landscape.

Today, the Civics have fallen behind Boomers and Generation

X in terms of total dollars donated. While declining in numbers,

however, they remain mighty in generosity. Civics donate more

money per capita ($944) than any other cohort, and they give

to more charities.

It’s also worth noting that the current philanthropy infrastructure,

along with its best practices, strategies and methods, was built

for this generation. As new generations become dominant

among givers, it is increasingly important to reconsider whether

the founding assumptions that gave rise to philanthropy as we

know it still hold.

1 Baby Boomers remain the most generous generation.

For those who are waiting for the ascendancy of Baby Boomer

donors to pass from the scene, the wait is going to take a

while. As Figure 1 shows, Boomers say they gave nearly $5.3

billion to charities last year. That represents 41% of all money

donated during that period—an increase from 2013 when

they represented 32% of all giving. Not only have Boomers

given the most, but they are also more likely to be givers than

younger generations. And, nearly three-fourths of Boomer

donors say their giving will either stay the same next year (64%)

or increase (11%).

There is some early indication that Boomer-dominated giving

may be approaching the top of the parabola. Boomers’ self-

reported, per-capita giving fell slightly, from $942 in 2013

to $841 today.

2

0

$100

$300

$500

$700

$900

$1100

C

B

GX

M

FIGURE 1

PERCENTAGE OF GIVING BY GENERATION IN 2018

TO

TAL

AN

NU

AL

GIV

ING

PERCENTAGE GIVING

55% Give

• 4.9M donors• $389 yr./avg.• 3.1 charities• $1.9 billion/yr.

66% Give


72% Give


73% Give


BGXM Gen XMillennials Boomers CivicsC


8


Generation X continues to be on deck.

Gen-Xers may be approaching their prime giving years. This

report finds that in 2018, 66% of Gen-Xers gave, and they

contribute $3.2 billion per year. This makes up 25% of total

giving in 2018. And, more than 15% of Gen-Xers say they

expect to increase their giving in the coming year (Figure 2),

almost twice as many as Civics (7% of which say their giving

will increase) and more than Boomers (11%). This means the

"Age of X" in philanthropy may be on its way.

The numbers carry an important message for fundraisers.

In the foreseeable future, your organization's financial well-

being lies primarily with Boomers and Gen-Xers. This is

not to suggest that Millennials should be ignored, but the

case can be made that many pay them more heed right

now than is prudent.

3

Millennials Gen X Boomers Civics0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

FIGURE 2

ANTICIPATED CHANGE IN 2018 GIVING AMOUNT BY GENERATION

Percent that anticipate an increase in dollar amount

Percent that anticipate no change

Percent that anticipate decrease


9


Millennial giving is still a work in progress.

Millennials contributed 15% of all money donated over the

past year (Figure 3). That represents no change from 2013,

when they also made up 15% of total giving. Only 17% of

those Millennials who give say they plan to increase their giving

in the next year.

Millennial giving raises the discussion of how both life stage

and permanent generational values affect giving. Historically,

most giving has come from people middle aged or older.

There’s a practical reason for that. The demands of building a

career and raising a family often leave little room, or disposable

income, for philanthropy. Millennials are not only at a life stage

dominated by career and family priorities; they have inherited

a world of economic uncertainty in which nothing can be

taken for granted.

There’s no question the day will come when Millennials are a

philanthropic force to be reckoned with. That day, however, is

far from imminent.

4

25%GENERATION X

41%BOOMERS

19%

15%MILLENNIALS

CIVICS

5

FIGURE 3

CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL GIVING (PERCENT OF TOTAL DOLLARS)

Channel proliferation continues, confounding strategy and attribution.

As explored later in this paper, giving is distributed across

more channels than ever. The data suggests that while direct

mail has declined and the number of people who say they

responded to an email has remained steady, newer channels

may not be picking up the slack. There is some speculation

that the proliferation of giving channels may be causing "choice

anxiety": the tendency to do nothing when confronted with too

many options. That could be influencing the overall decline in

giving behaviour.

And, as this study shows, the digital environment is important

to even late adopters. It should be a part of their engagement

and cultivation, even in the twilight of their giving lives.

Concern about overhead remains high.

In spite of its shortcomings, one metric of choice for many

donors continues to be the percentage of donated funds that

go to programs as opposed to fundraising or administration.

Donors continue to express concern about financial efficiency.

Younger donors are especially concerned about the ability to

see the impact of their donation. See the Donor Attitudes and

Values section below for more information.

6


10


Donor Attitudes and Values

Health Charities

Local Social Service

Children’s Charities

Animal

Place of Worship

Emergency Relief

Environmental

SECTOR

55%

41%

32%

17%

27%

%

27%

22%

FIGURE 4

TOP OVERALL GIVING PRIORITIES

MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS CIVICS

Health Worship Worship Worship

Animals Animals Health Health

Worship Health Children Arts

Children Children Animals Children

Social Service Military/Vets Human Rights Social Service

Education Social Service Social Service Animals

Environment Human Rights Arts Emergency Relief

Giving priorities differ by generation, but not much has changed.

As Figure 4 shows, giving priorities have remained largely

unchanged since the 2013 study. Together, health charities,

local social services and children’s causes make up the largest

share of the philanthropic wallet overall. Places of worship

continue to be important, and animal causes have increased

in priority. For all but Millennials, places of worship receive

the single largest allocation of giving dollars when asked to

prioritize. For Millennials, health charities dominate.

Looking across generations, health and religion continue

to sit at the top of the list of donors’ giving priorities. Some

small differences among generations do exist. Civics are

more likely to prioritize arts. Generation X and Millennials are

disproportionately committed to animal-related causes.

1

MOST FREQUENT GIVING CHOICES BY GENERATION

For all but Millennials, places of worship receive the single largest allocation of giving dollars when asked to prioritize. For Millennials, health charities dominate.


11


Millennials

Gen X

Boomers

Civics

32% 19% 12% 18% 7%

42% 21% 12% 10%

54% 18% 8% 7%

65% 12% 6% 7% 7%

9%

9%

8%

6%

2%

2% 2%

4%

4%

2% 1%

Goods/SerivesVolunteerMoney WOM Peer-to-Peer Advocacy Other/Don’t Know

Older donors prioritize money as their greatest form of impact.

We asked survey participants how they thought they could

make the biggest difference with causes and charities. Choices

included giving money, volunteering, participating in activism

and spreading the word, among others.

As it has been in the past, the older you are, the more

likely you are to prioritize monetary contributions as making

the biggest difference (see Figure 5). Similar numbers of

Millennials, Gen-Xers and Boomers choose volunteering as

their contribution of choice.

Peer-to-peer fundraising: A perfect generational partnership?

Peer-to-peer fundraising—including the runs, walk-a-thons and

bike-a-thons that are especially popular in the health sector—

draws upon all generations, but in different ways. As Figure 6

suggests, the actual walkers, bikers and other participants are

more likely to be Generation X or younger. Conversely, those

most likely to sponsor said athletes are Boomers, Civics and

Gen-Xers. It’s one of the few possible instances of generational

symbiosis in the data.

FIGURE 5

MAKING AN IMPACT

2

3

Some organizations have struggled to retain peer-to-peer

event donors, because the donor is initially brought in by a

friend or relative instead of directly through passion for the

cause. Making the most of an investment in peer-to-peer

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

CivicsBoomersGen XMillennials

FIGURE 6

PARTICIPATED VS. SPONSORED AN INDIVIDUAL IN A WALK, RUN OR RIDE EVENT

Participated Sponsored

Donate Volunteer Donating Goods and Services WOM Peer-to-Peer Advocacy Other/Don't Know


12


Ef�ciency

Operating costs

More about their impact

Their general reputation

More about their mission and services

Executive salaries

Funding sources

Leadership

SECTOR

73%

61%

59%

39%

58%

%

54%

49%

26%

FIGURE 7

WHAT DONORS WHO ARE RESEARCHING FINANCIAL INFORMATION LOOK FOR

80%Say they are concerned about what portion of $

goes to overhead

47%Far fewer say they

actively research how an org. spends its $

80%Say they are concerned about what portion of $

goes to overhead

47%Far fewer say they

actively research how an org. spends its $

fundraising requires a strong focus on welcoming and nurturing

these new donors who may be less familiar with the cause. The

same goes for crowdfunding, the digital cousin of peer-to-peer

fundraising discussed later in this report.

Consider the overhead conundrum.

A wise survey researcher once said the hardest part of

analyzing your data is knowing when to ignore it. This

aphorism comes to mind in the realm of attitudes toward an

organization’s overhead numbers.

As Figure 7 depicts, a whopping 80% of donors say they

are concerned about a charity’s overhead expenses. But

substantially fewer, 47%, say they actually do the research

to ascertain how a cause they support or plan to support is

performing. In our experience working with donors in focus

groups, we would guess that the 47% figure is overstated. In

other words, we suspect the number of people who actually do

the research is far lower. It may be an example of respondents

giving what they believe to be the "correct" answer rather than

the honest answer.

Overhead is a sticky issue. As fundraisers, we know it’s a

misleading metric that may not shed light on whether a charity

is doing its job well. That said, the metric remains deeply

embedded in the minds of donors and cannot be ignored.

4


13


Whether overhead is a myth or not, donors also express

concern about a much more qualitative measure: the impact

of their donation. Without a doubt, the Internet has rendered

the inner workings of all institutions (charities included) more

transparent than ever. So, even though overhead may not

significantly influence giving behaviour, it is incumbent on

charities to make the case that they are well-managed and

yield great impact with those funds.

There is some evidence suggesting that donors who actually

do carry out research appear to accept ‘proxy indicators’ that

indirectly speak to an organization’s financial stewardship.

Among all generations except Millennials, the main source of

due diligence information is an organization’s website. That

gives fundraisers some measure of control over the financial

stewardship message. Millennials cite Google searches as

their top resource.

Younger donors researching causes are more likely to go online

to learn about causes they are considering. Millennials are

much more likely to use social media for their due diligence

than their elders—hardly a surprise (see Figure 8).

WHERE DO YOU FIND INFO? MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS CIVICS

Google Search 60% 49% 50% 40%

Organization’s Website 56% 66% 70% 61%

Charity Review Site 48% 34% 41% 38%

Information in the News 42% 36% 48% 45%

Word-of-Mouth 37% 39% 26% 29%

Social Media 36% 27% 16% 9%

Annual Report 31% 37% 34% 43%

Financial Statements 17% 19% 19% 25%

FIGURE 8

PREFERRED INFORMATION SOURCES BY GENERATIONWhere each generation’s researching donors find their information

Bolding shows statistical significance between generations at a 90% confidence interval. Percentages shown reflect only donors who say they research causes before giving.

Among all generations except Millennials, the main source of due diligence information is an organization’s website.


14


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

20182013

4% 4%

4% 5%

41%36%

32%

20%

Online via Website

Mail

Social Media

Text/SMS

Donation Channels

Reported use of giving channels has declined or remained

static across the board. Is the proliferation of giving options

causing donor confusion and uncertainty? That is certainly

plausible. An equally plausible explanation is that organizations

have yet to harness the potential of newer channels.

Reported giving via events, retail and direct mail is down

across the board, with direct mail seeing the sharpest drop.

Transaction and Engagement ChannelsAs giving and engagement channels continue to proliferate, donors and fundraisers alike have a harder job staying connected,

and fundraisers struggle to measure the real impact of various efforts.

From 2013 to 2018, reported use of direct mail fell from 32%

of donors to 20%. Online giving has also declined from 41% of

donors in 2013 to 36% of donors in 2018 (see Figure 9).

Every astute fundraiser will note that at this point, direct mail

brings in eight or nine times more money than email each year.

Online giving still matters. While online giving growth has been

incremental but steady, it could reach an inflection point in the

FIGURE 9

CHANNEL GIVING OVER TIME

1

CHANNEL (2018) MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS CIVICS

Online via Website 32% 36% 37% 42%

Mail 8% 6% 29% 43%

Social Media 8% 5% 4% 1%

Text/SMS 6% 7% 1% 1%


15


coming years. If that happens, we could see online (in all its

forms) drive a significantly larger chunk of the giving pie.

Here’s another direct mail anomaly. Even as reported giving

by direct mail appears to be plunging, around half of all

generations say it is an acceptable way to be asked for

donations. Among Boomers and Civics, it is the only broadly

acceptable solicitation channel other than requests from

friends (see Figure 10).

FIGURE 10

ACCEPTABLE GIVING CHANNELS BY GENERATION

% ACCEPTABLE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS CIVICS

Friend or their family member 70% 73% 66% 59%

Advertisement in the cinema 60% 45% 25% 8%

A radio or TV program 58% 51% 36% 21%

Email 49% 44% 31% 24%

Mail 48% 49% 55% 48%

Social networking tile 43% 33% 14% 4%

Street canvasser 30% 19% 10% 5%

Phone call update 28% 20% 19% 15%

Text/SMS 25% 19% 6% 3%

Door-to-door canvasser 25% 19% 17% 14%

Annuity/trust 24% 26% 17% 13%

Phone call solicitation 17% 16% 10% 11%

Bolding shows statistical significance between generations at a 90% confidence interval.

According to the data in Figure 10, the younger you are, the

more open you are to a wide range of solicitation channels.

And even the digital native Millennials say it’s fine to send

them direct mail, though they equally imply that they will not

respond to it.

According to the data in Figure 10, the younger you are, the more open you are to a wide range of solicitation channels.


16


Online Engagement

It wasn’t long ago that we could speak of "online" and

"offline" as a way of dividing the communications universe. In

the good old days of 2010, online meant giving via email or

through a website. Today, online is a constellation all its own,

ranging from these older digital channels to more established

platforms, like Youtube® and Facebook®, and newcomers in

the social arena, like Pinterest®, Snapchat® and Instagram®.

This evolution may be akin to the world of television before

and after digital cable. Once, four networks represented the

vast majority of viewers. Today, that audience is splintered into

hundreds of niches.

The bewildering and fast-changing array of online channels

may be one reason digital engagement with charities is still a

work in progress. None of the cohorts report widespread digital

engagement with the causes they support. Even a minority

of Millennials and Gen-Xers say they engage in a variety of

FIGURE 11

ONLINE CHANNELS USED BY GENERATIONAL DONORS TO CONNECT WITH CHARITIES AT LEAST MONTHLY

ways, including reading email newsletters, purchasing cause-

related products, viewing videos or signing online petitions.

Most Boomers and Civics report minimal online contact with

charities. Email newsletters are the only digital vehicles that

seem to have older donors’ attention (see Figure 11).

2

31%14%

7%1%

29%25%

11%

26%18%

11%6%

25%17%

8%8%

25%14%

1%

25%12%

5%2%

20%9%

2%

16%9%

1%0%

15%9%

1%0%

14%8%

0%

24%19%

10%5%

View/post videos

E-newsletter

Online mag/newspaper

Sign online peition

Read/post blog

Forward message/link

Purchased a product

Audio/podcast

Live chat

Contribute to forums

Participate in Virtual Reality

15% 5% 5%

1%

The bewildering and fast-changing array of online channels may be one reason digital engagement with charities is still a work in progress.

Gen X

Millennials

Boomers

Civics


17


FIGURE 12

GENERATIONAL SOCIAL MEDIA USE COMPARED WITH CAUSE-BASED SOCIAL MEDIA USE, BY GENERATION

CBGXM

CBGXM

CBGXM

CBGXM

CBGXM

CBGXM

PINTEREST

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

SNAPCHAT

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

32% 20% 9% 5%83% 69% 57% 53% 24% 14% 2% 0%61% 40% 13% 5% 17% 8% 1% 0%41% 30% 15% 6%

21% 12% 2% 1%40% 35% 16% 7% 17% 7% 1% 1%42% 16% 3% 0% 16% 9% 2% 0%33% 31% 17% 9%

Solid Colors: Use to connect with charities at least monthly Stripes: Use generally (at least monthly)

Gen XMillennials

BoomersCivics

BGXM C

Social Media

The high-water mark for social media giving is Millennials, and

even their numbers are still low—8% of Millennials who have

given at all say they have given via a social channel (see Figure

9). The trajectory of social media donations could accelerate

with the 2017 release of Facebook®’s fundraising feature,

though it’s too early to tell.

One way to view the potential for fundraising via social media

is to compare the percentage of survey respondents who

engage with social networks with the percentage who engage

with charities on those same networks. As Figure 12 suggests,

smaller percentages of active social media users use their

screen time to interact with causes.

The same chart also shows the disparity of overall use among

the generations. While the majority of Boomers and Civics do

use Facebook on a regular basis, that’s about it. At the other

end of the spectrum are Millennials, who are heavy users of

Snapchat®, Instagram®, Pinterest® and Twitter®. Generation X

falls somewhere in the middle.

Mobile Engagement and Giving

Smartphones are rising stars with Millennials—most of

these younger donors say they engage with causes

and charities that way. Moreover, the percentage of donors

willing to give via mobile device is up across all generations

since 2013 (see Figure 13).

The mobile space has evolved dramatically since we began

tracking it. Not that long ago, "mobile" simply meant giving by

text. As smartphones have put the power of a laptop computer

in everyone’s pocket, giving behaviour by mobile is much more

like website giving. And even though donations by SMS are

becoming increasingly rare, the text channel is emerging as a

key tool in the arsenal of organizers and political campaigners.

4

3


18


Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding has grown dramatically since 2013 across all

generations. Among Millennials, the percentage saying they

have given via a crowdfunding campaign has risen from 12%

to 30% in the past five years. Among Gen-Xers, adoption has

tripled, rising from 7% to 21%. Boomer adoption has more

than tripled, from 4% to 13% (see Figure 14).

In 2013, the thought was that crowdfunding for charities

would be akin to Kickstarter® campaigns used to launch

mini-capital campaigns.

As things have evolved, however, we are seeing that those who

say they have given to crowdfunding have done so primarily

to support friends, families or colleagues. Large upticks are

also often noted in the wake of natural disasters like the 2017

wildfires in British Columbia.

DEVICES USED TO ENGAGE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS CIVICS

Computer 76% 65% 70% 67%

Smartphone 63% 36% 16% 5%

Tablet 22% 23% 21% 13%

FIGURE 13

PERCENTAGE OF GENERATIONAL DONORS WILLING TO GIVE VIA MOBILE DEVICE

WebsiteAppText to donate

53%27%17%


36%17%13%

MILLENNIALS GEN X

YES

67%YES

48%


23%8%5%


12%1%2%

BOOMERS CIVICS

YES

29%YES

13%

5

U.S./Canada CalloutWillingness to donate via mobile device is lower in

Canada compared to the United States, where 76% of

Millennials, 62% of Gen X-ers, 38% of Boomers, and

20% of Civics (called Matures in the United States) are

willing to give via mobile device. Canada has one of

the highest mobile cost fees in the world—significantly

higher than the United States. Because of this,

Canadians tend to be more conservative with our use

of mobile devices. This gap in willingness to donate

between Canada and the United States could be a

result of the cost-sensitive cautiousness that comes

with mobile use.

Crowdfunding has grown dramatically since 2013 across all generations.


19


CivicsBoomersGen XMillennials0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

As of 2018, crowdfunding appears to be morphing into a first

cousin of peer-to-peer fundraising.

But crowdfunding remains an embryonic phenomenon for

charities and causes. While commercial use of crowdfunding

has mushroomed into a multibillion-dollar enterprise and

a source of cutting-edge technology1, its long-term role in

professional fundraising remains to be seen.

FIGURE 14

PERCENTAGE OF EACH GENERATION THAT HAS GIVEN VIA CROWDFUNDING

2013

2018

U.S./Canada CalloutCrowdfunding grew almost 10 points more per generation

in the United States than in Canada. Social media also

proliferated more in the United States than in Canada since

2013. Because the American philanthropy market is more

competitive, this could be a harbinger of things to come

for Canada as philanthropy continues to grow here. As the

northern cousin of the United States, Canadians can be

late adopters in many new digital activities. Our inherent

‘sober second thought’ approach in politics and business

tends to be paralleled in our slower adoption of new

technologies, and it’s no different with crowdfunding and

social media engagement in support of charitable causes.

With Millennials now in the workforce, employers have had

to up their game by providing greater and more diverse

opportunities for workers to connect.

1 “The Unique Value of Crowdfunding is Not Money—It’s Community,” Harvard Business Review, 2016.


https://hbr.org/2016/04/the-unique-value-of-crowdfunding-is-not-money-its-community

https://hbr.org/2016/04/the-unique-value-of-crowdfunding-is-not-money-its-community

20


6 Workplace Giving

With Millennials now in the workforce, employers have had

to up their game by providing greater and more diverse

opportunities for workers to connect with one another and

the larger community. Workplace giving falls within the

larger constellation of employee engagement. As Figure 15

shows, a substantial percentage of working donors across

all generations say they have either participated in workplace

giving or are interested in doing so.

As one might expect, interest in workplace giving is higher

among Millennials and Generation X. This may speak to an

emerging opportunity to reach present and future donors

where they are.

FIGURE 15

PERCENTAGE OF WORKING DONORS WHO ARE INTERESTED OR WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN WORKPLACE GIVING

PARTICIPATED INTERESTED PARTICIPATED INTERESTED PARTICIPATED INTERESTED

Made a one-time donation through your workplace

40% 70% 43% 63% 43% 58%

Participated in a workplace fundraiser

38% 75% 53% 71% 49% 56%

Volunteered through your workplace

32% 72% 37% 66% 33% 48%

Participated in a workplace walk, run, challenge or team event

26% 72% 35% 62% 32% 45%

Made a donation where your employer matched the gift

22% 75% 32% 73% 33% 59%

Made a donation through payroll deduction

19% 42% 35% 52% 42% 49%

Bolding shows statistical significance between generations at a 90% confidence interval.

MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS


21


Focus on the generations that matter today.

Boomers have at least another decade or so at the top of the

pyramid, and Generation X is not too far behind. Let go of

short-term expectations in terms of Millennial giving. As with

every generation before, for the foreseeable future, Millennials

will preoccupy themselves with making a living, raising children

and finding some measure of security in a profoundly insecure

world. Consider your investment in building relationships with

Millennials as experimental and more likely to produce long-

term—as opposed to immediate—benefits.

Redouble your focus on the fundamentals.

Fundraising is not mining or hunting; it’s farming. You are in a

relationship with your donors, and understanding their needs

and expectations has never been more important. Remember,

your typical donor is probably a 64-year-old woman. What

does she want? What does she expect will happen when she

donates to your organization? If you treat her right, you can

look forward to many years of loyal support.

Get serious about retention.

There are few subjects that receive more lip service and less

meaningful attention than retaining donors from one year to the

next. KCI’s Philanthropic Trends Quarterly finds that first-year

retention among Canadian charities is only around 47%. With a

shrinking donor population and growing uncertainty about the

stability of the primary donation channels, this is the time to get

serious about keeping the donors you have.

Get your house in order.

Evidence is growing that internal organizational issues—

including unsupportive culture, silos, lack of resources, access

to actionable data and other factors—are having a significant

impact on fundraising effectiveness.2 Ignoring internal issues is

not a luxury any organization can afford. And in the incredibly

data-rich world of 2018, there is no reason why any fundraiser

should be flying blind—and yet too many report that they do.

Stay agile.

Be prepared to change and adapt when you can. And when

you cannot, stay zen. View projections with humility; there are

too many unknown variables to make completely bankable

predictions. See recommendation number three above.

Get serious about testing

You know that thing you tried a few years ago that bombed?

Maybe try it again. Channel behaviour is in flux. Don’t assume

past tactics will continue to work.

Listen to your donors.

Relationship fundraising is a two-way street. If you want to

retain and upgrade donors, it will be more than a matter of

broadcasting content. Learn to listen using multichannel

surveys, focus groups, phone calls and other tools to hear from

your donors on a regular basis.

RECOMMENDAT IONSHere are some of our main takeaways from this research. Our recommendations are also informed by other research and by our

experience as fundraisers and researchers.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2 Inside Out Fundraising: How to Create a Culture of Philanthropy By Treating Systems Instead of Symptoms, Sea Change Strategies, 2017.

Fundraising is not mining or hunting; it's farming.


http://kciphilanthropy.com/download_trends/2016_3/pt-2016-03.pdf

http://kciphilanthropy.com/download_trends/2016_3/pt-2016-03.pdf

http://seachangestrategies.com/inside-out-fundraising/

http://seachangestrategies.com/inside-out-fundraising/

22


AcknowledgementsWe are indebted to the colleagues who supported this work: Mark Rovner who penned this report, Pam Loeb and Lisa Dropkin

who led the research, Mike Johnston and Hailey Frith who contributed the foreword and other content throughout, Ashley

Thompson and Erin Duff who guided the direction and editing.

Thank you to Sarah Rodgers and Erin Wagner who, as our data gurus, contributed their great expertise to the design, analysis

and interpretation of the findings, and Dennis McCarthy and Mike Johnston, who contributed their perspectives on the survey.

Finally, we’d like to extend our thanks to Rachel Croyle, Ginny Perkins, Olivia Franzese, Jamie Rusenko, Emilie Derbins, and Anna

Key for managing the design and editing of the report.

About the Blackbaud Institute for Philanthropic ImpactThe Blackbaud Institute drives research and insight to accelerate the impact of the social good community. It convenes expert partners from across the philanthropic

sector to foster diverse perspectives, collective thinking, and collaborative solutions to the world’s greatest challenges. Using the most comprehensive data set in the

social good community, the Blackbaud Institute and its partners conduct research, uncover strategic insight, and share results broadly, all in order to drive effective

philanthropy at every stage, from fundraising to outcomes. Knowledge is powering the future of social good, and the Blackbaud Institute is an engine of that progress.

Learn more, sign up for our newsletter, and check out our latest resources at www.blackbaudinstitute.com.

About hjchjc specializes in integrated fundraising, brand building and campaigning. Since 1992, hjc has worked with nonprofits to bring online and other channels together

for successful acquisition, retention, reinstatement and advocacy campaigning. Their strategic consulting team brings together innovative thinkers in the nonprofit

sector, and an in-house production team of designers, programmers and copywriters deliver complete programs to engage constituencies. www.hjcnewmedia.com

About Edge ResearchEdge Research is a premier marketing research firm servicing nonprofits, associations, and corporations. Over the past 20 years, Edge has helped dozens of nonprofits

move to a donor-centric mindset. Research insight guides clients on how to communicate with their audiences more effectively, retain and grow their donor bases,

and make the changes needed to cultivate the next generation of supporters.

About Sea Change StrategiesSea Change Strategies is a boutique consulting practice recognized for helping remarkable causes raise more money by building better donor relationships. The Sea

Change Strategies team has been honored to serve causes including the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Population Services International, Share our

Strength, International Rescue Committee, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Southern Poverty Law Center and Amnesty International USA.



www.hjcnewmedia.com

23


About BlackbaudBlackbaud (NASDAQ: BLKB) is the world’s leading cloud software company powering social good. Serving the entire social good community—nonprofits, foundations,

corporations, education institutions, and individual change agents—Blackbaud connects and empowers organizations to increase their impact through software,

services, expertise, and data intelligence. The Blackbaud portfolio is tailored to the unique needs of vertical markets, with solutions for fundraising and relationship

management, digital marketing, advocacy, accounting, payments, analytics, school management, grant management, corporate social responsibility, and volunteerism.

Serving the industry for more than three decades, Blackbaud is headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina, and has operations in the United States, Australia,

Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. For more information, visit www.blackbaud.com.

This report is for informational purposes only. Blackbaud makes no warranties, expressed or implied, in this summary. The information contained within

represents the current views of the authors on the topics discussed as of the date of this publication; it is the intellectual property of Blackbaud, Inc. and may not be

reproduced without permission. All Blackbaud product names appearing herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blackbaud, Inc. The names of companies or

products not owned by Blackbaud may be the trademarks of their respective owners.


http://www.blackbaud.com

https://institute.blackbaud.com/

1 the next generation of canadian giving · the next generation of canadian giving...

Documents