Advancement Framework Planning

Transcription

1 Advancement Framework Planning Board Committee Update June 21, 2012

2 Agenda Project Update Progress update Quantitative Analysis & Segmentation Review methodology for determining priority metrics Project Next Steps 2

3 ADVANCEMENT FRAMEWORK PLANNING PROJECT UPDATE 3

4 Project Timeline Workstream completed Workstream in progress December January February March April May June July Finals Winter Break Finals Spring Break Finals Summer Break Project Launch FINAL DELIVERABLE Xmas QUALITATIVE RESEARCH & ANALYSIS QUALITATIVE MESSAGE TESTING Xmas QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS & SEGMENTATION QUANTITATIVE MESSAGE TESTING Xmas INTERNAL ASSESSMENT & LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS BRAND DEVELOPMENT & STRATEGY STRATEGIC PLANNING ORG DATA GATHERING & ANALYTICS We are here 4

5 Workstream Duration Details Project Management Ongoing Monthly update meetings with Framework Planning Team Weekly update meetings with Chair and Project Manager, daily contact PM to PM Quantitative Research 14 weeks Online survey to: 1,700 alumni 435 non-alumni friends Survey designed with input from Office of Institutional Research and Planning, Alumni Association, Communications, and Foundation BODY OF WORK Qualitative Research 10 weeks Focus groups (11), triads (3), one-on-one interviews (27) and interactive exercise (e.g., diaries, collages, story-telling) for: Landscape Analysis 9 weeks Management interviews (42): Ohio State Board of Trustees, Deans, Senior Leadership, Alumni Association Board of Directors, Foundation Board Leaders and staff interviews (89) from Communications, Foundations &Alumni Relations. External expert interviews regarding best practices in Advancement capabilities. Brand Development 12 weeks Brand Advisory Group: Comprised of 9 individuals from multiple roles and areas across campus who provide the voice of the University Message Testing (on-line surveys and interviews of alumni, students, faculty and staff) Organizational Design 14 weeks (& counting) Undergrad students Graduate students Faculty Parents Alumni (donors and non-donors) Non-Alumni Friends Guidance Counselors Admit-Declines 80+ interviews across colleges, Medical Center, Athletics and various other units 20 external expert interviews from higher education HR Leadership Team: Working in collaboration to identify gaps, design organization and develop improvement recommendations Change Management Intermittent Research Reviews: Three sessions with selected Advancement leaders to review a synthesis of the research findings and the foundational brand equities Brown Bag Sessions: Session to deliver a broad project update to Advancement staff All updates made available on Advancement website, staff notified via 5

6 What have we learned? INSIGHTS FROM DISCOVERY PHASE BRAND The mission and brand essence of Ohio State are intuitively well understood, but not crisply articulated Size is top-of-mind for most stakeholders when asked to describe Ohio State, and it has both positive (e.g., diversity, opportunity, unexpected connections) and negative (e.g., isolating, impersonal) implications. ADVANCEMENT ORGANIZATION Ohio State is complex and evolving, so we re building the plane while we re flying it Experts say there is no right Advancement model Some best practices exist, including clarity of roles, accountability, disciplined tracking and sharing of data, and non-duplication of efforts Specific Advancement models, however, should reflect the school s current strategic vision, environment, leadership and culture The raw materials of the organization structure are largely in place, but there is clearly a need to improve governance models to clarify decision-making, enhance talent development processes, and create communication mechanisms that support integrated strategic planning 6

7 Brand Advisory Group was established to inform Brand Development work The Brand Advisory Group is comprised of people from multiple roles with the University faculty, students, administrators, staff, athletes who will support the Brand Development work by providing the voice of the University and their respective groups in developing Ohio State s enterprise brand equity, Kristen Convery Web Editor, University Marketing Communications Matt Fenstermaker Candidate for BA in Art Education, 2012 President, Student-Alumni Council Shashi Matta Assistant Professor of Marketing, Fisher College of Business Tracy Stuck Assistant Vice President, Student Life Tim Gerber Professor, School of Music Secretary, University Senate Kimberly Lowe Director, Alumni Clubs, The Ohio State Alumni Association Bill MacDonald Dean and Director, The Ohio State University at Newark Executive Dean of Regional Campuses Associate professor, Sociology Liz Sullivan President, Student-Athlete Board Former Captain, Women s Soccer Team BS Psychology, Winter 2012 Dr. Andy Thomas, MD, MBA Medical Director, Wexner Medical Center Assistant Professor, Clinical Internal Medicine, Wexner Medical Center 7

8 QUALITATIVE & QUANTITATIVE INSIGHTS MOTIVATIONAL DRIVERS OF GIVING TO + ENGAGEMENT WITH OHIO STATE 8

9 Engagement Motivations ATTITUDES TOWARD ENGAGEMENT AND GIVING Perceived Return On Investment (ROI) is a cost of entry for modern charitable giving Respondents were wary of organizations that: Are unclear about where the money goes (too big or not forthcoming) Financial transparency creates a bond of trust with donors Are too new (no proven track record) Don t have a personal connection, e.g. they have too broad a mission Seem to be doing fine without any help My time/contribution may not be fully appreciated TRADITIONAL PAYOFF Validation of Personal Power Fulfilled Responsibility + In addition to good ROI, people desire good Return On Engagement (ROE) from their charitable investments Respondents want to experience emotional engagement and heightened leverage. The ability to feel and visualize the narrative of the cause is key to donor retention. Show me where the money goes (e.g. $10 = 3 books) Include me in the story (e.g. thank you, , photos, ) A platform to have greater impact through collective action EVOLVED PAYOFF Feeling of Empowerment Part of Something Bigger 9

10 Giving to + Engagement with Ohio State OHIO STATE S MOTIVATING FACTORS CAN BE STRENGTHENED IN ALL DIRECTIONS Does Ohio State articulate its mission(s) effectively and in an engaging way? MISSION CONNECTS WITH MY VALUES IMPACTS MY COMMUNITY How can Ohio State connect more publicly with the local community, or raise awareness of existing initiatives? How can the (mis)perception that Ohio State does not need additional support be evolved? IN NEED I CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE How can Ohio State better balance wooing big-ticket donors while making lower-level donors and participants feel that they have a meaningful role to play? 10

11 Giving to + Engagement with Ohio State EXAMPLES OF MIXED RESPONSES TO MOTIVATING FACTORS GIVING BACK Ohio State helped me get to where I am today so why not help other people there? The person that I have become is in direct relationship to my education, the things that I have learned. I can only keep what I have by giving it back. MISSION = MY VALUES I just don't feel I have a clear connection with what my donation does there. The only reason the person on the phone can give you is that your paltry amount will at least help rankings in US News and World reports. IN NEED They have enough money. They keep raising their fees. They get all this money from the sports programs. I CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE It s being part of a legacy at Ohio State. IMPACTS MY COMMUNITY I want to be able to say what my donation goes towards. I want it to go toward what impacted me. 11

12 Great potential exists to further engage people with Ohio State, with clear differences between what they d like to give, and what they d like to get Interest In Various Interactions For and With Ohio State: Alumni Donors Left; Alumni and Non-alumni--Right Participation and Interest in Doing Various Activities For Ohio State: Alumni Donors Attend/watch OSU athletic event Give to my college/department Attend a performance or exhibit on campus Meet Ohio State alumni Mentor current OSU students interested in my profession Attend Alumni Club or Society events Donate to scholarships for Ohio State students Serve on advisory board or other organization Host/attend networking events with alumni Help fund research on specific topics 15% 17% 7% 17% 18% 5% 8% 5% 32% 53% 46% 39% 37% 51% 47% 56% 44% 37% 39% 35% Already do this for Ohio State Very/Somewh at interested in doing this for Ohio State % Total Very/Somewhat interested in having this interaction with Ohio State Attend speakers series on my profession/interests Attend speakers series on my college major/field Online continuing education programs Meet OSU alumni in my profession Attend Webinar on my profession, interests Attend social events with alumni In-person continuing education programs Use career services to find job postiings Meet specific alum who is a leader in his or her field Volunteer-oriented travel organized through OSU Use career services to post a job Family centered travel organized through OSU 14% 21% 19% 18% 21% 40% 39% 36% 37% 36% 38% 28% 33% 26% 25% 20% 34% 35% 31% 32% 21% 59% 54% 47% 52% 52% 52% 52% 44% 49% 58% 48% 51% 47% 48% 47% Alumni Donors Alumni Non Donors Non Alumni Friends 12

13 Among alumni who have given to Ohio State, those who are engaged in 3 or more activities for Ohio State give more often, and give larger gifts than those who are not engaged. Among Alumni Who Have Given (49% of total) Mean Lifetime Giving $2,100 $17,262 Median Lifetime Giving $222 $421 Median Number of Gifts 6 9 Engaged (N = 282) Not Engaged (N = 574) Null, or zero gifts NOT included in this analysis Engagement activities are defined by Spring Segmentation Survey excluding direct gift activities 13

14 Both the mean number of gifts and mean lifetime giving go up with increased levels of engagement $18, Lifetime Giving and Number of Gifts $17, $16, $14, Mean Lifetime Giving 60 $12, Mean Number of Lifetime Gifts $10, $10, $8, $8, $6, $6, $4, $2, $ $4, $0.00 Not Engaged Engaged in 1+ Engaged in 2+ Engaged in 3+ Engaged in 4+ Engaged in 5+ 0 Null, or zero gifts ARE included in this analysis Engagement activities are defined by Spring 2012 Segmentation Survey Data 14

15 SEGMENTATION SUMMARY ALUMNI + NON-ALUMNI FRIENDS 15

16 Differences in Approach to Segmentation Between Initial Segments and New Segments Different Goals Segmentation Process Outcome Original Segmentation Was designed to maximize alumni giving by focusing resources Created using survey data and donor database data Factor analysis grouped similar attitudes and behaviors The factor analysis was used to drive a k-means cluster analysis to create the actual groups Eight alumni segments ranked primarily by giving potential Five were recommended for proactive targeting New Segmentation Is intended to maximize both alumni giving & engagement Additional segmentation of nonalumni friends Initial engagement + giving groups based on the Hart Alumni Survey data were validated, yet further refined using the Spring Alumni Segmentation survey Similar process with additional variables and different goals resulted in different factors and clusters. Five alumni segments, three of which are recommended for focused targeting Five Non-Alumni Friends targets, three of which are recommended for proactive targeting 16

17 The enhanced alumni segmentation confirms intuition, but with important nuance for example, that engagement doesn t always drive giving. Alumni Segmentation Overview Segment D Highest % of givers in segment (61%) Highest avg gift size (> $2,000) Low engagement Segment C Lowest engagement Lowest % of givers in segment Segment E Smallest segment size Low level of engagement Avg gift size < $100 Segment B High engagement High avg gift size ($230) Segment C 10% Segment D 9% Segment E Segment B 33% 8% Segment A Largest segment size Segment A 40% Highest level of engagement 60% are members of alumni association 17

18 Quantitative Segmentation STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Segmentation Alumni: Ohio State alumni can be grouped into five attitudinal/behavioral segments Non-alumni friends: Resulted in 5 segments based on giving habits and behavioral history with Ohio State rather than their attitudes A potential lifecycle model that emphasizes engagement in early adulthood with increased development emphasis as alumni age Engagement Despite overall low degree of engagement outside football and donations, there is a motivating desire for more involvement in many other activities at Ohio State (e.g. funding research and donor societies) What supporters want in return from Ohio State: - Continuous learning through speaker series and on-line education - Networking with others in their profession or with like interests - Career support through use of career services for job postings Giving Motivations for Giving: - Passion: Both donors and non-donors say they need to care about the cause they are supporting and prefer to designate their gifts, rather than give to the University as a whole - Impact: Supporting an organization that helped them, or someone they cared about, resonated strongly across all audiences - Personalization: Non-donors would require personalized attention to compel them to engage and give (e.g., if a friend asked, if their specific college asked) 18

19 ADVANCEMENT FRAMEWORK PLANNING NEXT STEPS 19

20 Next Steps Brand and Marketing Activities STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN How will Ohio State activate Advancement marketing? Desired Outputs Strategies and tactics for each prioritized segment Recommendations for overall media mix, based on target segment and messaging Identification of measurement framework for each target segment Strategies for signature programs and effective alumni engagement and fundraising BRAND HIERARCHY RECOMMENDATIONS How will Ohio State align the new brand identity across the university? Recommendations on how OSU brand umbrella positioning should link to sub-brands Definition of a set of standards for brand expression, to be used across the organization BRAND ACTIVATION RECOMMENDATIONS How will Ohio State activate the new brand internally and externally? Identification of key capabilities required to deliver on marketing and organizational capabilities Implementation plan of organizational structure, roles and process recommendations Framework for measuring progress against organization goals 20