Abstract:
A donor affinity tracking system for non-profit enterprises in which information from a client donor database is combined with information obtained via a survey data acquisition system using an algebraic scoring system and information from a data-warehouse to generate customized reports and real-time results delivered via a client portal. The data comprises donor satisfaction responses to questionnaires, weighted according to responses to donor affinity responses to questionnaires, and enables advising the donee on improving the scores of the most crucial donor affinity factors and predicting future donations by donors in order to prioritize fund-raising efforts.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0001]    This invention relates generally to the field of data-processing methods involving information obtained via surveys and the combination of that information with information from a data-warehouse. 
       BACKGROUND 
       [0002]    Recent years have shown an increase in the number of organizations competing for the same donor funds, which have not increased at the same rate as the charitable need. Large-scale disaster relief has used-up a significant proportion of the available charitable donor funds. Macro issues affecting the charitable fundraising industry include uncertainty about the overall economy, inflation, and demographic changes in the population. Micro issues include charitable leadership, charitable organization staffing, brand awareness of the charity and mission, and lastly and most importantly ‘affinity’ which is related to satisfaction with and loyalty to the particular charitable organization. 
         [0003]    It is this later ‘affinity’ aspect which the present invention seeks to address. The non-profit industry has traditionally been weak in monitoring donor affinity, basing its understanding on measurements of giving behavior alone represented by records of giving recency, frequency and amount. Donor behavior is a complex web of interrelated attitudes, impulses, checks and balances, which cannot realistically be explained by behavior alone. This reliance on behavioral data results in an unfortunate loss of revenue for the non-profits and a lack of data as to whether donors are achieving their objectives in respect to their charitable giving. 
         [0004]    The few non-profit organizations which measure donor attitudes have historically relied upon point-in-time donor affinity surveys developed by professional marketing research firms and administered via traditional methods such as telephone and mail. The results of such surveys are summarized and reported to clients, taking considerable time and expense. The survey report provides useful information, but lacks the detailed information, metrics, and predictive power of the method of the present invention. 
         [0005]    Effectively worded questionnaires that specifically address donor concerns can be seen to dramatically improve donor responsiveness to solicitation mailings and other donor contact. 
         [0006]    Existing donor data analysis methods can distort, minimize or amplify certain donor behaviors at the expense of others, which causes problems when the data is used for fund raising planning. Customer satisfaction researchers have long known that purchase behavior is an incomplete predictor of future actions, and that satisfaction data helps to fill in gaps in a customer&#39;s profile. 
         [0007]    Also, existing survey research leaves much to be desired in terms of its applicability. Only the largest non-profits have the financial ability to investigate donor affinity and satisfaction, and the results they achieve are private and proprietary. Therefore, where industry best practices exist, they are not shared and they typically apply only to donors who give to the organization that did the testing. Ultimately, the information is of limited value in improving the processes of soliciting donor funds. 
         [0008]    Further, there is little predictive value in such proprietary surveys. This is because the larger non-profits that investigate donor affinity typically test among their own donors—making the donor affinity models they might develop from the data impractical for other non-profits. Independent, multi-sector research has been necessary to establish standards and models of donor affinity that are effective for the wide range of nonprofits that engage in mass fund raising. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0009]    The present invention solves the problems of limited metrics; limited data; and limited forecasting ability which characterize existing methods of donor analysis and data processing. It solves the metrics, data, and forecasting problems by providing valuable information from a client donor database and combining it with a vast store of data in a data-warehouse including an algorithmic scoring system based on pre-existing parameter and component weights which may evolve over time as an understanding of the underlying factors which contribute to donor affinity and donor affinity evolves. This information can be accessed at will by clients through an electronic client portal which enables clients to generate customized reports in real-time. These reports contain superior donor affinity metrics such as donor satisfaction and donor loyalty which are based on an extensive and continuously updated data-warehouse and new information processing methods. The survey methods—including the parameters and questions used to measure the parameters—may be modified by the addition of new parameters within the spirit of the invention. The reports also incorporate feedback from donors to help the client to improve these donor affinity metrics by providing detailed information that can be used to help donors better achieve their charitable giving objectives. 
         [0010]    The present invention is also designed to enhance donor satisfaction by giving donors an opportunity to provide feedback as to how well they feel their charitable giving objectives were realized by the client charitable organization. The focus of the survey is to provide a positive experience to the person completing the survey. 
         [0011]    Some of the data consists of responses to standard service satisfaction questions, for example:
       1. Informing me how my money is spent   2. Not asking for support too often   3. Offering me some choice in the communications I receive   4. Thanking me appropriately   5. Recognizing the contribution(s) I&#39;ve made in the past   6. Demonstrating they care about my needs   7. Making it clear why my continued support is needed   8. Giving me opportunities to support [NON-PROFIT] in other (non-financial) ways   9. Using an appropriate style/tone in their communications
 
variations of which have been prior used. This data is augmented by implied or stated importance values for the above attributes, in addition to responses to enhanced donor affinity questions, such as:
   10. Has your overall experience with [NON-PROFIT] over the past  6  months fallen short of, met or exceeded your expectations?   11. Is [NON-PROFIT] a) one of your favorite organizations, b) among your top three organizations, c) important but you would support others first, or d) not a priority to you?   12. Are you very likely, somewhat likely, undecided, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to make another financial gift to [NON-PROFIT] in the next 6 months?   13. Do you frequently, occasionally, rarely or never discuss [NON-PROFIT] with friends or family?
 
and combined with weighting algorithms to arrive at a future donation score for the donor. The information garnered by questions  1  through  9  is weighted according to how the respondent has answered questions  10  through  13 .
       
 
         [0025]    The basic set of questions therefore comprises questions seeking the donor&#39;s response on the following areas of service quality:
       Frequency and responsiveness of donee communications   Content of donee communications   Acknowledgement and/or reciprocation by donee   Nature and approach of the solicitation       
 
         [0030]    The set of enhanced donor affinity thus comprises questions seeking the donor&#39;s response in the following areas of questioning:
       Donor service quality expectations being met, unmet or exceeded   Whether the donor is likely to give again   Whether the donor is likely to discuss the donee   The priority the donor places on gifts to the donee       
 
         [0035]    The invention thus provides a donor affinity tracking system for non-profit enterprises in which information from a client donor database is combined with information obtained via a survey data acquisition system using an algebraic scoring system and information from a data-warehouse to generate customized reports and real-time results delivered via a client portal. 
         [0036]    The data comprises donor satisfaction responses to questionnaires, weighted according to responses to donor affinity responses to questionnaires. 
         [0037]    At a basic level, the inventive system is a donor affinity tracking system for non-profit enterprises and fundraising advisors, comprising:
       a) a survey data acquisition questionnaire designed to measure a donor&#39;s satisfaction with the results of a donation plus the donor&#39;s affinity to a donee;   b) a client-donor database   c) a data-warehouse for questionnaire responses
 
in which information from the client-donor database is combined with survey data acquired from responses to the questionnaire and with information from the data-warehouse in data analysis that is useful in predicting of future donations from the donor to the donee, and in prioritizing fund-raising and donor affinity improvement efforts.
       
 
         [0041]    The questionnaire comprises:
       a) a standardized set of questions designed to elicit satisfaction responses useful in measuring key components of a donor&#39;s satisfaction with the results of a donation;   b) a customized set of questions designed to elicit affinity responses useful in measuring key components of the donor&#39;s affinity for the donee;   c) using the affinity responses to identify which satisfaction components are most important to the donor, in order to weight the donor&#39;s satisfaction responses       
 
         [0045]    The result of the data analysis is a future donation score, which can be used to prioritize fundraising efforts and allocation of fundraising expenses according to the future donation scores for various past donors. 
         [0046]    The system can also be used to refine donor feedback procedures to result in higher future donation scores. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
         [0047]      FIG. 1  is a flow-chart overview of the Donor Affinity Tracking System (DATS). 
           [0048]      FIG. 2  is a schematic of the Survey Data Acquisition System. 
           [0049]      FIG. 3  is an overview of the contents of the Data-Warehouse. 
           [0050]      FIG. 4  is a schematic overview of the client portal. 
           [0051]      FIG. 5  is a schematic overview of behavioral data transferred from the client-donor database to the data-warehouse. 
           [0052]      FIG. 6  is an overview of the algorithm used to score the results within the data-warehouse. 
           [0053]      FIG. 7  is an exemplary embodiment of a Landing Page on the Client Portal. 
           [0054]      FIG. 8  is an exemplary embodiment of a Results Dashboard. 
           [0055]      FIG. 9  is an exemplary embodiment of a Comparison Module. 
           [0056]      FIG. 10  is an exemplary embodiment of a Print/Download Module. 
           [0057]      FIG. 11  is a box diagram of an Executive Briefing Report 
           [0058]      FIG. 12  is a box diagram of a Standard Statistical Banners Report 
           [0059]    FIG.  13 —Box Diagram of a Customizable Statistical Banners Report 
           [0060]      FIG. 14  is a box Diagram of a Web Data Selection Report 
           [0061]      FIG. 15  is a box diagram of a Customer Value Analysis Report 
           [0062]      FIG. 16  is an illustrative embodiment of a graphical element which can be used in the Customer Value Analysis Report 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION  
       [0063]    Referring to  FIG. 1 , the Donor Affinity Tracking System flow-chart is shown in overview form. Behavioral data  500  from a client-donor database  900  is fed into the survey data acquisition method  200  based on information selected by client with respect to various survey options. The survey data acquisition method can be administered via a variety of media. Behavioral data  500  from the client-donor database  900  is also fed into the data-warehouse  300  where it is combined with a wide array of data, benchmarks, and predictive metrics and used to analyze the results from the survey data acquisition method Real-time results  600  are delivered via the client-portal  400  and information from the data-warehouse  300  can also be used to generate a number of special reports  800 . 
         [0064]    Referring to  FIG. 2 , a survey data acquisition system  200  is illustrated as comprising a set of underlying elements  201 , which feed into other key aspects of the survey data acquisition system  200 , such as the customer appreciation message  202 , the questionnaire instructions  203 , the standard questionnaire parameters  204 , and the enhanced affinity measures  206 . These other key aspects also influence each other, as the customer appreciation message  202  is conveyed through the questionnaire instructions  203  which seek to measure the standard questionnaire parameters which are then ranked according to the parameter ranking data  205  and then combined with the-enhanced affinity measures  206 . The standard questionnaire parameters  204  are derived from a battery of questions which form the initial part of the questionnaire. The enhanced affinity measures include: willingness to renew (also termed renewal likelihood); donor delight; willingness to recommend to others (also termed referral); and the priority that the donor feels toward the charitable organization as compared with other causes. One embodiment of a questionnaire measuring the standard questionnaire parameters  204  (responses to questions  1  through  9  below) and the enhanced affinity measures  206  (responses to questions  10  through  14  below) is as follows: 
         [0065]    Please tell us how we rate . . . 
         [0066]    Thank you for your recent donation. [Non-Profit] appreciates your support! Please help them improve their relationship with donors by filling out this brief survey and dropping it in the mail. We&#39;ve already paid for the postage. Or you can take the survey online at . . . www.theratinqscompany.com/example/ 
         [0067]    Please rate your satisfaction with [NON-PROFIT] over the past six months for each of the following items (leave blank if not applicable). Then check three (3) boxes in the far-right column to show the items you consider most important in your relationship with [Non-Profit]. 

 
         [0000]    The Following are some Alternate Versions of Donor Satisfaction Questions that may Substituted in the above Questionnaire: 
         [0068]    1. Were you provided with a clear and simple way of understanding how your donation was used? 
         [0069]    2. Were you provided with information making it possible for you to support [Non-Profit] in non-financial ways . . . 
         [0070]    Referring to  FIG. 3  a schematic overview of the data-warehouse is provided outlining the purpose, types of data, and specific variables in the data-warehouse. The types of data include survey respondent records, aggregated trend reports, and category specific segmentations. The data is subject oriented, meaning that the data is organized so that all the data elements related to the survey are linked together. The data itself is non-volatile in that it does not change over time. However, the data-warehouse is time-variant in that new data in the database are tracked, summarized and recorded so that reports can be produced showing changes over time. The variables are categorized according to affinity and importance. These characteristics are combined to indicate overall success of the client organization in achieving client affinity. 
         [0071]    Referring to  FIG. 4 , schematic overview of the client portal is provided showing the relationship between the landing page  401 , the results dashboard  402 , the primary drill-down process  403 , the detailed results  404 , the comparison pages  405  and  406 , the print/download functions  407  and  408 , the secondary drill down process, and subsidiary drill down processes  410  etc. 
         [0072]    Referring to  FIG. 5 , a sample of the client data which can be input from the client donor database into the data-warehouse is provided. This information includes selected variables  501 , for example: first gift date/average time on file  504 , total number of gifts/average gifts by donor  505 , cumulative giving/average total gifts by donor  506 ; response type  502 ; and scale  503 . 
         [0073]    Referring to  FIG. 6 , an overview of the algorithm used in the data-warehouse to score the data consists of a affinity battery component comprising a series of questions designed to measure parameters from i=1 to n affinity battery  601 , with affinity battery component score  602  calculated as a sum of its parameter scores (which are weighted); a renewal likelihood component  603  comprising a series of one or more questions which measure parameters, with renewal likelihood component score  604  calculated as the sum of its weighted parameter scores; a delight component  606  comprising a series of one or more questions designed to measure parameters, with delight component score calculated as the sum of its weighted parameter scores; a reference likelihood component  607  comprised of a series of one or more questions which measure parameters, with the reference likelihood component score  608  calculated as the sum of its weighted parameter scores. The affinity battery component score  602  is multiplied by a constant factor A, and then the result is added to the product of the renewal likelihood component score  604  and constant factor B, the result is then added to the product of the delight component score  606  and constant factor C, which is then added to the product of the reference likelihood component score and constant factor D to produce a weighted average of component scores  609  which is converted to a final decile score by multiplication by constant factor E. 
         [0074]    Referring to  FIG. 7  an exemplary embodiment of a Landing Page on the Client Portal is shown with navigation bar  701  at the top and username field  702  and password field  703  in the center. The function of the Landing Page is to facilitate access to the Client Portal by prompting the user to enter a username and password. A help link  704  is provided to assist clients who have difficulty with the login process. After the user successfully logs in they are directed to the Results Dashboard. 
         [0075]    Referring to  FIG. 8  an exemplary embodiment of a Results Dashboard on the Client Portal is shown with information fields  801  to  806  shown at the top. These information fields permit the client to specify the particular results they would like to display. The client information field  801  specifies the client name; the period field specifies the period for which the results are shown; the sector specifies the general type of charitable organization; the scope specifies the area for which the results are displayed; the response type specifies the method by which the donors responded; and the responses field indicates how many responses there were. Below the information fields are a series of results such as satisfaction score  807 ; donor delight score  808 ; renewal score  809 ; and recommend score  810 . These results are displayed numerically and graphically like a speedometer. Below the results there are links to the comparison module  811 , the drill-down module  812 , and the print module  813 . The comparison module  811  compares the results with a different set of results selected by the user. The drill-down module  812  provides more detailed data and the print module facilitates the printing of the displayed results and/or selected reports based on those results. 
         [0076]    Referring to  FIG. 9  an exemplary embodiment of a comparison module is shown with comparison set  910  below the base results. Satisfaction score  901  from the base results is shown directly above satisfaction score  905  from the comparison set  910 ; similarly donor delight score  902  from the initial results is shown directly above donor delight score  906  from the comparison set  910 . Comparison Renewal Score  907  and Comparison Recommend Score  908  are similarly shown directly below base Renewal Score  903  and base Recommend Score  904  respectively. 
         [0077]    Referring to  FIGS. 10 to 15 , the print or download results module enables the user to select one of several reports from among five different report types. The user can select the executive briefing report icon  1001  to download or print the executive briefing report  1100  (which is shown on  FIG. 11 ). Similarly the user can click the standard statistical banners report icon  1002  which enables the download or print of the standard statistical banners report  1200 , or can select the customizable statistical banners report icon  1005  to view the customizable statistical banners report  1300  (shown in  FIG. 13 ), or can select the web data selection report icon  1004  to select the web data selection report  1400  (shown in  FIG. 14 ), or can select the customer value analysis report icon  1003  to view the customer value analysis report  1500  (shown in  FIG. 15 ). These reports are individually illustrated and described as follows: 
         [0078]    Referring to  FIG. 11 , the executive briefing report  1100  is illustrated in block diagram form. The purpose of this report is to provide information in aggregate for certain period determined by the client, arranged in a written report suitable for executive-level presentation, detailing survey response for each question in graphics and text and including data for comparable organizations where available. The first section entitled ‘content’  1101  lists the contents of the report, the second section ‘satisfaction levels’  1102  provides detailed information on satisfaction levels derived from the method of the present invention. Similarly detailed information is provided on loyalty levels  1103 , annual giving amount  1104 , and a standard GAP analysis  1105  offers an additional statistical perspective on the information. 
         [0079]    Referring to  FIG. 12 , a standard statistical banners report  1200  following the method of the present invention is illustrated in block diagram form. The purpose of this report is to allow the client to compare categories of donors between one another and identify any statistically significant differences between categories. The report facilitates the comparison of responses to different questions from different categories. For instance the section ‘Response Q 1  C 2 ’  1202  provides information on responses from persons in Category  2  to ‘Question  1 ’  1201 . The categories are arranged in columns as for instance ‘Category  3 ’  1203 . 
         [0080]    Referring to  FIG. 13 , a customizable statistical banners report  1300  following the method of the present invention is illustrated in block diagram form. Categories  1301 ,  1302  and  1303  are selectable by the user, that is, information from any category can be shown in any column of the report depending on user selections. For example if the user selects ‘Category  1 ’ for the column under that category heading  1301  and Question  1  for the row beside question heading  1304 , then the customized response  1305 , labeled ‘Response Q 1  C 1 ’ is displayed in the upper right hand cell of the table. 
         [0081]    Referring to  FIG. 14 , a web data selection report  1400  is illustrated in summary form. The purpose of this report is to enable clients to select all of their data from the data-warehouse for transfer into a local storage system. The types of information provided by the report include all records, including recent donor-level data and aggregate date for a particular client. An embodiment of the report might involve three different data types donor data  1402 , client data  1403  and aggregate data  1404 , all selected by the client. A summary  1401  of three types of data is also provided with the report. 
         [0082]    Referring to  FIG. 15 , a customer value analysis report  1500  is illustrated in summary form. This report provides all records in aggregate for a certain period of time determined by the client, in a manner that presents the correlation of various satisfaction indicators with the importance of those same indicators. This correlation allows donor relationship managers to identify the areas of communication and relationship which donors consider to be a priority and which the organization is perceived to either fulfill or not fulfill to their satisfaction. This report type is organized into introductory data  1501 , analysis  1502 , graphical element  1503  which displays the data in a visually comprehensive manner for clients, and conclusions  1504 . By reading these reports clients have the tools they need to adjust donor messages and tactics in response to the data. 
         [0083]    Referring to  FIG. 16 , an exemplary embodiment of the graphical element  1503  introduced in  FIG. 15  is provided. The graphical element consists of two axes, a horizontal derived importance axis  1605  and a vertical satisfaction axis  1606 . These axes define four quadrants: perks quadrant  1601  which has low importance/high satisfaction; key wants quadrant  1602  which has high satisfaction/high derived importance; peripherals quadrant  1603  which has low satisfaction/low importance; and critical needs quadrant  1604  which has low satisfaction/high derived importance. Any of the parameters or components of the survey data acquisition system can be placed within the framework of the axes  1605  and  1606  and displayed within a graphical element  1503 . 
         [0084]    This specification sets out working embodiments of the donor affinity tracking system but it is not exhaustive, other specific wording of the questions could be substituted and still fit within the scope of the invention, defined by the Claims based on this disclosure.