1、Benchmarks2019+Ways of lookingThats the first of Wallace Stevens Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird.It is,like the others,evocative and thought-provoking.It invites close attention.And,crucially,it is not better than the other ways of looking.They are all true.This is what we strive for with ou

2、r annual M+R Benchmarks Study.We gather as much data from as many nonprofits as possible,because we know that every perspective adds depth and nuance.Then we explore that data from ev-ery angle.What does it mean for fundraising,for advocacy,for marketing?What does it mean for nonprofits,for their su

3、pporters,for their causes?Our goal is to give you not just a mountain of information about what nonprofits are experi-encing online,but new ways of looking at that data.We want to help you track the trends and spot the movement.We want to shine light on your experiences.We want to show you something

4、 you might not have consid-ered.We want you to show us something we havent considered.This year,we are proud to be joined by 135 nonprofits encompassing a vast breadth of viewpoints.Each of them contributed data,answered questions,and volunteered time to help make our Benchmarks dataset compre-hensi

5、ve and reliable.More importantly,each of our generous nonprofit participants brought a unique perspective to this moment.We are deeply grateful for each and every one of them.The full list of participants can be found on page 78.If seeing that list of wonderful,groundbreaking,world-changing nonprofi

6、ts leaves you feeling left out,please reach out to to participate next time!We would like to thank our friends at Mobile Commons and Hustle for providing information on text messaging interactions.We are also grateful to the wonderful folks at NTEN for helping the annual Benchmarks Study reach as ma

7、ny people as possible.Collecting,coordinating,analyzing,and inter-preting all these millions of data points requires a team wheeling and whirling in tandem,like a murmuration of starlings.The M+R Benchmarks team includes specialists from just about every area of expertise,each with a unique viewpoin

8、t.Among twenty snowy mountains,The only moving thingWas the eye of the blackbird.I.5Data:Theresa Bugeaud,Jonathan Benton,Karen Hopper,Sammy Stewart,Sam Lichtman Writing:Will Valverde Design:Emily Giorgione,Laura Klavon,Ant Blair Borders Web Development:Bobby Burch,Michael King Project Management:Bob

9、by Goldstein,Lucy Midelfort,Laura Klavon Insight and Interpretation:Madeline Stanionis,Amy Peyrot,Liz Ertner,Matt Derby,Yoonhyung Lee,Steve Daigneault,Cameron Lefevre,Kyle Shepherd,Michael King,Sally Brzozowski,Jon Kenney,Alexandra Braxton,Beth Rader,Anne PaschkopiEvery one of us who sorted numbers,

10、an-swered questions,and considered what it all means contributed to the full picture explored by the M+R Benchmarks Study.But of course,the most important way of looking is the one you bring.We hope youll tell us about it.the forest+the treesWe are M+R.We are communicators,marketers,fundraisers,and

11、campaigners who help causes inspire people to act.We work exclusively with nonprofits who are alleviating suffering,fighting for human rights and democracy,dismantling inequality,making art and knowledge accessible to everyone,and fostering a healthier and sustainable world.Our services include:Wed

12、love to discuss working together!Find us at And if this sounds like work you want to be doing,were hiring!More at The complete Benchmarks Study is available for free at .Digital Fundraising+AdvocacyDigital OrganizingMedia RelationsSocial MediaAdvertising table of contents7Words9 Down the Rabbit Hole

13、13 Hand Over Fist:Where the Money Is (And Where It Isnt)21 Food for Thought:Retention+Giving Levels27 Birds of a Feather:Membership+Ticket Revenue31 Deep Dive Into Digital Ads37 Evolve or Die:The Mobile Experience43 Tip the Scales:What Comes Next44 The Right Way to Look at This Datanumbers 45 Fundra

14、ising55 Email60 Web Engagement64 Social MediaDetails 72 Glossary78 Participants81 Infographic9Ready?Here is a fact:Online revenue for nonprofits grew by just 1%last year.This is the median change in revenue for the nonprofits in our study.You might find it scary,or surprising,or strangely familiar.M

15、aybe you dont quite know what to think about it.Thats okay.Lets take a closer look.First,lets put that 1%revenue growth number in perspective.This marks the first time in 13 years of M+R Benchmarks Studies that we are reporting average revenue growth in the single digits.In 2017,this same group of n

16、onprofits reported 23%growth.1So if that 1%growth seems like a significant break from what we are used to seeing,thats because it is a significant break from what we are used to seeing.After years and years of steadily increasing online revenue,including record-breaking 2016 and 2017 gains for many

17、nonprofits,suddenly that trendline flattened out.This is what we are going to do:we are going to dig up a fact,hard and cold like a diamond,and hold it up to the light.We are going to brush it off,inspect the shape of it,consider it from each angle.We are going to examine its qualities and study the

18、 ways it reflects and refracts the other things we know.Those record-breaking prior years are crucial to understanding what happened in 2018.If we take a look back at the past five years,we can begin to see that 1%growth in a whole new light.Lets take 2014 revenue as a baseline.In 2015,online revenu

19、e was 13%higher substantial growth.The next year,revenue had grown by 34%again,this is over the 2014 baseline,so it marked a fairly steady growth trajectory,rath-er than a massive jump.But then:the massive jump happened.By 2017,online revenue was 69%higher than in 2014.Thats a big bend in the curve,

20、and then in 2018 we saw it bend right back.One way of thinking about these numbers.Its not that there was no growth in 2018 revenue,at least relative to the long-term baseline.Its that the 2018 growth hap-pened a year early,showing up in 2017.Nonprofits were simply unable to maintain that momentum,a

21、nd we have returned to a“normal”growth trendline.If this is the case,it could be driven by the polit-ical reaction to the 2016 election.It could be a reflection of donor behavior in light of the new tax law.It could be caused by something else entirely,and most likely is the result of a combi-nation

22、 of factors.But if its the case,we would expect to see a return to double-digit growth in 2019.Time will tell.Right now,we know that a 1%year-over-year change in revenue is unusual.When you dig up a number like this,you have a few options.You can scowl at it mistrustfully,double-and triple-check it

23、to make sure its correct.(We did that,believe us.)You can glare intimidatingly at the number,and hope it will change out of fear or guilt or embarrassment.Or you can accept the data for what it is:a cold,hard fact,a true thing,but just a part of the truth.It shines new light on the state of our worl

24、d.Its also the sort of fact that may obscure some other powerful trends.Thats when things get interesting.Sudden-ly we have a lot more to explore,the rabbit hole grows deeper.Because a shift from 23%revenue growth from 20162017 to 1%revenue growth in 20172018 that doesnt happen without a lot of othe

25、r changes along the way.After all,the reality of digital programs in this moment is complicated,and getting more so all the time.Each new answer raises more ques-tions,each new insight arouses curiosity,each new datapoint sends us off in search of a trend-line.Even the meaning of a single number can

26、 shift depending on where you stand,a tilt of the head enough to dramatically change its outlines.Now hold that image in your mind,of nonprof-its ending 2018 with just 1%more in online rev-enue than in 2017.And then lets keep digging,keep exploring,and see what we find.1 To be clear:that 23%is not t

27、he growth we reported in last years Benchmarks Study;its 20162017 data provided by this years cohort.This is important we strongly advise against comparing the numbers in this years study to previous editions.We have a different pool of participants each year,so the data are not directly comparable.

28、And okay yes,we did just talk about a dozen previous studies in that last paragraph,but we are just setting some back-ground context here,so its fine.1113Lets start with the new thing first.Facebooks fundraising tools didnt debut in 2018,but for many of our participants this was the first year the p

29、latform made a measurable impact on revenue.The accounting here is a little tricky.Facebook fundraising includes a few different techniques,including direct donation links on a nonprofits profile page.The vast majority of Facebook revenue in 2018 came via the peer-to-peer tool known as Facebook Fund

30、raisers.In fact,for participants in our study,it accounted for about 99%of all nonprofit revenue pro-cessed on Facebook.This revenue isnt processed in the same way as gifts made directly to a nonprofit.That means that it is not included in our calculation of 1%overall revenue growth.Of course,just b

31、ecause overall revenue was relatively flat,that doesnt mean there werent sources of significant change hidden just beneath the surface.Some of the old standbys of online fundraising showed signs of wear,some long-term trends continued,and many organizations got a big boost from a new source of reven

32、ue theyve never been able to count on before.On average,nonprofits raised$1.77 through Facebook for every$100 raised through other online channels.2 For some sectors,the impact is even more dramatic.Rights groups,which saw a sharp decline in traditional one-time giving,received$13.02 in Facebook don

33、a-tions for every$100 in other revenue.And for Health nonprofits,Facebook appears to be nothing short of transformative.For every$100 in direct online revenue,Health nonprofits received$29.88 through Face-book.In other words,for Health groups,Face-book donations accounted for about 30%as much revenu

34、e as every other source of online revenue,including email,web giving,monthly donors,digital ads,and search.(One quick thing here.Take a close look at that chart.The number in the white box is the me-dian figure.The blue and yellow bars to either side go down to the 25th percentile,and up to the 75th

35、 anything in that range is what we generally consider“normal.”Now,notice that the 75th percentile for Health nonprofits is just shy of$90 in Facebook do-nation revenue per$100 in other online giving.That is,some nonprofits received nearly as much revenue from Facebook as all other online giving.Sudd

36、enly,that“flat growth year over year”is looking a little more complicated.)2 This only includes funds given through the Facebook platform,not people giving on non-profit donation forms after clicking through Facebook.These numbers apply only to those nonprofits who reported at least some Facebook re

37、venue.Nonprofits that choose not to use Facebook Fundraisers,or are not eligible(e.g.501(c)(4)organizations),are excluded.15It looks like Facebook Fundraisers are a valu-able new source of giving for many nonprof-its,and that theyre catching on in a big way among supporters.But wait.Does that mean t

38、here are teeming hordes of dedicated sup-porters diligently starting and sharing peer-to-peer giving efforts?WellOn average,nonprofits received revenue from 56 individual Fundraisers over the course of 2018.To be sure,that number is much higher for some sectors and for some nonprofits in particular.

39、But even a few dozen supporters willing to start a Fundraiser to celebrate their birthday,or Giving Tuesday,or Groundhog Day(the gift that keeps giving,and giving,and giving)can make a substantial impact.If a supporter wants to be one of those special Fundraiser-starting superstars,they can expect t

40、o generate about seven and a half donations.The average gift is a relatively modest$31.The number of gifts per Fundraiser,and the average size of those gifts,is relatively consis-tent across sectors.Yes,Fundraisers for Rights nonprofits tend to generate a couple more dona-tions on average,and the av

41、erage gift for Health groups is a few bucks higher.But the really big difference stems from the number of Fundraisers started to support a nonprofit in the first place.That means that if you want to reap the re-wards of this emerging revenue source,your most effective path forward is to find ways to

42、 motivate supporters to start their own Fundraisers.As it happens,there may be a particularly promising time of year to do so.On the whole,giving through Facebook was higher in the second half of the year than the first.It remains to be seen whether this is indic-ative of Fundraisers gaining tractio

43、n with users over time,or if this reflects seasonal shifts that may play out year over year.Tune in to next years Benchmarks to find out!What is clear right now is that November is the month for Facebook Fundraisers near-ly a quarter of revenue came in during that month.This should come as no surpri

44、se to anyone whose News Feed was suddenly quite crowded with Fundraisers from friends and family on and around Giving Tuesday.And just as notable:December doesnt seem to be anything special,at least for Fundrais-ers.While nonprofits may see the end-of-year deadline as crucial to driving revenue thro

45、ugh other sources,it does not seem to have much impact on Fundraisers.These trends a big spike in November,a rela-tively tame December may indicate supporter preferences.It could be the type of person who starts a Fundraiser prefers to do it around Giving Tuesday rather than any other time.They may

46、also be the result of nonprofit recruit-ment efforts.If nonprofits heavily encouraged Fundraisers for Giving Tuesday(possibly in response to a quickly-exhausted matching gift offer from Facebook and PayPal last year),that could contribute to the spike in that month.These patterns open up possibiliti

47、es for taking advantage of a bandwagon effect,or for count-er-programming in what are typically quieter times for Fundraisers.Facebook Fundraisers are the big new sparkly thing,and potentially very exciting.We expect nonprofits to continue to pursue emerging op-portunities to increase revenue especi

48、ally as other fundamental parts of digital fundraising programs may be losing their luster.As import-ant as it is to spot the new sources showing increased revenue,we also have to keep an eye on shifts showing trouble on the horizon.17While email metrics declined,nonprofits land-ed more messages in

49、more inboxes in 2018.Email lists grew by 5%in 2018,and nonprofits increased messaging volume slightly,sending 4%more fundraising messages than in 2017.Taking a step back to look at long-term trends,nonprofits are facing serious challenges to email fundraising but the steady expansion of monthly givi

50、ng helped to stabilize online reve-nue in 2018.While overall online revenue may have been flat year-over-year,revenue from recurring monthly gifts increased by 17%.While online revenue grew by 1%in 2018,email revenue decreased by 8%though email still accounted for 13%of all online giving.Which is to

51、 say that email fundraising is import-ant,but it is also hard,and getting harder.For every 1,000 email appeals sent,nonprofits raised an average of$45.Most of the key metrics,from open rates to page completion rates,declined.Response rates for fundrais-ing messages were down 13%(to 0.06%).For advoca

52、cy messages,response rates declined by 15%(to 1.8%).At the same time,revenue from one-time gifts declined by 2%in 2018.Without that growth in monthly giving,overall online revenue would have gone down last year.As weve reported in previous years,and as is the case with Facebook Fundraisers,the conti

53、nued growth in monthly giving is likely the result of both supporter preferences and nonprofit strategy.On the one hand,more and more donors see monthly giving as a convenient,affordable way to make an impact on the causes they care about.On the other,nonprofits value the steady source of revenue an

54、d are increasingly likely to pursue a monthly-first strategy.Togeth-er,those preferences are changing the face of online fundraising programs monthly giving accounted for 16%of all online revenue in 2018,up from 13%in 2017.“Small”refers to nonprofits with annual online revenue below$500,000;“Medium”

55、includes those nonprofits with revenue between$500,000 and$3,000,000;and“Large”covers all those with online revenue greater than$3,000,000.19The steady growth of monthly giving,especially compared to one-time giving,stems from one other key factor:retention.One-time donors need to affirmatively choo

56、se to complete another gift in order to maintain their support from year to year.Monthly donors just need to keep their payment method current.So even when we see big swings in one-time giving,monthly programs have less donor churn,and a better chance of steadily chugging up,up,up.21Overall,37%of do

57、nors who made a gift online in 2017 donated online again to that nonprofit in 2018.That retention rate is about 3%lower than in 2017.This includes monthly donors whose sustaining gift continued from one year to the next.It does not include donors who made gifts through other channels we are looking

58、only at online-to-online retention here.Theres a marked difference in retention be-tween new donors(those who made their first gift in 2017)and prior donors(those who gave in 2017,and at least one previous year).New donors had a retention rate of just 25%thats 34 percentage points lower than the ret

59、ention rate of prior donors.That should be intuitive:donors with a history of repeated giving are more likely to repeat their gifts.Food for thought:Retention+Giving LevelsSince retention appears to be an important part of this story,lets take a closer look.For both cohorts,retention was down from 2

60、017 levels and the drop was much greater for new donors.Retention among first-time donors declined by 13.6%in 2018.If we are looking for reasons that total revenue growth flattened out in 2018,this is a key part of the story.A large group of donors made their first gift in 2017,causing growth to spi

61、ke and then,they just didnt come back in 2018.23While the overall retention rate is an important metric to track,its worth scratching below the surface.After all,bringing back fifty$10 donors will help your retention rate but retaining a single$1,000 donor makes a bigger impact on revenue.When we br

62、eak out retention rates by gift level,we see that donors at the lowest giving levels tend to have the lowest retention rates.Just 10%of donors who made gifts under$25 in 2017 gave again online in 2018.As we move up the gift-size ladder,retention rates increase as well.And then it peaks.The cohort wi

63、th the high-est retention rate includes donors in the$250-$499 range.This cohort had a retention rate of 54%,meaning that more than half of donors who made a gift in this range in 2017 came back the next year.This is in part due to the impact of monthly donors.The average monthly gift size in 2018 w

64、as$23,which would annualize to$276 if the donor maintained their giving for all twelve months.That means that a substantial portion of monthly donors fall within this cohort,help-ing to improve retention.Retention rates dropped for all giving levels in 2018,with no particular pattern connected to si

65、ze of gift.While some declined more than others,the differences were relatively minor,so each donor level made up just as big a piece of the pie in 2018 as in previous years.(Unfor-tunately,our data team will not allow us to use pie charts even when we use pie metaphors,so take a look at the stacked

66、 bar chart on the next page instead.)25About a third of all online donors made gifts under$50 in each of the last three years.And in each of the last three years,they accounted for less than 10%of all revenue.Donors who gave at least$250 accounted for 17%of all gifts in 2018,and 57%of reve-nue.That

67、is nearly identical to the 16%of gifts and 58%of revenue they generated in 2017(which,in turn,was unchanged from 2016).None of this is to suggest that donors who give$10 are less committed or important than those who give$1,000.Movements are powered by people,and any person who makes a gift to suppo

68、rt a cause they care about deserves our gratitude.But its a reminder that even simple measures like retention rate are vast and con-tain multitudes.Its worth considering not only how many donors are sticking with you year after year,but who those donors are.27Membership and ticket sales are differen

69、t.Here,the nonprofit provides something of quantifiable value in return for a donation.We asked our participants whether their online offers include membership or ticket sales.Tick-ets are pretty clear-cut:you either purchase a ticket to enter a museum(or a zoo,or a sym-phony,or some kind of combina

70、tion zoo-sym-phony)or you dont.Membership can be a little trickier,because many nonprofits offer primarily symbolic mem-berships that amount to little more than a print-ed card in the mail(not to disparage this kind of offer it can help build loyalty and strengthen the donors sense of belonging).But

71、 for this analysis,we are focused on those member-ship programs that offer substantial tangible benefits.That could be discounted or free ad-mission,or it could be a magazine subscription,a t-shirt,a hat,a fancy pin,or a tote bag to hold your magazines and shirts and hats and pins.birds of a feather

72、:membership+ticket revenueMost of the time,when you make an online donation you dont get a whole lot back.Yes,a very nice thank-you message/tax receipt/sustainer upsell ask.Yes,the satisfaction of knowing that you are contributing to a cause you care about,alleviating suffering,and making the world

73、a better place.All of that.But often,nothing tangible.No stuff.In the charts above that report on membership,unless specified otherwise,were only including groups that reported membership revenue.The same is true for tickets.29What we found is that membership giving makes up the bulk of total online

74、 revenue for nonprofits that have a membership program more than three quarters of all online revenue in 2018.And membership giving followed a similar trajectory to other kinds of online revenue.After robust 21%growth in 2017,nonprofits saw a 5%increase in membership revenue in 2018.Another consider

75、ation for nonprofits that of-fer both membership and non-member giving is loyalty.For groups with membership pro-grams,members had a retention rate about double that of non-member donors.About 33%of 2017 members made another mem-bership gift in 2018;just 17%of non-member donors were retained.3While

76、shifts in membership giving appear to mirror movement among other sorts of giving,ticket revenue stands apart.From 2016 to 2017,ticket revenue increased by 32%.That could be seen as part of the broad growth in online giving.Then in 2018,ticket revenue increased by another 52%.That stands out.As with

77、 so many top-line changes,this one is likely composed of a few different moving pieces.We measured revenue,rather than the number of tickets sold,so higher ticket prices could contribute to this increase,although attendance is also a big factor.If there was a high-profile event or an exciting new ex

78、hibit or program,that would have an impact that would be less replicable from year to year.But we may also be seeing a shift to online sales from other sources.As nonprofits make it easier to purchase tickets online,and as supporters grow increasingly comfortable with buying tickets online(including

79、 on mobile devices),ticket revenue that might otherwise come in via phone,mail,or box office will ap-pear as online revenue.3 One note:these retention rates are within each category.So,a 2017 donor who became a member in 2018 would not count toward retention;neither would a supporter who switched fr

80、om membership to a non-member gift.Its possible that the relatively low donor retention rate is due in part to nonprofits successfully transitioning these donors to member status.31Part of the answer,for many nonprofits,lies in digital advertising.Not all Benchmarks participants invested in digital

81、ads,but those that did reported a sharp increase in spending.Overall,digital ad budgets grew by 144%in 2018.The increased investment was especially pronounced among nonprofits in the Rights sector,which spent 300%more on ads in 2018 than in 2017.Small nonprofits also more than tripled their investme

82、nt in digital ads,outpacing the 156%growth for Medium nonprofits and 116%growth for Large nonprofits.deep dive into digital adsDeclining retention.Lower email response rates.Reduced revenue growth overall.No matter how you look at it,nonprofit digital programs are faced with serious challenges.It is

83、 imperative to reach new audiences,acquire fresh donors,activists,and prospects,and re-engage existing supporters.Overall,nonprofits invested ten cents for ev-ery dollar they raised in online revenue.This is a slippery datapoint,so be careful.This is NOT a measure of return on investment(which we wi

84、ll get to in just a moment,promise).What this describes is the ratio of digital ad spend-ing to total online revenue,a measure of the level of investment nonprofits of different sizes made.For example,a nonprofit with online revenue of$1,000,000 might be expected to spend about$100,000 on digital ad

85、s.33Whether that investment paid off is a different question.Lets try to answer it!First,its important to note that there is more to digital ad strategy than fundraising.About 55%of nonprofit ad budgets were dedicated to direct fundraising the kind of ad that will have a big shiny GIVE NOW but-ton a

86、nd land supporters on a donation page.An additional 23%went to lead generation and advocacy including user experiences like signing a petition,completing a survey,taking a quiz,or otherwise submitting an email address.Finally,21%of digital ad bud-gets went toward branding,awareness,and education cam

87、paigns.Share of digital advertising budget by investment typeBranding,Awareness or EducationAllLargeMediumSmall21%22%9%35%1%2%0%2%23%17%49%18%Lead Generation&Advocacy55%59%42%45%Direct FundraisingOtherPercentage of digital advertising budget by goalDisplayAllLargeMediumSmall44%47%29%38%16%15%14%27%3

88、5%33%52%32%5%5%5%3%SearchSocial MediaVideoPercentage of directfundraising advertising budget by channelNow,lets take a closer look at ad spending devoted specifically to fundraising.The cost to generate a single donation varies dramatically depending on channel.For display advertising(e.g.banner ads

89、),non-profits spent an average of$359 to convert a single donor.However,there was a noticeable split here depending on organization size.Small nonprofits reported a$1,168 cost per donation,while Medium and Large nonprofits averaged around$170 cost per donation for display advertising.At the other en

90、d of the cost spectrum,nonprof-its spent an average of$33 to acquire a donor via search.Once again,we see that Small non-profits experienced substantially higher costs per donor($83)than Medium($27)or Large($21)nonprofits.It may be that name recognition plays a role here.Medium and Large nonprofits

91、may also benefit from greater resources,whether that means more experienced staff,the ability to work with agency partners,or funding to test and optimize ad content and strategy.Whatever the cause,we may see that gap closing as Small nonprofits continue to in-crease investments in digital ads and g

92、ain valuable experience.In many ways,the mirror image of cost per donation is return on ad spend(ROAS).Those channels with the highest cost to acquire a donor tend to have the lowest ROAS.For display,which takes up the largest share of nonprofit digital ad budgets,ROAS is$0.36.That is,nonprofits rec

93、eived 36 cents back for every dollar they spent in this channel.Social 35media advertising,the next largest budget cat-egory,generated a$0.83 ROAS.For search,a dollar of ad spend returned$4.78 in revenue.You might look at this and think that since search returned the most revenue per dollar spent,no

94、nprofits should shift more resources to that channel.You might even be tempted to declare that channels like display or video that fall short of a$1 ROAS are losing money,and not worth investing in.But the picture is more complicated than that,and ROAS is an incomplete measure of perfor-mance.It doe

95、s not capture the long-term value of a donor,who might make additional gifts be-yond the immediate donation,or whether that donor is new to your organization or not.The truth is,attribution is a fraught and difficult task,and nonprofits employ many different models.A supporter might see a pre-roll v

96、ideo ad,choose not to click right away,but visit a nonprofits site later to make a gift and that single interaction can be seen and measured in a variety of ways.Whether that gift is attribut-ed to the ad or included in a ROAS calculation varies quite a bit.We recommend using ROAS as a baseline meas

97、ure,while looking more broadly at user behavior and long-term data to assess the value of ad investments.As we look ahead,it will become increasingly critical to under-stand what supporters are doing not just in the moment they interact with a message,but throughout their relationship with a nonprof

98、it.37Evolve or die:The mobile experienceIn 2018,users on mobile devices accounted for 48%of all traffic to nonprofit websites,compared to just 44%for desktop.This marks a tipping point,and as mobile traffic continues to grow relative to desktop traffic,theres no reason to think were going back any t

99、ime soon.Thats why most nonprofits are taking a very close look at the mobile experience,espe-cially when it comes to making a donation.Heres the worrying part:while mobile users were about half of all nonprofit web traffic,they accounted for just 30%of gifts,and 21%of revenue.The time between viewi

100、ng an ad and making a gift or taking an action is not the only opportunity to lose track of a supporter.The reality is,many supporters are engaging with nonprofits on multiple devices,from the text alert they receive before getting out of bed in the morning,to the desktop computer they use to check

101、email at the office,to the tablet they use to browse the web at home.Mobile has narrowed the gap with desktop when it comes to online giving.The share of online revenue coming from mobile users increased by 15%in 2018,eating into both the desktop and tablet shares.But a desktop user is still more li

102、kely to make a gift,and those gifts are likely to be larger(the average for a desktop gift was$53 higher than for a mobile gift).Nonprofits reported a 21%conversion rate for desktop users on their main donation page.That is,if 100 desktop users clicked the big donate button on the homepage,21 of the

103、m would actually complete their gift.For mobile users,that conversion rate was just 9%.So just getting mobile users to land on a donation page isnt enough theres more to be done to make sure they complete a gift.Some of these differences may be due to demographics and cultural differences,over which

104、 nonprofits have limited control.If mo-bile-first users have lower incomes on average than desktop-first users,we might expect their average gifts to be lower.And if supporters feel more secure using their home WiFi connection to process donations rather than pulling out a credit card while in publi

105、c or completing a transaction via Apple Pay on a donation form,it will take time to change those attitudes.Its up to nonprofits to make giving easy,com-pelling,and irresistible regardless of the device or platform.39Beyond the web and email experience,the move to mobile has opened unique channels fo

106、r nonprofits to reach supporters and for supporters to connect with each other.Mobile lists(that is,supporters who have given nonprofits permission to send them text messages)grew by 14%in 2018.While mobile lists tend to be much smaller than email lists(on average,nonprofits had 63 mobile subscriber

107、s per 1,000 email subscribers),mobile users engage at relatively high rates.Fundraising text messages had a click-through rate of 13%,which suggests rela-tively high engagement the average email fundraising message click-through was orders of magnitude smaller,at just 0.44%.However,we are unable to

108、report on response rates or revenue for text appeals,as those results are recorded separately from the Mobile Com-mons platform.4The click-through rate for advocacy text mes-sages,15%,was also far higher than the equiv-alent email rate of 2.4%.Thats for messages where the goal is to encourage suppor

109、ters to click through to an action page,which typically asks a person to sign a petition or send a letter to elected officials.But text is a mobile phone technology,and phones can also make phone calls!That means that text campaigns are particularly well suited to driving calls to decision makers.Fo

110、r this type of message,the response rate was 4.1%.So text messages successfully drove phone calls at more than twice the rate that email advocacy messages drove traditional web-based actions.The possibilities for using text technology to mobilize supporters extend beyond bulk messaging.Peer-to-peer

111、text messaging from platforms like Hustle5 have gained signifi-cant traction as part of electoral and advoca-cy campaigns.These platforms connect volunteers,staff,and organizers with donors,voters,and supporters,enabling them to have one-on-one text mes-sage conversations at scale.This is in contras

112、t to bulk text through a platform like Mobile Commons,which allows the nonprofit to send a single message to a full list at once and man-age replies automatically or via an in-box.A benefit of a well-run peer-to-peer program is that it creates a direct conversation between a targeted supporter and t

113、he staff or volunteer who is texting them.Nonprofits use peer-to-4 There are other mobile platforms out there,but all mobile messaging data reported in Benchmarks was provided by Mobile Commons.We are grateful for their generous contributions of time and sweet,sweet data.5 Remember that footnote abo

114、ut Mobile Commons?The same thing applies to Hustle.While there are other peer-to-peer text solutions,this data was provided by Hustle,and we appreciate their help.41peer text to recruit supporters for event atten-dance,volunteering,advocacy,and fundraising,as well as to drive voter turnout.As with F

115、ace-book Fundraisers,peer-to-peer texting opens up the possibility of mobilizing committed sup-porters to expand the reach of nonprofits.The median response rate for a peer-to-peer text among our study participants was 15%.Response rate in this case is quite literal it is the percentage of recipient

116、s who reply to a peer-to-peer text message,which may or may not indicate that recipient completing an action,donating,or voting.Recipients were sent about 1.5 messages per month,and had a 2.9%opt-out rate per month.43Look at the solid bedrock.Long-term trends that have helped nonprofits consolidate

117、gains year after year continued to rise.Email list sizes have grown.Monthly giving programs keep expanding.Investments in digital ads are bringing in new supporters.Look at the challenges.Email response rates and revenue declined.The energy and en-thusiasm that flooded nonprofit supporters in 2017 m

118、ay have reached its high-water mark.Gravity has not been repealed,and the rush that powered record-breaking results in 2017 began to ebb.Look at the opportunities.In this moment,it can be hard to tell what is solid,and what is a momentary flash.Facebook Fundraisers could become a difference-maker fo

119、r nonprofits(or not).Nonprofits may find ways to leverage mobile platforms in ever more powerful ways.And another election is right around the corner,ready to remake the landscape again.Look at the data now,carefully.Recognize the trends that track to your own experience.Consider the metrics that di

120、verge from your results.Scrutinize each true thing,until it reveals something you can use to grow your program and advance your cause.Thats what were going to do.Dig up some facts,hold them up to the light.And then keep digging.Tip the scales:what comes nextAnother way of looking at 2018 online reve

121、nue:nonprofits were poised,with nearly perfect balance,between growth and decline.The 2019 M+R Benchmarks Study includes input from 135 wonderful nonprofit partners.They work to cure diseases,to protect wildlife,to preserve the planet,to advance equality,to promote science,to defend human dignity,to

122、 share cultural wonders,to end hunger,to make the world a better and kinder and more just place.And then,in addition to all that,they gener-ously share the results of their hard work so that we can all learn to do those things more effectively.They really are quite amazing.Because the perspective an

123、d experience of non-profits in different issue areas are so unique,we have broken out the findings by sector wherever possible.If youre not sure which sector applies to you,take a look at the full list of participants on page 78 find your closest peers,and youll find where you belong.We also sort ou

124、r participants by size.For our study,“Small”refers to nonprofits with annu-al online revenue below$500,000;“Medi-um”includes those 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 provide dat

125、a for every metric.In places where a chart does not include data for a certain sector or size,its because we were not able to collect enough results to report a reliable average.Sometimes comparing viewpoints can add depth and clarity;other times it simply creates confusion.Because our pool of parti

126、cipants changes from year to year,putting this years numbers side by side with previous editions is more likely to muddy the waters than shed new light.Wherever we discuss year-over-year chang-es,this is based on comparisons among our current pool of participants,who generously provided multi-year d

127、ata.Didnt we tell you how wonderful they are?The full Benchmarks Study is available for free at .The right way to look at this dataHow to read box-whisker chartsThe middle square box indicates the median value.The horizontal line indicates the range of normal values of the segment.The segment to the

128、 right of the white box is the 75th percentile,and the segment to the left is the 25th percentile.Its all well and good to have lots of different perspectives,but actually there is a correct way to read the information in these charts.Its like this:45+Overall online revenue increased by 1%in 2018,af

129、ter 23%growth the year before.Revenue was relatively flat year-over-year for most sectors,but Rights nonprofits reported a 14%decline in giving(after extraordinary 88%growth in 2017).+Revenue from one-time gifts decreased by 2%,while monthly giving revenue increased by 17%.Monthly giving accounted f

130、or 16%of all online revenue in 2018,up from 13%in 2017.+Email messaging drove 13%of all online revenue in 2018.Email accounted for 21%of all online revenue for Environmental nonprofits,the largest share of any sector.+Email revenue decreased by 8%in 2018.Rights non-profits experienced the steepest d

131、ecline,with a 40%drop from the previous year.Meanwhile,Health nonprofits reported a 40%increase in email revenue.+On average,37%of donors who made an online gift to a nonprofit in 2017 made an online gift again to that nonprofit in 2018.Retention was 25%for donors who made their first gift in 2017,a

132、nd 59%for repeat donors.Retention rates also varied widely by giving level see page 21 for a detailed look at retention.Birds eye viewFundraising47495153email messaging55+Email list size increased by 5%in 2018.This is some-what slower growth than in previous years email list size increased by 8%in 2

133、016,and 9%in 2017.Health nonprofits reported a significant spike in email list size,with 74%growth in 2018.Hunger/Poverty and Wildlife/Animal Welfare nonprofits both reported declines in email list size.+Nonprofits sent an average of 59 email messages per subscriber in 2018.This marked an 8%increase

134、 in volume from 2017.The largest category of email messag-es was fundraising(25 emails per year per subscriber).International nonprofits sent the highest volume of email,with 104 messages per year per subscriber;50 of those were fundraising messages.+Advocacy email response rate declined by 15%in 20

135、18,to 1.8%.Drops were reported for open rate(down 5%to 15%),click-through rate(down 16%to 2.4%),and page completion rate(down 7%,to 72%).The unsubscribe rate fell to 0.12%,which is 2%lower than in the previous year.+Fundraising email response rate declined by 13%in 2018,to 0.06%.Open rate declined b

136、y 2%,to 14%,and page completion rate dropped by 18%to 14%.However,click-through rates improved somewhat,up 4%to 0.44%.The unsubscribe rate for fundraising messages fell to 0.16%,10%lower than in the previous year.Birds eye viewemail messaging5759+Nonprofits raised$0.83 per website visitor in 2018.In

137、ternational nonprofits raised the most,$1.82 per visitor,while the Health sector had the lowest revenue per visitor at$0.59.Overall,1.0%of website visitors made a donation.+The majority of nonprofit website traffic came from users on mobile and tablet devices.Mobile accounted for 48%of all traffic,t

138、ablets for 8%,and desktop users made up 44%of traffic.+Desktop users accounted for the majority of donation transactions and revenue.While just 44%of traffic,desktop users made 63%of all donations and contributed 71%of revenue.Mobile accounted for 21%of all revenue,a 15%increase from 2017.+Nonprofit

139、 homepages took an average of 2.36 seconds to load on desktop machines,while donation pages took 2.34 seconds to load.Birds eye viewweb engagement61 Calculated from the number of donations to a participants main website,including donations from all traffic sources(email,paid ads,organic,search,etc),

140、divided by the number of unique website visitors.Calculated 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 substantially higher.63+

141、For every 1,000 email addresses,nonprofits had an average of 806 Facebook fans,286 Twitter followers,and 101 Instagram followers.+Instagram was the fasted-growing of the three social media platforms we tracked,with a 34%increase in the number of followers.The number of Twitter followers increased by

142、 26%,while Facebook pages grew by just 6%.+For every$100 in direct online revenue,nonprofits raised$1.77 through Facebook fundraising tools.Nearly all of this revenue came from Facebook Fundraisers,the peer-to-peer platform.See page 13 for more on Facebook fundraising.+Each Facebook post only reache

143、d 4%of a nonprofit pages fans.Meanwhile,29%of the audience reached by a given post was not already following the nonprofit.+The Engagement Score(engaged users divided by total page fans)for an average Facebook post was 0.31%.Video posts had the highest Engagement Score at 0.33%.Birds eye viewSocial

144、media6567 Earned Reach Average:The average number of Facebook users reached by a given post relative to the number of Facebook fans that nonprofit has.Expressed as a ratio per thousand fans(e.g.an ERA of.225 indicates that a nonprofits average post will reach 225 Facebook users for every 1,000 fans

145、who“like”that nonprofit).69 Clap Score is the number of reactions on a post(Facebook still calls them“Likes”)divided by the number of fans a nonprofits Facebook page had that day.Talk Score is the number of comments on a post divided by the number of fans a nonprofits Facebook page had that day.Shar

146、e Score is the number of shares a post received divided by the number of fans a nonprofits Facebook page had that day.71ADVOCACY EMAIL/ad-vuh-kuh-see/ee-meyl/nounAn email that asks recipients to sign an online petition,send a message to a decision-maker,or take a similar online action.For the purpos

147、es of this Study,advocacy email does not include higher-bar actions like making a phone call or at-tending an event,largely because tracking offline response is inconsistent across organizations.Advocacy email rates were calculated from advo-cacy emails with a simple action sent to either the full f

148、ile or a random sample of the full file.CHER SCORE/shair/skawr/noun The total number of sequins on a performers stage outfit(s),multiplied by the volume of leather fringe.A remarkably accurate proxy measure for overall fabulousness.See also:Share Score.CLAP SCORE/klap/skawr/noun The number of Likes

149、a Facebook post receives,divided by the number of fans a nonprofits Facebook page has on the day it is posted.CLICK-THROUGH RATE/klik-throo/reyt/noun Calculated as the number of people who clicked on any trackable link in an email message divided by the number of delivered emails.People who clicked

150、multiple times in one email were only counted once.In other words,if a subscriber clicked on every link in a message 10 times,this was counted the same as if the subscriber had clicked once on a single link.DELIVERABLE EMAILS/dih-liv-er-uh-buh l/ee-meyls/plural noun Only the emails that were deliver

151、ed,not includ-ing the emails that are considered inactive or emails that were sent and bounced.“Delivered”email messages may land in a users inbox,spam folder,promotions tab,or custom folder.EARNED REACH AVERAGE(ERA)/urnd/reech/av-er-ij/noun The average number of Facebook users reached by a given po

152、st relative to the number of Facebook fans that nonprofit has.Expressed as a ratio per thousand fans(e.g.an ERA of.225 indicates that a nonprofits average post will reach 225 Facebook users for every 1,000 fans who“like”that nonprofit).ENGAGEMENT SCORE/en-geyj-muh nt/skawr/noun The total number of u

153、sers 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 posted.FANS,FACEBOOK/fans/feys-boo k/plural noun People who“like”a nonprofits Facebook Fan page.glossary73FOLLOWERS,TWITTER/fol-oh-ers/twit-er/plural nounPeop

154、le who subscribe to receive the tweets from a nonprofits Twitter account.FOLLOWERS,INSTAGRAM/fol-oh-ers/in-stuh-gram/plural noun People who subscribe to see posts from a non-profits Instagram account.FULL FILE/foo l/fahyl/noun All of an organizations deliverable email addresses,not including unsubsc

155、ribed email addresses or email addresses to which an or-ganization no longer sends email messages.FUNDRAISING EMAIL/fuhnd-rey-zing/ee-meyl/noun An email that only asks for a donation,as op-posed to an email newsletter,which might ask for a donation and include other links.For the purposes of this St

156、udy,fundraising email only includes one-time donation asks;it does not in-clude monthly gift 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 targeted portion of the file.GLOSSARY/glos-uh-r

157、ee/noun An alphabetical list of terms related to a spe-cific subject,with explanations.Example:“This Glossary includes a definition of the word Glossary,which honestly doesnt seem neces-sary.”See also:Metatextuality.LIST CHURN/list/churn/noun Calculated as the number of subscribers who became unreac

158、hable in a 12-month period divided by the sum of the number of deliver-able email addresses at the end of that period plus the number of subscribers who became unreachable during that period.Study partic-ipants were required to track the number of subscribers who became unreachable each month to acc

159、ount for subscribers both joining and leaving an email list during the 12-month period who would otherwise go uncounted.METATEXTUALITY/mee-tuh-tekst-choo-al-i-tee/noun Did you arrive here from the definition for“Glossary”?Thatll probably explain it better.Maybe go look there and then come back?See a

160、lso:Glossary.MONTHLY GIFT/muhnth-lee/gift/noun A donation where the donor signs up once to donate on a regular schedule,typically by pledging a regular gift amount on a credit card each month.Also known as a sustaining gift.NEWSLETTERS,EMAIL/nooz-let-er/ee-meyl/noun An email with multiple links or a

161、sks,which can include fundraising or advocacy asks.Email newsletter rates were calculated from all email newsletters,regardless of whether the news-letter went to the full file,a random sample of the file,or a targeted portion of the file.OPEN RATE/oh-puh-n/reyt/noun Calculated as the number of HTML

162、 email messages opened divided by the number of delivered emails.Email messages that bounce are not included.PAGE COMPLETION RATE/peyj/kuh m-plee-shuh n/reyt/noun Calculated as the number of people who com-pleted a form divided by the number of people who clicked on the link to get to that form.For

163、the purposes of this Study,it was not always possible to use the number of people who clicked on a link to a specific form,so we used the number of unique clicks in the message.PERCENTILE/per-sen-tahyl/noun The percentage of observed values below the named data point.25%of the observations are below

164、 the 25th percentile;75%of the observa-tions are below the 75th percentile.The values between the 25th percentile and the 75th per-centile are the middle 50%of the observed val-ues and represent the normal range of values.PERSPECTIVE/per-spek-tiv/noun This can either mean a particular attitude or wa

165、y of seeing something,or a technique of rendering three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface.Sort of depends on your point of view.RESPONSE RATE/ri-spons/reyt/noun Calculated as the number of people who took the main action requested by an email message divided by the number of delivered

166、 emails.We only calculated response rates in this Study for fundraising emails and for advocacy emails with simple asks,such as signing a petition or sending an email to a decision maker.ONLINE RETENTION,NEW DONOR/on-lahyn/ri-ten-shuh n/noo/doh-ner/noun Of the donors that made their first-ever onlin

167、e gift in the previous calendar year,the percent that made an online gift in the current calendar year.Note that we count someone as“new”if they have no online donations reported after 2011.ONLINE RETENTION,PRIOR DONOR/on-lahyn/ri-ten-shuh n/prahy-er/doh-ner/noun Of the donors that made an online gi

168、ft in the previous calendar year that wasnt their first online gift,the percent that made an online gift in the current calendar year.SHARE SCORE/shair/skawr/noun The number of Shares a Facebook post re-ceives,divided by the number of fans a non-profits Facebook page has the day it is posted.See als

169、o:Cher Score.TALK SCORE/tawk/skawr/noun The number of Comments a Facebook post receives,divided by the number of fans a non-profits Facebook page has the day it is posted.75UNIQUE CLICKS/yoo-neek/klicks/plural noun The number of people who clicked on any trackable link in an email message,as opposed

170、 to the number of times the links in an email were clicked.If a subscriber clicked on every link in a message 10 times,this is counted as 1 unique click.UNSUBSCRIBE RATE/uhn-suh b-skrahyb/reyt/noun Calculated as the number of individuals who unsubscribed in response to an email message divided by th

171、e number of delivered emails.WEBSITE PAGE LOAD TIME/web-sahyt/peyj/lohd/speed/noun The number of seconds before a page appears to be visually complete,as measured by the WebPageTest tool at https:/webpagetest.org.WEBSITE VISITORS PER MONTH/web-sahyt/viz-i-ter/pur/muhnth/plural noun The number of mon

172、thly unique visitors to a participants main website.WEBSITE REVENUE PER VISITOR/web-sahyt/rev-uh n-yoo/pur/viz-i-ter/noun Calculated 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 reten

173、tion,the long-term value of monthly gifts may be substantially higher.WEBSITE DONATION CONVERSION RATE/web-sahyt/doh-ney-shuh n/kuh n-vur-zhuh n/reyt/noun Calculated from the number of donations to a participants main website,including donations from all traffic sources(email,paid ads,organic,search

174、,etc),divided by the number of unique website visitors.WEBSITE DONATION PAGE CONVERSION RATE/web-sahyt/doh-ney-shuh n/peyj/kuh n-vur-zhuh n/reyt/noun Calculated from the number of donations to a participants main donation page,divided by the number of unique pageviews of that page.We included only u

175、nique pageviews for the one-time donation page,if a separate donation page existed for monthly gifts.77participantsparticipants by sectorCULTURAL+American Museum of Natural History+Central Park Conservancy+MASSCreative+Nasher Sculpture Center+National Museum of the American Indian+National Trust for

176、 Historic Preservation+Orchestras Canada+Philadelphia Museum of Art+SFJAZZ+Smithsonians National Air and Space MuseumENVIRONMENTAL+Alliance for the Great Lakes+Connecticut River Conservancy+Conservation Colorado+Conservation International+Conservation Law Foundation+David Suzuki Foundation+EarthRigh

177、ts International+Earthworks+Ecojustice+Environmental Defense Fund+Faith in Place+Food&Water Watch+Friends of the Earth+Global Greengrants Fund+League of Conservation Voters+Michigan League of Conservation Voters+Mono Lake Committee+Monterey Bay Aquarium+Mystic River Watershed Association+National Au

178、dubon Society+National Geographic Society+National Parks Conservation Association+Natural Resources Council of Maine+Natural Resources Defense Council+Nature Conservancy of Canada+NRDC Action Fund+Oceana+Overton Park Conservancy+Power Shift Network+Rails-to-Trails Conservancy+Rainforest Alliance+Riv

179、erkeeper+San Francisco Baykeeper+Sierra Club+The Nature Conservancy+The Trust for Public Land+The Wilderness Society+Union of Concerned Scientists+Washington Trails Association+Waterkeeper Alliance+Wilderness CommitteeHEALTH+Action on Smoking and Health+American Cancer Society+American Heart Associa

180、tion+American Lung Association+Autism Speaks+Boston Childrens Hospital+Canuck Place Childrens Hospice+ChangeLab Solutions+Childrens Hospital Los Angeles+Childrens Mercy Hospital 79+The Leukemia&Lymphoma Society(Advocacy)+March of Dimes+POGO Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario+Sepsis Alliance+St.Bald

181、ricks Foundation+Susan G Komen HUNGER/POVERTY+AARP Foundation+Center on Budget and Policy Priorities+Feeding America+Friends of the Children+Greater Cleveland Food Bank+Justice in Aging+ONE Campaign+Union Gospel Mission(Vancouver)INTERNATIONAL+American Red Cross+CARE Action+Children International+CM

182、MB+FINCA International+International Justice Mission+International Medical Corps+Mercy Corps+One Acre Fund+Operation Smile+Oxfam America+Pathfinder International+Plan International USA+UNHCR Canada+USA for UNHCR+Women Deliver+Women for Women International+World Food Program USAPUBLIC MEDIA+KNKX+Loui

183、sville Public Media+WETA+WGBH+WNET New York Public MediaRIGHTS+Communications Workers of America+Equal Rights Advocates+Free the Slaves+Human Rights Campaign+Innocence Project+International Center for Research on Women+NARAL Pro-Choice America+National Domestic Workers Alliance+National Womens Law C

184、enter+Planned Parenthood Action Fund+Planned Parenthood Federation of America+Population Connection+Tahirih Justice Center+Womens Rights and Empowerment NetworkWILDLIFE/ANIMAL WELFARE+Association of Zoos and Aquariums+BC SPCA+Best Friends Animal Society+International Fund for Animal Welfare+National

185、 Wildlife Federation+New England Anti-Vivisection Society(NEAVS)+People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals+The Humane Society of the United States+The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council+World Wildlife FundOTHER+ACT Now!+American Friends Service Committee+American Nurses Association+Boys

186、&Girls Clubs of America+EARN+Equitable Growth+First Book Canada+National Association of REALTORS+Opportunity Enterprises+Progress Iowa+St.Josephs Indian School+Win Without WarEmail+MobileEmailFundraisingEmailAdvocacyOpen rate14%15%Click-through rate0.44%2.4%Response rate0.06%1.8%Drop in response rat

187、e 20172018-13%-15%5%Email list growth14%Email list churnHeres what we saw:4.7Health7.2PublicMedia7Environmental9.4International3.9Wildlife/AnimalWelfareEmails sent per month,per subscriber:14%Mobile list growth1.1Messages per subscriber per month63Mobile subscribers for every1,000 email subscribersW

188、e analyzed:37,586,866 Subscribers4,444,434,836 Emails sentSocial Media+Ads806 Facebook fans 6%Facebook fans growth286 Twitter followers 26%Twitter followers growth101 Instagram followers 34%Instagram fan growthFor every 1,000 email subscribers,nonprofits have:Branding,awareness,educationDisplay adsS

189、ocial media adsSearch adsVideoLead generationDirect fundraisingOtherGoalsChannels21%44%35%16%5%23%55%1%In 2018,heres how nonprofits divvied up their digital ad budgets:32,898 Unique Facebook Fundraisers$31Average gift to Fundraisers56 Average number of Fundraisers per org$359Display$67Social media$3

190、3Search$279VideoCost per donation:$0.36Display$0.83Social media$4.78Search$0.30VideoReturn per$1 of ad spendFundraising+Donor Retention25%New donors59%Prior donors37%OverallOnline donor retention:5%Increase in#of gifts20172018 1%Increase in online revenue20172018Heres what we saw:We analyzed:We anal

191、yzed:$376,665,608 Raised online7,026,485 Online gifts1%Website visitors who made a donation$0.83Website revenue per visitor$45For every 1,000 fundraising messages delivered,nonprofits raisedAverage gift:$106 One-time$23Monthly83+I was of three minds,Like a treeIn which there are three blackbirds.II.