《M+R：2021年非營利組織電子郵件營銷基準報告（英文版）（23頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《M+R：2021年非營利組織電子郵件營銷基準報告（英文版）（23頁）.pdf（23頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、BENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBWBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSIN THIS ISSUEA hard-hitting expos of the key findings,top trends,and major takeaways in this years Benchmarks.EDITORIALDemocracy dies i

2、n darkness,but data dances in daylight.Here,the numbers speak for themselves.CHARTSThe stuff that goes below the fold:our list of participants by sector,glossary,and fun surprises.APPENDIXM+R20212M+R|VOLUME XV3BENCHMARKS 2021|EXTRA EXTRA The 2021 M+R Benchmarks Study has been published!(You can tell

3、 because you are reading it.)It in-cludes the newest news,the deepest data,the freshest facts,the amazingest analysis across the full range of nonprof-it digital programs.An initial review of the 2021 M+R Benchmarks Study shows that it includes data and commentary covering:Digital advertising Email

4、messaging Mobile/SMS messaging Social Media Fundraising Membership Website performance MORE.This year set a new record for Benchmarks nonprofit partici-pants.A total of 220 nonprofits repre-senting a wide range of causes contribut-ed time,data,and thoughtful responses to hard-hitting questions.Those

5、 nonprofit participants are seriously so great.M+R has is-sued a public statement expressing“un-dying gratitude for their generosity in participating in this study,and to the work they do every day to make the world a bet-ter place.They are the$#$%ing best.”For the first time,the M+R Benchmarks Stud

6、y includes a significant cohort of nonprofits based in the United Kingdom.A total of 55 UK-based nonprofits joined the fun this year,and we are chuffed to have them.Additional data on mobile mes-saging,including peer-to-peer metrics,was provided by our friends at All the bench thats fit to mark.Extr

7、a Extra Read All About ItGetThru,Hustle,and Upland Mobile Messaging.Sources suggest that this is the best Benchmarks Study ever.They asked not to be named as they are not authorized to disclose internal delib-erations.Theyre totally right,though.M+R BENCHMARKS STUDY 2021YOUR M+R BENCHMARKS NEWS TEAM

8、A1:EDITORIALB1:CHARTSC1:APPENDIXWe are M+R.We are communicators,marketers,fundraisers,campaigners,and mild-mannered muckrakers who unleash the power of people to do good.We work exclusively with nonprofits who are alleviating suffering,fighting for human rights,working in solidarity with marginalize

9、d communities,building a more equi-table world,ensuring a sustainable future,making art and knowledge accessible to everyone,and safeguarding democracy so that it does not die in darkness.Wed love to help you deliver real change.Find us at And if this sounds like the place for you,find out more abou

10、t working at M+R and review our current open positions at complete Benchmarks Study is available for free at FundraisingClassifiedsText MessagingParticipantsBench x Marks CrosswordInfographicDigital AdsGlossaryWebsite EngagementEmail MessagingSocial MediaOUR SERVICES INCLUDE:Digital Fundraising+Advo

11、cacyDigital OrganizingMedia RelationsAdvertisingSocialMediaFront Page News:Key Findings4203427384243Digital Ads62536272931Text Messaging&Peer to Peer9Email10Membership+Tickets12Social Media14Website Performance17How to Read the Charts19PUBLISHER:Madeline StanionisEDITOR-IN-CHIEF:Will ValverdeRESEARC

12、HER-IN-CHIEF:Theresa BugeaudDATA AND ANALYTICS CONTRIBUTORS:Jonathan Benton,Danielle Feinstein,Kristen Friedel,Sammy StewartGRAPHICS DEPARTMENT:Emily Giorgione,Laura Klavon,Olivia MooreWEB DEVELOPMENT:Bobby Burch,Tom GiordanoDIGITAL ADS REPORTERS:Matt Derby,Gwen EmmonsWEB ANALYTICS REPORTER:Karen Ho

13、pperEMAIL REPORTER:Jonathan BentonSOCIAL MEDIA REPORTER:Marjory GarrisonMEMBERSHIP REPORTER:Yoonhyung LeeMOBILE MESSAGING REPORTER:Kyle ShepherdRECRUITMENT MANAGER:Lucy MidelfortADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS:Jeff Gang,Bobby Goldstein,MB Gowins,Anne Paschkopi,Liz ThalerBENCHMARKSby WILL VALVERDEInthisissue

14、4M+R|VOLUME XV5Front Page News:Key FindingsNever accuse us of burying the lede.The big headline for 2020 is this:online revenue increased by 32%over the previous year.This is,as so many things have been over the past year,unprecedented.Astonishing.But not as much as this:Online revenue for nonprofit

15、s dedicat-ed to alleviating hunger and poverty in-creased by 173%.And lets be clear.We,your Benchmarks correspondents,we know we are not normal people.We care about this data,we love numbers,we think about and talk about these metrics constantly.But even for us,its rare for a number to spark rich,ra

16、w emotion.Those revenue change numbers did.Before we get to all the rest and be-lieve us,theres a lot more to get to we want to reflect on what 32%online revenue growth signifies.What an in-crease of 173%over the previous years giving means for Hunger and Poverty nonprofits and,more importantly,for

17、the people they serve.It means that when the pandemic swept across the world and into our lives,peo-ple responded with a heart-swelling urge to help.Uncertainty,fear,and cha-os were the daily reality and the reac-tion was compassion.It was empathy.It was generosity.What a thing to see in the numbers

18、.No,this reaction was not universal.The pandemic response has also reflected greed,selfishness,ignorance,and cru-elty.And 2020 was also marred by vio-lence,racial injustice,and more.But our data shows a remarkable commitment to doing good and helping others.People got sick,lost jobs,lost loved ones.

19、Families found themselves face to face with hunger for the first time.That unprecedented need drove an undeniable surge of mutual aid.Mil-lions of people saw their community strained and chose to do their part.And nonprofits,the recipients and drivers of this outpouring of support,were able to respo

20、nd to the crisis and help their communities like never before.We did that,together,and we still are not done caring for each other.Thats what the cold little numbers mean,its the human truth behind our tables and charts.And so were going to give you the straight news from here on out,sharp and objec

21、tive and stuck to the facts like glue.But you should know that the whole time,when were talking about numbers,were going to be hav-ing feelings.Onward:As overwhelming as the pandemic has been,COVID was not the sum total of the news in 2020.The movement for Black lives and the growing demands for rac

22、ial justice sparked demonstrations,advocacy,engagement,and meaningful change.This growing movement was led by people of color and shaped by nonprof-its whose core missions center on racial justice.It has led many organizations including M+R and many Benchmarks participants to rightly question their

23、own practices,programs,and priorities.And,of course,the election.Years of wall-to-wall Trump coverage reached a new peak of intensity.The stakes in the election were impossible to overstate the environment,health care,basic equality,human rights,the very foun-dation and purpose of our democracy.So m

24、uch of 2020 was centered on those three forces:the pandemic,the pro-tests,and the presidency.These were not discrete or mutually exclusive,but on any given day in 2020,some combi-nation of the three was very likely to be leading headlines.That context determined how nonprof-its approached their comm

25、unications,programs,and strategies.And that con-text was the lived experience for activ-ists,organizers,voters,and donors.In order to assess more clearly the im-pact each of these had on nonprofits,we asked Benchmarks participants to answer three questions:Is fighting for racial justice a primary fo

26、cus of your organizations work?In 2020,did your organization do electoral work in the United States?In 2020,did your organization help provide relief in response to COVID-19 either directly or through advocacy efforts?We were looking to see if nonprofits that focused on racial justice or COVID relie

27、f were likely to attract more atten-tion or support.Weve also heard con-cerns from apolitical nonprofits that the intensity of a presidential election might crowd out other topics,making it more difficult for those who are not engaged in the election to reach audi-ences or raise revenue.On the first

28、 question,the most interest-ing finding was the sheer breadth of non-profits who asserted that racial justice is a focus of their work.Nonprofits from every sector and issue area claimed racial justice as a priority,which we hope reflects a commitment to mak-ing long overdue meaningful changes withi

29、n our industry.What we did not see were any differences in results:nonprof-its who identified racial justice as a prior-ity did not perform differently on average than those that did not.Next,we looked at whether the election tended to crowd out apolitical nonprof-its.And again,we did not find major

30、 differences along this axis.Revenue grew just a bit more over 2019 levels for nonprofits that did electoral work,and organic web traffic increased a bit more for non-electoral nonprofits.But the differences were small:no front-page,bold-type findings.We found no reason to believe that the intense f

31、o-cus on the presidential election ham-pered digital programs for nonprofits that didnt engage in election work.Finally,we considered front-line COVID response,and the big shift in revenue for the Hunger and Poverty sector we already covered may have given this away.Nonprofits that provided COVID re

32、lief,either directly or through advo-cacy,saw a 40%increase in online rev-enue,compared to a 22%increase for those who did not do COVID work.This difference was driven by a surge in one-time giving to COVID response nonprofits.They reported a 41%in-crease in one-time revenue,while non-COVID response

33、 nonprofits saw one-time revenue rise by 21%.In contrast,the change in monthly giving was the same for COVID nonprofits and for non-COVID response nonprofits(26%).This pattern may seem familiar to nonprofits with experience in disas-ter response.The urgent desire to help during an emergency can driv

34、e a surge in one-time giving.Converting this at-tention and generosity into long-term growth requires a commitment to re-tention.If you werent already looking forward to next years Benchmarks,this long-term impact is something well be keeping an eye on.While 2020 is behind us,and the re-sults are in

35、,the major news events that shaped the data in this years Bench-marks Study are very much still with us.A new administration is setting policy,the assault on voting rights continues,the race between vaccination and viral mutation is ongoing,and the work of dismantling white supremacy and es-tablishi

36、ng racial justice remains an ur-gent task.So read on,get the facts,and hold on to these words from pioneering journalist Nellie Bly:“Energy rightly applied and directed will accomplish anything.”Lets get to it.EDITORIALby WILL VALVERDESECTION A1BENCHMARKS 2021|A1 EDITORIAL:KEY FINDINGSHEADLINESTOTAL

37、 ONLINE REVENUE GREW BY 32%IN 2020.This growth is extraordinary,well above what we typically report for year-over-year changes.HUNGER AND POVERTY GROUPS REPORTED A STUNNING 173%INCREASE in online revenue over the previous year.NONPROFITS ACROSS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF ISSUE AREAS IDENTIFIED RACIAL JUSTIC

38、E AS AN IMPORTANT PRIORITY.We hope this reflects a commitment to making long overdue meaningful changes within our industry(and everywhere else).NONPROFITS THAT DID ELECTORAL WORK DID NOT OUTPERFORM NON-ELEC-TORAL NONPROFITS,even in the midst of a high-profile presi-dential election.NONPROFITS THAT

39、EN-GAGED IN COVID-19 RE-SPONSE SAW NOTICEABLY HIGHER GROWTH IN ONE-TIME GIVING REVENUE than those that did not.Change in online revenue by type 2019 to 2020:COVID response6M+R|VOLUME XV7Digital AdsSometimes the big,bold headline obscures a subtler story below the fold.For nonprofit digital ads,the u

40、nmistakable headline has been continued growth.But when we dig a little deeper,we find intriguing nuance,with nonprofits of different sizes and different issue areas making choices with major impact.Lets start from the top:in 2020,non-profits in our study spent an average of$0.10 on digital ads for

41、every dol-lar raised in online revenue.To put it another way,a nonprofit that raised$1 million online in 2020 spent an average of$100,000 on digital advertising.This is not nonprofits return on invest-ment rather,its a measure of how much of their total budget nonprofits are investing in digital ads

42、.We have seen this investment grow year after year,and 2020 continued that trend.Nonprofits digital adver-tising spending grew 33%year over year.But this growth was not evenly distributed across sectors and was no doubt impacted by the many,many challenges nonprofits faced in 2020.Cultural nonprofit

43、s pulled back sharply on digital advertising investments as COVID restrictions forced destinations like museums to close,and budgets were under unprecedented strain.Health and Hunger and Poverty organiza-tions scaled up massively,as their work gained new relevance and urgency.So while nonprofits on

44、the whole increased ad spending,they werent all operating in the same environment or following the same priorities.They used digital ads for everything from fundraising to recruiting new supporters and volun-teers to raising awareness about their mission and programs.Digital ad spending increased sh

45、arply in the final quarter of 2020,with 31%of budgets spent in December alone.The driving force here seems clear:Giving Tuesday and December 31st remain powerful moments for donors to give,and nonprofits were eager to position themselves and their causes in front of generous people looking to make a

46、 difference.There was also a small spike in digital ad spending in June(8%of total spend-ing),and here the cause is less obvious.It may reflect nonprofits increasing ad budgets to coincide with the end of the fiscal year either to align with a major fundraising push or spending down remaining budget

47、s before they expire.The bulk of ad spending was dedicated to fundraising:60%of budgets went to direct fundraising ads,and 14%was spent on lead generation.Branding,awareness,or education ads made up 25%of budgets.Once again,there was significant vari-ation beneath those topline numbers.Looking at th

48、e breakdown by size,we found stark differences between the budget priorities of Large organizations and Small organizations.Large organizations spent 62%of their digital advertising budget on fundrais-ing,with 25%of budgets allocated to branding,awareness,or education.Small organizations,on the othe

49、r hand,spent 64%of their digital advertising budget on branding,awareness,or education,and only 8%on direct fundraising.This could be a reflection of the extra work smaller organizations must do to get their name out there,particularly in a crowded digital advertising space.Breaking down direct fund

50、raising bud-gets by channel also revealed the dif-ferences in spending strategy between nonprofits of different sizes.Overall,fundraising ad budgets were split relatively evenly between display,search,and social media.Large non-profits made advertising investments consistent with those topline avera

51、ges.But Medium organizations prioritized search and social ads more heavily,spending 45%and 40%of their budget on those channels.Small nonprofits,on the other hand,spent 73%of their bud-gets on social media advertising,but only 12%on search and 15%on display.Part of this pattern may be explained by

52、the increased costs(in both technol-ogy and staffing)of running display or video advertising programs costs that may be prohibitive for smaller organi-zations.But the average cost of gener-ating a donation also varies widely by channel and may also influence non-profits decision making.Search,for ex

53、ample,had the lowest cost per dona-tion in 2020 at$29,with social media not far behind at$40.Display and video were substantially more expensive,at$116 and$147 per donation.And remember what we said about smaller organizations spending more on awareness ads?That whopping$228 CPD for Small organizati

54、ons search pro-grams may help to explain that differ-ence.Smaller organizations struggle to break through brand-dependent fund-raising channels like search.Invest-ing more in branding and awareness ads may be a longer-term effort to buck that trend by boosting brand recogni-tion and affinity.Fundrai

55、sing isnt the only purpose of digital advertising.Nonprofits also use digital ads to build their supporter base,whether its recruiting people to join an email list or encouraging people to sign up for SMS alerts.In 2020,the average cost to acquire a new lead through digi-tal advertising was$2.60.We

56、have covered what it costs to bring in a donation or a new lead,but what are nonprofits getting back?Search stands out here,too:$4.78 of nonprof-its revenue that can be directly sourced to every dollar spent on the channel(a measure known as Return on Ad Spend,or ROAS).As with so many of our key met

57、rics in 2020,the ROAS for Hunger and Pov-erty nonprofits was an extreme out-lier:a massive$17.77 return for every dollar spent!We know how many peo-ple were searching for ways to help this year,and we take that gargantuan ROAS as a sign they found places to give.BENCHMARKS 2021|A1 EDITORIAL:DIGITAL

58、ADSby MATT DERBY&GWEN EMMONSNONPROFIT SPENDING ON DIGITAL ADS INCREASED BY 33%IN 2020,with nonprofits spending an average of$0.10 for every dollar raised in online revenue.(This is a measure of the level of spending relative to total budget,not a direct measure of return on investment.More on return

59、 on ad spend below.)Digital ad spending was concentrated toward the end of the year,WITH ALMOST A THIRD OF ALL SPENDING OCCURING IN DECEMBER.DIRECT FUNDRAISING ADS ACCOUNTED FOR 60%OF ALL AD SPENDING.Branding,awareness,or education ads accounted for 25%,and lead generation for 14%.RETURN ON AD SPEND

60、 WAS HIGHEST FOR SEARCH ADS($4.78),followed by social media($1.05),display($0.38),and video($0.27).ON AVERAGE,THE COST TO ACQUIRE A NEW LEAD THROUGH DIGITAL ADVERTISING WAS$2.60.HEADLINESInvestment in digital advertising divided by total online revenueChange in investment in digital advertising 2019

61、 to 2020Percent of budget spent in each monthShare of digital advertising budget by investment typeDigital advertising:cost per donationFor a nonprofit who saw online revenue of$1m,they spent an average of$100,000 in digital advertising.8M+R|VOLUME XV9Taking these charts together,we see that search

62、had a lower cost per dona-tion and a higher return on ad spend.Display,on the other hand,had a high cost per donation and a lower ROAS.Social fell somewhere in the middle.So why not just dump your entire dig-ital advertising budget in search?Why even bother with video ads and their sky-high CPDs and

63、 piddly ROAS?The answer comes down to scale.Theres a limit to how much can be reasonably spent on search for most nonprofits,which is why search spending tends to be so consistent throughout the year.There are only so many people typing in relevant search terms like“Donate+”into Google or Bing.After

64、 youve saturated search,youve got to look to other channels.On the other hand,social and display ads can be run at much higher volumes.So when nonprofits sought to expand their reach during key moments such as during the end-of-year fundrais-ing push they were able to increase investments in those c

65、hannels.Return on ad spend is just one way to evaluate the effectiveness of an advertising effort and influencing supporter behavior is a complex art.A supporter might see an Instagram Stories ad,then see a display ad while theyre browsing the New York Times.They may not click on either of those,but

66、 those ads prompt them to search for your organization,click on a search ad,and give.Donations like these,from supporters who were served ads but landed on a donation page through some other means,are attributed as view-through revenue.This kind of giving accounted for 24%of all digital ads giving i

67、n 2020.Yet if your attribution model only accounts for the“last touch,”your search ad gets all the credit for that gift,even if your social media and display ads played a role in prompting that gift.That sounds complicated and messy,but lets face it:much of nonprofit direct response is complicated a

68、nd messy.There are no clear lines,no easy choices.What works for one organiza-tion may completely fail for another.The beauty of digital advertising is that it allows nonprofits to better under-stand who they are talking to,reach those audiences wherever they are,and respond to what their actions te

69、ll us they care about.That flexibility is unique in the direct response space.But if youre not track-Text Messaging&Peer to PeerYour phone goes*ping*and you reach for it automatically.It could be a breaking news alert,a reminder youve set for yourself,or a text from a friend.Or,increasingly,it could

70、 be a mass mobile message from a nonprofit,or a peer-to-peer message from a volunteer supporting a cause or candidate.That level of immediacy,popping directly into a supporters awareness with the same urgency as their person-al connections,is part of what makes mobile messaging such an important par

71、t of a modern digital program.Lets begin by examining bulk mobile messaging texts sent directly by a nonprofit to a list of subscribers,broad-ly analogous to email or direct mail.Audience sizes for this channel grew rapidly in 2020,with a 26%increase over the previous year.This is consid-erably fast

72、er growth than email list siz-es,which grew by just 3%.Of course,the starting place was very different for most nonprofits,email programs are much more mature and have benefited from many years of in-vestment in acquisition.Despite the impressive growth in 2020,mobile list sizes have room to scale u

73、p.On average,nonprofits had 50 mobile list members for every 1,000 email subscribers.Mobile messaging garnered much higher levels of interaction than email messaging.The click-through rate for mobile fundraising messages was 6.3%(email:1.7%),and the click-through rate for mobile advocacy messages wa

74、s 10%(email:3.3%).Because of the way that mobile messaging platforms connect to donation platforms,we lack reliable data on response rates.But we can say with confidence that mobile messaging got attention and clicks.We were able to track response rates for mobile advocacy call messages mobile messa

75、ges that are designed to connect a user directly to a target like a Congres-sional office.The average response rate for these messages was 1.6%.The other major category of mobile mes-saging is peer-to-peer.Rather than a sin-gle mass message to a full list,these SMS messages connect volunteers and st

76、aff to individual list members,enabling one-on-one conversations.Volume for this kind of messaging re-mained steady,with a user receiving 1.24 messages per month on average.This may not feel true for those of us who re-ceived a constant bombardment of mes-saging leading up to the election,but its wo

77、rth keeping a few things in mind:First,if you are reading Benchmarks,you probably do not have an average relationship with nonprofits.There is a good chance that you are subscribed to(and paying attention to)more lists than most people.Second,even if the av-erage number of messages sent by each nonp

78、rofit remained steady,total vol-ume could increase significantly if more nonprofits were sending messages.And finally,our data only includes our non-profit participants,not candidates or po-litical party sources.In our admittedly anecdotal experience,some of those po-litical sources were quite chatt

79、y in 2020.The response rate for peer-to-peer mobile messages was 9.8%,a decline of 27%from the previous year.“Response”means something a little different here than in other channels.For a fundrais-ing email,the response rate measures the percentage of recipients who com-pleted a donation.For peer-to

80、-peer tex-ting,we mean a literal response the user responding with a text message of their own.The opt-out rate for peer-to-peer mes-saging was 3.3%.This is the percentage of list members who opted out of further text messaging each month.Declining response rates and rising opt-out rates could indic

81、ate user dissatis-faction with mobile messaging as it is currently structured.Upcoming rule changes from carriers may put restric-tions on mass and peer-to-peer mobile messaging;the nature,timing,and enforcement of those rules remains to be seen.This is a developing story,so stay tuned for more in f

82、uture editions of Benchmarks.Our sources for mobile messaging data include our friends at GetThru,Hustle,and Upland Mobile Messaging.Our thanks go out to them for their data and expertise.BENCHMARKS 2021|A1 EDITORIAL:DIGITAL ADSby KYLE SHEPHERDShare your caption with us on Twitter mrcampaignsNONPROF

83、IT MOBILE AUDIENCES GREW BY 26%IN 2020,compared to a 3%average increase in email list size.NONPROFITS HAD 50 MOBILE LIST MEMBERS for every 1,000 email subscribers.MOBILE MESSAGE CLICK-THROUGH RATES WERE 6.3%FOR FUNDRAISING MESSAGES AND 10%FOR ADVOCACY MESSAGES.Both figures are far higher than compar

84、able email metrics.PEER-TO-PEER TEXT MESSAGE AUDIENCES RECEIVED 1.24 MESSAGES PER MONTH IN 2020,and responded 9.8%of the time.HEADLINESDigital advertising:return on ad spend(ROAS)Cost per digital advertising leading the journey however circuitous it may be to becoming a supporter or making a gift,yo

85、ure not only missing an opportunity to show the full impact of your program.You may also be miss-ing out on finding more donors and supporters eager to support your cause.Mobile messaging statisticsNumbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.Peer-to-peer SMS metricsNumbers in the pare

86、ntheses represent the change since 2019.10M+R|VOLUME XV11EmailPeople have been trying to rele-gate email programs to the obit-uary pages for years.Declining response rates,provider changes like Gmails“Promotions”tab,shifting user habits all of those have been used to prophesize impending doom for th

87、is critical channel.The 2020 data shows that reports of emails demise have been greatly exag-gerated.Again.Nonprofits sent more email messages to more people last year.Email volume increased by 17%,with 59 messages sent per list member over the course of the year.Of these,23 were fundrais-ing messag

88、es,9 were advocacy mes-sages,12 were newsletters,and 15 were“other,”which might include cultiva-tion messages,event invitations,polls and surveys,or anything else.Email messaging was not distributed evenly over the course of the year.Most professionals reading this will be unsurprised to see the hig

89、hest messag-ing volume in December,coinciding with the end-of-year fundraising push.Looking at shifts in email volume by sector helps illuminate how nonprofits responded to changing news over the course of the year.Cultural nonprofit messaging spiked in February and May,possibly correspond-ing to wa

90、ves of COVID cases and associ-ated closures and restrictions on visits.Disaster and International Aid nonprof-its,along with Public Media,also turned up the volume in May.In many cases,larger audiences and increased volume correlate with lower engagement.That was not the case for email programs in 2

91、020.Overall open rates increased by 9%,to 21%.Unsubscribe rates declined by 5%,to 0.18%.And response rates increased for both advocacy messages(to 3.6%)and fundraising messages(0.10%).These improvements may have been partially driven by the high engagement levels,especially for fundraising,that we s

92、aw across digital channels last year.They may also reflect better targeting and list hygiene practices from nonprof-its delivering the right message to the right people at the right time can have a major impact on performance.Email fundraising performance impr-oved by just about every metric for eve

93、ry kind of nonprofit.For every 1,000 fundraising messages delivered,non-profits raised an average of$78.That marked a 35%jump from the previous year.Rights nonprofits reported the least year-over-year growth in this metric,and even there we saw a 21%increase.Once again,audiences responded with overw

94、helming generosity to Hunger and Poverty nonprofit appeals.That sector reported a 243%spike,raising$871 for every 1,000 fundraising emails sent.There is a truism among fundraisers:donors donate.Which is to say,sup-porters who have a history of giving are more likely to give in response to new appeal

95、s than those who need to be convinced to give for the first time.The fundraising email metrics certainly bear that out but a closer look reveals an intriguing nuance.We found that donor audiences tended to have a slightly higher open rate than pros-pect audiences:22%compared to 18%.However,click-thr

96、ough rates for fund-raising messages were actually higher for prospect audiences.For audiences comprising donors,the average fundrais-ing message click-through-rate was 1.6%.For prospect audiences,it was 1.7%.To be clear:those are all pretty sim-ilar numbers.What we are seeing is that a donor was ab

97、out as likely to click through on fundraising email as a sub-scriber who had never given before.The major difference is what happens next.Page completion rate the percentage of users who land on a donation page and then complete a gift was 32%for donor audiences,and just 8%for pros-pect audiences.Th

98、ere is the difference.Its that divergence at the final step that led to a 0.29%response rate for donor audiences,and 0.05%for prospects.It looks so simple,and like many simple things it is very complicated.Donors are more likely to have their payment infor-mation stored online,making the dona-tion p

99、rocess simpler.Donation pages may lack sufficient content or context to convert a prospect,while a donor arrives already convinced of the need to give.There may be demographic or cultural differences that are clouded by the artifi-cial categories of“donor”and“prospect.”For a nonprofit looking to mak

100、e pros-pects look more like donors,the solu-tions may not be easy to find.But the landing page itself,and user behavior there,is certainly a place to start looking and testing.by JONATHAN BENTONBENCHMARKS 2021|A1 EDITORIAL:EMAILShare your caption with us on Twitter mrcampaignsMost email metrics incl

101、uding open rates,click-through rates,response rates,and page completion rates WENT UP IN 2020.FOR EVERY 1,000 FUNDRAISING MESSAGES SENT,NONPROFITS RAISED$78.This marks a 35%increase over 2019.AS WAS THE CASE WITH OVERALL ONLINE REVENUE,THE HUNGER AND POVERTY SECTOR WAS AN EXTREME OUTLIER IN EMAIL FU

102、NDRAISING.These nonprofits raised$871 for every 1,000 fundraising emails sent,a 243%increase.WOW.EMAIL LIST SIZES INCREASED BY 3%IN 2020,the same growth rate reported for 2019.NONPROFITS SENT AN AVERAGE OF 59 EMAIL MESSAGES per subscriber in 2020,a 17%increase in volume.THE AVERAGE RESPONSE RATE FOR

103、 ADVOCACY EMAIL WAS 3.6%,a 5%increase over the previous year.The average response rate for fundraising email was 0.10%,a 41%increase.HEADLINESMessages per subscriber per monthMessages per year per subscriberEmail rates by message typeNumbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.Prospec

104、t v donor email message ratesNumbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.12M+R|VOLUME XV13Membership and Ticket SalesThink of all the things you didnt do in 2020.The canceled plans,the postponed trips.The Satur-day nights that transformed from dinner-and-a-show to takeout-and-Netflix.

105、For Cultural institutions and other nonprofits that rely on ticket sales and membership,the pandemic brought with it extraordinary challenges.There were closures and attendance limits.There were people,millions of them,suddenly not doing things.This impact can be seen most clearly in ticket sales.(F

106、or our purposes here,we are looking at tickets to attend an insti-tution or regular event,like a museum visit.We do not include tickets to spe-cial events like an annual gala.)Revenue from online ticket sales grew modestly from 2018 to 2019,with 6%annual growth.Then,2020 happened.Online ticket reven

107、ue plummeted by 58%.Thats a serious challenge,especially if its accompanied by a drop in on-site ticket sales.This decline shifted the bur-den of generating revenue from ticket sales to direct fundraising appeals and other efforts.In 2019,those nonprofits that report ticket sales received 34%of all

108、online revenue through those sales;in 2020,ticket sales accounted for just 20%of total online revenue.As vaccine distribution allows atten-dance to safely rise,we expect online ticket sales to rebound.It remains to be seen how long it will take for them to return to pre-pandemic levels.The data for

109、membership giving did not follow this dire trend.Nonprofits define membership in all sorts of dif-ferent ways.For this analysis,we asked participants to only include member-ship programs that offer defined,tan-gible benefits a branded tote bag and water bottle,regular admittance to events,etc.Member

110、ship that includes a paper card and a thank-you note is often an important part of a successful fundraising program,but it was not our focus here.Membership revenue increased by 17%in 2020,building on 3%growth in the previous year.For those nonprof-its that rely on this type of membership program,me

111、mbership accounted for 66%of total online revenue in 2020.In 2019,membership was 54%.The divergent trends in membership and ticket performance are apparent beyond the year-over-year changes.When we look specifically at email messages pro-moting each of these ways of supporting and engaging with nonp

112、rofits,member-ship messaging saw better results across the board.Open rates and click-through rates were higher for membership email than ticket sales email.But as was the case in com-paring prospect and donor messaging(see page 11),the biggest difference emerged in page completion rates.While 21%of

113、 users who landed on a member-ship giving page completed their gift,just 1%of users who clicked through to a ticket sales page made a purchase.Nonprofits that rely on membership offers tend to see better results with membership email than non-mem-bership fundraising appeals.Every metric we track ref

114、lected better perfor-mance for membership email,likely as a result of sending to more targeted audiences.Still,its worth noting the remarkable 106%increase in response rate for non-membership fundraising appeals.These nonprofits found ways to appeal to supporters outside of the tra-ditional membersh

115、ip model,and their subscribers rose to the occasion in an extraordinary way no tote bags,water bottles,or admission packages needed.But beyond those email numbers,mem-bership mattered in 2020.The increasing importance and success of membership may be due to a greater emphasis from nonprofits promoti

116、ng this kind of giving.It may reflect a renewed commitment from donors supporting causes they care about.It may be that in a year of isolation and uncertainty,many of us felt a pro-found need for belonging to strengthen our fragile spirits.Maybe membership provides a bit of that.NONPROFIT PROFESSION

117、ALS!Learn the fundamentals of creative that drives response for advocacy,list growth,fundraising,and more.Discover a framework for developing ethical,anti-racist,equitable creative.Amaze your colleagues and delight your donors!Its free,it works,and its available now.Download at you want to develop c

118、reative that:IMPROVES your RESULTS?ADVANCES your VALUES?REACHES your SPECTACULARLY AMBITIOUS GOALS?THE M+R GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE AND ETHICAL DIRECT RESPONSE CREATIVEBENCHMARKS 2021|A1 EDITORIAL:MEMBERSHIP AND TICKET SALESREVENUE FROM ONLINE TICKET SALES DROPPED SHARPLY IN 2020 nonprofits reported a 58%

119、decrease from 2019.TICKET SALES DECLINED FROM 34%OF TOTAL ONLINE REVENUE IN 2019,to 20%of total online revenue in 2020.(This includes only those nonprofits that report ticket sales.)Revenue from membership programs with defined,tangible benefits increased by 17%in 2020,ACCOUNTING FOR 66%OF ALL REVEN

120、UE FOR NONPROFITS WITH THOSE MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS.HEADLINESby YOONHYUNG LEEMembership as a percentage of total online revenueChange in membership revenueChange in membership revenue(any sector)Membership as a percentage of total online revenue in all sectorsMembership and fundraising message rates(am

121、ong groups who send membership messages)Membership and ticket message ratesNumbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.Numbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.14M+R|VOLUME XV15Social MediaBefore a website gets updated,before an email is launched,before hitting send

122、on a mass SMS,most nonprofits respond to break-ing news by turning to social media.The potential reach of this channel is enormous,but it begins with those audiences that directly follow a non-profit on each platform.For most non-profits,Facebook continues to be the social media platform with the la

123、rgest follower base.In 2020,nonprofits had 817 Facebook fans for every 1,000 email subscribers,291 Twitter followers,and 149 Instagram followers.Those ratios reflect the overall user base and relative maturity of each chan-nel.However,they do not hold true for all nonprofits,or even for all sectors.

124、Rights nonprofits reported more Twit-ter followers than Facebook fans.For Wildlife and Animal Welfare nonprof-its,Instagram outstripped Twitter,and Facebook audiences were even larger than email list sizes.(Our ten-tative theory here is that Instagram and Facebook are excellent channels for cute ani

125、mal photos.We are dedicated to doing as much research as necessary to discover exactly how true that is.)Now,simply having a large potential audience is not the same thing as actu-ally reaching those supporters with content.Unlike channels like email,SMS,and direct mail,social media plat-forms direc

126、tly control the reach of each piece of content through their propri-etary algorithms.On Facebook,an organic post by a non-profit reached just 4%of fans in 2020.The vast majority of a nonprofits Face-book fans simply didnt get served any individual post.On the flipside,29%of the audience that did see

127、 a post were not already fans.We arent just reach-ing the audiences we already know when we post to social media.In order to expand that reach,many nonprofits rely on paid post promotion.In 2020,2%of nonprofit Facebook posts had paid reach.Of course,social media isnt simply a way for nonprofits to s

128、hare information.Its also a direct response channel we want the audience to do something with our content.Twitter provides a direct report of engage-ment,which the platform defines as total engagements per post divided by post reach.In 2020,the average Twitter engagement rate was 1.8%,with Wild-life

129、/Animal Welfare nonprofits a high-side outlier at 2.9%.We benchmark engagement a little dif-ferently on Facebook than on Twitter.Because of Facebooks tendency to throt-tle post reach dramatically depending on their algorithms,Facebook engagement rates can be all over the map,and are less useful to b

130、enchmark.In order to pro-duce a more stable figure,we looked at the number of users who interacted with a post as a percentage of page fans when the content was posted.By this measure,the average Facebook engagement score was 0.32%.Which is to say:if a nonprofit had 100,000 fans and posted a piece o

131、f content,that post would receive 320 likes,clicks,and shares on average.That 0.32%engagement score marks a decline of 21%from 2019 levels but the change in Facebook engagement scores was highly variable across sec-tors.Health nonprofits saw engagement rise by 537%,which may seem intuitive in a year

132、 dominated by a pandemic.The average Public Media engagement score rose by 139%,which may make sense in a year with so.much.news.And Wild-life and Animal Welfare engagement scores increased by 77%.(Were going to have to go look at some more cute animal photos to try to figure out why.)BENCHMARKS 202

133、1|A1 EDITORIAL:SOCIAL MEDIAby MARJORY GARRISONFor every 1,000 email addresses,nonprofits had an AVERAGE OF 817 FACEBOOK FANS,291 TWITTER FOLLOWERS,AND 149 INSTAGRAM FOLLOWERS.TWITTER POSTS HAD AN AVERAGE ENGAGEMENT RATE OF 1.8%.FACEBOOK POSTS HAD AN AVERAGE ENGAGEMENT SCORE OF 0.32%.We did not find

134、major differences in Facebook engagement based on the day of week or post type.EACH ORGANIC FACEBOOK POST ONLY REACHED 4%OF A NONPROFIT PAGES FANS.Meanwhile,29%of the audience reached by a given post was not already following the nonprofit.REVENUE FROM FACEBOOK FUNDRAISERS INCREASED BY 14%OVERALL,wi

135、th Hunger and Poverty nonprofits seeing a 946%increase in Fundraisers revenue.FACEBOOK FUNDRAISERS ACCOUNTED FOR 1.3%OF ALL ONLINE REVENUE.HEADLINESFor every 1,000 email subscribers,groups have.Facebook percent of posts that had paid reachFacebook engagement scoreChange in Facebook engagement score

136、2019 to 2020Facebook Engagement Score:The total number of users who engage with a social media post(by liking,clicking,sharing,etc.)divided by the total number of page fans on the day the content was postedTwitter engagement rateTwitter Engagement Rate:Average engagement rate per post,as reported by

137、 Twitter.Total engagements per post divided by post reach.16M+R|VOLUME XV17In order to try to assess the kinds of content that were most likely to drive Facebook engagement,we sorted all posts by day of week and by content type.There were some differences(weekend posts received a bit less engagement

138、,photo and video content performed a bit better than link content),but nothing major.While reaching individual users with organic Facebook posts became more challenging in 2020,the impact of Face-book Fundraisers continued to expand.Revenue from Facebook Fundraisers,the built-in peer-to-peer fundrai

139、sing tool,increased by 14%in 2020.In another eye-popping,jaw-dropping display of how communities responded to the COVID pandemic,Hunger and Pov-erty nonprofits reported a 946%increase in Facebook Fundraisers revenue.The supporter response to COVID can be seen not just in which causes earned support,

140、but when.As with so much other online fundraising,we saw a spike in Facebook Fundraisers in the Novem-ber/December period covering Giving Tuesday and end of year.But the big-gest month for Facebook Fundraisers in the Hunger and Poverty sector was in April,right as the nightly news and nationwide fro

141、nt pages were featuring lines of cars at community food banks.And for Cultural nonprofits experienc-ing shutdowns and attendance limits,Fundraisers activity spiked in May.This giving reflects not just nonprofit strategy,but the effort and impact of thousands of individual supporters ask-ing friends

142、to join them in giving to a cause they care about.The average Facebook Fundraiser generated four gifts,with an average gift size of$34.All those individual efforts,those donated birthday posts and neighbors helping neighbors and long-lost high school classmates chipping in,accounted for 1.3%of all o

143、nline revenue.Website PerformanceConsidering how much less time most of us spent out and about in 2020,you might be forgiven for thinking wed be less attached to our cell phones.Turns out,its just as easy to doomscroll on the couch as it is on the morning train.The share of web traffic for nonprof-i

144、ts from users on mobile phones increased by 9%in 2020.Mobile users accounted for 50%of all website traffic,compared to 44%for desktop users and 6%for tablets.As we have seen in recent years,not all visits are equally likely to result in fundraising success.While mobile vis-itors generated half of al

145、l web traffic,they made 35%of the donations and accounted for 25%of the revenue.To put it another way:desktop users,while a declining share of overall traf-fic,were more likely to complete a gift,and their gifts were likely to be in larger amounts.The website main donation page con-version rate for

146、desktop users was 12%,compared to just 9%for mobile users.(Tablet users had an 18%conversion rate,but they are such a small share of overall traffic that were not going to get too excited about that number.)The average gift for a donation made on a desktop device was$80,nearly twice as high as the m

147、obile average gift of$42.Pandemic quarantine or not,the over-all story has been remarkably consis-tent in recent years.More nonprofit website traffic is visiting on mobile devices,and that traffic is less valu-able on average than desktop traffic(as measured by revenue of course there are other reas

148、ons why we value visi-bility and engagement).The need to optimize the mobile experience and remove barriers to giving on mobile devices continues.Setting aside the question of whether the user was holding a mouse or a phone,organic traffic accounted for 42%of all nonprofit website traffic.“Organic t

149、raffic”includes only vis-its from users who arrived via unpaid search results.It excludes visits driven by social media posts,direct response marketing like email,and paid search,social,or display advertising.This is traffic resulting from a user entering a search query,whether an issue or a nonprof

150、its name,and finding their way to a website from the search engine results page.With so much effort put into those other methods of generating traffic BENCHMARKS 2021|A1 EDITORIAL:SOCIAL MEDIAby KAREN HOPPERHALF OF ALL NONPROFIT WEBSITE VISITS CAME FROM USERS ON MOBILE DEVICES.The traffic share for

151、mobile devices increased by 9%in 2020.USERS ON DESKTOP DEVICES MADE UP THE MAJORITY OF DONATION TRANSACTIONS(61%)AND REVENUE(72%).THE AVERAGE GIFT MADE ON A DESKTOP DEVICE WAS$80;for mobile users,the average gift was$42.ORGANIC TRAFFIC(WEBSITE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY UNPAID SEARCH RESULTS)COMPRISED 42%

152、of all nonprofit website visits in 2020.OVERALL,0.08%OF ORGANIC WEBSITE VISITORS MADE A DONATION,generating an average of$0.12 per visitor.HEADLINESFacebook post engagement score by type of mediaFacebook Engagement Score:The total number of users who engage with a social media post(by liking,clickin

153、g,sharing,etc.)divided by the total number of page fans on the day the content was postedNumbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.Facebook engagement score by day of weekChange in amount raised on FacebookPercent of Facebook revenue raised in each monthWebsite share by device18M+R|

154、VOLUME XV19email,social media,digital ads its worth taking a moment to understand the potential impact of these visits.For many nonprofits,organic traffic represents the majority of all visits both the Health and Wildlife and Ani-mal Welfare sectors reported over 50%organic traffic.Of all organic we

155、bsite visitors,0.08%completed a gift.The average revenue generated by an organic website visi-tor was$0.12.To be sure,visitors arrive at a nonprofit website for all sorts of reasons.They are looking for information,trying to get in touch with someone,considering a new career path,taking action on a

156、vital issue,and so much more.Some may not be open to making a dona-tion.But many others are if we make it easy to find the donation page and pres-ent a compelling case for giving.Success-fully converting a higher share of organic visitors to donors takes considerable optimization and experimentation

157、.Even relatively minor improvements can have a major impact.Last year,the average visitor who arrived via organic search generated only$0.12 in revenue.But with millions and millions of such visitors,increasing that metric by just a couple of cents can provide a substan-tial boost to revenue.This is

158、 news to no one:the last year has not been an easy one.Editors Note:We had initially included a list here of reasons why the last year was hard,but it was very long,and very sad,and so we removed it.We know you know.And yet.The data shows that support-ers rose to the occasion in all sorts of ways.In

159、 fact,the very existence of this data demonstrates the remarkable,inspiring commitment of our nonprofit participants.Through everything,you not only did this incredible work you were generous enough to share your time and data with us.Thank you.Most of our charts include a topline metric labeled“All

160、.”This number rep-resents the median figure for a given metric for all participants who reported data.We use median rather than mean How to read the chartsfor several reasons;most importantly,we strive to ensure that a particular participant,or a particular sector,with unusual results does not skew

161、our over-all findings.Thatll make a lot of sense when you see the results for Hunger and Poverty nonprofits for 2020.Wherever possible,we have broken out the findings by sector.Each of our par-ticipants self-identified the appropriate sector(or,in some cases,fell outside of our defined sectors and s

162、elected“Other”).If you are not sure which sec-tor represents your peer group,review the full list of participants(page 40)to find where you belong.We also sort our participants by size.For our Study,“Small”refers to non-profits with annual online revenue in 2020 below$500,000;“Medium”includes those

163、nonprofits with revenue between$500,000 and$3,000,000;and“Large”covers all those with online revenue greater than$3,000,000.Not all participants were able to pro-vide data for every metric.If a chart does not include data for a certain sec-tor or size,its because we were not able to collect enough r

164、esults to report a reliable average.We say this every year:because each Benchmarks Study includes a dif-ferent set of participants,we can-not reliably gauge changes by placing one years edition next to anothers.That is especially true in an unprece-dented year like 2020,during which an unprecedented

165、 number of things were described as unprecedented.Wherever we make year-over-year comparisons,we are including long-term data from this years participants.HELLO.IS IT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?M+R is hiring!People say they choose a career at M+R to achieve progressive change and alleviate suffering aroun

166、d the world side-by-side with the brightest and best in the business.We think that kind of commitment is amazing,and is why taking care of each other is one of our most important values.Learn more and apply BENEFITS INCLUDE:Time to take care of yourself with three weeks vacation,along with sick and

167、personal daysTime to take care of your family through generous parental and family leave benefitsTop notch health,vision,and dental benefits401(k)employer match program with no administrative feesPre-tax transit,health,and dependent care benefitsConfidential Employee Assistance Program(EAP)Every off

168、ice has their own unique assortment of snacks,coffee,puzzles,and more food and fun.BENCHMARKS 2021|A1 EDITORIAL:WEBSITE PERFORMANCEBenchmarks 2022 starts sooner than you think!Did you love participating in Bencharks 2021?Did you miss out this year and wish you could have joined in the fun?Sign up fo

169、r Benchmarks 2022 TODAY to guarantee your spot in next years hottest analysis of nonprofit data.Dont let this opportunity pass you Share your caption with us on Twitter mrcampaignsOrganic traffic volume as percent of overall traffic20M+R|VOLUME XV21TOTAL ONLINE REVENUE GREW BY 32%IN 2020.Hunger and

170、Poverty groups reported a STUNNING 173%INCREASE in online revenue over the previous year.REVENUE FROM MONTHLY GIFTS INCREASED BY 25%,while revenue from one-time gifts increased by 37%.Monthly giving accounted for 19%of all online revenue in 2020.NONPROFITS THAT ENGAGED IN COVID-19 RESPONSE SAW NOTIC

171、EABLY HIGHER GROWTH IN ONE-TIME GIVING REVENUE THAN THOSE THAT DID NOT.THE AVERAGE NONPROFIT DONOR MADE 2.03 GIFTS AND CONTRIBUTED$167 IN 2020.Both of these per-donor metrics are slightly lower than 2019 the increase in overall was largely driven by more people giving rather than people giving more.

172、OVERALL,41%OF 2019 ONLINE DONORS WERE RETAINED TO MAKE ANOTHER ONLINE GIFT IN 2020.The retention rate for new online donors was 25%;for donors with a previous giving history the retention rate was 63%.FundraisingCHARTSSECTION B1BENCHMARKS 2021|B1 CHARTSHEADLINESChange in online revenue 2019 to 2020P

173、ercent of revenue raised in each monthIncludes revenue from Facebook for 2019 and 2020 where groups provided that information.Online revenue change since 2016Change in online revenue by type 2019 to 202022M+R|VOLUME XV23BENCHMARKS 2021|B1 CHARTS:FUNDRAISINGMonthly giving as a percentage of online re

174、venueAverage monthly giftEmail revenue per 1,000 fundraising emails sentChange in email revenue per 1,000 fundraising emails sent 2019 to 2020Change in number of online gifts 2019 to 2020Distribution of donors&revenue by donor levelAverage one-time giftChange in email revenue 2019 to 2020Share of on

175、line revenue from emailGifts per donor per yearIncludes all one-time gifts and first monthly gifts within the year.Revenue per donor per yearIncludes all gifts and donors with one-time gifts and first monthly gifts within the year.24M+R|VOLUME XV25Digital AdsBENCHMARKS 2021|B1 CHARTS:FUNDRAISINGNONP

176、ROFIT SPENDING ON DIGITAL ADS INCREASED BY 33%IN 2020,with nonprofits spending an average of$0.10 for every dollar raised in online revenue.(This is a measure of the level of spending relative to total budget,not a direct measure of return on investment.More on return on ad spend below.)Digital ad s

177、pending was concentrated toward the end of the year,WITH ALMOST A THIRD OF ALL SPENDING OCCURING IN DECEMBER.DIRECT FUNDRAISING ADS ACCOUNTED FOR 60%OF ALL AD SPENDING.Branding,awareness,or education ads accounted for 25%,and lead generation for 14%.RETURN ON AD SPEND WAS HIGHEST FOR SEARCH ADS($4.7

178、8),followed by social media($1.05),display($0.38),and video($0.27).ON AVERAGE,THE COST TO ACQUIRE A NEW LEAD THROUGH DIGITAL ADVERTISING WAS$2.60.HEADLINESMembership and fundraising message rates(among groups who send membership messages)Membership and ticket message ratesOnline donor retentionChang

179、e in investment in digital advertising 2019 to 2020Cost per digital advertising leadChange in ticket revenueTicket as a percentage of total online revenue26M+R|VOLUME XV27Text MessagingWeb EngagementBENCHMARKS 2021|B1 CHARTS:DIGITAL ADSNONPROFIT MOBILE AUDIENCES GREW BY 26%IN 2020,compared to a 3%av

180、erage increase in email list size.NONPROFITS HAD 50 MOBILE LIST MEMBERS for every 1,000 email subscribers.MOBILE MESSAGE CLICK-THROUGH RATES WERE 6.3%FOR FUNDRAISING MESSAGES AND 10%FOR ADVOCACY MESSAGES.Both figures are far higher than comparable email metrics.PEER-TO-PEER TEXT MESSAGE AUDIENCES RE

181、CEIVED 1.24 MESSAGES PER MONTH IN 2020,and responded 9.8%of the time.HEADLINESHALF OF ALL NONPROFIT WEBSITE VISITS CAME FROM USERS ON MOBILE DEVICES.The traffic share for mobile devices increased by 9%in 2020.USERS ON DESKTOP DEVICES MADE UP THE MAJORITY OF DONATION TRANSACTIONS(61%)AND REVENUE(72%)

182、.THE AVERAGE GIFT MADE ON A DESKTOP DEVICE WAS$80;for mobile users,the average gift was$42.ORGANIC TRAFFIC(WEBSITE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY UNPAID SEARCH RESULTS)COMPRISED 42%of all nonprofit website visits in 2020.OVERALL,0.08%OF ORGANIC WEBSITE VISITORS MADE A DONATION,generating an average of$0.12 pe

183、r visitor.HEADLINESInvestment in digital advertising divided by total online revenueDigital advertising:cost per donationDigital advertising:return on ad spend(ROAS)Cost per thousand impressions(CPM)by channelCost per click(CPC)by channelShare of digital advertising budget by investment typePeer-to-

184、peer SMS metricsMobile messaging statisticsOrganic traffic volume as percent of overall trafficAverage gift by deviceWebsite main donation page conversion ratePercent of budget spent in each monthFor a nonprofit who saw online revenue of$1m,they spent an average of$100,000 in digital advertising.Num

185、bers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.Numbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.28M+R|VOLUME XV29Email MessagingBENCHMARKS 2021|B1 CHARTS:WEB ENGAGEMENTMost email metrics including open rates,click-through rates,response rates,and page completion rates WENT UP IN 2

186、020.FOR EVERY 1,000 FUNDRAISING MESSAGES SENT,NONPROFITS RAISED$78.This marks a 35%increase over 2019.AS WAS THE CASE WITH OVERALL ONLINE REVENUE,THE HUNGER AND POVERTY SECTOR WAS AN EXTREME OUTLIER IN EMAIL FUNDRAISING.These nonprofits raised$871 for every 1,000 fundraising emails sent,a 243%increa

187、se.WOW.EMAIL LIST SIZES INCREASED BY 3%IN 2020,the same growth rate reported for 2019.NONPROFITS SENT AN AVERAGE OF 59 EMAIL MESSAGES per subscriber in 2020,a 17%increase in volume.THE AVERAGE RESPONSE RATE FOR ADVOCACY EMAIL WAS 3.6%,a 5%increase over the previous year.The average response rate for

188、 fundraising email was 0.10%,a 41%increase.HEADLINESWebsite share by deviceMain donation page conversion rateList growthMessages per subscriber per monthProspect v donor email message ratesChurnChange in fundraising response rate 2019 to 2020Donations to your main donation page:Include donations to

189、any page that you consider a main page.Unique pageviews of your main donation page:Unique visitors to any page considered a main donation page.Donation page load time(seconds)Homepage load time(seconds)Numbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.Numbers in the parentheses represent th

190、e change since 2019.30M+R|VOLUME XV31Social MediaBENCHMARKS 2021|B1 CHARTS:EMAIL MESSAGINGFor every 1,000 email addresses,nonprofits had an AVERAGE OF 817 FACEBOOK FANS,291 TWITTER FOLLOWERS,AND 149 INSTAGRAM FOLLOWERS.TWITTER POSTS HAD AN AVERAGE ENGAGEMENT RATE OF 1.8%.FACEBOOK POSTS HAD AN AVERAG

191、E ENGAGEMENT SCORE OF 0.32%.We did not find major differences in Facebook engagement based on the day of week or post type.EACH ORGANIC FACEBOOK POST ONLY REACHED 4%OF A NONPROFIT PAGES FANS.Meanwhile,29%of the audience reached by a given post was not already following the nonprofit.REVENUE FROM FAC

192、EBOOK FUNDRAISERS INCREASED BY 14%OVERALL,with Hunger and Poverty nonprofits seeing a 946%increase in Fundraisers revenue.FACEBOOK FUNDRAISERS ACCOUNTED FOR 1.3%OF ALL ONLINE REVENUE.HEADLINESMessages per year per subscriberFacebook engagement scoreChange in Facebook engagement score 2019 to 2020Fac

193、ebook post engagement score by type of mediaEmail messaging rates by type and sectorEmail rates by message typeChange in messages per year 2019 to 2020Facebook Fundraisers average giftFacebook Engagement Score:The total number of users who engage with a social media post(by liking,clicking,sharing,e

194、tc.)divided by the total number of page fans on the day the content was postedFacebook engagement score by day of weekNumbers in the parentheses represent the change since 2019.32M+R|VOLUME XV33BENCHMARKS 2021|B1 CHARTS:SOCIAL MEDIATwitter engagement rateTypes of Facebook postsPercent of Facebook re

195、venue raised in each monthFacebook percent of posts that had paid reachChange in amount raised on FacebookPosts per dayChange in fans/followers 2019 to 2020Average number of gifts to a Facebook FundraiserChange in number of fans/followers from 2019 to 2020For every 1,000 email subscribers,groups hav

196、e.Twitter Engagement Rate:Average engagement rate per post,as reported by Twitter.Total engagements per post divided by post reach.Share of online revenue from Facebook34BENCHMARKS 2021|M+R|VOLUME XV35WE BUY INSUFFERABLE IRRITANTS!INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:-encumbrances-unkindness-clutter-trolls-

197、arduous sign-off processes-clunky copyFind us at 220 Hidden Avenue Open Tue,Fri from 10am2pm only.No website or phone.MUST GOuhhhhh covid?COVID.COVID-19 and all pandemics.Wanted ExistentialSearching for a better future.A good nights sleep.A path forward to engage authentically.A sense of irony.A kin

198、der world.Contentment.Growth.Happiness.Time.Stress relief.The meaning of life.Oh and a better conversion rate.Were looking for a better understanding of our impact in general,but especially during an election year.We want an accurate measure of our organizations relative standing to national organiz

199、ations,some useful insights we can use to improve our digital brand marketing and fundraising.And fulfillment.We need more clarity on what were doing well and what we can improve.And what areas should we be investing more in?We want to gain more clarity on the impact of our fundraising communication

200、s through quantifiable data.I guess in general,we want more answers!Signed,New to BenchmarksDear NtB,Thanks so much for writing!You seem like an amazing,insightful,generous person.In answer to your questions,please read the rest of this years Benchmarks Study.Thanks,BenchmarksWanted HousingKnock kno

201、ck knock!Its your next roommate!Looking for a dog-friendly apartment.Clean,non-smoker,friendly.I do not currently have a dog,but I need one.Like,as soon as possible.#pandemiclifeEmail me Looking for a cottage by the sea.Any cottage will do.Any sea will do.I just need to get out of this damn apartmen

202、t.Send listings to Me:Progressive nonprofit trying to change the world and fight against injustice every day.You:Gorgeous,generous,loyal monthly donor who cares deeply about my work.I saw your post about my issue on IGlets connect.I want to get to know you better.MISSED CONNECTIONDear BenchmarksPUBL

203、IC NOTICEThe expectation of wearing work pants ever again has disappeared.Have you seen this expectation at your workplace?If you see something,say something.For Sale NuisancesIm moving across the country and start-ing fresh!Many items for sale:All of my furniture($800 for full set)The stockpile of

204、stationery and notebooks that I have($40 OBO)Socks on the floor.3 men I live with not included.(free)Shrubbery(varies)Dried out old makeup!($15)Mosquitoes.Dont ask.(Ill pay you)Interested in any or all items?Text 202.120.2120 FOR SALEMy kids toys that I keep tripping over.Please take these away imme

205、diately.FREE,first come first served.Seriously please.Lets eradicate inequality,poverty,hunger,injustice,paternalism,racism,and preventable diseasesJOIN THE OFFICIAL BENCHMARKS DO-GOODERS CLUB.Must be passionate about making the world a better place,extremely generous,and into data-driven decision-m

206、aking(e.g.all 2021 Benchmarks participants).Email Services NeededNEEDED:Cookie proof digital market-ing methods that work for acquisition.Better attribution and segmentation.Better digital budget investment from the organisation.Ethical marketing channels/practices that deliver results whilst uphold

207、ing our rights respecting vision.Increased ability to develop agile digital products that connect with supporters and potential supporters.Always in the search of more people who are about/willing to do something for human rights!MIRACLE WORKER NEEDEDLooking for someone to help find solutions to:The

208、 climate crisis Meet the needs of the future of fundraising Prostate cancer AutomationInterested?Call us at 888.202.1202HELP!I have just been told that my priority for this year is to find young people who want to join our organization.Are you a young person?Do you want to join our organization?Are

209、Classified Ads still how you reach the youth?Fax us at 123.456.7890.For Sale MiscDrama.You pick up.$0Im over it.Getting rid of unneccessary workCondition:poor.$25 or best offeryou can do the emotional labor of figuring out a fair price.You pick up.I want to be rid of whatever holds me back from what

210、 Im searching for.Do you know what that is?HELP!Text 707.077.0077Help WantedSEEKING:A better way to help my daughter with her schoolwork on her home days.$400/weekClassifiedsWe asked participants:What are you trying to get rid of?What are you searching for?BENCHMARKS 2021|C1 APPENDIX:CLASSIFIEDSAPPE

211、NDIXSECTION C136M+R|VOLUME XV37it better.Maybe go look there and then come back?See also:Glossary.MONTHLY GIFTA donation where the donor signs up once to donate on a regular schedule,typi-cally by pledging a regular gift amount on a credit card each month.Also known as a sustaining gift.NEWSLETTERS,

212、EMAILAn email with multiple links or asks,which can include fundraising or advo-cacy asks.Email newsletter rates were calculated from all email newsletters,regardless of whether the newsletter went to the full file,a random sample of the file,or a targeted portion of the file.OPEN RATECalculated as

213、the number of HTML email messages opened divided by the number of delivered emails.Email mes-sages that bounce are not included.ORGANIC TRAFFIC Website visits generated by unpaid search results.PAGE COMPLETION RATECalculated as the number of people who completed a form divided by the number of peopl

214、e who clicked on the link to get to that form.For the purposes of this Study,it was not always possible to use the num-ber of people who clicked on a link to a specific form,so we used the number of unique clicks in the message.PERCENTILEThe percentage of observed values below the named data point.2

215、5%of the observations are below the 25th percen-tile;75%of the observations are below the 75th percentile.The values between the 25th percentile and the 75th percen-tile are the middle 50%of the observed values and represent the normal range of values.RESPONSE RATECalculated as the number of people

216、who took the main action requested by an email or text message divided by the number of delivered messages.ONLINE RETEN-TION,NEW DONOROf the donors that made their first-ever online gift in the previous calendar year,the percent that made an online gift in the current calendar year.Note that we coun

217、t someone as“new”if they have no online donations reported before 2019.ONLINE RETENTION,PRIOR DONOROf the donors that made an online gift in the previous calendar year that wasnt their first online gift,the percent that made an online gift in the current calendar year.TWITTER ENGAGEMENT RATEThe tota

218、l number of users who engage with a post(by liking,clicking,sharing,etc.),divided by post reach.UNIQUE CLICKSThe number of people who clicked on any trackable link in an email message,as opposed to the number of times the links in an email were clicked.If a sub-scriber clicked on every link in a mes

219、sage 10 times,this is counted as 1 unique click.It is also counted as 1 strange person.UNSUBSCRIBE RATECalculated as the number of individu-als who unsubscribed in response to an email message divided by the number of delivered emails.VIEW-THROUGH REVENUERevenue from donors who made a dona-tion(typi

220、cally within 30 days)of seeing,but not clicking on,an ad.For exam-ple,a supporter who sees a banner ad and later goes directly to the nonprofits website to make a gift.WEBSITE DONATION PAGE CONVERSION RATECalculated from the number of dona-tions to a participants main donation page,divided by the nu

221、mber of unique pageviews of that page.We included only unique pageviews for the one-time donation page,if a separate donation page existed for monthly gifts.WEBSITE PAGE LOAD TIMEThe number of seconds before a page appears to be visually complete,as measured by the WebPageTest tool at http:/webpaget

222、est.org.WEBSITE REVENUE PER VISITORCalculated as the total revenue from one-time online gifts,plus the value of initial monthly gifts,divided by the total number of website visitors for the year.Depending on retention,the long-term value of monthly gifts may be substan-tially higher.WEBSITE VISITORS

223、 PER MONTHThe number of monthly unique visitors to a participants main website.GlossaryADVOCACY MESSAGEAn email or SMS message that asks recipients to sign an online petition,send an email to a decision-maker,or take a similar online action.For the pur-poses of this Study,advocacy email does not inc

224、lude higher-bar actions like making a phone call or attending an event,largely because tracking offline response is inconsistent across organi-zations.Advocacy email rates were cal-culated from advocacy emails with a simple action sent to either the full file or a random sample of the full file.CLIC

225、K-THROUGH RATECalculated as the number of people who clicked on any trackable link in an email or text message divided by the number of delivered emails or text messages.People who clicked multiple times in one email were only counted once.In other words,if a subscriber clicked on every link in a me

226、ssage 10 times,this was counted the same as if the subscriber had clicked once on a single link.DELIVERABLE EMAILSOnly the emails that were delivered,not including the emails that are considered inactive or emails that were sent and bounced.“Delivered”email messages may land in a users inbox,spam fo

227、lder,promotions tab,or custom folder.DEVICE TYPE,DESKTOPWe use the definitions provided by Goo-gle Analytics to separate traffic data by device type.The“desktop”category includes any desktop or laptop computer with a screen larger than 7”in diagonal.DEVICE TYPE,MOBILEWe use the definitions provided

228、by Goo-gle Analytics to separate traffic data by device type.Mobile devices are hand-held devices that include a phone.DEVICE TYPE,TABLETWe use the definitions provided by Google Analytics to separate traffic data by device type.Tablet devices are mobile devices that dont necessarily include a phone

229、.FACEBOOK ENGAGEMENT SCOREThe total number of users who engage with a social media post(by liking,click-ing,sharing,etc.),divided by the total number of page fans on the day the con-tent was posted.FANS,FACEBOOKPeople who“like”a nonprofits Face-book Fan page.FOLLOWERS,INSTAGRAMPeople who subscribe t

230、o see posts from a nonprofits Instagram account.FOLLOWERS,TWITTERPeople who subscribe to receive the tweets from a nonprofits Twitter account.FULL FILEAll of an organizations deliverable email addresses,not including unsubscribed email addresses or email addresses to which an organization no longer

231、sends email messages.FUNDRAISING MESSAGEAn email or SMS message that only asks for a donation,as opposed to an email newsletter,which might ask for a dona-tion and include other links.For the pur-poses of this Study,fundraising email only includes one-time donation asks;it does not include monthly g

232、ift asks.Fundraising email rates were calculated from all fundraising emails,regardless of whether the email went to the full file,a random sample of the file,or a tar-geted portion of the file.GLOSSARYAn alphabetical list of terms related to a specific subject,with explanations.Example:“This Glossa

233、ry includes a defi-nition of the word Glossary,which honestly doesnt seem necessary.”See also:Metatextuality.LEADA new subscriber or potential source of activism,donations,or other sup-port.See the Digital Ads discussion for more details on lead generation.Do not see the definition for LEDE,which is

234、 a whole different thing.LEADIf you are pronouncing it like it rhymes with“red,”then its a soft,dense metal with atomic number 82.This is what was used to make the strips separating lines of type in old-timey printing presses.That common typesetting use for lead led to the lead part of an article be

235、ing called a“lede.”It was an attempt to avoid confusion between“lead”and“lead,”but how successful at reducing confu-sion was it really given we are spending so much time in this glossary talking about it?See also:LEDE.LEDEThe opening sentence or paragraph of a news article,fundraising email,Bench-ma

236、rks Study,or other important piece of writing.See also:LEAD(but not LEAD,which is a whole different thing).LIST CHURNCalculated as the number of subscribers who became unreachable in a 12-month period divided by the sum of the num-ber of deliverable email addresses at the end of that period plus the

237、 number of subscribers who became unreachable during that period.Study participants were required to track the number of sub-scribers who became unreachable each month to account for subscribers both joining and leaving an email list during the 12-month period who would other-wise go uncounted.METAT

238、EXTUALITYDid you arrive here from the definition for“Glossary”?Thatll probably explain BENCHMARKS 2021|C1 APPENDIX:GLOSSARY38M+R|VOLUME XV39thank you thank you thank you thank you thank youParticipantsBENCHMARKS 2021|C1 APPENDIX:PARTICIPANTS40M+R|VOLUME XV41Sector BreakdownHUNGER/POVERTY Alameda Cou

239、nty Community Food Bank Caring in Bristol Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Child Poverty Action Group Crisis UK East Texas Food Bank Feeding America Feeding the Gulf Coast Freestore Foodbank Friends of the Children Greater Chicago Food Depository Greater Cleveland Food Bank Maryland Food Bank

240、Meals on Wheels America Share Our Strength Shelter Tearfund Union Gospel Mission(Vancouver)OTHER AFL-CIO Age UK Alliance of Arizona Nonprofits American Friends Service Committee Boys&Girls Clubs of America Chicago Council on Global Affairs Civil Air Patrol Communications Workers of America Dave Thom

241、as Foundation for Adoption Global Zero MoveOn National Consumer Law Center People For the American Way Project On Government Oversight Refuge RNID Sesame Workshop SMART ReadingPUBLIC MEDIA KERA KNKX KQED Louisville Public Media NET-Nebraskas PBS&NPR Stations WETA WVIK FM,Quad Cities NPRWILDLIFE/ANIM

242、AL WELFARE Animal Humane Society Battersea Dogs&Cats Home BC SPCA Best Friends Animal Society Brooke Cats Protection Compassion in World Farming Dogs Trust Endangered Species Coalition Humane Society International International Fund for Animal Welfare National Wildlife Federation People for the Ethi

243、cal Treatment of Animals Rise for Animals Ruff Start Rescue Shedd Aquarium SPCA of Texas The Humane League The Humane Society of the United States The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council World Animal Protection World Wildlife FundRIGHTS Amnesty International UK Amnesty International USA An

244、ti-Slavery International Childrens Defense Fund Courage California Dignity In Dying Florida Immigrant Coalition GLBTQ Legal Advocates&Defenders(GLAD)Jewish Voice for Peace NARAL Pro-Choice America National Council of Jewish Women National Womens Law Center OutRight Action International Physicians fo

245、r Human Rights Planned Parenthood Federation of America Presente.org Reprieve Right To Play Scope The Education Trust The Council of Canadians Win Without War Youth ChallengeParticipantsCULTURAL American Museum of Natural History Art Fund Arts Alliance Illinois California Academy of Sciences Central

246、 Park Conservancy Hillel International Lyric Stage Company of Boston National Trust for Historic Preservation St.Josephs Indian SchoolENVIRONMENTAL 1000 Friends of Oregon 350.org Alliance for the Great Lakes Appalachian Voices Canadian Freshwater Alliance Chesapeake Climate Action Network Conservati

247、on Colorado Conservation International Conservation Voters of PA Dogwood BC Ecojustice Food&Water Watch Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth UK Greenbelt Alliance Greenpeace Canada Greenpeace UK Izaak Walton League of America League of Conservation Voters Michigan League of Conservation Voters

248、Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Mono Lake Committee Monterey Bay Aquarium Mystic River Watershed Association National Audubon Society National Geographic Society National Park Foundation National Parks Conservation Association Natural Resources Council of Maine Natural Resources Defense

249、Council New Jersey League of Conservation Voters North Carolina League of Conservation Voters NRDC Action Fund Oceana Overton Park Conservancy Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Rainforest Trust Rare Riverkeeper Surfrider Foundation The Trust for Public Land The Wilderness Society The Wilderness Society Ac

250、tion Fund Union of Concerned Scientists Washington Trails Association Waterkeeper Alliance World Resources InstituteHEALTH Action on Smoking and Health American Cancer Society American Heart Association American Kidney Fund American Lung Association Anthony Nolan Atlanta Ronald McDonald House Charit

251、ies Autism Speaks BC Cancer Foundation Ben-Motor&Allied Trades Benevolent Fund Boston Childrens Hospital Trust Breast Cancer Now Cancer Research Institute Cancer Research UK Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Childrens Mercy Hospital Colorado Childrens Campaign Colorectal Cancer Alliance Dementia UK Ein

252、stein Healthcare Network Great Ormond Street Hospital Childrens Charity Langley Memorial Hospital Foundation Leukaemia UK Maggies March of Dimes MND Association Muscular Dystrophy Association Pharmacist Support POGO-Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario Prostate Cancer UK RNLI Ronald McDonald House Ch

253、arities of Chicagoland&Northwest Indiana Samaritans Teesside Hospice The Leprosy Mission England and Wales The Leukemia&Lymphoma Society Tommys United Way of Greater St.Louis Versus Arthritis White Ribbon AllianceDISASTER/INTERNATIONAL AID Action Against Hunger American Red Cross Amref Health Africa

254、 UK Anera Blood:Water British Red Cross Christian Aid CMMB-Healthier Lives Worldwide FINCA International HIAS International Development Research Centre(IDRC)International Rescue Committee Islamic Relief UK MAG Mercy Corps Oxfam America Oxfam GB Pathfinder International Plan International UK Practica

255、l Action Root Capital Save the Children ShelterBox Sightsavers The ONE Campaign UNICEF UK USA for UNHCR WaterAid Women Deliver Women for Women International UK Women for Women International US World Food Program USA World Jewish Relief World Vision UKBENCHMARKS 2021|C1 APPENDIX:PARTICIPANTSCulturalP

256、ublic MediaDisaster/International AidRightsEnvironmentalWildlife/Animal WelfareHealthOtherHunger/Poverty973420472240211842M+R|VOLUME XV43Emails sent per subscriberCultural79HealthRights3968Disaster/International Aid39Hunger/PovertyWildlife/Animal Welfare4867Environmental89Public Media96Open rateClic

257、k-through rateResponse rateEmail FundraisingEmail Advocacy18%1.7%0.10%20%3.3%3.6%We analyzedEmails sentSubscribers5,650,958,41476,692,125We analyzedOnline gifts26,702,427Raised online$1,056,029,339Heres what we sawChange in email list size3%Email list churn16%For every 1,000 fundraising messages del

258、ivered,nonprofits raised$78Percent of organic website visitors who make a donation0.08%For every 1,000 organic website visitors,nonprofits raised$1202021 Benchmarks at a GlanceAverage giftOne-time$97Monthly$21Facebook FundraisersUnique Facebook FundraisersAverage gift to FundraisersChange in amount

259、raised on Facebook146,012$3414%For every 1,000 email subscribers,nonprofits have:Facebook fansTwitter followersInstagram followers817291149Facebook fan growthTwitter followers growthInstagram followers growth3%5%25%Heres what we sawIncrease in number of gifts 2019 to 202028%Increase in online revenu

260、e 2019 to 202032%Email+MobileFundraisingSocial MediaBench x MarksACROSSDOWN 1 A generous supporter 6 Some slide decks10 Bullets,etc.14 Maker of sweet tools for designers15 Israeli airline16 Honk17 A special message to Benchmarks participants,part 120 Govt.org that is probably watching you do this pu

261、zzle21 Grab22 Nevertheless,she persisted23 Youre looking at it 25 _word(youre looking at it)26 Thin strand30 Not Nike32 Any eight-legged creature34 Colleague of Black Panther and Black Widow39 Shark-riding fish40 Its French in South America41 What we report in Benchmarks43 At the plate44 Selected46

262、These mobile messages are often P2P1 Draculas bedtime2 Lyric poems3 Where the bon temps are encouraged to rouler4 Abbr.in a newspaper classified ad5 Cranks(up)6 Biked7 Badger incessantly8 Sylvester,to Tweety47 Smart one51 Place to go out for lunch (remember going out for lunch?)52 Word that often pr

263、ecedes 43-Down54 Setback56 A key email stat(it was 1.74%for fundraising messages in 2020)59 A special message to Benchmarks participants,part 262 Californias Santa _ Mission63 Alternative press“Reader”64 Some of them are British65 Feline goddess in ancient Egypt66 Peruse the news67 280 characters of

264、 messaging9 Side dish at 51-Across10 His advice:“Talk less.Smile more.”11 How to get around in DC.Also,the highest-circulation daily newspaper in the UK.12 Jason _ of Jay and Silent Bob 13 Something to track in emails18 Intrude19 Stop intruding24 Shrimp on a sushi menu26 Compost companion27 Frozen t

265、reat that comes in red flavor and blue flavor28 Bank acct.summary29 _ Peoples Campaign,a march and movement originally organized by Martin Luther King,Jr.,and SCLC,and reignited by William Barber and Liz Theoharis31 Form a union in the UK33 Like a cactus35 Little lice36 Hurt badly37 Badass Texas Gov

266、ernor Richards and others38 Old horses42 Turf43 Pulitzer-winning Toni Morrison novel45 Mexican-American singer/icon/queen47 Improvise48 Feline first name with Helmsley or Lewis49 Roof edges50 Highest point53 “Thanks to a special matching gift,_ impact will be DOUBLED right now.”55 Bad mood56 It goes

267、 before 9-Down57 What an environmentalist hugs58 Take a break60 An Indigenous people of the Great Basin61 Advanced deg.for many counselors,caseworkers,community organizers,and other good people BENCHMARKS 2021|C1 APPENDIX:CROSSWORDINFOGRAPHICCost per donationDisplay$116Search$29Social Media$40Video$

268、147Return per$1 of ad spendDisplay$0.38Search$4.78Social Media$1.05Video$0.27Share of 2020 digital advertising budget by:Feeling stumped?Find the complete Crossword solution at https:/ generationDirect fundraisingOther25%14%60%1%FUNDRAISING CHANNELSDisplaySearchSocial MediaVideoOther31%20%42%3%3%Ove

269、rall41%New donors25%Prior donors63%Mobile subscribers for every 1,000 email subscribers50Mobile list growthChange in messages26%79%Donor RetentionAdsMobile44BENCHMARKS 2021|BENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBWBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKSBENCHMARKS