One.  That’s likely the modal number of gift frequency for (cash, one-off) donors on your file.

The average gifts per donor per year is ballpark 1.7.  Really strong charities are slightly north of 2 and lousy ones are hovering a few tenths below the average.

If you get cash donors to give twice per year (as file average) you’re a hero.  The most common route to doing this is asking and asking and asking…

Speaking of asking, ask yourself this:  If an alien were dropped onto Earth and put in charge of charities and told the goal is to get human beings to give twice during the year, do you really think the alien would suggest mailing 12, 15, 20 plus times and emailing them 52 times asking for money?  No self-respecting alien would do this.

Most of your money likely comes from a small percentage of your donors who are disproportionately Committed (per the DonorVoice measure of attitudinal loyalty).  These people have motive or intent to maintain the relationship.  Their giving is purposeful and volitional– it’s downright deliberate.

These donors have a well-worn pattern of repeat behavior with your organization.  (Do we really think they got this way because we mailed them 18 times and emailed 120 and repeated this for 4 years straight or is it more likely to be in spite of it?)  

This type of giving by your best donors looks like a person engaged in good-for-you behaviors; like planning for retirement, going to the gym, eating well, or recycling. These types of behaviors aren’t done automatically, resisting the brain’s tendency to use mental shortcuts.  They instead require self-control and attention.

But deliberate giving is still susceptible to human biases. For example, our tendency to procrastinate saving and giving in to immediate temptations often means we spend more today at the expense of tomorrow—a problem for retirement savings as well as charitable giving.

But, the person saving more is not typically won over with emotional or logic- based pleas, no matter how many letter or flyers the prospective financial planners mail out…

Instead, what works best is more subtle and almost tactical and transparent.  For example, using concrete commitment devices makes it harder to give up on intentions if someone or something is holding you accountable.

There is an online platform called StickK where users can make “commitment contracts” to improve their chances of accomplishing a personal goal such as losing weight or quitting smoking.  They put something on the line—a sum of money, for example, or their public reputation—and commit to following through or facing their pre-selected consequences.

 What if we gave donors a way to commit to giving whenever a certain event occurs (e.g. holiday, birthday, raise at work) or simply to give twice a year on dates they pick?    

 Setting a specific goal and making a plan increases follow-through.

National Novel Writing Month is an annual creative writing event challenging participants to complete a 50,000-word manuscript during the month of November. The project has had great success encouraging new writers to put words to paper because it presents them with a goal, a concrete deadline, and a community of encouragement.  In 2015, the project attracted 431,626 participants, with more than 40,000 reaching the 50k word goal.

What if charities helped donors set a giving goal each year and helped them track progress toward the goal? And what if the charity joined in and set a goal with the donor to improve some beneficiary outcome or other milestone?

Sometimes, we lose track of important things ranging from getting a flu shot to donating to our favorite charity. Bringing attention to these key decisions and intentions to have folks actively choose to follow through or be forced to articulate that they won’t.

Those in the flu shot business decided to do something other than constant promotion.  Specifically, 50% more CVS customers opted to get a flu shot when they were asked to select “I will get a flu shot this fall” or “I will not get a flu shot this fall” instead of checking a box to get a flu shot. When a recorded telephone message about enrolling in an automatic prescription refill program was sent to CVS pharmacy customers, take-up more than doubled when, instead of just asking customers to opt-in, the message offered them two options: refilling prescriptions by themselves each time or having the pharmacist do it for them automatically.

What if charities asked donors to select their intention to “give in support of my values and goals to help X, Y or Z” or“ to not give and [insert consequence here]”?

Or what if charities had their version of the recorded message offering a choice between being solicited 87 times this year or having the donor commit to giving twice and the charity reminding  the donor when it’s time and making it easy (e.g. by collecting and storing payment details)?

The StickK app has been used for all sorts of strange and deviant goals including (these are real):

• “Speak slowly to foreigners.”
• “Do NOT cut hair without his permission.”
• “No porn at work or deleting my web history.”
• “Social skydiving for 30 days: Talking to and initiating a conversation with one stranger a day for 30 days.”

And what if the commitment methods and apps were uber transparent and explained the psychology and behavioral science behind the app?  We’ve tested “extreme” transparency for opt-in statements that make it clear we’re asking because we have to and if you give permission you will be sent an awful lot of stuff.   It won over more cryptic, feel-good language that was mentally processed as being more controlling.  In short, donors saw through it…

Do we really think charitable giving is so spontaneous and fickle that it requires a constant barrage of solicitation as the best, or only method to raise a buck?  Isn’t giving at least as important as trying to stop cutting someone else’s hair (while they presumably sleep)?

Kevin