AUTHORED BY:

Table of Contents
2 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS
This report was written by Steve Peretz and Sarah DiJulio of M+R Strategic Services (M+R) and Holly I. Introduction.................................................................................................4
Ross of the Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN).
II. Email Messaging .........................................................................................6
Steve Daigneault, Katlyn Carter, Arielle Holland, Jessica Bosanko, Jeremy Hatter, Marjory Garrison,
and Vanessa Fernandez provided invaluable assistance with writing, editing, data collection, and
data coding. Steve Peretz aggregated and analyzed the 31 nonprofit participants’ datasets. Charles III. Email List Size ............................................................................................14
Yesuwan did the graphic design and prepared the report for printing.
IV. Online Fundraising ....................................................................................20
Special thanks to all of our nonprofit study partners for sharing their data and making this study possible.

V. Online Advocacy .......................................................................................33

Additional thanks to MobileActive.org, Mobile Commons, and mGive for allowing us to reprint an
excerpt of the 2010 Nonprofit Text Messaging Benchmarks in this study.
VI. Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................39
ABOUT M+R STRATEGIC SERVICES
M+R is dedicated to helping our clients advance their missions in order to bring about positive VII. Study Methodology ...................................................................................42
change. We do this by helping organizations and campaigns we believe in develop smart and
effective strategies, hone their messages, mobilize their members, build grassroots support, raise
money, and communicate effectively with the media, the public, and decision-makers, both online
and offline.
www.mrss.com

ABOUT NTEN: THE NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY NETWORK Appx A. Social Media ..............................................................................................45
NTEN is a community transforming technology into social change. We aspire to a world where all
nonprofit organizations skillfully and confidently use technology to meet community needs and fulfill their
Appx B. Text Messaging .........................................................................................47
missions. We connect our members to each other, provide professional development opportunities,
educate our constituency on issues of technology use in nonprofits, and spearhead groundbreaking
research, advocacy, and education on technology issues affecting our entire community.
www.nten.org

This complete report is available for free download online at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

For more information about the report, please contact:
Steve Peretz, M+R Strategic Services, (917) 438-4627, speretz@mrss.com
Holly Ross, NTEN, (415) 397-9000, holly@nten.org
© 2010 M+R Strategic Services and The Nonprofit Technology Network
 Introduction
4 5

Introduction
2009 was a challenging year for online fundraising and advocacy, with the economy in a continuing
tailspin. Despite the millions of new online activists and donors engaged during the historic 2008 elections,
approximately half of the nonprofits in this year’s study saw their online fundraising revenue stay even with
or below last year’s revenue numbers.
This study includes brand-new data collected from 31 nonprofit organizations covering all of calendar
year 2009. This year’s study calculates, for the first time, online fundraising benchmarks for the share
of online revenue attributable to different types of gift programs, such as monthly giving, one-time gifts,
and tribute gifts.
Another new addition in the 2010 study is the inclusion of not only analysis by sector, but also by the size
of the email list. We have historically found that there is a relationship between email list performance
and size, and with this year’s study, we’ve grouped study participants into three tiers for email list size
and found significant differences in benchmarks based on this analysis. The three tiers are Small (under
100,000 deliverable email addresses), Medium (100,000 to 500,000 deliverable email addresses),
and Large (over 500,000 deliverable email addresses).
In order to provide a more realistic picture of how results vary by nonprofit, in most of our charts we’ve
included the range of results from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile, in recognition of the fact
that these data points represent a variety of programs that perform differently.
In acknowledgement of how other online and technology mediums are beginning to claim a larger
share of the online marketplace, we have, for the first time ever, included both Social and Mobile
benchmarks for nonprofit advocacy and fundraising. These chapters represent excerpts of our
much larger reports published earlier in 2010 (both full reports are available for download at
www.e-benchmarksstudy.com).
KEY FINDINGS OF THE 2010 BENCHMARKS STUDY
• Nonprofits with Small email lists (under 100,000 subscribers) had a much higher open
rate, click-through rate and double the email fundraising response rate of Medium and
Large nonprofits, but also had double the unsubscribe rate of their larger peers.
• Email fundraising response rates were .13%, and email advocacy response rates were 4.00%.
The average gift size for a one-time online gift was $81.33.
• Annual email file churn was just under 17%.
• The average study participant sent 4 emails per subscriber per month, but Environmental
nonprofits sent their subscribers 5.2 emails per month, while Health nonprofits sent just 2.1
emails per month, on average.
• Online fundraising grew overall by 4.5% between 2008 and 2009, and for half of the
nonprofits in our study, online revenue either held steady with 2008 or declined. This
decline was driven by a drop in the average gift size.
• Environmental nonprofits in our study raised 96% of their online revenue from one-time gifts.
Health nonprofits, on the other hand, raised 50% of their online revenue from “other” gifts
(including event giving) and tribute gifts. International groups lead the way through monthly
giving, which made up more than 25% of their online revenue.
• Our performance analysis (pages 32 and 38) found that the largest difference between high and
low performing email programs was in email click-through rates. If you’re looking to emulate the
most successful email programs in our study, then work to improve your click-through rates!

Although you may be tempted to compare the results of the 2009 study with this year’s study, we
want to emphasize that the 2010 study represents just a single snapshot in time. The make-up of the
participating nonprofits varies from year to year, and therefore we cannot confidently extrapolate year-
over-year trends by placing the two studies side-by-side.

For instance, the 2010 study shows almost identical advocacy and fundraising response rates to the
2009 study. But when we limit our analysis to just the 18 nonprofits who participated in both studies,

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

we found that fundraising response rates dropped by .05 percentage points for these groups and
advocacy response rates fell by 2 percentage points. While this set of 18 groups was well above the
benchmark in the 2009 study, their data in the 2010 study is more in line with their peers.

As you analyze your own email and online fundraising program, bear in mind that the only trend that
really matters is your own trend. These benchmarks should complement and enhance your own analytics
program, but not serve as a substitute for it!
 Email Messaging
6 7

EMAIL MESSAGING RESULTS BY MESSAGE TYPE

CLICK-THROUGH UNSUBSCRIBE
OPEN RATE RESPONSE RATE
RATE RATE

All Message Types 14.09% 2.55% 0.23%

Fundraising Emails 12.82% 0.78% 0.13% 0.23%

Advocacy Emails 14.26% 4.65% 4.00% 0.19%

Email Newsletters 14.57% 2.78% 0.25%

For every sector and across all organization sizes, we evaluated three distinct types of messages –
fundraising appeals, advocacy alerts and email newsletters.

We found that advocacy emails had the highest click-through rate of any type of email, while email
newsletters had both the highest open rate and the highest unsubscribe rate. Fundraising emails,
meanwhile, had the lowest open rate.

This snapshot provides easy benchmarks for any organization – but in the sections that follow (and
for email newsletters on pages 10 and 11) we take a deeper look at each of these message types by
sector and by list size.

Email Messaging

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

 Email Messaging
8 9

EMAIL OPEN RATES EMAIL CLICK-THROUGH RATES

25.00%
6.00%
20.00%
5.00%
15.00%
14.09% 14.56% 14.26%
13.98% 13.07% 4.00%
10.00%
3.38% 3.19%
3.00%
5.00%
2.55%
2.00% 2.10%
0.00%
All Sectors Environmental Health International 1.31%
1.00%

0.00%
All Sectors Environmental Health International
25.00%

20.00%
19.80% The sectors whose primary mission is advocacy – Environmental and Rights organizations – had the
strongest email click-through rates.
15.00%
14.09% 12.52%
11.66%
10.00%
6.00%
5.00%

5.00%
0.00%
Large-size Medium-size Small-size
All Sizes 4.10%
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000) 4.00%

3.00%
Interestingly, the Small groups in our study had an open rate dramatically higher than either Medium 2.59%
2.55%
or Large groups. As you’ll find later in the study, these same Small groups also had higher email
click-through rates, email fundraising response rates, and unsubscribe rates. 2.00% 1.82%

1.00%

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates 0.00%
the average; the number shown is Large-size Medium-size Small-size
15.00% the average value. All Sizes
14.09% (over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the Again, the Small groups in our study saw a notably higher click-through rate than the Medium and
In this example, the average
value is 14.09% and any value
75th percentile and the bottom of Large groups, with a click-through rate of more than double the Large groups in the study.
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Email Messaging
10 11

EMAIL NEWSLETTER CLICK-THROUGH RATES

7.00% 7.00%

6.00% 6.00%

5.00% 5.00%
4.96%

4.00% 4.00%
3.56% 3.61%
3.00% 3.00%
2.78% 2.69% 2.78% 2.71%
2.04%
2.00% 2.00%
1.32%
1.00% 1.00%

0.00% 0.00%
All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size
All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

International organizations stood out for their low email newsletter click-through rate. The Small groups in our study had approximately double the email newsletter click-through rate of
either Medium or Large groups, matching their higher overall email click-through rate.
The explanation for this extremely low rate could be twofold: First, International organizations lack the
strong emphasis on advocacy that Environmental and Rights groups often have – many of the groups
in the Environmental and Rights sectors actually lead their email newsletters with an advocacy action.

Second, International organizations lack the very personal connection to a disease that Health groups
often have. Health groups can feature content about new developments in research that are extremely
important to the recipients of their email newsletters. International groups, on the other hand, have a
mission that is rarely as directly personal for the email recipient.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Email Messaging
12 13

MESSAGE VOLUME: MESSAGES PER MONTH

PER SUBSCRIBER

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5.19 5
4.60 4.78
4.37
4 4
3.97 3.97
3.24
3 3
2.07 2.38
2 2

1 1

0 0

All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size

All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

Environmental groups led the field in the number of emails sent per subscribers per month, followed While Small groups typically had twice the click-through rate of the Medium and Large groups, they
closely by Rights groups. Health groups in our study sent out just half as many messages as the all- sent half as many emails as their larger peers…and had nearly twice the unsubscribe rate as larger
sectors benchmark. organizations.

For organizations in this study we did not find a correlation between sending fewer messages and
increased advocacy or fundraising response rates. In fact, while Health groups sent the fewest
messages per month, they also had middle-of-the-road unsubscribe rates and the lowest average
response rate of any sector for both advocacy and fundraising (see the sections that follow).

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Email List Size
14 15

EMAIL LIST CHURN

6.88%

9.95%

Unsubscribed

Other Churn

Subscribers Retained

83.17%

Annual list churn – the rate at which email addresses “go bad” in a given year – was 16.83% in
2009.

To calculate churn, we divided the number of subscribers who became unreachable in a 12-month
period by the total number of subscribers in the system during that same period. To be included in
the churn metric, study partners were required to track churn each month to account for people who
subscribe and unsubscribe from an email list in the same year.

14 of our nonprofit study partners tracked their list churn monthly and were included in this metric. The

Email List Size

metric further splits churn into two subsets: unsubscribes and email addresses lost for other reasons
(spam complaints, addresses bouncing, discontinued email addresses, etc.).

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

 Email List Size
16 17

EMAIL UNSUBSCRIBE RATES

These charts show the rate at which recipients unsubscribe from all types of email messages. For
this broad look, we combined rates from different sorts of messages to look at differences among
organization types. To see differences among message types, refer to page 7.

0.50% 0.50%
0.45% 0.45%
0.41% 0.41%
0.40% 0.40%
0.35% 0.35%
0.30% 0.30%
0.28%
0.25% 0.25%
0.23% 0.23%
0.20% 0.20% 0.20%
0.17% 0.16%
0.15% 0.15%
0.13%
0.10% 0.10%
0.05% 0.05%
0.00% 0.00%

All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size

All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

Environmental and Rights groups, which typically focus heavily on recruiting new list subscribers Small groups had the highest unsubscribe rate. However, these lists are also very responsive to
through online advocacy, had the lowest email unsubscribe rates. In addition, as we show elsewhere, fundraising appeals, so the high unsubscribe rate for Small groups may have resulted from having
advocacy emails themselves had the lowest unsubscribe rate, so it is possible that nonprofits that send more attentive lists, which, on the whole, is a positive thing.
a high volume of advocacy emails actually have lower overall unsubscribe rates. (Bear in mind that
our analysis did not look at the relative volume of different types of email messaging – we are inferring
from their missions that the Environmental and Rights nonprofits are more likely to send more advocacy
emails.)

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Email List Size
18 19

ANNUAL LIST GROWTH

80.00% 80.00%

70.00% 70.00%

60.00% 60.00%
51.32%
50.00% 50.00%
39.26%
40.00% 40.00%
35.22%
30.00% 30.00%
24.40% 24.40%
20.00% 20.00% 21.53%

10.00% 13.02% 11.03% 10.00% 11.10%

0.00% 0.00%

-10.00% -10.00%

All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size

All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

Nonprofit email lists grew in 2009, but sectors didn’t see common growth rates. Although some email Although list growth by sector varied widely, we saw more consistent trends when we evaluated study
list growth can be organic, for most nonprofits it is largely a function of the effort and resources a participants by list size. The Large groups saw the lowest rate of growth, while Small groups grew by
nonprofit invests in growing their email list and, as the next chart shows, of list size. 51.32% on average. Clearly, it is far easier to achieve a strong rate of growth when starting small!

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Online Fundraising
20 21

FUNDRAISING SHARE BY GIFT TYPE

8.33% 0.79% 39.79% 1.15% 8.43%
100%
3.54%
7.18%
90% 4.07% 2.57%

9.32%
9.20%
80% 25.58%

70%

60%
10.21%
50% 0.38%
95.67%

40% 79.68%

78.39% 66.09%
30%
49.61%
20%

10%

0%
All Sectors Environmental Health International

One-time Monthly Tribute Other

Environmental groups in our study appeared to be focusing their efforts on one-time gifts and didn’t
see as much revenue from other types of gifts. It is possible that these nonprofits would benefit from
investing further in monthly giving and tribute gift programs.

International groups and, to a lesser degree, Rights groups saw more monthly giving revenue. This
is likely a result of the marketing activities of these nonprofits, which, in several cases, were heavily

Online
invested in promoting their monthly giving programs, including through offline channels such as Direct
Response TV.

Fundraising
Several International groups also saw a healthy amount of revenue through tribute gifts, which includes
the online ‘gift catalogs’ offering symbolic gifts around the holidays, which have proven quite successful
for some nonprofits.

Health groups show a very different giving make-up. Just under half of their revenue came from one-

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

time gifts. The “other” category, which includes event fundraising such as walk-a-thons, made up
nearly 40% of online revenue for Health groups. However, the uniquely personal nature of event-driven
fundraising may make it difficult for other nonprofits to easily replicate these results.

Health groups also saw significant revenue from tribute gifts (not associated with events). Unlike the
International groups, these tribute gifts are more typically honorary or memorial gifts, and again, are
probably difficult to replicate in other sectors.
 Online Fundraising
22 23

CHANGE IN ONLINE GIVING FROM 2008 TO 2009

Please note that the charts on pages 22 and 23 use medians rather than means. For the other charts
in our study, the median and mean rates were quite similar, and we felt that the mean was the most
accurate representation of the results. For these percent changes, the data was markedly skewed and
so medians offered a more accurate picture of a ‘typical’ nonprofit in each sector.

25.00% 25.00%
19.7% 20.5%
20.00% 18.5% 20.00% 19.7%
13.6% 13.6%
15.00% 15.00%
10.7% 11.5%
10.00% 10.00%
4.5% 4.5% 5.9% 4.6%
5.00% 2.8%
5.00%
0.00% 0.00%
-1.1%
-5.00% -5.00% -3.7%
-4.9%
-4.5% -4.8% -5.8% -4.5% -5.3%
-10.00% -9.5% -8.8% -10.00%
-10.8% -10.4%
-15.00% -15.00%
-15.6%
-16.2%
-20.00% -20.00%
All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size
All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)
Percent Change in Dollars Donated from 2008 to 2009
Percent Change in Dollars Donated from 2008 to 2009
Percent Change in the Number of Online Gifts from 2008 to 2009 Percent Change in the Number of Online Gifts from 2008 to 2009
Percent Change in Average Gift from 2008 to 2009 Percent Change in Average Gift from 2008 to 2009

2009 was an unpredictable year for online giving. While the median nonprofit in our study saw online
giving grow by 4.5% from 2008 to 2009, the results varied dramatically by segment. Environmental
and Health groups saw strong growth on average, while International and Rights groups actually saw
a decline in total revenue online.
The biggest contributor to the decline in fundraising for many nonprofits? The shrinking average gift
size. And for International and Rights groups, that lower average gift was compounded by a drop-off
in the total overall number of online gifts made.
Looking at the change in online giving by list size rounds out the picture. Small groups saw their
online giving increase, driven by an increase in average gift size. Medium groups saw their number of
online gifts increase, which in turn drove an increase in online giving, despite a decrease in average
gift size. However, Large groups saw both their number of gifts and average gift size decrease, and
so their online giving decreased as well.

International groups may also have seen a decline in their number of gifts because there were fewer
global emergencies in 2009, as compared to 2008.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

 Online Fundraising
24 25

AVERAGE ONLINE GIFT – ONE-TIME VS. MONTHLY

$135.60

$100.65

$81.33
$71.65 $76.08

$81.33
$72.55
$61.34
$56.06 $29.91
$24.25 $22.93
$22.51
$31.05
$24.25 $21.12 $24.82
$18.87
Large-size Medium-size Small-size
All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)
All Sectors Environmental Health International
Average One-time Gift Average One-time Gift

Average Monthly Gift Average Monthly Gift

Overall the average one-time online gift was quite high – at $81.33 – which, in our experience, is Small groups saw both a higher average one-time gift and a higher average monthly gift than larger
typically higher than what most nonprofits see via other channels such as Direct Mail. Also in our groups. This may be a result of a smaller proportion of their donations coming over email; in our
experience, online donors are more affluent and younger than traditional offline donors. experience, passive donations made through the website not in response to an email message have
a higher average than donations made in response to an email ask.
Among the different sectors, the International nonprofits had a much higher average gift size, both for
one-time and monthly giving, than any other sector. This trend may reflect the unique mission of an
International nonprofit – which is to take your donation to another part of the world and improve lives –
compared to the availability of non-monetary ways to make meaningful contributions to organizations
doing work in the U.S., from volunteering to taking an advocacy action.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

 Online Fundraising
26 27

EMAIL CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL ONLINE

REVENUE

80.00% 80.00%

70.00% 70.00%

60.00% 60.00%
58.90%
50.00% 50.00%
41.23% 45.59%
40.00% 40.00% 39.90%
39.90% 38.36%
30.00% 30.00%
26.14%
19.60%
20.00% 20.00%

10.00% 10.00%
7.87%
0.00% 0.00%

All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size

All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

The percentage of an organization’s online revenue coming directly from email varies widely by
sector. Some nonprofits have extremely email-dependent programs, while others rely more heavily
on other sources to drive online giving.
Most Environmental groups in our study saw more than half of their overall online fundraising revenue
come from email, while Health and International groups saw a smaller share from email.
The difference between the list sizes was less pronounced than the difference within each sector,
though Small groups were less likely to see a large share of their overall online revenue come in over
email than larger organizations. It is possible that Small groups could raise additional funds online
were they to invest in growing their email programs.

The overall fundraising strategy for Environmental groups is typically based on one-time gifts, whereas
International groups typically see higher web giving and giving from monthly donors (both are sources
not as heavily associated with one-time gift emails). Similarly for Health groups, event fundraising
does not rely on outbound emails to the same degree as the one-time gift email strategies employed by
other groups. This suggests one reason why the email contribution to overall online revenue is relatively
higher for Environmental groups.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Online Fundraising
28 29

EMAIL FUNDRAISING RESPONSE RATES

0.40% 0.40%

0.35% 0.35%

0.30% 0.30%

0.25% 0.25% 0.25%

0.20% 0.20%

0.15% 0.16% 0.15%

0.13% 0.14% 0.14% 0.13%
0.10% 0.10% 0.11%
0.08%
0.05% 0.05%
0.05%
0.00% 0.00%

-0.05% -0.05%

All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size

All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

This metric is defined as the number of gifts in response to a particular email, divided by the total Small groups outperformed their peers significantly in terms of their email fundraising response rates,
number of deliverable emails. with nearly double the response rate of the full group average. As noted previously, Small groups also
saw the highest open rates and email click-through rates of the three list sizes.
The mean email fundraising response rate for all partners in this year’s study was .13%,1 though there
was great variability among the groups. Health nonprofits had a lower email fundraising response
rate than any other sector – and this is a contributing factor to what we found on page 26, where we
saw only a small percentage of overall online revenue for the Health sector driven by email.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
1
It is important to remember here that these numbers represent a snapshot in time, and should not be compared to segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
the email fundraising response rate found in the 2009 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study (see introduction). 75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Online Fundraising
30 31

EMAIL FUNDRAISING PAGE COMPLETION RATES

This may be driven in part by the fact that the International groups – whose primary function is to raise
funds – may have better trained email subscribers (who are also more likely to have made a previous
40.00% donation).
35.00%
Small groups made up for a low page completion rate with open and click-through rates higher than
30.00% those for larger list sizes, resulting in a higher average response rate to Small group fundraising emails.
29.05%
25.00%
22.81% 22.75% For smaller nonprofits in particular, the similarity in page completion rates among organization
20.00% 21.44% list sizes should come as good news: once a prospective donor can be led from an email to your
organization’s donation page, a smaller organization has about as good of a chance to see that
15.00%
13.45% donation completed as a larger organization would. The lesson for all nonprofits? Organizations
10.00% will likely gain more by optimizing open and click-through rates on fundraising emails than they will
by maximizing page conversion on email-driven donation pages!
5.00%

0.00%

All Sectors Environmental Health International

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%
23.20%
20.00% 21.44% 20.97%
18.55%
15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

Large-size Medium-size Small-size HOW TO READ THIS CHART
All Sizes 20.00%
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000) The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
Across all sectors, the average page completion rate for email-driven fundraising pages was 21.44%, 14.09%
though we did see a rather large range of rates, particularly when analyzed by sector. International The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
groups led the field with a page completion rate of 29.05%, while the Rights groups had the lowest segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
rate with 13.45%. value is 14.09% and any value
75th percentile and the bottom of
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
32 33

EMAIL FUNDRAISING PERFORMANCE

CLICK- PAGE
OPEN RESPONSE UNSUBSCRIBE
THROUGH COMPLETION
RATE RATE RATE
RATE RATE

High Response Rate 16.42% 1.48% 23.38% 0.28% 0.38%

Middle Response Rate 12.07% 0.57% 22.31% 0.10% 0.18%

Low Response Rate 10.32% 0.29% 17.20% 0.04% 0.19%

To analyze the study participants by performance we first divided them into three segments according
to their email fundraising response rate. Then we averaged the rates of the groups in each segment.
This allows us to analyze where in the process people decide not to donate and helps us figure out
which rates to focus on to increase email fundraising response rates.

There was a modest, but notable, difference between the High and Low performing response rate
groups in terms of open and page completion rates. The place where the High performing groups
showed the strongest difference in their performance was in the fundraising email click-through rates.
This tells us that it may make the most sense for all groups to focus on strategies to improve their email
fundraising click-through rates as a means to improving their overall email fundraising response rate,
with a secondary focus on open rates.

If you are a nonprofit with an email fundraising response rate in the middle range and a page
completion rate already in the low 20% range, you may be unlikely to see significant gains in your
email fundraising performance from optimizing the page completion rate (although improvements
can be more dramatic if you optimize your page completion rate for website visitors).

Nonprofits with a low email fundraising response rate may benefit from some work to optimize their
page completion rate, though, arguably, only after making improvements to click-through rates and
Online
Advocacy
open rates.

Interestingly, we found a positive correlation between email fundraising response rate and unsubscribe
rate. The high unsubscribe rate on your fundraising email may be a sign that people are paying attention.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

For fundraising email, the correlations between open rate and response rate (r=.746), click-through
rate and response rate (r=.819) and unsubscribe rate and response rate (r=.406) were statistically
significant (p<.05).
 Online Advocacy
34 35

EMAIL ADVOCACY RESPONSE RATES

Please note that the charts in this section only look at email sent to the full file or a random sample of the 8.00%
file asking recipients to take a simple online action. For data about higher-threshold and offline actions, 7.00%
such as making a phone call, responding to a survey, or attending an event, please see the 2009 eNon-
profit Benchmarks Study (which is available for download at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com.) 6.00%

5.00%
4.62%
4.00% 4.19%
4.00%

3.00%
2.89%
8.00%
2.00%
7.00%
1.00%
6.00%
0.00%
5.30%
5.00% Large-size Medium-size Small-size
All Sizes
4.00% 4.00% 4.09% (over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

3.31%
3.00%
2.45% Interestingly, the Small groups did not lead the pack in email advocacy response rates. Unlike in many
2.00% other areas (open rates, email click-through rates, email fundraising response rates, etc.) where the
1.00% Small groups had significantly higher rates, they actually lagged behind Medium groups in this case.

0.00% This may be due to the fact that the Small groups, while they have a more responsive list overall, have
All Sectors Environmental Health International invested less heavily in email list building activities. One critical way in which many of the Medium
and Large nonprofits built their email files was through online advocacy campaigns. Other research
we’ve done has shown that people who have taken an online advocacy action in the past are much
more likely to do so again.
Environmental groups led the field with an average email advocacy response rate of 5.30%, while
Health groups held the lowest position at 2.45%.
It is possible that, in this case, many Medium and Large groups benefit from the fact that their larger
lists are made up of many experienced online activists.
We have found that people who join an email list through an advocacy action are much more
likely to have higher email advocacy response rates; since many Environmental and Rights groups
have historically built their email files primarily through online advocacy recruitment, we were not
surprised to see higher email advocacy response rates from these groups.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
 Online Advocacy
36 37

EMAIL ADVOCACY PAGE COMPLETION RATES

Please note that the charts in this section only look at email sent to the full file or a random sample of
the file asking recipients to take a simple online action.

100.00% 100.00%

90.00% 90.00%
85.38% 86.49% 86.66%
80.00% 78.08% 80.00%
80.08% 80.08% 80.07%
72.53%
70.00% 70.00%
60.39%
60.00% 60.00%

50.00% 50.00%

40.00% 40.00%

30.00% 30.00%

20.00% 20.00%

10.00% 10.00%

0.00% 0.00%

All Sectors Environmental Health International Large-size Medium-size Small-size

All Sizes
(over 500,000) (100,000 to 500,000) (under 100,000)

The two sectors with the highest email advocacy response rates – Rights and Environment – also had
the highest page completion rates. This is likely due to the fact that as these organizations regularly
feature online advocacy actions, their subscribers are likely well versed on how to take action, and
their subscribers are unlikely to click on a link unless they intend to complete the form.
In contrast to open and click-through rates, where Large and Medium groups often lagged behind,
Large and Medium groups had a higher advocacy page completion rate than Small groups.
As mentioned previously, this is likely due to the fact that the Large and Medium groups are more likely
to have built their email files using advocacy recruitment campaigns. The people on their email file,
while perhaps less sensitive to email overall, are more experienced in taking online actions.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

HOW TO READ THIS CHART
20.00%
The green (or red) triangle indicates
the average; the number shown is
15.00% the average value.
14.09%
The vertical line indicates the
10.00% range of normal values for the
segment; the top of the line is the
In this example, the average
75th percentile and the bottom of
value is 14.09% and any value
the line is the 25th percentile.
between 11% and 16% would
be considered normal.
38 39

EMAIL ADVOCACY PERFORMANCE

Please note that the charts in this section only look at email sent to the full file or a random sample of
the file asking recipients to take a simple online action.

CLICK- PAGE
OPEN RESPONSE UNSUBSCRIBE
THROUGH COMPLETION
RATE RATE RATE
RATE RATE

High Response Rate 15.93% 7.51% 92.94% 7.03% 0.11%

Middle Response Rate 13.64% 4.55% 83.02% 3.58% 0.19%

Low Response Rate 13.73% 2.71% 62.54% 1.75% 0.27%

To analyze the study participants by performance, we first divided them into three segments according
to their email advocacy response rate. Then we averaged the rates of the groups in each segment.
This allows us to analyze where in the process people decide not to take action and helps us figure out
which rates to focus on to increase email advocacy response rates.

In this case, the different segments didn’t see much difference in open rates. But the High performing
email advocacy response rate groups had more than double the click-through rate of the Low performing
groups – this is the single biggest difference in their overall performance. We’d recommend that nonprofits
looking to improve their email advocacy response rates start by focusing on increasing their click-
through rate.

Secondarily, improving the page completion rate and the open rate should also yield benefits, but
these are not as significant as improving the click-through rate.

As expected, we also found a negative correlation between email advocacy response rate and
unsubscribe rate; that is to say, a higher email advocacy response rate and a lower unsubscribe
rate are seen together. Glossary of Terms
For advocacy email, the correlations between click-through rate and response rate (r=.959), page
completion rate and response rate (r=.559), open rate and response rate (r=.490), and unsubscribe
rate and response rate (r=-.469) were statistically significant (p<.05).

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

NOTE: We updated this page in June 2010 with an updated Click-Through Rate for High Response
Rate advocacy emails. We also updated the correlation coefficients and found a correlation between
open rate and response rate. These updates did not change our initial analysis.

40
ADVOCACY OR ACTIONS
Refers to simple or basic online actions, such as signing an online petition or sending an email to a
decision maker. Advocacy email is distinguished as having one ask, with that ask being for an online
action. Advocacy rates were calculated from simple advocacy email sent to the full file or a random
sample of the full file. Top level rates, such as those for all message types and email volume, include
full file, random sample, and targeted advocacy email.
CLICK-THROUGH RATE
Calculated as the number of people who clicked on any trackable link in an email message divided by the
number of delivered email messages. People who clicked multiple times in one email were only counted
once. In other words, if a subscriber clicks 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
Distinguished from all emails, which includes email addresses where the email was delivered and email
addresses where the email bounced.
EMAIL NEWSLETTERS
Distinguished as having multiple links or asks, which can include fundraising or advocacy asks.
FULL FILE
All of the deliverable email addresses of an organization’s subscribers, with the following two exceptions:
Email not sent to an organization’s subscribers living outside of the U.S. still counts as full file and email not
sent to negligible groups of subscribers who are regularly suppressed – such as board members or major
donors – still counts as full file.
FUNDRAISING EMAIL
Distinguished as having one ask, with that ask being for a donation.
LIST CHURN
Calculated as the number of subscribers who became unreachable in a 12-month period divided by the
sum of the number of deliverable email addresses at the end of that period plus the number of subscriber
who became unreachable during that period. Study participants were required to track the number of
subscribers who became unreachable each month to account for subscribers both joining and leaving an
email list during the 12-month period who would otherwise go uncounted.
MONTHLY GIFT
A donation where the donor signs up once to donate on a regular schedule. Also known as a sustainer.
OPEN RATE
Calculated as the number of HTML email messages opened divided by the number of delivered email
messages.
Glossary of Terms
41
PAGE COMPLETION RATE
Calculated as the number of people who completed a form divided by the number of people who clicked
on the link to get to that form. For 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
The percent of observed values below the named score. 25% of the observations are below the 25th
percentile; 75% of the observations are below the 75th percentile. The values between the 25th percentile
and 75th percentile are the middle 50% of the observed values.
RANDOM SAMPLE
A segment of the full email file selected at random, such that there would be no reason to expect a different
rate than an email sent to the full file.
RESPONSE RATE
Calculated as the number of people who took the main action requested by an email message divided
by the number of delivered email messages. We only calculated response rates in this study for donations
or for simple online actions, such as signing a petition or sending an email to a decision maker. For data
about higher-threshold and offline actions, such as making a phone call, responding to a survey,
or attending an event, please see the 2009 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study (which is available for
download at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com).
TARGETED EMAIL
A segment of the full email file selected purposefully, such as by geography or past action. For example,
emailing people in a city, emailing past donors, emailing past action takers, emailing people who have
not taken an action, or emailing people who have not made a donation would all be examples of targeted
email.
TRIBUTE GIFT
A donation where the donor makes a gift in someone else’s name or someone’s memory, sponsors a child,
or buys a symbolic gift for a special occasion, such as a wedding, birthday or holiday.
UNIQUE CLICKS
The number of people who clicked on any trackable link in an email message, as opposed to the number
of times the links in an email were clicked. If a subscriber clicks on every link in a message 10 times, this
counts as 1 unique click.
2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study
UNSUBSCRIBE RATE
Calculated as the number of individuals who unsubscribed in response to an email message divided by
the number of delivered email messages.
 Study Methodology
42 43

The 2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study collected email messaging, list subscriber and online fundraising
and advocacy data from 31 U.S.-based national nonprofit organizations for the calendar year of 2009.
We analyzed the results of 851 million email messages sent to over 15 million list subscribers; more
than 185 million dollars of online donations from over 2.7 million online gifts; and 3.9 million advocacy
actions.

The average given for a metric is the mean unless otherwise specified. To calculate the benchmarks metrics
reported in this study, we first calculated a metric for each group and then calculated an average across
groups so that no single group had more weight than any other. Each benchmark aggregates data from
at least 3 study participants. Not all study participants reported data for every metric.

Study participants provided data on individual email messages sent in 2009, including the date the
message was launched, the number of delivered email messages, the number of unique clicks for a
message, the number of actions taken, the number of donations made, the amount donated, and the
number of unsubscribes. Study participants coded their individual email messages by type (simple online
advocacy action, fundraising, email newsletter, other) and further coded each email with a simple online
advocacy action by audience (full file or random sample, targeted). Advocacy rates were calculated from
email with a simple online advocacy action sent to the full file or a random sample of the full file. Other
rates were calculated from all email of the type being analyzed.

In addition, study participants provided donation data coded by type (one-time, monthly, tribute, other)
and provided list size data and aggregate online fundraising data for 2008 and 2009. Gifts that could
be classified as both monthly gifts and tribute gifts (for example, a monthly donation to sponsor a child)
were classified as monthly gifts for the purpose of this study.

Calculating list churn for a year requires data snapshots at regular intervals over the course of the year.
Looking at list size and new or lost email addresses only at the beginning and end of the year may not
account for subscribers who join during the year and then unsubscribe or become undeliverable before
the year ends. Study participants were required to track the number of subscribers who became undeliverable
each month to contribute to the list churn metric; 14 study participants met this standard.

Study Although you may be tempted to compare the results of the 2009 study with this year’s study, we want to
emphasize that the 2010 study represents just a single snapshot in time. The make-up of the participating

Methodology
nonprofits varies from year to year, and therefore we cannot confidently extrapolate year-over-year trends
by placing the two studies side-by-side.

This year’s study segments groups by sector, the size of their deliverable email file, and the response rate

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

of their advocacy and fundraising email.
 Appendix A: Social Media
44 45

The 2010 study participants were segmented by sector as follows:
Civil/Legal Rights
• American Rights at Work
www.americanrightsatwork.org
• Human Rights Campaign
www.hrc.org
• Humane Society of the United
States
www.humanesociety.org
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• Oceana
www.oceana.org
• Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
www.railstotrails.org
• Save Our Environment
www.saveourenvironment.org
• The Wilderness Society
www.wilderness.org
• Transportation for America
Social Media
• Diabetes Hands Foundation Excerpted from “2010 Nonprofit Social Media Benchmarks Study,” authored by Arielle Holland,
www.diabeteshandsfoundation.org
Karen Matheson, Marc Ruben, and Andrea Wood. The full study is available for download at
• Easter Seals
www.e-benchmarksstudy.com/socialmedia/
www.easterseals.org
• Susan G. Komen for the Cure
When it comes to social media today, nonprofits too often find themselves making it up as they go along.
www.komen.org
The 2010 Nonprofit Social Media Benchmarks Study hopes to help fill the void, so that organizations – no
• National MS Society
www.nmss.org
matter their size – can develop meaningful metrics for their social network outreach.

FACEBOOK
www.prochoiceamerica.org www.t4america.org Other
• Planned Parenthood Federation of • AARP
America www.aarp.org
www.plannedparenthood.org International • Smithsonian Institution
• Planned Parenthood Action Fund • CARE www.si.edu FACEBOOK PAGES
www.plannedparenthoodaction.org www.care.org
• United Animal Nations • International Rescue Committee MONTHLY GROWTH 3.75%
www.uan.org www.theirc.org
• Oxfam America
MONTHLY CHURN 2.00%
www.oxfamamerica.org GROWTH PER WALL POST 0.23%
Environmental • Plan USA
• Defenders of Wildlife www.planusa.org WALL POST 6 PER WEEK
www.defenders.org • Save Darfur Coalition
• Earthjustice www.savedarfur.org PAGE VIEW RATE (VIEWS/POSTS) 0.56%
www.earthjustice.org • U.S. Fund for UNICEF
• Environmental Defense Fund www.unicef.org
WEEKLY FAN ACTION RATE 2.50%
www.edf.org
• Greenpeace Health
www.greenpeace.org • C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition Facebook Pages provide a way for supporters, known as “fans” in Facebook lingo, to interact with
• League of Conservation Voters www.fightcolorectalcancer.org nonprofits and other fans. As we looked at the growth and churn of these fan pages, the lesson
www.lcv.org • Cystic Fibrosis Foundation was clear: it’s easy come, easy go. The study found an average fan base growth rate of 3.75% per
• National Wildlife Federation www.cff.org month – higher than average email list growth. Meanwhile, the weekly average unsubscribe rate
www.nwf.org
was 0.55% and the monthly average was 2%, or 24% per year. Moreover, because there is no
way to track “stale” Facebook profiles, (but stale emails start bouncing), the churn disparity between
We also segmented groups by deliverable email file size. This was calculated by looking at the email list
Facebook and email is effectively even greater.
size over the course of 2009 and grouping nonprofit participants into three categories, as follows:

On average, participating organizations posted on their walls six times each week. The data
1. Small – Under 100,000 deliverable email addresses
suggested that there was a correlation between a higher number of posts and higher fan churn –
2. Medium – 100,000-500,000 deliverable email addresses
however, the data also suggested that more posts also allowed more fan growth. We recommend

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

3. Large – Over 500,000 deliverable email addresses
that each organization establish baseline metrics and then work to find their fans’ “sweet spot”
between too many and too few posts.
We also segmented study participants by their advocacy and fundraising response rates; the segments
were defined as follows:
Fans can take a number of actions on a Facebook Page: they can post to the page (just like an
organization can), comment on a post, or “like” a post (by giving it an electronic thumbs-up). To
1. High response rate – Above the 75th percentile
measure these interactions – and normalize the results for organization size – we look at what
2. Middle response rate – Above the 25th percentile and up to or at the 75th percentile
3. Low response rate – At or below the 25th percentile
 Appendix B: Text Messaging
46 47
we’re calling the weekly fan action rate: the number of actions per fan, per week. This is perhaps
the most critical metric to measure the success of your Facebook Page! A high fan action rate
leads to even more fan engagement, since news feeds carry all that activity to potential new fans.
Our study partners’ weekly fan action rate was 2.5%.
Text Messaging
Excerpted from “2010 Nonprofit Text Messaging Benchmarks,” authored by Michael Amoruso and
Jessica Bosanko of M+R Strategic Services, and Katrin Verclas of MobileActive.org. Republished with
TWITTER permission from MobileActive.org and thanks to the support of sponsors Mobile Commons and mGive.
The full study is available for download at www.e-benchmarksstudy.com/mobile/
Organizations can track their Twitter statistics using a variety of free and paid web tools. Although
these tools do offer some good basic data, datasets are sometimes limited. Many provide data Because mobile phones are the one device that most people keep handy at all times, text
only from the previous 30 days; others experience lag time or display data in inconsistent periods; messaging offers nonprofit organizations a powerful technology for fundraising, recruitment and
some provide data that quite simply isn’t helpful! No matter which system you choose for your engagement. The 2010 Nonprofit Text Messaging Benchmarks report is the first of its kind,
organization, keeping your own offline data for long-term tracking is critical. providing benchmarks and metrics by which nonprofit organizations can measure their success
with text messaging – and cataloguing the various ways in which organizations are already
The organizations in our data set sent on average four to five tweets per day, with the number of using text messaging.
monthly posts varying widely. The average monthly follower growth for our Twitter sample was 9%
– much higher than average monthly growth on both Facebook Fan pages (3.75%) and nonprofit
email lists (2.8%). It is also worth noting that Twitter itself has seen exponential growth – unique LIST SIZE
visitors grew by 1,200% from November 2008 to November 2009. In our study, organizations’
Twitter growth is inclusive of churn; at publication time, we could not find a free and reliable tool Text list growth is currently quite rapid, occurring at a median rate of 49.5% annually. The
to track “un-follows” separately from growth. median monthly mobile list growth rate was 2.6%, with growth rates increased dramatically
when organizations ran recruitment campaigns, in some cases exceeding 10% (and sometimes
As with Facebook, a primary driver of follower growth is the ability for followers to share, or retweet, upwards of 30%).
an organization’s message on Twitter with their own followers. In our sample we found a trend 2%
relating tweets to follower growth: more tweets lead to more retweets, which lead in turn
to more follower growth. Of course, this assumes your tweets are worth reading – and that caveat,
along with the rapid growth of Twitter overall during the study period, prevents us from determining
statistically significant relationships between the number of tweets an organization sends and the
17%
resulting growth that organization should see.
Keyword Signup

Uploads

19% Website Opt-in

62%
Email Platform Data Sync

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

Among the organizations that participated in this study, all of which are advocacy-oriented and
have established email programs, more than 80% of text subscribers joined an organization’s text
program by entering their mobile phone number on advocacy, donation or text message sign-up
pages on a website managed by the organization.
 Appendix B: Text Messaging
48
But even absent a large email list, text messaging can be a useful recruitment mechanism for
organizations with a strong off-line or social media presence. Television ads and events can provide
opportunities for text list-building when computers aren’t close at hand. And keyword recruitment
– asking potential recruits to join the list by texting a keyword to your organization’s shortcode – can
be particularly effective, especially when an incentive is provided for people to sign up.
Text-to-give fundraising can also help an organization build its list. After making a donation
to an organization, the donor receives a text message allowing him or her to opt-in to future
texts messages.
Unsubscribe Rates
0.92%
49
OUTBOUND MESSAGING
Organizations can use text messaging for a wide variety of purposes in addition to advocacy and
fundraising. These other types of messaging may be purely informational, direct supporters to the
website, or prompt text responses from subscribers about issues not directly related to advocacy.
Among the organizations we studied, the benchmark messaging volume was 1.6 messages per
month.
The massive volume of text donations that flowed to relief organizations in the wake of the Haiti
earthquake in January 2010 demonstrated what makes mobile fundraising so powerful: it allows
people to give quickly and easily from almost any location. However, despite the great success of
mobile fundraising during the Haiti relief efforts, fundraising via text messaging is still something
of a work in progress. In addition to complicated rules for soliciting funds via text messaging, a
$10 donation limit on mobile donations is a far cry from the $68 average donation to nonprofits
in response to email solicitations.

0.54% Advocacy Response Rates

0.43% 0.41% 14.64%

4.67%

Advocacy Fundraising Go-to-web Informational

Unsurprisingly, fast mobile list growth often translates into high list churn rates. The 2010
Text-to-call Petition
benchmark annual mobile churn rate was 30.7%. One likely reason for the high mobile churn
rate is the prominence of opt-out language. Industry best practices strongly encourage including
opt-out language regularly in text messages – language that takes up a large percentage of a
message that contains only 160 characters to begin with. Another important factor contributing
Advocacy text messages are generally of two types: text petition and text-to-call. With text petitions,
to churn is that whenever a text subscriber switches phone numbers, or keeps phone numbers
subscribers are asked to support an organization by responding with a given keyword (e.g.
but switches carriers, he or she will be opted out of an organization’s list automatically.
“PLEDGE”). With text-to-call messages, subscribers are asked to call a target by either dialing a
specific number or responding to the message with the word “Call.” The average petition response
rate for study partners was 14.6% and the text-to-call response rate was 4.7% – both significantly
higher than equivalent metrics for email advocacy.

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

50
THANK YOU TO OUR NONPROFIT STUDY PARTNERS 51

www.oxfamamerica.org www.saveourenvironment.org
www.aarp.org www.defenders.org www.greenpeace.org www.lcv.org

www.plannedparenthood.org www.si.edu

www.americanrightsatwork.org www.diabeteshandsfoundation.org www.humanesociety.org www.naral.org

www.plannedparenthoodaction.org www.wilderness.org

www.care.org www.earthjustice.org www.hrc.org www.nmss.org

www.planusa.org www.t4america.org

www.fightcolorectalcancer.org www.easterseals.com www.theirc.org www.nwf.org

www.railstotrails.org www.unicef.org

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

www.cff.org www.edf.org www.komen.org www.oceana.org

www.savedarfur.org www.uan.org
 METRICS FOR ONLINE ADVOCACY AND FUNDRAISING EMAILS
Page Completion
Open Rate Click-Through Rate Response Rate
Rate

All Sectors 14.26% 12.82% 4.65% 0.78% 80.08% 21.44% 4.00% 0.13%

Environmental 15.61% 12.71% 6.52% 0.83% 85.38% 22.81% 5.30% 0.14%

Health 13.63% 12.24% 3.28% 0.45% 72.53% 22.75% 2.45% 0.05%

International 13.63% 12.08% 3.78% 0.50% 78.08% 29.05% 3.31% 0.14%

Rights 12.87% 14.18% 4.65% 1.35% 86.49% 13.45% 4.09% 0.16%

All Sizes 14.26% 12.82% 4.65% 0.78% 80.08% 21.44% 4.00% 0.13%

Large 11.91% 11.49% 3.01% 0.66% 80.07% 20.97% 2.89% 0.11%

Medium 12.93% 11.44% 5.43% 0.54% 86.66% 23.20% 4.62% 0.08%

Small 20.46% 17.29% 5.60% 1.62% 60.39% 18.55% 4.19% 0.25%

METRICS FOR ONLINE REVENUE

Share of Online Revenue
Average Gift - Average Gift -
One Time Monthly One-Time
Monthly Gifts Tribute Gifts Other
Gifts

All Sectors $81.33 $24.25 78.39% 9.20% 4.07% 8.33%

Environmental $56.06 $21.12 95.67% 3.54% 0.79% 0%

Health $72.55 $24.82 49.61% 0.38% 10.21% 39.79%

International $135.60 $31.05 66.09% 25.58% 7.18% 1.15%

Rights $61.34 $18.87 79.68% 9.32% 2.57% 8.43%

2010 eNonprofit Benchmarks Study

WWW.E-BENCHMARKSSTUDY.COM