Ben Holt, digital manager, Médecins Sans Frontières
Visit the CharityComms website to view slides from our past events, see what events we have coming up and to check out what else we do.
http://www.charitycomms.org.uk
2. MSF
•Established 1971 – doctors and journalists
•Helping the people who need it most
•War zones, epidemics, disasters
•We raise the funds and deliver the medical aid
•Impartiality, independence and neutrality
•Nobel Peace Prize 1999
9. Planning
• New international CMS
• UK to develop first site
• One year lead time
• Research was key:
– Buy in
– Stops arguments
– Builds the best site
10. Research
• Existing research
• Analytics
• Survey
• Stakeholder workshop
• Personas & goal matrix
• Card sort
• Wireframing & IA
• Validation – treejack tests
• Design validation
15. How interested are you in
the following types of content?
DONORS
The type of work done by MSF, e.g. crisis
response, healthcare, research 7.8
MSF News 7.7
Stories from MSF volunteers in the field 7.7
Crisis alerts and appeals 7.4
Our activities in a specific country 7.0
Stories from patients 7.0
Information on specific issues like
malnutrition or AIDS 6.8
How to support MSF, e.g. fundraising or with
donations 5.8
Background information on MSF, e.g. history,
finances 5.8
MSF Events 5.5
Resources for schools 4.3
Working for MSF in the UK 3.9
Volunteering overseas with MSF 3.0
10 - Extremely interested
5 – Neither interested nor
uninterested
0 - Not at all interested
n=268
16. How interested are you in
the following types of content?
FUNDRAISERS n=8
The type of work done by MSF, e.g. crisis
response, healthcare, research 8.8
Stories from MSF volunteers in the field 8.8
Our activities in a specific country 8.5
Crisis alerts and appeals 8.5
Volunteering overseas with MSF 8.4
How to support MSF, e.g. fundraising or with
donations 8.1
Information on specific issues like
malnutrition or AIDS 8.0
MSF Events 7.9
MSF News 7.6
Working for MSF in the UK 6.8
Stories from patients 6.6
Resources for schools 6.4
Background information on MSF, e.g. history,
finances 5.1
10 - Extremely interested
5 – Neither interested nor
uninterested
0 - Not at all interested
18. user types: unweighted scores
Content type
Prospective
donor
current
donor
prospective
volunteers
current
volunteer
current and
prospective
fundraiser
no
relationship
MSF staff
workshop
priority 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0
weighting factor 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.40 0.40 0.15 1.00 Ave
Background information on MSF,
e.g. history, finances 4.9 4.09 4.85 2.35 2.20 0.79 3.9 3.3
Crisis alerts and appeals 8.6 5.20 5.46 3.55 3.28 1.03 6.5 4.8
Events 6.4 3.82 5.13 3.17 3.16 1.00 2.1 3.5
How to support MSF, e.g.
fundraising or with donations 6.8 4.07 4.25 2.69 3.12 0.86 5.5 3.9
Info on specific issues like
malnutrition or AIDS 6.9 4.79 5.46 3.52 3.32 1.16 5.1 4.3
News 7.6 5.41 5.79 3.73 3.16 1.23 7.875 5.0
School Resources 3.8 3.01 4.15 1.97 2.52 0.61 4.9 3.0
Specific country 7.9 4.93 5.60 3.73 3.40 1.04 5.625 4.6
Stories from patients 7.9 4.90 4.95 3.55 2.68 1.09 5 4.3
Stories from the field 7.8 5.42 5.85 3.49 3.32 1.12 6.375 4.8
Type of work done by MSF, e.g.
crisis response, healthcare,
research 8.5 5.46 6.21 3.41 3.40 1.33 6.5 5.0
Volunteering overseas with MSF 4.5 2.12 6.00 3.04 3.40 0.72 5 3.5
Working for MSF in the UK 3.9 2.70 4.20 2.61 2.60 1.01 0.5 2.5
User types’ preferred content:
average scores (weighted)
19. Do you have needs of MSF
that are not covered by the site?
ALL USERS
“A wider range of ... various types of volunteering”
“...view documentaries ... on the site”
“Events for young people ... who aim to one day [to]
work in the field”
“More info from doctors in the field, the Facebook
page is good with it.”
“Scholarship opportunities”
“I would like to send electronic Christmas cards”
“How about sometimes mentioning some of those
things that you have done less well”
29. Where would you look to find out what
MSF is doing on the subject of malaria?
Task 6
30. Delivery
• Design – RFP & selection
• Development
• Content
• Migration
• SEO & page rankings
• Donation funnels
• A/B testing
• Improved analytics
• New email system...
• Global impact
31.
32. • Online income up 91% y-o-y
• Average gift up 34% to £173 y-o-y
• Added PayPal = £220k in the first year
• Mobile traffic now 30% (up from 12%)
•Page views and bounce improved
•New user journeys, audiences
•New advertising ideas – e.g. Retargetting
•New initiative – Power of Small
Results
34. Visit the CharityComms website to view
slides from our past events, see what
events we have coming up and to
check out what else we do.
www.charitycomms.org.uk
Hinweis der Redaktion
Breakout C: How MSF used audience insight to develop digital channels This case study outlines how MSF used research with existing audiences, including supporters and site visitors, to develop its website and social media channels. With fantastic results including a 91% increase in online donations in the first 12 months, it’s unsurprising that this project, which started off in the digital team, has inspired change throughout the organisation. Ben will outline how he identified MSF's audiences, what research methods were used to better understand them and how this insight was applied to develop the charity's digital channels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXV8lTgETks
Weakness: lots of donors, but fewer volunteers and not many fundraisers at all
Heavily skewed by the email newsletter constituency
About a third: news
A third to donate
17% had never visited the site – remember that this was from the email newsletter
Other: Prompted by email (5/12). Read son’s blog, find contact details : genuinely miscellaneous
If we look at content popularity from the analytics we see a different story: work generally is the top content, with news content coming further down the list
Top 500 pages looked at: 93% of all page views covered
Very strongly perceived as dedicated, inspiring, selfless, brave, honest
Optimistic organisation
High profile is interesting: previous market research (The Works, 2005) said participants thought it lower profile. Similarly underground / edgy (see high profile)
Exciting only edged into the agree section
Romantic: somewhat disagreed with, contrary to the previous research.
Broadly speaking it’s not seen as corporate or pushy – pushy is interesting, previous research suggested that this lack of pushiness was appreciated by participants
And it’s clearly not thought of as Aloof, intimidating and Amateur
Overall a really good set of ratings
Partly this has been included as a benchmark for the emotional response testing we’re going to run later
People who are self-described as current donors: previous table segmented
These users are somewhat interested in lots of different types of content, but no single type stands out.
Schools, volunteering in the UK and overseas all rank relatively low – no surprise: this audience is clearly different from the volunteers
N=8! Not a great sample to be drawing conclusions from.
Overall higher scored than with the Donors: fundraisers are more engaged generally
Work done again top ranked – joint here with stories from the field (blogs etc.)
Volunteering ranks highly: this group is more interested in how to get involved
Visitor types were prioritised by stakeholders in the personas workshop
Average is the important number here: this is an index of overall content importance. Higher is better.
Last one in particular is interesting
Overall performance on this task was satisfactory. Almost ¾ located the content – not far from the idiot factor free 87% (roughly), that would indicate total success.
This is clearly successful.
There’s some traffic going to How MSF acts, and some to the Research section: both understandable: this content should be cross-linked to from both of these areas where appropriate
Use different phone numbers in different places so you now which channels are working for you
Stay on top of Google Analytics and produce reports measuring the impact of activities
Use tracking code in all email links, tweets etc
Pay attention to FB and Twitter data to see what works, when it works best (e.g. Quotes on FB posts made a massive difference)
Use tools to run A/B tests to see what works best. This way the data gathered from one campaign will refine the next campaign
Ask supporters for feedback – spend the time and money on focus groups
Spend the time to dissect the campaign once it is finished and be honest about what worked and what didn’t – don’t just repeat the same mistakes
Aim for bigger and better next time, no matter how successful!