Source: IoF/fastMAP Fundraising Media DNA 2016/17 Howard Lake | 26 January 2017 | News The engagement of different profiles with different mediaDirect Mail has come out as the most engaging ‘non-digital’ channel, whilst Email performs the best as a ‘digital’ channel. Their mass appeal as fundraising channels is confirmed by the very high engagement level they achieve across all demographic profiles (Direct Mail Engagement Index: Overall, 122 vs. Email Engagement Index: Overall, 128).Email is universally popular as a way of engaging with charities – but not always quite as popular as fundraisers think. They overestimate levels of engagement within younger age groups (Engagement Index, 18-34, Estimated 146 vs. Actual 122) and 35-54s (Engagement Index, 35-54, Estimated 145 vs. Actual 127).Conversely, fundraisers expect over-55s to be least likely to react to Emails, but in fact, it is most popular among this group (Engagement Index, 55+, Estimated 97 vs. Actual 147). This discrepancy might be the result of stereotypically associating younger age groups with ‘New Media’ and older age ranges with ‘Old Media’. Likewise, Email recipients are also more likely to respond later rather than straight away, though fundraisers overestimate this potential (Respond Later Index, Overall, Estimated 116 vs. Actual 104), while underestimating its capacity to generate immediate donations (Donate/Respond Now Index, Estimated 78 vs. Actual 92). This presents charities with the challenge of creating memorable messages that encourage the supporter to take further action. Tagged with: direct mail Email fundraising Fundraising Media DNA Research / statistics fast.MAP’s Fundraising Media DNA report looks at the engagement levels of both ‘non-digital’ and ‘digital’ channels among donors.Key Headlines• Both traditional and non-traditional forms of media have the potential to encourage a very broad range of audiences; a perfect example is Direct Mail and Email• As traditional channels, Press and Inserts are both seen as having a strong appearance and being interesting and attention grabbing• Email, Social Media and SMS are generally more convenient, personalised and are more likely to be shared• Download your copy of the Fundraising Media DNA report and Infographics using the free download code UKFU16 What do people say about different forms of media?“More traditional media, such as Direct Mail, Press and Insert, still play a key role in engaging a wide range of audiences, including younger donors as well as the over 55s. Gaining donor consent to receive communications is a complex issue, with different groups motivated to give it for different reasons – and preferences vary channel-to- channel too. Therefore, it is crucial to research the merits of each channel and how, e.g. digital and non-digital fundraising complement each other.”David Cole, Managing Director, fast.MAP“As fundraisers and charities review what they are doing, the information and insight that reports like Fundraising Media DNA brings is invaluable. The more we know about how engaged supporters and active donors respond to different fundraising channels, the more that we can plan great campaigns that inspire people.”Daniel Fluskey, Head of Policy Research, Institute of Fundraising“The research and evidence in this report will help guide the thinking and development of the recommendations arising from the Commission. The subtle differences between channels – and indeed between the ways that fundraisers and donors look at and engage with these channels – will help fundraisers nuance the approach to using different channels and better understand how to put the donor back at the heart of fundraising.”Richard Spencer, Director, The Commission on the Donor Experience“Rather than focus solely on what distinguishes these channels from each other, it is equally useful to reflect on what unites them. To create seamless supporter journeys, it’s essential to synchronise channels and make them work together, harnessing what each does best.”“Tapping into the different modes of interaction with each channel, but understanding that many people will engage with you across them all for different reasons, is critical to a joined-up experience.”Dan Martin, Digital Strategy Director, WPN Chameleon and on behalf of the Commission of the Donor ExperienceTo find out more about how people view and interact with different fundraising channels, download Fundraising Media DNA 2016/17 – free, (normally £50) with the following code: UKFU16. 187 total views, 1 views today 188 total views, 2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis21 Fundraising Media DNA – ‘old’ vs. ‘new’ media About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. What are the personality traits of ‘old’ and ‘new’ media?‘Old’ mediaAs ‘non-digital’ channels, Press, Inserts and Direct Mail are all seen as having a strong appearance and as being interesting and attention grabbing.Direct Mail scores highly for being retainable (Retainable Index: Overall, 141) and seems trustworthy (Trustworthy Index: Overall, 133) and relevant (Relevant Index: 127). Even though over-55s engage most with this channel, 18-34s also engage on an above average level (Engagement Index: 55+, 159 vs. 18-34s,109).Press adverts are most highly rated for their visual strength and appearance (Appearance Index: Overall, 146). Press allows for enough space to include persuasive information and compelling images, which is not available on instant-info channels such as Social Media and SMS. For this reason, Press’ second highest attribute is interesting content (Interesting Index: Overall, 137).Press ads are also perceived to be attention grabbing (Attention Index: Overall, 129), an aspect which is particularly the case for those who make small donations (Attention Index: Low donors, 140). This is perhaps useful for charities wishing to draw in new donors.Inserts’ strongest attribute is their retainability (Retainable Index: Overall, 196), suggesting people like to keep them for reference. Donors also consider Inserts to be attention grabbing (Attention Index: Overall, 110), because they stand out from other marketing within a publication or mailing and have a ‘strong appearance’ (Appearance Index: Overall, 106).‘New’ mediaFundraising Media DNA reports Email to be very convenient (Convenient Index: Overall, 141) and particularly easy to respond to (Ease of Response Index: Overall, 130). Social Media scores very highly for being easy to share with others (Share Index: Overall, 219). This is unsurprising, as it is easy to use, instantaneous and can be shared with scores of people at the touch of a button.People also think of Email contact as personal (Personalised Index: Overall, 139) – particularly older donors (Personalised Index: 55+, 180). This is also true for SMS – it scores well above average for this attribute (Personalised Index: Overall, 145). This is perhaps unsurprising, since mobiles are now the ‘hub’ for the way in which more people access information, and the device is almost always with them. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis21 Which channels drive donations?According to Fundraising Media DNA, our non-digital methods of communication are the drivers of later responses/donations. The most likely response to Direct Mail, particularly for over-55s, is to donate or respond later (Donate/Respond Later Index: 55+, 115). Advertisement Source: IoF/fastMAP Fundraising Media DNA 2016/17 Source: IoF/fastMAP Fundraising Media DNA 2016/17 Whilst it is unsurprising that SMS and Social Media are great for sharing, most channels have the potential to encourage further research. Charities need to ensure they reinforce their messages, leading people to optimised landing pages to encourage a more immediate or positive response.
Most people in the U.S. are unaware of the fact that more than a century ago armies of occupation from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Japan were stationed in Chinese cities. The U.S. Navy had fleets of armored ships patrolling Chinese rivers and coastal waters. These concessions were forced on China by brutal gunboat diplomacy and enshrined by onerous unequal treaties that made China pay these imperialist countries huge indemnities.Now, once again, the U.S. is making demands on China. President Xi Jinping has compared them to those unequal treaties imposed by the imperialist powers over 150 years ago. The latest U.S. trade demands on China have awakened a fervent nationalist response in every current of Chinese society.In China, the words “unequal treaties” resonate deeply, while most working people in the U.S. have never even heard the term. We are told that U.S. “gunboat diplomacy” was a tactic of more than 150 years ago. But just this May 19, U.S. warships escalated their so-called “Freedom of Navigation” exercises by sailing through the busy waterways of the South China Sea. On May 23, the U.S. Navy sent two guided missile destroyers through the narrow Straits of Taiwan. These are now regular monthly offensives. They are comparable to Chinese destroyers sailing into the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of New Orleans and Houston.The May 22 China Daily warned in an editorial: “With tensions between the two countries already rife, there is no guarantee that the presence of U.S. warships on China’s doorstep will not spark direct confrontation between the two militaries.”Break with past wars and chaosThe standing of the Chinese Communist Party is based in no small part on its ability over the past 70 years to break with the humiliations, chaos and constant wars caused by past gunboat diplomacy, the decades of occupation by numerous foreign troops, and the harsh and unequal treaties they imposed.These treaties were in fact terms of surrender dictated by the major imperialist powers of Britain, the U.S., France, Germany and Japan. China was forced to change its laws, pay huge indemnities and grant as “concessions” control of its cities, major ports and largest waterways.The resulting uprisings, rebellions and civil wars were crushed, and much of the country was impoverished and destroyed.The new communist government’s intention to ensure stable development and broad prosperity while resisting foreign intervention was a promise Mao Zedong made in October 1949 while proclaiming the founding of the People’s Republic of China.Mao declared: ”[T]he Chinese people, comprising one quarter of humanity, have now stood up! The Chinese have always been a great, courageous and industrious nation; it is only in modern times that they have fallen behind. And that was due entirely to oppression and exploitation by foreign imperialism and domestic reactionary governments. For over a century our forefathers never stopped waging unyielding struggles against domestic and foreign oppressors.” Mao warned that “every day and every minute the imperialists will try to stage a come-back. This is inevitable and beyond all doubt.”“It is because we have defeated the reactionary Kuomintang government backed by U.S. imperialism that this great unity of the whole people has been achieved. …“We shall emerge in the world as a nation with an advanced culture. Our national defense will be consolidated and no imperialists will ever again be allowed to invade our land.”Marines of the Asiatic Fleet marching through Shanghai in 1911‘We won’t go back!’The state news agency Xinhua in a May 25 editorial defined the current Chinese view. “Obviously, the U.S. arrogant demands are beyond the scope of trade negotiations and touch on China’s fundamental economic system. This shows that behind the United States’ trade war against China, the U.S. is trying to invade China’s economic sovereignty and force China to damage its core interests.”The editorial asserts that U.S. attempts to restrict the development of its state-owned enterprises are seen as “forcing China to change its development path” toward socialism.The demands include structural changes to its economic practices. China has reiterated that it will not make concessions on “matters of principle” and that the enforcement mechanisms would force China to change its own laws.Several news sources note that China’s capitalist reformers, who seemed willing to accept these onerous conditions, have lost the upper hand in recent weeks. This makes it even less likely that China will make concessions compatible with what the U.S. wants. (channelnewsasia.com, May 26) Over the past year U.S. demands have steadily increased through 11 negotiating sessions. During the negotiations, the Pentagon was intensifying its military threats with its “Freedom of Navigation” exercises.The ban on software and electronic components of Huawei Technologies has extended the trade war in an effort to block China’s companies from all global markets. The implications of the Huawei ban are even more far reaching.Pending legislation in Washington would put a ban on any Chinese company that violates U.S.-imposed sanctions on such countries as Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.130 years of U.S. troops in ChinaThe Pentagon and U.S. trade negotiators know the criminal history of 130 years of U.S. military occupation of major Chinese cities very well. However, that is seldom mentioned by the corporate media or in U.S. history books.U.S. Marines were garrisoned in Beijing (then called Peking), Guangzhou (then called Canton) and Shanghai from 1818 to 1949. They were displaced from 1942 to 1945 by Japanese occupation during World War II. The Chinese Red Army finally expelled them in 1949.U.S. Marines were on armored warships all along Chinese coastal waters, while special fleets of river gunboats of the U.S. Navy and Marines patrolled Chinese rivers up to 1,000 miles inland. They were there to enforce U.S. trade interests and suppress uprisings. ChinaMarines.org is a website that gives a pictorial history glorifying the occupation.This was an age of imperialist expansion and conquest. The U.S. wars against the Indigenous nations of the Americas, the British colonization of India and South Asia, the French in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, the looting and carving up of Africa were all underway.Photo of officers of foreign military powers in China, 1939Opium wars and drug traffickingBritain fought two Opium Wars in China to enforce its “right” to sell opium. The merchants called this “defending free trade” and “protecting freedom of navigation.”For 200 years before the 1840 Opium War, foreign merchants in China, by imperial edict, could trade only in a restricted zone on the Pearl River and on the South China Sea in Guangzhou (Canton) with payments made in silver.Starting in the mid-1700s British merchants began smuggling tons of opium from India and trading it for silver in China. U.S. merchants, the second-largest group of merchants there, smuggled opium from Turkey to undercut British prices. Consumption of opium skyrocketed, as did the profits.By 1839 millions of Chinese had become addicted. The Imperial Commissioner Lin Zexu was sent to enforce Chinese laws that banned opium throughout the Chinese Empire. He arrested 1,700 dealers and seized and burned 2.66 million pounds of opium already in Chinese harbors.The outraged British merchants set up a blockade on the Pearl River and sent a full-scale naval expedition of 44 armored steamships with heavy cannon, rockets and infantry with long-range fire. The antiquated Chinese warships were destroyed. British ships then sailed up the Zhujiang and Yangtze rivers, occupied Shanghai and seized tax-collection barges.In the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing, the port of Hong Kong became a British territory and five Treaty Ports were established, where the British could trade anything they wanted. China was forced to pay for the war and reparations to the merchants for the destroyed opium.The U.S. government imposed its own Treaty of Wanghia on a weakened China in 1844. That gave the U.S. beneficial trade treatment and the right to station foreign warships and troops on Chinese territory, with autonomy to operate outside Chinese law.‘Century of humiliation’By 1856 the British fought the Second Opium War for unrestricted trade in any port and an end to all bans on opium. The U.S. and French joined in with their own naval bombardments, amphibious assaults and destruction of forts and city walls. A new treaty legalized Christianity, opium and the mass transport of Chinese indentured laborers to the U.S. and throughout the British Empire.Each imperialist country enforced its own new treaties on China, granting additional special privileges.When the Boxer Rebellion, a mass peasant anti-Western movement, broke out in 1899, a multinational imperialist force of British, U.S., Russian, German, Austrian, Italian, French and Japanese troops put it down. Then they spent an entire year looting Beijing, Tianjin and other major cities.The first Opium War in 1840 is considered the beginning of the Century of Humiliation. When Trump’s trade negotiators first presented their list of demands to their Chinese counterparts, the Chinese news outlet Global Times ran the headline: “Is It Now 1840?”A new Long MarchThis May 20, President Xi, in a highly publicized move, visited a rare-earth magnet factory in eastern China. This visit was interpreted as part of China’s leverage over its supply of rare-earth materials, which are used in a wide range of high-tech U.S. products, such as smartphones and electric cars.The next day Xi called on China to embark on a new “Long March” and remain resilient — a clear signal that the country is gearing up for a prolonged struggle with the U.S.President Xi’s talk was given in Jiangxi, known as the starting point of the 6,000-mile Long March by the Chinese Red Army in 1934-36. This organized retreat, under heavy bombardment, led to the ultimate victory of the Red Army and the defeat of U.S.-backed Nationalist forces by 1949, with the emergence of Mao Zedong as China’s leader.On May 13, a Morgan Stanley economist, Michael Wilson, warned that the U.S. economy could fall into recession if the country’s trade war keeps escalating. Even before the desperation of Trump’s trade war, this was a steady prediction. It now seems inevitable.The 18 years of U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria are by every measure an absolute disaster for U.S. dreams of conquest and recolonization. China, with a population many times larger than all these countries combined, with advanced technology, internal cohesion and many trading partners, is in a strong position to resist U.S. demands.It is not the world of 1840. U.S. imperialism is on the decline. It can’t recapture its past position with threats and dreams of colonial conquest.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this