Established peer‐to‐peer campaigns losing ground to smaller upstarts

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30312
• Published date: 01 May 2017
• Date: 01 May 2017

MAY 2017

5

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Fundraising

Established peer-to-peer campaigns losing

ground to smaller upstarts

The nation’s largest peer-to-peer fundraising

campaigns continued to lose ground in 2016, with

revenues dropping 2.8 percent from the prior year—

continuing a decline that began after 2012, the

high-water mark for P2P fundraising in the country.

According to the most recent Peer-to-Peer Fun-

draising Thirty, an annual report compiled by the

Peer-to-Peer Professional Forum, the 30 largest P2P

campaigns raised just more than $1.53 billion in

2016, down from $1.57 billion in 2015.

Going back to 2012, the decline is even more con-

cerning, with revenues down about 8 percent from

the $1.71 billion raised that year, the report said.

According to David Hessekiel, president of the

Peer-to-Peer Professional Forum, the data point to a

major shift in the P2P sector where increasingly easy

and effective organizational and marketing tools

have enabled supporters to create “do it yourself”

campaigns that raise funds for the same organiza-

tions, but through different means. These smaller

events often capitalize on unique activities—for

example, growing a beard, shaving one’s head or

enduring some sort of extreme physical challenge—

that catch on with the younger donor groups, at the

expense of the staid, traditional campaigns.

But, given that some of the larger campaigns

are still logging solid growth rates—the American

Heart Association’s Heart Walk and the Leukemia

& Lymphoma Society’s Light The Night Walk were

standouts—it’s not indicative of a broad-based turn

away from P2P campaigns more generally, he said.

“Millions of people still participate in walks,” he

said, “but organizations need to work harder and

smarter to produce programs that will grow and

prosper.”

In particular, he said, nonprots need to create

and constantly revitalize their programs to retain

existing participants and attract new ones.

“Experience-hungry people may ock to exciting

new concepts (e.g., spinning, obstacle runs, head

shaving), but the longevity of any peer-to-peer pro-

gram depends on getting participants emotionally

involved,” he said.

Hessekiel also noted that some program areas, by

their very nature, are better suited to success in the

P2P arena than others.

“It has long been the case that most health-related

issues have great potential to tap the power of peer-

to-peer fundraising because the personal stories

of patients, their families or friends lead to highly

compelling appeals. There are successful social

service (CROP Hunger Walk, Chef’s Cycle) and

environmental programs (Climate Ride), but they

are the exception, not the rule,” he said.

For established programs looking to stop the

bleeding, Hessekiel said a strategic allotment of

resources was critical.

(See PEER-TO-PEER on page 8)

According to the Peer-to-Peer Professional

Forum, the top 10 American P2P fundraising pro-

grams by total gross revenue in 2016 were:

1) $279 million—Relay for Life, American

Cancer Society.

2) $123.1 million—Heart Walk, American

Heart Association.

3) $85.8 million—American Heart Association

Youth Programs, American Heart Association.

4) $85.7 million—March for Babies, March of

Dimes.

5) $82.4 million— Walk to End Alzheimer’s,

Alzheimer’s Association.

6) $74.9 million—Komen Race for the Cure

Series, Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

7) $74.9 million—Bike MS, National Multiple

Sclerosis Society.

8) $68.5 million—JDRF One Walk, Juvenile

Diabetes Research Foundation.

9) $68.5 million—Light The Night Walk, Leu-

kemia & Lymphoma Society.

10) $66.0 million—Making Strides Against

Breast Cancer, American Cancer Society. ■

Top 10 peer-to-peer

campaigns for 2016